Phill Rogers 2007 Abertay Dissertation

ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL GAME TRANSLATION HEURISTICS (Volume I of II)

Phillip Hamilton Fraser Rogers (0304671) BSc Honours ‑ Web Design & Development 2007

DISSERTATION

UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE School of Computing and Creative Technologies May 2007

UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE Permission to copy

Author: Phillip Hamilton Fraser Rogers Title: ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL GAME TRANSLATION HEURISTICS

(Volume I of II)

Degree: BSc (Hons.) Web Design and Development Year: 2006/2007

I certify that the above mentioned project is my original work No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the written consent of the undersigned.

Signature ……………………....................................................................

Date …………………………..

ii

ABSTRACT

As heuristic and accepted guidelines are becoming more and more prevalent in today’s software design society, why is it that the game design community shy away from them when it comes to the translation of an existing analogue or board game for the digital realm? In the creation of either of these analogue board or digital games, a designer must have rules to follow. This report aims to introduce a defined set of Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation, to clarify why, or indeed if, they are needed and if so how they should be implemented.

The theorised resulting “Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation” or HAGT’s in this report were tested on existing digital versions of analogue games and also on a non‑translated analogue game to assess their validity and if they could better help designers facilitate the creation of games in general, giving them a basis from which to start when translating existing analogue games into a digital format.

iii

The results in this paper suggest that these HAGT’s and similar sub‑sets are a good way forward for designers and players and are needed when it comes to adequately and coherently developing an AGT. HAGT’s offer a list of base set guidelines onto which type and genre specific sub‑sets could be built allowing designers to more easily develop game models and even possibly communities.

Keywords Heuristics; analogue game; digital games; boardgame; computer game; game translation; usability; survey; gaming; questionnaire.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank those who have made this research and dissertation possible and all those at Abertay University Dundee who have made my experience there so enjoyable over the past four years.

I want to thank Ken Fee, Colin Cartwright and Dawn Carmichael whose encouragement, availability and advice were indispensable over the past year and helped in no small part to getting this paper to the stage it is at now, I hope it doesn’t dissappoint. I would also like to thank the administration staff of the various schools within Abertay whose help and hard work emailing all staff and students undoubtedly helped in boosting respondent figures for my questionnaire within the University.

I would also like to extent my thanks to all those individuals who took part in the online questionnaire that formed a huge part of the research: the forum readers, contributors and moderators of BoardgameGeek.com, all at The Boardgame Designers Forum, About.com, IGN.com, Gamespot.com and Gamespy.com. Thanks also to all the students and staff at Abertay University who also took time out of their studies to complete the questions I set.

v

My thanks go also to the many designers and learned souls with whom I have corresponded with over the past months.

Dave Warfield, Head of Game Design at the Vancouver Film School for the advice and guidance; Prof. Scott Nicholson at Syracuse University, USA for his in‑depth knowledge of all things boardgame related; Luke Hooper, one of the design staff behind Khet©, a great game by Innovention Toys™ for his kind permission and the gift of game components used in the case study phase of this research; Matt Goldfarb and Paul Cooper, VP’s at McNeill Designs for Brighter Minds for their incites into analogue to digital project management; Stephen Conway and David Coleson of “The Spiel” podcast whose exposure of my research topic on their show in no uncertain terms helped boost questionnaire respondent figures. A big thank you to all those I have not mentioned but who took the time to write to me showing an interest in this research topic, I think I may have touched on a nerve here.

I would finally like to thank my wife Paula and my children Cassi and Jack, whose help and encouragement over the past four years has helped keep me going with my studies at Abertay during difficult times.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................x LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................ xi 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this study......................................................................................1 1.2 Research Aims and Goals ..............................................................................3 1.3 Significance of the Study................................................................................4 1.4 Dissertation Structure.....................................................................................5 1.5 Definition of Terms.........................................................................................6 2.0 The Heuristics Approach .................................................................................7 2.1 Augmented Games .......................................................................................11 3.0 Research Method.............................................................................................14 Questionnaire Construction. .............................................................................14 3.1 Opening the Questionnaire..........................................................................18 3.2 Closing the Questionnaire............................................................................21 4.0 Results ..............................................................................................................22 5.0 Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation (HAGT) .................................33 6.0 Validating the Heuristics ...............................................................................48 6.1 Chosen Analogue Games .............................................................................48 7.0 Case Study Results Discussion .....................................................................49 8.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................54 Appendices ............................................................................................................56 Appendix A ‑Nielsen and Molich Heuristics for Evaluation (1990) ..............57

vii

Appendix B ‑ .......................................................................................................58 Appendix C ‑.......................................................................................................60 Appendix D ‑ ......................................................................................................67 Appendix E ‑ Case Study: Monopoly© Digital Version..................................68 Appendix F ‑ Case Study: Tantrix© Digital Version........................................71 Appendix G ‑ Case Study: Jenga© Digital Version. .........................................75 Appendix H ‑ Case Study: Khet© Analogue Version. ....................................78 Appendix I – CD & Contents ..........................................................................82 REFERENCES........................................................................................................83 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................85 OTHER MATERIALS USED...............................................................................87

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Questions 1 & 2 Demographic Response Summary Data....................21 Table 2. Question 4 Top 5 Responses Summary Data ........................................23 Table 3. Question 6 Top 10 Combined Responses Rankings .............................25 Table 4. Question 5 Top 5 Responses Summary Data ........................................26 Table 5. Question 9 Top 10 Responses Summary Data ......................................28 Table 6. Question 10 Keyword/Phrase Search Instance Rankings.....................31 Table 7. Heuristics for Analogue Game Translations (HAGT)..........................33 Table 8. Case Study Games ...................................................................................48 Table 9. Nielsen/Molich Usabilty Heuristics .......................................................57 Table 10. Playabilty Heuristics .............................................................................58 Table 11. Application of HAGT’s to Monopoly© ...............................................69 Table 12. Application of HAGT’s to Tantrix© Online (tantrix.com) .................72 Table 13. Application of HAGT’s to Jenga© (Hasbro© shockwave version) ...76 Table 14. How HAGT’s could be applied to Analogue version of Khet© ........79

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Philips “Entertable©” augmented game system. ........................11 Figure 2. Question 4 Top 5 Responses Summary Chart .....................................24 Figure 3. Question 5 Top 5 Responses Summary Chart .....................................27 Figure 4. Question 9 Top 10 Responses Summary Chart ...................................29 Figure 5. Application of HAGTʹs to ʺMonopoly Party©ʺ...................................49 Figure 6. Application of HAGTʹs to ʺTantrix© Onlineʺ......................................50 Figure 7. Tantrix© ‑ Shockwave version..............................................................51 Figure 8. Application of HAGTʹs to ʺJenga©ʺ .....................................................52 Figure 9. HAGT ‑ The Multi‑heuristics overlap ..................................................54 Figure 10. Monopoly Party© Box Cover & Screen Shot .....................................68 Figure 11. Tantrix© Box and Screen Shots...........................................................71 Figure 12. Jenga© Box and screen shot ................................................................75 Figure 13. Khet ‑ The Laser game© ......................................................................78

x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Nielsen and Molich Heuristics for Evaluation (1990)..................57 Appendix B. Heuristics for Evaluating Playability (HEP) ................................58 Appendix C. Online SurveyMonkey.com© Questionnaire ...............................60 Appendix D. Created Forum Posting ..................................................................67 Appendix E. Case Study: Monopoly© Digital Version .....................................68 Appendix F. Case Study: Tantrix© Digital Version...........................................71 Appendix G. Case Study: Jenga© Digital Version..............................................75 Appendix H. Case Study: Khet© Analogue Version..........................................78 Appendix I. CD & Contents.................................................................................82

xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of this study

The task of designing a unique digital game is the goal of many a budding programmer but the successful adaptation of an existing board game format must also be viewed with the same allure. The analogue game by all accounts should form the cornerstone of today’s digital game design theory and as such, the subsequent translation of an analogue game to a digital version throws up its own issues and considerations.

To design a working, coherent, analogue game itself is indeed no mean feat but to then be successfully translated into a digital version that maintains the original feel and attraction of the original while exploiting the facets and nuances’ of a new technology, a clear set of rules or heuristics would need to be defined.

Despite progress in game development theory prior to this dissertation paper, game translation heuristics have yet to be compiled into a comprehensive list and wholly verified in any way. This dilemma became apparent during the initial literature research stage of this project and given the opportunity for this project, it seemed right to explore the space between analogue and video

1

games, attempting to find a common ground between them that facilitates the translation between, instead of the apparent competition.

2

1.2 Research Aims and Goals The main objective of this research project is to understand if it is possible to create a set of design heuristics enabling a better translation of any analogue game into a digital version. Specifically, to understand the intricacies of what game players want or expect when they look at a translated analogue game.

What is needed to be understood for the translation, as the game play itself might be affected in more ways than only by the user‑system interaction, as it almost for sure will be.

Care will be taken to prevent promoting steps taken for any specific analogue games into a heuristic or guideline. Some steps may not apply to other games or only certain circumstances or, even worse, work out negatively in some.

For the purpose of this research a base set of heuristics will be introduced and used, acknowledging that the field and variety of analogue game designs is a vast and varied realm and that an all encompassing heuristics value set could not possibly have been created in a study of this type in the time frame allotted. That perhaps would be best left for another time.

3

1.3 Significance of the Study This need for a set of design heuristics for the translation of an analogue game to a digital medium is perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of today’s games design. With the advent of the Next‑Gen of gaming systems always on the horizon the main media focus seems to be on how realistic the graphics are or how the user will interface with the environment created by the machine. So many games focus on these areas and to a certain extent brush over or even miss the playability and mechanics, fundamental to the game build itself. But what if the game already exists and has a clear game play mechanic model. This it seems to have taken a back seat when it has been established as the driving force for all game design since the beginning of time.

