The team met to finalise our ideas so that the milestone presentation would have a solid direction and strong content. A team member rang Bolton Hospital to find out whether it was possible to one day head down there and take photographs for reference when designing the level. He was told to email the communications officer Heather Edwards at heather.edwards@rbh.nhs.uk. Although the team was pretty much set on using the Left4Dead version of Source, an issue came up when remembering that the player must stand and end the game in 'safe rooms'. This left some alternatives, such as importing L4D's meshes into the compatible version of Half-Life 2's version of Source, or simply designing the safe rooms to look like a normal hospital bedroom. Also the team must check to see if the waking up animation works in the L4D engine.
Another issue is that the meshes in Source are American, such as police cars and ambulances. The think aloud protocol was dropped as it would break too much immersion for the tester, and the team thought that in conjunction with questionnaires, galvanic skin responses and heart rates being measured, the tester would be swamped with tasks and lose focus. Recording the tester shall be kept, however the team is in favour of in-built webcams within the monitor so as to be inconspicuous until after the test when it is revealed to the subject. The galvanic skin responses and heart rate are being kept, however the galvanic skin response machine will require its own PC to function correctly. Recording the game footage of the subject should be done by Hammer's built in recording service.
The premise of in-game choices was discussed by the team, as it is difficult to make the player choose between certain options without them realising there are options to choose from. How can the team make them know certain actions such as locking doors and turning on lights will be possible without prompting them? The possibility of mentioning it once briefly on a control sheet before the test is the team's best solution to this so far. The team discussed whether it would be an issue having doors that can be locked and unlocked in-game, and how it could be achieved.
In terms of weapons and whether the subject should have them or not, the team discussed possible pro's and con's of this. Giving them a weapon will create the fear the danger as game's usually give player's weapons and power ups when danger is approaching. Having a weapon will also give a clear indication of when the subject is startled, if the team can make them fire at an enemy that isn't there, this will be very positive information. The possibility of still imagery being rated by testers is still on the cards, but is a level design issue more than anything. It would help with what kind of disturbing set pieces the team could include.
The idea of seperate scenarios was dropped in favour of the level being made twice but having differences in both. However the team did agree on having certain set pieces of objects that look out of place and maybe time the testers on how long they look at these set pieces and acknowledge/deal with them. The team needs some kind of method like this for determining how the subject rates these set pieces without breaking the immersion. Level pacing was discussed, and the aim for the team's level is to be completed within 15-20 minutes for a typical proper playthrough, as this is long enough for a player to get into and immersed within a game. Another device that will prove useful is the walking speed of the character, the team may legitimately be able to make the subject walk instead of run in the level due to injuries the character recieved hence why he is in hospital. The possibility to run could be allowed at certain sections such as activating events so that the team can later question why the subject ran.
Another issue that arose that could spoil immersion is the gender of the character. If a man is playing a woman character or vice versa, immersion may be diminished. The only visible feature that the subject could identify the character's sex is the hands, as they are always visible in first person shooters. The team discussed the possibility of making a 'Choose gender' option and then model female hands, or just wrap the hands up in bandages due to more wounds, making them indistinguishable in regards to gender. The team would need to do some remodelling or reskinning as the default character is Gordon Freeman in his instantly recognisable HEV suit.
Regarding NPC interaction scenarios, originally the team intended to have a completely empty hospital as this in itself would be odd as hospitals are never empty or shut. However the team discussed the possibility of having sound bites insinuating the presence of other people but making sure the player never see's any other NPC's, or having certain scripted events so that an NPC is visible further down a corridor and clearly runs off into a certain direction only for that area to be completely empty or blocked off when the player arrives there. A further idea was the presence of 1 constant character who appears from time to time but is crazy and doesn't make any sense, he may speak in riddles to make the player attempt to understand what he means when it could just be gibberish. Taking the notion even further, the player could be conditioned to chase after an NPC and then at the end find out it was themselves.
The idea of an antagonist was also brought up. In order for the player to feel paranoia, they might have to be aware of the consequences of certain dangers in order to fear the potential of its return. The team discussed the idea of an NPC shadow-trailing the player, but never actually able to witness him move. There would only be one real encounter with him where he reveals what he is capable of (e.g. stealing weapons, damaging the player, being immune himself etc.) in order to create the fear, and he would be accompanied by environment cues such as a certain audio theme for the player to associate that with him. This would create a Pavlovian conditioning on the player.
The basic geometry outline of the level was talked about, and the team thought it would be effective to make the level entirely linear but utilising smoke and mirrors to create a totally open surrounding and creating the illusion of a maze by messing with geometry so at certain times, passages and rooms may be blocked off and/or opened up. Another device the team could use if possible would be locking the player in place, although this may require a cinematic event which could break immersion. Further discussion brought up ideas such as having rooms that are upside down, with meshes on the ceiling, twisting corridors or corridors becoming slightly more narrow and seeing if the player notices, as it will be a secondary effect since the player's focus will normally lie elsewhere. This may begin to create a sense of claustrophobia. This style of geometry may apply to the side of the test which is meant to make the player doubt their own judgement. They will be unsure of their surroundings even though it will be a familiar place, and will wonder why they associate certain cues with the antagonist.
