The Case of User Experience in Video Games
Eduardo H. Calvillo G·amez



Divisi·on de Nuevas Tecnolog·as de la Informaci·on
Universidad Polit·ecnica de San Luis Potos·
San Luis Potos·, M·exico
Email: e.calvillo@upslp.edu.mx
Paul Cairns


Department of Computer Science
University of York
York, U.K.
Email: pcairns@cs.york.ac.uk
Anna L. Cox




UCL Interaction Centre
University College London
London, U.K.
Email: anna.cox@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract—In this paper we present the Core Elements of the
Gaming Experience (CEGE) as a theoretical framework for
the user experience of playing video games. The paper briefly
presents survey of the status quo of the study of the experience
of playing video games. We argue that these approaches fail
to provide an objective assessment of the prosaic experience,
thus we present the CEGE as a way to understand and study
the user experience.
Keywords-User Experience, Video Games, CEGE
I. USER EXPERIENCE & GAMES
The concept of User Experience (UX) has taken Human-
Computer Interaction by storm. UX is usually understood
as the subjective part of the interaction between user and
application. The aim of designing for UX is that the inter-
action should provide the user with a positive experience.
The aim of this paper is to enrich the discussion regarding
user experience by studying an application domain that has,
as its core aim, the desire to provide a positive experience:
video games. The objective of this paper is to understand
the experience of playing video games by introducing the
Core Elements of the Gaming Experience (CEGE) as a new
theoretical framework for describing the prosaic experience
of playing video games.
In this paper we present a brief review of the current
approaches to understand experience in the domain of video
games. We argue that these approaches are focused either on
the game itself or on the procurement of what we have called
extreme experiences; such as Flow, Immersion or Presence.
Our argument is that the CEGE are focused on the elements
that are present during the interaction between player and
video game that allow a positive, not necessarily extreme,
experience to occur.
II. DEFINING GAMES
Fun, enjoyment and entertainment are used, often inter-
changeably, when referring to a positive experience and, as
the objective of games is to produce a positive experience,
anything that is fun can be thought of as a game. Games are
regarded as activities that only provide fun, enjoyment or
E.H. Calvillo Ga´mez was sponsored by SEP-PROMEP to pursue this
research.
entertainment, for the sake of fun, enjoyment or entertain-
ment. In spite of what is socially considered a game, every
person can create games based on personal belief as to what
is enjoyable since there are as many kinds of enjoyment as
there are people in the world [1]. To avoid confusion in what
is meant by game, we use Juul’s Game denition [2]:
“A game is a rule-based system with a vari-
able and quantiable outcome, where different
outcomes are assigned different values, the player
exerts effort in order to inuence the outcome,
the player feels emotionally attached to the out-
come, and the consequences of the activity are
negotiable.”[2](p.36)
Games as rules are just abstract mathematical problems
for which usually it is necessary to cover the rules by a
story [3]. The combination of rules and story provides a
game for which an individual might nd a problem more
amusing than another one. The denition of game involves
the role of the individual with it, there is an emotional
attachment of the player with the game. In other words, the
idea of user experience, as understood in Human Computer
Interaction, is implicit in game. To understand the experience
of playing games, this paper turns to discuss the subset of :
games played with the aid of a computer. These games are
labelled as computer games, digital games, and so on; all of
them are referred indistinctly as video games hereafter.
III. ABOUT VIDEO GAMES
In the 1950s, Shannon and Turing theorised about using
a computer like device to play games like chess [4]. Their
attempt was to use the computer as an adversary that would
develop into a worthy chess opponent. With time, the role of
the computer was extended to enforce the rules and create
the story covering the rules; with games such as “Tic-Tac-
Toe” and “Spacewars” [5]. The usual approaches to under-
stand the experience of video games are driven by game
designers. Both from the point of view of understanding the
basic characteristics of the implementation of the game, or
how the game elicit extreme experiences on the player.
Video games, from the designer’s point of view, are
formed by a three tier structure: Input-Output devices (I/O),
Game and Program [6]. These, respectively, are the tools
Extended Proceedings of the 4th. Latin-American Conference on Computer-Human Interaction 2009
91

