Player Exploration and Behaviors The Influence of Player Navigation

(1)

Player Exploration and Behaviors

The Influence of Player Navigation

Department of Game Design Author: Malin Runsten Fredriksson Bachelor’s Thesis in Game Design, 15 c Program: Game Design and Graphics Supervisor: Ernest Adams

Examiner: Mikael Fridenfalk June, 2018

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Guiding a player through a 3D environment can be a difficult task, especially in a game with a choice of multiple paths. Because of this, designers are often forced to implement various navigational tools such as maps, user interface (UI) elements and written explanations to help the player get from one point to another. This study explores the possibility of using research of spatial design along with player exploration patterns to better influence how player navigates in game environments.

Player background and player navigation pattern data were gathered through a survey taken by 97 participants. This survey contained 13 pictures with multiple pathways, where participants needed to choose a pathway for different stated contexts. The pictures themselves were based on research of design methods meant to help guide or communicate to the player via the environment.

The result showed that it is possible to influence players if the designers keep the genre and/or game objectives in mind when designing the environments.

Keywords: 3D-games, Environment-Design, Funneling, Influence players, Level-Design, Navigation.

Abstrakt

Att vägleda spelaren genom en 3D-miljö kan vara en svår uppgift, speciellt i ett spel med ett stort urval av vägar. På grund av detta är designers ofta tvungna att implementera olika navigeringsverktyg som kartor, användargränssnitt och skrivna förklaringar för att hjälpa spelaren att ta sig från en punkt till en annan. Den här studien utforskar möjligheten att använda forskning av rumslig design tillsammans med utforskningsmönster för spelare för att bättre kunna påverka spelares navigering i en spelmiljö.

Spelarens bakgrund och utforskningsmönster samlades in via en enkät, där 97 personer deltog. Enkäten innehöll 13 olika bilder föreställande olika vägar där enkät-deltagarna fick välja en väg i olika kontext. Bildernas uppbyggnad var baserade på forskning inom metoder för design, ämnade att vägleda och kommunicera med spelaren via miljön.

Resultatet visade att det är möjligt att påverka spelare om designers både har genre och spel- mål i åtanke när de designar sina miljöer.

(4)

(5)

Table of contents

1 Introduction ... 1

1.1 Aims and Objectives ... 1

2 Background ... 2

2.1 Light and Color ... 2

2.2 Architecture ... 4

2.3 Signs ... 6

3 Method and Materials ... 8

3.1 Creating the 3D Environment Images ... 8

3.1.1 Small Influence Category... 9

3.1.2 Great Influence Category ... 13

3.2 Player Navigation Survey ... 16

3.3 Textual Analysis ... 17

4 Results ... 19

4.1 Scene 1 ... 21

4.3 Scene 3 ... 23

4.4 Scene 4 ... 24

4.5 Scene 5 ... 25

4.6 Scene 6 ... 26

4.10 Scene 10 ... 30

4.11 Scene 11 ... 31

4.12 Scene 12 ... 32

4.13 Scene 13 ... 33

4.14 All Scenes ... 34

5 Analysis ... 35

6 Discussion ... 42

7 Conclusion ... 45

(6)

(7)

1 1 Introduction

In many video games the player needs to navigate from one point to another, either on a linear path or a choice of multiple paths in order to complete his goal. Building these games in many cases requires developers to guide the player using various navigational tools such as maps, user interface (UI) elements and written explanations. Universal Principles of Game design (Lidwell 2010) and Burigat’s study Navigation in 3D Virtual Environments (Burigat, 2007) both reflect on their efficiency within game design in the industry.

Designers can however help players navigate without these tools by using the environment, but it is a difficult task to achieve. One of the most common answers is an artistic method; to use the environment itself to guide the player. Studies such as Magy Seif El-Nasr’s “Dynamic Intelligent Lighting for Directing Visual Attention in Interactive 3D Scenes” (Magy, 2009) and Christopher W. Totten’s “An Architectural Approach to Level Design” (Totten, 2014) show how shape and lighting can help players to navigate in a 3D space. However, even by using this method it could still be difficult to nudge players in a certain direction without limiting the players options and removing multiple paths.

To balance this problem, this study reflects over the possibility of using research of spatial design along with player exploration patterns to better understand how players navigate in a 3D environment.

1.1 Aims and Objectives

This study examines player navigation choices in 3D environments, in order to better understand player decision-making about navigation.

