city as theatre

8/19/2019 City as Theatre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/city-as-theatre 1/100

IPerG Deliverable

Integrated Project on Pervasive Gaming

FP6 - 004457

WP12: City as Theatre

Deliverable D12.6

Evaluation of Day of the Figurines II

Final Report of the City as Theatre Showcase

Edited by Steve Benford

Contributors:

Mauricio Capra, Steve Benford, Martin Flintham, Chris Greenhalgh, Keir Smith, JonGreen, Adam Drozd, Andy Crabtree, Nick Tandavanitj, Matt Adams, Ju Row Farr,

Maria Åresund

Version 1

Release date: 15th January 2007

Status: public



IPerG -FP6 –004457 Deliverable 12.6 version 1

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City as Theatre (CAT) is one of five workpackages called “showcases” within IPerG

that demonstrate and study new examples of pervasive games. The CAT showcase isexploring artist-led pervasive games, drawing on the talents of artists to create novel andcompelling experiences that offer visions of how more mainstream games might be inthe future. This has involved developing a prototype public performance called Day ofthe Figurines, a slow pervasive game in the form of a massively-multiplayer board-game that is played using mobile phones via the medium of text messaging.

This deliverable presents an evaluation of Day of the Figurines II (the second majoriteration of the game) as it was performed in Berlin in October 2006 and Singapore inDecember 2006, being experienced by over 140 players in each. The evaluation drawson a combination of questionnaire results, system logs and feedback from the game’sauthors and operators to construct a broad picture of how the game was experienced byits players.

Overall, our evaluation concludes that Day of the Figurines has emerged as being astable and largely enjoyable experience by the end of the Singapore performance, withthe majority of players (who had paid to take part) saying that they would play againand also having demonstrated considerable engagement with the game (not least bysending more than 11,000 messages to it between them).

However, our evaluation also notes that the experience was far less well received atBerlin and discusses some of the reasons why this may have been so including changesto the content made between the two performances but also differences in language and

SMS costs and culture.Our evaluation also unpacks some different facets of the game. We note that playtended to be episodic and that, by and large, players were able to interweave the gamewith the patterns of their daily lives without major problems. We also note the impact ofthe augmented game board on framing player’s experiences. An analysis of players’responses to different features of the game shows that the valued its openness and alsointeraction with other players, but also shows where further improvements can be made,especially in the difficulty of missions.




iii

Deliverable Identification Sheet

IST Project No. FP6 – 004457

Acronym IPerG

Full title Integrated Project on Pervasive Gaming

Project URL http://IPerG.sics.se/

EU Project Officer Albert GAUTHIER

Deliverable D12.6 Evaluation of Day of the Figurines II

Work package WP12 City as Theatre

Date of delivery Contractual Month 27 Actual Month 27

Status Version 1 final

Nature Prototypep Reportþ Disseminationp

DisseminationLevel

Publicþ Consortiump

Authors (Partner)

Mauricio Capra, Steve Benford, Martin Flintham, Chris Greenhalgh,Keir Smith, Jon Green, Adam Drozd, Andy Crabtree, Nick

Tandavanitj, Matt Adams, Ju Row Farr, Maria …

Steve Benford Email [email protected] ResponsibleAuthor

Partner NOTT Phone +44 115 951 4203

Abstract(fordissemination)

City as Theatre (CAT) is one of five workpackages called “showcases”within IPerG that demonstrate and study new examples of pervasivegames. The CAT showcase is exploring artist-led pervasive games,drawing on the talents of artists to create novel and compellingexperiences that offer visions of how more mainstream games might bein the future. This has involved developing a prototype public

performance called Day of the Figurines, a slow pervasive game in theform of a massively-multiplayer board-game that is played using mobile

phones via the medium of text messaging.

This deliverable presents an evaluation of Day of the Figurines II (thesecond major iteration of the game) as it was performed in Berlin in

mailto:[email protected]

http://dip.semanticweb.org/




iv

October 2006 and Singapore in December 2006, being experienced byover 140 players in each. The evaluation draws on a combination ofquestionnaire results, system logs and feedback from the game’s authorsand operators to construct a broad picture of how the game wasexperienced by its players.

Overall, our evaluation concludes that Day of the Figurines hasemerged as being a stable and largely enjoyable experience by the endof the Singapore performance, with the majority of players (who had

paid to take part) saying that they would play again and also havingdemonstrated considerable engagement with the game (not least bysending more than 11,000 messages to it between them).

However, our evaluation also notes that the experience was far less wellreceived at Berlin and discusses some of the reasons why this may have

been so including changes to the content made between the two performances but also differences in language and SMS costs andculture.

Our evaluation also unpacks some different facets of the game. We notethat play tended to be episodic and that, by and large, players were ableto interweave the game with the patterns of their daily lives withoutmajor problems. We also note the impact of the augmented game boardon framing player’s experiences. An analysis of players’ responses todifferent features of the game shows that the valued its openness andalso interaction with other players, but also shows where furtherimprovements can be made, especially in the difficulty of missions.

Keywords City as Theatre, Day of the Figurines, SMS, Test Messaging, Orchestration,Improvisation

Version Log

Issue Date Rev No. Author Change

2.8.2005 1 Benford First version




v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................V

TABLE OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... VI

TABLE LIST .............................................................................................................. VIII

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................... ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO DAY OF THE FIGURINES IIERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT

DEFINED.

2.1 The game board and figurines.............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2 Game play........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3 Key extensions from DoF I.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3 AN EXAMPLE PLAYER EXPERIENCE.........................ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

4 EVALUATION METHOD...........................................ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.




vi

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Introduction and Instructions..........................................................................7

Figure 2 Choosing a Figurine........................................................................................ 8

Figure 3 The Board and Spectator Interface ..................................................................9

Figure 4 Figurines on the Board ..................................................................................10

Figure 5 Board Augmentation ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 Moving a Figurine.........................................................................................11

Figure 7 Enjoyed the Game – Berlin Results ...............................................................20

Figure 8 Enjoyed the Game – Singapore Results ......................................................... 21

Figure 9 Play Again – Berlin and Singapore Results ................................................... 21

Figure 10 Were messages informative to Berlin Players? ............................................ 27

Figure 11 Were messages informative to Singapore players?....................................... 27

Figure 12 Were messages well composed to Berlin players? ....................................... 28

Figure 13 Were messages well composed to Singapore players? ................................. 28

Figure 14 Were messages well composed to Singapore players? ................................. 28

Figure 15 Were messages easy to understand to Singapore players?............................ 29

Figure 16 Was there enough to do in the game? .......................................................... 30

Figure 17 Overall pattern of play................................................................................ 35

Figure 18 Real Places to Play the Game ..................................................................... 36

Figure 19 The Messages Disrupting Player’s Activities............................................... 38

Figure 20 Volume of messages received by Berlin players ......................................... 42

Figure 21 Volume of messages received by Singapore players ................................... 42

Figure 22 Saving Messages in the Phone.................................................................... 45

Figure 23 The pattern of joining, leaving and dying from Berlin ................................. 53

Figure 24 The pattern of joining, leaving and dying from Singapore ........................... 53

Figure 25 Messages to and from the game by hour of day – Berlin.............................. 55

Figure 26 Messages to and from the game by hour of day – Singapore........................ 55

Figure 27 Messages sent and received by day - Berlin................................................. 56

Figure 28 Messages sent and received by day - Singapore........................................... 57

Figure 29 Messages by type – Berlin and Singapore.................................................... 58

Figure 31 Completion of missions - Berlin.................................................................. 59

Figure 32 Completion of missions - Singapore............................................................ 59




1

1 INTRODUCTION

The City as Theatre showcase is exploring artist-led pervasive games, drawing on thetalents of artists to create novel and compelling experiences that offer visions of howmore mainstream games might be in the future. Our driving motivations are:

· Artistic uses of new technologies that draw upon the creativity and vision of artistscan pave the way for more mainstream commercial applications.

· Staging artistic works at new media festivals provides access to public audiences asexperimental subjects for IPerG research and also raises the public profile of theresearch.

· Artistic performance is a culturally important application area in its own right, and

one that can successfully draw on emerging game technologies.

While several previous pervasive performances outside of iPerG have been successfulfrom an artistic perspective, they have also been limited in scale, delivering anexperience to relatively small numbers of participants. In IPerG we are looking to move

beyond these previous works by developing new experiences that are more scalablewhile remaining artistically rich. In order to reach this goal, we have taken the keydecision to deliver our experiences to participants’ own mobile phones, rather thanhaving to loan them specialised equipment as we have done before. We have alsodecided to focus on creating long term and wide area experiences that unfold over many

weeks, which can be played on an ongoing basis from many locations and which areinterwoven with players’ everyday activities. In this, we are particularly focus on thetemporal expansion of games as discussed in a previous IPerG deliverable (Montola2006).

Over the past two years the City as Theatre showcase has iteratively developed anartistic pervasive game called Day of the Figurines. A series of previous deliverableshave described how this concept emerged from a series of initial workshops, its initialdesign (Benford 2005), a first implementation (Flintham 2005) and an evaluation of alarge scale public test of this first version involving 85 players for a month and hosted atthe Laban Centre in London (Capra 2006). This informed a substantial redesign andextension of Day of the Figurines as reported in (Benford 2006) which was then

implemented as D12.6. This deliverable reports on the staging of the second version ofDay of the Figurines (henceforth called Day of the Figurines II, shortened to DoF II)and its subsequent evaluation. In fact, this deliverable describes two distinct

performances of DoF II, in Berlin in October 2006 where it was experienced by 141 players and in Singapore in December 2006 where it was experienced by 146 players. Infact, based on the experience of Berlin the game content was refined and extended priorto Singapore and so we are therefore describing two different iterations of DoF II – wewill clarify these differences where appropriate.

The aim of the deliverable is to reflect on the success or otherwise of differentaspects of the design and implementation of DoF II, drawing out general lessons for

IPerG and for external researchers. The deliverable also suggests some further minor




2

refinements to the experience before it begins it main touring life which is currentlyscheduled to start with a UK tour in the first half of 2007.

The remainder of this deliverable is structured as follows:

· Chapter 2 provides a brief introduction to the design of Day of the Figurines II,including a very brief history of its emergence from Day of the Figurines version 1.

· Chapter 3 provides a walk through a Day of the Figurines from a player’s perspective in order to illustrate its key design features.

· Chapter 4 discusses our evaluation method, in particular how we draw on the IPerGcommon evaluation guidelines (Montola 2006) and the IPerG Polling Tool (Appelt2006) to design, deploy and evaluate a questionnaire to help us understand the

player experience and how we back this up with analysis of system logs.

· Chapter 5 evaluates the player experience of Day of the Figurines II by analysing

questionnaire results from both Berlin and Singapore.

· Chapter 6 draws on system logs to analyse patterns of message exchange between players and the game in order to further understand how players played the gameand also the underlying software implementation performed.

· Chapter 7 evaluates the authoring and orchestration tools that were developed tosupport Day of the Figurines, describing each tool and summarising feedback fromthe game authors and operators about its usefulness and potential furtherdevelopment.

· Chapter 8 reflects on the general nature of Day of the Figurines drawing out both

strengths and weaknesses.




3

2 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO DAY OF THE FIGURINES II

For completeness, we begin with a brief overview of the design of Day of the FigurinesII, summarising material from the previous deliverable (Benford 2006).

The game can perhaps best be envisaged as a massively multiplayer board game that is played using text messaging on mobile phones. The game follows twenty four hours inthe life of a small virtual town. Each player chooses and subsequently controls (via their

phone) a small plastic figurine that represents their character, that journeys through thetown (and across the game board that represents the town), that meets and talks to otherfigurines, visits destinations, finds and uses objects, resolves dilemmas and undertakesmissions.

The twenty four hours of virtual game time are mapped onto twenty four days ofreal time. Unlike many simulation games in which game time is usually acceleratedrelative to real-time, in DoF II it is slowed down so as to deliberately create a slowgame that unfolds in the background of players’ ongoing lives, perhaps only involvingthe exchange of a few text messages each day.

