On the Core Elements of the
Experience of Playing Video Games
Eduardo He´ctor Calvillo Ga´mez
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
UCL
UCL Interaction Centre
Department of Computer Science
August 2009

Declaration
I, Eduardo He´ctor Calvillo Ga´mez, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is
my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this
has been indicated in the thesis.
Although some of this research has been published with my supervisors as co-
authors, Paul Cairns, Anna L. Cox and Ann Blandford, the work reported is my own.

Abstract
This dissertation presents a multi-method approach to study the user experience
of playing video games. The motivation is to devise an objective assessment of the
concept of user experience. It is proposed that user experience is better understood
when it is studied as a two fold phenomenon formed by a process and an outcome.
This definition allows the combination of the subjective nature of experience together
with the objectivity needed to propose an objective assessment of experience. An
experience is personal in the achieved outcome, during the process of forming it there
are elements specific to the type of experience common to all individuals.
The thesis presents a series of studies to explore and understand the gaming expe-
rience as well as to identify the procedural elements of the experience. The outcome
of the studies was the formulation of the theoretical framework that we called Core
Elements of the Gaming Experience (CEGE), which focuses on the process of the ex-
perience. The metaphor of ”puppetry” is used to provide a link to the outcome of the
experience. Based on the theorical framework, a questionnaire and model were devel-
oped. The model was validated using Structural Equation Modelling, which provided
an adequate fit suggesting that the CEGE model is an accurate abstraction of the
process of the gaming experience. Lastly, the framework was used to study different
gaming experiences under different conditions. The results suggest that the CEGE
theoretical framework can be used to assess this type of experience.
The contributions of this dissertation are: the methodological approach used to
study the user experience of playing video games, a novel approach to understand
user experience as a falsifiable concept, a theoretical framework and metaphor to
describe the gaming experience, a model that describes the gaming experience, and
an instrument that can be used to assess and explore different gaming experiences.

Contents
Abstract 2
1 Introduction 13
1.1 Voice of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3 Critical Rationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4 Aim of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.6 Major Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.7 Overview of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 Understanding and Defining User Experience 21
2.1 HCI & User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 The Concept of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Defining User Experience within a HCI Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3 About Video games 35
3.1 Understanding Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Experiencing Video Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Understanding the User Experience of Video Games . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 Exploring the Experience of Playing Video games 48
4.1 Setting for the Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2 Study 1: Playing Tetris with Two Input Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3 Study 2: GuitarHero with Different Input Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.4 Study 3: Narrative in the Gaming Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.5 General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Contents
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5 The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience 64
5.1 Core Elements and Gaming Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2 Method: Searching for the Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.3 A Theoretical Framework for the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience 69
5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.5 An Example of the Core Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.6 Puppetry and Video games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6 Designing and Evaluating a Questionnaire 90
6.1 Objectives of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.2 Identifying the Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.3 Developing the Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.4 Drafting the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.5 Deploying the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.6 General Items Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.7 Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.8 Internal Reliability of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.9 Discussion of the Obtained Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.10The Scores as Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.11Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7 A Model for the Gaming Experience: The CEGE Model 109
7.1 From the CEGE Theoretical Framework to the CEGE Model . . . . . . . 110
7.2 The CEGE Model Using Structural Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.3 Validation: Method & Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.4 Validation: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
8 Differentiating Experiences Using the CEGE Theoretical Framework 127
8.1 On the Types of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.2 Experiment 1: Playing Tetris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.3 Experiment 2: Playing GuitarHero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8.4 Using CEGE to Differentiate Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5

Contents
9 Assessing the Gaming Experience 146
9.1 On Revisiting the Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
9.2 On Addressing the Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
9.3 On Validating the Answer to the Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.4 On Addressing the Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.5 Summary of Contributions & Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.7 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
9.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Bibliography 162
A The Stories of the Old Man 174
B Forms Used in the Experiments for Chapter 4 177
B.1 Consent Form for All Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
B.2 Survey for Tetris Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
B.3 Survey for GuitarHero Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C Pool of Questions 180
D First Draft of the Questionnaire 183
E The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ) 185
F Scores Obtained from CEGEQ 187
G Forms for Chapter 8 196
G.1 Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
G.2 Forms for Tetris Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
G.3 Forms for Guitar Hero Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
H Screenshots from the Questionnaire 201
6

List of Tables
4.1 Exp. 4.1 Mapping of Tetris functions in two different input styles . . . . 51
4.2 Exp. 4.1. Scores obtained from playing Tetris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3 Exp. 4.2 Mappings of both input devices in order to play GuitarHero. . . 55
4.4 Exp. 4.3 Rating given by the participants per experience. . . . . . . . . . 59
5.1 Sources of Data for the Qualitative Study. The abbreviation within
brackets is how that source is referred within the document. Maga-
zines are quoted providing the page number from where the quotation
was taken; Websites are quoted providing the name of the game from
where the quotation was taken, as it is more manageable than providing
the complete URL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.2 The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.1 Constructs and Elements of the CEGE framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2 Responses to the general items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.3 Results per item for the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.4 Reliability of the different scales obtained in the questionnaire. . . . . . 102
6.5 Additional number of items that need to be included per scale to increase
its reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.6 Correlations of the different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.7 Mean, standard deviation and standard mean error of the scores ob-
tained per scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.1 Latent and observable variables. The upper two rows are the latent vari-
ables. For each of the latent variables that belong to puppetry and video
game, the column underneath shows their respectively observable vari-
ables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.2 Summary of the Measurement Model. Adapted from (Long, 1983a, p.25)
and (Long, 1983b, p.21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

List of Tables
7.3 Observable variables and their corresponding items in the questionnaire. 116
7.4 Summary of the Structural Component of the Covariance Structure
Model. Adapted from (Long, 1983b, p.27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.5 Fit Indexes for the Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.6 Factor loadings for the endogenous variables (λy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.7 Factor loadings for the exogenous variables (λx) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.8 Loadings among endogenous constructs (β) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.9 Loadings of the exogenous constructs on the endogenous constructs (γ) 125
8.1 Exp 8.1. Mappings of the devices used for the experiment. . . . . . . . . 131
8.2 Correlations obtained using the keyboard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
8.3 Correlations obtained using the knob. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.4 Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.5 Exp. 8.2 Gender of Participants Divided per Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.6 Exp. 8.2 Age of Participants Divided per Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.7 Exp. 8.2 Mappings of both input devices in order to play GuitarHero. . . 139
8.8 Exp. 8.2: Means and Standard Deviation of the CEGE Scores . . . . . . 141
F.1 Scores by Gender and total scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
F.2 Scores by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
F.2 Scores by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
F.2 Scores by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
F.3 Scores by Type of Console . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
F.3 Scores by Type of Console . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
F.4 Scores by Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
8

List of Figures
1.1 Outline of the chapters of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1 The Apple (2008) design decision making for user experience. . . . . . . 23
2.2 Garrett’s Elements of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 McCarthy and Wright’s Technology as Experience Model . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Forlizzi and Battarbee’s User Experience Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.5 Experience as part of the Interaction Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.1 The MDA model for Game Design and Game Research. . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 User Interaction Model with a Video game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3 The SCI model for the Game play Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1 Exp. 4.1 Input device used in the studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Exp. 4.2 The two input devices used for the study. a) The Sony Dual-
Shock Control Pad and b) The mock guitar controller. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1 The Gaming Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.2 The Grounded theory process. Figure adapted from (Heath and Cowley,
2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.3 The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience. The two main elements
are video game and puppetry. Video game is formed by game play and
environment; Puppetry by control, facilitators, ownership. . . . . . . . . 71
5.4 The Elements of Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.5 Puppetry as a metaphor for the experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.1 Screenshots from the questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.1 The relationship among the constructs. a) On a higher level, puppetry
and video game produce enjoyment. But both of these categories are
formed by a series of constructs, in b) it is possible to observe the con-
structs that form puppetry and in c)those that belong to video game. . . 111

Acknowledgements
Julio Cortazar writes in Rayuela: No puede ser que estemos aquı´ para no poder ser (It can not
be that we are here so we can not be). Without a doubt, pursuing a Ph.D. has been one of the
hardest things I have done in my life. Not only because of the actual content of the thesis,
which had it troubles, but because of the process that has been culminated in this document.
This process has shaped, and some times tested, my personal development, my confidence and
myself in almost every way that define me as a person. Pursuing this Ph.D. has helped me to
be.
I was happy to endure this process because I did not do it alone. I was lucky to have the
company of many capable, friendly and caring people along the way. Without the guidance,
trust and friendship of Paul Antony Cairns this process would have derailed long time ago;
I will always be proud of calling him my supervisor and, if he approves, colleague. The UCL
Interaction Centre (UCLIC) provided a great environment to work as a research student. Every
member of UCLIC contributed in one and many ways, from discussing ideas and reading drafts
of my thesis and papers to going to the pub to share my frustrations or successes, to all of
them a big thanks. Especially to Dr. Sarah Faisal for being my colleague, Dr. Jonathan Back
for his advice, to Dr. Simon Attfield for his wisdom and to Dr. Jeremy Gow, part of UCLIC
extended family, for his guidance. To Dr. Anna L. Cox for agreeing to be part of my supervisory
team after the turmoil, all her feedback was much appreciated and insightful; and to Prof. Ann
Blandford for being part of my supervisory team before the turmoil.
To Juan Antonio Martı´nez Martı´nez and Francisco Javier Delgado Rojas for their en-
couragement and support to start all this, once again. To Universidad Polite´cnica de SLP
& SEP-PROMEP for sponsoring my Ph.D and everyone in the finances department that made
sure I received my grant on time.
To my family for always being there for me; whatever I do, whatever I decide, I can always
count on them.
Finally, to Dora, for bringing some order into my life. It is because of this Ph.D. that I got to
meet then care and now love you.

