What escape rooms can teach interaction designers about design constraints

(1)

What escape rooms can teach

interaction designers about design

constraints

Josefine Hansson

josefinehansson93@hotmail.com Interaction Design Bachelor 22.5HP Spring 2020

(2)

Abstract

Design constraints is the first topic new interaction designers learn about in their studies. These are supposed to be the properties of a design that limits user’s actions. This thesis aims to explore these constraints in depth to understand if there is more to learn about them when placed in a new setting, such as games. This knowledge could then be used to create better player or user experience. To discover this, a detailed study of two escape rooms was conducted and analyzed.

The investigation showed that there is more to design constraints than previously mentioned by theorists, especially when context changes, and that design constraints should instead be interaction opportunities. Instead of only seeing constraints as limiting actions, they should become the clues for possible interactions.

Keywords: Design constraints, affordances, frustration, games, escape

(3)

Acknowledgements

Everyone said that the thesis was the hardest part to plan during this education. In our case, it really was, as the world suddenly was put in quarantine. Me and my classmates were forced into implementing other methods and plans, as the world adapted for the new pandemic.

In my case, I think the pandemic helped my thesis. I got to focus in detail on designs I already had created before the time of this study. I felt more connected to both classmates, co-designers, and supervisor. It is to them I owe my thanks.

To my classmates who kept hopes up with stupid memes. To my wonderful co-designers of the rooms presented in this thesis. To my friends, who sat down and read it. And to my supervisor who calmed me down in the storm. Thank you for all the feedback that made me progress.

(4)

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

Whenever we meet a novel artifact, and do not understand how it should be used, the design is most probably at fault (Norman, 2013). To be able to understand an artifact’s intended use, the user should be able to rely on the designed constraints of the artifact. These constraints were introduced by Donald Norman in 1988, where he proposed four different limitations (physical, logical, cultural, and semantic) to a design that could (and should) improve interaction. These limitations were built upon the notion of

affordances (Gibson, 1986), what an object is able to do. Can the object be

sat on? Climbed on? If the object of interaction does not inform the user about possible interactions, this might lead to frustration with the object in question.

Frustration is mostly a subject frowned upon, and something to avoid unless it comes to the creation of games. In 1939 a theory was presented saying that frustration always ends in aggression (Breuer & Elson, 2017). However, in 1978, Leonard Berkowitz proposed different ways of redirecting frustration, making it not end in aggression, i.e. rephrasing the original quote. Two students then wrote a master thesis on the notion of frustration and immersion in games (Nylund & Landfors, 2015) and realized that frustration did not always have to be a negative when it came to games. In fact, it can inspire people and motivate them to progress (Chen et al. 2014; Fang et al. 2018).

Motivation to progress is the quiddity, the essence, of the creative process when designing games. Motivation is what drives the players to move forward, and what makes them uncover the story and explore the world in which they have landed. In escape rooms, or live-action team-based physical games, motivation is a balance that can be hard to work with. However, one way to ensure progress, and in turn motivation, is to observe what is happening in the room in detail.

To be able to understand the frustration and motivation to progress that happens in games, especially escape rooms, this study merge the old notion of affordances and design constraints (what one is able or not able to do), with the new phenomenon of escape rooms. This to see if there is more to learn about design constraints than previously know, especially when put in an entirely new context.

1.2 Contribution

The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the knowledge about design constraints and how they can be used in different situations, more specifically what we can learn about them when used in games such as escape rooms.

(7)

The contribution to design practice is how detailed observations can be conducted, and how to identify detailed interactions and design constraints in an artifact.

The contribution to escape room design knowledge is how one can observe minimal interactions with specific touchpoints and how that can affect the player experience.

By knowing more about how design constraints are used, and how they are perceived by users, interaction designers can create better user experiences and learn more about how design constraint limit or encourage interactions.

1.3 Delimitations

The aim of this thesis is to focus on design constraints in escape room games and is therefore not comparing this to design constraints where they are normally used (in digital everyday interactions). However, as this study looks at interactions in detail and in a closed, semi-uncontrolled space, the comparison with everyday interactions should be simple to make.

As the data collected in this thesis is based on self-experience and only a few playtest videos without the possibility of interviewing the participants, the results are not definitive. To get data that would be more inclusive, a larger study with the original thought of looking at design constraints, together with interviews, would have to be conducted.

1.4 Structure of thesis

The work of this paper started a year ago, during the spring of 2019 in a course where I and four fellow design students created an escape room, and where we were supposed to write a report connected to a phenomenon in the experience. I decided to focus on the reason why the players got frustrated and if there was something more in that frustration I did not understand. What I discovered was, that there was more to frustration than just negative feelings, that there was something one could use to design games (Hansson, 2019).

This thesis is a continuation of that research, going deeper into the reasons for frustration, with particular reference to design constraints. The data collected is based on the research and work created during that course of spring 2019 and on the second escape room I created during the fall of 2019. As there is a lot of information connected to this project, I have decided to attach an appendix with more content, as complementary information to what is presented in this paper.

Theremaining thesis is structured in the following manner:

Section 2 will explain the theoretical knowledge one will need to understand

the main sections of this thesis (sections 5 and 6). About games, escape rooms and the chosen interaction design area (affordances and constraints).

(8)

Section 3 will explain in short about the games designed during the spring

and fall of 2019. More information about the games as well as photographs can be found in appendix 1 and 2.

Section 4 will present the methods used in this thesis, from design research

to video analysis and the implementation of these methods and how they have been used in the exploration of constraints and escape rooms.

Section 5 will present the findings of the documentations of the two designs. Section 6 will summarize the main findings of section 5.

Section 7 will conclude the most interesting aspects of this thesis and give

ideas on what this will mean for frustration, interaction design and how to move forward.

1.5 Ethics

The data collected from this thesis have been used together with the rules and guidelines for ethical research conduct provided by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). The participants of the analyzed videos from the Laboratory were informed about the use of the videos both in correlation to the time of filming and a year later, when the videos were used for this thesis (see appendix 3 & 4). The videos were stored in a cloud drive, only accessed by us designers and the course responsible.

The information saved from the participants were their gender and their previous experience with escape rooms. Gender was collected to make aware of the gender equality in the participant list (6f/8m). Previous experience was collected because of the difference in behavior in the players. In one case, the line of work was collected to identify their previous experience with the genre. The players of both rooms gave their oral or written consent to be observed and part of the study.

