Analysis Case Study

Running head: GAME ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDY
Game Analysis and Case Study
Submitted by
Cameron Ware and Mickey Jancewski
For
ISTC 729, Dr. Q. Li
February 2018
GAME ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDY 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….………….. 3
Evaluation Tool used for Evaluating Games ………………………………..……….……. 4
Evaluation of Games …………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Case Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Case Study Summary ………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Summary Chart of Scores …………………………………………………………………………. 10
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Appendices ……….……………………………………………………………………………………… 12
References ...............................................................................................…... 23
Introduction
Gaming has become a natural part of life in the 21st century. Young adults (in their 20s-
30s) were introduced to gaming as young children in the 20th century. Today, children and
teens have never known a time when gaming did not exist. While gaming has evolved over
several decades, research on the gaming experience is still relatively new. According to Nacke,
Drachen, and Gobel (2010) evaluating user experience (UE or UX) has become one of the main
aspects of research on human-computer interaction (HCI).
Olson (2010) identified several social, emotional and intellectual motivations for
gaming. These include hanging out, joy of competition, making friends, regulating feelings,
mastery of content or skills, creativity, curiosity/discovery, experiencing a challenge, and
decision making. While these types of motivation are present in gaming, not all educational
games may provide these same types of experiences or opportunities. Tahir & Wang (2017)
identified a trend in the increase of research on game-based learning (GBL) over the last
decade. Major areas of research in GBL include learning, usability, design, UE/UX, enjoyment or
engagement, and playability.
A brief review of the literature found two tools that could be used to evaluate GBL. A
combination of these two-- the Core Elements of Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ)
(Bernhaupt, 2010) and The Educational Game Evaluation Rubric from Brainpop (2015) were
used to create a rubric (see below) to evaluate three games. The entertainment value (interest
level, player enjoyment, quality of audio/visual), educational value (use of more than one
sense [different abilities/learning styles], feedback, learning opportunities, accurate content)
and overall appeal (user friendly, user help, interest level, player enjoyment) were scored for
each game.
Evaluation Tool used for Evaluating Games

Area to score Below Average (1) Average (2) Outstanding (3)
Below
Content Has significant errors Some content errors Has no content errors
User Friendly Difficult to maneuver There are some minor Few to no issues in
through most of the game issues in maneuvering maneuvering through
through game the game
User Help Game has no user help Game has a help Game has a user help
function or is very Function, but is Function and it is easy
challenging to use somewhat challenging to use and is helpful
to use
Interest level Game is repetitive and Game is repetitive and Game moves at an
causes loss of interest. causes loss of interest appropriate pace to
Game moves too fast Game moves too fast keep person's interest
and causes frustration to and causes frustration.
the point of wanting to BUT not to the level of
quit wanting to quit.
Utilizes more There is one or the There are both audio and There are both audio and
than one other (audio/visual), video aspects to the video aspects to the game
sense (hearing, but not both. This game so that people with so that people with visual
seeing). limits participation by visual or hearing or hearing impairments
people with learning impairments could could
impairments. participate, but participate. OR aspects
enhancements like like closed captioning
closed captioning are not are available.
available.
Audio/Video Poor quality that Average quality. High quality which
quality makes the game leads to interest in the
unattractive to users game
Feedback No feedback provided. Little feedback or poor Ample feedback
provided feedback provided. provided throughout
the game-encourages
player to continue.
Player Player did not enjoy Player did not enjoy Player enjoyed the
Enjoyment the game to the point the game and will not game and plans to play
of not completing the play again again frequently
trial period
Learning Game is merely for Game provides Game provides
Opportunities entertainment some significant educational
purposes and provides educational value. value
no educational value
Evaluation of games
GAME A - Immune Responses from Nobelprize.org. Link:

https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/immuneresponses/game/index.html#/plot1
Summary - This game is designed to review the components of the immune system and
immune response. The positive aspects of this game included ease of play and being user
friendly. It was easy to determine how to play and what the game expected of the player. Each
of the ten levels was independent from the others, so the player could move through the game
as desired. The game also had a combination of content and gaming which meant the player
could learn the material and then play the level. The player could also play the level and then
review the content if anything the player got any answer wrong. The negative aspects of the
game included major content errors in levels two, three, and four. Weak content was found in
levels five, six and nine. The content errors would prohibit educational use. Beyond the
content errors was the fact that there were no accommodations for learning impairments (like
closed captions). The players could also ignore the content material and just guess or play the
game and not learn anything. This game received a score of 19/27 (APPENDIX A). The
conclusion on this game is that it would not be used (no matter how high the score) due to
serious content errors.
GAME B - NOVA Elements Link:

https://mass.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvhescichemistryelements/nova-
elements/#.WoTrzq6nGzw
Summary - This game introduces the periodic table and all the elements contained within.
The periodic table is interactive allowing the player to tap on an element to: learn about it, see
a picture of what it looks like in its naturally occurring state and view a short video clip about
the element. One of the positive aspects to this game is its ease of navigation. The limited
sections within the game would allow the player to not have any difficulty getting where they
need to go. The game introduces concepts such as atomic number and atomic weight. Although
it does not get into explaining in detail what each of these numbers is, it provides enough
explanation for the player to understand how each is used regarding the number of protons,
neutrons and electrons of an atom, thus allowing the player to build an atom. A significant
downside to this game is its limited game play. The game portion of the game only has players
build five items. Each item has three or four compounds that must be built to build the item. It
could be greatly beneficial if there were more options for items to be built. This game is
available for mobile download as an application, however, is not currently supported by the
most recent Apple iOS version which could limit participation. A final drawback to the game is
the lack of audio or feedback. There are a few times the “host” has some audio comments or
explanations, but those do not always seem to work (depending on the presentation platform).
At the completion of building the compounds the “host” also provides a little video click
feedback to encourage the player, but again this did not always work. The conclusion for this
game is it is a great introduction to the periodic table, the elements and a few atomic topics but
with further development and/or more capabilities could be extremely valuable. Its score is
found in Appendix B.
GAME C - Luminosity Link: https://www.lumosity.com/
Summary - This game is a publicly available and advertised brain training game. By playing
the games the player will improve five cognitive functions: speed, memory, attention, flexibility
and problem solving. There is a myriad of different games the player can play; each in one of
the above categories. The player can perform a daily challenge in which the site will choose
different games for the player. This is based on scores in the given categories, input from the
player about what skill they want to focus on, or if they want to play quick games that day. The
player can also choose to play whatever game is desired to play to focus on a specific cognitive
function or category. There are a variety of positives about this game to include short game
play, player choice, no-cost game play, and score tracking. Each of the games usually takes only
a few minutes to play so a player does not have to commit a lot of time to play the game.
Generally, as each play session consists of three to five games, which the player can break into
shorter sessions. There are free memberships available to a player. No matter the membership,
the game scores are tracked, and a player’s cognitive function scores are calculated based on
how well they do on the games in that category. A few negatives about the game are long term
commitment, and no audio or closed caption. Brain training is not something that happens
overnight. The idea is to play the game every day for a long time to really see the benefits of
the program. As far as the sound goes there are only sound effects for the different games.
These can be muted if desired. Any instructions are just printed text on the screen sometimes
with accompanying images showing what the action should be. In conclusion, this game is a
nice game for its desired function. The score for this game is found in Appendix C.
Case Study
The game chosen for the case study was NOVA Elements. This is a game that introduces
the periodic table and the elements. To complete the case study on this game, literature was
reviewed to examine how games might be evaluated. The Core Elements of the Gaming
Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ) was chosen as the basis for the case study. It was modified
from its original format (Appendix D) in an effort to gather quantitative and qualitative data. It
was also important to reduce the time required for each volunteer player to evaluate the game.
Four subjects (from three different age groups) were utilized for the case study.
Player One was a 27-year-old college graduate with a degree in business finance. He was a
biology/chemistry major at one point in his college education, so he remembered the basics of
bonding, atoms, and elements. Although he is not an avid game player now, during his teen
years he participated in individual gaming, in-home gaming with friends, and internet gaming.
He scored the game a 5/5 in ease of use, indicating it was over simplified. The other scores
calculated to 14/20 or a total score of 19/25. He reported little entertainment value in the
game. Although he would never choose to play it, he indicated he would recommend it to
someone who needed help in this area and gave it a high score in educational value.
Player Two was a 52 year-old nurse (with a BSN) with elementary school nurse experience,
experience with children who have severe disabilities, and creating care plans for people with
disabilities. She has two adult children, both of whom were involved in gaming during teen
years (but to different degrees). Her male son (now 32) gamed more than her daughter (now
27). She scored the game 5/5 in ease of use, indicating it was over-simplified. The other scores
added to 11/20 or a total score of 16/25. She reported that she felt the game would be limited
to use with younger students (elementary school). Despite low scores in other categories, she
gave the game a five in educational value.
Player Three was a seven-year-old girl who is currently in second grade. She has had a very
limited exposure to the game's content matter. She had no knowledge of atomic number or
weight. When introduced to the game she was very excited to play and find out what she could
do with the program. When first starting there was the need for some assistance and
elaboration on the instructions. After working through it with assistance, she was able to
continue on her own. She found the game to be challenging in some respects (a little bit of
subtraction), but still enjoyable to play. She would play it again, although thinks it would be
better if there were more compounds to build. Overall, she had a positive experience with the
game and would recommend it to her friends. She also enjoyed the supplemental videos about
each element. This player rated the game at a 22 of 25.
Player Four was a nine-year-old boy who it currently in fourth grade. He has no prior
knowledge of atomic elements, molecules or compounds. He has a moderate interest in
science, but said he had enough interest to give the game a try. He considers himself a gamer,
but plays more first-person shooter type games. After playing the game he said this game was
enjoyable and educational. He needed a little more direction at the beginning because he had
never been introduced to these topics before. This may have impacted his scoring in the first
two categories that he only gave the game a 3/5. Once he began building the compounds, the
game became very natural to him. This may be related to his game playing experience. It was
clear he was getting a little bored with the somewhat repetitive nature of the game. If the game
continued any longer than it did, I think his interest would have started to wane. By the end, he
stated he enjoyed the game and felt he learned a little about a topic on which he had no
previous knowledge. He did express concern with being able to recall the information later
since he didn’t have much time with the topic. He gave the game an overall score of 4/5 and his
total score was 18/25.
Case Study Summary