To translate an existing analogue game to the digital realm, the designer must at all costs understand that mechanics, game‑play and looks so influential in the original design model, must still be coherent and interlinked. With analysis of these areas, the creation of a set of heuristics tailored to specific genres of games would be beneficial to the designer and player alike and could help better propagate a design field with new and old games, engaging a new generation of users and possibly the next generation of augmented analogue games.

4

1.4 Dissertation Structure The purpose of this dissertation is to record, explore and create the findings of an in‑depth online questionnaire into what game players want and expect to see in a translation of an existing analogue game into a digital version. In doing so, this dissertation will initially explore the many facets of a games design that players look for in digital versions of analogue games.

The culmination of this exploration and research is the creation of this set of Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation (HAGT) that offers a more coherent set of actions or methodologies for game designers to follow that results in a more usable and playable analogue game translation.

To aid the validation of the HAGT’s and answer the initial question as laid out in this dissertation is a set of 4 case studies of three existing digital versions of analogue and one non‑translated analogue game. These will test if and how well the heuristics apply.

5

1.5 Definition of Terms AGT: Analogue Game Translation Analogue game: For the purposes of this research document ‑the model of a traditional boardgame.

AuBG or Augmented Board Games: Analogue game with additional components that are either electronic or computer facilitated.

Digital game: For the purposes of this research document ‑ the model of a computer or console based game.

DGT: Digital Game Translation FPS: First Person Shooter Heuristic: For the purposes of this research document the HCI definition will apply ‑ Rules, suggestions, guides, or techniques that may be useful in making progress toward a solution of a problem.

HAGT or Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation: The product or created rule set of this dissertation paper.

Mod, Modding, Modded: Modification of original digital game source code.

GUI: Graphic User Interface.

RTS: Real Time Strategy game TBS: Turn Based Strategy game

6

2.0 The Heuristics Approach

When is comes to using design heuristics it seems that the issue of when and how to use them are awkward and a matter of personal opinion. In the space between analogue and digital game design there is no all encompassing set of design heuristics that would cover all game translation design eventualities.

It is highly impractical and unworkable to suggest this.

While focused on the production of their own set of heuristics pertaining to the evaluation of the Playability of Games, Desurvire, Caplan and Toth (2004) state that “Heuristics have become an accepted and widely used adjunct method of usability evaluation in Internet and software development” but with the research of this dissertation it appears that no learned colleagues have gone as far as developing a set of design heuristics solely aimed at the area of analogue to digital game translations.

Many design conversant people and organisations have so far produced a plethora of heuristic rules for the design of games, software and GUI’s. The ever present usability guru, Jacob Nielsen (1990) produced a set of heuristic commandments for just about every aspect of software, application and interface design (Table 1). Others such as Federoff(2002) and more recently the

7

team of Falstein & Barwood (2006) at Theinspiracy.com are still compiling vast rules and guidelines pertaining to the design of digital games in general and how they could aid designers in creating a better more lucid game, The 400 Project.

If the games already exist in the more traditional analogue format, designers should, in conjunction with the above mentioned, follow a similar heuristic set laid down solely dealing with the translation methods of analogue to digital games.

With the apparent absence of this defined set of heuristics it is held that the creators of today’s digital analogue games are either basing their designs on the same design process they use for digital only games or on testing of the original board game where they have been lucky in so far as to say, some games have worked quite well and over shadowed any poor attempts.

Analogue games are a ready made mine of working ideas for digital game designers yet so many translated games do not hold the focus of players that the originals did. If a game designer does choose to develop an existing analogue game for the digital domain they should not be doing it to cut corners by building on a pre‑existing success. This success will not necessarily constitute a ready‑made hit for a game producer.

8

When creating a computer game the designer has to focus on how to create the interactivity for the users to be engaged by it. This is totally different in analogue game design as they are, by nature, inherently interactive. The playing area of an analogue game is, by its very nature, a non specific orientated interface that can be viewed by many users at the same time. This, by its definition, cannot be said about the playing area of a computer game viewable via a 2D screen. Mandryk, Maranan and Inkpen (2002) go on to further describe the differences between the analogue and digital version by raising probably the two most important points to be taken into consideration for this research proposal, that “most importantly, the board, for the most part, is simply present to facilitate interactions between people, not interactions with the game. On the other hand, computer and video games provide for complex simulations, evolving environments, impartial judging, the suspension of disbelief, and the ability to save the state of the game.”

The closest and only set of heuristics developed, so far, that take into account the some of the areas needed when designing a computer game was developed in the journal paper by Desurvire, Caplan and Toth (2004) (Appendix B). They touch on areas such as game‑play, game‑story and, with more relevance to the required heuristic guidelines for this project, game‑ mechanics and game‑usability. These ‘Heuristics for Evaluating Playability’ cover the areas required by their creators, that of original game design, but do 9

not relate to heuristic conventions in so much as how a designer may translate a game from analogue to digital. These Heuristics for Evaluating Playability and their validity go on to be described by Röcker and Haar (2006) as being “tested on an evolving game design in order to assess its face validity and evaluation effectiveness. The results validated the set of aggregated heuristics and proofed their usefulness for creating usable and playable game design.” They do not; however relate to an existing analogue game and its design factors.

10

2.1 Augmented Games However, the creation of the HAGT’s develop, they could also be adapted for the creation of newer technologies such as augmented or pervasive games based on Augmented Board Games. Systems such as Philips “Entertaible©” system, Figure 1., which even though it is still in development and its design not finalised, is an ideal candidate platform that would benefit from the use of such a heuristic development.

Figure 1. The Philips “Entertable” augmented game system.

Many augmented systems are nothing but analogue games where electronics or digital components are used to expand functionality and game‑play. This so‑called next wave of Analogue‑Digital Hybrid games are possibly just reversing down a road that digital board games have been travelling for some time without Heuristics for Game Translation.

11

Peitz, Eriksson and Björk(2005) argue that “Augmented Board Games, board games where electronics are used to expand functionality and game‑play …these provide an unexplored and under‑considered area for game design”.

This is a valid point, but as designs show, it still comes down to the fact that a coherent set of heuristics need to be in place. If an augmented game is developed and if it is based on an existing analogue game, they will have to follow the same directions, just as a solely digital game translation would have to. Even though this may well be an additional tangent for this research project, branching into discussions regarding augmented board games, it is possible that the design heuristics laid out in this dissertation research would be of great value. As of to date there also does not seem to be a set guidelines for the creation of augmented board games even if they are not based on analogue board games or an original design. As the designers are, in theory, designing a board game per say, any defined rules regarding mechanics, usability etc. would only help to advance the design field as a whole.

In order to better understand the balance between analogue and digital it is important to explore what features an analogue game should and should not have before attempting a translation.

12

This ultimately forms the basis for the proposed HAGT’s and raises the following 2 important questions;

· What do users expect or want when they first come across the digital version of their favourite board game? · How far should a designer stray from the original design model of the chosen board‑game?

These are the most important questions to ask when ever a designer attempts or even considers an Analogue to Digital game translation.

13

3.0 Research Method

The Questionnaire Construction.

Prior to this research paper there was limited, if at all any, literature or experimental research on analogue to digital game translation models. It was decided an exploratory method based upon a structured qualitative / quantitative combined online questionnaire used to gauge respondents perceptions, preferences and experiences regarding analogue board games and their broad views of possible digital translations. The area of analogue or “Board Games” and their digital versions was chosen because the author’s experience of both and the general availability of both respondents and existing translated digital programs.

Besides the online questionnaire, several secondary bibliographical and journal articles were referenced during the design of this research, the interpretation of data and the creation of the heuristics set.

The online questionnaire, Appendix C, was designed using available tools and template

sets

readily

available

at

the

survey

hosting

facility,

Surveymonkey.com©. A three month professional subscription, $59.85, was purchased thereby allowing collection of more in‑depth processed response 14

data from the survey hosts site. A non professional subscription was envisaged by the author to be sufficient, allowing up to 100 responses to the questionnaire, but during the questionnaire’s open phase, it became apparent to the author that the amount of responses coming in regularly, it was easily going to exceed the allowed amount under this basic subscription.

The online questionnaire, Appendix C, was designed to investigate both the respondents’ preferences towards analogue gaming in general and by inquiring about their perceived preferences towards digital translations of existing analogue games. The questionnaire consisted of several mixed types of questions to give both quantitative and qualitative information.

· Question One (1), Question Two (2) and Question Eight (8) gathers demographic information about the respondent’s age, gender and computer usage, in that order. These multiple choice questions enable fast and easy data entry for the respondent prior to the main focus of the questionnaire. They also later facilitate data analysis and summary of response data. · Question Three (3) gathers general respondent preferences regarding analogue/board gaming and Question Seven (7) gathers responses regarding respondent computer gaming general preferences. These questions used the Likert psychometric response scale ranging from 15

“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” with an additional response for “N/A”. The responses given provided ordinal data regarding initial question. · Question Four (4), Question Five (5) and Question Nine (9) gather respondent answers regarding genre of analogue game preferred, influences on respondents when purchasing an analogue game and the important features of a digital version of an existing analogue game in that order. These Partial open‑ended multiple choice questions also include an addition section called “Other” which enables respondents to create their own open response if choices do not represent their preferred response and allows surveyor to also discover additional relevant issues. · Question Six (6) and Question Ten (10) gathers information regarding the respondents free choice of analogue game and what they would like to see in a digital translation of an existing analogue game. This use of an open‑response question allows data entry relevant to individual respondents and may possibly generates new ideas about the topic and clarifies the respondents overall position. This may also generate a high amount of irrelevant information and prove to be quite time consuming when it came to analyse and collate the given responses.

16

By asking related analogue gaming questions the author hoped to focus the respondents attention on the aspects of the research topic that are meaningful in relation to the creation of HAGT’s and also provide some context in which the responses can be identified.