Day of the Figurines II is unlike conventional games in other ways too. Theobjective is deliberately ambiguous; players are released into the town and told thattheir goal is to help other players, the rules that govern the virtual city have to bediscovered, and there is a strong emphasis on emergent game play in which playersconstruct elements of the game through the exchange of SMS messages. The back storyto the game is that the players are refugees who have arrived in a British Town. The

players have to learn how to survive, get to experience various events within the townand ultimately have to decide whether or not to side with an army of soldiers who enterthe town towards the end of the game. Players can become more or less healthy and caneven die, but beyond this there is no explicit winning or losing. Rather the game isconcerned with exploring and constructing a shared interactive narrative through role

play, hopefully resulting in an engaging and even provocative experience. In this sense,the experience is a blend of artistic performance and computer game.

2.1 The game board and figurines

Another performative aspect of DoF II can be found in the game board which is

housed in a public setting such as a museum, gallery or theatre. The board is a large anddistinctive physical structure which shows the destinations within the town and the

positions of the figurines that are playing at any moment in time. Players have to visitthe board to register for DoF II and it is therefore their first point of contact with thegame. The board is continually tended by a team of human operators throughout the tenhours of every day when the game is active. These operators register players and alsomanually move the figurines across the board, following instructions from the gameengine that are projected onto the table as a series of visible augmentations. Theoperators are therefore publicly performing the operation of the game, revealing someaspects of its inner working for new players and passing spectators, serving to attractattention, generate interest, and frame the overall experience for new players.




4

Once a player has registered for the game, which includes choosing key attributesof their figurine such as its name and description and also entering their phone numberinto the system, they are free to leave the venue. From now on, they control theirfigurine by sending SMS text messages to the game server and by receiving furthermessages in return that tell them what their figurine sees, hears and experiences.

2.2 Game play

Players control their figurines through a small set of predefined commands andeach SMS message that they send to the game has to begin with a recognised commandname. The commands are:

· GO <destination> - moves this player to the named destination

· SAY <message> - sends this message to other nearby players

· FIND <player> - checks whether the named player is at the currentdestination and if they are moves this player to be within talking distance ofthem

· PICK <object> - picks up the named object

· DROP – drops the currently held object

· USE – uses the currently held object, triggering its particular effect

· UPDATE – tells the player which other players and objects they cancurrently see nearby and reminds them of their current health status

·

HELP – returns a message directing players where to find online help andalso logs a help request in the system for operators to deal with later on

· LEAVE TOWN – quits the game for this player

Players can visit fifty distinct destinations in the game. Each time they arrive at adestination they receive its description. Depending on the current game time,destinations may be open in which case players receive its ‘inside the destination’description or closed in which case they receive its ‘outside the destination’ description.Each destination also has a fixed capacity which constrains the number of players whoare allowed inside at any given time.

Internally, destinations are structured into multiple invisible ‘silos’ which automatically

group players into conversational subgroups such that the SAY messages that a playersends are only distributed to those other players who are in their current silo. Eachdestination has its own silo size enabling some destinations to feel more crowded and

busy (e.g., the Locarno nightclub which has a silo size of 10) while others feel quiet andsolitary (e.g., the Cemetery which has a silo size of 1 so that you are always alone).

Each player has a health score that reflects their overall status in the game. Playerschange their health or the health of others by finding and using objects. For example,using food and drink objects will often increase their health whereas the pool cue isessentially a weapon. Many objects have dual uses, directly or indirectly increasinghealth when used at some destinations and times and decreasing health at others. For

example the plank of wood often acts as a weapon, but is actually needed for breakinginto the boarded up shop as part of a mission. A player’s health can deteriorate to the




5

point where they become incapacitated, meaning that they cannot move, drop all objectsand can only talk to other nearby players. These players may help them by using cariousobjects, most notably the defibrillator which restores incapacitated players (but

backfires and hurts its wielder or bystanders if no incapacitated players ate present whenit is used). If a players health diminished further then they will die and their game isover. It is possible to kill other players by repeatedly using a weapon object on them.

As well as chatting to one another, players interact with various kinds of pre-scriptedcontent. Events are authored SMS messages that are associated with a set ofdestinations and that are sent to players at predetermined times and that provide thegame with a basic underlying narrative of action that unfolds over time. Dilemmas areevents that demand a multiple choice response that in turn triggers a subsequentresponse message and also a change to the player’s health level. Finally, missionscombine multiple events, dilemmas, destinations and objects into more complex andlonger-running narrative structures. For example, players at the Internet Café will be

allocated a mission in which they have to free some dogs from the Rat ResearchInstitute. Completing this mission involves finding a stepladder object (which can befound at the Lock) taking this to the Institute and then using it to scale the walls to getinside. Once inside they have to correctly answer a dilemma about where to run to next.Selecting the correct response tells them to pick up a sick dog object at which point themission is completed successfully, in which case their health increases. On the otherhand, the mission fails if the player gives the wrong response to the dilemma or fails tocomplete all of the steps within the prescribed time limit, in which case the player’shealth decreases.

Special ‘help player’ missions will be automated generated for some incapacitated

players, inviting other players in the game to find them and restore them back to betterhealth.

2.3 Key extensions from DoF I

We end this short introduction to DoF II by briefly highlighting how DoF II extendedthe first version of the experience based on the findings of the evaluation of the 2005

public trial at the Laban Centre in London.

Unlike in the first version where messages to the game were freeform and the gameoperators manually classified these and often manually edited or sometimes evenwholly generated responses, the game play in DoF II was fully automated. The game

engine parsed incoming messages, implemented all of the actions available to players,and automatically generated responses. The only exception was the final messagereceived by a player who had died, which was still handcrafted by the operators toensure an appropriate final exit from the game. This automated system made the gamefar more scalable.

In addition to being automated, game play was also extended with new kinds of contentthat was intended to give players greater structure and sense of purpose, responding to amajor criticism from Laban. Objects, health and missions were all introduced in DoF II.

We implemented web-based tools for authoring the game content and for orchestratingthe experience. We provided online interfaces for new players to register their detailsand also new interfaces for operators to be able to track the numbers of players joining,leaving and dying and also key events such as errors and becoming incapacitated.




8

Figure 2 Choosing a Figurine




10

Figure 4 Figurines on the Board




11

Periodically, a projector shines visible augmentations onto the table so as to help thegame operators update the positions of the figurines.

Figure 5 Board Augmentation

Figure 6 Moving a Figurine




13

GMT Sat

09 Dec

Sent

10:30GMT Sat

09 Dec

Go rat

In the following, we rejoin Floss a short while later as she nears the end of this mission.She has been to the Rat Research Institute and realised that she would need a step ladderto get in. She has since found a step ladder at the Lock, picked it up and returned to theInstitute. The following sequence shows how missions combine other gamemechanisms such as the use of objects (in this case a stepladder) and dilemmas intomore complex and sustained sequences of action. Floss chooses the wrong option in thefinal dilemma and fails her mission.

Received

09:01

GMT Sun

10 Dec

10:36am, the fence is high. A passing workman gazes up at that high

fence: Gor blimey, guvnor, you ain't getting over that without a step

ladder, so you isn't.

Sent 09:05

GMT Sun

10 Dec

Say hey everyone, i found a load of stepladders at the lock. Let's see if

they get me in.

Sent 09:06

GMT Sun10 Dec

Use stepladder

Received

09:08

GMT Sun

10 Dec

10:36am, You are feeling OK.

Received

09:11

GMT Sun

10 Dec

10:37am, you nip up the steps and jump down inside the yard. Fantastic

work, liberator! Wait for a second to catch your breath.

Received 09:36

GMT Sun

10 Dec

10:39am, now do you A: Run across the car park in a crouch to reception

B: Creep around the perimeter to a fire exit C: Smash a slot window at

basement level?

Sent 10:01

GMT Sun

10 Dec

A

Received

10:06

GMT Sun

10 Dec

10:42am, you stumble on a patch of greasy substance, alerting a guard in

reception. Task failed. You head for the exit and come across a SICK DOG.

Pick it up.




14

Our next fragment shows the use of objects to change a player’s health. In this case,Floss downs a pint of Vale (beer) which improved her health level to “well”.

Received

12:06

GMT Thu 21

Dec

09:57pm, you've arrived at the Trafalgar Sq, Italian football is on the telly.

BERNARD, EVE and SUCHDA are here. There are many PINTS here.

Sent 12:09

GMT Thu 21

Dec

Use pint

Received

12:13

GMT Thu 21

Dec

09:57pm, you down the pint of Vale leaving a modest foam moustache on

your top lip. You are feeling well.

The first message in this sequence shows the DoF message aggregation technique inaction. The first part of the message (“09:57pm, you've arrived at the Trafalgar Sq,Italian football is on the telly.”) is a pre-authored destination description message that issent to players when ever they arrive at the pub “The Battle of Trafalgar Square”. Thetext “BERNARD, EVE and SUCHDA are here. There are many PINTS here.” has beendynamically appended to this in order to give the player information about their currentsurroundings, trying to maximise the use of SMS bandwidth.

Players can also explicitly request information about their current state, surroundings

and mission if they have been assigned one via the UPDATE command. In thisexample, Floss is on a mission to find a wristband.

Sent 05:01

GMT Mon 11

Dec

Update

Received

05:05

GMT Mon 11

Dec

11:12am, You're at the Video Zone. You are feeling ill. You're looking

for a WRISTBAND.

The following message shows that objects can also damage health as the playerADOLPH hits Floss with a crowbar, reducing her health to “OK”.

Received

12:27

GMT Sat 09

Dec

09:57am, ADOLF tosses a CROWBAR in the air. Flashing white pain as it

catches you in the back of the neck as it falls. You are feeling OK.




16

Although there is only a small set of commands to deal with, players can still makemistakes or circumstances can render a command impossible to carry out, in which case

the system must return an error message as we see in the following example in whichFloss tries to pick up an object that isn’t there. However, the game does provide aliasesfor commands, destinations and objects in order to be as flexible as possible. In this case‘defib’ is a valid alias for a DEFIBRILLATOR.

Sent 09:42

GMT Wed 27

Dec

Pick defib

Received

09:44

GMT Wed 27

Dec

03:41am, you can't see an object of that name to pick up. Perhaps

someone else has taken it?

Finally, the following extended sequence shows the end of the game for Floss. She isone of the lucky players who made it to the Recreation Ground by the end of the gameand were airlifted to safety (everyone else died), though not without first experiencingsome trepidation.

Received

06:20GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:21am, DELIGHT said: "I'm ill but don't think i should leave this place ife helicopter is arriving here right?"

Received

06:38

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:23am, MIDNITE said: "delight why not?"

Received

06:51

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:24am, DELIGHT said: "THERE'S A HELICOPTER COMING THAT'S

SUPPOSED TO SAVE US"

Received

07:14

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:27am, CHERYL said: "its not time yet."

Received

07:16

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:27am, DELIGHT said: "isn't e game ending today?"

Received

07:29

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:28am, CHERYL said: "yeah. Thats what i thought too. I think it does at

9 in the night."




17

Received

07:42

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:30am, as you all wait, a soldier moves down the line. He stops and

shoves you. Do you A: cower B: stare him in the eye C: shove him back?

Received

08:21

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:34am, you can smell sweat mingled with aftershave as he leans close.

He flicks you on the nose, giggles and moves on. You are feeling a bit well.

Received

10:09

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:45am, soldiers shove you onto a metal ramp and into the back of the

helicopter. It's a crush: HALO, MIMIMOMO, SAMANTHA and PUPPET are

here.

Sent 10:14

GMT Fri 29

Dec

Say Looks like this is the survivors party. At least i hope so

Received

10:18

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:45am, SAMANTHA said: "i hope this is not a one way ticket to the

concentration camp..."

Received

11:18

GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:52am, the metal door of the helicopter slams shut, plunging you into

darkness apart from a tiny port hole. Through the scratched perspex you

can see grass.

Received

12:07GMT Fri 29

Dec

05:57am, with a roar the chopper sways and takes off. Below in the town

you see scattered refugees stranded as you bank away into the grey dawn

light.

Received

13:17

GMT Fri 29

Dec

06:04am, dawn rises over the town as refugees flood the streets. 75

people have died but some have survived. The day is over. Thank you for

playing Day of the Figurines.




20

5 FEEDBACK FROM PLAYERS

We now begin our evaluation of Day of the Figurines II by considering players’ own

opinions of the experience as gathered through our questionnaire. In total, 47 playersanswered the questionnaire, 23 from the Berlin performance and 24 from the Singapore performance. Two thirds (31) of the answers come from women and one third (16) frommen. The average age of our respondents was 27 years old.