1.3 Critical Rationalism
With this approach in mind, the first experiment looked at how two different input
devices produced different experiences. The results showed that there were two types
of experiences taking place, but it was not possible to compare the experiences. It
could be concluded that any changes or differences were due to individual prefer-
ences. A more detailed review of the available literature on user experience showed
that this was the common case regarding user experience; it is a subjective matter
due to a personal interpretation. A series of heuristics propose that to alter the user
experience elements such as aesthetics, fun, and etcetera can be taken into consid-
eration. But there was little work on trying to formalise the study of user experience
within a falsifiable theory.
Studying user experience involves studying the individual in relations with the en-
vironment, where laboratory isolation may not suffice. This difference might be due
to the fact that studying user experience within a laboratory with controlled condi-
tions can ignore situations in which the experience is influenced by something more
than the technology and the user. Rogers (2004) argues that this makes it difficult to
extrapolate existing theories from others fields into HCI; the results proposed by cog-
nitive science, for example, need to be adapted to the reality of an application being
used in the real world as much as engineering needs to adapt concept from physics.
It might be for this reason that concepts inherent to the experience of the interac-
tion process, such as Presence (Slater and Wilber, 1997) and Immersion (Brown and
Cairns, 2004) are developing their own theories to explain the phenomenon.
Once it was determined that the subjective approach was not good enough to ex-
plain user experience, the focus of the thesis changed to understand user experience
in order to formulate a theory that produces objective knowledge regarding experi-
ence. Theories abstract knowledge so that they can help us understand a wide vari-
ety of phenomenon, not just a particular instance of it. User Experience as subjective
would be just a particular instance and therefore atheoretical.
1.3 Critical Rationalism
The purpose of theories is to help us understand the behaviour of nature and the
environment that surround us as human beings. A theory tries to abstract reality
so that it is possible to generate knowledge. It is a structure suggested by empirical
laws and “tries to explain them in a scientifically rational manner” (Theory, 2009).
Sometimes theory provides an accurate description of reality until the discovery of
new data falsifies the assertion of the theory; this can happen by proposing more
empirical laws that would challenge the existing theories. Popper (1994a) divides
knowledge into objective and subjective. Objective knowledge is formed by falsifiable
theories, such as conjectures, hypotheses, theories or arguments. Popper argued that
knowledge grows by starting with problems and ending with problems, described in
15

1. Introduction
the following formula P1 → TTi → EEi → P2, where P1 is the starting problem, TTi are
the provisional theories, EEi are the processes of error elimination through critical
discussions, and P2 is the resulting problem. Subjective knowledge is subject to the
phrases s/he knows while objective knowledge responds to it is known. Subjective
knowledge can result from objective knowledge, but in general the same can not
be said about the inverse procedure; personal experiences do not produce theories.
Subjective knowledge is personal while objective knowledge is general.
To address the interaction between objective and subjective knowledge, or the
study of the body-mind problem, Popper (1994a) differentiated between 3 worlds:
World1 is that of physical objects, World2 is that of mental states and World3 is that
of products of the mind. World2 is where subjective knowledge resides, while objective
knowledge is part of World3. One of the main characteristics of the World3 is its au-
tonomy. For example, numbers are a product of the human mind, but once numbers
were “discovered”, they became autonomous and started having problems in their
domain, such as the properties and characteristics of the number i. In real numbers,
the square root of a negative number does not exist, however, by defining
√
−1 = i,
early mathematicians were able to overcome the apparent problem of square roots of
negative numbers. Eventually, i became an autonomous concept that developed into
complex calculus, and then digital communications were based on these theories. In
this example, the concept of i was general, it was identified as the product of human
intelligence and not a mental state of a person.
Based on this approach to science, a theory is not validated but corroborated (Pop-
per, 1959). This can be done by showing that a model, a mathematical representation
of reality (Model, 2009), formulated based on a theory, is untrue. In formulating a
theory, it is usually necessary to first formulate a framework, a basic conceptional
structure (Framework, 2009). A theory can be falsified based on new experiments
devised once there is a better understanding of the environment, these experiments
provide a better understanding of the theory, and can then build upon it to provide a
greater explanation. Statements made from the theory, however, can be verified. The
falsification of a theory does not necessarily mean that it is erroneous, it just provides
a better understanding of the boundary cases.
User experience has been defined as subjective, as part of World2. However, the
need to design and evaluate experience suggests that it should be objective. User ex-
perience should be grounded on a general theory that produces falsifiable statements
regarding experience.
1.4 Aim of the Thesis
Based on this, the aim of the thesis is to assess the user experience of interacting
with computer based applications using, a critical rationalist approach. That is, to
16

1.5 Research Question
understand and formulate a general concept of experience that can be used in a
general way and that has the ability to produce scientific knowledge as proposed by
Popper. The definitions of experience and user experience are revisited in Chapter
2 to provide a common ground on what it is meant when referring to it. In order
to produce scientific knowledge, the aim is to produce a theoretical explanation that
describes and predicts the user experience of interacting with computer based appli-
cation, such that it would be possible to produce falsifiable statements and produce
autonomous concepts. Although it might not be possible to achieve the aim com-
pletely, it is reasonable to accept that this might be a starting step towards a general
theory of experience.
The specific domain of application to study experience is video games as they are
conceived as an application designed to produce a positive experience. This quality of
video games lends itself as an ideal test bed to study experience; as it is not necessary
to motivate the use of the application.
1.5 Research Question
The aim above can be established as the following research question that this the-
sis tries to answer: Is it possible to objectively assess the user experience of playing
video games? An objective assessment would test falsifiable statements regarding
a specific phenomenon, as discussed in Section 1.3, such that it would produce a
general understanding of user experience, not just a personal interpretation of the
phenomenon. Based on the results discussed during the thesis, to analyse the thesis
two more questions are proposed: which are the elements of the process of the expe-
rience of playing video games? And, can these elements be used to objectively assess
the experience of playing video games?
The elements are defined as the core elements of the gaming experience, which
are the necessary but not sufficient elements that provide a positive experience after
engaging with a video game. The scope of the study of experience of playing video
games is with respect to a single player engaging with a game. Although the study
is centred with single players, the type of games they use might not be single player
games. For example, players may be playing Starcraft, a game that can be potentially
played with four different players, but only the experience of one player, and not the
interaction among players, is studied. In Chapter 5 there is a broader discussion
regarding this issue.
1.6 Major Results
The major results and contributions of this thesis are:
1. A proposed definition to understand user experience.
17

1. Introduction
2. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience (CEGE) theoretical framework.
3. The metaphor of “Puppetry” to describe the gaming experience.
4. A questionnaire to assess the CEGE theoretical framework.
5. A validated model based on the CEGE theoretical framework.
6. Examples of using the CEGE framework with real world examples.
1.7 Overview of the Thesis
The thesis is composed of nine chapters, including this one. In general it follows quite
a linear development as one chapter usually depends on the previous one. There is,
however, one chapter that it is quite not so linear; Chapter 4. This chapter is the
motivation of the thesis, as described above, because it shows that the current view
on experience was not strong enough to allow comparisons. The chapter would fit
better as part of the literature review presented in Chapter 2. That is, the definition
proposed for user experience in that chapter was inspired in the fact that Chapter 4
showed poor results under the status quo definition. It was from Chapter 4 that the
research question proposed below came about.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review and proposes a new concept for “user expe-
rience”. The chapter reviews the different approaches to user experience from both
design and evaluation perspectives. The status quo on User Experience is to consider
it as subjective. The proposed definition divides user experience as a process and an
outcome. The process being common to few individuals while the outcome is per-
sonal. The thesis suggests that by studying the process, it is possible to formulate an
objective understanding of experience.
Chapter 3 discusses the literature review of video games and games. The review fo-
cuses on the different methods to evaluate the user experience of playing video games.
The results suggest that the experience of playing video games is usually focused on
extreme experiences, such as immersion. This thesis is focused on the prosaic expe-
rience of playing video games. Prosaic experience is the everyday, ordinary experience
of a user with technology.
Chapter 4 presents the first series of experiments to study and understand the
experience of playing video games. The experiments focus on the outcome of the
experience. The results show that the outcome is useful when the objective is to
understand the personal experience, but it fails when it is used to compare among
them. The results also show that the experience of playing video games is influenced
by a series of factors that are not necessarily germane to playing a video game, and
that there are also common elements among the different experiences. The sense of
frustration was also found to be part of the experience.
18

1.7 Overview of the Thesis
In Chapter 5 a grounded theory study is conducted to identify the common ele-
ments of the gaming experience. The gaming experience is defined as the one to one
relation of player with game, ignoring foreign aspects that can have an influence on
the experience. The core elements are the necessary but not sufficient conditions to
provide a positive experience. The result is formulated as the theoretical framework
referred as the Core Elements of the Gaming experience, which is formed by a series
of elements and the relationship among them.
Chapter 6 presents the development and evaluation of a questionnaire based on the
ideas previously formulated. The questionnaire was developed following psychometric
methods and it was deployed to almost 600 participants. The results suggest that the
questionnaire was a valid tool to obtain data based on the framework.
Chapter 7 presents an abstraction of the theoretical framework in the form of a
model. The model is validated using structural equation modelling and the data
obtained from the questionnaire. The results suggest that the model is valid thus
corroborating the framework.
Chapter 8 presents a series of experiments for which the CEGE framework is used
to explain and describe the different experiences. The results suggest that the the-
oretical framework is a reliable tool that can be used to compare and differentiate
experiences of playing video games.
Chapter 9 presents the final conclusions of the thesis, future work and the limita-
tions and contributions of this work.
Figure 1.1 presents a graphical outline of the thesis. In this is presented the rela-
tionship of the different chapters discussed above. Finally, I wrote a short story based
on the theoretical framework which is presented in Appendix A. The story is included
as a way of seeing how the theoretical framework fits in the common understanding
that the experience is also subjective and it is also part of every day life.
19