17

3.1 Opening the Questionnaire Once the questionnaire was created it was posted and opened for a limited time on the Surveymonkey.com© site on the 25 th February 2007 at 12pm GMT with a finish date of 11th March 2007 at 11.59am GMT (2 weeks). Prior to opening the questionnaire, a forum posting, Appendix D, was created by the author and was publicised on six of the most popular enthusiast and fan sites concerned with analogue and digital gaming.

To target the analogue game player the sites chosen containing forum pages were:

· BoardgameGeek.com ‑ a website that was founded in January 2000 by Scott Alden and Derk Solko as a resource for the analogue / board gaming hobby. · Board Game Designer Forum ‑ a helpful resource for all aspects of designing board games: game design, prototyping, play testing, publishing. · Boardgames.About.com – widely used Internet guides site section regarding board games.

18

To target the digital game player the sites chosen containing forum pages were: · IGN.com ‑ a multimedia news and reviews website that focuses heavily on video games. · GameSpot.com ‑ a video gaming website that provides news, reviews, previews, downloads and other information. The site was launched in May 1996 by Pete Deemer, Vince Broady, and Jon Epstein. · GameSpy.com – a gaming web site that provides online video game‑ related services, software and tools.

It was within these sites, that the author initially established contact with possible respondents and directed them via a hyperlink, within the forum post, to the online questionnaire. They simply entered their details and responses and submitted them by continuing on to the next page of the survey.

Additional respondent were also sourced through Abertay University using posted notices and via the internal mail service. Various university school administration staff were approached and asked if they could assist with advertising the questionnaire. Once permission for this action was given by the heads of the approached schools, emails were sent out to all students and staff. Abertay Information services were also approached to investigate if whether a screensaver/desktop could be displayed on all computers when

19

student logged‑in. They declined this request saying it could lead to other students wanting to do the same.

An individual respondent was expected to take around ten (10) minutes to complete this online questionnaire and advice regarding how to complete the questionnaire was also given and any queries were direct via an email link to the author directly.

All responses were recorded by the SurveyMonkey.com© servers and were made available for instant analysis via their online toolkit. Respondents were not paid nor did they receive any gratuities for their responses during the run or after the questionnaire and assurances of full anonymity and data protection were given prior to the start of the questionnaire.

Ethical approval of the questions to be asked was also sought and given by The University of Abertay School of Computing and Creative Technologies Ethics Sub‑Committee (Ref: 214 – 2006/7).

20

3.2 Closing the Questionnaire

At 11.59am GMT on 11 th March 2007 the online questionnaire was closed and the gathered responses download from the SurveyMonkey.com© survey servers. During the two weeks the questionnaire was active an astonishing six hundred and fifty (650) respondents took part and gave their open‑opinions and responses Table 1.

Table 1. Questions 1 & 2 Demographic Response Summary Data

Age Range

Male (n=551)

Female (n=95) Combined (n=650)

18 ‑ 25

174 (31.6%)

62 (65.3%)

236 (36.3%)

26 ‑ 35

218 (39.6%)

21 (22.1%)

239 (36.8%)

36 ‑ 45

128 (23.2%)

9 (9.5%)

137 (21.1%)

46 ‑ 55

28 (5.1%)

3 (3.1%)

31 (4.8%)

> 55

2 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.3%)

(+ ‑ 0.5%)

(+ ‑ 0.5%)

(+ ‑ 0.5%)

A summary of the respondents answers is included with this dissertation report and shall be referred to where required, but as so much information was gathered it was deemed useful, by the author, to include the summary data in an additional printed Survey Appendix Volume, Volume II of this dissertation document.

The raw questionnaire data downloaded from

SurveyMonkey.com© is also provided on the additional CD included with the copies of this dissertation research. The responses provided a large quantity of information for this research and others that may yet follow based on the large volume of responses.

21

4.0 Results

The summaries and interpretation of the respondent’s answers to Questions Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Nine (9) and Ten (10) of the questionnaire will now be presented. These questions were created to ascertain the respondent’s preferences and opinions of analogue games. The questions respondents were asked are as follows:

· Question Four (4) – If you play or buy a boardgame, which genres / types do you prefer? (Partial open‑ended multiple choice) · Question Five (5) – When you buy a boardgame, what influences your decision? (Partial open‑ended multiple choice) · Question Six (6) – If given a free choice what three (3) boardgames would you prefer to play? (Open‑ended) · Question Nine (9) – What do you consider important when playing a computer version of an existing boardgame? (Partial open‑ended multiple choice) · Question Ten (10) – Considering a boardgame you have played in the past, briefly describe what changes, if any, you would choose to make to this game if you were to convert it into a computer / console version?

(Open‑ended)

22

4.1 Genre / Types Preferred.

Respondents were given multiple choices of the most popular genres or types of analogue games along with an open‑response selection to show what their preferred selection of analogue game would be given a free choice. Responses are summarized into the top 5 choices in Table 1 and Figure 2 (Further detailed summaries of Question Four (4), broken down into gender and age can be found in the attached Survey Appendix Volume that accompanies this dissertation report.)

Table 2. Question 4 Top 5 Responses Summary Data

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

Genre / Type Strategy Tile Placement Trading Party Games Abstract Strategy

Response % 77.9 56.6 56.1 47.1 46.6

23

Response Total 465 338 335 281 278

Question 4: All 500 400 300 200 100 0

Strategy

Tile Placement

Trading

Party Games

Abstract Strategy

Response %

77.9

56.6

56.1

47.1

46.6

Response Total

465

338

335

281

278

Ge nre /Type

Figure 2. Question 4 Top 5 Responses Summary Chart

Collating this questions responses along with the open‑ended responses given to Question (6), it was found that there was some correlation between them although one (1) analogue game did stand out above all others in the open‑ responses of Question Six (6) and did not correspond to the top answers given in Question Four (4).

The top five genre / types of games preferred by the respondents in order were as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2.

This correlates some what to the top 5 games preferred in Question Six (6) with the exception of the number one (1) choice in all three selections Table 2.

Monopoly©, a traditional “Roll and Move” style game, still proves to be one of the most popular games even though others have come and gone over the years since its creation.

24

Table 3. Question 6 Top 10 Combined Responses Rankings

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14

All Monopoly© Settlers of Catan© Power Grid© Puerto Rico© Chess Carcassone© Scrabble© Ticket to Ride© Tigris & Euphrates© Trivial Pursuit© Cluedo© Risk© Age of Steam© Poker© Talisman©

Response Total 109 55 48 45 43 42 37 28 27 25 21 14 13 11 11

25

Type Roll & Move Trading Trading Trading Abstract Strategy Tile Placement Word / Number Strategy Tile Placement Trivia /quiz Deduction War game Tile Placement Tradition Card Role Playing

4.2 Influences.

Respondents were given multiple choice selections of a range of possible influences along with an open response selection to show what their preferred selection of analogue game would be given a free choice when it came to purchasing an analogue game. Responses are summarized into the top 5 choices in Table 3 and Figure 3. (Further detailed summaries of Question Five (5), broken down into gender and age can be found in the attached Survey Appendix Volume that accompanies this dissertation report.)

Table 4. Question 5 Top 5 Responses Summary Data

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

Influences Genre/type Reviews/ads Game Reputation Subject matter Friend/Family Recom.

Response % 85.1 76.2 68.5 66.2 63.6

26

Response Total 486 435 391 378 363

Question 5 ­ All 600 400 200 0 Genre/type

Reviews/ads

Game Reputation

Subject matter

Friend/Family Recom.

Response %

85.1

76.2

68.5

66.2

63.6

Response Total

486

435

391

378

363

Influences

Figure 3. Question 5 Top 5 Responses Summary Chart

The top 5 choices showed that the genre of the game, across all demographics, is the single most important thing when it came to choosing a game. Reviews, game reputation and subject matter were all closely grouped also across the demographics.

27

4.3 Important Features.

Respondents were given multiple choice selections of a range of possible included or required features along with an open response selection to show what their preferred selections would be for a digital version of an analogue game. Responses are summarized into the top 5 choices in Table 4 and Figure 4. (Further detailed summaries of Question Nine (9), broken down into gender and age can be found in the attached Survey Appendix Volume that accompanies this dissertation report.)

Table 5. Question 9 Top 10 Responses Summary Data

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Important Gameplay Similar to original CPU AI Ability to save Multiplayer Features Design of Graphics Less set‑up Online Multiplayer Features Control Methods Graphics 2D

28

Response % 81 73.8 66.4 56.9 50.4 48.9 45.9 43.1 35.3 30.9

Response Total 436 397 357 306 271 263 247 232 190 166

Question 9: All 500 400 300 200 100 0 Gameplay

Similar to original

CPU AI

Ability to save

Multiplayer Features

Design of Graphics

Less set­up

Online Multiplayer

Control Methods

Graphics 2D

Response %

81

73.8

66.4

56.9

50.4

48.9

45.9

43.1

35.3

30.9

Response Total

436

397

357

306

271

263

247

232

190

166

Important Feature

Figure 4. Question 9 Top 10 Responses Summary Chart

The top 5 choices showed that, inline with academic and professional trends, the game play is the most important thing to consider when it came to creating a digital game. Keeping the game similar to the original analogue version, came in second (2 nd ), and showed the author that the original concept and mechanics of the original analogue game are still a driving factor when it comes to overall game design. Strangely, considerations of overall graphical design and style ranked low on nearly all demographics and 2D graphical preferences ranked higher that a preference for 3D graphics on the whole.

29

4.4 Changes – Yes or No?

Respondents were given an open response selection to show what their preferred alterations could be for a digital game or games of their choice based on an existing analogue game. Responses are summarized into the top 10 choices in Table 5. (Further detailed summaries of Question Ten (10), broken down into gender and age can be found in the attached Survey Appendix Volume that accompanies this dissertation report.)