Without the use of navigation tools on the screen (maps, UI, text etc.) developers commonly use the game’s environment to guide the players. Having the option to explore multiple paths could make it difficult for developers to encourage players in a certain direction without simply restricting the play to one path.

The purpose of this study is to answer the following question:

• How can one influence player navigation choices in 3D environments?

By using empirical research with a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, this paper aims to propose an answer to this problem.

(8)

2 2 Background

When developing videogames, game designers must design the content and rules of a game.

During this process, they can regulate the dynamic relationship between a player’s mindset and what the game itself has to offer. The designers must therefore predict the player’s expectations and the consequences of actions the player can take within the game space. A big part of this involves game environments and navigation, especially in 3D spaces with many paths to choose from (Friedman, 2015).

Navigation is a process in which people determine where they currently are, where everything else is and how they will proceed to a specific location or object. To do this, people must therefore plan their movements by using information from the environment. In order to ease this process, game designers often resort to guiding the players using different navigational tools such as maps, on-screen icons and user interface elements in combination with landmarks to prevent players from losing their way (Lidwell, 2010; Burigat, 2007).

However, this is not the only way for designers to relay wayfinding information to the player.

This is where various visual aesthetic designs can be used. The first thing a player usually sees in a game are the visuals, and they tend to serve as a first idea of what the game is presenting and what players are expected to do. Visual information can be used in many different forms to communicate with the player (Friedman, 2015), but three of the big categories are: Light and color design, architecture design and the usage of “signs”.

2.1 Light and Color

In video games, lighting is used by game designers to lead players through visual attention and creating tension for the viewer. Depending on the genre of the game the application of light takes many different forms. A puzzle game can for example use light to guide their eyes towards clues, while a stealth-based game may use shadows to enable their mechanics.

To attract attention to either an object or a character in a scene, the designer must know what the environmental lighting conditions look like. That way lighting, color and brightness can be balanced and adjusted on the chosen target to create the necessary contrast needed for visual attention from the viewer. Many games make use of halos by making a soft glow around any point of interest to succeed in attracting the viewer’s gaze. This however is not a solution possible for all games and genres, as some designer strive for a realistic game look.

In those cases, subtler visual attention implementations are needed.

When using color in games, it’s important to understand some tools of color theory. One of those tools is the color wheel (See Figure 1), where colors are grouped together to better understand how they can be used in relation to one another. One example is that by using blue, blue purple, and purple, all color which are near one another, designers create a somber or cold feeling in a game. Similarly, red, red-orange and orange can be used to create a warm or hot feeling (Totten, 2014).

(9)

3 According to Anne M. Terismans’s feature-integration theory (El-Nasr, 2009), properties like warmth, brightness and saturation can be used to alter visual attention. Depending on how these are used, designers can pull attention to a certain spot in a scene. For example, warm colors draw more attention than cool colors.

Contrast is a very important factor to visually establish attention. This is typically to call attention to a special element in a scene, and making objects etc. stand out. One way to create contrast is using colors. In these cases, both warm and cool colors can be equally effective on the attention target. Even though warm colors draw more attention than cool ones do, in a room fully covered with warm colors, a cool color will stand out and instantly grab the viewer’s attention (El-Nasr, 2009).

This concept is also applicable with lighting. If a light object is placed among darker ones, the eye will seek that object out before any other. Using this in combination with color contrast can be a very effective tool for game designers. A good example where this technique is used is in the game Half-Life 2 (2004). In one part of the game, the player must find a radio tower to warn allies about an impending alien attack. To guide players towards the tower, the designers made that area bright, colored with warm red and yellow hues. This created a great contrast to the cool blue and green colors in the dark landscape, making players easily able to identify and find the tower area in the game even as they explored.

Another way that designers use lighting in scenes is through negative space. In games, this refers to that which the player cannot see. When designing lighting this refers to one thing;

darkness. Hidden enemies and withheld information about the surroundings can make the player feel unsafe and give thrilling play-scenarios if darkness is used correctly. However, not all negative space has to make the player feel uneasy. Designers can tempt players with withheld information or uncertain atmosphere, by adhering to their curiosity.

No contrast at all can be equally effective when lighting games. While light attracts, and darkness makes one feel unsafe, the middle ground creates ambiguity. Balancing light and dark to create “shade” in an environment creates an uncertainty of whether the space is safe or not (Totten, 2014).

