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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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)