In terms of making the player fear the potential of a situation, the team discussed whether there should be a real threat within the level. The antagonist could fill this role by having one encounter/event that will create immediate fear, and then his existence will create the fear of violence within the player even if he isn't around. By utilising innate fears such as darkness, screams and sirens, the effect may be multiplied. There is even a reason to distort obvious sounds such as screams and sirens to make them sound weird and different.
Other ideas were brought up in a brainstorming session, such as having NPCs frozen in time in a certain room, having NPCs run away from the player, bluring NPC faces, or making them have no face at all, having an opening cutscene to the level that would explain the reason to fear the antagonist NPC etc. Essentially the team is trying to create and maintain a level of uncertainty and uneasyness so that the subject will hopefully be more susceptible to paranoia during the actual scripted events and in-game options. An older idea was remembered where an enemy could be scripted to die in one shot but others would require a full clip of ammo to die, creating a doubt of judgement in the player as to whether there's a specific procedure to killing enemies, however having enemies in the level would go against what the team is trying to do. It was dropped in favour of creating a maze-like environment to fulfill the role.
Other innate fears were brought up such as having warning signs, and distorted sirens and screams, and maybe having some of these attached to an NPC. The team addressed an issue that lecturer's had brought up as to whether the different triggers for inducing paranoia would compliment or cancel each other out. It is the team's opinion that that won't cancel each other out, however there is a issue in determining which trigger was more or less effective then the other. The target of subjects was also addressed and the team agreed on incorporating both gamers and non-gamers for a broader range of results. If the team just tested gamers, they may recognise certain events that were inspired by games/movies and lose immersion.
The questionnaires were briefly talked about, with the team acknowledging there would be at least two questionnaires, one before the test that would test the personality of the subject, and an evaluative questionnaire after the level. There may be room for more. Research will also be required on the creators of the questionnaires that Pam Ramsden will send the team, so that the team can see what else they have done and whether these questionnaires are effective or not. Ellis' ABC Model will be the main base of most of the scripted events such as bursting pipes, bottles smashing etc. The Evaluative Beliefs Scale was dropped in favour of the ABC Model however it may still have some use in the test, but this is undecided as of now.
After the team has decided upon all of this, a presentation for the dry-run of Milestone 1 was produced. It was presented to Claire and Amanda and the major concern they had was that the team still had not properly defined and conveyed their definition of paranoia. They suggested having a list of agreed triggers for inducing paranoia and then explaining the rationale behind them. They also thought that the safe version of the level should keep the triggers so that it would be a fair test. They felt we had pushed our activating events too far on the extreme side, and that the level would just be scary all the time. They also brought up the idea of allowing the player to be able to run only at activating events and seeing if they do, then asking why. The team must now take into account this feedback before the proper Milestone 1 presentation which will be on December 4th.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Weekly Report 7 - 17/11/09
The team met to present the project to Brian and Phil on Friday 13th November. Brian said it has the potential to be an A* project, but could also flop if the academic side doesn't hold up. Phil mentioned it would be worth finding out when Pam sends the team the questionnaires, who made them and what else they have done. The team MUST produce evidence for a solid questionnaire.
On Tuesday 17th, the team's weekly meeting with Claire and Amanda took place to mainly discuss feedback on the presentation and the project in general. Claire and Amanda mentioned that one thing that might help solidify a good questionnaire were books on designing effective questionnaires from the social sciences section of Bolton University's library. They also brought up a good idea of implementing choices within the level to determine whats paranoid by having in-game statistics. One choice would be more paranoid than the other.
The level could be just a series of short scenarios utilising disturbing imagery, or could be entirely made up of still images which are then rated by the subject. The team must be aware of OBJECTIVITY and SUBJECTIVITY. The team must take into account who the tests will be aimed at - gamers might know what the tests are trying to achieve as they may recognise the techniques being used. Claire and Amanda made the team aware of the Milestone 1 dry-run presentations next Tuesday which must include what the team has decided upon and why, and what still needs to be decided upon. A handout isn't necessary but would be appreciated and helpful.
On Tuesday 17th, the team's weekly meeting with Claire and Amanda took place to mainly discuss feedback on the presentation and the project in general. Claire and Amanda mentioned that one thing that might help solidify a good questionnaire were books on designing effective questionnaires from the social sciences section of Bolton University's library. They also brought up a good idea of implementing choices within the level to determine whats paranoid by having in-game statistics. One choice would be more paranoid than the other.
The level could be just a series of short scenarios utilising disturbing imagery, or could be entirely made up of still images which are then rated by the subject. The team must be aware of OBJECTIVITY and SUBJECTIVITY. The team must take into account who the tests will be aimed at - gamers might know what the tests are trying to achieve as they may recognise the techniques being used. Claire and Amanda made the team aware of the Milestone 1 dry-run presentations next Tuesday which must include what the team has decided upon and why, and what still needs to be decided upon. A handout isn't necessary but would be appreciated and helpful.