Any images used in this thesis containing people will either be edited in a way that there is no identifying factor, or they will be images of my own interactions.

1.6 Research question

When this project started, unconsciously during the spring of 2019, I thought that my research question was more connected to frustration in escape rooms and how understanding frustration could contribute to the creation of interactive artifacts. However, developing this paper, I realized that my research question was a bit broader.

Thus, in this thesis, the question to have in mind is the following:

What can escape rooms teach interaction designers about design constraints?

(9)

Every section in this thesis will answer this question, in its own way, to later present the most interesting answers in the end.

2 Theory

As my research started off by designing escape room games, I will first explain the process of making games and the definition of escape rooms. Then I will get more into the design research part of this thesis, connected to the affordances and design constraints mentioned in the introduction. The information provided in this section will be the backbone of this study, accumulating in the later explorative part.

2.1 Designing a game

We have all played games at least once in our lives, and whether this was physical (boardgame) or digital (videogame), they all had the same basic idea. Follow rules, win the game. However, according to a study made by Jaakko Stenros, “ideas about what games are change over time” (2017, p. 515). For example, how much they are connected to the term ‘play’ or how the presence of rules effects the game. With these questions in mind, Katie Salen & Eric Zimmerman (2004) tried to define a game by combining the thoughts of many game researchers. They came up with the following properties:

• a game needs to have an agreed set of rules, • it needs an end,

• it needs a separation from ordinary life (space or time) and • it can contain a certain level of make-believe.

Through their research they then defined games as “a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (2004, p. 11). Thus, a game is creating an artificial conflict that does not have a meaning outside of the game, i.e. it is separated from everyday life. It is defined by rules and has an ending that can be measured and compared.

2.1.1 Escape room games

Escape rooms are live-action team-based games where the players are assumed to explore a closed space and solve puzzles during a set time. It is an experience of discoverability, collaboration, and solutions, and they can either be physical or digital and they can contain a narrative or not. The rooms are normally filled with clues, both intended to confuse (oftentimes referred to as red herrings) and help players to progress. The rooms can

(10)

follow a narrative, such as a clinical space, a military bunker, or a prison, or focus more on the actual puzzles (Nicholson, 2015).

The puzzles normally follow a specific sequence, for example puzzle paths (figure 1). These can be open (you can start from whichever puzzle), sequential/linear (one puzzle must be solved before another) or path-based/multi-linear (where one can travel down different puzzle paths leading to the same meta-puzzle in the end) (Nicholson, 2015; Wiemker, Elumir & Clare, 2015).

Figure 1. Different puzzle sequences.

Each puzzle could either be focused on a physical action, such as sitting down on a chair, or placing an object on a designated place. Or they could be cognitive, where the player is expected to use their knowledge in the head by solving a crossword puzzle or a math problem (Wiemker et al. 2015). Other puzzles that can be used in escape rooms are keylocks, searching for physical objects, riddles or solving ciphers.

Creating a game is not always easy. Some players might be a bit rough with the props, resulting in damage, or the skill-level of the players might not match with the difficulty level of the puzzles. The most common issue escape room designers face is creating the puzzles and, more specifically, balancing them (Nicholson, 2015).

2.1.2 Balance

According to game designer Tracy Fullerton (2008), balance is what makes sure that the game fit the player experience goals, i.e. the over-arching emotional response of the player while playing the game. This relates for example to complexity, fair game and dynamics that are same for everyone. In puzzle games, this balance can also include the kinds of enigmas or the amount of people working together on a specific solution. Making the

(11)

relationship unbalanced can create frustration, which in turn can create negative player experience. To create balance in games, Fullerton presents four categories: variables, dynamics, starting conditions and skill.

Variables are the properties of your game, for example, player amount, size of playing area and resources available.

Dynamics are the strategies one can employ in the game. For example, shortcuts, ways to progress or move around not intended to be the main route. These shortcuts are the strategies the players can take, independent of the designer’s wishes. This can most prominently be observed outside of games in the phenomena of desire paths, or unpaved paths, developed over time by humans or animals (Bradley, 2010) (figure 2).

Figure 2. People creating a desire path by walking where there is no made path. Photo taken by: Josefine Hansson, 2009.

Starting conditions are what the players access before the game has started. This can relate to the previous experience the player has, either game or life experience. With game experience, the player can understand what matters and what interactions lead to progress. Life experience, however, can help you take the shortcuts described above. For example, imagine in a game, you have a piano where you are supposed to play a specific melody following notes on a piece of paper. Players with experience in music might solve this puzzle quicker because of their knowledge of notes compared to the player with no musical experience, who then must use the external information to solve the puzzle.

Skill is the relationship between the complexity of the challenges in the game compared to that of the user. Balancing the skill level can be difficult especially in escape rooms, because of the uncertainty of skill level that the players bring. Because most escape rooms only have age as a requirement for the users, they cannot expect a certain kind of skill level from them when they arrive.

(12)

2.1.3 Mechanics, Dynamics & Aesthetics

One way to create balance in games is to use the MDA framework created by Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek in 2004. They presented it to be used to create digital games, and it focuses on a game’s mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (MDA). They present it as a lens to look through, to be able to decide what kind of game one is analyzing or trying to create.

The mechanics of a game is the verbs, it is what you can do in the game. These are the actions and what drives the behavior. In digital games, this could include running, crouching, shooting, flying etc., and are designed by the game developer. In physical games, these would instead follow the same physical laws as in real life (i.e. you cannot fly) however this can be somewhat constrained by the rules set for the game or by the designer.

The dynamics are the strategies a player can take in the game. For example, if there is a game that allows you to crouch (mechanic), then crouching behind a bush is the dynamic. It is the strategy you take to ‘not be seen’ in the game. This means, the mechanics in the game can create situations for the dynamics. Other forms of dynamics can be to share information between players (to create alliances), to have a time pressure or the ability to take shortcuts. Through exploring the dynamics, one can create aesthetics experiences.

The aesthetics of the game is the emotional response the designers want the players to have when they are playing the game or, as according to Fullerton (2008), the player experience goals. This could for example be feelings of self-expression, challenge, or fellowship (Hunicke et al. 2004).

