Exploring Design Features for Enhancing Players' Challenge in Strategy Games

This paper examines how to make a player feel more challenged in a strategic computer game. It is hypothesized that information availability and resource advantage affect play difficulty, which in turn affects the challenge experienced. The difficulty of play can be defined in terms of the mental workload that players experience and the physical effort that players exert. Forty-five male college and graduate students participated in a 3 x 3 (information availability x resource advantage) between-subjects factorial design experiment. This experiment measured player mental workload, physical effort, and challenge. The results indicate that information availability affects player mental workload, and resource advantage affects levels of player physical effort, respectively. Moreover, the relationship between mental workload and challenge was found to be an inverted U-shaped curve; in other words, too much or too little mental workload may decrease player challenge. The relationship between physical effort and challenge exhibited similar characteristics.

[1]  David Myers.  A Q-Study of Game Player Aesthetics , 1990 .

[2]  E. Rasmusen.  Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory , 2006 .

[3]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Playability in Action Videogames: A Qualitative Design Model , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Ira Horowitz,et al.  Theory of the Firm: Resource Allocation in a Market Economy. , 1965 .

[5]  Donna L. Hoffman,et al.  Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach , 2000 .

[6]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Charles E. Miller.  A test of four theories of coalition formation: Effects of payoffs and resources. , 1980 .

[9]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[10]  Shang Hwa Hsu,et al.  Designing Action Games for Appealing to Buyers , 2005, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[11]  Jon-Chao Hong,et al.  A study on thinking strategy between experts and novices of computer games , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  E. Salas,et al.  Establishing the Boundaries of a Paradigm for Decision-Making Research , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Asher Tishler,et al.  Resources, capabilities, and the performance of industrial firms: A multivariate analysis , 2004 .

[14]  Ilja van Beest,et al.  Resources and alternatives in coalition formation: The effects on payoff, self‐serving behaviour, and bargaining length , 2004 .

[15]  Chris Crawford,et al.  The Art of Computer Game Design , 1984 .

[16]  Randy J. Pagulayan,et al.  User-centered design in games , 2012 .

[17]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  What makes things fun to learn? heuristics for designing instructional computer games , 1980, SIGSMALL '80.

[18]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Strategic assets and organizational rent , 1993 .

[19]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[20]  Shang Hwa Hsu,et al.  Exploring user experiences as predictors of MMORPG addiction , 2009, Comput. Educ..