Weekly Report 6 - 10/11/09
The weekly meeting with Brian and Phil on Friday 6th raised some issues with the level incorporating both methods of paranoia as they may cancel each other out or compliment each other. How would the team know which method was the effective one when measuring any paranoia? If the level is split into different sections to accommodate tasks, will the order of completing those tasks effect the outcome? The team asked if the test subjects could be recorded on camera when taking the test, this was another ethics issue and Brian again said that informed consent could work as long as the recording is destroyed afterwards when not needed or if the subject refused. However if the subject knew they were being recorded, it might affect their performance and the results, so the decision to inform them after the test takes place became the preferred option. Brian and Phil mentioned the 'Think Aloud Protocol' which means the subject could discuss how they are feeling at certain points within the test.
The team met up to receive feedback on the concept document from Claire and Amanda on Tuesday 10th November. During the inital stages of the meeting with Claire and Amanda, the team were told that they had never marked a concept document this highly before for this assignment. To say this left a positive feeling would be an understatement! Some useful feedback was received such as, when citing or referencing other research and models, a nutshell definition must accompany the reference. There were some unfounded sentences and the professionals mentioned have to be located.
Generally, the team have to make sure to explain certain aspects of the document, and cannot assume the readers know what they mean. Team meetings with professionals were mentioned but could be expanded upon, for instance what were the team's aims, questions, results, and interview notes. The need for a totally neutral test has to be emphasised, the team is not trying to create the opposite. The team should explain the reasoning for using any equipment. High key lighting could be expanded upon such as how and why it is used. Also, how is the C-map represented in the group work? It is useful to keep this C-map as it was the team's first idea of paranoia, but newer versions can be implemented.
The team met up to receive feedback on the concept document from Claire and Amanda on Tuesday 10th November. During the inital stages of the meeting with Claire and Amanda, the team were told that they had never marked a concept document this highly before for this assignment. To say this left a positive feeling would be an understatement! Some useful feedback was received such as, when citing or referencing other research and models, a nutshell definition must accompany the reference. There were some unfounded sentences and the professionals mentioned have to be located.
Generally, the team have to make sure to explain certain aspects of the document, and cannot assume the readers know what they mean. Team meetings with professionals were mentioned but could be expanded upon, for instance what were the team's aims, questions, results, and interview notes. The need for a totally neutral test has to be emphasised, the team is not trying to create the opposite. The team should explain the reasoning for using any equipment. High key lighting could be expanded upon such as how and why it is used. Also, how is the C-map represented in the group work? It is useful to keep this C-map as it was the team's first idea of paranoia, but newer versions can be implemented.
Weekly Report 5 - 03/11/09
The team worked on the concept document for most of Monday 26th October, and Friday 30th October until the weekly meeting with Brian and Phil took place. The team discussed possible ideas for the two main project ideas (making the tester doubt his own judgement and creating a familiar setting but with differences that play on innate fears). Brian and Phil did not agree on using the University as the setting of the tests, as an inaccurate interpretation of it may cause a loss of immersion in the tester which is vital in creating any emotional effects such as paranoia. Instead they suggested it be set in a more general familiar setting such as a supermarket, office or library etc.
In regards to making the tester doubt their judgement, a number of good ideas were brought to the table. One member suggested a theme where the tester is attacked by enemies, and some will be scripted to die in one shot whereas others require a full clip or more in order to die. By doing this, the team may be able to trick the tester into thinking there's a method of killing the enemies correctly and efficiently. Another member brought up the idea where a team of testers have a ball, and must find out how to make a counter register points for doing something. They would play around until the counter randomly acknowledged a point and then they would try to recreate what they did in order to make the counter tick up again. However what they don't know was that the counter only went up everytime a goldfish in a bowl in the room completed a full circle, yet no one noticed.
The majority of the group meeting on Monday November 2nd was spent in the University's project room putting the concept document together. The work had been done, it was just a case of putting it into one document and making sure it was up to the team's standards. The team agreed upon provisional milestone dates and what these milestones should incorporate. The team also put together a first draft presentation to accompany the concept document.
On Tuesday 3rd the team did the presentation as a dry run for Claire and Amanda at 1.00pm. Claire gave useful feedback, the team needed more proof of background research and had to clearly define their interpretation of paranoia. The team also had to clearly suggest that there would be more than one event triggering paranoia and had to explain how they intend to measure paranoia and identify it amongst the similar emotions of excitement and arousal. It was also worth talking more about questionnaires than what had been said, and mentioning other forms of media that had acted as inspiration for some of the team's work.
In regards to making the tester doubt their judgement, a number of good ideas were brought to the table. One member suggested a theme where the tester is attacked by enemies, and some will be scripted to die in one shot whereas others require a full clip or more in order to die. By doing this, the team may be able to trick the tester into thinking there's a method of killing the enemies correctly and efficiently. Another member brought up the idea where a team of testers have a ball, and must find out how to make a counter register points for doing something. They would play around until the counter randomly acknowledged a point and then they would try to recreate what they did in order to make the counter tick up again. However what they don't know was that the counter only went up everytime a goldfish in a bowl in the room completed a full circle, yet no one noticed.
The majority of the group meeting on Monday November 2nd was spent in the University's project room putting the concept document together. The work had been done, it was just a case of putting it into one document and making sure it was up to the team's standards. The team agreed upon provisional milestone dates and what these milestones should incorporate. The team also put together a first draft presentation to accompany the concept document.