2.1.4 MDA in escape rooms

In escape room games, these three lenses (mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics) are a bit different than from other games. For example, in physical immersive live-action games, the mechanics, as mentioned above, are not much different from what a person can do in real life. There are no restrictions to what you can or cannot physically do in the room, compared to the life outside. People can jump, lift objects, and even run around in the space (dependent on the size of the space). This could possibly make it difficult for a designer to create a space where they want a player to act in a certain way. For example, climbing a bookshelf is possible if the bookshelf allows to be climbed upon. In a digital game, the developer could constrain this by simply program the bookshelf to be ‘un-climbable’. So how can the designer of a physical game space make sure that people act a certain way? With the use of dynamics, the designer can nudge players into acting a specific way. If we take the example with the bookshelf, making sure that the shelf is ‘un-climbable’ by slanting the shelves or placing something in front of

(13)

the bookshelf, prohibits the players from climbing. Is this a mechanic that the designer created, or is it a designed strategy? As dynamics are dependent on the player itself, as it is them that takes the decision for the strategy, the designed dynamics of the room can instead be compared to the designed constraints that will be presented in section 5. Using constraints in an escape room game can nudge players into making certain decisions about a specific strategy or available actions.

Using the player experience goals (emotional response to the game) or aesthetics in escape rooms make the situation much more enjoyable. For example, when the designers of the game Journey (inUseExp, 2018) were creating the final scene, they had difficulties knowing how it would end. They then got an email from the music composer containing a music file with the message “This is how I want the end to feel like”, which later inspired the visual ending. Working towards player experience goals before or during the creation of the game helped the designers understand what kind of experience they wanted the user to have. It is, in the end, what drives users’ feelings towards the game, for example pleasurable experiences could make users stay and frustrating moments could make them leave.

2.1.5 Frustration

A study from 2017 presented a theory originally created by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears in 1939 called the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Breuer & Elson, 2017). The hypothesis said that “that the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression” (2017, p. 1). However, in 1978, Leonard Berkowitz reformulated this hypothesis, arguing that frustration is more complicated than that. There are many components that need to be taken into consideration, instead of claiming that frustration always leads to aggression. He proposed a timeline starting from frustration and ending in aggressive behavior, and the steps in between. With this information, Breuer & Elson created the following diagram in 2016 (figure 3).

(14)

Figure 3. Frustration sequence. Retrieved from:

https://figshare.com/articles/The_frustration_aggression_hypothesis_according_to_Ber kowitz_1989_/4224270 .

In this case, frustration could be re-directed by different means to create alternate paths, for example, by justifying the frustration or getting a familiarity or experience with the frustrating situation.

According to Chen et al. (2014), frustration can be born from basic psychological needs not being met. For example, if the basic need for competence is not met (a ‘need frustration’) one can expect feelings of failure and doubt one’s efficacy, however if the need is satisfied one can expect feelings of effectiveness and being capable to achieve desired outcomes. Chen et al. later concludes that “When a person has experienced need frustration, an acute desire to restore the frustrated need may become more salient” (2014, p. 232). In other words, feelings of satisfaction can lead to a want for more. In 2018 there was a study made by Fang et al. where they explored the notion of motivation in collaboration with the competence need and concluded that frustration could in fact create motivation to progress.

Game frustration

In games, frustration is a notion that can both help and ruin the player experience. Many game designers use frustration as an inspiration to create games, as it does not always have to be negative. It could potentially heighten the overall experience. According to a study made by Adam Nylund & Oskar Landfors (2015), one can observe both positive and negative frustrations in games. According to them, positive frustration is when the player blames themselves for not progressing in the game. For example, when they are

(15)

fighting the final boss and dies because of their lack of skills to kill it. This is a frustration that could make the player, and user, more inspired and motivated to continue (Fang et al.2018), and it also fits Berkowitz rephrased theory about frustration being redirected because of a learning experience of the situation (1978). Contrary, negative frustration is created through the game not functioning as it is expected to, for example, when it has bugs or in the case of escape rooms, badly calculated sensors that does not work when interacting with them. However, negative frustration can also be created through interactions not behaving as they are expected to, not dependent on malfunctioning technology (Polaine, Løvlie & Reason, 2015).

Creating positive frustrations in games can be difficult, although it is not impossible. Nylund & Landfors gives the example of creating a learning experience to create positive frustration. Using the example from above, fighting the boss, this can be a learning experience as every time you are fighting, you learn more and more about the strategies the developer has created for the fight, and you can finally defeat the boss (2015).

Connecting both escape room knowledge, the MDA framework, and the theories about frustration, one can observe several ways of designing good user experiences. Negative frustration can be redirected by letting the user get the opportunity to learn about the situation. Balancing the level of difficulty of the tasks or creating a learning experiences heightens the player experience. And, by using the mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics of a game, one can try to create interactive moments. To create interactive moments in design, one instead (or perhaps in complementary) can use affordances and constraints.

2.2 Affordances and constraints

2.2.1 Affordances

An affordance is a conversation, a two-way street between the object and the observer or actor (Gibson, 1986). An affordance is what an object can offer, in relation to the actor’s interaction with it. Is a chair sit-on-able? Is a bookshelf climbable? (Kaptelinin, 2014). This is solely dependent on the actor, for example, Gibson mentions that something can afford to be eaten, but dependent on the actor, it can be nutritional, neutral, or even poisonous (1986). What was important for Gibson, however, was the perception of the affordance – and not the affordance itself, i.e. the ability to perceive what available actions there are. If the action cannot be perceived, how do we know what actions to take?

According to Norman, a few years later in 1999, designers have falsely incorporated the word affordance in their design, seeing it as something that

(16)

the designers can create. This perceived action, is instead called a signifier (Norman, 1999). It is what points to the properties that the object affords, what makes the affordance perceivable. For example, a door affords to be opened because it is physically removed from the wall (there is a small space between the door and the wall). What can be visible or not, is the way in which the door can be opened. Maybe this specific door can only be opened in one way, but how do you know? Following the basic Norman example, designers can place a sign on the door saying ‘push’ or ‘pull’, placing a signifier to show the affordance, making it perceivable. However, this could also be created through a metal plate on the door, indicating that there is an optimal place of interaction and how one expects to interact with the door. Since there is nothing you can grab onto to pull, the only solution must be to push. This perceived interaction, however, is not an inherent behavior.