Review of the quantitative data indicates some similarities and differences in player
scores. First, the two older players gave the game very low scores in entertainment value,
while the younger ones provided average and high scores for the entertainment value. This
coincides with qualitative data gathered where the older players thought this game might be
more fun for elementary aged students. There were also differences in how the older players
scored ease of use and appeal, in comparison to the younger ones. The older players said it was
overly easy and simplified and the younger ones found it appropriately difficult. Interestingly,
the older players gave this a higher educational value score than the younger ones, while the
younger ones had higher scores in the overall feeling for the game.
Summary Chart of Scores

Area Score P1 Score P2 Score P3 Score P4 Total Mean
Entertainment value. 1 1 5 3 10 2.50
Ease of use 5 5 3 3 16 4.00
Appeal 3 3 5 4 15 3.75
Educational value 5 5 4 4 18 4.50

Overall feelings of
3 2 5 4 14 3.50
game
One of the more significant comments was made by the Player One (27 year old male),
when he stated he "beat" the game in 15 minutes. He commented on lack of difficulty and lack
of critical thinking necessary to solve the problems presented in the game. As a person who
grew up gaming, this language aligns with the social, emotional and intellectual reasons why
people play games (Olson 2010). His comments included statements about mastery,
competition and challenge. He identified the lack of these elements as the main reason he
would not play this game again. This type of language was not used by the older player (who is
not a gamer) when describing why she wouldn't play it again.
Conclusion
This paper is the beginning of our attempt to establish if there is any correlation
between playing video games and learning. Research suggests there a many different reasons a
person might play a video game, although the two largest distinctions between games seems to
be entertainment or educational. In order to find any correlation a rubric was developed to be
able to assess the educational value or impact of any video game. This rubric was then used to
specifically evaluate three different commercially available digital games.
To further research any correlations a mini case study with four participant was
conducted utilizing one of the evaluated digital games. As hypothesized there were differences
in how the participants felt about the game. These differences seemed to center around the
age of the participant. Despite these differences all participants felt the games was educational
and could be useful with the right audience.
Appendices
Appendix A - Game A - Immune Response Scoring (19/27)
Below
to use
available.
the game-encourages
player to continue.
trial period
Opportunities entertainment some educational value. significant educational
purposes and provides *there was potential, value
no educational value but content was
incorrect
Appendix B - Game B - NOVA Elements (scoring 23/27)

Below
to use
available.
the game-encourages
player to continue.
trial period
purposes and provides value
Appendix C - Game C - Lumosity (scoring 22/27)

Below
to use
available.
the game-encourages
player to continue.
trial period
purposes and provides value
Appendix D - Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ) (Bernhaupt,