On Tuesday 3rd the team did the presentation as a dry run for Claire and Amanda at 1.00pm. Claire gave useful feedback, the team needed more proof of background research and had to clearly define their interpretation of paranoia. The team also had to clearly suggest that there would be more than one event triggering paranoia and had to explain how they intend to measure paranoia and identify it amongst the similar emotions of excitement and arousal. It was also worth talking more about questionnaires than what had been said, and mentioning other forms of media that had acted as inspiration for some of the team's work.
Weekly Report 4 - 25/10/09
On Friday 23rd October the team had a meeting with Pam Ramsden, a specialist in areas such as paranoia thanks to Dr. John Charlton who forwarded on the team's email requesting advice. She started by saying it is hard to make a link between video games and paranoia based breakdowns as the breakdowns don't tend to happen when playing a video game but afterwards when the emotions are taken out on others. Also, everyone has some paranoia, called "healthy paranoia" e.g. stranger danger. Whilst too much paranoia is abnormal, having none whatsoever is also just as abnormal.
Certain personalities react differently to paranoia, e.g. "stimulus seekers" like to be scared and force themselves to watch slasher films, go sky diving etc. They are mostly males. Others require the situation to be real or believable thus allowing them to think it could happen to them and project themselves into the situation e.g. The Twin Towers and terrorism led to paranoia which affected travel and tourism. Paranoia can lead to clinical syndromes such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
She made useful suggestions to base our experiments on, such as:
The deliberate triggering of paranoia such as a maths question that says 'correct' when answered incorrectly and vice-versa. This can lead to confusion over trusting one's own judgement which can lead to different reactions like judging themselves negatively or being frustrated and blaming something else.
OR
Triggering the player's avator to be in danger.
The team will have to take a personality measure in order to acquire a good idea of what to expect from test individuals. Pam offered to send the team the personality questionnaires she uses. Pam explained about certain things humans are programmed to fear, e.g. the dark and the unknown are innate fears. There are also sounds humans are programmed to fear such as screams, sirens etc. If the team's tests can play into these fears and make it believable so that the testers can project themselves into the situation, then maybe the team can create paranoia. One team member thought of designing the test in the layout of Bolton University as that would be the only common factor between all of the testers.
Pam gave her own defintion of paranoia - it is the fear of what is about to happen. Fear itself is a fear of the current situation as it is happening. Paranoia is a fear of the potential of a situation. Pam clarified that we will need some kind of ethics form that must be submitted through the course leader, aka Brian Morris.
After the meeting with Pam Ramsden, the team met Brian and Phil for a weekly update. They liked the fact the team had come up with two solid bases for experiments and offered their own ideas such as the locked door theory, where in a game environment, the tester is tasked with locking all the doors, whilst being questioned if they actually did lock all the doors, or if they are told they would teleport out when all the doors were locked but when they are all locked, they don't teleport thus creating a sense of doubt, or creating a script that unlocks some of the doors they have locked.
They also thought of changing the amount of doors to lock in each task and then questioning the tester to see how many doors they think they locked. They mentioned the fear of failure and humiliation - if the team told testers their results would be made public would that create paranoia? Essentially they were talking mostly about mind games.
On Sunday, a team member brought over a rough base of a Design Document and Pitch and the team went about creating a contents page that was relevant to the team project. The team discussed which ideas to go with or combine but an issue arose over whether the team wants the tests less like a test-like game environment and more like a proper game experience that can also perform the tests, or a test-like game experience that focuses on what's being tested solely. Both had valid points.
Certain personalities react differently to paranoia, e.g. "stimulus seekers" like to be scared and force themselves to watch slasher films, go sky diving etc. They are mostly males. Others require the situation to be real or believable thus allowing them to think it could happen to them and project themselves into the situation e.g. The Twin Towers and terrorism led to paranoia which affected travel and tourism. Paranoia can lead to clinical syndromes such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
She made useful suggestions to base our experiments on, such as:
The deliberate triggering of paranoia such as a maths question that says 'correct' when answered incorrectly and vice-versa. This can lead to confusion over trusting one's own judgement which can lead to different reactions like judging themselves negatively or being frustrated and blaming something else.
OR
Triggering the player's avator to be in danger.
The team will have to take a personality measure in order to acquire a good idea of what to expect from test individuals. Pam offered to send the team the personality questionnaires she uses. Pam explained about certain things humans are programmed to fear, e.g. the dark and the unknown are innate fears. There are also sounds humans are programmed to fear such as screams, sirens etc. If the team's tests can play into these fears and make it believable so that the testers can project themselves into the situation, then maybe the team can create paranoia. One team member thought of designing the test in the layout of Bolton University as that would be the only common factor between all of the testers.
Pam gave her own defintion of paranoia - it is the fear of what is about to happen. Fear itself is a fear of the current situation as it is happening. Paranoia is a fear of the potential of a situation. Pam clarified that we will need some kind of ethics form that must be submitted through the course leader, aka Brian Morris.