As we live and interact with the world, we also learn how to behave and act. For example, babies learn how to move around in their limited space while in their infancy by perceiving possible actions (Adolph, Kretch & LoBue, 2014; Gibson & Pick, 2000). This is the same for adults, as the world evolves, technology and design evolves with it. How can we then learn about the world, and how to interact with it, if it always changes?

2.2.2 Constraints

Design constraints are what tells us what actions are prohibited and what actions is encouraged. Some constraints can be violated and ignored, and others cannot. Some can be used as aids and navigational tools. Some can even change as we and the world evolve because new opportunities present themselves (Norman, 1999). According to Norman, “Constraints are powerful clues, limiting the set of possible actions” (2013, p. 125). He presents four different constraints (or sometimes mentioned as conventions) following his definition of a constraint (that limits actions). These are physical, logical, cultural, and semantic.

The following sections will use a personal example of mine, to better explain the definitions. This example is from an escape room, where we found a cane and a hole in the wall (figure 4). The affordances of these two objects were that the hole afforded something to be moved through it (because of the hollow space in an otherwise solid surface) and the cane afforded reaching or poking (because of its ability to lengthen the user’s arm).

(17)

Figure 4. An escape room puzzle example.

Physical constraints

Physical constraints decide what is physically possible or not to do. These are the ones closest to the affordances of an object. For example, in a small children’s toy, the shape sorter, it is not possible to fit the square cube into the circular hole. The hole simply does not afford that piece to go through (in contrast, if the cube were smaller than the hole, this physical constraint would not exist).

“something small enough can be placed in the hole”

In the above-mentioned escape room, the hole in the wall had the same size as the cane found in the same room. The hole afforded something to be placed in it, and because of its size (both hole and cane), the cane was a perfect candidate.

Logical constraints

Logical constraints are the logical relationship between objects. For example, imagine that you have two light bulbs and two light switches. The most logical relationship is that the left light switch controls the left lightbulb and the same for the right.

“the marks on the cane means that this has happened before”

In the game, there were marks on the lower part of the cane, indicating that someone had had the same thought as we did, therefore the most logical thing to do was to place the cane in the hole.

Cultural constraints

Cultural constraints are the behavior that the society has decided is accepted. For example, you know how to behave in a restaurant or that you are supposed to cough in the elbow crease. Violating these constraints, or as

(18)

Norman calls it, conventions, can be dire and “disrupt interactions between people” (2013).

“the cane will be able to help us find something we need”

In the game, we took the conclusion that a cane must be for assistance, as it normally used by people who need help. This could, for example, be by reaching for something in the room.

Semantic constraints

Semantic constraints are used in the written language to determine what the more probable interpretation of a sentence is (Oden, 1978). For example, the difference between the sentences “the girl saw the boy with the binoculars” and “the girl saw the dog with the binoculars” (Oden, 1978, p. 28). The first sentence can be interpreted as either that the girl saw the boy using a pair of binoculars, but it could also mean that the girl saw a boy that had a pair of binoculars. With the information only presented in this sentence, both are probable.

In the second sentence however, it is most probable that the dog did not have a pair of binoculars, on the account that it does not have opposable thumbs, but it is more likely that the girl used a pair of binoculars to see the dog. This is how semantics are used in the written language and it is not that different comparing it to the semantic constraints mentioned by Norman. Semantic constraints in design is when the interpretation is relying on the situation one finds oneself in (2013).

“there is something in the hole we need”

Escape rooms compared to other contexts, the importance of something changes with the change of space. For example, if you find a hole in someone’s apartment, you rarely imagine that there is something in the hole you need. In the game, however, every design, every object, could have a purpose. Therefore, we concluded that there must be something in the hole we need.

2.2.3 New constraints

Through the research of this thesis and through analyzing the documentation, I have discovered three new constraints, closely related to the idea of escape rooms. These are time, experience, and genre constraints and will be presented below.

Time constraints

The time constraint is intricately connected to words such as effectiveness or simplicity, at least when the area of use is design. It could be compared to the principles one can follow to make easier and more effective interactions (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003). In design, this can be compared to how long it will take to conclude an action, such as the time one needs to spend

(19)

buying a train ticket. Additionally, it could be how long it takes to buy a train ticket, with the situation of being late to the train. In escape room games, this time constraint is set in the time frame of the game, and in correlation, how long it takes (or should take) to solve a puzzle.

Experience constraints

Experience constraints can be compared to cultural constraints, in which the rules of behavior have been decided by the society, but where the rules instead comes from one’s own previous experience, or as Fullerton mentions it, starting conditions (2008). Experience constraints are related to the way we have learnt the interaction and use of specific objects, through what designers have chosen to be the universal way of interaction. This is related to signifiers, and how we have learned to memorize their meaning, for example, in the use of symbols (a floppy disk means to save something). In escape rooms this constraint would be more related to the previous experience one has with the same situation. For example, a regular user of escape rooms might interact differently with the room compared to a user that has never been through this experience. This is the constraint that is the hardest to implement or plan, as designers cannot beforehand know the experience of the users. This could instead be compared to the dynamics, and the shortcuts users employ in games and other interactive designs. Possible shorter paths for the users, but not imperative for game progress.

Genre constraints

The genre constraint is a term, which somewhat encloses, and combines, three out of the previously mentioned constraints: logical, cultural, and semantic. This constraint is when the genre of specific situations gives clues to what opportunities or constraints are allowed or discouraged. This constraint can be compared to Norman’s signifier (2013), in the sense that we are getting a clue to what actions are possible. However, I propose the term genre constraint to be a bit less concrete than signifier. If paper with instructions, or a metal plate is a signifier – the genre in a specific setting is the signifier.

With escape rooms as the focus, let us look at an example presented to me by a close friend. She was playing an escape room in The Netherlands, where neither the Game Masters nor the game itself were adapted to the English language. When my friend and her teammates entered the room, they had to understand the game through the genre which in this case was an adaption of a military base. With no introduction to possible actions in the room or and over-arching end goal, she and her teammates had to figure out what to do by exploring the room – and where the genre could present opportunities for interaction. This constraint is something that could give birth to the question “Does it make sense …?” (logical). In this military base, for example, it made sense to interact with a Morse Code machine (cultural) or to look for hidden codes (semantic). The players were expected, and perhaps expected it of

(20)

themselves, to “behave in a game in line with the genre of that game” (Nicholson, 2016, p. 9).