1. Introduction
Figure 1.1: Outline of the chapters of the thesis
20

Chapter 2
Understanding and Defining User Experience
As was established in the previous chapter, the aim of this dissertation is to ex-
plore the possibility of assessing the “user experience” under a critical constructivism
perspective. This chapter analyses the concept of user experience. The term User
Experience (UX) is constantly used in the interaction-design literature (e.g. Arnowitz
and Dykstra-Erickson, 2007). UX is associated to the user’s subjective feeling of in-
teracting with a usually digital application. But, what is Experience? The importance
in identifying the meaning is that UX is not a term just used for philosophical dis-
cussion about the paradigmatic views on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). UX is
becoming the objective of certain areas of interaction design and HCI. There is a grow-
ing need to evaluate and design for the UX. But, if experience is subjective then, what
do designing and evaluating UX mean? The objectives of this chapter are to under-
stand the concept of user experience as used in the HCI domain and to propose an
understanding that would lead to the operationalisation of the concept. The review
looks at the different proposed models and understandings to design and evaluate
UX. The discussion is enriched with concepts from pragmatism and phenomenology.
The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses the UX within
HCI by looking at the design and evaluation of experience. The second section dis-
cusses the concept of experience from a broader spectrum, looking at two different
schools of philosophy. In the third section, a definition for experience is proposed;
the definition is built on the philosophical review and contextualised within HCI.
2.1 HCI & User Experience
Within HCI, User Experience is usually associated when an application goes beyond
usability and looks at the relation of the user and the application (e.g. Dix, 2003).
Usability is how an application is implemented to let the user perform a task effec-
tively and efficiently; the main focus is productivity, to let the user do the tasks with
good quality in an optimal time. Secondary goals are user preference and satisfaction
(e.g. Bevan, 1995; Frøkjær et al., 2000). Looking beyond efficiency, designers tried to

2. Understanding and Defining User Experience
Information Design
Interface
Design
Navigation
Design
Design
Interaction
Architecture
Information
Specifications
Functional
Requirements
Content
User Needs
tim
e
Conception
CompletionConcrete
Abstract
Strategy
Scope
Structure
Skeleton
Surface Visual Design
Site Objectives
Figure 2.2: Elements of the user experience for the WWW proposed by Garrett. The elements
are organised from concrete (top) to abstract (bottom). The vertical divisions in each stage
separates the user interface to the left and the hypertext functionality to the right, and the
horizontal division in each stage separates structural information to the front and surface
information to the back. Figure adapted from Garrett (2002, p.33).
of understanding the end-user needs and the organization needs with the goal of
maximizing the benefit to both”. But when maximising the benefit for two different
entities, both of them need to compromise. It might be that adding features might
complicate the usability of the system, or the production time of the organisation.
Kuniavsky’s view of experience is based on the idea that software tools are produced
by organisations that, they despite wanting to accommodate the user, have their own
interests. And it is from the organisation interests that a difference in the application
should be made to balance the shortcomings. This difference is represented in the
top layer of the model.
This differentiation is to be done once the application has complied with the min-
imum requirements and the users’ expected features. Besides the commercial dif-
ferences that can be added to the application, the research community also looks at
what can be added to the user-task-tool relationship to improve experience. Subjec-
tive elements can be added that aim at providing the user with a personal appeal to
the application. These subjective aspects are usually associated to aspects such as
value (Cockton, 2004), emotions (Norman, 2005, e.g.), hedonism (e.g. Stelmaszewska
et al., 2004) or aesthetics(e.g. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky, 2006; Wright et al., 2008;
Rullo, 2008). The relationship between the subjective aspects of this top layer can
influence how the user feels about the other two layers, such that “pretty” interfaces
24

2. Understanding and Defining User Experience
1. To set an overall goal, and as many sub-goals that are realistically feasible.
2. To find ways of measuring progress in terms of the goals chosen.
3. To keep the concentration on the activity while making distinctions of the finer
details in the challenges involved.
4. To develop the necessary skills.
5. To keep raising the challenges if the activity becomes boring.
When a person is in Flow, then that person is experiencing a state in which there is
a loss of self-consciousness, a distorted sense of time, and a sense of control on the
activity. The person is fully concentrated on the task, able to assess any progress
towards the goal because there is a clear feedback, and the challenges are matched
with the abilities, not too hard and not too easy. Flow, and the positive experience, has
an effect on the emotional state of the individual. After being in Flow, the person might
feel happy and satisfied as it produces an experience that is intrinsically rewarding.
Regardless of the personal experience induced by Flow, the steps to reach it are
common among individuals.
A different approach to understand the individual’s outcome of the interaction is to
use physiological data (e.g. Mandryk et al., 2006). A series of physiological changes
can be correlated with the idea of a positive experience. To obtain this type of data,
a series of bio-sensors are strapped on the user in order to monitor the different bio-
signals. There are two drawbacks in using this approach, firstly is that the use of
the bio-sensors is invasive; secondly, the physiological changes have to be correlated
with a mental state of the participant that would produce such reaction. That is,
physiological data can produce insight for extreme experience, but it would be hard
to use on everyday experiences. The prosaic experience is the common everyday
experience that individuals have on a regular basis, without being extreme, it is just
the norm that makes a simple interaction enjoyable.
Looking at the everyday prosaic experience, McCarthy and Wright (2004b) propose
the idea of studying the concept of experience using a pragmatic approach. They ar-
gue that the experience is formed by four threads: compositional, emotional, spatio-
temporal and sensual; and that the user makes sense of the experience in six different
ways: connecting, interpreting, reflecting, appropriating, recounting, and anticipat-
ing. See Figure 2.3 for a graphical representation of the elements of experience and
the way the user makes sense of them. Describing further the threads of experi-
ence, Compositional is how the elements relate together to form a coherent whole;
Sensual is how the experience makes the individual feel from an aesthetic point of
view; Emotional is how the user reacts to the experience, and which emotions are a
consequence of the action; lastly, Spatio-Temporal is about the time and place where
26

2.1 HCI & User Experience
the experience took place. The user makes sense of the experience by Anticipating,
relating to the previous information that the user had before encountering technol-
ogy again; Connecting, which is the judgement when the user starts experiencing;
Interpreting how the experience is evolving and how the user works out what is hap-
pening; Reflecting is the evaluation of what happened, and how it changes the user;
Appropriating is when the user makes the experience part of hers, and then relates it
to all the previous experiences. Recounting is the socialisation of our experience by
storytelling what happened. This approach formalises the idea that the experience is
subjective, focusing on its internalisation and the outcome produced.
Figure 2.3: Technology as Experience, proposed by McCarthy and Wright (2004a). The model
argues that experience is composed by four different threads, the square at the centre, and
the user makes sense of all of them in six different ways, presented in the edges of the outside
hexagon. Figure adapted from McCarthy and Wright (2004b).
In defining experience, there are the boundaries of interaction with the tool and the
user’s relation to their own experience (Forlizzi and Battarbee, 2004). Accordingly, flu-
ent, cognitive and expressive are the three types of interactions with a product. Fluent
experiences are those that happen almost automatically, the user does not need to
perform any conscious activity to do them, such as riding a bike or turning on the
television. Cognitive interactions are those that require the user to process informa-
tion to make sense of them, such as using a calculator. And, expressive interactions
are those that help the user form a relationship to the product, such as personalising
a computer or painting a room. These three interactions are not exclusive. There are
three results of the interaction between user and tool: experience, an experience and
co-experience. The constant experience with the product is the experience. From the
general experience, an experience can be articulated or named and it inspires emo-
tional and behavioural changes. For example, walking in the park can be considered
as a constant experience or just experience, while walking the park with a desired
person can be considered as an experience. A co-experience is user experience in a
social context. Figure 2.4 present a graphical representation of the model and the
interactions.
27

2. Understanding and Defining User Experience
co−experience
Fluent
Cognitive
Expressive
experience an experience
Figure 2.4: There is a constant change in the type of interactions we are having in every ex-
perience, a fluent interaction can turn into cognitive interaction which then can turn into the
experience into an experience. Figure adapted from Forlizzi and Battarbee (2004).
Understanding experience is about understanding the user interacting with the
environment. In the design process, this meant understanding the user, task and
context; in the evaluation process it is to understand the interaction, observing the
state of the user in relation to the task and context. This idea that experience is the
whole of the interaction can be problematic. The experience is formed by different
parts but it is the user who decides what makes a good experience once all the pieces
are put together (Dix, 2003); this produces a completely different experience than the
one intended by the designer (Hassenzahl, 2003). Thus, experience is personal as it
is up to the user to make sense of it by connecting the different threads. At the same
time, it is possible to classify when the individual has reached an extreme experience
when a series of characteristics are achieved. It seems that the research community
is gearing towards a subjective definition of experience (Law et al., 2009).
The problem with experience being personal is that, by definition, it is not general.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, knowledge grows due to its objective nature.
Personal knowledge is subjective.
So far, experience is still a concept grounded in the subjective feeling of the user.
The design for experience is based on the context and needs of the user to face a
task. Evaluating experience is evaluating the whole of the interaction. Both views are
addressed in a case by case basis. In order to look at experience, if possible, under
an objective scope, a more manageable definition is needed. A definition grounded in
the everyday experience.
2.2 The Concept of Experience
In the everyday life, the concept of experience does not need further explanation. Ex-
perience is about the constant interaction with the environment as experience forms
the moments of life. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Experience, 2009)
defines experience as follows:
28