5.1 Players’ overall opinion

We begin by considering players’ overall opinions of the experience. The followinggraphs summarises players’ responses to the question: “Overall, how much did you

enjoy Day of the Figurines? 1 being not at all and 10 being you really liked it.”

Figure 7 summarises the responses to this question from our Berlin players. The shaded bars show the percentage of respondents who chose each particular response (labelledon the vertical axis). This is superimposed with a blue line that shows the actual numberof respondents in each case.

The mean response was 4.8, slightly tending towards not enjoying the game, with astandard deviation of 2.04. 5 players answered that did not enjoy the game (scores of 1or 2) whereas only 2 players said that really enjoyed the game (scores of 9 or 10).

Enjoyed the Game - Players in Germany

18.18

4.55

0.00

31.82

4.55

13.64

9.09 9.09

4.55 4.55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dind't enjoy

DoF at all

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Really

enjoyed

DoF

P e r c e n t a g e o f P l a y e r s

Figure 7 Enjoyed the Game – Berlin Results

Figure 8 summarises the responses from our Singapore players. In this case the meanwas 6.5, tending towards enjoying the game, with a standard deviation is 2.12. 2 playerssaid that they really did not enjoy the game while 3 said they really enjoyed it.




21

Enjoyed the Game - Players in Singapore

4.17 4.17

0.00

4.17

16.67 16.67

12.50

29.17

4.17

8.33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dind't enjoy

DoF at all

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Really

enjoyed

DoF

P e r c e n t a g e o f P l a y e

r s

Figure 8 Enjoyed the Game – Singapore Results

We also asked our players: “Would you like to take part in future games of Day of

the Figurines? Figure 9 summarises their responses. 50% of our Berlin players saidthey would like to take part in future games, which rose to 71% for our Singapore

players.

11

17

11

7

0

5

10

15

20

Yes No

Play Again - Players in Berlin and Singapore

Germany Singapore

Figure 9 Play Again – Berlin and Singapore Results

Overall, it appears that our Singapore players expressed a considerably more positiveopinion of DoF II than did our Berlin players. Indeed, whereas Berlin players tendedtowards a slightly negative opinion in general, Singapore players tended towards agenerally positive opinion. Some of the factors behind these opinions can be seen in

players’ statements about their specific dislikes and likes with regard to the game.

Both sets of players were asked “What didn’t you like about the game?” It appearsthat some Berlin players struggled with the particular use of English. The game uses alarge amount of informal English that could become difficult to understand for playerswho were not native English speakers:

Berlin player: The incomprehensible language the objective wasn't clear.

Berlin player: It was also hard for Germans with the English slang.




22

This was presumably much less of a problem in Singapore players where English isspoken as a first language.

The cost of text messaging was a major problem for many Berlin players, for example:

Berlin player: There was no support when I have been lost the limitation/

disadvantages of text messages: it takes long to talk to each other it takes long to walk

around and most notably: it is expensive!

Berlin player: To send messages gets expensive.

Berlin player: I wish I could play it also via my computer because it is quite expensive

on the phone.

Berlin player: It cost me money each time to send a message and in Germany it is

very expensive.

Indeed, there were reports from some Berlin players of having spent tens of Euros to play the game. In contrast, texting is far cheaper in Singapore and so cost was much lessof a issue for these players (we shall see later on that Singapore players sent many moremessages than did Berlin players). This difference between Berlin and Singaporeemphasis the key role that network operators and aggregators, especially their pricingstrategies, may play in the success or otherwise of pervasive games, directly supportingan observation made in IPerG’s previous work on business models for pervasive games(Svahn 2006).

Both language and cost also influenced Berlin players’ reasons for not wanting to playagain as in the following case:

Berlin player: Not if it is the same but if it would be in German or and understandable

English... and cheaper text messages are pretty expensive I would play it again.

Language and cost issues aside, the content and structure of the game were of course,also major factors. Some players felt that there was not enough to do in the game, that itwas difficult to know what to do, and that messages could become repetitive:

Berlin player: Loneliness and repetition. Being told to go somewhere but not finding

anything much there.

Berlin player: I felt it was difficult to get a larger view of what was happening or even

get to understand my situation.

Berlin player: A few clues along the way would have worked wonders. But there never

were ANY clues or tips to help out people who didn't know what to do.

Berlin player: I became frustrated when I didn't understand the rules - I wish there

could have been real responses to questions via text somehow.

Berlin player: I wanted more missions and it to be clear what was available to be

picked up.

Berlin player: The ending... damn stupid. It wasn't appropriable to the drama of the

assignment and the scenario.

Berlin player: I thought the general messages were unrelated to the game and

depressing. I never got any positive feedback and did not know what to do.




23

Singapore player: I couldn't grasp the purpose of the game truly when I couldn't do

anything but wait to die when I was mortally wounded and when places I go do not have

items I want.

Singapore player: Did not understand how to improve my health conditions.

The feedback from Berlin led us to make several key changes to the content andframing of the game in advance of Singapore. Players were given a clearer introductionas well as a physical card with written instructions. New missions were created, existingmissions were simplified and mission allocation was changed to ensure that playerswere assigned a greater number of missions. Players were given more explicit clues asto where to go in the game. The health system was simplified and the effects of objectson health were made more consistent. Finally, a new ending was introduced. In general,the level of dissatisfaction with the content was considerable less from Singapore than itwas from Berlin, suggesting that these measures were fairly successful.

These same content issues can also be seen in players’ responses to the question: “what

do they think that would have made their gaming experience even better?

Singapore player: Better instructions? More help?

Singapore player: I think more instruction on how to play the game better should be

given. As initially I am totally lost and I am not the only one.

Singapore player: Maybe if I had more info before I started. The people who

introduced the game seemed very bored and uninterested didn’t make a good

impression on me.

This last comment highlights the importance of the local operators in framing theexperience for players and suggests that we need to think more carefully about theirtraining and possibly even selection in the future. Other responses to this questionincluded:

Berlin player: Less loneliness more missions more variety of messages between

locations more variety of action within the game different types of messages between

locations.

Berlin player: Having to achieve something having a buddy player or a team...

something that would build some personal interest at more of a resolution or more of adramatic ending.

Singapore player: More tasks abilities to interact with more people.

Berlin player: More reward for successfully done assignments more information about

these rewards more generic information (of logical nature: e.g. something about the

current events in the internet-cafe) or about the dangers/advantages of certain

objects/places at least through an explicit update-request.




24

Berlin player: If you would have been able to find out more about your state and how

you can help yourself and where to find this about the single places etc.

Berlin player: More communication more assignments better ending.

Berlin player: I think it needed more clues and some more directed individual

"mission". Just as a means to give you some focus.

Berlin player: More clues for players that responded when you asked questions

happier messages some sense that things were progressing. The messages were too

obtuse and there was never a developing story. What did it all mean??? It should have

more happened/ decisions to be made.

Singapore player: If there were alternate tasks and events.

Singapore player: Being able to save that "unconscious metal girl" at Locarnounderstanding hat I was supposed to do at the Rat Research Institute finding the

unexisting fleece at the barn and the mysterious sleeping bags that did not exist for

example.

Singapore player: More inventory and more quests.

Many of these comments from Singapore players suggest that while missions may haveworked better in Singapore than they did in Berlin, there is still substantial room to addmore missions and also to make them easier to complete.

Berlin players also returned once more to the cost of messaging in raising suggestionsfor further developments:

Berlin player: If it would be essentially re-envisioned except I had 7000 free SMSs to

blow out.

Berlin player: The limitations of the text messages (short concerning the content to thin

EXPENSIVE) handicapped the experience too much it was a fairly frustrating

experience at the end.

Berlin player: If the messages would have been free. If you had been able to write

longer messages respectively a more comfortable solution for the communication with

the other players.

In terms of new innovations, the most striking suggestion from many players was the possibility of enhanced online support to keep them engaged with the game such as:

Berlin player: Linked to the real city more realistic story more direct feedback insight

into the city via internet more overview.

Berlin player: Pictures of board and players.

Berlin player: Online visualisation of the virtual world? So you can look around and see

where other people are at I didn't have time to visit the installation to do that.




26

In summary, it appears that Singapore was a considerably more successful experiencethan Berlin for a combination of three primary reasons: that many more players werenative English speakers, that texting was far cheaper, and that the content of the gamehad been improved. However, there is still room for improving the number and natureof missions and also providing a richer online experience, possibly including somevisualisation of the game board.

Having first considered players general opinions of Day of the Figurines II, thefollowing now explore some specific issues in greater depth: the experience of the gamecontent; interweaving the game with everyday life; the use of SMS text messaging; andthe role of the augmented game board interface.

5.2 The experience of the game content

We first consider how players experienced the content of the game, including:

· Were messages from the game well structured, informative and easy tounderstand?

· Was there enough to do in the game?

· What was the impact of different features of the game design on theiroverall experience?

· What were the most and least exciting aspects of the game?

· How did players experience the health system in the game?

5.2.1 Were messages informative, well composed and easy to understand?

We invested considerable effort into developing an automated system for aggregatinginformation describing multiple events into single text messages to support Day of theFigurines. This section explores how players experienced these messages.

We asked players: “Please rate the following characteristics of the messages that

you received from Day of the Figurines on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 being messages did

not have this characteristic at all and 5 being that it had it very much:

· Informative

· Well composed;

· Easy to understand” Figure 10 summarises how Berlin players rated the messages they received as being

informative and figure 11 summarises the same for Singapore players.




27

Message’s Characteristics: Informative – Players in Berlin

31.82

27.27

31.82

4.55 4.55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 10 Were messages informative to Berlin Players?

Message’s Characteristics: Informative – Players in Singapore

4.17

37.50 37.50

20.83

0.00 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 11 Were messages informative to Singapore players?

Figure 12 shows Berlin ratings as to whether messages were well composed and figure13 shows the same from Singapore.




28

Message’s Characteristics: Well Compsed – Players in Berlin

26.09

21.74

17.39

26.09

8.70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 12 Were messages well composed to Berlin players?

Message’s Characteristics: Well Composed – Players in Singapore

8.33

12.50

20.83

41.67

16.67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 13 Were messages well composed to Singapore players?

Finally, figure 14 summarises the extent to which Berlin players found messages fromthe game to be easy to understand . Figure 15 shows the same for Singapore players.

Message’s Characteristics: Easy to Understand – Players in Berlin

27.27

31.82

9.09

18.18

13.64

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 14 Were messages well composed to Singapore players?




29

Message’s Characteristics: Easy to Understand – Players in Singapore

8.33 8.33

37.50

25.00

20.83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

low 2 3 4 high


Figure 15 Were messages easy to understand to Singapore players?

The following table compares the mean averages of these various responses. In bothBerlin and Singapore the structure of messages was judged to have slightly better thanthe ease of understanding them, which in turn was felt to have been better than theirinformation content. Furthermore, all three factors scored more highly in Singapore thanthey did in Berlin, possibly due to combination of differences in native language, butalso improvements that we made to the game content.

Table 1 Mean responses to message structure

Question Berlin mean response Singapore mean response Were messages informative? 2.2 2.7

Were messages wellstructured?

2.7 3.7

Were messages easy tounderstand?

2.6 3.5

5.2.2 Was there enough to do in the game

Figure 16 summarises Berlin and Singapore players’ responses to the question: “Wasthere enough to do in the game?” Berlin players were almost equally split betweenthe options ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘sometimes yes, sometimes no’ whereas the majority ofSingapore players responded ‘sometimes yes, sometimes no’.

.




30

9

5

9

18

8

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Yes Sometimes yes sometimes no No

Was there Enough to do in the Game - Players in Berlin and Singapore

Germany Singapore

Figure 16 Was there enough to do in the game?

5.2.3 The impact of different features of the game

We then asked players to rate the impact of different features of the game on a scale of 1to 10, 1 being not important and 10 being extremely important. The following tablesummarises the results (shown in decreasing order of mean score for all players).

