This week we were asked to study research. This includes user/audience research, integrity, ethics and policy, and importantly how that relates to our own area of study and research.
So after working through the weekly learning content, there are a few questions to analyse:
- When it comes to audience research, how is this relevant to my own area of study?
- Where do I need to consider ethics?
- How could both these areas be applied to the second ideation session?
Audience Research / Playtesting
This week's learning content video on audience research summarises that while intuition, creativity and technical know-how are important if you want to appeal to many people, it's good to realise that people differ and that crucially, not everyone is like you (Geelhoed, n.d.).
That is a mantra to remember for any user-focused product: Not everyone is like you.
My own experience to date in user research has mainly included quantitative user testing, using software like Google Analytics to extrapolate patterns and Hotjar to view and understand behaviour. I have lots of experience and strength in this area. Still, I know that I have areas to bolster when moving from gamification and into the games industry, which has different structures and audiences to consider.
Enter Playtesting
Playtesting, or using play to guide game design, gives designers feedback about whether their game is meeting their goals and the player's expectations. (Choi et al, 2016)
In other words, I absolutely need to be integrating playtesting into the game design process, as I have been doing when working on other products. Alongside the fact that, as noted, playtesting is crucial for knowing if an audience likes your game, there are also other considerations to think about, such as making sure your game is original.
So at what stage should I integrate playtesting? I think it's argued really well in the book Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, & Playtesting Games (Fullerton, Swain and Hoffman, 2004) that to avoid derivative games, this has to be done in the physical prototype stage, with playtesting performed on each iteration. Going straight to a game design document runs the risk of referencing other games too heavily and ending up with an unoriginal title.
So this gives me an action for rapid ideation two: Playtest! I want to design a playtest and get some of my peers involved as it's a great opportunity to start designing a process that I can continue to use and develop.
So to do this, I need to consider the best methods. This means going back to this week's lecture material (Geelhoed, n.d.) to review the two main areas of user research.
| Qualitative Methods | Quantitative Methods |
| Interview individuals | Questionnaire |
| Interview Groups | Physiological Measurements (such as measuring levels of attention using EEG and GSR |
| Focus Groups | Technology logs (button presses, errors etc.) |
| Diary-keeping | Observations (what, when, how long and how often participants do something) |
| Observations | Psychophysical testing of the senses |
| Self-reflection from the researcher | |
| Cognitive walkthrough |
I'm very interested in the idea of physiological measurements, and while this is beyond the means of this particular session, it's something for the roadmap to consider.
But for the rapid ideation session two, I think the most appropriate methods would be using questionnaires and logs to analyse how people interact with my artefact. Doing that leads me into the next section.
Ethics
When considering ethics in my research, the two areas I have identified as most relevant are:
- Considering ethics in playtesting.
- Considering ethics in Game Design.
So what do we mean by ethics in research? Ethics is a complex area, but I believe this quote from this week's lecture material summarises the attitude and rigorous moral stance game designers and researchers need to take:
Matters of ethics should consider the principles, outcomes and rights of people. The golden rule of respect is to treat others how you would yourself. (Parker, n.d.)
Ethical Risk levels
This week's lecture content (Parker, n.d.) also goes through the risk levels attached to research. In summary:
- Low risk - describes research that presents ethical risks no greater than those encountered in everyday life.
- Medium risk - Research where there is potential for harm or distress where the likelihood is low. These risks can be mitigated with simple, standardised procedures - this is a playtest because play tests require groups.
- High risk - potential for harm or distress without appropriate mechanisms for mitigation. This may be complex or bespoke planning and require ongoing scrutiny from the ethics committee.
So I have to consider if I were to design a playtest, what risk level a playtest fits under, and what I must do to put in place procedures to mitigate any risk of harm to participants.
Because a playtest involves individuals, the risk level would, as I understand it, be medium. I can take steps to mitigate the playtest becoming high risk.
When considering how I may design a playtest which involves individuals, I've reflected on what would be necessary:
- Informed consent - Participants need to consent to participate, and they must understand the extent of the playtest and what they are participating in.
- That I only collect data anonymously, so privacy is maintained.
- That my results are shared in the public domain but with no personal data attached.
Summary
I'm really glad I took the time to digest this week's content before beginning my second rapid ideation development. Although user research has played a big part in my career, I've been encouraged to consider what this means in the context of a playtest and how I should consider the ethical side of this.
I will need to check if I can run a real-world playtest with my peers, but even if it's just a theoretical approach for this ideation session, this is a new learning pathway for me and a chance to reinforce my design process.
So in line with my reflective goals, my action plan is as follows:
| Identified area to work on | Action goal |
| Playtest design | Design a playtest for rapid ideation two to test on my peers. |
| Ethics in Game Design | Further reading on designing ethical gameplay |
List of Figures
Figure 1. PixelChoice, n.d. Pixel art scientist conducts a scientific experiment. Professor in white coat character. Cute vector illustration.. [image] Available at: <https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/pixel-art-scientist-conducts-scientific-experiment-1627478875> [Accessed 17 July 2021].
References
Choi, J.O. et al., 2016, October. Playtesting with a Purpose. In Proceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 254-265).
Fullerton, T., Swain, C. and Hoffman, S., 2004. Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, & Playtesting Games. 1st ed. Elsevier, pp.17-21.
Geelhoed, E., n.d. Week 8: User and Audience Research. [online] Falmouth Flex. Available at: <https://flex.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/912/pages/week-8-user-and-audience-research?module_item_id=54130> [Accessed 17 July 2021].
Parker, A., n.d. Week 8: Integrity, Ethics and Policy. [online] Falmouth Flex. Available at: <https://flex.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/912/pages/week-8-integrity-ethics-and-policy?module_item_id=54131> [Accessed 17 July 2021].