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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