Table 2 Impact of features

Feature of the game design Mean score

for All

Players

Mean score

for Berlin

Players

Mean score

for Singapore

Players

To be able to influence the evolvingstoryline

8.5 8.7 8.3

To be able to follow the evolvingstoryline

7.9 7.7 8.1

To communicate with other players 7.8 8.0 7.5

To cooperate with other players 7.8 8.3 7.4

To understand and use the game rules 7.8 8.0 7.5

To be able to develop the character ofmy figurine

7.6 7.0 8.2

To choose my own figurine 7.5 7.1 7.9

To feel I was part of a virtualcommunity

5.9 5.1 6.5

To be able to be anonymous 5.8 5.7 5.9

To be able to return to the game board 4.9 4.4 5.4

Both Berlin and Singapore players agreed that being able to influence the evolvingstoryline was the most important feature and that being able to return to the game boardwas the less important feature. There was also strong agreement on the next lowest




33

5.2.5 The health system

The health system was a major addition in DoF II and so we asked players about theirexperience of this: “How did your health change during the game ad what did you

do about this?” The following comments show that many players did experiencechanging health and that they broadly understood how it worked within the game,including how to improve it by eating and drinking:

Singapore player: I was mortally ill and so numb I couldn't move. I drank coffee and

ate curry to up my health but it barely helped. Someone helped revive me when I was

numb.

Singapore player: Went from healthy to about to pass out towards the end. Had a cup

of coffee somewhere in the game.

Singapore player: I started bleeding when somebody threw a radio at me so I went to

the 24HO and laboriously masticated the sandwiches there. Singapore player: It remained relatively high until the accident on the 2nd last day.

Singapore player: Mostly feeling well I usually go to eating spots.

Singapore player: I got ill quite quickly and pretty much stayed that way. The coffee at

the internet cafe was about the only thing that helped.

Singapore player: Became ill as the game progressed and had to find a way to

improve it.

Singapore player: From well to extremely ill. I did manage to recover and be well again

but after that my health started to deteriorate again. I asked other players for advice and

I did recover initially.

Singapore player: Felt well very well then unwell due to injury and got well again after

another character helped with defibrillator. Other times my character went to look for

food and drink to get well.

Singapore player: I was bleeding profusely and I tried to look for help.

Singapore player: I became ill and hungry so I tried to cure myself and get

something to eat.

Singapore player: I was hit for no reason but recovered. I was attacked and shot and

this was not explained at all. Illogical.

Singapore player: It went up and down and I ate and drank to keep it going.

Singapore player: Up and down and up again ate food sandwiches.

Singapore player: Turning bad. Looking for a place for treatment.

Berlin player: At one point I got poorer and another player saved me with a

defibrillator. Drinking tea helped as well.

Berlin player: The bad state of health has only improved temporarily and minimally.

The only thing were sandwiches




34

Berlin player: My Figure started off with poorly and finished with maximum ill. In

between it had two breakdowns, ??? … to find out what gets to worsen the health of my

figure and to change that (the guess was for example being hungry) Thirst.

Berlin player: Up and down. But not being able to end. I was being helped.

Berlin player: Started bad got worse. Was once defibrillated which helped but

defibrillated myself which didn't.

Berlin player: My health steadily improved. I ate a lot of saveloys.

Berlin player: It got rapidly worse in the beginning (when I was out of the country and

did not really play). After being revived I tried to figure out what to do by asking others.

Then I ate something and ran around with a defibrillator to revive others.

Berlin player: I got more and more ill and kept accidentally defibrillating myself and

other people.

However some players clearly struggled to understand how health worked in the game.

Berlin player: I had no clue about my health and about how to change it.

Singapore player: I got sick immediately and did not understand why. Could not

improve my situation despite numerous attempts.

Singapore player: I got thirsty drank tea nothing happened to help me get better. I got

cold didn't make it to get a sleeping bag I laid down feeling numb."

Singapore player: Became ill. Went to eat some things but didn’t help improve the

situation

Singapore player: My character's health got bad but many times I didn't know how to

make myself better.

Singapore player: Health deteriorated. Couldn't get to places which offered help such

as food or hospital.

Berlin player: Not at all. It always said 'run down'.

Berlin player: I did not understand the rules so I did not do it right. I kept trying to get

food or tea but didn't understand I had to type USE. I know it seems so obvious now.

But DRINK or EAT would have made more sense.

Berlin player: I was 'feeling run down' in every message I received. I never really

understood what it meant. I tired to eat and sleep but I had some problems. It would

have been good if I could have asked some qualifying questions to the control room.

5.3 Interweaving the game with everyday life

Day of the Figurines is a long-term, slow-paced game that is meant to be played in the background of people’s everyday lives. We were therefore keen to evaluate how playershad managed to interweave the experience with their daily lives and to understand their

patterns of play, where and when they liked to play, how they experienced interruptionsfrom the game, how they prioritised its messages, and how they shared these messages

with other people in their local environment.




35

We asked players to “How would you describe your pattern of play (frequently,

occasionally, seldomly)”. The results from both Berlin and Singapore are shown infigure 17. This suggests that the majority of people play occasionally and that far fewer

player frequently or seldomly. The responses are also very consistent from Berlin andSingapore.

5

7

1413

4 4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Frequently Occas ionally Seldomly

Pattern of Play - Playe rs in Berlin and Singapore

Germany Singapore

Figure 17 Overall pattern of play

We also asked players to comment on their overall pattern of play:

Berlin player: Regularly and more or less continuously. with great effort . Most times

reacting.

Berlin player: At the beginning regularly then stopped because the reactions weren't

pursuable.

Berlin player: Firstly continuously then randomly und later on purpose waiting (I

wanted to see weather my figure dies).

Singapore player: The game can be very time consuming.

Singapore player: I want to be really involved... even though I don't seem to be doing

that.

Singapore player: Lack of time message dropped in during work hour.

Singapore player: I enjoyed the game and wished my figurine will have a hectic life

just like the real me.

Singapore player: I was quite busy at work.

Singapore player: It was not convenient to play often at work. And at times when I was

away from an internet access I couldn't plan what to do next as I didn't know what

places had what props and tools.

Singapore player: I try not to be too involved so that I won't get addicted to it.

Singapore player: I like to text and do so quickly.

Singapore player: I was very involved in promoting the game to friends.

Singapore player: It is on going while other activities are concurrently happening.




36

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the diverse nature of different people’s lives, theseanswers cover a range of factors that affect patterns of play. Perhaps the most notablefactor mentioned by several players is the difficulty of playing the game while at work.

We asked players: “In which real places in the physical world did you like playingthe game and in which did you not?”, asking them to chose from a set of predefinedoptions the places where they did like to play and also those where they didn’t. Figure18 summarises the results. Playing at home and on trains appears to have been popular(several positive votes, but no negative ones). Playing at work was quite unpopular,although a few players did enjoy this. Playing on buses was also unpopular with a few

players and playing in cafes yielded a mixed (but small) response.

00 0

17

5

3

1

9

01 0

11

00 03

10

1

0

00

5

10

10 00 01 0

10

00 0

4

00

11

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

H om

e ( n )

H om

e ( p )

W or k

( n )

W or k

( p )

B u s

( n )

B u s

( p )

C ar ( n

)

C ar ( p

)

W al k i n

g ( n )

W al k i n

g ( p )

T r ai n

( n )

T r ai n

( p )

B i k

e ( n )

B i k

e ( p )

C af é

/ R e s t a ur an

t ( n )

C af é

/ R e s t a ur an

t ( p )

S h

o p ( n )

S h

o p ( p )

A n

y wh

er e

( n )

A n

y wh

er e

( p )

Real Places that you did/did not like to Play the Game - Players in Berlin and Singapore

Germany Singapore

Figure 18 Real Places to Play the Game

Players’ comments on this question give more insight into these figures:

Singapore player: Home was the place where I could concentrate best on the game

especially when I had to make quick decisions.

Singapore player: I liked playing the game on the train most. I did not like playing the

game at work but mostly I was on vacation so it was ok.

Singapore player: I love to play the game at home because when I am at home I tend

to be free from work. I hate to reply when I have work to do as i think my work is still

more important than the game.

Singapore player: Played less at work.

Singapore player: Liked to play the game on train rides as there was nothing else to

do but the choices were limited due to lack of information since there was no internet

access.

Singapore player: Like to play at home or in a restaurant because there's more free

time to move about. Don't like to play in the bus or during work because it's

inconvenient and there is always work to do before I can play.

Singapore player: It gave excitement to the everyday life and routine. Singapore player: I text from where I am at the time.




37

Singapore player: I had free time at home.

Singapore player: In cafes I’ll be occupied. Basically hate the times when I’m busy in

the real world yet I’m dying in the virtual world. Almost all my friends excused my

obsession with the phone during the game time.

Singapore player: No work as a distraction.

Berlin player: Not on the bike best in the subway.

Berlin player: Best with other players at work or in public means of transport.

Berlin player: Best in the subway not at work.

Berlin player: Can't tell. Doesn't really matter. I haven't played in the bed.

Berlin player: I liked playing anywhere but found it difficult to play when walking and at

work.

Berlin player: I played it on the train I didn't play at work.

Berlin player: It was difficult to focus on this when I was at work or travelling etc. I

seemed to always get one right at noon...which became annoying

Berlin player: Not at work as disruptive. Good to play when walking round.

We also asked players: “At what times did you like playing the game and at what

times did you not?”:

Berlin player: Evening after work.

Berlin player: Whenever. Didn't usually play at night.

Berlin player: I always liked playing the game.

Berlin player: In the evening if I was alone.

Berlin player: In the evening it was more relaxed (free time).

Berlin player: I liked playing it during the first few days and when I was spending time

by myself.

Berlin player: In the evenings not during work Saturday+ Sunday sometimes but only

after 2pm.

Berlin player: Before midday and in the evenings not in between.

Berlin player: Rather in the afternoon than in the evenings but strongly depending on

my real live.

Berlin player: Best in the morning (on my way to work).

Berlin player: Varying depending on my work.

Singapore player: First thing in the morning and at night or when I'm bored.

Singapore player: Travelling hours

Singapore player: All the time actually I don't really feel bothered by the SMS.

Singapore player: I liked playing the game when I've got nothing to do and it kept me

occupied. I didn’t like playing it while at work or in school.

Singapore player: Weekend on my way to some place during work hours.




38

Singapore player: Better in the evening.

Singapore player: I liked playing the game in the middle of the day. There was time

difference which was confusing.

Singapore player: I played more during my leisure time.

Singapore player: In the morning is the best when I am refreshed. I hate it during

sleeping time (10 pm and above).

Singapore player: When I'm not at work is best.

Singapore player: I liked playing it at lunch time at work and on long train rides.

Singapore player: Like to play the game at night and not in the day.

Singapore player: I didn't like it when I was in a movie or doing something else for a

long period of time.

Singapore player: During the afternoons.

Singapore player: During work hours the messages were irritating.

Singapore player: When I’m busy in the physical world I don’t like playing the game.

When I’m not busy in the physical world i love playing the game. Good thing they had a

time limit.

There is a wide variety of answers here suggesting that players may exhibit their ownindividual preferences for when to play and even that these may vary for a given playdepending on their other activities.

An important aspect of interweaving the game with patterns of everyday life is how

players feel about being interrupted by the game. We asked players: “On a scale of 1 to10 how did you feel about receiving messages from the game. 1 being annoying and

10 being pleasant.” Figure 19 summarises the results. The majority of players findinterruptions to be sometimes pleasant and sometimes annoying, both in Berlin andSingapore.

65

11

17

6

2

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

18

Mostly in a pleasant w ay Sometimes pleasant,

sometimes annoying

Mostly in an annoying w ay

The Messages Disrupting Player's Activities - Players in Berlin and Singapore

Germany Singapore

Figure 19 The Messages Disrupting Player’s Activities

The following are players’ comments to this question:

Singapore player: I received too many messages while I was working and my phone

kept vibrating and it bothered me because I was waiting for an important message from




39

a friend. Every message from the game which came in nearly every 5 minutes became

a false alarm which frustrated me. As mentioned above it happened because the other

characters were having a conversation amongst themselves.

Berlin player: No I integrated or ignored it. 1 day = 1 hour -> this leaves time to

manoeuvre. Don’t have to panic. But sometimes you have e.g. if there was a certain

item.

Berlin player: Yes it impedes me from working. Sometimes it disturbed the

communication with real persons.

Berlin player: Doesn't changed but disturbed me in improper moments or when I

wasn't able to respond although I would like to help.

Berlin player: It was disturbing because my figure had to suffer and I hadn't time to

play resulting in even more pain for my figure.

Berlin player: Sometimes I would get a load of messages at an inconvenient time. If

you are waiting for an important message. And you get one from the game this could be

a bit frustrating.

Berlin player: Since it is on the mobile phone I could check in on the game anytime I

wanted.

Berlin player: It’s funny when suddenly everyone at work got a message at the same

time.