2.2 The Concept of Experience
Experience:
1. (a) Direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
(b) The fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through
direct observation or participation
2. (a) Practical knowledge, skill, or practise derived from direct observation of
or participation in events or in a particular activity
(b) The length of such participation
3. (a) The conscious events that make up an individual life
(b) The events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation
or humankind generally
4. Something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5. The act or process of directly perceiving events or reality
Based on the definition, it can be said that experience is intrinsic to human life.
Every activity that a human performs constitutes and produces an experience. Ex-
perience is time, action and inaction by an individual. But experience is also what
constitutes a community, by pulling all the individual experiences together. Experi-
ence has a dual property within the human life, it is process and outcome; it is the
individual and the community. Experience might be personal, but it is also shared
among the same community. This dual property of experience, along with its tacit
understanding, has made it a topic of interest for different branches of philosophy.
Two particular schools of philosophy are reviewed next: Heidegger’s Phenomenology
and Dewey’s Pragmatism. These two schools had been used previously within HCI in
order to understand experience and the relationship between user and object.
Phenomenology considers that “the central structure of an experience is its in-
tentionality, its being directed towards an object by virtue of its content or meaning
together with appropriate enabling conditions” (Zalta, 2007). Phenomenology looks
at the experience beyond the sensory qualities of it and it explains the relationship
that the experience has with the person. Experience in phenomenology is the rela-
tionship between individual and object, and as such should be studied (Zalta, 2007).
Among the different schools of thought within phenomenology, Heidegger (1951) dis-
cussed this relationship between individual and object. Heidegger argued against the
Cartesian dualism, and defended that it is not possible to separate mind and body,
as one needs the other. Individuals can indeed think and be, but this is not one as
a consequence of the other, but as a relationship between both of them. In order
to understand an experience, both the object and individual are joined together, and
29

2. Understanding and Defining User Experience
used interchangeably in this thesis.
By using the above definition, in this thesis there is an aim to understand and
evaluate experience from an objective perspective. To this end, the process of the
interaction is going to be studied in order to formulate objective knowledge. The
application domain, or the type of task to look at, is that of games; especially computer
based games or video games. This is because games have as their core objective to
provide users with a positive experience. Games and video games are discussed in
the next chapter.
2.4 Summary
This chapter reviewed the concept of experience commonly used in HCI. The idea of
designing for and evaluating experience are reviewed in order to propose an under-
standing of the concept that can lead to objective knowledge. It was argued that the
current view on experience as a subjective only phenomenon can limit the scientific
study of the concept. To overcome this, a different conception of experience is pro-
posed to be used through the thesis: “Experience is both process and outcome of
the interaction of the user with the environment at a given time”. The process of the
interaction is formed by a series of steps that are common to the interaction process;
while the outcome is personalisation of the experience. In the remaining chapters it is
argued that the process of the experience can lead to an objective study of experience,
in particular, to the experience of playing video games.
34

Chapter 3
About Video games
The previous chapter presented a review and a definition of the term User Experience
(UX). The proposed definition identified UX as a two fold phenomena for which there
is a process and an outcome. Even though the outcome of the experience is personal,
the process of the experience has common elements among individuals.
In order to understand the process and outcome of UX, the selected application
domain is video games. This is because the objective of video games is to provide
users with a positive experience. That is, the general outcome of the user’s experience
of playing video games is fun or pleasurable. Eskelinen (2001) argues that it is quite
easy to talk about video games because not much has been said, thus everything
goes. There is actually a lot that has been said about them, however the argument is
still forming.
This chapter presents a review of the concept of games and their implementation
in a computer based form as video games. The objective of the chapter is to discuss
the experience of video games and the different concepts that exists to understand
and evaluate it. The current approaches to understand the experience focus either
on extreme experience, such as flow or immersion, or in analytic models that do
not provide a mechanism to evaluate and understand the development of the prosaic
experience.
The review of video games is divided in three sections. The first one defines games
and video games. The next section discusses the experience of playing video games;
the discussion presents the experience of video games as literary media and the ex-
treme experiences, e.g. immersion and flow. The last section contextualises the
experience of playing video games with the concept of user experience presented in
the previous chapter. It also sets the bar for the rest of the dissertation regarding the
use of the term video game.

3.2 Experiencing Video Games
2003). I/O Structure defines the interaction between the user and the video game; it
specifies which tools will be available to the user, such as controllers and the visual
and aural feedback. Game structure defines the objective and rules of the game, as
well as the relations between the different elements of the game, such as the obstacles
that the user has to avoid. The program structure details how the game would be
implemented at the code level.
Game designers start the process with what they consider to be fun (Shelley, 2001).
This gives the designer the dual role of potential player as well; yet the designer would
still need to connect with what the player is looking for. The Mechanics, Dynamics
and Aesthetics (MDA) model (Hunicke et al., 2004) tries to bridge what the designer is
creating with what the player is expecting from the game. The mechanics describe the
components of the game, such as representation and algorithm. Dynamics describes
the behaviour of the mechanics as responses of the players inputs. And, Aesthetics
is about the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player. For the designer, the
game is built from the mechanics upwards; while for the player the game builds from
the aesthetics downwards. The model explains this relationship in which dynamics
are the bridge between aesthetics and mechanics; between player and designer (see
Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: The Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDA) model. The model attempts to
bring together the fields of game design and game research by providing a coarse-granularity
model that identifies the three main components of games from the perspective of the designer
and the player. Figure adapted from Hunicke et al. (2004).
The objective of the MDA model is to explain the game play of the video game. Game
play is a term commonly used to explain the relationship between user and game. The
definition of game proposed above already includes parts of this relationship. This
discrepancy between game and game play is somehow more a problem of semiotics
than of the actual activity of game playing. It is common to understand games just
as a collection of rules and game play is the interaction of the player with the game.
Whichever word used, game play or game, is about describing the playing of the game.
It is about experiencing video games.
3.2 Experiencing Video Games
Describing the player’s interaction with the game is convoluted with the description
of game. As mentioned earlier, this is because the definition of game includes the
role of the player. However, in video games the implementation of the game is seen as
39

3. About Video games
taxonomise games, while the state of the player is often talked about when aiming at
providing a state of immersion in the player. These three topics are discussed next.
3.2.1 Video Games as Media
The story that covers the rules of the game are used as a classification criteria. With
no aim of proposing an extensive taxonomy for video games, they are usually clas-
sified in terms of their genre, point-of-view and number of players involved in the
game (e.g. Taylor, 2002; Crawford, 1984; Rollings and Adams, 2003; Ye, 2004). For
example, genre can differentiate between sports or war games; real time strategy and
procedural games. Point-of-view can differentiate between games that are first per-
son view, third person view or god-view. And number of players differentiate between
games that are for single, multiple, or massively multi-players. Trying to classify video
games in taxonomy based on their rules and stories might lead to a series of overlaps
as the categories are not exclusive of each other. But besides providing classification
criteria, genre also links video game with the field of media studies and literature.
Arguably, the concept of ergodic Literature (Aarseth, 1997) set the standard for
the study of video games as media. Willingly or not, by using the word ‘literature’,
it brought the experience of playing video games as being an equal to the experience
of reading literature. The concept of ergodic literature reflects on the idea that read-
ers engage with cybertexts. Cybertexts are non-linear stories for which the reader
engages in an active role; a role that requires the reader something more than just
“reading”. The reader is expected to play an active role in the development of the
story, either by selecting the path to follow in the story or by practicing what is being
read, such as Yoga positions. Ergodic literature was proposed as a general descrip-
tion of reading the so-called cybertext, so it was not exclusively done to understand
the domain of playing video games. However, most of the examples proposed in the
ergodic literature are usually applied to video games. As an extension to the ergodic
reading process, the Ergodic Bridge proposes that there is a difference between the
player performing an action and the result of the player’s action (Rush, 2005). Er-
godic Bridge brings the concept of ergodic literature specifically to the domain of video
games, as it divides the process between the player inputs and the development of the
story of the game.
The idea that games not only have a story but that they were narrating it resulted
in a discussion regarding the role of narration in video games. There are arguments
(e.g. Juul, 2001) that strongly opposed this idea while others argued in favour (e.g.
Schell, 2002). These arguments fuelled a debate between those that saw video games
as a ludology problem and those that see it as a narrative problem (Frasca, 2003).
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
42

3. About Video games
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 (Brown
and Cairns, 2004; Jennett et al., 2008) and presence is the sense of being inside a
virtual world (Slater and Wilber, 1997; Spagnolli and Gamberini, 2002). It can be
argued that unlike presence, immersion is task dependent. The actual definitions
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 (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). There are research ef-
forts that try to bridge Flow with video games with a GameFlow model (Sweetser and
Wyeth, 2005). The GameFlow model translates the stages needed to reach flow 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 possess. That is, this model only suggests that video
games might allow an individual to reach flow. 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. On the other hand, immersion and presence do not
automatically mean that the player is having an enjoyable activity; as being in pres-
ence may also produce negative experiences (Slater et al., 2006). The focus is then to
understand what was called in the previous chapter as extreme experiences.
It is the activity which determines the direction of the experience. Playing video
games can produce an optimal experience, such as flow, or sub-optimal, such as
immersion; a well implemented video game might help the individual to reach a state
of presence. Immersion is sub-optimal as it does not imply that the experience would
be positive, but it depends both on the problem at hand and the implementation of
the game. That is, the experience of playing video games is influenced by the interface
that presents the game. The role of the interface in the overall experience is discussed
next.
3.2.3 The Video game as the Interface
One of the first approaches to the interface of the game was using classical HCI
concepts such as usability. Looking at the game as a computer interface does not
offer any contradictions in terms of what it is expected to provide: an interface that
lets the user perform a task efficiently, effectively and with a sense of satisfaction
(Federoff, 2002). Interfaces can be thought of as tools in order to do a task, so there
was no reason to expect that this would differ from traditional interfaces.
Besides usability, HCI is able to offer a better understanding in the relationship
between user and video game (Zaphiris and Ang, 2007). This can be done from the
inclusion of newer technology into video games, such as larger screens (Sabri et al.,
2007) or tactile input devices (Tse et al., 2006), to understanding the broader rela-
44

