Project:Filter and the Game and Experiment Model

Editor's Notes

• #2: Good afternoon and thank you for having me! My name is Andrew Reid. I’m a second-year PhD student at Glasgow Caledonian University. Today, I’d like to talk about the game that I’m developing, Project:Filter, as well as the process that I’m following, which I’ve labelled as the Game and Experiment Model.
• #3: My work is influenced by two game development models; MDA and Critical Play. They’re two very successful and popular game development frameworks that breaks game development into component form. MDA breaks down game development into content and game feel components, whereas Critical Play embraces diverse experiences as its main selling point. But if we look at these frameworks from a research perspective, I feel that they’re quite limiting…
• #4: In the case of MDA, the role of the researcher isn’t apparent. It’s becoming more common for researchers to be part of the development process and the initial MDA framework doesn’t indicate where this lens should fit in. To me, the research lens is different to that of the player and developer, but it’s interested in both and in rationalising decisions based on the intentions of research. This is something that has influenced my own model: to explicitly highlight the impact of researchers and research aims on game development.
• #5: For Critical Play, I’m not so sure why “Repeat” is included as a stage of development; it’s an implicit activity to this cyclic model. I think “Revise” is more applicable; it’s an assessment process of acknowledging the experience, and informing any changes to be made, just like research. Critical Play also has a reliance on playtesting as a means of collecting data. But there are many other research methods that could fit into here, and these methods might create data of varying nature and relevance depending on what it is that you’re trying to verify.
• #6: These limitations helped form the Game and Experiment Model. It is a goal-centred approach where satisfying research aims are the intended output of game development. I’ll explain each stage individually.
• #7: The first stage of the Game and Experiment Model concerns the purpose of game development defined by the research aims. This includes highlighting ideas, concepts or theories within the subject domain that the game will investigate, explore, understand, etc. By identifying the research area, development of a game is ring-fenced and is focused on addressing concepts and theories related to the specific domain.
• #8: Informed development relates to the concepts identified in the research area and considering their translation into components of game development. This list does not intend to be exhaustive due to the evolving nature of the game development practice. Additionally, this list does not aim to define the method or process in which game development should follow; this represents a collation of principles that exist within the game development process, rather than highlighting the particular relationship or methodological approach to game development.
• #9: Following on from the development stage is the design and conduction of experiments. This encompasses the various methodological approaches and the conduction of studies in order to collect data for research purposes. This list is not exhaustive and may be expanded in order to satisfy alternative methodological approaches to research using games.
• #10: Once experimentation has been completed, the analysis of data can begin. This stage concerns the methods of analysis adopted to examine data with respect to the original intention of the experiment. This analysis intends to validate the research outcomes explored. The process of data analysis must relate to the original intentions of the experiment and address research aims. Data analysis methods depend on the nature of the data collected and can vary for different projects.
• #11: As a final step, the Game and Experiment Model appreciates publication as the necessary end of the research process. At the end of each iteration, it’s suggested that results should be publishable in some form, whether that is a paper submission or the game as an artefact to access. As a result, contributing to the research domain is explicitly highlighted as part of the process.
• #12: To show how the Game and Experiment Model has helped, I will talk through the development of Project:Filter. For its initial design and to satisfy my PhD, I came up with three main points. Firstly, it had to be based on the research of noPILLS, which was a research project that looked to reduce micropollution across Europe through public intervention. Secondly, the game should aim to raise awareness of micropollution and the environmental impact it causes. And this should finally inform positive behaviour to reduce harmful levels of micropollution. On top of that, I wanted to add other constraints. I didn’t want my game to be rooted in pedagogy or to test players based on learning outcomes. Second, I don’t aim to try and teach the players everything about micropollution, or bombard them with facts and stats; instead, I wanted to make the game act as a rabbit hole and pique their interest. And finally, I wanted to make something that was satisfying to play; whether that satisfaction comes from exploration, or challenge, I ultimately want players to have a sense of enjoyment from Project:Filter.
• #13: These points guided the development of Project:Filter towards the game that it is. It’s a single-player game, where players control a drone and move through this landscape affected by micropollution. The player can then enter through this pipe to play the level, where they have to collect a set amount of pollutants from the water to win. They have to avoid filters that are also helping to get rid of the pollutants before they can clog up the main filter at the end. The awareness comes from the use of multimodal outputs. For example, they would come up to this point, for example, and learn that some fish have developed aggressive behaviours, changing the ecosystem of the water for marine life. There are seven examples of this in total within the game.
• #14: I wanted to figure out a methodology that tracked the results of play and interaction with the game as an initial point of contact. I will be using children, aged between twelve and thirteen as my target participants, within a classroom environment. Players would fill out a questionnaire before and after playing the game that measures their knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards the subject matter. There would also be a follow-up questionnaire after a set period of time to identify where information has been retained and behaviours have been changed.
• #15: Three areas of the study will be analysed to address the research aims. Firstly, I want to determine what the initial change to awareness from play results in; this can suggest an initial increment to awareness that can be built upon in the future. I also want to identify whether the instructional design of play will have an impact on the level of awareness achieved; so whether someone who is guided by signposting of tasks will be aware of more than those that are given freedom of play. And finally, I want to look at the retention of information over time, and whether individuals are exhibiting transference of knowledge; so whether they have become more likely to talk to friends or family about the subject matter.
• #16: For my next steps, I hope to have the development of Project:Filter published as a case study for the use of the Game and Experiment Model, and also to follow through with the studies that I highlighted. If you have any comments or suggestions for my work I’m very happy to receive feedback; any feedback is good feedback! And if you’d like a copy of the game to look at, you can get in touch with me from…
• #17: … here! Thank you all for listening.