After the meeting with Pam Ramsden, the team met Brian and Phil for a weekly update. They liked the fact the team had come up with two solid bases for experiments and offered their own ideas such as the locked door theory, where in a game environment, the tester is tasked with locking all the doors, whilst being questioned if they actually did lock all the doors, or if they are told they would teleport out when all the doors were locked but when they are all locked, they don't teleport thus creating a sense of doubt, or creating a script that unlocks some of the doors they have locked.
They also thought of changing the amount of doors to lock in each task and then questioning the tester to see how many doors they think they locked. They mentioned the fear of failure and humiliation - if the team told testers their results would be made public would that create paranoia? Essentially they were talking mostly about mind games.
On Sunday, a team member brought over a rough base of a Design Document and Pitch and the team went about creating a contents page that was relevant to the team project. The team discussed which ideas to go with or combine but an issue arose over whether the team wants the tests less like a test-like game environment and more like a proper game experience that can also perform the tests, or a test-like game experience that focuses on what's being tested solely. Both had valid points.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Weekly Report 3 – 20/10/09
The highlight of Team Mercury’s group progress this week has been conducting meetings with Dr. John Charlton and Andrew Williams. We met before our meeting with Dr. John Charlton on Wednesday October 14th to discuss what questions we could ask, acknowledging the fact that Paranoia wasn't exactly his area of expertise. We met Dr. Charlton is T2-012 at 12:30pm. He told us he had forwarded our email to someone with more experience in this field - Pam Ramsden (pm2@bolton.ac.uk).
He made it clear that what our study was aiming for wasn't the literal, clinical definition of paranoia as creating that kind of paranoia is highly unethical, and if actual games did create that sense, they would be illegal. Rather he believed our topic title referred to the more general meaning of paranoia - a sense of expectancy. Until then, we were unsure of what side of paranoia the topic title referred to, so this was useful and relieving information! However, our research into the clinical side of Paranoia will probably still be useful in recreating that sense of expectancy.
He told us to define the psychological state we are aiming for, and then make a questionnaire with clear psychometric properties (all the questions/items are measuring what we're aiming for). He gave us an example of how to conduct one, by having tester's play a game that does create a sense of paranoia/expectancy and a game that doesn't but from the same genre and then have them fill out a questionnaire before and after the test about how they felt and how the test made them feel, similarities and differences etc.
John also informed us that we would have to establish the validity of the questionnaire, proving that it does measure paranoia/expectancy. This can be done by 'T-Tests' which calculate statistics, means and standard deviations of the results and any fluctuations in those results. We will have to establish the reliability of the questionnaire if we aren't getting fluctuations from the ‘before and after’ questionnaires. We will have to establish its internal consistency and its psychometric properties - it must be fit to measure paranoia/expectancy.
Another idea John proposed to us was that we could have a validation test and an experimental test, where half the testers play the paranoid game first, then the non-paranoid game, whilst the other half play the non-paranoid game first and then the paranoid one. This is counter balancing which contributes to both sets of scores. We also discussed the idea of measuring heart rates and palm sweat with the equipment currently available to us. Dr. Charlton mentioned that these could not really measure what we specifically wanted, as they can be relevant to any means of arousal, however in combination with our questionnaires we could legitimately link their heart rates and sweat with paranoia/expectancy. This is called converging measures.
In terms of ethics, as we had agreed upon the non-clinical side of paranoia, and just wanted to induce a sense of expectancy which is often referred to as paranoia, Dr. Charlton said that a simple informed consent should be enough, e.g. "This might scare you, do you still want to do it?" He also recommended "SPSS Survival Guide for Psychologists" by Nicola Brace, Richard Kemp and Rosemary Snelgar and referred to us to the 'Psych-Info', 'Scopus' and 'Psych-Articles' searches on Bolton Uni's Athens page which came up with a manageable and highly relevant selection of studies and papers on our subject.
On Friday 16th October we met Andrew Williams for the first time and we explained our topic and progress to him. Having another opinion on the issue was highly beneficial, and he had some new ideas such as having tests where someone may act as a bot, or have some kind of ‘murder mystery’ theme to our tests. He also informed us that our Design document and pitch can just be ideas and comparisons, not everything has to be fixed and decided upon – the experiments will need a solid basis however our methods can change.
Team Mercury will spend a few more days finalising research into areas such as lighting, colour, narrative, level design and various books such as ‘Creating Emotions in Games’ by David Freeman and ‘Understanding Paranoia - A Guide for Professionals, Families and Sufferers’ by Martin Kantor. Then we will begin focusing our findings into a solid basis for experiments which will pave the way for a design document and pitch.
He made it clear that what our study was aiming for wasn't the literal, clinical definition of paranoia as creating that kind of paranoia is highly unethical, and if actual games did create that sense, they would be illegal. Rather he believed our topic title referred to the more general meaning of paranoia - a sense of expectancy. Until then, we were unsure of what side of paranoia the topic title referred to, so this was useful and relieving information! However, our research into the clinical side of Paranoia will probably still be useful in recreating that sense of expectancy.
He told us to define the psychological state we are aiming for, and then make a questionnaire with clear psychometric properties (all the questions/items are measuring what we're aiming for). He gave us an example of how to conduct one, by having tester's play a game that does create a sense of paranoia/expectancy and a game that doesn't but from the same genre and then have them fill out a questionnaire before and after the test about how they felt and how the test made them feel, similarities and differences etc.