3. About Video games
which authors decide why video games are fun based on their own reckoning, such
as GameFlow, SCI or MDA. That is, they take the point of view of a designer providing
a game to the player, and then reflecting on the qualities of such game. So in order
to understand the experience of playing video games with the current research it
would be necessary to use analytic models that do not accurately provide assessing
mechanisms, or it would be done through the extrapolation of extreme experiences to
the prosaic experience.
The experience of playing video games is influenced 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.
Following Huizinga’s Homo-Ludens, the idea of play is embodied in the animal side of
the human. 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 the 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 to understand the user experience of playing video games in this
thesis is to understand the prosaic experience. The basic sense of enjoyment while
engaging with a video game. The efforts would be directed at identifying the elements
that form the process of the experience. These elements would be used to formulate
an objective theory regarding the experience. The outcome of the experience will also
be studied, on a minor role, in order to showcase that both, outcome and process,
lead to similar results. The difference being in that the objectivity of the elements
that form the experience allows enunciating falsifiable statements regarding the ex-
perience, while the outcome only shows the personalisation of the experience.
3.4 Summary
The research that tries to understand the experience of video games is vast and grow-
ing fast in the last few years. The review proposed above is not extensive as it does
not include all the possible references to the subject. It purposely omitted most of
the research in computer graphics, artificial intelligence or computer architecture as
these areas only provide technical detail to the implementation of the game. However,
it showcases the key trends in understanding the experience. This is not discred-
iting the current research efforts towards understanding video games; it is just to
acknowledge the fact that the scholarly study of video games is far behind from the
actual impact that they have on human beings. This might be due to the fact that
understanding the domain would imply understanding experience, and it seems that
the research community is still struggling to open the shell of experience.
46

3.4 Summary
In this chapter, it was presented the definition for game and video game that would
be used in this thesis. Game is defined as series of rules, covered by a story, that
include the interaction of the player. That is, game is both an object and an action.
The chapter also 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. Although this division may provoke a discussion between what
it is seen as ludologist and narratologist, it encapsulates the trends in research for
understanding video games. In understanding the experience, the focus is on those
experiences that elicit extreme and enjoyable reactions, such as flow, immersion or
presence. From the review it can be seen that the prosaic experience of playing video
games is not fully understood to provide an evaluation mechanism.
In this thesis, the approach is to understand the prosaic experience by looking at
the outcome and process with the aim of forming an objective understanding of the
concept of user experience when playing video games.
47

4.1 Setting for the Studies
4.1 Setting for the Studies
To make sense of the experience, the user internalises the information of the interac-
tion just felt in order to create a personal experience (McCarthy and Wright, 2004a).
It is a process that the individual does not perform explicitly. When the user is asked
to report the experience, then the individuals re-lives it. Each time the experience
is told, a different experience is being told as the individual may make sense of it
differently. The objective of these studies is to capture the telling of the experience
right after it happened in order to understand how different input devices influence
it.
Playing a video game is not the same as participating that involves playing a video
game. Players engage with games on a free-will disposition, while participants for
studies have to be recruited. Although participants might find the topic of the study
interesting to take part in it, they are not playing video games in the way in which
they would normally. There are different methodologies that can be used to explore
naturalistic settings, such as ethnographic or different social methods. However, for
these studies it was decided to conduct the studies within controlled conditions as
the objective is to understand an artificial influence on the experience: the change of
controllers and the use of narratives to assess the experience.
The setting proposed here is one of controlled conditions on a semi-naturalistic
environment. Participants would be asked to play computer games in a laboratory for
three different studies. The analysis of the results of the studies was exploratory, they
were grounded in qualitative methods and it was mainly done looking at interesting
comments that the participants made. The forms used for all studies are in Appendix
B.
In the first study, participants are asked to play Tetris with two different input
devices. After playing with each device, the participant would be asked about the
experience. At the end of the session, the participant compares both experiences and
decides which device produced a better experience. One experience would be better
than another based on which one allowed the participant to enjoy playing the game
more. The results suggest that the participants engaged in two different activities:
playing the game and playing with the input devices. Both positive experiences, but
do not particularly refer to the experience of playing video games.
The second study is similar to the previous one, but this time the video game and
devices used are commercially available. Participants are asked to play GuitarHero
with both the standard controller and mock-up guitar and then tell their experiences.
After learning from the previous two studies, the questions posed to the participant
are targeted to the actual playing of the game. The results show that participants
preferred one input device over the other one, but besides personal satisfaction, it is
49

4. Exploring the Experience of Playing Video games
hard to produce a general theory as to why this might have happen.
The third study has the objective to find more information about how participants
experience interacting with games, from the premise that playing video games is more
enjoyable than watching the video of a game. Participants are asked to play or watch
a video game, then to tell and rate the experience. The study was cut short because
the results were not producing the expected results. The partial results suggest that
looking only at the outcome of the whole experience can mislead the result about the
experience of playing video games as both participants that played and not played
found the experience positive.
4.2 Study 1: Playing Tetris with Two Input Devices
This study was carried out with three objectives: one, to explore how to assess expe-
rience; two, to understand how players communicate their experiences after playing;
and three, to compare the different experiences based on the results obtained.
Participants played Tetris using two different input devices: a keyboard and a dial-
type knob. The latter device was selected because it is not a common device to be used
with computers and seemed like a suitable device to play Tetris. During the session,
participants were told to use the think-aloud protocol to explain what they are doing
and why, at the end of the session participants were asked about their experiences.
4.2.1 Method
Participants
Ten participants took part in the study, six males and four females. The level of
expertise was self-assessed by the participants and it varied from none to medium;
four participants considered themselves to be novice, four medium, and two have
never played before. All participants were over 18 years old, two were between 18-25,
five between 26-35, two between 36-45, and one was older than 46. Participants were
recruited with emails to students within UCL and neighbouring colleges.
Apparatus and Materials
Tetris was run on a PC using a shareware Java implemented version. This version
of Tetris does not have sound. The input devices used were the standard QWERTY
keyboard and the knob like device (Figure 4.1). The mapping of the Tetris functions
into the input devices are described in Table 4.1.
Procedure
Participants carried out the study individually. They started the study with a briefing
of the study, verbally and written, after which they were asked to sign a consent form
and complete the general survey form.
50

4.3 Study 2: GuitarHero with Different Input Devices
Table 4.3: Exp. 4.2 Mappings of both input devices in order to play GuitarHero.
GuitarHero Guitar DualShock
Red Fret Red Fret L2
Green Fret Green Fret L1
Yellow Fret Yellow Fret R1
Blue Fret Blue Fret R2
Orange Fret Orange Fret X
Strum Bar Strum Bar N/A
Whammy Bar Whammy Bar Left Stick
Star Power Tilt Select
(a) CP (b) GC
Figure 4.2: Exp. 4.2 The two input devices used for the study. a) The Sony Dual-Shock Control
Pad and b) The mock guitar controller.
55

4. Exploring the Experience of Playing Video games
that they had more fun with the keyboard because they were able to concentrate more
with the game, but almost half of the users enjoyed interacting with the knob. The
knob made the users lose control of the game.
The second study also compared two different input devices. The devices used
in this study were commonly utilised to play the selected video game. At the end
of study it emerged that frustration is the key element of experience. Frustration is
an element that has to be overcome from the game, and not from using the device.
The naturalness of the device depends on the user. Users who were familiar with
the control-pad expressed that they considered this one to be more natural than the
guitar. Participants enjoyed one controller in over the other. The argument seems to
be around the sense of control, the guitar provided a better sense of control than the
other one. However, it is not clear why this might have happened.
The third study explored a potential quantitative use of narratives. It can be con-
cluded after it that it is not possible to compare two different experiences just by the
narratives. It is possible to determine if the experience was positive or negative, but
it is not possible to determine if an experience was better than other one just by nar-
ratives. The experiences explored in these video games are short and not necessarily
reach a state of flow. A user may enjoy playing a computer game, but does not neces-
sarily imply that the he or she would be willing to play again. Users played the video
games for only ten minutes, an arguably short time to create a life time memorable
experience. The experiences are personal, it is not possible to compare against other
if they are based on different frames of references.
As a general discussion, the outcome of the experience is a sensible place to under-
stand the personal interpretation of the player. However, it failed when it was to be
used to compare different experiences. The comparison was due to the personal re-
flections of the participants, unable to generalise. An individual might have a positive
experience not only because of playing with the game, but because of the different
activities that might surround the game playing activity. In looking at the outcomes,
also, it was possible to understand that besides the specific elements that shaped the
personal experience, there were a series of common elements that suggested having
a greater influence in the overall experience. These elements were common in the dif-
ferent studies and were common to the different settings presented. Evaluating and
understanding them should provide a more general understanding overall the whole
experience of playing video games. Further, it should provide insight into games and
what they bring into the forming of the experience. The identification and evaluation
of these elements is discussed in the remaining of the thesis.
62

5.3 A Theoretical Framework for the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
took part in this process. The interviews were semi-structured, transcribed and then
using selective coding with the axial coding already formulated. The interviews asked
the participants to explain what they focused on while playing/designing/reviewing
a video game, what made the game enjoyable, and what factors made them keep-on
playing a game. As the interviews were semi-structured, the questions that followed
aimed at deepening the answers that the participants gave to the previous questions.
Only five interviews were conducted as it was found that the analysis had reached the-
oretical saturation. In other words, no new or relevant data was found to be emerging
for the different categories; the category development had all the paradigmatic el-
ements accounted for; and, the relations between categories had been established
(Strauss and Corbin, 1997, p.143). The findings from this analysis are corroborated
in the following chapters.
5.3 A Theoretical Framework for the Core Elements of
the Gaming Experience
This section focuses on presenting the theoretical framework obtained using
grounded theory. The objective of presenting the complete framework, before ar-
guing the actual process of building it usually associated with grounded theory, is
to discuss the overall elements as part of a holistic explanation. The details of the
formulation of the framework are discussed later. Figure 5.3 shows all the elements
to facilitate the discussion and to visualise the relation among them.
69