30

Table 6. Question 10 Keyword/Phrase Search Instance Rankings

Rank Keyword or Phrase

Instances

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

Computer controlled : Micro‑management / bookkeeping / Set‑up Animation Keep similar to original game 3D Graphics/Multiple views CPU AI Help/Tutorial files Ability to customise game Online features Expandability Design of Graphics

43 29 26 20 18 17 15 12 11 11

10

Solo Play Option

10

11 11 12 13 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18

Multiplayer features Player online chat options Sound CPU Rule interpretation New Rules Ability to save inclusion of Multimedia assets Scenario Play / replay old games Control methods Make new game more complex Fog of War Make a console version not just PC Better player interaction 2D Graphics Player Accessibility options New game promoted old existing game / helps manufacturer Not just a straight conversion Storyline feature Handicapping

8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1

18 18 18 18

31

1 1 1 1

The responses to this section proved to be numerous and in‑depth in some cases. Correlation with the responses given in Question Nine (9) did take place but the respondents freely gave opinions and reasons for what they would expect or like to see in a digital version of a chosen analogue game.

Using repeat keyword, phrase and topic searches of the open‑responses the author collated a ranking set to show the overall range of responses with regards to the respondent’s choices and views.

The top desired requirement in a digital version, by some way, was the inclusion of a computer controlled micromanagement system to take most of the repetitive game mechanics away from the players, making the game experience shorter and possibly more enjoyable. The removal of any overly complicated features such as game board set‑up, statistical computation and piece movements, seems to suggest that the players, if playing a digital version would like to do so in the shortest amount of time and even in locations where space may be an issue.

Comments about the variety of graphical designs available in a digital version did arise more so in this question than it did in the previous Question Nine (9).

32

5.0 Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation (HAGT)

The author will next present the heuristic set derived from the respondent questionnaire responses, Appendix Survey Volume, and the aforementioned literature on heuristics design and discussions.

Table 7. Heuristics for Analogue Game Translations (HAGT)

No. TH1 TH2 TH3 TH4 TH5 TH6 TH7 TH8 TH9 TH10 TH11 TH12 TH13 TH14 TH15

Rule

Don’t alter the Base Mechanics, they work.

If it’s the same game, why use new rules?

Encourage the Computer Player Use the computer to micromanage recurring and tedious tasks.

Save thy game and replay Include “Human” multiplayer features.

Do not undervalue the “Player to Player” interaction.

Status of the players and game should be clearly visible Consider carefully any graphical components Use game appropriate control methods Always include help and tutorial systems Consider carefully the use of media components Leave a door for customisations and expansions Test version with “True” fans and ”New” fans Use this Heuristics set as an addendum to others.

The Author decided to try to keep the number of heuristics to a minimum as a smaller set is easier to recall. The other objective of these heuristics was to

33

keep them as “Vanilla” as possible, covering as many perceived eventualities as possible. These heuristics should be considered as the base set of foundation for AGT development and as such can be expanded or built upon depending upon the chosen analogue game or genre. This could and rightly should be considered a general start point for further research into Analogue to Digital Games Translations and AuGT’s.

TH1 Don’t alter the Base Mechanics, they work Keep these game mechanics as recognisable as possible compared to the original analogue version. The game mechanics, as defined by the original analogue games designer, are the base onto which the next game is to be based. This technique applies to capturing the attentions of the player who has previous experience of the game and their ability to innately understand what is happening when coming to the digital version for the first time.

Not to be confused with Game Rules when it comes to translation.

For example: · Mechanics are the game actions a player/piece performs – Roll, move etc. · Rules determine the outcome of mechanical play– Scoring, What happens when a move is continuing or finished etc.

34

TH2 If it’s the same game, why use new rules?

Computer interpretation of the existing game model rule sets must be as recognisable as possible compared with the original analogue version.

The unique rule set of the original analogue game is what identifies or characterises the game as a whole. If the player wants a different or “House” rule sets, allow them to customise later. When considering an analogue game for translation, in‑depth analysis of the existing rule set must be undertaken to solve any resulting problems that may result requiring unique rule tasks or action. Things that may be simple to do in the existing analogue game, for example physically or aurally interrupting an action may require an innovative solution that doesn’t ruin or interrupt the flow or theme of the new digital version.

TH3 Encourage the “Computer” Player To encourage solo play and Humans V’s Computer play of a digital version, the AI (Artificial Intelligence) must be of competent strength and understanding.

As a holy grail throughout game design, in general computer AI is considered poor when it comes to playing games especially those based upon existing analogue games. Mostly designers will readily adapt an existing AI engine, usually chess based, to accommodate the required 35

rule set. Considerable flaws in the adaptation of such an engine can lead to erroneous turns and game results ultimately ending in unsatisfying gameplay. Unique AI for each specific game type must be developed to maintain the gameplay and “feel” of the original analogue version. Some questions that must be asked are: · Is AI for the specific game even possible? · Can it be created easily with a human‑like decision engine? · How powerful should the AI be?

Remember, the best AI should not be distinguishable from a human player. (The development of Game AI is in itself a huge topic and should be studied in‑depth when an AGT has been proposed.)

TH4 Use the computer to micromanage recurring and tedious tasks Micromanagement itself sounds like it would be a tedious and bad thing but given that games such as Risk take a sufficiently large amount of time, as to discourage even the most hard‑core computer gamer, then any processes that would benefit from being micromanaged will help alleviate this time wastage.

36

Tasks such as: · statistical calculations of score or turns · initial set‑up of games, that in the analogue versions have numerous game pieces and configurations that can be sped up at the click of a button · Repetitive task management – e.g. card dealing/shuffling · The removal of ambiguity from rule interpretation.

It is understood that many strategy games, when converted from analogue version tend to be mutated from the original to better engage the dynamic needs of today’s console/PC gamer. Most often this occurs with miniature based analogue games such as “Warhammer©”and “WH40K©” for example were translated into Real‑Time Strategy (RTS) games and “Space Hulk©” was translated into a First‑Person Shooter (FPS). There is still a need for a game based on the original turn‑based strategy (TBS) game. A digital game in recent years that did this and bucked the trend for real‑time strategy games was a TBS digital only game with a huge following called “X‑Com – UFO Defence©” and its sequels.

37

TH5 Save thy game and replay An obvious principal rule when it comes to analogue game translations. Give the player/players the option to save the game wherever and whenever they want. This is one of the biggest advantages of a digital version over the original analogue version. The scenario of playing an analogue game of Monopoly© and stopping halfway through to then continue at a latter date seems nigh on impossible if you are not able to maintain the board and situation in the exact same conditions as when it was left. In the digital version, clicking a save button and closing the application down to continue later is now second nature to most digital gamers and a very useful addition to games in general.

An ability to load “Historical” games and a variety of scenarios is also another “Save Game” possibility that can be adopted from existing digital games. For example, to be able to open a chess programme, open the historical match between Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000 and then play a scenario as Kasparov from half way through the match to see if this time you could win, offers many additional enhancement possibilities to an analogue translation. If the game is to be based online at some point, offering an online player game ranking system is a feature that would encourage players to

38

return to and play in order to advance their ranking within the “Game World”.

TH6 Include “Human” Multiplayer Features No AI element of a game is going to adequately replace the multiplayer feature of the social analogue game. These types of games cannot perform without a solid multiplayer model and if a designer creates a game with only one feature, be that either a single or multiplayer mode, then the game will not fulfil the potential already created by the existing analogue game. In the principally solitary world that computer gaming is, the single player mode of any particular game is what will could initially sell that game but it is the availability of a multiplayer mode and community that will ultimately keep them playing.

Things that must be considered when creating a multiplayer mode for an AGT are: · Should the multiplayer model in an ABT be based around? · Real‑time LAN or Internet play(PC/Console) · Hot‑seat play(PC/Console) · Simultaneous Multi‑controller play(console multi‑tap) · Play‑By‑Email (PBI) or Play‑By‑Web (PC) · Real‑time Massively multiplayer community(PC/Console) · Subscription based communities consisting of game‑rooms 39

TH7 Do not undervalue the ”Player to Player” interaction Another important feature of an analogue to digital game translation is the inclusion of the player to player interaction.

If a game requires constant conversing and interaction between players then it is a must to have the means to do so digitally. Without this facet the entire “social essence” of the translated game could ultimately be lost.

The simple answer to whether the ease of translation from analogue to digital differs from game to game is, yes, it differs greatly. The thing to be considered is that game itself may not always be the cause of difficulty. Many aspects must be considered when translating a game.

The first is the user‑to‑user operation. If the simplest game in the world requires visually seeing another player, then the digital translation would require web‑cam access. If that can not be achieved then the game may not be able to be translated without innovation on the designer’s part.

Options open to designers for the facilitation of interaction between players: · Video (Camera input) · Audio steam (microphone input) · Chat‑rooms (keyboard input) · Choice of one, some or all of the above.

40

TH8 Status of the players and game should be clearly visible As with most existing heuristics set concerned with software design, the “Visibility of System Status”, or “Game State” in this case, should always keep users or players informed about what is going on in the game and why it happened through appropriate feedback.

This action must explain existing behaviours, resultant actions and predict future behaviours through informative relevant feedback regarding the game state.

TH9 Consider Carefully any Graphical Components Any graphical representation of an existing analogue game should under all circumstances mirror its original look and feel. However the underlying idea that you need a flashy looking game to appeal to the next generation of digital games doesn’t always ring true. The game play, if solid, should contain enough features to hold the attention not rely wholly on the the graphics. To choose between a 2 dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) graphical style is also another important consideration to take into account. There is rarely any point in doing 3D just for the sake of it, as, more often than not, the results are uninspiring and gaudy but it could also be said that in those cases it could have been just as bad in 2D.