Berlin player: It interfered with my job a bit since it would go off every day at 12 when I

was teaching. Berlin player: Yes - sometimes I felt like I should respond immediately to someone

although I did not feel like doing it then and there because I had some other things to

do.

Berlin player: Yes stopped me talking to people when in the pub.

These comments reveal a variety of reasons why interruptions from the game canbe annoying. Players may be waiting for other more important messages. Players mayfeel compelled to respond quickly in order to help their character even if they do notreally want to play at that time. Messages from the game may interfere with other localactivities (although this can be amusing when several players are collocated and are

interrupted at the same time).

This last point leads us to our next question. We asked players: “Did you share the

game with others who were with you when you set/received messages and how did

this affect the game?” The majority of respondents said that they shared messages, butthat this did not affect their play:

Berlin player: Yes I shared messages with friends. That made the game somewhat

less boring.

Berlin player: Yes. Not much effect.

Berlin player: I told other people but it didn't affect the game I think.

Berlin player: I told people about it but it did not affect the game.




40

Berlin player: Friends found it funny. I didn't play very regularly because of being busy

and so I didn't get as much out of it as other players might have. In that way it became

a bit of a burden and the messages became very similar.

Berlin player: Yes a bit -- explained and showed them the message which they also

found strange.

Berlin player: Yes I explained it and discussed about the meaning of games.

Berlin player: Yes of course. Insofar that I made announcements to the context of the

game (e.g. I think I will go to the Hospital again) which were interpreted as real until I

disabused them.

Singapore player: I shared but they did not influence my choices.

Singapore player: Yes but it didn’t affect the game..

Singapore player: Yes I kept my family informed of my figurine's adventures. They

advised me on decisions. I seldom followed their advices.

Singapore player: Yes I did. It didn't affect the game.

Singapore player: YES! Not much they asked about it whenever they see my reading

messages.

Some Singapore players mentioned that they recruited others into the game by sharingmessages:

Singapore player: Yes. It makes the games more interesting as by sharing I attract

others to play the game... and they will be my figurine's friends too.

Singapore player: I told my friends about it and one of my friend actually signed up.

We met up in the game.

A minority of players claimed that sharing messages did affect their game:

Singapore player: Yes and yes it affected.

Singapore player: Yes sometime getting input from my son.

Including a couple who mentioned that sharing messages with other local playershelped them play the game:

Singapore player: Yes shared with people who'd started playing before I did. This was

great help in knowing how to deal with the game situations.

Singapore player: Yes we knew where each other was in the game.

Finally, in terms of interweaving the game with everyday life, we asked players:

“When receiving a message from a real friend and a virtual friend at the sametime, which one do you answer first? Why?” The responses indicated that most

players would prioritise messages from real friends, but that for some this could dependupon what was happening in the game or on the chronological order in which themessages arrived. Berlin players (and a few Singapore players) favoured real friends:

Berlin player: Real Friend. Not a total waste of time.

Berlin player: Real friend. Because they're real.

Berlin player: Real friend. usually needing assistance so more urgent. Berlin player: Real ones because the others were just from a game.




41

Berlin player: I couldn't remember of such a case - supposable I would have answered

the messages of the real friend because they are waiting for an answer.

Berlin player: The friends’ one. I made the experience that my limited acting

possibilities as soon as I used them hadn't any essential outcome to the game.

Berlin player: Figurines friend doesn't expect a response.

Singapore player: They are more important to me.

Singapore player: Didn't make any solid Day of the figurines friend.

Singapore players seemed more ambivalent (as did a few Berlin players):

Singapore player: Real life. if the nature of the texts in the game had been that I could

interact as with real people then this would have been 50/50.

Singapore player: My DOTF conversations were more interesting than real ones.

Singapore player: Depends on the information received.

Singapore player: Actually depends on which is more urgent. The real friend or

where I am in the game.

Singapore player: Actually it depends on the topic and the reason.

Singapore player: I respond pretty quickly anyway...but DoF has got a time limit.

Berlin player: Sometimes the real sometimes the game messages.

Berlin player: The last message first that's the way it is!

Berlin player: I just read my messages in chronological order.

Berlin player: It varied throughout the game according to what was happening in my

life.

If there is any difference between Berlin and Singapore players it may be because theSingapore players seemed to find the game more enjoyable in general.

In summary, player feedback suggests that, by and large, they were able to integrate thegame with the patterns of the daily lives without major problems. The most prevalentfeatures of this integration are general (though by no means exclusive) tendenciestowards occasional play, preferences for playing at home and on trains in contrast towork, individual variation in preferences for times of play, interruptions from the game

being sometimes pleasant and sometimes annoying, and sharing messages with nearby people but without this strongly influencing play.

5.4 The use of SMS text messaging

We now consider some key questions concerning the specific use of SMS messagingwithin Day of the Figurines II. Feedback from the test of DoF I at the Laban Centre inLondon in 2005 revealed that managing message flow was a sensitive issue for some

players. One the one hand they required regular and sufficient messages from the gameto retain their engagement and yet on the other, could easily become annoyed of theywere flooded with messages. Consequently, we introduced pacing rules and aggregation

mechanisms in Day of the Figurines II to help manage the flow of messages to and from players. In this section we consider how players felt about the volume of messages they




42

received and sent. We also explore the issue of how they stored messages from thegame on their phones.

We asked players: “Please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how you perceived the amount

of messages you received from the game where 1 means: I got too few and 10means: more than I could handle”. Figure 20 summarises the responses from Berlin

players, suggesting that on average, the flow of messages to players was quite well balanced (the mean score is 5.7 with a standard deviation of 2.7). Figure 21 summarisesthe responses from Singapore, which are broadly consistent with those from Berlin, alsosowing a mean of 5.7, but with a smaller standard deviation of 2.4.

Figure 20 Volume of messages received by Berlin players

Number of Messages - Players in Singapore

0.00

4.17

8.33 8.33

20.83

25.00 25.00

4.17 4.17

0.00 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

I got too

few

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 More than I

could

handle


Figure 21 Volume of messages received by Singapore players

We asked players to: “Please tell us about any occasions when you received too

many or two few messages from the game”. Some players wanted more messages tohelp them with completing missions:

Singapore player: Too few messages were received about the tasks I had to do.

Singapore player: To few when I was making obvious efforts to complete a task and

could not manage. It would have felt good to get some help then...

0.00 0.00

13.04

8.70

39.13

8.70

4.35

13.04 13.04

0.00 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

45

I got too

few

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 More than I

could

handle

Percentage of Players




43

Whereas others felt that the responses to their actions were a too slow:

Berlin player: Sometimes the game felt to be very slow in its response. Immediate

feedback on the fact that your character starts moving etc... Could maybe help.

A Berlin player wanted stronger clues as to where they should go and what they coulddo, something that we tried to fix for Singapore:

Berlin player: It would have been nice to have more clues sent. Things to entice me

into situations where I could engage with the storyline.

The most common cause of receiving too many messages appears to have been playerchat, especially at crowded destinations:

Singapore player: If you were in a crowded place then it was a problem as too

many people there were talking.

Singapore player: When the location I was at had too many players and each was

saying something to everyone leading to message bombardment.

Singapore player: Towards the end a character got very excited and wouldn't stop

talking to everyone. Too many messages.

Singapore player: When other characters are talking to each other - feels like

eavesdropping on a chat line.

Berlin player: Sometimes there was too much going on in Kath's Café.

Berlin player: I got about 60 in about half an hour when in the club which was full of

other people and got all of their conversations. Ended up having to delete without

reading them as so many. Rest of the time it felt like the right amount. A few felt that there were too many ambient or background messages from the game:

Berlin player: Too much ambience. Too few reactions to my replies.

Berlin player: I felt like I received too many generic messages from the game itself that

didn't tell me anything about what I could do. I didn't know what to do with them they

just felt like wallpaper.

For other players, the issue was closely bound up with their ongoing everyday activities:

Berlin player: When I was out of the country there where too many and I would have

liked to pause. Sometimes there was on no reply from near by players. That was

strange too.

Singapore player: When I was away on holiday and when I returned home to read my

messages.

Singapore player: There were "too many messages" on days that I wasn't free to

respond.

Berlin player: There were days in between. That I could not take part in the game. The

SMS on these days did frustrate me a little. Because I read afterwards what I had

missed.




44

We also asked players: “What factors influenced how many messages you sent to the

game?” Three main factors were raised here. The first was the cost of sendingmessages, especially for Berlin players:

Berlin player: My free-SMS-amount.

Berlin player: At the beginning a lot but than I realised that it is going to be expensive..

The second was the current context within the game, i.e., who their figurine was withand what it was doing:

Berlin player: Being asked something by another player.

Berlin player: Where I was who I was with on the board.

Berlin player: The situation my character was in and talking to other people who were

in the game.

Berlin player: If people talked to me or asked for something or asked me to join them

personally.

Berlin player: Whether I had a mission directed from the game and whether the place

I’d gone to was open.

Singapore player: Choices available interest level of plot responses made.

Singapore player: The quests the chatting human interactions.

Singapore player: Game events interesting people.

Singapore player: The curiosity and excitement around the game not knowing what

was going to happen next.

The third factor was the player’s current context within the real world:

Singapore player: I use sent texts more in the evening after work and when I was on

holiday. If I was talking to another player then I sent messages quite frequently. .

Berlin player: I was travelling at the time so it was kind of hard because of time

differences...

Berlin player: Whether I was working or in the sort of circumstance you would not want

to play.

Berlin player: How busy I was.

Berlin player: If I was in the country.

Berlin player: What I was doing at the time.

Singapore player: Events and activities that affect me in real life. Especially activities

that keep me away from my phone like sports.




46

to read certain information later again. (e.g. who has a defibrillator? Where was the

party? ...)

Berlin player: Yes. I thought that I want to read them again later.

Berlin player: Yes some, because they are funny, interesting and help to explain the

idea of the game to friends.

Berlin player: Yes. Unfortunately it was full then.

Berlin player: Sometimes to help figure out a puzzle. Wish there were more of these.

Singapore player: I save all my messages until the inbox gets full.

Singapore player: I saved the one that is still on going for quests or related to the daily

news.

Singapore player: Saved everything to be able to use the text when composing my

own messages (to save time).

Singapore player: Only keep those which requires me to reply to make my next move

in the game. I delete those which weren't needed anymore.

Singapore player: To retain the number and to track where is my last destination.

Singapore player: I saved the ones that made me laugh and were rather illogical to

show them to friends not in the game.

On the other hand, the limited storage capacity of phones meant that saving allmessages was impractical for many players:

Singapore player: I messaged the game too much I can’t save all.

Singapore player: Deleted to save memory space on my cell phone and keep a tidy

inbox.

Singapore player: There were too many.

Singapore player: I don't want my inbox to be flooded and I do have other messages

from my friends too.

Singapore player: I have a limited memory on my phone.

In summary, an SMS narrative game such as Day of the Figurines needs to maintain atricky balance between sending players enough information to engage them with thegame, responding to the actions and yet also backing off and not flooding them withmessages when they wish to disengage. Feedback from players suggests that DoF IImanaged this quite well. Most players felt that they received an acceptable volume ofmessages from the game. Perhaps one of the most challenging remaining issuesconcerns how players can easily access their past history when playing without havingto save all of the messages from the game in their SMS inbox.

5.5 The role of the augmented game board

The game board is seen as being central to Day of the Figurines, especially the way inwhich it initially frames a player’s experience, and considerable effort was invested intoredesigning the board for the Berlin and Singapore performances including theintroduction of digital augmentations of figurines movements. This section reflects on

players’ opinions of the board.




47

We asked players: “How did the physical game board contribute to your experience

of Day of the Figurines? The majority of the responses suggested that the board madea positive contribution.

The board also helped players visualise the town:Singapore player: It mapped my mind about the town.

Singapore player: It gives me an idea of what the town looks like and who were where

I can picture where I am better.

Singapore player: it gave me mental image of areas in the game.

And for some it provided a sense of realism:

Singapore player: That makes the games more interesting. I know where I am located

and it makes the games more real too not only a game through SMS.

Singapore player: Made the game more realistic. It was good to see my character

move around physically on the game board.

Berlin player: It allowed me to visualise the game world as a space and it made events

in the game more real.

Berlin player: Nice to know that there was a game board - a reality

Singapore player: Connectivity and a sense of weird realism.

Singapore player: can see the figurines more realistic

Singapore player: It provides realism to the game.