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
Table 5.1: Sources of Data for the Qualitative Study. The abbreviation within brackets is how
that source is referred within the document. Magazines are quoted providing the page number
from where the quotation was taken; Websites are quoted providing the name of the game from
where the quotation was taken, as it is more manageable than providing the complete URL.
Source Material
PC-Gamer. 64, August 2006 – {PCG} 24 Reviews
2 Articles
PlayStation 2 Official Magazine, 75, August 2006 – {PSO} 11 Interviews
1 Editorial
Edge. 165 August 2006 – {Edge} 31 Reviews
3 Interviews
7 Articles
PC-Zone. 171, August 2006 – {PCZ} 20 Reviews
3 Articles
GameSpot – {GS} 3 Reviews
http://www.gamespot.com Rating System
GameFaqs – {GF} 3 Reviews
http://www.gamefaqs.com
ReviewsGameSpy – {GP} 3 Reviews
http://www.gamespy.com Rating System
Designer 1 {d1} Interview
Reviewer 1 {r1} Interview
Reviewer 2 {r2} Interview
Player 1 {p1} Interview
Player 2 {p2} Interview
70

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
with the game. A previous experience with a similar game, the amount of time willing
to play, or the aesthetic value that player can perceive from the game.
From this theoretical framework, the following hypotheses can be formulated:
• Puppetry is a necessary but not sufficient condition to produce a positive expe-
rience.
• Ownership is produced by control.
• Facilitators aid control to produce ownership.
Puppetry is formed by three main categories: ownership, control and facilitators.
These three categories are three latent variables or constructs. They were introduced
in order to explain the process of the gaming experience. The three constructs can
not be observed or measured directly. However, it is possible to learn about them
by observing their members. The members of each category are indeed observable
variables that can be quantified through empirical observations. Puppetry describes
the relationship between the player and the video game. It does not measure the game
or the player, but their relationship. It does so by proposing a series of falsifiable
hypotheses and observable measures that bring the concept of user experience closer
to the world of objective knowledge and operationalises the concept of experience. The
details of how the framework was formulated follow.
5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory
This section discusses in detail the elements of the framework, it provides quotes
from the material reviewed to support the statements. Firstly, the concept of video
game is discussed along with its different elements. Secondly, the interaction process,
puppetry, is discussed.
5.4.1 About the Video game
It would be obvious to state that in order to have a gaming experience it is necessary
to have a video game. The concept of video game discussed here is not on what makes
a good one per se, rather, the discussion focuses on how the video game is perceived
in terms of the experience.
The video game is understood in terms of two concepts: game play and environ-
ment. To provide an initial understanding of the difference between the two of them,
it can be said that game play is the “soul” while environment is the “body”; as the
former is the actual game while the latter is the physical representation of the game.
The actual differences between game play and environment would be shown in the
discussion in the following pages, highlithging the fact that game play is based upon
the core qualities of what is a game, and environment is based upon how the game is
implemented.
74

5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory
(Interview, r2): “ People get very defensive because when you say strip away all the non
essential stuff they think you are saying that things like the music are not important,
which is not what you are saying, they are absolutely important but essential, you can,
you should not, but you could get rid of them if you got rid of the music you still have
something that is recognisable: the game. But if you took the game away and you are just
left with the tape of the soundtrack and some pictures of the guys and an animation of
the guy doing this, it would not be the game anymore. so if it is not that the presentation
of things arent important but it is not that they are not absolutely crucial component of
the overall experience, is that they are built on top of and underlying structure and that
underlying structure is what makes the game a game, and everything in top of it is what
makes the experience the experience. ”
(PCZ, p.20): “ The premise, if you’re not familiar with the multiplayer modes of Pandora
Tomorrow and Chaos Theory, is one of spies versus mercenaries. Three spies must hack
three security terminals, controlling from a standard Splinter Cell third-person viewpoint
and using many of the main game’s acrobatic tricks. Three mercs [sic] must prevent the
spies from doing this, from a first-person viewpoint, using a gun and a flashlight. Sound
familiar? Well it should, because it’s based on the much-played ancient Egyptian sport of
hide-and-seek, albeit on a far more deadly and technological level. ”
The preceding quote is the typical way in which a review refers to a video game. The
game being discussed, “Splinter Cell: Double Agent”, is related to others with similar
story lines or rules. The story of the game is about “spies versus mercenaries”, the
reader of the review could have a better perception of that story in case of familiarity
with the two games mentioned. The rules of the game are bounded by the classic play
of hide and seek, two teams are playing each with three members. Each team has
a different goal in the game, and, presumable, the player can select the team of his
choice. This excerpt of the review also describes the basic environment of the game,
“security terminals”, and a third-person view point (the character is fully visible), or
first person (the player can only see what the player sees).
The description of the game is done using previous games as references, that is, in-
stead of listing all the characteristics, the reviewers relate the game to a similar game
as a way of shortening the description of rules and the type of stories. It contextu-
alises them without getting into the details of the exact rules. In the quote presented
above, the reference was made to describe the story of the game and the parts of the
environment. In the next quote, the reference is made to describe the game in general:
(PCG, p.84): “ The fact is, Titan Quest falls way short of its goal of being a modern,
myth-based Diablo 2. ”
From this quote, it can be expected that “Titan Quest” is similar in game play and
environment to “Diablo 2”, but with an adapted story. It seems, that the experience of
75

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
playing video games does not start from zero, rather, it requires certain understanding
of the domain in order to understand what the game is about.
(Interview, r2): “ Nintendo arguments that 20 years ago games were much more simpler
and everybody can have a go and now games have become incredible complicated and
they are full of all this hidden rules that you dont realise, if you are a gamer you dont
realise you know, but the minute you sat, the minute that you try to get your mom to
play something or she has no idea of what is going on you may find very hard to explain
why you need to press that button to reload and you need to walk over that health pack
and that other wont open until, you know stuff like doors that wont open until you kill all
the enemies, which as a gamer you dont think about it, but as a sensible ordinary person
is just ridiculous who is opening the door? Who is bloke who has his finger on the button
and says everyone dead? OK, open. ”
The rules are somehow implicit within game. This can be due to the fact that the
numbers of rules in a video game are too many to be listed:
(Interview, p2): “ I like games that challenge your intellect: strategy, politics, and so on.
”
This type of comment refers to the rules, to the “do’s and don’ts” that the player can
do in the game. The story is the dressing of the rules, taking the abstraction of the
rules into characters and scenarios. Some times the story of the game can be inferred
with the title of the game:
(Edge,p.46): “ Miami Vice opens with an option screen that says as much about gaming’s
potential as you wish fulfilment in four words as you could in 40,000. ”
The story is also presented
(Edge,p.42): “ B-Boy. A dance-combat game that’s not so much turn-based as head-
stand, toprock [sic] and spin based. ”
Game play is composed by the rules and underlying story, while environment is the
sound and graphics of the game.
The video game is also experienced in terms of the environment it creates. This is
done by providing the game with graphics and sound. In the printed data, they use
pictures as aids to describe the graphics, with usually one or two lines to help in the
description:
(Edge, p.89): “There is a huge amount of destructible scenery [...] rocks, however, seem
to be made of polystyrene. ”
Revisiting one this part of the quote used previously:
(PCZ, p.20): “ Three spies must hack three security terminals, controlling from a stan-
dard Splinter Cell third-person viewpoint and using many of the main game’s acrobatic
76

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
puppetry. In case the player fails to grasp the control of the game, it is still possible
to gain ownership if the game facilitates the player to overlook the lack of control for
a while. Puppetry is divided in two main processes: control and ownership, but note
that it is subject to the aid of facilitators.
Taking Control
Control is the player learning to manipulate the game. It is about the player learning
how the objects in the game move, understanding the goals of the game, keeping the
player occupied. It is also learning about the controllers, getting used to the objects
and angles in which the objects are displayed and the ability of the player to memorise
the relationship between controllers and the actions of the game.
The first two elements of control, controllers and small-actions, relate the basic
actions that the characters in the game can do and the manipulation of the controller
to make them do something. Without losing generality and to facilitate the discussion,
the manipulable objects of the game would be called characters.
The controllers are the basic tool that the player needs to take control of the game.
This is how the player starts to manipulate the different characters or objects on the
screen.
(PCZ, p.53): “Wave your mouse means wave your sword.”
Controllers only refer to the player’s manipulation of the physical tool, the set of
actions that the character can perform are the small-actions. They are the other side
of the controllers. Small-actions are the basic blocks that allow the player to get
the character to do something on the screen. Pressing button “x” is the part of the
controller, the fact that the character jumps is a small action. Consider the following
quote:
(PSO, p.32): “By targeting civilian and pressing L2 to shout at them”
From this quote the player has to relate the act of pressing, with the act of shouting
that the character can do. In order to make the character shout, then, the player has
to press L2. The player pressing a button on the controller is more of a mechanical
control, whilst the player making the character shouting is more of a virtual control.
If the game is ported to a different console, say from PS2 to PC, the virtual control
remains the same, and it is the mechanical control that the user has to adapt. The
sense of control can also be interrupted when there is a mismatch between controllers
and small-actions:
(Edge, p.82): “The razored neatness of its environment promises a precision that controls
can’t provide. ”
The player then, after learning about the controller and the small-actions, has to
memorise the bindings between controllers and small-actions.
78

5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory
(PCZ, p.47): “250 skills for you to master.”
(Interview, r2): “ ... you may find very hard to explain why you need to press that button
to reload ...”
Memory is the element of control that gives the player the repertoire of actions to get
into the game and that can be recalled at a given moment.
Point-of-view is how the information is displayed to the player. The player is able
to see what is going in the game from different angles, depending on the game. The
reviews do tell the player what to expect from the point-of-view, and it is also used as
a way to classify games:
(PCZ, p.52): “First person makes a combat that actually works.”
Point-of-view is not Environment, POV is how the environment affects the control of
the game.
The goal is the overall objective of the game. That is, the player learning what is to
do. It is the player grasping the game play of the game:
(PCG, p.45): “Village pillaging is hard work, get your posse of goblin minions to do it for
you.”
The goal is the top level objective of the game, as in the preceding quote, there are no
details of what the player is exactly to do, but the player understand that the overall
objective is to do village pillaging while directing an army of goblins. The player must
be clear in what is the overall objective of the game in order to get control of the game.
The final element is something-to-do, that is, to keep the player busy doing some-
thing:
(Interview, r2): “ Say an interesting example is going to be [...] it is a driving game set
in Hawaii, huge free space for you to drive around, but it is just roads like roads on an
island, they are not race track roads they are not fake need for space curses they are
just roads. And quite a lot of people who kind of sat with thought this just really boring
just drive 40 miles and nothing happens and no one chases me and I dont have a gun
and you know what is the point and it took all of us I think a while to adjust to this new
experience is different kind of driven challenge, it is a different kind of experience the fun
is in a different place where you are just used to looking for the game does do at all wrong
it is just a genuinely new idea and it takes a while for your brain to adjust ”
In the above quote, the player can identify the goal, however, the experience failed to
become positive because the player got the sense that there was large spaces without
things to do.
Assuming Ownership
Once the player starts to get control, the next step is the user to start building a sense
of ownership of the game. This is accomplished when the user starts guiding the
79