2010)
This is the actual CEGEQ.
1. I enjoyed playing the game
2. I was frustrated at the end of the game
3. I was frustrated whilst playing the game
4. I liked the game
5. I would play this game again
6. I was in control of the game
7. The controllers responded as I expected
8. I remember the actions the controllers performed
9. I was able to see on the screen everything I needed during the game
10. ∗The point of view of the game that I had spoiled my gaming
11. I knew what I was supposed to do to win the game
12. ∗There was time when I was doing nothing in the game
13. I liked the way the game looked
14. The graphics of the game were plain
15. ∗I do not like this type of game
16. I like to spend a lot of time playing this game
17. I got bored playing this time
18. ∗I usually do not choose this type of game
19. ∗I did not have a strategy to win the game
20. The game kept constantly motivating me to keep playing
21. I felt what was happening in the game was my own doing
22. I challenged myself even if the game did not require it
23. I played with my own rules
24. ∗I felt guilty for the actions in the game
25. I knew how to manipulate the game to move forward
26. The graphics were appropriate for the type of game
27. The sound effects of the game were appropriate

28. ∗I did not like the music of the game
29. The graphics of the game were related to the scenario
30. The graphics and sound effects of the game were related
31. The sound of the game affected the way I was playing 70 E.H. Calvillo-Gámez et al.
32. ∗The game was unfair
33. I understood the rules of the game
34. The game was challenging
35. The game was difﬁcult
36. The scenario of the game was interesting
37. ∗I did not like the scenario of the game
38. I knew all the actions that could be performed in the game
∗Denotes items that are negatively worded.
APPENIDIX D (continued)
This is a modified version of the CEGEQ. This was modified to accomplish two tasks. The first
was to reduce the amount of time required of volunteer "players." The second was to allow for
the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data in major areas of game evaluation.
Entertainment value
1. Did you enjoy the game? If you were to give it a 1-5 (five being the most entertaining) what
score would you give it? What did you like/dislike about it?
a. Did you enjoy it enough to play it again?
b. Were you ever bored during the game?
c. Did you feel challenged? Motivated?
d. Did you think it was interesting?
Ease of use
1. How easy was the game to use? Can you rate it 1-5? What made it easy or difficult to use?
a. Were there any times when you experienced frustration with the game? When? What
caused it?
b. Were you able to see everything on the screen you needed to see?
c. Did you instinctively know what you had to do/were directions given?
d. Did you understand what you needed to do?
2. How difficult was the game –1 would be overly simple and 5 would be overly difficult. A 3
would be appropriate level of difficulty.
Appeal
1. How appealing (visual, audio, other) would you rate the game on 1 – 5?
a. What made it appealing (graphics, voices, etc.)?
b. Was there anything not appealing or annoying about the visual/audio aspects of the
game?
Educational value
1. How well do you think this game taught the content on a scale of 1-5?
a. What do you think helped make it receive that score?
b. What would make it better?
c. Did you know what you were supposed to learn from the game?
Overall feelings of game
1. If you gave it a rating of 1-5, what would it be?
a. Would you play this game again?
b. Would you encourage friends to play it? What would make it better?
Appendix E - Player One

Area Score Comments
Entertainment 1 I didn't enjoy playing the game, was bored and was happy I finished in
value. 15 minutes. I never felt motivated or challenged by the game. There
was very little content/there were only four items to "build."
Ease of use 5 It was extremely easy to use. The drag and drop feature added to the
ease of use. It seemed easy enough for toddlers to use. There were
no frustrating sections; everything that was needed was visible on the
screen. The directions were clear. It was somewhat obvious what to
do, but through trial and error it became clear enough that directions
were not used very much. The auto-build feature made it easy, but
actually would allow someone to skip an attempt and just go to auto-
build.
Appeal 3 The graphics and 3-D structures of the molecules were appealing. The
speaker (David Pague) was extremely annoying. His comments were
terrible. After the first section I muted the game, so I wouldn't have to
hear him.
Educational value 5 This was educational because it allowed me to build compounds using
atoms. To make it better, the player should have to try to build
something before clicking the auto-build feature. After building two
compounds it was clear what I was supposed to learn from the game.
Overall feelings 3 I would never play this game again. There is very little content—
of game simply dragging and dropping into blank circles. I would encourage
someone to play it if they needed to better understand compounds
and how they were built. This would be a better game if David Pague
didn't make terrible jokes. I muted him. This game is very short—I
beat it in 15 minutes. It would be better if there were levels or more
compounds.
Appendix F - Player Two