Some players referred positively to the physicality of the board in their answers:

Berlin player: Good to have a 3d schematic of the game and locations as a point of

reference. To add a bit of physicality to the digital bits is changing the game experience.

Singapore player: It is cute made experience more tangible

Singapore player: Gave me a visual overview - physical touch to the game.

While some enjoyed thinking back to the board while playing via SMS:

Berlin player: There was an interesting link between virtual and physical space / A few

times I thought of the game board while playing

Berlin player: It was nice to imagine as I played on the cell phone.

The board also helped locate other players within the virtual world:

Berlin player: Profoundly as it created the setting for the piece and then became theonly means to find out where other figurines/players where.

Berlin player: Good basis to follow the events/the distribution of figures in different

places.

Berlin player: It was interesting to see how people gathered at certain points on the

board over the course of the game. I would have liked to be able to visit the board

virtually to be able to tell more places to go where there were only a few people.




48

Berlin player: It tells something abut the other players and their behaviours.

Singapore player: I can locate other players easily.

Singapore player: It helped figure where everyone was.

Singapore player: yes! yay! :) i like seeing my piece move and where the rest of the

pieces are.

As well as providing an opportunity to meet players in the real world:

Berlin player: Better orientation/technical support is easier face to face/ permits

meeting other players.

Singapore player: Interesting to see my figurine and meet other player.

Finally, others just felt that it was ‘cute’:

Singapore player: I showed my friends and they thought it was insanely cute. I think it

was too. Like my little avatar thing.

A minority of players felt that the board did not add great value to the experience:

Berlin player: Very peripherally. Only as a memento in mind.

Berlin player: Not much. I only have been there in the first day.

Berlin player: Not much. Nice art work I assume that it only serves to guide the player

to the theatre it did not influence the game play.

Berlin player: It was interesting to see the figurines (nice made). That is all not more.

That is the reason that I come to the game board only once. Berlin player: Beautiful. But the board and the figurines does not fit to the sound of the

language of the messages. The construction of the city looked randomly. The overall

structure was not understandable.

Berlin player: It didn't make that much difference as apart from location changes you

could find out very little about the state of the world. It was beautifully made though.

Singapore player: Nothing much. Only the first time I found it interesting other

than that I didn't think it would affect my game.

Singapore player: None. Couldn't there be a webcam or something?

Singapore player: Not good. My figurine's location didn't correspond to where the

messages said it was supposed to be.

Singapore player: no contribution.

Singapore player: It didn't have much impact#

Even then, it is interesting to note that several of these players found the board to be beautiful.

We also asked players: “How would you feel about playing a version of Day of theFigurines without the physical game board?” Their responses reflect the previous




49

observations, and also stress that the board was one of the most distinctive features ofthe game.

Berlin player: Less orientation/ less service ??? ???, ??? Loss of the option to

establish a real layer beyond the virtual layer. Berlin player: Would be possible, but would then be nothing new, I think.

Berlin player: I wouldn't like that too much - the board is an important basis and

meeting point to mix virtual and real. It would work without the board. Concrete

components, would get lost through that.

Berlin player: Oddly enough even if I only saw it twice it was still a strong element in

my mind.

Berlin player: Without the board, it would be like and ordinary computer game.

Berlin player: One would loose what makes it special.

Berlin player: I would find that too detached. I would miss the basis for my imagination.

Berlin player: I think choosing a physical object as your character's representation is a

very good way to get people started.

Berlin player: I would not have enjoyed it as much as the game board helps towards

maintaining engagement during the game.

Berlin player: I think it is good that there is a centre that you can visit even if you don't

need to after you have joined the game but it gives it an important context.

Singapore player: I'm fine with that. The physical game board was just to see how my

figurine as well as the other figurines look like.

Singapore player: I wouldn't like it. The game board helped the visualisation.

Singapore player: I will feel lost. I mean it will be boring to just play the game through

SMS but have nothing 'real' to look at.

Singapore player: It will be slightly less experiential.

Singapore player: I would be lost.

Singapore player: Will be no different from other games.

Although, as with the previous question, some players were less impressed with the board.

Berlin player: It would be good though maybe in a shorter version. For example, during

a festival.

Berlin player: Would not have made much difference for me without the board.

Berlin player: Very good idea.

Berlin player: I think it would be ok.

Singapore player: Not much difference.

Singapore player: It won't make a difference.

Singapore player: It would be the same for me.




50

Singapore player: Not too bad. It already feels like I'm playing without the physical

game board.

Singapore player: Should be still ok.

Finally with respect to the augmented game board we asked our players: “Is there

something you would like to add to the game board?” As we have noted previously, players raised the idea of having an online view of the board, for example via awebcam:

Berlin player: Maybe a live web camera. Additional: Hotel, Nature (Park).

Berlin player: A web camera which shows the game play over the Internet.

Singapore player: Would love the board to be online

Berlin player: This seems to be the key element but it needs to also be online.

Berlin player: I participated in this way but experience would have benefited from up-

to-date webcam of physical game board via the website.

Other mentioned wanted more details, either physically:

Berlin player: A few items lying around or descriptions of the different locations

Singapore player: More structures - miniature buildings, trees, etc.

Or digitally:

Berlin player: To improve the design places in the board. To display the story in any

form. Animation in the board. To show possibilities (things) that you cannot get via

messages.

Berlin player: I think there needed to be more visualisation of the events and the status

of the characters in the world.

Berlin player: Maybe the paths of the characters.

Singapore player: You could also have the projector on all the time with it lighting up

the titles of the various places there.

Some had ideas for new destinations or structures:

Berlin player: A swimming pool a bus to travel faster a good restaurant

Singapore player: An information centre.

Whereas others focused on the aesthetic of the board itself:Berlin player: More colours.

Berlin player: Colour.

Berlin player: Less minimalism.

Singapore player: Maybe you should use glass or transparent plastic buildings.

In summary, the board appears to be have been a positive factor in the experience forthe majority of respondents, enabling them to frame the experience, adding a sense ofrealism and providing useful information about other players.




51

5.6 Brief interim summary

Feedback from players has given us a broad overview of how they experienced differentaspects of Day of the Figurines II, both in and between Berlin and Singapore.

In terms of the overall experience, Singapore players have reacted considerably more positively than did Berlin players. This is probably due in part to changes in the gamecontent that were made between the two performances, but may also be influenced bylanguage and cost factors. We would tentatively conclude that Day of the Figurines IIstepped ‘over the gain line’ at Singapore to become an experience that was generallywell received by players. However, there is still room for improvement – especially increating more and easier missions. We may also see whether SMS cost was a criticalfactor when the experience comes to the UK later in 2007.

In terms of the game content, the automatically generated messages generally seem to be fairly well structured, comprehensible and informative, tough not yet perfect. Most

players enjoyed interacting with others and missions seem to have been a popularfeature.

Players managed to interweave the experience with their patterns of daily life and theoverall flow of messages to and from the game appears to have been quite well balancedfor most players.

Finally, the augmented game board does appear to be a powerful aspect of theexperience for many, even if they only experience it at the beginning of the game.

We will return to many of these issues in later discussions. However, for now, we firstturn to another kind of data that provides further insights into the experience – the

system log files that captured the history of each player’s actual interactions with thegame.




53

TOWN’ command in any day. Dying was involuntary, arising from actions within thegame.

players entering and leaving the game - berlin

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

day of the game

n u

m b e r o f p l a y e r s

join

leave

dead

Figure 23 The pattern of joining, leaving and dying from Berlin

players entering and leaving the game - singapore

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9 1 1

1 3

1 5

1 7

1 9

2 1

2 3

day of game

n u m b e r o f p l a y e r s

join

leave

dead

Figure 24 The pattern of joining, leaving and dying from Singapore




54

It is interesting note that the majority of players in Berlin joined at the opening of thefirst day, whereas Singapore players joined more steadily throughout the game. Thespikes that can be seen in the figures correspond to various events that encouraged

players to join – including the official opening of the game, and various pre-arrangedvisits by students. That said, the overall volumes and rates of players joining wasrelatively low compared to our expectations and the final totals achieved, roughly 140

players in each case, were disappointing. Following Berlin, we felt that this may have been the work was sited in a theatre foyer which was not easily accessible or a naturalfocal point for anyone other than theatre goers with tickets. However, in Singapore, thegame was located in the national museum which we had anticipated would attract alarge flow of visitors. It appears that while the augmented game board is a powerfulaspect of the experience for players, it may also be a bottleneck to recruiting players.This may be a result of the design and location of the work or perhaps the training oflocal operators. Further investigation is needed as to how we can increase player

recruitment in future performances.In terms of leaving the game of their own accord, 25 players left Berlin which wasreduced to 18 for Singapore.

Finally, 59 players were killed during the Singapore game compared to 0 Berlin players(in fact 4 players did die in Berlin due to an error in the content, but were subsequently

brought back to life). These deaths in Singapore were due to a few players going on ashort killing-spree at one point, but were mostly due to the new ending to the game inwhich players were divided into two camps, those at the Recreation Ground whoescaped town on the helicopter and everyone else who remained behind and died.

6.3 Volume of messages by hour of dayFigures 25 and 26 show how messages sent to and from the game were distributed byhour of the day. The large spike indicates the start of day message that was sent to all

players when the game opened each day. Beyond this, the pattern is relatively constant.Please note that the x-axis shows Greenwich Mean Time, so we can clearly see the timezone shifts that were involved in both Berlin and Singapore. In both Berlin andSingapore the game was open for 10 hours a day – the small number of messages both

before and after this period indicate players sending messages to the game that wererejected with a “bounce” message indicating that the game was closed.




55

messages sent and received by hour of the day -

berlin

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

hour of the day (GMT)

n u m b e r o f m e s s a g e s

rcvd by the game

sent by the game

Figure 25 Messages to and from the game by hour of day – Berlin

messages sent and received by hour of the day -

singapore

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

hour of the day (GMT)

n u m b e r o f m e s s a g e s

rcvd by the game

sent by the game

Figure 26 Messages to and from the game by hour of day – Singapore




57

messages sent and received by day - singapore

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 3

5

7

9

1 1

1 3

1 5

1 7

1 9

2 1

2 3

day

m e s s a g e s

rcvd by the game

rcvd from the game

Figure 28 Messages sent and received by day - Singapore

6.5 Volume of different message types

Figure 29 shows the breakdown of message types sent to the game, as they were parsed by the incoming message parser. Both Berlin and Singapore are similar, and show thatthe predominant actions within the game were moving between destinations, speaking,and using objects (the latter including the ‘pick up’, ‘use’ and ‘drop’ commands).




60

The “no-pin” mission completion status refers to a mission where the player wasrequired to help a specific “player in need”, and for some reason that player ceased to be‘in need’ at some point during the mission, for example being helped by another player.

It can be seen that many more missions were allocated in the Singapore game than inBerlin (656 compared to 94). Furthermore, a greater number (225 compared to 18) and proportion (34% compared to 19%) were completed. That said, 34% is still a lowcompletion rate and more investigation is needed and further revision is probablyrequired to re-author and tune missions before they are working effectively.

dilemmas - berlin

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

completed timeout moved incap

completion status

c o u n t

Figure 32 Completion of dilemmas in Berlin




61

dilemmas - singapore

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

completed timeout moved incap

completion status

c o u n t

Figure 33 Completion of dilemmas in Singapore

Similarly, figures 33 and 34 above show the completion status of dilemmas – mini-

missions that occurred at a specific time and place within the game and had to beanswered before a player moved. In Berlin, 39 out of 102 dilemmas (38%) garneredresponses, compared to 369 from 607 (61%) in Singapore.

6.7 Player levels of engagement

This section focuses our analysis more on individual player behaviours. We begin, infigures 35 and 36, with some high level visualisations of individual engagement withthe game throughout the two performances.

Figure 35 shows patterns of engagement for Berlin and figure 36 for Singapore. Each

row represents an individual player’s history. Each column is represents a distinct dayof the game (ordered from day 1 towards the left through to day 24 at the far right). The players (rows) are listed in the order in which they joined the game.

A brown cell represents a day which this player was in the game and sent a message,i.e., when we deem them to be engaged with the game. A yellow cell represents a day inwhich this player was in the game but when they did not send a message, i.e., when wedeem them to be disengaged from the game. A white cell shows a day when this playerwas not in the game, either because they had not yet joined or because they had leftearly. A grey cell shows that they voluntarily left town (quite the game) on this day. A

pink cell shows that they died on this day.