41

There is no doubt that for attracting the casual gamer, 3D will make them look but is not as likely to pull them in and ultimately, may just alienate them. Whereas 2D can make them stay and have an emotional link with the game and its well developed gameplay.

During the questionnaire phase of this research a preference for 2D games show up more predominantly than 3D did. Certain games will always be better in 2D while others will probably only work out in 3D and some will even occupy a middle group where they could be translated using either method.

Designers should consider this, if they are looking to translate an existing analogue board game. Of course 2D will be better every time and allow more detail with lower system requirements, but if I you were to translate a game that relied more heavily on its 2D looks than on its gameplay or immersion then you wouldnʹt be doing it in 3D anyway. On the other hand if 3D enhances the existing gameplay of a game and doesn’t in any way replace it with out rewriting the ethos behind the original designer’s vision of how the game plays and looks, then kudos. With the increased focus on how a game looks, a little consideration of the aesthetics of a GUI placed in a game does, without doubt, help the overall playability and encourage a sense of comfort and ease when playing.

42

TH10 Use game appropriate control methods As the genres and types of ABG are varied, the choice of control method used must therefore match the philosophy behind the original game to some degree.

If the game uses the mechanic of moving a piece should the player click a piece then its destination and the move is instantaneous or should they be able to pick up the piece and place it as they would in the “Real” world?

Consideration of the control methods available to the chosen digital platform must be taken. Computers have various mouse, keyboard and controller combinations and today’s console has a variety of differing controllers and increasingly nowadays unique purpose made control systems that allow a move dynamic gaming experience are becoming more common place.

Translations of certain types of game mechanic’s for example digital games of dexterity are considered somewhat ridiculous when it come to the duplication of the original analogue game. Careful consideration should be taken when it comes to initially deciding which analogue to translate. For example a digital version of the balance game Jenga does exist, as will be describes in a later case study (Appendix G) but to play it digitally doesn’t require the same skills set and, as the genre 43

suggests, dexterity. Ultimately leaving the game as a flat click and point game, no more interesting and engaging to play as watching a coat of paint dry, occasionally touching the surface to see if it is yet.

TH11 Always include help and tutorial systems Many analogue designers and producers see the development of the digital version of an existing analogue game as a retrospect marketing tool, encouraging players to next go out and buy the original marketed analogue game. The inclusion of help and tutorial files in games, digital and analogue, in general can be considered a base requirement, over and above any supplied print or virtual print rules or instructions.

These tutorial and help files encourage the new or returning player to better understand the way of the game and give a definitive layout and interpretation of the rules in a more dynamic context than one laid down on a printed page.

When players first play a new analogue game they will usually just run through the first session to see how the rules work this can be referred to as the “this game doesn’t count” session. With this in mind the tutorial or dynamic run‑through of the game in a solo player AGT will help the player understand how the mechanics and rule set play out and could help achieve the producers goal of getting the player to buy the originally marketed analogue game.

44

TH12 Consider carefully the use of media components As with digital games, AGT should include the use of multimedia components such as sound, video and images carefully. Use them to move forward the game and partner the mechanics and rules not just to make it look pretty. Just because a system can use technologies such as video or sound doesn’t necessarily mean it should. Consider carefully the context in which multimedia components could be used. For example the use of video clips or audio clips in an AGT of Trivial Pursuit©. This works well and is a good inclusion when it comes to playing the game and adds depth to the question/trivia mechanic of this particular game. The individual game type/genre should be considered when looking to translate it. Allow the player the option to turn off the components if they don’t need to be played every time.

This would encourage repeat play.

TH13 Leave a Door for Customisations and Expansions Allowing a game player to customise the game rule set is a vital component in creating an AGT that is similar to the original analogue release. It is common in analogue gaming that players would adopt common “House Rules” they enjoy playing by usually once they believe have exhausted the originally designed rule and game mechanics. This allows the replay ability factor of the game to increase.

45

Allowing a game to “Modded” by the gaming community is becoming common place at the time this report was written and many up and coming designers have attained a start in the programming world by developing “Mods” for existing games.

The game “Civiliztion 4©” by Firaxis Games© is one AGT that, over the years, has always allowed for many customizations of the rules by players. It does differently to raw modding by giving players many options they can change via a GUI prior to starting the game as does the original digital game “Galactic Civilizations 2©” by Stardock©.

When programming an AGT the designer should also allow for further game expansions to be easily incorporated in to the original program code at a later date should they wish to release one. The analogue game “Settlers of Catan©” has seen more than ten (10) expansion packs released since it came out in 1995. This has kept it as one of the most popular analogue games ever with over six (6) million unit sales and still rising.

46

TH14 Test version with “True” fans and”New” fans When testing of a game is to take place do not just concentrate on the “New” digital gamer. Bring in the “True” original analogue game fan to thoroughly go over the translation. They are the best people to review and test the translated game mechanics based on their in‑depth knowledge of the original. Use the “New” digital game players to better understand how the AGT works in its new medium and how they view it.

TH15 Use this Heuristics set as an addendum to others In design in general, it is especially important that designers note that any heuristics design sets will inevitably overlap with others and taking that into account, other heuristic sets such as those, for example, devised by Jacob Nielsen (1990) Federoff (2002) and Falstein & Barwood (2006) should consider this new set as an important addendum. The existence of an all encompassing heuristics design set that covers all eventualities in computer interface and game design is something that is not practical. The use of individual overlapping type specific heuristics is a way designers can be sure they touch all areas when effecting their design.

47

6.0 Validating the Heuristics

In order to attempt to validate these heuristics, the author used them to carry out case studies of several existing analogue to digital game translations and 1 possible candidate for game translation.

6.1 Chosen Analogue Games For these case studies, 3 existing analogue games (appendices E, F and G) already have digital translations available and proved to be popular game types according the survey carried out by the author, were selected and 1 analogue game (appendix H) that is yet to have a digital version created to consider if it is indeed a candidate for translation in the future.

Table 8. Case Study Games

Id. A B C

D

Digital Games Monopoly© Tantrix© Jenga©

Type Roll & Move Tile Placement Dexterity/Party

Analogue Game Khet©

Abstract Strategy

48

Appendix E F G

H

7.0 Case Study Results Discussion

Either because the heuristics were too general or the AGT was done is such a manner that it didn’t meet the criteria set out by the author, several heuristics were violated by the case studies chosen games.

31%

23%

Generally matches HAGT Partial matches HAGT Adds to HAGT

8% 38%

Generally doesn’t match HAGT

Figure 5. Application of HAGTʹs to ʺMonopoly Party©ʺ

Game A, even though the games designers had a solid analogue game foundation on which to build, they did flounder when it came to their delivery of a addition of a new variety of gameplay mechanics. Also the lack of a solid AI opponent limited and possibly negated the playability factor of solo‑player gaming. Unsatisfactory multiplayer modes affect the replay ability of the game also. Understanding and adhering to a simple set of base HAGT’s would have pointed the designers in the right direction.

49

Game A’s base analogue game model, Monopoly©, has various incarnations since the start of mainstream computer gaming yet designers are yet to make a translation that carries the same weight and attains the staying power of the original game. In the questionnaire carried out by the author in this research, Monopoly© was again confirmed as the single most popular analogue game by respondents (Table 3). With such a well established game model is should not be so hard for designers to deliver an engaging digital version.

0% Generally matches HAGT

46%

Partial matches HAGT 54%

Adds to HAGT Generally doesn’t match HAGT

Figure 6. Application of HAGT's to "Tantrix© Online"

Game B proved to be the most robust when it came to adherence of the specified HAGT’s, touching all heuristics to some extent. General negative comments regarding the look, navigation and overall design of the game interface could only be drawn. The game has proved popular online, with

50

many people playing every day. The designers, building on this success, have also recently released a new single player only version based on the puzzle aspect of the game using Adobe/Macromedia’s Shockwave© technology (figure 6). The overall design has been updated taking into account the design features offered by this format application delivery system and possibly someone has used design heuristics to better establish a more pleasing and appealing look for new players. Will this new version prove as successful as its multiplayer predecessor, will this design structure be transferred across to its older multiplayer counterpart, time can only tell?

Figure 7. Tantrix© ‑ Shockwave version

51

8% Generally matches HAGT Partial matches HAGT Adds to HAGT

50% 42%

Generally doesn’t match HAGT

0%

Figure 8. Application of HAGT's to "Jenga©"

Game C falls foul of nearly all HAGT’s lending itself for easy criticism as a “non‑game”. It seems the developers intended this game as an retrospect advert for the existing analogue version to encourage players to go and buy it after playing this online version. The overall design model for the game was used but the delivery was not suited for a game of this type. World based hand‑eye co‑ordination and manual dexterity analogue games will never have a place in the digital realm unless the control system can match the needs of the game.

52

Game D, Khet, with its similarities to existing games of the genre could, it seems, have a place within today’s AGT marketplace. Considerations and comparisons must, and will, be made between itself and the multitude of Chess / Battleship style games on the market today. Creating a community for boardgames is one way to go when tying to establish a game in the market today. Encouraging the original designers of he game to actively take part in the digital translation is also a good way forward as the success of the Tantrix© model shows here.

53

8.0 Conclusion

Introducing a coherent set of Heuristics for Analogue Game Translation proved to be a challenging and interesting research topic. This set of heuristics forms the base model from which games designers develop from.

In order to develop an application, in this case an AGT, they should be used in conjunction with other sets of established design heuristics. This essential overlap should ideally be adopted by all designers and design heuristics as no one set of all encompassing heuristics could possibly cover all eventualities that arise.

Figure 9. HAGT ‑ The Multi‑heuristics overlap

54

A further annex of these HAGT’s tailored for individual game types and genes should also be researched and used and overlapped where appropriate.

This should also include the provision for the new hybrid augmented table games.