Area Score Comments
Entertainment 1 I didn't like this game. It was very boring. I almost quit the game
value. because I was so bored.
Ease of use 5 It was obvious I was supposed to drag and drop. There was also
somewhat of a "cheat" feature where I could have the program build
it for me. I am 52 and I think it was easy...maybe younger people
would be insulted by how easy it is?
Appeal 3 I liked the visuals, but scientifically---it could be more advanced.
Educational 5 I can see how this could be used in elementary school where bonding
value is first introduced. It seemed too elementary for any grade higher
than 6th or 7th. Even then, I would think this age student would want
something more engaging and more difficult.
Overall feelings 2 It was not fun. It was elementary level—so that limited its value for
of game education. The feedback from the person was not helpful and
somewhat distracting. I just cannot see many people using this game.
Appendix G - Player Three

Area Score Comments
Entertainment 5 The player said the game was enjoyable and felt challenged. She
value. found the entire game interesting
Ease of use 3 The player said the game wasn't too challenging to navigate. A little
direction was needed at different points to help move around the
program or move on to the next section.
Appeal 5 The player thought the game was visually appealing. She also
thought the audio and video components were well done and added
value to the game
Educational 4 The player thought the game taught the objective well but was
value initially unsure what the objectives were.
Overall feelings 5 Overall the player liked the game and would recommend it to her
of game friends. She also said she would be willing to play it again.
Appendix H - Player Four

Area Score Comments
Entertainment 3 The player liked the game and was challenged but was a little bored
value. at times (building the atoms)
Ease of use 3 The player thought the game was easy to use and the screen showed
all the relevant information although at times the font size was a
little small. For the most part the player need a bit of direction to
fully understand what was needed to be done but was able to
perform after that.
Appeal 4 The player found the games visually appealing. There was not any
audio this time (technical issue ?) so could not comment on that.
Educational value 4 The in-program directions could have been a little clearer. However,
after just a little clarification it was understood what needed to
happen. The Player would have liked better explanations of what to
do in the game maybe including audio to go along with the written
text.
Overall feelings of 4 Overall the player liked the game and would recommend it to his
game friends. He also said he would play it again.
References
Bernhaupt, R. (Editor) (2010). Evaluating user experience in games: Concepts and methods.
London, England: Spring Publishing. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yvonne_De_Kort2/publication/226075575_Digita
l_Games_the_Aftermath_Qualitative_Insights_into_Postgame_Experiences/links/0deec
52c81fba41ecf000000/Digital-Games-the-Aftermath-Qualitative-Insights-into-
Postgame-Experiences.pdf
BrainPOP EDUCATORS (2015). The Educational Game Evaluation Rubric. Retrieved from:
https://educators.brainpop.com/printable/gameup-video-game-evaluation-rubric/
Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games can teach us about learning and literacy. New York, New
York: Saint Martin's Press.
Nacke, L, Drachen, A, & Gobel, S. (2010). Methods for evaluating gameplay experience in a
serious Gaming Context. In International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 9 (2) 40-
51. Retrieved from http://iacss.org/index.php?id=96.
Olson, C.K. (2010). Children's motivation for video game play in the context of normal
developments. Review of General Psychology 14 (2) 180-87. DOI: 10.1037/a0018984
Tahir, R. & Wang, A. (2017). State of the art in game based learning: Dimensions for evaluating
educational games. 11th European Conference on Game Based Learning (ECGBL).
Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321654583_State_of_the_art_in_Game_Bas
ed_Learning_Dimensions_for_Evaluating_Educational_Games

Analysis Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: GAME ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDY

Game Analysis and Case Study

Evaluation Tool used for Evaluating Games

GAME A - Immune Responses from Nobelprize.org. Link:

GAME B - NOVA Elements Link:

GAME C - Luminosity Link: https://www.lumosity.com/

Case Study Summary

Summary Chart of Scores

Ease of use 5 5 3 3 16 4.00

Educational value 5 5 4 4 18 4.50

Appendix B - Game B - NOVA Elements (scoring 23/27)

Appendix C - Game C - Lumosity (scoring 22/27)

Appendix D - Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ) (Bernhaupt,

27. The sound effects of the game were appropriate

Appendix E - Player One

Appendix F - Player Two

Appendix G - Player Three

Appendix H - Player Four

You might also like