We see quite marked differences between patterns of engagement between Berlin andSingapore. In Berlin, many players disengaged early and quite a few even left the game




62

early. In Singapore, we see more players engaged towards the end with few leavingearly. Another notable feature of these images is that many players show an episodic

pattern of engagement, sometimes disengaging from the game for several days beforethen reengaging later on. This backs up our earlier findings from the Laban test and also

players own comments about their patterns of play from the questionnaires.

A legend for reading the engagement figures is given below.

Engaged

Disengaged

Left town

Not playing

Died




63

player 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2

2 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 3

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3

6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 3

7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

8 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2

9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3

11 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3

12 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

13 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3

14 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

15 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

16 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 217 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

18 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

19 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

20 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

22 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

23 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2

24 4 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

26 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

28 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0

29 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 2

30 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

31 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0

32 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

33 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

34 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

35 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

36 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

38 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

39 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

40 4 4 4 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

43 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

44 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 2

45 4 3 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

46 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

47 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

48 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

49 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3

51 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 3

52 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

53 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

54 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

55 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 356 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

57 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

58 4 4 4 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

59 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

60 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3

61 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

62 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

63 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

64 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

65 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

66 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

67 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3

68 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 2

69 0 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

70 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3

71 0 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 3

72 0 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

73 0 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

74 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

75 0 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2

76 0 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

77 0 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

78 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 2

79 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

80 0 0 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 3

81 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 2

82 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

83 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

84 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3

85 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2

86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3

97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0

99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3

101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 2

114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0

122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 3

128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2

129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 2

130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2

131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 3

132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3

133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 2

134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2

136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2

138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2

139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3

140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2

141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 2

Figure 34 Patterns of engagement from Berlin




64

player 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2

2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 6 0 0 0

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

8 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2

10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

12 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

13 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 2

14 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2

15 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

16 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2

17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 6 0 0 0

19 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2

20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2

21 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2

22 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 2

23 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

24 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

25 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

26 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2

27 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 2

30 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

31 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2

32 0 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 0 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

34 0 0 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2

36 0 0 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2

37 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

39 0 0 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 6 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2

41 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

42 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

43 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

44 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 0 0 0

45 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

46 0 0 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 2

47 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

48 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

49 0 0 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0

50 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

51 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2

52 0 0 0 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 6 0 0 0 0

53 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

54 0 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

55 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 456 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

57 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

58 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

59 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

60 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2

61 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

62 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

63 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

64 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

65 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

66 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

67 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 2

68 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 2

69 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

70 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

72 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2

73 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

74 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

75 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

76 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

77 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

78 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

79 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2

80 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

81 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0

82 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

83 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

84 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 2

85 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 2

89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2

93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 6 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0

104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2

109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2

110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2

111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2

112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 2

113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2

118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2

122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2

124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 2

126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0

127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 4 2

128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2

129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 0 0 0

132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 0 0 0

133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2

136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2

137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 0 0 0 0

141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 4 4 2

142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 2

143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 2 2

145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2

146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2

Figure 35 Patterns of engagement from Singapore




66

Figure 37 Frequency distribution of players receiving different numbers of messages

Figure 39 plots the number of messages sent by each Singapore player against thenumber received. Each point on the plot represents one player. Our extreme player can

be seen top-right. We have plotted the line for the formula:

sent = received * 1/1.7

over this graph, where 1.7 was the ratio of the total number of messages received by allSingapore players to the total number sent. We see that on the whole players who onlysend a few messages tend to receive more than this average multiplier in return whereasthose who send many messages tend to receive less than this multiplier in return. This is

not surprising as players will receive a baseline stream of daily messages and key eventseven if they hardly send anything as noted previously.

Number of messages received

Frequency

0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

2

4

6

8

10




67

0 200 400 600 800

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0

0

received

s e n t

Figure 38 Plot of sending versus receiving messages


This chapter has presented an initial, high-level analysis of player behaviour based onsystem logs from the events in Berlin and Singapore.

This analysis at first glance appears to support the conclusions of the previous chapter;that Singapore players reacted more positively than Berlin players, in terms of

prolonged engagement, a dramatic increase in messages sent and received to and fromthe game and a larger amount of content experienced. Again, this could be attributed tocost of SMS as well as a change in the game content.

The analysis of the system logs have focused on providing an overview of all of the players in the game. The next step would be to undertake a deeper analysis – focusingon the differences between individual players within the same game, and discovering ifthere are any patterns or groupings between players.




68

7 TOOL DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

This chapter shifts our attention away from the players’ experiences of Day of the

Figurines II to instead focus on the behind the scenes authoring and orchestrationactivities that made it possible. In particular, it describes and reflects on two new web- based tools that were constructed to support the authoring and setup, and the monitoringand orchestration of DoF II. For each, a description of its functionality is given,followed by an evaluation by its users and how the tool could possibly be extended inthe future.

7.1 Authoring

The Day of the Figurines authoring tool is used to create and input content into DoF II.Content is authored spatially (on a map of the virtual town) and temporally (on a

timeline that stretches over 24 virtual hours) in order to trigger and deliver textmessages to players. For example, a player moving to the game location “The Rec” atmidday will receive a specific message based on content provided by the authors forthis place and time. Additionally, content may be dependent on the player’s current state

– for example a player may receive specific content when they are on a mission that a player not on the mission would not receive.

7.1.1 Authoring Challenges

Below is a list of content that needs to be authored for the game:

· Destinations – The destinations in the town · Destination Descriptions – Messages sent to players about the destination at

specific times in the game · Things – Objects that can be found and used by players e.g. cup of coffee, bat or

defibrillator · Dilemmas – Questions posed to players with multiple choice answers that affect

their health either positively or negatively e.g. “You see a man on the floor doyou… A: go over and help him up or B: walk on by”

· Local Events – Events that happen at destinations such as a gig by a band or afire at the hospital

· Missions – A goal is set for a player and they have to try and achieve this in acertain amount of time e.g. get four people to come with you to the park and usethe fireworks to give them a show. Missions combine the other elements.

These content elements are further supported by a set of message elements andspecifications that provide templates for constructing the final messages that are sent to

players.

The authoring tool aims to support content authors in overcoming the key challenges ofauthoring large amounts of content; namely how to organise, group, and check authoredcontent, how to sensibly author it both spatially and temporally, and how to provide auseful, centralised (specifically, web-based) interface for authoring.




69

7.1.2 The Authoring Tool

The DoF II authoring tool is integrated with the main game engine, and providesauthors with direct access to the content database that is eventually used to run the

game. The tool consists of two main interfaces that are both accessed online via web- pages, allowing multiple authors to author content simultaneously. A full manual can befound in IPerG deliverable D7.5

The first interface is a set of web forms that allow an author to add, edit and delete gameobjects within the database. These forms are generated automatically from the databasedefinitions, using XSLT to create JSP pages, which are in turn rendered as forms by theweb server. These web forms are then customised by making modifications to aconfiguration JSP file that performs functions such as giving author friendly names todatabase types and values – for example by replacing numerical enumerations withreadable strings. While editing a content object within the system, the form providestext entry fields, drop down boxes containing enumerated options, and hyperlinks toother objects that are related within the database.

The second authoring interface is an applet that provides a mechanism to create contentarranged by space and time within the game. Again, this can be configured with minormodifications to be more user friendly than the underlying data types. The applet linksthrough to the web forms described above, where an author can then create content toassign using the applet. In effect the applet is a simple way to navigate through authoredcontent to spot holes and gaps, and to judge how content is distributed throughout thegame.

The authoring tool allows different content elements to be grouped together using ameta-tag known as a “narrative arc” – which is a author specified grouping that allowsthem to group content as they see fit, and to hide and show groups as required. Theapplet is shown in figure 40 below, and figure 41 shows the applet displaying just onenarrative arc and its associated content.

This combination of interfaces allows an author to approach the content from a high-level view, by seeing how it is arranged spatially and temporally, or from a system pointof view for fine-tuning and debugging, by direct access via the web-forms.

Both interfaces are further supported by a script that checks the consistency of enteredcontent, highlighting blank or incorrectly authored fields and ensuring that the contentwill run within the game engine, shown in figure 43.

Finally, the “Message Mangalator” allowed authors to see how snippets of text messagewould be rendered as an outgoing message by the game, to check that newly enteredtext content was of the correct style and grammar.




70

Figure 39 Overview of the Authoring Applet




71

Figure 40 Close-up showing content from just one narrative arc




72

Figure 41 Webform for editing the details of a Thing




74

7.1.3 Feedback

This section presents a summary of feedback from game authors and operators, havingused the authoring tool to create content for two the deployments of DoF II in Berlin

and Singapore. This feedback was collected through a short email interview with keymembers of the team.

The general response to the web-based authoring tool was largely positive, stating thatthe tool was useful, but with some reservations that did not completely remove the needfor some paper-based authoring in advance:

“The authoring tool eventually became the dominant space where content for theDay of the Figurines was authored. However prior to this we were pushed to use

other means to write and develop the content, this involved creating exceldocuments and producing paper timelines. We continued to use these means todevelop content throughout the entire authoring process. This was due to acombination of the complexity of learning the tool in short time frames and anumber of restraints of the tool.”

The feedback also gives an interesting insight into the development process of thecontent – begin with a large paragraph of text, work up a timeline on paper beforefinally entering the content using the authoring tool, and potentially rearranging othercontent to fit. The following is a typical example of such a paragraph:

“The soldiers are keen smokers and are always collecting change so that theycan empty cigarette machines when the opportunity presents itself. This carriesmajor risks because to be seen in a pub is an intolerable violation. Any soldier inThe Vic or the Battle of Trafalgar Square for any reason will be on edge. TheProduct Barn sale however attracts a few of the soldiers with families backhome: even though it’s late at night they rifle through the debris outside to see ifthere are any household goods left behind. They waste no time in gathering upthe terracotta coloured plastic plant pots in giant sizes and loading them onto theroof of their troop carrier.”

“I was also reliant on Hannah (and later Kirsten) to print out large spreadsheetsthat showed the actual message content in each time slice and at eachdestination. This allowed me to get an overview and also swiftly access the fullcontent of messages and, when necessary add annotations. They would then takemy written notes and translate this into the authoring tool.”

Despite this, it is apparent that the authoring applet was the most useful part of theauthoring system, mainly as it provided a clear and accessible overview of the contentand its layout:




75

“A key task was to spread the content across the 24 days and the 50 destinationsin an even and systematic manner. The authoring interface of the tool wasinvaluable to this process; it clearly demonstrated the number of events,dilemmas and missions authored for each day. From a glance the colour codingallowed for an initial overview as to which time slots appeared bare and neededmore work. Moving to an hour-by-hour view gave a more focused insight,

providing a clear overview of each day’s messages.

The filter system was an effective element of the authoring interface and I usedthis tool to filter the timeline and the webforms to concentrate upon specificnarrative arcs.”

“The most useful feature was being able to author anywhere where I had aninternet connection. This allowed me to work collaboratively with the other

authors even when I was in different time zones etc. and to always have accessto the most up to date content. Being able to filter narrative arcs in the AuthoringInterface was the single most powerful tool. It gave a useful visualrepresentation of how each arc built and ebbed, especially for the Metallist arc.”

“The main tool I used was the Authoring Interface as this provided a snap shotof game content especially when filtered by narrative arc”

This feedback shows that the authoring applet and especially the narrative arc meta-data

and grouping functionality was a useful addition in managing the large amounts ofcontent in DoF II.

Feedback regarding the web-forms, however, was more varied – as it more directlyreflected the underlying arrangement of database objects and game logic and was lessintuitive compared to the applet:

“It took time to understand the logic behind authoring Missions, this is due to thecomplexity of this content, Dilemmas and Events were simple and logical to

understand. However a common mistake was to forget to change the first boxwhen adding a scope, the default was for local event, when authoring dilemmasand missions I would forget to change this box as I initially thought it wasgenerated automatically.”

“Authoring one piece of content over many destinations became extremely timeconsuming. For each destination in the game to receive the same message Ineeded to create a new scope for each destination, here I needed to add thetimeslots, select the type of message and the destination. To do this for 50destinations took approximately 20 minutes.”




76

Finally, the authors regarded the content testing and sanity checking tools as beinguseful additions for validating content – especially the message mangalator that allowedthem to pre view the content of messages in an almost “in-game” setting:

“The Mangalator was indispensable as it provided both a technical evaluation(maximum possible character counts) and a creative evaluation (a sense of themessage flow across a variety of different configurations). It also identifiedhidden or non-useable character types.”