Figure 1 – Color wheel

(10)

4 When wanting to guide players on a certain path, designers can make use of connecting lights.

This is a technique that is often used by architects. According to architect Christopher Alexander, lighting conditions can be used as a tool for leading occupants through a space (Alexander, 1977). He describes how light can be used at junctions where designers lead occupants from one point to another. This is done by emphasizing points along a path with guiding lights so that people always know where to continue their path. The mentioned technique taught by Alexander is only one of many examples where architecture can be used to guide people through environments.

2.2 Architecture

When developers create levels and environments for games, they are designing space, which in several ways can be connected to real-world architecture. In both cases there is a problem which can be addressed by designing an interactive space. Whether that problem is how to capture sunlight coming through a window or highlight significant clues in a puzzle game, similar architectural techniques can be used to solve them. Navigation is one of these problems which architecture design can solve, and game designers frequently make use of this when making games. And unlike the real world, games do not necessarily have to design around our laws of nature such as wind, rain or gravity.

The first things people can take notice of in a new unexplored environment to find their way around are landmarks. These are easily distinguishable objects like a building, a tree etc.

which people can use as a reference when navigating a space. Landmarks in games are usually meant to attract players towards certain goals or checkpoints. Designers also use them in combination with tools like maps and user interface elements to make sure players do not get lost in their environments (Burigat, 2007) (Totten, 2014).

In his book An Architectural Approach to Level Design Christopher Totten mention how old Roman architectural techniques can be applied to game design (Totten, 2014). He mentions the Roman architect Vitruvius who believed “firmitas” (firmness), “utilitias” (utility), and

“venustas” (delight) were three architectural key points. In game terms this would according to Totten be translated to “Functional Requirements”, “Usability” and “Delight”.

“Functional Requirements”, means your game must be able to function properly, “Usability”

that your game space must be practical to use or navigate through and “Delight” that the game space should be rewarding to navigate through. The last mentioned is a particularly important factor for games. One way to accomplish this is by challenging and rewarding players. A common way to do this is through “risk-reward” design. Risk can be created by adding ambiguous or unsafe spaces to games, like a narrow corridor in a first-person shooter or a dark cave with enemies in an adventure game. Players are then rewarded for using the space in a good way and, if able to pass, usually receive something they desire. This is one of the reasons why players navigate towards risky or dangerous areas in games (Totten, 2014).

(11)

5 A key moment in navigation occurs when a player arrives into a space for the first time, which can be referred to as “arrivals”. How he arrives in this space and what he sees can be influential on how he proceeds from that point forwards. In a game scenario, that is the moment where designers can usher players to their next destination or help them choose their own path.

How you experience the arrival is in large part influenced by the contrast of the space that came before it. If the player is arriving in a large, open space, the path leading up towards it should be small and tight. That way the new space appears bigger. Similarly, dark places should lead up to light ones to enhance the effect of the space. As mentioned in the “Light and Color” section, everything is about contrast, and if used correctly it can influence the dramatic effect of an unexplored place.

Another factor that can affect a player’s interpretation of a new environment is size.

Generally, there are three types of architectural space to keep in mind; narrow space, intimate space and prospect space (Totten, 2014).

Narrow space refers to a confined, claustrophobic area where one is hardly able to move.

When space itself becomes a valuable resource, it creates tension. For example, in player vs.

player conflicts, narrow space can be used to create bottlenecks for creating ambushes and traps. Stealth games also make use of narrow space to create interesting gameplay scenarios.

The stealth-game series Metal Gear Solid (1998) use narrow space as hiding spots to offer temporary safety but limit the player’s mobility and view.

Intimate spaces are spaces that are neither confining nor overly large, and usually describe a size that supports the average size and movement of a person (or in a game’s case, a player character). Many game spaces are built as intimate space. In a single-player game experience it can often be considered a “friendly” or “safe” spot within the game’s plot where the player can relax.

Finally, there is prospect space, which historically describes places outside the safety of human homes which they travelled to in order to find food, water, and important supplies. In games prospect space comes in many forms. In multiplayer games, prospect spaces can be open places where one player can get spatial advantage over another, for example attacking opponents from a height. In single-player games on the other hand, prospect spaces often appear in the form of “boss rooms”, where the player are at a key point within a game’s plot and is faced with an enemy challenge. Prospect space means in this case a large open space in which the player cannot use their abilities to get a spatial advantage. In short you could say that prospect spaces are the opposite to narrow spaces and create a sense of fear of open spaces.

