Week 14: Games --- Who’s playing and why?

Articles Read

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online?. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

Article Summaries

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online? Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

The study analyzed the aggregation of empirical characteristics for 1178 gamers. The factor analysis yields data suggesting four distinct archetypes: a. “warriors”, who prioritize weapons and technology, combat and military themes, realism, graphics, and to a lesser degree, fast-reaction and unpredictable play; “Narrators”, who place priority on themes and plot, characters, exploration, using their imagination and thinking a lot; “Strategist”, who focus on complex strategies, challenging game play and mastery over the game and other players; and “Interactors”, who rate competition and cooperation with other players above all else, while they do not care about unpredictability or being made to use their imaginations.

The findings offered quantitative support for characterizing different kinds of online gamers into four categories. However, as Avery pointed out, each gamer can be comprised of a unique combination of Warrior, Narrator, Strategist, and Interactor.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

In this paper, the authors discussed the model they developed to integrate games and effective learning. The authors fist looked at is motivation in gaming based on Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory. Then, they reviewed others’ research on the charateristics of effective learning environments that match the characteristics inherent in flow experiences and motivational design. The research included Norman’s seven basic requirements of a learning environment, and Lepper and Malone’s four principles for instructional game design (games must introduce challenge; the game should create sensory and cognitive curiosity; the learner should feel a sense of control; the games should use fantasy to reinforces the instructional goals and stimulate the prior interests of the learner). In addition, the author addressed the significance of reflection in learning, and suggested that in educational games, reflection must appear to the learner as one of the many in-game goals that drive the game play.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

In this paper, Yee adopted a factor analytic approach to creating an empirically-grounded player motivation model. Here are the categories identified by Yee based on the survey to 3000 MMORPG players.

”The Achievement Component

Ÿ Advancement. The desire to gain power, progress rapidly, and accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status.

Ÿ Mechanics. Having an interest in analyzing the underlying rules and system in order to optimize character performance.

Ÿ Competition. The desire to challenge and compete with others.

The Social Component

Ÿ Socializing. Having an interest in helping and chatting with other players.

Ÿ Relationship. The desire to form long-term meaningful relationships with others.

Ÿ Teamwork. Deriving satisfaction from being part of a group effort.

The Immersion Component

Ÿ Discovery. Finding and knowing things that most other players don’t know about.

Ÿ Role-Playing. Creating a persona with a background story and interacting with other players to create an improvised story.

Ÿ Customization. Having an interest in customizing the appearance of their character.

Ÿ Escapism. Using the online environment to avoid thinking about real life problems.”

The study also presented very briefly the relationships between motivations and demographic variables, including age, gender, and usage patterns). Yee warned against the researchers’ tendency of collapsing all video gamers into a simplistic archetype, and discussed the significances of this empirical model in future quantitative research in online games.

How does your gaming demographic and your reasons for playing fit in with the research?

I think the categories identified by Avery and Yee made perfect sense to me. I am not really into Achievement type of games. I occasionally play car racing games, but I do not really like the feeling of competing with others. Also, I am not particularly interested in acquiring power over others or becoming stronger. Social type of games is better for me. Chatting with others, helping others and making friends make me feel good. But I should say the one I like most is discovery or role-playing games, where I live as someone else in a world full of fantasy or surprises.

Two issues emerged from my thinking while reading and reflecting on the article. First, I should say that the categories are useful, but how much can we predict a person’s choice of games just based on the demographic information? The type of game that each of us chooses to play largely depends a lot on our personalities and experiences.

Second, since different people tend to be interested in different types of games, the implications for educational games would be: we need a variety of games that achieve the same educational purposes. If we only provide one type of game, students who preferred another type of game may not benefit as much from this type of game.

Questions for Discussions/My Questions

Though people’s choice of games can be explained, to some degree, by demographic information, I guess their choice can be better explained by other factors, such as personalities. Is there any research on this?

If people are motivated to play games in different ways, what is the implication of this for designing educational games?