7.1.4 Possible Extensions

While it is apparent that the authoring tool successfully aided content authors in creatingand entering the large amounts of content for DoF II, there are a number of extensions

and enhancements that could be made for future versions.

The authors suggested a number of cosmetic changes to both the authoring applet andsupporting web-forms, largely focusing on content filtering and sorting. For example,

being able to arbitrarily group narrative arcs and then filter by this parent group would be useful – one author commented that as the interface filled with content it becamedifficult to get a sense of how populated areas were, needing a coarser grained filterthan just narrative arcs. A generic approach would be to extend the concept of narrativearcs into a generic grouping concept – allowing authors to group arbitrary contenttogether, and if necessary to then group these groups in a nested hierarchy that could be

viewed or hidden as required.

Secondly, a tighter integration between the authoring applet and the supporting web-forms would be desirable. Some aspects of the authoring process involved pre-constructing content in the web-forms before being able to use it in the applet, followed

by fine tuning in the web-forms again, which is perhaps unnecessarily complicated.Being largely dynamically generated, some of the forms did not accurately reflect ahigher level view of how the different content objects interacted, which some authorsfound intractable.

Finally, as DoF II continues to be presented, the development process is focused on theiterative development of content rather than underlying game design and software. Forthis reason it is important to understand how best to change existing content with regardto how it was experienced in earlier games – some content may be redundant or placedin such a manner that it is not experienced by many players. A major addition to theauthoring applet would be to add a layer that showed visually, in the same spatial andtemporal manner, which content was experienced and by how many players in a

previous outing of the game, enabling an author to move content accordingly.

7.2 Orchestration

This section describes the DoF II suite of supporting orchestration tools. These wereused as the game was running, to support the day-to-day operation of the game, troubleshooting and monitoring, and a professional player in interacting directly with other

players to enhance game-play.




78

Figure 43 The interface for hand-crafting messages to be sent to players who have died




79

Figure 44 The interface for opening the game

The orchestration tools are further split into two categories – tools for monitoring thegame and tools for intervening. All of these tools can be thought of as either tools formonitoring or intervening with the game as a whole, or monitoring or intervening withan individual player.

The monitoring pages first provide a high level overview of the game. The gameoverview page shows how many messages have been sent and received, how many

players are currently in the game with a breakdown of status, and the time within thegame. It also gives a summary of how many people have experienced the key contentwithin the game, for example missions and dilemmas.

This page is supplemented by the “today’s events” page, shown in figure 46 below. Thisshows key events that have occurred within the last day, and helps the operator to beginto drill down into events that may require further attention. It shows players that havedied, left, joined or been incapacitated during the day. Notably, it shows players whohave caused an error to be flagged by sending a message that was not understood by the

message parser, and players who have joined the game but have not moved from thestarting destination – those players who are still “on the edge of town”. These are

players who may warrant closer attention or intervention if they are struggling; whileintervention is not required, unlike the personalised death message when a player dies, itis in the best interests of the game as a whole to help them to play.




80

Figure 45 The today’s events orchestration page




82

Figure 47 Orchestration page showing an individual player’s details




83

Figure 47 above shows a further orchestration page that lists all players in the game, andtheir status. Both this page and the today’s events page provide links to a detailed viewof each player’s game to date, including which missions and dilemmas they havereceived and completed, their health status, and most importantly a complete history ofall messages that they have sent and received. Using this, an operator can get a pictureof whether the player needs any assistance.

Figure 48 Excerpt from an individual player’s history

Finally, this player page allows an operator to intervene on behalf of the player. Theycan send a custom message to the player, they can perform an action on behalf of the

player by creating a message that the system treats as coming from the player, orarbitrarily alter the player’s health if they feel that they have been unfairly incapacitated.

For game-wide intervention, the advanced game controls page, shown in figure 50 below, enables operators to change game-wide settings and variables. These includehow fast the game runs in relation to real time, various time delays relating to contentand message delivery, and the probability of players receiving certain content such as

being allocated a mission or dilemma. As will be described in the following feedback,this functionality was used by an operator to cope with an unexpected occurrence that




85

Figure 50 The SMS simulation interface used by the Professional Player

7.2.3 Feedback

This section gives a summary of feedback on the use of the orchestration tools duringDoF II in both Berlin and Singapore, where the use of a professional player was firstintroduced. It describes which part of the set of tools the operators found useful, andhow they were used.

First the feedback describes how the tools were used on an everyday, monitoring basis:

“The main use for me was to identify areas of interest in the game (many playersgathered, unusual or idiosyncratic behaviour, prolific chat etc.) or problems inthe game (either errors such as players dying without reason or player generated

such as serial killing). I usually did this daily, by checking the Game overview page, then jumping to the Per Player detailed view to read the message history of players which had become incapacitated or had died.”

““Today’s events” is very useful as an immediate snapshot of the game. The“Player Changes, 30 days” graph provides a good way to measure the flow of

player’s into and out of the game. The “Total Messages, 30 days” provides aguide as to player’s engagement.”

Next, an operator describes how they discovered and reacted to an event in which twoof the players began trying to kill as many other players as they could:




86

“The daily stats page was the most useful for identifying problem players andoften led me to look at specific players and occasionally email the operators orthe player if necessary. In particular, this page was useful for spotting DJ Rajand Dr No, who decided to go on a killing spree.”

The operator describes how they used the interface to respond and to restrict the two players who were calling problems:

“Following their killing spree, DJ Raj and Dr No were both incapacitated usingthe advanced game controls page and a manual message was sent to each in anattempt to slow them down. Their health was also repeatedly set to nearlyincapacitated after this.”

As mentioned previously, an operator describes how they used the pages to identifygame-wide problems or events and to react to them:

“Three times during the game, the incoming sms gateway stopped forwardingmessages. As a result players stopped receiving responses to their messages,although scheduled game events still produced outgoing messages. The gameoverview page's - messages in the last 10mins - was useful in confirming the

problem as the gateway. Normally, this was in low double figures throughout thegame but always showed zero after gateway crashes.”

”During the game we also had three days where the game was haltedunexpectedly or started at the wrong time. Following these, we used theadvanced game controls for adjust the timebase default to speed or slow thegame to compensate for the loss or gain in time.”

Finally, the professional player describes their routine – what they did on a daily basis,what they were attempting to do and how they did it. The aim of the professional playerwas:

“Generally: Keep the game running, and prevent the players to get annoyed or bored. Find out mistakes and problems.”

Monitoring for players in need or unexpected events:

“I made a daily check of: game overview, player overview, daily stats. Top stats page to get a first overview on the game (e.g. to check the history of theseriously ill players and the recently died ones.), player overview to find out

where the busiest places in town were, player detailed view to read through their




88

Secondly, the operators commented that there was a need for an intermediate view onthe game. Currently the orchestration tools provide a high-level view of the game and

players, with the ability to request a detailed view of an individual player. Anintermediate view would allow an operator to view events that had occurred within aspecific destination or silo, allowing them to view conversations and the effects ofspecific content on a group of players, rather than just the messages sent and received

by one player.


This chapter has presented an overview of the two main supporting tools of Day of theFigurines II – supporting authoring and orchestration. We have seen how each tool wasused, and received a generally favourable evaluation from its users, and finallydiscussed how each tool could possibly be extended to better support future outings ofDoF II.




89

8 CONCLUSIONS

After two years in development which has involved two major iterations of design and

implementation and four major public tests, Day of the Figurines II appears to haveemerged as a stable and generally enjoyable experience for its players. Player feedbackfrom Singapore where the game was played by more than a hundred and forty paying

players for over a month was largely positive. In particular, 71% of players fromSingapore said that would be willing to take part in future games of Day of theFigurines. Analysis of system logs from Singapore provides further evidence of playerengagement, with players sending nearly 11,000 messages to the game and maintaininga collective ratio of 1 message sent to the game for every 1.7 received.

In general, players reported enjoying the following aspects of the game:

· Social interaction with other players;

· Its general mystery and sense of the unexpected;

· The structure of the game leaving space for their imaginations to operate; and

· The uniqueness and impact of the augmented game board.

However, the reaction to the Singapore performance contrasted with that to the earlierBerlin performance. Berlin players felt slightly negatively towards the game and were ingeneral not inclined to play again. They were also apparently less engaged with thegame, sending far fewer messages to it.

The improved reaction from Singapore when compared to Berlin appears to be for some

combination of the following reasons:

· We updated the content between the two, adding and refining missions;

· The cost of text messaging was far cheaper in Singapore; and

· Non-native English speakers in Berlin struggled with some of the game’sreferences and slang.

Feedback from players and analysis of logs shed light on patterns of play. While thesevary among individuals, there appears to be a general tendency to episodic play inwhich players dip into and out of the game, sometimes disengaging for a several days

before reengaging again. This was a pattern that we first noticed in the August 2005

London test of the first version and it appears to have continued through Berlin and thenSingapore. Feedback from these experiences suggest that in general, people enjoy playing at home and on trains, while playing at work is more controversial.

Following Laban, we developed new techniques specifically to support episodic playincluding a set of rules for packing message delivery, a revised navigation model basedon movement through a central hub, and aggregation techniques for combininginformation about multiple events into a single message. Our evaluations of Berlin andSingapore suggest that these were quite successful – players generally found the flow ofmessages from the game to be acceptable and found the content of messages to be wellstructured and easy to understand and, to a lesser extent, informative.




90

We automated and extended the content of the game after Laban, adding a simple gamegrammar so that messages could be automatically parsed and handled and introducingmissions in order to give greater structure and direction to the experience. Thesechanges appeared to have been popular, although the completion rate for missions wasquite low even at Singapore, suggesting that further refinements are required as wemove forward to further performances in the future. We also added objects and a healthsystem, both of which appear to have added to the game.

One of the most innovative and distinctive features of Day of the Figurines is theaugmented game board. This appears to help frame the experience for players, providesa reference point for thinking of the game as they subsequently play via their mobile

phones, enables them to spot the locations of other players and provides an opportunityto meet some other players face to face.

Finally, Day of the Figurines was supported by a set of web-based authoring andorchestration tools. Feedback from game authors and operators suggests that these did

provide important support for creating and managing the game, especially graphicalinterface for assigning different kinds of content to times and places in the game andinterface for summarising key events that had happened in the game that day. However,feedback also suggested that these interfaces could be refined and extended to makethem more usable.

Based on this evaluation, we would recommend making some further refinements toDay of the Figurines in the near to medium term future, potentially in time to supportthe UK tour that is scheduled for the late Spring and early Summer of 2007. Key issuesto address include:

·

Further improving missions. These seem to add a great deal to the game, but thecompletion rate remains low. We need to review player histories in order tounderstand why different missions failed and then revise them accordingly. Itmay also be a good idea to add some new missions.

· Recruitment into the game appears to be a bottleneck. We may have to chancethe recruitment process if we wish to enlist several hundred players into futureversions of the game. This may be possible through better advertising andintroductions around the augmented game board. Alternatively, some playersmight be able to register online, for example returning players from previousgames.

·

There were many requests for some kind of online access to the augmentedgame board so that players could continue to keep in touch with it throughoutthe game.

It would also be interesting to explore the extent to which the Day of the Figurines IIstructure of destinations, time, events, chat, objects, health, dilemmas and missionscould be used to support other long-term SMS-based experiences. Might we be able tocreate engaging educational experiences for teenagers, for example exploring historicalsettings and events, or might be able to extend current SMS voting mechanisms that runalongside TV shows?

Finally, there are further research questions to drill down into in greater depth.

Interesting questions include:




91

· Further unpacking the design and role of the augmented game board as aspectator interface? How does this work for players and what more generallessons can be learned?

· What additional techniques would enable us to manage interruptions andepisodic play? Can we draw on context aware computing to understand a player’s current situation and to determine the best time to try an engage them inthe game?

· How should we support players in reviewing the history of what took place intheir game? Would new kinds of replay interface provide a powerful addition tothis kind of experience?

· What are the cultural, language and cost differences between staging this gamein different countries and what do these tell us about the design of pervasivegames in general?

We anticipate that further analysis of the data from Berlin and Singapore as well as theopportunity to study Day of the Figurines as it tours the UK will enable us to addresssome of these issues over the coming year.

city as theatre

Documents