It would be very easy to build a digital game that may look good but doesn’t maintain the original theme and mechanics of the analogue game upon which it was based, that has been proved. Interfaces can always be improved by considering the above mention HAGT and other heuristics design.

With further development of these HAGT’s and their proposed sub‑sets; and more closely linked interdisciplinary research between digital game developers and analogue game designers and producers, the next incarnation of AGT’s can more easily be made and be more closely linked to the original version. This will produce a more satisfying and interesting product that will encourage players to stay, play and possibly return to the original analogue version to find out if it was as good as its Next‑Gen brethren.

55

APPENDICES

56

Appendix A ‑Nielsen and Molich Heuristics for Evaluation (1990)

Table 9. Nielsen/Molich Usabilty Heuristics

Visibility of system status

Match between system and the real world User control and freedom

Consistency and standards

Error prevention

The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.

The system should speak the usersʹ language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system‑oriented terms.

Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked ʺemergency exitʺ to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place.

Either eliminate error‑prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.

Recognition rather than recall

Minimize the userʹs memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another.

Flexibility and efficiency of use Accelerators ‑‑ unseen by the novice user ‑‑ may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.

Aesthetic and minimalist design Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed Help users recognize, diagnose, and Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no recover from errors codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.

Help and documentation

Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation.

57

Appendix B ‑ Heuristics for Evaluating Playability (HEP) Table 10. Playabilty Heuristics

Heuristic and Description Game Play 1 Player’s fatigue is minimized by varying activities and pacing during game play.

2 Provide consistency between the game elements and the overarching setting and story to suspend disbelief.

3 Provide clear goals, present overriding goal early as well as short‑term goals throughout play.

4 There is an interesting and absorbing tutorial that mimics game play.

5 The game is enjoyable to replay.

6 Game plays should be balanced with multiple ways to win.

7 Player is taught skills early that you expect the players to use later, or right before the new skill is needed.

8 Players discover the story as part of game play.

9 Even if the game cannot be modeless, it should be perceived as modeless.

10 The game is fun for the Player first, the designer second and the computer third. That is, if the non‑expert player’s Experience isn’t put first, excellent game mechanics and graphics programming triumphs are meaningless.

11 Player should not experience being penalized repetitively for the same failure.

12 Player’s should perceive a sense of control and impact onto the game world. The game world reacts to the player and Remembers their passage through it. Changes the player makes in the game world are persistent and noticeable if they Back‑track to where they’ve been before.

13 The first player action is painfully obvious and should result in immediate positive feedback.

14 The game should give rewards that immerse the player more deeply in the game by increasing their capabilities (power‑up), and expanding their ability to customize.

15 Pace the game to apply pressure but not frustrate the player. Vary the difficulty level so that the player has greater Challenge as they develop mastery. Easy to learn, hard to master.

16 Challenges are positive game experiences, rather than a negative experience (results in their wanting to play more, Rather than quitting).

Game Story 1 Player understands the story line as a single consistent vision.

2 Player is interested in the story line. The story experience relates to their real life and grabs their interest.

3 The Player spends time thinking about possible story outcomes.

4 The Player feels as though the world is going on whether their character is there or not.

5 The Player has a sense of control over their character and is able to use tactics and strategies.

6 Player experiences fairness of outcomes.

7 The game transports the player into a level of personal involvement emotionally (e.g., scare, threat, thrill, reward, Punishment) and viscerally (e.g., sounds of environment).

8 Player is interested in the characters because (1) they are like me; (2) they are interesting to me, (3) the characters Develop as action occurs.

Mechanics 1Game should react in a consistent, challenging, and exciting way to the player’s actions (e.g., appropriate music with The action).

2 Make effects of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) clearly visible to the player by ensuring they are consistent with the Player’s reasonable expectations of the AI actor.

3 A player should always be able to identify their score/status and goal in the game.

4 Mechanics/controller actions have consistently mapped and learnable responses.

5 Shorten the learning curve by following the trends set by the gaming industry to meet user’s expectations.

6 Controls should be intuitive, and mapped in a natural way; they should be customizable and default to industry standard Settings.

7 Player should be given controls that are basic enough to learn quickly yet expandable for advanced options.

58

Table 10. (cont’d) Usability 1 Provide immediate feedback for user actions.

2 The Player can easily turn the game off and on, and be able to save games in different states.

3 The Player experiences the user interface as consistent (in control, colour, typography, and dialog design) but the game Play is varied.

4 The Player should experience the menu as a part of the game.

5 Upon initially turning the game on the Player has enough information to get started to play.

6 Players should be given context sensitive help while playing so that they do not get stuck or have to rely on a manual.

7 Sounds from the game provide meaningful feedback or stir a particular emotion.

8 Players do not need to use a manual to play game.

9 The interface should be as non‑intrusive to the Player as possible.

10 Make the menu layers well‑organized and minimalist to the extent the menu options are intuitive.

11 Get the player involved quickly and easily with tutorials and/or progressive or adjustable difficulty levels.

12 Art should be recognizable to player, and speak to its function.

59

Appendix C ‑ Online SurveyMonkey.com© Questionnaire 0304671 ‑ Dissertation survey ‑ Individual Subject Survey Introduction INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT ‑Research Testing Questionnaire

Principal Student Investigator Phill Rogers – 0304671 – 0304671@abertay.ac.uk

The object of this questionnaire is to gauge your opinions and preferences regarding boardgames and their computer versions.

The identities of all participants will remain anonymous and will be kept confidential.

Any identifiable data will be stored and all data from individual participants will be coded so that their anonymity will be protected in any reports, research papers, thesis documents, and presentations that may result from this work.

Thanks Phill Rogers 1. Please choose your age group from the ones provided.

18 ‑25 years 25 ‑35 years 36 ‑45 years 45 ‑55 years > 55 years

2. Please choose your gender Male Female

60

3. Please read each of the statements below and indicate whether you: Strongly agree

I enjoy playing boardgames I play boardgames with my friends I play boardgames with my family I have personally bought boardgames I like to interact with others when I play boardgames Given the choice, I would rather play a boardgame than a computer game I would play a boardgame if it was available on a computer or console I enjoy playing solo boardgames (1 player) Boardgames are underrated as a social activity I have played boardgames from an early age A boardgame can be described as ʺAnalogueʺ I play boardgames to win I play boardgames to learn from situation that may arise within them

61

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

n/a

4. If you play or buy a boardgame, which genres/types do you prefer?

Traditional Card (Poker, Bridge etc.)

Dice (Yahtzee, Craps etc.)

Strategy War‑game(Risk, Power etc.)

Hex War‑Game (Squad Leader etc.

Role & Move (Monopoly, Ludo etc.)

Minatures (Heroclix, Attacktix etc.)

Abstract Card (Uno etc.)

Children game (Sorry, Mousetrap etc.)

Jigsaw Puzzles Trading Card/CCG (Magic, Pokemon etc.)

Role‑Playing (D&D, GURPS etc.)

Abstract Strategy (Chess, Go etc.)

Trivia / Quiz (Trivial Pursuit, Scene‑It etc.)

Deduction (Cluedo, 221b Baker St etc.)

Tile placement (Carcassonne, Tantrix etc.)

Trading (settlers of Catan, Party games (Twister, Cranium etc.)

Word / number (Boggle, Scrabble etc.)

Other (please specify)

62

5. When you buy a boardgame, what influences your decision?

Box lid / artwork.

Reviews / adverts.

Friend/family recommendation.

Genre / type of game.

No. of Players.

Length / time of game (minutes).

Design of game board.

Design of game pieces.

Manufacturer’s reputation.

Uniqueness of game.

Subject matter of game.

Game’s reputation Availability of game.

Can the game be expanded?

Does the game have electronic parts?

Does it require batteries?

Age of player recommendation

6. If given a free choice what three (3) boardgames would you prefer to play?

1.

2.

3

63

7. Please read each of the statements below and indicate whether you: Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I enjoy playing computer games.

(PC/Mac) I play games with my family.

I play computer/console with my friends.

I enjoy playing console games.

(PS2, Xbox, Wii etc.)

I like to interact with others when I play computer/console games.

Given the choice, I would play a computer game rather than a boardgame.

I enjoy playing games online I enjoy playing solo computer games. (versus the computer) Computer games are underrated as a social activity.

Given the choice I would rather buy a computer version of a boardgame than the original version.

I have played computer games from an early age.

Given a choice I would rather play a computer game alone.

8. Please answer the statements below either YES or NO. Yes I have access to the internet at home I have access to the internet at work/University.

I play games online.

I have used a chat room / messenger service in the past month.

I have played an online version of a boardgame.

I use the internet everyday.

I have a computer console at home.

64

No

n/a

9. What do you consider important when playing a computer version of an existing boardgame? (a) ‑ Graphics 2D (b) ‑ Graphics 3D (c) ‑ Gameplay (d) ‑ Similarity to original game (e) ‑ Design of Graphics (f) ‑ Animation (g) ‑ New rules (h) ‑ New features (i) ‑ Multiplayer features (j) ‑ Online Multiplayer features (k) ‑ Sound (l) ‑ Computer playing levels (AI) (m) ‑ Ability to customise settings (looks etc.) (n) ‑ Ability to create own rules (o) ‑ Addition of help / tutorial files (p) ‑ Ability to save state of play (q) ‑ Lack of numerous gameparts (r) ‑ Less set‑up time for large/complex games (s) ‑ Ability to save game rankings (t) ‑ Expansion pack available (u) ‑ Control methods (keyboard, mouse, pad etc.) (v) ‑ Other (please specify)

10. Considering a boardgame you have played in the past, briefly describe what changes, if any, you would choose to make to this game if you were to convert it into a computer/console version?

_____________________________________________________________________

Thank you for Participating in this survey.