This chapter has presented theories about game design, specifically the idea of creating escape room games, such as puzzle design and how one can create balance in a game. It then presented the theories for the main focus of this thesis, design constraints, both mentioned previously by Donald Norman, and discovered through me with this research. From this, we can see that designers have the power to affect the player experience and situations where players can become frustrated. The following sections will present the designs used and analyzed in this thesis, how research have been implemented and then explore design constraints and its effect on player experience.

3 The designs

In this report, two different escape room games will be used in the observation and documentation of interaction. These two games were co-designed by me and were created during the spring (the Laboratory) and fall (Sister Jill) of 2019. Both rooms had a time limit of 35 minutes and were in a space of about 7sqm. Both rooms were defined as being physical live-action narrative-based escape rooms. They had a set of rules, a set of time allotted to the game and the players had a goal to reach. To read more about the rooms and their design, see appendix 1 and 2.

When creating games, most designers work towards creating a special kind of player experience. Through testing their game with participants, playtesting, the designers can get feedback and important insights in how they have managed to incorporate this experience in the game. It is a way for them to gain information about the game, and how to iterate on it before it is released (Fullerton, 2008). Most playtest happen in a closed, safe space where the participants are encouraged to talk out loud about their experience, and sometimes get questions from the designers.

In the case of the rooms presented in this thesis, the playtesting session started by introducing the players to the rules of the game and some suggestions to follow when playing, this both in the form of oral information and the consent paper (appendix 3). In both games the participants were asked to talk out loud as an advantage on the communication part of the game, but also as a help to the designers for later iterations of the room. Both rooms were changed in some way after 1-2 tests, to try different situations and placements of the props in the rooms. These changes were made based on the findings of the observer in and outside the room as the playtest was

(21)

happening. This could for example be the placement of objects or a change in a puzzle solution.

In this report, there are 7 videos of the Laboratory that will be observed and analyzed. The videos have different iterations of the room, from early tests to final tests. As there are no videos of the playtest of Sister Jill, because of the low light conditions in the room, this analysis will consist of the designers’ own documentation of the tests.

3.1 The Laboratory

Figure 5. The Laboratory room setup.

The Laboratory was created with a sterile, white, clinical setting (figure 5) where the players were adopting the roles of two scientists trying to find their way out of the room. The players were introduced to the game through one of the designers, dressed in a doctors’ lab coat, where similar coats were placed in the room.

After being let into the room, the players were asked to put on lab coats and greet NIOS, the friendly AI.

“Hello, I am NIOS. I’m here to help. If you need me, just say NIOS, we need your help. There has been a virus outbreak in the building. You have thirty-five minutes before the virus spreads to this lab. You need to get out. I have lost control over the lock mechanism on the door. You need to find a

physical keycard to get out.”

The players were expected to explore the room to find the different clues and puzzle solutions. This could, for example, be a key hidden inside a pocket in one of the coats the players wore or mixing two different substances to create something new. If they got stuck in the game, they could simply ask NIOS for help and she would give them a hint based on where in the game they were. This, however, was a fully manual function, controlled by the designers observing the game outside of the room. See more how NIOS was called upon in the transcripts in appendix 5.

The puzzles in the room followed a multi path-based puzzle sequence, illustrated below (figure 6), meaning they could start either on the test tube, poster or ECG puzzle sequence but needed all three for the last meta-puzzle, and the sequences contained both physical and cognitive solutions.

(22)

Figure 6. The Laboratory, full puzzle sequence.

One of the first puzzles the players had to solve were the test tubes, which was a physical puzzle. The players were supposed to figure out that they had to ‘neutralize’ the ‘toxic’ sample inside of a quarantine box to be able to remove it out of the box. This was created through putting a ‘neutralizing’ pill into the liquid in the test tube, making the liquid blue instead of clear (figure 7). When this happened, NIOS said “Sample neutralized” and you could remove the sample from the box.

Figure 7. The Laboratory, test tube puzzle.

The image below shows an example of a cognitive puzzle, which was the one from the Poster sequence, where the players were expected find one piece for the final puzzle. What the players had to figure out was the pattern from the numbers on the poster and understand what two numbers was missing in the end (figure 8).

(23)

Figure 8. The Laboratory, poster puzzle.

For the purpose of this paper, I have chosen to focus the analysis on the test tube puzzle. This was the first sequence most players encountered, and it showed to have the most dynamic relationship with players as well as proving to be the most enjoyable sequence in the game. When fully operational, the sequence was automatic, with an interactive system of sensors implemented in the test tube stand, and needed no additional help from the designers (except the early version of the tube stand, read more in section 5.3.1).

3.2 Sister Jill

Figure 9. Sister Jill room setup.

The narrative in Sister Jill was inspired by the Jack the Ripper murders from 1880, more specifically the theory about the murderer being a woman. In this case, a nun called Sister Jill. The game took place in a convent (figure 9), where the players had the roles of two poisoned victims that had to find an antidote to survive. The players were met by one of the designers, dressed as a nun that explained the situation for them and asked them to drink a ‘vaccine for the cholera outbreak’ (in real life this was only water). The room was completely dark, except for three mobile LED candles.

(24)

The players were expected to explore the room with the light sources they had, to find out more about the narrative through the puzzles they solved (for example newsletter cut-outs hidden in the cupboard compartment).

The puzzles in the room were collaborative and physical, and followed a multi path-based sequence (figure 10). The players could therefore start wherever they wanted, however only the key and Kneeler puzzle could be solved completely on its own. The fireplace puzzle needed the Kneeler to be solved before moving down that puzzle path.

Figure 10. Sister Jill, full puzzle sequence.

One of the physical puzzles was the Kneeler (figure 11), inspired by the religious kneelers in churches. The puzzle required the players to place three LED candles with magnets on the bottom in a specific order on the top of the shelf (order was found on a calendar with three daily religious times; Matins, Lauds and Vespers) by looking at the letters on the candles. At the same time the players had to kneel, putting pressure on the cushion placed on the lower part of the Kneeler. This resulted in a compartment opening in the front, by the cross, revealing more information about the room and objects to move on to the next puzzle.