5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory
cartoonish kind of town, you can join a band you can start playing the harmonica in a
street corner and people wouldn’t listen until you get better, you can hang out with other
people and you will group people to get a band and it is completely pointless and is just
another way for you just to enjoy the game, you can play through the entire story with
your big robot or you can become many other things as well but you can stay in the
corner playing the harmonica people gather around clapping and you play a bum note
and it just doesn’t matter that it looks a bit rough and it sounds a bit cheap. ”
The game acknowledges the ownership of the player by providing Rewards.
(Interview, d1): “ [Question: What do you think is the thing that keeps a player playing
same game?] It is bit a dough and bullet, it has to be continuously rewarding, but I am
not sure, continuously challenging, there is something always that you want to do, even
though, there is always rewards given to you, as completing little micro bits, and also
larger sections, so there is always a feeling of you moving forward, so you always feels the
potential, you can feel this you know, there are more cool things around the corner or
something you havent seen before or just in the next screen, it comes down to I want to
find out what is next, I want to find out if I press that button I am so engross that I cant
stop now I have to keep going now, until I find a nice place to stop. is not you pushing the
user to do more, is the user pushing themselves to do more, to discover what is around
the corner, take the next turn, is that little intangibility of the more turn, or next door, or
five more minutes. ”
These rewards can be achieved sub-goals, or finishing missions:
(Interview, p1): “ You fight a big boss at the end of may be 5 or 6, or several sub bosses
and then a final big boss at the end with many characters over the final area, and then
you share the loot and you go off and do something else. ”
Or a continuum of challenges to the player.
(Edge, p83): “We were fed up with games that if someone starts to win, it becomes easier
for them to win outright.”
Or could also be those actions that have no direct impact on the game development,
but amuse the player:
(PSO, p.36): “Also funny is princess Leia’s meˆle`e attack - a cheek-stinging slap.”
(PCG, p.45): “It’s clearly wrong to run into an inn and cut [sic] decapitate the cook, but
your heart melts when one of them puts the chef’s hat on.”
While the player is taking big-actions and personal-goals, the player engages in
actions that would not necessarily do in real life, it is a You-but-not-You effect:
(PCZ, p.51): “Before you offer them a quick painful smiting”
Most games would set the player in activities foreign to his everyday life
81

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
(Interview, p2): “ [Question: Why do you play video games?] To have fun, to be some
one else. ”
Until this activities can be seen as something that the player has done himself:
(PSO, p.3): “Movies and books use real life war as rich source material, so why shouldn’t
games? (Although you don’t get to pull the trigger yourself in a movie)”
Not only is the player able to do things otherwise illegal or alien to his own reality,
but the player is also making the character grow under his control.
(PCZ, p.49): “Who you meet, how you treat them and how you solve their problems
determines what recruits you can gather.”
These suggest players would take responsibility for their actions as they themselves
are to blame, and not the result of lack of control.
(Interview, p2): “ I don’t like games where you get stuck because you can’t do the button
combination in the precise second to jump over the pitfall. ”
Ownership lets the player see the game as part of his daily life activities:
(PCZ, p.10): “ Well let’s see. I can leave my house and wander around the streets of east
London to witness filthy roads [...] or I can ride around Cyrodiil’s beautiful forests on my
horse, while slashing any potential thieves. ”
Facilitating Ownership
Puppetry is also formed by facilitators, which are the most subjective part of the
elements, as they feed directly from the outcome of the experience. Facilitators allow
the player to reach ownership even if there is poor control. With facilitators the players
are willing to endure poor control because “there is something” about the game that
they like.
The aesthetic values of the game are important in facilitating ownership. If the
game looks well to the player, then he may be willing to try longer:
(PSO, p.3): “How the increased graphical fidelity changes the way you feel about your
action?”
Or if the music attracts the player:
(Edge, p.82): “Locoroco is a nursery rhyme you can play.”
Or because they see something about the game that is just amusing to observe.
(PCZ, p.59): “There are also Indian naked female archers that’ll have your men furiously
polishing their spears”
82

5.4 The Formulation of the Grounded Theory
The fact that the player has engaged before with similar types of games is a constant
during the reviews, as when used when describing the rules through similes with
other games. The previous experiences of the player push the player to stay longer
playing, as well assuming the consequences, or benefits, of his own actions even while
playing:
(PCZ,p.2): “ I don’t know about everyone else out there, but I’m really pining for a Max
Payne. Fans are still churning out mods for the stylish fall of our hero. I’d love nothing
more than to see a beautiful new incarnation to empty my clips at. Payne didn’t look like
he was going anywhere fun after the last game. Well, I say whatever it takes, we want him
back. For all I care he can wake up from a cheesy Dallas-like dream and start all over
again. ”
Previous experience could not only be about similar video game, but just relating to a
similar goal:
(PCG, p.86): “I’ve never lost the heady sense of excitement when I first read about
Alexander, and I’ve been waiting for a game to bring his story to life ever since. Rome:
Total war let me live out my fantasies of conquest.”
The time facilitator is about the time the user is willing to dedicate to play. The
time can be intrinsic to the type of game:
(PCG, p.87): “30 cities in 100 turns is an alarming tight schedule, and it radically
changes the way you play. You can’t sit back, develop your economy, and gradually build
up your mega-army: there isn’t time. ”
Or just the time for the experience in that moment:
(Interview, d1): “ [It] is that little intangibility of the more turn, or next door, or five more
minutes. ”
The lack of those extra five minutes could make the player not want to play again, as
there is an acknowledgment that without it, the game would not be enjoyed fully.
All these are the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience. The necessary, but
not sufficient, conditions to procure a positive experience. Elements that if missing,
then the experience would not be positive. Table 5.2 presents all the elements just
discussed. All these elements and categories were formulated using a grounded the-
ory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1997), as discussed previously. This was done
using an iterative method for which a set of codes was formulated. These codes were
then refined forming a resulting set of axial codes. These axial codes were selected
as the constructs, while the remaining codes are the observable elements. The next
sections present an example of an experience using this framework, and the following
one discusses the use of the metaphor of puppetry.
83

5.5 An Example of the Core Elements
Figure 5.4: The elements of control while playing Tetris. Small-Actions are the movements that
the figures can perform, such as moving right, left or rotating. Controllers are the physical
implementation of how those actions can be executed by the player; in the computer version,
this is done using the directional arrows and the control key. Memory is me remembering the
small-actions and how they relate to controllers; some-times I forget that I can rotate the figure
in two different directions. Goal is the overall objective of the game, in this case, making lines
and not losing. Point-of-view is the how I see the game, in this case the figures are seen from
the front, but some implementations show the figures from top. Something-to-do in this case
is moving the figures around before they are placed in their location; when the speed is slow, I
just moved them from side to the other to keep my self busy.
85

5. The Core Elements of the Gaming Experience
– Ownership
Big-Actions The different small-actions used to make a line.
Rewards The points received after making a line.
Personal-Goals Trying to do four lines at once, or waiting until the screen
is almost full and then start making lines.
You-but-not-You Engaging in a fast paced activity that requires my full
concentration.
– Facilitators
Time I can play Tetris for a couple of minutes and for hours and hours. I
don’t really have a time constraint when engaging with the game.
Prev.-Experiences Experiences with simple games make them a good time
killer. Also, having played Tetris before makes me look for different
implementations of the same.
Aesthetic-Value The Tetris music is quite enjoyable, the graphics are sim-
ple, but elegant.
5.6 Puppetry and Video games
Blackwell (2006, p.524) proposes the idea that “[a]s researchers, we must also be
metaphor users, in order to invigorate the professional designs and user experiences of
the future”. With this spirit in mind, during the coding procedures of the study the
label “puppetry” was attached to the categories of control and ownership. This was
due because it reflected on the idea that playing a video game was similar to puppetry,
in which first a puppet has to be manipulated and then used as part of a play.
Looking deeper into the concept of puppetry in theatre provides a good metaphor
for the gaming experience. The discussion that follows is done with two objectives.
One is to justify the use of the label puppetry to describe the core elements of the
experience. The second is to provide a pragmatic view of the experience. The con-
cept of puppetry, as a semantic tool, does not help in the original aim of the study to
operationalise the experience; rather, it provides a great vehicle to relate the experi-
ence to another domain. It also completes the phenomenon of experience described
previously. The process is understood in terms of its core elements and the outcome
can be understood as a metaphor that allows reflecting and internalising the pro-
saic experience. The objective of the framework is then to provide an explanation of
the “phenomena of our experience in terms of an underlying reality which we do not
experience directly.” (Deutsch, 1997, p.3).
Puppets are shadows, hands, dolls, figures and figurines. The physical represen-
tation of the puppet is eclectic, but when faced with one it is possible to recognise it.
86