If you wish to correspond with the researcher conducting this research you can contact him at the following address: 0304671@abertay.ac.uk Also, if you wish to obtain a copy of the completed research once it has been completed contact Phill Rogers at the address above also.

Thanks for your input in this survey.

65

A Bit about Phill Rogers

Hi, I’m Phill Rogers, I am currently in my 4th and final year at Abertay University in Dundee Scotland, studying for a Bachelors of Science with honours in Web Design & Development.

For my 4th year Honours thesis I am currently gathering research for my Honours thesis, posing the question: Is it possible to create a set of design heuristics that facilitates the “easy” translation of a tradition analogue table‑based board game into a digital computer version?

I am looking at the processes and considerations computer game designers have to look at when they decide to convert an existing boardgame into a computer/console based version.

Some of the questions to possibly consider during my research: • Can a set of design rules be created that take into a broad\range of factors when converting a board game to a computer game?

• Do they take into consideration the existing fan base of a boardgame?

• Do they consider the existing boardgames designers feelings and efforts they took when designing the next computer version?

• Do they know that designers of today’s high‑end computer games still need top know about mechanics and gameplay?

Consider the comparisons that could be drawn between the following games: Squad Leader© (Boardgame) Vs Company of Heroes© (CPU) – comparison?

I hope with my skills and knowledge from this thesis I am able to be or create employment for myself and if at all possible create a course an educational institute may adopt to help promote the understanding of analogue/traditional boardgame design and mechanics. The new generation of Computer/electronic based game designers need to understand where their art evolved from and if I can do that and be gainfully employed going something I am passionate about and enjoy then all the better for me and others who may also benefit.

If you have and questions just get in touch Cheers Phill Rogers 0304671@abertay.ac.uk

66

Appendix D ‑ Created Forum Posting I am a 4th year student at Abertay University, Dundee, Scotland.

I am currently researching the topic of how designers convert traditional table boardgames into their Digital versions. As part of my research for my dissertation/thesis I would be most grateful if the users of this forum could see their way to complete a short survey about their views and preferences regarding boardgames.

You can access the survey at the link below. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=882093353411 If you wish to take another questionnaire with a little more scope for details, I can mail you a word document version of it, where‑upon you can complete it and return it to me.

If you have any questions regarding this research or survey feel free to post below or get in touch with me.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Phill Rogers 0304671@abertay.ac.uk

67

Appendix E ‑ Case Study: Monopoly© Digital Version.

Figure 10. Monopoly Party© Box Cover & Screen Shot

Brief Game Description: At this time, probably the best‑selling boardgame in the world. Players compete to buy properties, build houses and hotels and collect rent from fellow players. Repeat as necessary until everyone else is bankrupt. Players take turns moving around the board according to the roll of two (2) dice. It is published by Parker Brothers©, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc©.

According to Hasbro, approximately 750 million people have played the game; making it the most played board game in the world.

Version used for Case Study: Monopoly Party© (2002) Developed by: Runecraft© / Hasbro© / Parker Brothers© Published by: Infogrames© Number of Players: 1‑4 Formats available: PS2©, X‑Box©, Gamecube©

68

Table 11. Application of HAGT’s to Monopoly

KEY: 0=N/A; 1=Generally matches HAGT; 2=Partial matches HAGT; 3=Adds something to HAGT; 4=Generally doesn’t match HAGT Match to HAGT

Heuristics

Application

TH1

Base mechanics of the original “Monopoly©” game model still in place in this new version. Designers have created a new game mode called “Party Mode”. This new “Party Mode” tries to speed the game up even more that a digital version inherently would do anyway, by allowing players to play at the same time with resultant actions being sorted out at the end of each round.

Original rules still available. Designers have added new rule sets and variables that try to add to the game experience with varying degrees of success.

Poor computer player AI, that does make a lot of basic mistakes. The game AI does not supply an adequate range game play techniques and levels to allow for an interesting single player mode.

Computer takes care of rule interpretation, banking and other fiduciary tasks.

The ability to save the game is available via the pause menu at any time.

Apart from a “same room, same time” multiplayer mode, there is no provision of any kind of multiplayer mode.

As the players have to be in the same room to play the game via the console, player interaction is similar to that of the original analogue game, but not quite.

GUI supplies adequate information to players so that they understand the state of play and their situation within it.

TH2

TH3

TH4 TH5 TH6

TH7

TH8

69

3

2

4

1 1 4

4

2

Table 11. (cont’d.)

TH9

TH14

Offers a 3D graphical scheme with a variety of board views available. A selection of themed boards and game pieces add slight variety to game. This, along with numerous animations within the game, adds to the feel but over time become tedious and monotonous if not turned off.

Uses the only control method open to itself, the console’s controller. Utilises the controllers directional and action buttons.

Could have used the analogue sticks available to add a dynamic action into the dice roll.

Well introduced tutorial in the option menu also “Guide Comments” available throughout games giving explanations when deemed necessary.

Sound elements of the game are appropriate and controllable, and does inject a party atmosphere into the proceedings. Cut scenes, as most animations can become tedious and monotonous if not turned off or skipped through.

As a piece this game cannot be expanded upon except with whole new edition. Good amount of customisable features and rules that allow the players to tailor the game towards their own preferences or “House Rules.”

No Comment

TH15

No Comment

Overall

Partial match to the described HAGT’s The designers of this AGT basically take the original, translate it to a console friendly format and add a few features to speed it up. The overall game ethos and feel now seems to be quite bland and unfeeling. It may satisfy for a few games but offers little or no replay value beyond that.

TH10

TH11

TH12

TH13

70

2

4

1

2

2

0 0 2

Appendix F ‑ Case Study: Tantrix© Digital Version.

Figure 11. Tantrix© Box and Screen Shots

Brief Game Description: Tantrix© is a tile placing strategy game for one (1) to four (4) players. A full set of Tantrix© consists of up to 56 hexagonal tiles links of red, green, blue and yellow. Each tile is unique, and with all tiles you can play both the solitaire puzzles and the multiplayer game. As players take turns in placing tiles, the aim of the game is to make the longest line or loop of your chosen colour

Version used for case study: Tantrix© Online (Tantrix.com 1998) Developed by: Tantrix© Games Ltd Published by: Tantrix© Games Ltd Number of Players: 1 ‑4 Formats available: Online PC only

71

Table 12. Application of HAGT’s to Tantrix© Online (tantrix.com) KEY: 0=N/A; 1=Generally matches HAGT; 2=Partial matches HAGT; 3=Adds to HAGT; 4=Generally doesn’t match HAGT Match to HAGT

Heuristics

Application

TH1

Game mechanics adhered to 100%. Online version of the analogue game was created by the company that created the original.

Rules were not changed from the original analogue version and no extra rules have been added so far.

AI computer player or “Robot” as the site calls them was developed specifically with the game in mind and not developed from a pre‑existing AI engine. Majority of Robots are weaker than human opponents. The site has a ranking system based on games played, and the robot matches are included, the AI levels of most of the robots and point scoring system have been limited except for 2 robots whose levels are comparable to those of a competent human player.

Game engine does micromanage tasks such as point scoring, tile replacement, certain tile placement options such as tile rotation.

As online games are played in real time, save game options are not available during play.

Game player rankings and statistics are saved online in a dynamic “Game World” database.

As the game is predominantly based online, features such as head‑to‑head with up to 3 other players have been made available along with the options to include an AI player in the group also to make up the numbers. Creating of a “Community” encourages continued interactions between players and return visits.

TH2

TH3

TH4

TH5

TH6

72

1

1

2

2

2

1

Table 12. (cont’d.)

TH7

TH14

“Type and Chat” system in‑place in game creation lobby and also during game play. No provision for video or audio communication.

Select ability to chat to all players or selected players in lobby allows for a more personalized communication system.

Status of players is available during the game, showing current line point total of all players and tiles held by all players.

Game has a basic 2D graphical appearance.

Considering the format/genre of the game the use of a 3D graphical system would be pointless.

Layout of windows and game play is very basic and at time feels a little too technical to be a game interface. The game interface could use some redesign with proper consideration given to Nielsen Heuristics (Appendix A) Keyboard and mouse use in appropriate measure in correct places using established control methodology such as “Point & Click” and “Click & Drag” Textual tutorials regarding how to play the game in general and play online are available via the main site. In game hints and help are also available to players requiring it. The ability to turn off the in game help and hints also exists, allowing more advanced users to play unassisted.

Only media included other than graphics is sound. This can be quite tedious after a time but option does exist to allow users to turn off sounds.

The ability to expand is available to the designers as the creators of the original game run this online digital version site. No options currently exist for players to play their own customised rule set.

No Comment

TH15

No Comment

TH8

TH9

TH10

TH11

TH12

TH13

73

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

0 0

Table 12. (cont’d.)

Overall

Generally matches the described HAGT’s The designers of the analogue version of Tantrix© also created the online digital version thereby controlling how the game progressed and developed. The type of translation works well but the GUI design could still be improved upon to create a better feel to the game. The main game website portal is nicely designed but when the online window opens it gives the impression of a more technical game that it actually is. This may initially scare off new players even though the premise of the game is basic. The inclusion of the community and ranking system encourages return play and a sense of belonging and satisfaction.

74

1

Appendix G ‑ Case Study: Jenga© Digital Version.

Figure 12. Jenga© Box and screen shot

Brief Game Description: A game of dexterity and thought in which players remove blocks from a constructed tower and then place them back onto the uppermost level of the tower. The player, who causes the tower to collapse either by removal or placement of a block, loses.

Version used for case study: Jenga© (Hasbro Flash version) Developed by: Leslie Scott Published by: Hasbro/Parker Brothers© Number of Players: 2 or more Formats available: PC

75

Table 13. Application of HAGT’s to Jenga© (Hasbro shockwave version) KEY: 0=N/A; 1=Generally matches HAGT; 2=Partial matches HAGT; 3=Adds to HAGT; 4=Generally doesn’t match HAGT Match to HAGT

Heuristics

Application

TH1

As the game mechanics originally required the use of manual dexterity the cross over to a digital version loses the need for a steady hand thereby, changing the game totally.