(25)

Figure 11. Sister Jill, the Kneeler.

The collaborative puzzle in the room was the fireplace sequence, which required players to simultaneously place a magnetic object on a specifc point of interaction and shine a light on another place in the room (figure 12). These two points where designed to be far from each other, hindering only one player to solve the puzzle.

Figure 12. Sister Jill, fireplace puzzle.

For the purpose of this paper, I have chosen the Kneeler as my analyzed puzzle sequence because of its meaning in the narrative and the relationship it created with the players. When fully operational, the Kneeler was fully automatic, with hidden interactive magnetic and pressure sensors, and needed no additional help from the designers. This puzzle also showed to be the most enjoyed puzzle in the game and created the most discussion after the game.

(26)

4 Methods

This chapter will describe the methods used in this paper as well as the design exploration phase, then I will present how and where the methods have been implemented.

4.1 Design research

4.1.1 Research through design

Design research, through the eyes of Jonas Löwgren (2007), is defined by several characteristics. It is exploring possible futures, intending to change situations, considering materialistic qualities, developing an understanding of the task, and thinking by sketching and building models. A couple of years later, Löwgren wrote a paper together with two other researchers – saying that designers “must know their materials intimately” at the same time as understanding the full context (Löwgren, Svarrer Larsen & Hobye, 2013, p. 81). Thus, design research is knowing the situation, and the material of the design, intimately.

According to Christopher Frayling, in his paper from 1993, there are three possible ways of researching in accordance with design: into, for, and through. Research into design is, according to him, the most straightforward. It is when one researches a variety of theoretical perspectives such as social, economic, material, structural etc. Research for design, according to Frayling, the less common one, is when the “end product is an artefact” (p. 5), where the communication and thought is in the artifact, where visuals are more important than practical communication. And third, last and most important for this thesis, research through design. It is more practical in the sense that one looks at the material and how it behaves, the development of a product and the communication of it.

Marrying these two concepts together, Frayling’s definition of research

through design and the ideas about design research from Löwgren et al., we

find ourselves in a design process where the material and aesthetics of the material takes the spotlight.

4.1.2 Grounded theory

Grounded theory is a method first mentioned by Glaser & Strauss in 1967, that allows a researcher to look at a subjective phenomenon in detail and try to understand it, as well as creating theory through empirical work (Charmaz & L. Belgrave, 2015; Friedman, 2008). It tries to find categories where there might not be some at first glance, and it is an analytic model that, if used properly, provides the researcher with high qualitative data. However, as grounded theory is a methodology that is very large, and require the

(27)

researcher to enter into a situation without any preconceptions (which almost never happens), this study have only used grounded theory as an inspiration for the explorations. And connecting parts of this methodology to the thoughts of Löwgren et al., we can see that there is something in design that indicates that we need to look closely at the situation at hand to really understand what kind of interactions are happening, and where.

4.1.3 Ethnographic research

In comparison to grounded theory where theory is created through practice instead of observation, ethnographic research is about having theories, or at least a problem, in mind and then observing it in action. According to Blomberg, Burrell & Guest, “ethnography is anchored in the underlying assumption that to gain an understanding of a world you know little about, you must encounter it firsthand” (2003, p. 966).

Ethnographic research is born from the idea of a problem, of something not working as effectively as it should and by observing specific situations, a solution could be found (2003). The idea is to collect information about how the world is discovered by people and what they are doing, before making assumptions on why they are doing it (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). This in turn, could be connected to the importance of testing design constraints, to see if it really leads the user down the intended path, to reach the end goal of the design.

4.1.4 Five why’s

To be able to get to the main problem of an issue, designers can use the method called ask why (Nicholson, 2016), and it is often used when conducting interviews (Kvale, 2011; Pojasek, 2000). The reason for asking why in these areas is to make something called a root cause analysis, which is when the underlying cause of a situation or problem is found (Pojasek, 2000). In some cases, this means that the question “why” must be asked several times, hence the name Five why’s. In the case of making games, or escape rooms, this method is used in another way, namely, to understand why something is important in the game. Instead of trying to find the underlying cause of an issue, it is used to understand the meaning of something.

In escape rooms, one must, according to Nicholson, try to avoid the phenomena called escape room logic, meaning that something is placed in the room only for the purpose that player will think it is ‘fun’ (2016). Asking why could help avoid these logics, and to create coherent situations. Most importantly, this method can create easy to understand interactions through understanding why something is happening, why someone is doing something unexpected and why objects are behaving as they are.

(28)

4.2 Exploration

4.2.1 Exploring research through design

In this study, I have implemented Frayling’s research through design (1993) by marrying this idea with the ideas of Löwgren et al. (2013). I have worked towards watching interactions in detail to understand what it really happening in the context. How does the context affect the detailed interactions, and how do the detailed interactions affect the situation?

Detailed analysis

The way I have used both ethnographic research and grounded theory in this thesis, is that both happened at different times and by not using every aspect of the methods or theory. During the spring and fall of 2019, when the rooms where up and running, we subconsciously conducted ethnographic-inspired research, as well as autoethnographic research. We did not research the rooms or its interactions for a specific purpose or to find a solution to a specific problem. However, we did see the situation when it was happening and in its proper context, both through the experience of the players and our own experience.

The grounded theory-inspired part of this research came later, when writing this thesis. During my exploration of the two rooms, I discovered that there was more to be learned from the situations than what we knew when designing and conducting playtests. Together with the information collected there and then (through auto-/ethnographic methods) and the information collected for this paper (grounded theory) I got a larger view of the situation at hand, I could suddenly focus on what the participants were doing both through memory and, in the case of the Laboratory, through video.

4.2.2 Observation setup

Both rooms had, in some or all tests, moderate participatory observation, meaning, that the participation of the observer was minimal, or close to non-existing (Blomberg et al. 2003; Musante, 2015), also called the fly on the wall method. This required the designer to be in the room at the same time as the players because the lack of observational technology (however in the

Laboratory this was only true for the first 10 playtests, as this was exchanged

for a web cam) and try to blend in to the environment (Saffer, 2010).