John also informed us that we would have to establish the validity of the questionnaire, proving that it does measure paranoia/expectancy. This can be done by 'T-Tests' which calculate statistics, means and standard deviations of the results and any fluctuations in those results. We will have to establish the reliability of the questionnaire if we aren't getting fluctuations from the ‘before and after’ questionnaires. We will have to establish its internal consistency and its psychometric properties - it must be fit to measure paranoia/expectancy.
Another idea John proposed to us was that we could have a validation test and an experimental test, where half the testers play the paranoid game first, then the non-paranoid game, whilst the other half play the non-paranoid game first and then the paranoid one. This is counter balancing which contributes to both sets of scores. We also discussed the idea of measuring heart rates and palm sweat with the equipment currently available to us. Dr. Charlton mentioned that these could not really measure what we specifically wanted, as they can be relevant to any means of arousal, however in combination with our questionnaires we could legitimately link their heart rates and sweat with paranoia/expectancy. This is called converging measures.
In terms of ethics, as we had agreed upon the non-clinical side of paranoia, and just wanted to induce a sense of expectancy which is often referred to as paranoia, Dr. Charlton said that a simple informed consent should be enough, e.g. "This might scare you, do you still want to do it?" He also recommended "SPSS Survival Guide for Psychologists" by Nicola Brace, Richard Kemp and Rosemary Snelgar and referred to us to the 'Psych-Info', 'Scopus' and 'Psych-Articles' searches on Bolton Uni's Athens page which came up with a manageable and highly relevant selection of studies and papers on our subject.
On Friday 16th October we met Andrew Williams for the first time and we explained our topic and progress to him. Having another opinion on the issue was highly beneficial, and he had some new ideas such as having tests where someone may act as a bot, or have some kind of ‘murder mystery’ theme to our tests. He also informed us that our Design document and pitch can just be ideas and comparisons, not everything has to be fixed and decided upon – the experiments will need a solid basis however our methods can change.
Team Mercury will spend a few more days finalising research into areas such as lighting, colour, narrative, level design and various books such as ‘Creating Emotions in Games’ by David Freeman and ‘Understanding Paranoia - A Guide for Professionals, Families and Sufferers’ by Martin Kantor. Then we will begin focusing our findings into a solid basis for experiments which will pave the way for a design document and pitch.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Replies From Dr J. Charlton and Our Responses
Below is the reponses from Dr. John Charlton and also our replies to his e-mails.
Hello Lewis,
Unfortunately I don't know much about paranoia, so the guidance that I could offer on this topic would be limited, but I can offer help on psychological methodology in general. If you would find this useful I could see you on Monday (12th Oct) at 1.30.
Alternatively, I could forward your e-mail to other psychology staff if you need expertise re. paranoia rather than just psychological methodology in general.
I'll wait to hear from you re. whether you want to see me or whether I should forward your e-mail.
Cheers,
John.
Here is our response to this e-mail that he sent.
Hello John,
I have just read your email this morning my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. The Monday time slot you pen out for me and my team would have been great if not for missing your email, again I would like to apologise for this.
You mentioned in your email that you could forward the details to other faculty members in your department to see if they could help with the project, if this is still possible it would be really beneficial to us.
I understand you don’t have a great knowledge on paranoia but the help you could offer us in psychological methodology in general would be very useful. If you could fit me and my team in later this week (I will be checking my email every 5 min’s) that would be great.
Cheers
Lewis
Here is his response to our e-mail that we sent back
Hello Lewis,
I could see you tomorrow (Wednesday) at 12.30. Is this OK?
I'm in room T2-30 (second floor of the main Eagle building).
Cheers,
John.
Here is our response to his e-mail.
Hi john,
Tomorrow would be great see, you then at 12:30.
Cheers.
Lewis
Hello Lewis,
Unfortunately I don't know much about paranoia, so the guidance that I could offer on this topic would be limited, but I can offer help on psychological methodology in general. If you would find this useful I could see you on Monday (12th Oct) at 1.30.
Alternatively, I could forward your e-mail to other psychology staff if you need expertise re. paranoia rather than just psychological methodology in general.
I'll wait to hear from you re. whether you want to see me or whether I should forward your e-mail.
Cheers,
John.
Here is our response to this e-mail that he sent.
Hello John,
I have just read your email this morning my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. The Monday time slot you pen out for me and my team would have been great if not for missing your email, again I would like to apologise for this.
You mentioned in your email that you could forward the details to other faculty members in your department to see if they could help with the project, if this is still possible it would be really beneficial to us.
I understand you don’t have a great knowledge on paranoia but the help you could offer us in psychological methodology in general would be very useful. If you could fit me and my team in later this week (I will be checking my email every 5 min’s) that would be great.
Cheers
Lewis
Here is his response to our e-mail that we sent back
Hello Lewis,
I could see you tomorrow (Wednesday) at 12.30. Is this OK?
I'm in room T2-30 (second floor of the main Eagle building).
Cheers,
John.
Here is our response to his e-mail.
Hi john,
Tomorrow would be great see, you then at 12:30.