All of these space types communicate what kind of environment the player is entering in a game. This is something designers can use to their advantage to try and guide or warn players regarding different areas.

(12)

6 When designing spaces, it is also important to not only design horizontally, but also vertically.

This is because height differences could be a great advantage for the player. For example, higher spaces can provide players with a view of their surroundings, while a lower space may provide hiding space.

If designers wish to focus attention to a path in their game, they can also use a design element called “framing”. This refers to when foreground elements surround something of importance in the game space like a frame. This is a good tool for visibly enhancing entry points that the player can easily spot and could act as a hint of where they could move next (Solarski, 2013).

Visual communication can aid designers in other ways as well, where distinctive geometry can guide players through environments. Designers can create a “flow” that players can follow to navigate through the space. The way you funnel players with roads, walls, and passages communicates where they can go and what they can do within the game environment. Here you can find common tendencies among people that designers can use to predict how players are going to move within their game.

In an interview with the game designer Greg Grimsby he talks about a few of these tendencies which he has experienced during his 14 years within the game industry (Totten, 2014). One example is that in many cases, people tend to follow walls to the right. When presented with an option to go left and right, in most cases people choose to move to the right. Then, as previously discussed with types of spaces, the size of spaces also affects people’s actions. In games that often means that players choose to move toward open spaces rather than constricted ones. Finally, players are drawn to things that stand out. Combining an interesting shape or size of an object or entryway combined with lighting is an easy way to create points of visual interest. This is mainly because things that stand out appears as more important, which ushers the players to investigate.

Though real-life architecture has a lot of tools to use, games possess one type of environmental design tool that the real world does not: “Non-Playable-Characters”. A game with NPCs can use them to influence where and how players will move within a space.

Friendly NPCs can for example simply be used to block a path, and enemy NPCs can block the player by imposing damage or death within the game. With enemies in the space, the player must choose between risking damage or choosing an alternative route. In a way NPCs become an architectural tool when used in this fashion (Totten, 2014).

2.3 Signs

A sign is the distinction of an element from what it represents. A simple example would be that a person who sees smoke in the distance usually connects this as a sign of fire in their minds. This is a concept used by Charles Sanders Peirce which divides semiotics into three entities: the sign, the signifier and the signified (Friedman, 2015). The sign consists of the intended representation, in other words the intended meaning or information. The signifier is that which generates the sign, like for example an object or marking. Finally, the signified is

(13)

7 the interpretant that decodes the sign and receives its meaning. To compare with the previous example, the sign would be fire, the signifier would be smoke and the signified the person viewing the smoke.

The signs themselves can be categorized into different types: analog, metaphor and allegory.

An analogy, or icon, implies the signs meaning by comparing one object to another similar object, a metaphor, or symbol, implies its meaning through the use of something else, and lastly allegory, or index describes a sign that only refers to itself, quality, or power.

The usage of signs is one of the most important factors to proper navigation in games as signs becomes a communication between designer and player. The player sees and decodes the signs and retrieves the corresponding information from the designers (Friedman, 2015).

Damaged trees, arrows and bullet holes spread out in the space etc., can give the impression the space is an unsafe area, and may make the player question his approach. Signs could also be used as an indicator that the player has passed a border between areas – from a plain to a forest, from a desert to a canyon etc.

Generally, there are two rules game designer follow when building your own environmental sign in games. The first rule is to give the sign a unique appearance, meaning that it must stand out and not to be confused with similar art objects within the game. The second rule is to show the symbol repeatedly in correct scenarios, to make the player learn its meaning through repetition. For example, if red squares on the ground is the sign for something giving damage to the player, then the red square needs to be introduced a few times for the player to understand that it needs to be avoided. Following these two rules allows designers to use game objects as visual communication (Totten, 2014).

(14)

8 3 Method and Materials

The study is based on empirical research and quantitative and qualitative data. This data was collected through a survey made in Google Forms which was distributed on Facebook, the website Reddit on the forum “/Samplesize” and the survey distribution site Surveytandem. In this survey, information was gathered about player experience and player navigation patterns.

This was done by letting people input what games they played, how often they played them and finally what paths they would choose in pictures of different 3D environments.

Participants were also asked to explain their decisions, which produced the qualitative data.

3.1 Creating the 3D Environment Images

To make the survey, thirteen pictures were created by making small 3D scenes in Unreal Engine 4, taking pictures of them and editing them in Photoshop. The scenes were put together by using free assets from the Unreal engine Marketplace or creating own assets in the 3D modeling software 3DS Max.

