Evaluating commercial game design decisions via the scientification of games: Asymmetrical task switching costs predict self-reported fun in Ghost Blitz

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

AbstractBy decomposing the structure, rule set and stimuli of games, it becomes possible to examine the impact of specific choices made by designers and publishers: not the ‘gamification of science’ but rather the ‘scientification of games.’ Here, the card gameGhost Blitz was analysed using both commercialized (cartoon illustrations) and a more ‘experiment-like’ (abstract shapes) format, where each card required players to search according to either the presence (Task A) or absence (Task B) of visual features. Thus, this game can be used to both demonstrate and study the cognitive phenomena of visual search asymmetry and task switching. The commercial formatgenerated more fun and produced faster reaction times than the ‘experiment-like’ format, demonstrating the importance of surface characteristics. The original version of Ghost Blitz (where Task B was more frequent) was rated as less fun than an inversed version (where Task A was more frequent), highlighting the importance of structural characteristics. This surprising result was explained via multiple regression, where the frequency with which players experience accuracy loss during Task B to Task A switching predicted the reduction in self-reported fun. By meeting people where they are, games allow the public to have increased connection with psychological theory and enable the empirical validation of choices made during commercial game design

Article activity feed