6.1 Objectives of the Questionnaire
cussion of the results and section ten suggests how to use the results as norms. A
summary of the chapter is presented in section eleven.
6.1 Objectives of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire is designed with two objectives: First, it has to be a valid and re-
liable instrument to assess the constructs of the CEGE; Second, to provide norms
for other possible users of the questionnaire. In order to have a reliable and valid
questionnaire, a construct must be “homogeneous with respect to its content, but
heterogeneous from the standpoint of the methods used to infer this content.” (Nun-
nally and Bernstein, 1994, p. 311). In other words, the questionnaire must have a
high internal consistency, which should be achieved with a diverse set of items with
low correlation between them. The constructs to be evaluated are divided into three
categories:
1. The main construct that reflects the concept of the Core Elements of the Gaming
Experience (CEGE) as the driving force behind a positive gaming experience.
2. The two sub-constructs that form them, Puppetry and Video game.
3. Those constructs that constitute each of the previous two constructs: control,
facilitators and ownership for Puppetry, and environment and game play for
Video game.
The validation is done qualitatively and the reliability quantitatively. Validity refers
to construct and face validity, that is, that its items do address the concept that is
supposed to be assessed in the eyes of experts and questionnaire takers. Reliabil-
ity refers to the level of consistency of the construct. In other words, this chapter
presents how well structured each of the constructs is and their basic correlations
with each other. The next chapter looks more closely at the relationship among the
constructs using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Anal-
ysis (CFA).
The second objective of the questionnaire aims to take advantage of the large pool
of participants that completed the questionnaire. The scores obtained for the different
scales are divided across experiences, such as the platform used to play the game, or
the amount of time played.
The strategy to design the questionnaire was divided into six steps. The steps,
presented below, are fully discussed in the subsequent sections.
1. Identify the constructs to be evaluated.
2. Propose a set of items per constructs.
3. Validate the items and constructs via pilots and interviews.
91

6.3 Developing the Items
Table 6.1: Constructs and Elements of the CEGE framework.
Puppetry Video-game
Control Ownership Facilitators Game-play Environment
Small Actions Big Actions Time Rules Graphics
Controllers Personal Goal Aesthetic Value Scenario Sound
Memory You but not You Prev. Experiences
Point of View Rewards
Goal
Something to do
6.3.1 General Items
The questionnaire asked the participants to complete a series of general items aimed
at identifying the type of experience that the questionnaire would be assessing. These
items, all with the possibility of open ended results, were:
• Sex
• Age
• Game Played
• Approximately Time Played
• Date of Completion
6.3.2 Items Regarding Enjoyment
The construct of Enjoyment and Frustration was added to the questionnaire to cor-
relate the CEGE score with a measure of the prosaic experience. For this end, a set
of eight items were created. The items asked the participant to rate how much they
enjoyed the game and if they would play again the same again. Items were phrased
both in positive and negative terms.
6.3.3 Items Regarding Puppetry
Puppetry is formed by three constructs: facilitators, control and ownership. The
guideline was to formulate at least five items per construct, thus puppetry would
have at least a total of fifteen items. Each of these constructs is constituted by a
number of elements, three for facilitators, six for control and five for ownership. A
pool of thirty items was devised to address each element of the constructs.
There were also three more items for the constructs, each of them aimed at assess-
ing the general feeling of control, ownership and puppetry. This was done because
93

6.6 General Items Results
Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire after they had finished play-
ing the video game of their preference. As the objective of the study is to find the
characteristics of video games that do not produce negative experiences, it is expected
that the participants that complete the questionnaire would be those that are having
a positive experience. Thus, it would be possible to assess are the proposed elements
that are necessary to have a positive experience. The software does not allow the same
computer to take the questionnaire more than once, however, this can be altered by
using a different browser or by deleting the cookie that the questionnaire left on the
computer. It is assumed that only one person per experience per questionnaire was
completed, but there is no way to verify this. However, as long as one questionnaire
was completed per experience, there is only a minimal fear of inappropriate data.
6.6 General Items Results
The results obtained from the general items are as follows. Of the 598 participants,
467 were male and 131 female. Most participants, 214, were between 18 and 21 years
old, followed by those, 182, aged between 21 and 25. In terms of the experience being
described by the questionnaire, 235 were produced by console based video games and
208 by PC. The majority of the experiences, 166, lasted between 1hr and 2hr; a very
close second was those that lasted between 30mins and 1hour with a total of 163.
The complete results obtained from the general items are presented in Table 6.2.
6.7 Item Analysis
6.7.1 Missing Value Analysis
Not all items were completed by all participants, so missing-data analysis was done
to identify if the data was missing completely at random (Little, 1988) or if it was
due to any characteristic of the questionnaire. The analysis was complemented by
utilising dichotomised correlations (Hair Jr. et al., 1998, p.50). There three possible
types missing data, one missing completely at random, missing at random, and not
missing at random. The results show that the data is not completely missing at
random. Analysing the patterns of missing data in relation to other variables using t-
tests, shows that some variables have significant differences for a p < 0.05, suggesting
that the data is missing at random. This means that the missing data does not depend
on the data itself; i.e. a question is not answered because of another question.
The number of missing data is relatively low compare to the sample. Missing data
is remedied with the following strategies: list-wise and pair-wise elimination and EM
imputation. List-wise elimination still provides a valid sample of 359 to perform
multivariate analysis. Using the EM imputation method provides correlations of the
items similar to those with pairwise deletion; the means and standard deviations are
97

6. Designing and Evaluating a Questionnaire
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6.1: Screenshots from the questionnaire: The screenshots are included to illustrate
what were participants seeing when completing the questionnaire. The screenshots were pro-
duced by first printing the questionnaire and then scanning it, as the original source of the
questionnaire was no longer available when producing this report. The screenshots at higher
resolution, and including the items for general items, are included in Appendix H.
98

6. Designing and Evaluating a Questionnaire
using pairwise deletion when performing calculations.
6.7.2 Analysis of Normality
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov method was used to analyse the normality of the responses.
The results suggest non-normality. Most of the variables are negatively skew (Table
6.3); except for items 2 & 3. This can be explained due to the fact that most expe-
riences are positive. That is, it was not normally distributed that some participants
had a good, normal and bad experiences, but that most of them had good experi-
ences. A more complete discussion is presented below, when discussing the issues of
frustration and the scores obtained.
Table 6.3: Results per item for the questionnaire. Means obtained using only the available
data (N), as non-answered items were ignored. The means of the negative worded items were
obtained using the coded result.
No. Item Scale N Mean Std. Dev. Skewness
1 I enjoyed playing the game Enjoyment 569 95% 6.381 0.918 -2.076
2 I was frustrated at the end of the game Frustration 547 91% 2.693 1.654 0.894
3 I was frustrated whilst playing the game Frustration 574 96% 3.479 1.788 0.137
4 I liked the game Enjoyment 569 95% 6.408 0.954 -2.515
5 I would play this game again Enjoyment 562 94% 6.528 1.001 -2.963
6 I was in control of the game Puppetry - Control 563 94% 5.739 1.214 -1.033
7 The controllers responded as I expected Puppetry - Control 559 93% 6.063 1.198 -1.765
8 I remember the actions the controllers performed Puppetry - Control 545 91% 5.998 1.350 -1.663
9 I was able to see in the screen everything I needed during
the game
Puppetry - Control 566 95% 5.714 1.500 -1.290
10 The point of view of the game that I had spoiled my gaming Puppetry - Control 521 87% 6.180 1.126 -1.675
11 I knew what I was supposed to do to win the game Puppetry - Control 564 94% 6.252 1.188 -2.009
12 There was time when I was doing nothing in the game Puppetry - Control 571 95% 4.993 2.008 -0.627
13 I liked the way the game look Puppetry - Facilitators 565 94% 6.088 1.093 -1.526
14 The graphics of the game were plain Puppetry - Facilitators 572 96% 5.191 1.839 -0.820
15 I do not like this type of game Puppetry - Facilitators 571 95% 6.445 1.040 -2.901
16 I like to spend a lot of time playing this game Puppetry - Facilitators 563 94% 5.128 1.713 -0.679
17 I got bored playing this time Puppetry - Facilitators 571 95% 5.541 1.517 -1.048
18 I usually do not choose this type of game Puppetry - Facilitators 568 95% 5.667 1.670 -1.332
19 I did not have a strategy to win the game Puppetry - Ownership 564 94% 4.745 1.936 -0.515
20 The game kept constantly motivating me to keep playing Puppetry - Ownership 569 95% 5.464 1.423 -0.847
21 I felt what was happening in the game was my own doing Puppetry - Ownership 569 95% 5.185 1.632 -0.901
22 I challenged myself even if the game did not require it Puppetry - Ownership 554 93% 4.736 1.815 -0.482
23 I played with my own rules Puppetry - Ownership 548 92% 3.347 1.978 0.418
24 I felt guilty for the actions in the game Puppetry - Ownership 565 94% 6.227 1.375 -1.997
25 I usually do in the real world the same type of activities as
in the game
Puppetry - Ownership 569 95% 6.158 1.556 -2.022
26 I knew how to manipulate the game to move forward Puppetry 557 93% 5.688 1.493 -1.297
27 The graphics were appropriate for the type of game Video-game - Environment 568 95% 6.363 0.921 -2.097
28 The sound effects of the game were appropriate Video-game - Environment 547 91% 6.097 1.119 -1.718
29 I did not like the music of the game Video-game - Environment 536 90% 5.493 1.664 -1.113
30 The graphics of the game were related to the scenario Video-game - Environment 549 92% 6.158 1.044 -1.509
31 The graphics and sound effects of the game were related Video-game - Environment 549 92% 6.115 1.226 -1.895
32 The sound of the game affected the way I was playing Video-game - Environment 546 91% 4.449 1.951 -0.375
33 The game was unfair Video-game - Game-play 568 95% 5.623 1.520 -1.098
34 I understood the rules of the game Video-game - Game-play 562 94% 6.536 0.846 -2.582
35 The game was challenging Video-game - Game-play 571 95% 5.518 1.335 -0.991
36 The game was difficult Video-game - Game-play 570 95% 4.500 1.586 -0.388
37 The scenario of the game was interesting Video-game - Game-play 558 93% 5.717 1.404 -1.313
38 I did not like the scenario of the game Video-game - Game-play 561 94% 6.109 1.191 -1.796
39 I knew all the actions that could be performed in the game Puppetry - Control 571 95% 5.373 1.656 -0.860
100