Both rooms were observed while in use and afterwards (for the purpose of this report). The observation while the games were running was recorded on video with sound and by note taking both during gameplay and afterwards during interviews. The observation at the time of writing this report consisted of watching the videos from the Laboratory and the written documentation from both the Laboratory and Sister Jill.

(29)

The Laboratory

There was a web cam in the room, placed either on top of a large cabinet or on the table in the room. The camera picked up both video and sound. This way, the designers could see live what the players were interacting with and what they were saying (figure 13).

Figure 13. The observation setup of the Laboratory.

Sister Jill

The room was completely dark except for three LED wax candles that the players could interact with and move throughout the room. Because of the low light conditions in the room, there was always one designer in the room during the playtests. The players were asked not to think about or interact with this observer. During gameplay, the designer in the room were documenting on the play by either taking notes in a document on their phone or communicating through social media with the rest of the designers outside the room.

4.2.3 Video analysis (the Laboratory)

Since the work of the Laboratory is of this date a year old, a new session of participant observation or even live observation of the game was not an option. Instead, an analysis of the saved playtest videos was conducted. The use of videotaped interactions allows the user to replay a specific sequence, to be able to see a so called praxeological view of action (Knoblauch et al. 2006). This view of action is defined by Knoblauch et al. as the social practices (compared to representations or norms), i.e. what the players are doing as opposed to what they said they did.

As participant observation can affect the user’s behavior with an object, perhaps because of socially acceptable behavior (Blomberg et al. 2003; Musante, 2015), the use of videotaping is especially preferable in cases like

(30)

this study. In the situation of watching how people interact ’correct’ or not, such as looking at the semantic and cultural constraints, video is especially good because of the ‘lack of a human observer’. Despite users being aware that there might be someone behind the camera, watching them, it is not as apparent or intrusive as someone with a living breathing body standing in the same small space in which these games were recorded.

Video analysis, or coding, can be done in several different ways dependent on the desired outcome. One can use notetaking (Drachen, Mirsa-Babaei & Nacke, 2018), which allows the analysist to observe specific interactions in different detail. One can identify different possible actions and record when these are happening, or one can transcribe the videos second by second and document everything that happens from movements, interactions, and speech.

I chose to make a semi-open-ended video analysis. The transcripts start when the video start, this not necessarily the exact second the game was started. The analysis was focused on the test tube puzzle sequence, which through the design had interactive touchpoints including suitcase, pockets, envelope

(with content), keys, test tubes, test tubes stand, quarantine box and the pill jars. Every interaction with either of these objects was described in detail

with the time stamp included in the form of a spreadsheet. See appendix 5 for full transcript.

4.2.4 Finding the cause of frustration in escape rooms

To find answers from many in a fast and efficient way, one can use surveys. Especially the use of online surveys can be flexible, convenient and have an easy way to access large samples. It is a simple and low-cost way for researcher or companies to get answers (Evans & Mathur, 2005). However, they could also be perceived as impersonal or get answers from users with a “lack of online experience” (Evan & Mathur, 2005, p. 201). In this study I used the social network reddit as my platform for the survey. The users are familiar with answering questions specific to a theme and they have a high experience with the online world.

As frustration was the primary reason for observing escape rooms, I posted a question to the subreddit r/escaperooms (https://bit.ly/2XaMI7w) about frustrating moments. The answers ranged from misbehaving artifacts (objects in the room not behaving as they should because of either a miss from the designer or because of a miscalculated sensor), being misled by the props in the room (too many red herrings/false clues, or too few clues), collaborative issues (playing with strangers) and not having the possibility to finish the game. See full list of frustration points in appendix 6.

From these themes, I concluded that it is often the room itself that creates the frustration. This could be that the narrative in the space does not tell you what

(31)

actions are possible. The clues in the room can either be true or false and you cannot interpret them. The balance of interactions could be off, the communication between players or objects are unclear and in some cases the immersion breaks and takes you out of the situation. The answers collected through this mini-survey made me realize that frustration often is born through the object of interaction not behaving as expected or ‘correctly’. From here, I decided to analyze the previous designs co-design by myself, looking for frustrating moments and analyzing them. Leading me into discovering designed (mechanics imposed by designers) and found (dynamics employed by players) constraints.

Moving forward, the coming section will implement these methods and theories into the second exploration phase of this thesis, namely the answer to the research question presented in the beginning. This question was:

What can escape rooms teach interaction designers about design constraints?

Having this question in mind, it was now time to move on to the findings and insights discovered through exploring, researching, and analyzing the documentation collected through playtesting the designed escape rooms.

5 Designed (and found) constraints

After getting a theoretical understanding of the notion of design constraints and the process of creating a game and getting a presentation of the rooms in this study, it is now time to deep-dive into the exploration phase of this thesis. In this chapter I will present the designed and found constraints of the chosen puzzle sequences in the rooms presented in section 3.

The designed constraints are the intended interactions created by the designers, how interactions were ‘supposed’ to happen. These can be compared to the designed mechanics a game developer imposes on a game. The found constraints are the dynamics, the strategies the players employ in the game, but also constraints unconsciously designed by the creators and unknowingly ‘found‘ by players. In this chapter, these are discovered through the video analysis of the Laboratory (full transcripts can be found in appendix 5) and through the documentation analysis of Sister Jill.

5.1 Identifying constraints

To be able to identify designed or found constraints before starting the analysis of the documentation, I first made a thought experiment, using my

(32)

own experience with escape rooms as a base. Figure 14 uses an experience during the spring of 2019, in an escape room called the Chapel (escapehouse.se). During the game, we found puzzle pieces fitting into a frame found towards the end.

Figure 14. A thought experiment to discover constraints.

The puzzle-frame afforded something to be placed inside of it. The puzzle pieces afforded being moved. There were lines showing the shape and placement of the pieces (signifier), and the pieces could only fit in one place (physical constraint). Finishing the puzzle would give answers (semantic

constraint) or get a bigger picture (cultural constraint). When the found

pieces were placed, the missing pieces were more apparent (logical

constraint).

Chosen touchpoints

With this experiment I found that it was easy to identify the constraints when only focusing on one piece of the experience. Therefore, in the coming sections I will only focus on specific puzzles in the designed games as opposed to the full experience.

In the Laboratory, I have focused on the test tube puzzle (including quarantine box, test tube stand, and step by step instructions) because of its physicality and dynamic relationship with the players.