available to manipulate, see and listen the game; the rules
and objectives to play the game; and the code needed to
create the game. The way the game is perceived changes
depending if it is from the designer or player’s perspective.
The Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDA) model [7]
tries to bridge what the designer is creating with what the
player is expecting from the game. For the designer, the
game is built from the mechanics upwards; while for the
player the game builds from the aesthetics downwards. The
player is not necessarily interested in how to implement the
game, but in playing it.
The experience of playing video games has been com-
pared to the experience of reading. The idea that video
games can be considered as literary media has fuelled a
debate between those that saw video games as a ludology
problem and those that see it as a narrative problem [8]. The
importance of the “Narratology vs. Ludology” story lies in
the inner concepts that both schools were trying to achieve,
where they were not trying to understand games in terms
of how they are implemented but in terms of how they are
experienced.
The vocabulary used when describing the experience of
playing video games tends to be recurrent in certain words,
however, it is not clear what those words mean. Immer-
sion is a recurrent topic when discussing the experience,
as it was discussed above with the SCI model; a game
can be considered to be immersive or the player can be
immersed in the game. Without trying to solve a problem
of semantics, scholarly study suggests that immersion is the
sense of being away of the real world [9] and presence is
the sense of being inside a virtual world [10]. It can be
argued that unlike presence, immersion is task dependent.
The actual denitions of these two concepts might still be
under discussion, but both concepts are trying to understand
the experience of playing. A more established concept to
understand positive experience is that of Flow [11]. There
are research efforts that try to bridge Flow with video
games with a GameFlow model [12]. The GameFlow model
translates the stages needed to reach ow into a series of
qualities that video games offer. Flow was formulated as
a model of the stages achieved by the individual, while
GameFlow is being proposed as a series of characteristics
that video games posses. That is, this model only suggests
that video games might allow an individual to reach ow.
Flow is a state of optimal experience that can be reached by
an individual while performing a task, optimal because the
experience is rewarding by itself.
Other model to represent the experience of playing video
games is the Sensory, Challenge-Based and Imaginative
(SCI) immersions model [13], which integrates the different
aspects of game-play that have an effect on the experience.
This model is based on what are considered the three
different “immersions”, sensory, challenge-based and imagi-
native, which occur, and interact, while playing video games.
The intersection between the three senses of immersion is
what provides the player with a fully immersive game-play
experience. The sensory immersion is the link with the game,
while challenge-based and imaginative immersions are the
link of the player with the game. The player produces a
“meaning” of the experience in a sense-making process
through the construction of an interpretation of the game
against the personal context of the player.
IV. UNDERSTANDING THE USER EXPERIENCE OF VIDEO
GAMES
The experience is both process and outcome [14]. While
playing video games, the ideal experience is for the player
to have fun. In order to build that fun, a series of elements
have to be amalgamated together.
The approaches discussed so far look at both parts of the
experience. The MDA and SCI models try to understand
the outcome of the experience by looking at the different
elements that could form the process, but do not offer a
mechanism to assess them. Studying video games as media,
or looking at elements such as ow, immersion or presence,
are only concerned with the outcome that produces extreme
experience of the player, ignoring the prosaic experience
of playing. For example: playing for ve minutes while
using public transport, is overlooked in favour of the extreme
experience, such as playing a game for hours and hours until
the real world fades away. That is, it would be necessary to
extrapolate the feelings of Flow or Immersion into those of
just enjoying a quick game of ve minutes.
The experience of playing video games is inuenced by
a series of factors sometimes out of the reach of the video
games. The problem is vast as it includes social and cultural
elements that might lie outside of the direct interaction of
game and player.
Play is a relation between Human and environment that
is as complex, but at the same time as basic, as falling in
Love; feelings and sentiments innate to the human self. It is
for this reason that the study of play and experience of play
provides a rich understanding of human nature. But it is for
the same reason that the study of play has to be bound to
be a manageable scholarly topic. The approach proposed
in this paper is to understand the prosaic experience of
playing video games; the basic sense of enjoyment while
engaging with a video game. The mode presented below
focuses on identifying the elements that form the process of
the experience.
V. CORE ELEMENTS OF THE GAMING EXPERIENCE
The CEGE theory [14] presents the necessary, but not
sufcient, elements needed so that a user can achieve a
positive experience of playing video games. The theory is
abstracted in the model presented in Figure 1, which presents
all the elements and shows how they relate to each other.
The theory was formulated with a grounded theory method
Memorias Extendidas de la 4ta. Conferencia Latino Americana de Interacción Humano-Computadora 2009
92