Cheers.
Lewis
Weekly Report 2 [13/10/09]
After the conclusions made at the end of week 1, Team Mercury met again on Tuesday October 6th to identify key areas to focus initial research on in order to gain a clearer plan on how our project would be structured. The areas that were agreed upon that needed further study was Paranoia itself, unique mechanics within games that made them scary and/or caused paranoia, and environmental effects such as sound, lighting, visuals, setting, narrative and level design. Each member of the group was assigned an area to investigate which will be completed over the coming weeks.
Another issue that was brought to the table was the need for an efficient means of communication beyond just texts and emails. The team saw eye to eye on creating a forum board, eventually powered by professional boardhosts “phpBB” at http://www.phpbb.com/. Last week we had intended to ask the lecturers if it would be possible to alter the topic to focus on a specific area of the game environment; however Amanda Dewhurst told us not to ignore any aspect of the definition of the game environment just yet as we are still all unsure how much information each area could provide. It might not be enough to focus on for a year, or too much to focus on etc.
Team Mercury met again on Friday October 9th before our scheduled meeting with Brian and Phil to see what had been accomplished so far from the previously set tasks. A fair bit of research had been done into unique game mechanics as well as environmental effects and the book, “Cognitive Therapy for Delusions, Voices and Paranoia” by Chadwick, P. Birchwood, M. & Trower, P had been studied for all its worth and posted on the forums. Another topic discussed was the importance for a research deadline, thus leaving enough time to complete and Design document and Pitch and also to allocate any further research we may receive from Dr. John Charlton, whom we emailed asking for an appointment. It was agreed that the 20th October would be a sufficient date to accommodate this.
In order to use our time with Brian and Phil as resourceful as possible, we wrote down a number of questions and issues to bring up with them on areas such as testing procedures, ethics, further information on what the Design document and Pitch actually entails and their thoughts on changing the topic to focus on a specific area. During our meeting, we conversed about the definition of paranoia, involuntary actions and whether they are linked to what we are doing, ethics, mental health and previous history of it within possible test subjects and whether it is truly possible to describe someone’s reactions from a test as paranoid and not have it mistaken with another emotion such as excitement which is what a previous group concluded. The possibility of “failure” therefore exists in the sense that although we may not prove that game environments can create paranoia, we will inevitably have some kind of conclusion to write as long as we explain what was achieved and why.
Phil also recommended to us some useful books on the subject matter and so after the meeting came to an end, we set off to the University’s library to check if they were in stock. We took out Understanding Emotions by Keith Oatley and Jennifer M. Jenkins, Gestalt Therapy by Frederick Perls, Ralph Hefferline and Paul Goodman, Gestalt Counselling in Action by Petruska Clarkson and Skills in Gestalt Counselling and Psychotherapy by Phil Joyce and Charlotte Sills. Another useful book was Cognitive Therapy Techniques - A Practioneer's Guide by Robert L. Leah which proved to be informative however it was not allowed to be borrowed from the library. On Monday 12th October we checked Bolton’s library, however it was out of stock.
Another issue that was brought to the table was the need for an efficient means of communication beyond just texts and emails. The team saw eye to eye on creating a forum board, eventually powered by professional boardhosts “phpBB” at http://www.phpbb.com/. Last week we had intended to ask the lecturers if it would be possible to alter the topic to focus on a specific area of the game environment; however Amanda Dewhurst told us not to ignore any aspect of the definition of the game environment just yet as we are still all unsure how much information each area could provide. It might not be enough to focus on for a year, or too much to focus on etc.
Team Mercury met again on Friday October 9th before our scheduled meeting with Brian and Phil to see what had been accomplished so far from the previously set tasks. A fair bit of research had been done into unique game mechanics as well as environmental effects and the book, “Cognitive Therapy for Delusions, Voices and Paranoia” by Chadwick, P. Birchwood, M. & Trower, P had been studied for all its worth and posted on the forums. Another topic discussed was the importance for a research deadline, thus leaving enough time to complete and Design document and Pitch and also to allocate any further research we may receive from Dr. John Charlton, whom we emailed asking for an appointment. It was agreed that the 20th October would be a sufficient date to accommodate this.
In order to use our time with Brian and Phil as resourceful as possible, we wrote down a number of questions and issues to bring up with them on areas such as testing procedures, ethics, further information on what the Design document and Pitch actually entails and their thoughts on changing the topic to focus on a specific area. During our meeting, we conversed about the definition of paranoia, involuntary actions and whether they are linked to what we are doing, ethics, mental health and previous history of it within possible test subjects and whether it is truly possible to describe someone’s reactions from a test as paranoid and not have it mistaken with another emotion such as excitement which is what a previous group concluded. The possibility of “failure” therefore exists in the sense that although we may not prove that game environments can create paranoia, we will inevitably have some kind of conclusion to write as long as we explain what was achieved and why.