In Sister Jill, I have focused on the Kneeler because of its meaning in the narrative and the relationship it created with the players.

Both puzzles were automatic, with implemented interactive sensors, and almost never needed additional help or interaction from the designers. These

(33)

were also the two interaction points that showed to be the most enjoyable and the ones best designed for special ‘aha’ moments.

5.2 The Laboratory – Test tube puzzle

Correct sequence

The correct sequence to the test tube puzzle can be seen in the form of a sequence diagram below (figure 15), and as sketches with images on the different touchpoints in appendix 1.1. This puzzle had three different starting points of interaction: the pockets of the lab coats the players were wearing, the envelope on the table addressed to an A. Schwartz and the quarantine box with the clear tube.

The puzzle was created so that you could start on either one of these three points but needed all three before being able to solve the puzzle. Several red herrings were placed in the room, specifically connected to this puzzle, such as herring test tubes and stand. These were placed on the table to confuse players and add an element of time and difficulty to the puzzle.

Figure 15. Test tube puzzle sequence, pt 1.

The next sequence in the same puzzle required the players to understand the connection between the four similar-looking tubes, the test tube stand on the table and the sequence in which the tubes had to be placed (figure 16 & 17). Clues to the sequence were hidden in the logotype of the manufacturers of the tube stand (placed both on the letter in the envelope and on the tube stand). Another clue was in the cupboard, where four different shaped glass vials placed in an order, each having colored water coinciding with the contents of the tubes.

(34)

Figure 16. Test tube puzzle sequence, pt 2.

Figure 17. Test tube stand, from above.

When these steps were made, a small green diode on the test tube stand lit up and a compartment opened on the side of the stand – in which was the key to the cupboard lock.

Genre constraints

In the case of the Laboratory, the objects placed in the room were designed to have a high genre constraint. Everything in the room was designed to have a point to why they were there or why the specific interactions were chosen. The genre constraints were also there to give suggestions to the players as to what kind of behavior was expected of them. The gloves in the quarantine box / on the wall suggested that there was a ‘dangerous’ substance one had to protect oneself from. The coats suggested that the players are now the scientists and should behave like them.

Experience constraints

In the Laboratory, experience constraints could be that of work-related experience with clinical settings. For example, a player with clinical experience got distracted by a puzzle containing hard to pronounce medical terms and thought them important whereas a player with no clinical experience dismissed them as if they were not important.

(35)

Chosen touchpoints

The flowchart above (figure 15) show the different touchpoints designed in this puzzle sequence, but I have only chosen to focus on three of them, where two are both the low- and high-fidelity design of the object. The chosen interaction touchpoints in this sequence are the test tube stand, the quarantine box and the step by step instructions. These objects showed to be the ones inviting for interactions, and they were fully automatic (except for the low-fidelity tube stand). They offered the most interaction dynamics and the most interesting findings in the sense of design constraints.

5.2.1 Puzzle touchpoint: Test tube stand

The main difference between the fidelity level of the two tube stands was the access to the key in the compartment at the end of the puzzle sequence. The low-fidelity tube stand had no compartment but was complimented by the observer in the room. When the correct sequence of colored tubes was made, the key was handed over by the observer. In the high-fidelity tube stand, this transaction was automatic, through electronics hidden in the box which opened a small compartment on the side. The stands were cut in MDF (Medium Density Fiberboard) (figure 18), and the tube stand was only fastened to the table with double-sided tape.

Figure 18. Test tube stand, both low- and high-fidelity.

Designed constraints

The stand afforded being lifted and because of its size, shape, and a lack of proper fastening methods. The size of the holes was larger than the herring test tube stand (physical) meaning to dismiss them easily, and the same size as the puzzle tubes (physical, logical). Something needed to be placed in the holes (cultural, logical) and that in turn would uncover a solution (semantic). Three of the tubes had a color and one had not, and that had to change (logical). The clear tube, when colored would fit with the others (logical). The tube had to be removed from the quarantine box (logical, semantic,

physical). When placing the tubes in the stand, the cork lid should be facing

(36)

Found constraints

Almost all players communicated out loud that they had to make the clear liquid blue (logical). Some players seem to have found this out by prints left by previous players, such as a blue dot on the tube stand or faint blue colored stains on the floor (unintentional signifier). However, some found this through the clue on the tube stand, where the logo showed the correct solution (logical).

The stand was lifted from its place and was even turned upside down. As it contained electronics, this made a sound when moved and one player thought this meant that they had to open the stand somehow (semantic, logical,

cultural).

Some players tried the herring test tubes in the holes, but quickly understood that they were not meant to stand there as the size of holes and circumference of tubes did not match (physical, logical) (figure 19).

Figure 19. Test tube puzzle, player placing a herring tube in the stand.

The tubes were often flipped upside down and the magnets underneath was revealed (physical). One player thought this had to mean that they had to be placed on top of something magnetic (logical), for example placing the magnets toward each other (figure 20). Some players saw the sensors in the tube stand holes, and understood the connection between the technology (cultural, logical).

(37)

Figure 20. Test tube puzzle, player getting confused by the magnets.

If the players had the correct sequence, but it did not work because of miscalculations in the technology in the stand, the players resorted to try different ways of ‘trying harder’. They tried to either remove and put back the tubes, spin them on the spot so that the label was lined up or push on the tubes to make sure they were really touching where they were supposed to (physical, cultural, logical) (figure 21).

Figure 21. Test tube puzzle, players forcing down tubes in stand.

Outcomes: The imagined designed constraints in the test tube stand was

indeed also present when the players interacted with them. However, many other constraint-touchpoints were found such as the force used to push down the tubes in the stand or to touch the magnets to each other to explore their properties. Players seemed to understand quite quickly that they had to place the clear tube from the quarantine box in the stand, and that they were not supposed to remove the tube before interacting with it in a very specific way (changing the color of its contents).

From this first observation, it seems that one constraint can lead or help the user to identify other constraints. Or that constraints are working together, to create a visible pattern of interactions available for the user. For example, the relationship between the herring tubes and the test tube stand. Physical constraints showed that they did not fit perfectly in the hole, and logical constraints showed that it did not match the other tubes. This in turn made the connection between the clear tube and the other colored tubes more