to do fast-paced actions that might be alien to his reality.
The link to enjoyment comes from ownership. Sometimes
the player can reach a level of ownership even when there
is not enough control. This is due to the Facilitators, they
are the most subjective of the elements, as they refer to
the previous experience, time and aesthetics of the game. A
player may be wiling to overcome poor control when he is
playing with a new version of a game he already liked. Or
when he knows he is willing to dedicate vast amount of time
to play a game; or just because the player is enjoying the
aesthetics of the game. Facilitators are just a temporal x,
but if control is still lacking, then would be lost and the
game would provide a poor experience.
The CEGE provide a series of contructs and observable
elements that can be directly studied in order to understand
the prosaic experience of playing. By understanding how
these constructs behave, it is then possible to understand how
the overall experience forms, and to provide mechanism to
improve it. The implications to the wider user experience is
that it shows that it is possible to study experience from an
objective perspective, not only as something personal and
subjective.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper provided a review of the different approaches
to understanding video games. Video games are seen as a
three part structure: the interface, the story and the actual
game. In understanding the experience, the focus is on
those experiences that elicit extreme and enjoyable reactions
based on subjectivity. From the review it can be seen that
the prosaic experience of playing video games is not fully
understood to provide an evaluation mechanism.
To study and evaluate the prosaic experience, the CEGE
theory provides a set of elements that form the process of
the experience. These elements can be individually assessed
and studied in order to provide better mechanism to evaluate
the experience of playing video games. The objective of this
paper was to highlight how the discussion of user experience
can be enriched by understanding the experience of playing
video games. There are elements that build on top of the
CEGE, such as social or marketing, but if the CEGE are
missing, then the experience would be poor. The CEGE
theory provides a richer understanding of this experience.
It provides a model that can lend itself to a series of
falsiable statements regarding experience, thus evaluating
the experience. The CEGE theory suggests that it is possible
to provide a scholarly study of experience that might lead
towards an objective understanding of the concept of user
experience.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Blythe and M. Hassenzahl, “The semantics of fun:
Differentitation enjoyable experiences,” in Funology: From
Usability to Enjoyment, ser. Human-Computer Interaction
Series, M. A. Blythe, A. F. Monk, K. Overbeeke, and P. C.
Wright, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, vol. 3,
ch. 8, pp. 91–100.
[2] J. Juul, Half–Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and
Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press,
2005.
[3] R. Koster, A theory of fun for game design. Arizona, U.S.A.:
Paraglyph Press, 2005.
[4] J. Schaeffer, “A Gamut of Games,” AI Magazine, vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 29–46, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.aaai.
org/aitopics/retired/assets/PDF/AIMag22-03-003.pdf
[5] J. Kirriemuir, “A history of digital game,” in Understanding
Digital Games, J. Rutter and J. Bryce, Eds. London, U.K.:
Sage Publications, 2006, ch. 2, pp. 21–35.
[6] C. Crawford, The Art of Computer Game Design. New York,
USA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 1984.
[7] R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek, “MDA: A Formal
Approach to Game Design and Game Research,” in Proc. of
AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 2004, pp. 1–6.
[8] G. Frasca, “Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate
that never took place,” in Proc. of Level-Up Conference,
C. Marinka and R. Joost, Eds. Utrecht, Netherlands:
University of Utrecht, November 2003, pp. 420–425.
[9] E. Brown and P. Cairns, “A grounded investigation of game
immersion,” in CHI ’04: CHI ’04 extended abstracts on
Human factors in computing systems. New York, NY, USA:
ACM Press, 2004, pp. 1297–1300.
[10] M. Slater and S. Wilber, “framework for immersive virtual
environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence
in virtual environments,” Presence, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 603–
616, 1997.
[11] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Ex-
perience. New York, U.S.A.: Harper Perennial, 1990.
[12] P. Sweetser and P. Wyeth, “Gameflow: a model for evaluating
player enjoyment in games,” Comput. Entertain., vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 3–3, 2005.
[13] L. Ermi and F. Ma¨yra¨, “Fundamental Components of the
Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion,” in Proc. of
Changing views: worlds in play, DiGRA conference, Vancou-
ver, Canada, 2005, pp. 15–27.
[14] E. H. Calvillo-Ga´mez, P. Cairns, and A. L. Cox, “Assesing the
core elements of the gaming experience,” in Evaluating User
Experience in Games. London, UK: Springer, Forthcoming
(2009).
[15] E. H. Calvillo-Ga´mez and P. Cairns, “Pulling the strings: A
theory of puppetry for the gaming experience,” in Conference
Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008,
S. Gu¨nzel, M. Liebe, and D. Mersch, Eds., 2008, pp.
308–323. [Online]. Available: http://pub.ub.uni-potsdam.de/
volltexte/2009/2750
Memorias Extendidas de la 4ta. Conferencia Latino Americana de Interacción Humano-Computadora 2009
94