Rules, being very simple to begin with were not changed from the original analogue version and no extra rules have been added so far.

No inclusion of AI

TH2

TH3 TH4 TH5 TH6

TH7 TH8 TH9

TH10

TH11 TH12

No need for micro management of any sort.

Tower tips you lose.

As games are played in real time, save game options are not available during play.

This version contains no options for multiplayer except for “Hot‑seat” where each player would take turns with the controller to remove and place pieces.

No communication options via the game itself.

No generated status of game. Players must make assumptions for themselves during play.

Game has a basic simulated 3D graphical appearance. Layout of windows and game play is very basic.

Keyboard and mouse use in appropriate measure in correct places using established control methodology such as “Point & Click” and “Click & Drag.” Use of this type of control cannot be used when it comes to games of manual dexterity.

No tutorials. Rules and help are of the basic variety telling what he aim of the game is.

Only media included other than graphics is sound. This can be quite tedious after a time.

No option does exist to allow users to turn off sounds.

76

4

1 4 0 2

2 4 4 2

2

4

2

Table 13. (cont’d.)

TH13

No expansion or customisation options available

TH14

No Comment

TH15

No Comment

Overall

Generally doesn’t match the described HAGT’s This AGT of the game Jenga© should not be considered as a game at all in comparison to the original. Originally being designed as a game of hand‑eye co‑ordination and manual dexterity it is a game genre that cannot be easily translated.

This version, it seems, was used as a marketing tool by the analogue games designers, Hasbro.

The inclusion of this game anywhere other than on the companies own website does nothing to promote the original game as they intended.

77

4 0 0 4

Appendix H ‑ Case Study: Khet© Analogue Version.

Figure 13. Khet ‑ The Laser game©

Brief Game Description: Players alternate turns moving pieces having two, one or no mirrored surfaces. Pieces) can either move one square forward, back, left, right, or diagonal, or can stay in the same square and rotate by a quarter turn. Each turn ends by press in the laser button firing one of the lasers built into the board. The laser beam bounces from mirror to mirror; if the beam strikes a non‑mirrored surface on any piece, it is immediately removed from play. The ultimate goal is to light up your opponentʹs Pharaoh piece, while protecting yours.

Version used for case study: Khet 2 nd Edition© (2005) (originally called “Deflexion”) Developed by: Luke Hooper, Del Segura, Michael Larson Published by: Innovention Toys LLC© Number of Players: 2 Formats available: Analogue Only.

78

Table 14. How HAGT’s could be applied to Analogue version of Khet©

Heuristics TH1 TH2

TH3

TH4

TH5

TH6

TH7

TH8

Possible Application Keep the game mechanics as they were initially designed. They work and shouldn’t be changed.

Rules are well developed and simple. Ability within the rules to create differing initial piece set‑up configurations should be adapted to game translation.

Develop a good AI engine that allows varying degrees of difficulty that challenges players of all levels. As the game has a similar mechanic to chess games, existing chess AI engines could be adapted leading to a more Khet© specific AI engine adapting better to the nuances of the game.

As points are not important in the winning of the game, initial set‑up and restart positioning of pieces are the micromanaged task that would be adopted by the computer. Other task such as apportioning points, updating statistics and rankings for players could be managed also.

Include save game (mid and after) and save ranking options.

This would allow study of game moves taken during a game and allow replaying of historic saved games, similar to some chess programs.

The ability to play against another human player is the cornerstone of most analogue games. A multiplayer online or LAN community engine with game rooms and lobbies would encourage players to congregate. This would allow users to find other players to play against them should the need arise.

In game conversational features such as audio and video links could be considered as they would both add to the interpersonal “banter” between players that form so much a part of the majority of analogue games in general. “Type & Chat” features for in game communication between players either in game or in lobby should be included as default and any other form such those mentioned above should be additional to that.

The game graphical structure would show the state of play as it progresses as most chess programs do. Showing co‑ ordinates of previous moves and which pieces have been taken during play would allow the player to better understand their position during play.

79

Table 14. (cont’d.)

TH9

TH10

As the game is based with a constrained board environment the graphical features should ideally represent this. The very nature of the game, as chess does, lends itself to both types of graphics either 2D or 3D. A simpler view such as that 2D would work adequately as most moves are linear in nature and the laser feature also works by its nature in a linear fashion also. If the decision was take to create the game using a 3D model than care must be take that any offered views should be clear and logical.

Any animations chosen to be also should be considered: Piece animation should show how pieces move and be of a speed appropriate to play.

Laser animation should be of a speed also to allow players to better follow the play. Lasers, by their very nature, travel at the “speed of light” and this is a constant an issue raised in forums regarding the ability to follow the play in the original analogue version. Slowing down the path of the laser and increasing its visibility would allow this without being detrimental to gameplay.

Keyboard and mouse used in appropriate measure in correct places using established control methodology such as “Point & Click” and “Click & Drag”. Allow the players to choose between control types: · Drag a piece to its new position or

TH11

TH12

· Click piece then click destination, piece appears.

This would increase game speed if the players require this.

The inclusion of help and tutorial files in games, digital and analogue, in general can be considered a base requirement, over and above any supplied print or virtual print rules or instructions. These tutorials and help files will encourage the new or returning player to better understand the way of the game and give a definitive layout and interpretation of the rules in a more dynamic context than one laid down on a printed page.

Sound in the digital medium is important for enhancing the game play and allowing players to know what is or has happening. Is video needed? Possibly, if included in the context of the tutorial / help files.

80

Table 14. (cont’d.)

TH13

As the analogue version Khet© has recently been expanded and is scheduled to be again in the near future, the ability to expand a digital version will also be needed. Along with the addition of expansion rule sets the ability to add on new game pieces and boards should also be taken into consideration by the games designers.

The ability to customise layouts, as condoned by the designers should be included as a base requirement but also the ability to choose rules or design rule sets could also be beneficial to the digital game as well as translating back to the original analogue version.

TH14

If creation of the digital version is controlled by the original designers then they may well have access to a knowledgebase of “True” players. This must be used when and where ever possible. Include new players, possibly chess players to test model and gameplay of new digital version.

Ensure graphical and interface designs adhere to existing established and approved heuristic design sets.

TH15

81

Appendix I – CD & Contents

· 1 x PDF© version of Dissertation Document · 1 x Flashpaper© version of Dissertation Document · 0304671 ‑ Surveymonkey.com© Online Survey Summary Data Sets · 0304671 ‑ Surveymonkey.com© Online Survey Raw Data Downloads

82

REFERENCES

83

REFERENCES

Desurvire, H., Caplan, M. and Toth, J.A. 2004. Using heuristics to evaluate the playability of games, CHI 2004 : Late Breaking Results Paper (April): pp. 1509‑ 1512.

Nielsen, J. and Molich, R.L. 1994. Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Falstein, N. and Barwood, H. 2006. The 400 project [Online]. Theinspiracy.com: Available from: http://theinspiracy.com/400_project.htm [Accessed 5 December 2006) Federoff, M.A. 2002. Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in video games, Thesis at the University Graduate School of IndianaUniversity.

Mandryk, R.L., Maranan, D.S. and Inkpen, K.M. 2002. False prophets: exploring hybrid board/video games, CHI 2002 changing the world, changing ourselves: pp. 640‑641 Röcker, C. and Haar, M. 2006. Exploring the usability of video game heuristics for pervasive game development in smart home environments. [Online]. Pergames.de: Available from: http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/ambiente/pergames2006/final/PG_Roecker_Us ability.pdf [Accessed 8 December2006] Peitz, J., Eriksson, D. And Björk, S. 2005. Augmented board games ‑ enhancing board games with electronics. [Online]. ir.lib.sfu.ca : Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1892/1585 [Accessed 8 December 2006].

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. 2002. Interaction design: Beyond human‑ computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, USA. Punch, K F. 2005. Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches 2 nd Ed. Sage Publications.

Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. 2006. The game design reader: A rules of play anthology. MIT Press, USA. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. 2004. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.

MIT Press, USA. Smith‑Atakan, S. 2006. Human computer interaction. Middlesex University Press.

86

OTHER MATERIALS USED

87

OTHER MATERIALS USED

Softwar e/ Digital games tried and tested Monopoly Party©, 2002, Published by: Infogrames©, Developed by: Runecraft © Tantrix© Online, http://www.tantrix.com, 1998, Published by: Tantrix© Games Ltd, Developed by: Tantrix© Games Ltd. Jenga©, http://www.hasbro.com/jenga/pl/page.browse/dn/default.cfm# Published by: Hasbro©

Analogue / Boardgames tried and tested Monopoly©, 1935, Parker Bros for Hasbro©.

Tantrix©, 1991, Mike McManaway for Tantrix© Games Ltd. Jenga© , Leslie Scott for Hasbro©.

Khet‑The Laser Game©, 2004, Luke Hooper,Michael Larson and Del Segura for Innovention Toys LLC©

88

OTHER MATERIALS USED (cont’d)

Forums used and posted upon under the name “Hallion” Boardgame Geek ‑ http://www.boardgamegeek.com/ The Boardgame Designers Forum ‑ http://www.bgdf.com/tiki/tiki‑ custom_home.php About.com ‑ http://boardgames.about.com/mpboards.htm IGN.com ‑ http://uk.ign.com/ Gamespot.com ‑ http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/index.html?tag=nav‑ top;forums&navclk=forums Gamespy.com ‑ http://uk.gamespy.com/forums/

89

Phillip Hamilton Fraser Rogers (0304671) BSc Honours ‑ Web Design & Development 2007 UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE School of Computing and Creative Technologies May 2007

90