Phil also recommended to us some useful books on the subject matter and so after the meeting came to an end, we set off to the University’s library to check if they were in stock. We took out Understanding Emotions by Keith Oatley and Jennifer M. Jenkins, Gestalt Therapy by Frederick Perls, Ralph Hefferline and Paul Goodman, Gestalt Counselling in Action by Petruska Clarkson and Skills in Gestalt Counselling and Psychotherapy by Phil Joyce and Charlotte Sills. Another useful book was Cognitive Therapy Techniques - A Practioneer's Guide by Robert L. Leah which proved to be informative however it was not allowed to be borrowed from the library. On Monday 12th October we checked Bolton’s library, however it was out of stock.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Email to Dr J.Charlton
Here is an e-mail that we sent to Dr. Charlton, to request a meeting for a academics input on the area.
Hello,
My name is Lewis Drinnan and I am currently a third year Computer Games Design student.
My group and I are in the process of creating a draft project proposal for our final team project.
The focus of the project is paranoia, how it is created within a game and what effects it has on the players. We understand that the subject of paranoia is quite substantial and our understanding of it is limited to our initial research.
Brian Morris and Phil Carlisle mentioned that you have been helpful to games students in the past and we were hoping you would extend that courtesy to us. If you could spare us some of your time in the next few weeks, that would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Lewis Drinnan
Hello,
My name is Lewis Drinnan and I am currently a third year Computer Games Design student.
My group and I are in the process of creating a draft project proposal for our final team project.
The focus of the project is paranoia, how it is created within a game and what effects it has on the players. We understand that the subject of paranoia is quite substantial and our understanding of it is limited to our initial research.
Brian Morris and Phil Carlisle mentioned that you have been helpful to games students in the past and we were hoping you would extend that courtesy to us. If you could spare us some of your time in the next few weeks, that would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Lewis Drinnan
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Weekly Report 1 [06/10/09]
We discussed meeting up today to go through a few ideas before we had our weekly meeting with Phil.
The overall progress of the project thus far has been mainly throwing ideas around and discussing what each of us want to get out of this project and how can we achieve that. We compiled a list of ideas of possible ways to test how we could invoke and record feeling of paranoia within a test subject.
We browsed the library for subject material and found a few interesting candidates.
After coffee, we met up with Phil and brain stormed more ideas on what we wish to achieve and how to go about this. One of the main subjects of discussion was the use of sound to invoke a sense of paranoia within a player i.e. Pavlovian Theory. We discussed some of the scientific equipment that was available to use and also about the ethics of performing certain tests.
In the coming week we are going to continue researching in to the physiology of paranoia as well as looking at a few more games in which paranoia is used. We should also try to focus our ideas into a singular goal. This way we can get a good head start on the Design Document.
We plan to ask about altering the topic question to a more precise variant which focuses on a specific aspect of the level design. This will enable us clearly define what we want to accomplish from this module.
The overall progress of the project thus far has been mainly throwing ideas around and discussing what each of us want to get out of this project and how can we achieve that. We compiled a list of ideas of possible ways to test how we could invoke and record feeling of paranoia within a test subject.
We browsed the library for subject material and found a few interesting candidates.
After coffee, we met up with Phil and brain stormed more ideas on what we wish to achieve and how to go about this. One of the main subjects of discussion was the use of sound to invoke a sense of paranoia within a player i.e. Pavlovian Theory. We discussed some of the scientific equipment that was available to use and also about the ethics of performing certain tests.
In the coming week we are going to continue researching in to the physiology of paranoia as well as looking at a few more games in which paranoia is used. We should also try to focus our ideas into a singular goal. This way we can get a good head start on the Design Document.
We plan to ask about altering the topic question to a more precise variant which focuses on a specific aspect of the level design. This will enable us clearly define what we want to accomplish from this module.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Project Proposal......
So here is the original project proposal from last year;
Title: How does an in game environment encourage feelings of fear, unease and paranoia?
Project Aims: To look at the aspects of level design in the genre of horror video games and how they are designed to encourage certain emotions such as fear, tension and paranoia. I will do this by studying the current and past generation of in game levels in the survival horror genre and learn more about why trhey are designed the way they are. How do they create the believability in order for a player to become emotionally attached and thus, become more open to the set Pieces that will scare them?
Description: My main task will be to look at certain aspects of level design, especially in the genre of survival horror games and find out why certain levels are built the way they are. This will require research into different types of horror media such as books, films and of course games. I will then create a level for a game that will encourage feelings of suspense, paranoia and tension.
Objectives- Expected outcome(s) and deliverables: To hopefully understand why horror games are the way they are. Why they are built the way they are and to find out what makes an in gamed level scary.
Title: How does an in game environment encourage feelings of fear, unease and paranoia?
Project Aims: To look at the aspects of level design in the genre of horror video games and how they are designed to encourage certain emotions such as fear, tension and paranoia. I will do this by studying the current and past generation of in game levels in the survival horror genre and learn more about why trhey are designed the way they are. How do they create the believability in order for a player to become emotionally attached and thus, become more open to the set Pieces that will scare them?
Description: My main task will be to look at certain aspects of level design, especially in the genre of survival horror games and find out why certain levels are built the way they are. This will require research into different types of horror media such as books, films and of course games. I will then create a level for a game that will encourage feelings of suspense, paranoia and tension.
Objectives- Expected outcome(s) and deliverables: To hopefully understand why horror games are the way they are. Why they are built the way they are and to find out what makes an in gamed level scary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