All the pictures were made by picking out funneling factors based on research of how to navigate people through design and architecture (See 2. Background). The factors chosen for the pictures are the following:

• Light/dark (negative space)

• Warm/cool colors

• Positioning (height)

• Narrow/open spaces

• Framing

• Risk-reward design

• Landmarks

• Signs

Based on the background research, I hypothesize that out of all the factors, light, color and signs are the most important factors in games to influence player behavior. To test this hypothesis, the pictures were divided into two categories; variables with small influence and variables with great influence.

In the first category, mainly architectural factors were used to create scenes. In these scenes, previous research was tested, for example: Do players generally prefer to turn right or left?

Do players seek out height for advantage? Do they avoid narrow spaces? etc. While creating the scenes the lighting was used in a balanced manner, trying not to over-illuminate certain paths within the scene as more exaggerated lighting would be used in the next category. There was overall a lack of light and color contrast within the different paths in the picture to see the basic architectural effect on player navigation.

(15)

9 In the second category, variables with great influence, new scenes were modified from scenes in the previous category, only this time light, color and signs were used to a larger degree to try and influence the players’ choice of path. Unlike the first category, this time contrast was implemented between the different paths. This meant that other research factors were tested:

Does the player choose warm colors over cold ones? Do they venture towards light spaces rather than dark ones? In a room full of warm colors, will they move towards a cool color?

etc.

Signs were used in these scenes both as a way of attracting players, but also to ward them off.

An open door may for example be inviting, while a human shadow silhouette may be frightening and indicate an enemy.

Here are the pictures created for the survey:

3.1.1 Small Influence Category

Scene 1

A corridor with three doors and simple lighting. Props were placed symmetrically to not favor any side of the room.

Figure 2 – Scene 1

(16)

10 Scene 2

Stairs going up and down from the second floor with light placed at the top and the bottom of the scene.

Scene 3

A warehouse scene with two doors, with height difference between them. Balanced lighting between the doors in the space.

(17)

11 Scene 4

A narrow and wide pathway, with light coming from both pathways. Props were only placed out to help enhance the entryways, but not to incline towards a certain path.

Scene 5

(18)

12 A narrow and open space, one leading into a forest and one leading into a field.

Scene 6

A three-way path with height differences.

Scene 7

(19)

13 Three floating doors with different accessibility opportunities. Falling off the path would lead to death within the game, so the different paths have varying degrees of danger.

3.1.2 Great Influence Category

Scene 8

A corridor with three doors, with lighting directed at door one. Props are placed closer to door to create contrast, with an open door acting as a sign.

Scene 9

(20)

14 Stairs up and down, with lighting raised slightly in both pathways, though slightly stronger on path two. A shadow was added as a sign.

Scene 10

A warehouse scene with a dramatic lighting on path one, and path two left in darkness. Health pack added to path one.

Scene 11

(21)

15 Light raised in path two and lowered in path one. Wines added for framing and warm colors in path two, and footsteps added as a sign on path one.

Scene 12

A narrow and open path with, with cold colors added to the forest and warm colors added to the fields. A landmark was added to path two.

Scene 13

(22)

16 A three-way path made warmer, with a cold light shining from path one. The basement side of the room was painted slightly darker. An exit-sign was added as a sign.

3.2 Player Navigation Survey

The survey gathered information surrounding two key aspects: player background (experience and demographics) and player navigation patterns. These were chosen to try and find any correlation between the two aspects.

The background questions consisted of the following:

• Age

• Gender (optional)

• How often do you play video games?

• How important is it to finish the game in its entirety?

• What type of games do you usually play?

The first two questions gather general information about the participants which are important for the analysis.

Asking how often people play their games could give an indicator of how familiar people are with games. A person who plays games daily may have different perspective on how to move in a game environment from someone who plays games rarely or not at all.

Answers from “How important is it to finish the game in its entirety?” could give indicators of people who do not explore every part of a game, and therefore are more likely to stay on a game’s “main path” rather than to stray and explore.

Finally, the most important background question is what type of games the people play. This was gathered to later study if the genre of games they play is reflected in their choices of paths. This information was gathered in the next section of the survey; the player navigation patterns.

The patterns were gathered by using the thirteen 3D environment pictures. In each picture were two to three paths with a designated number to choose between depending on different stated contexts. The provided contexts were:

• You are hunted by someone

• You are hunting someone. You don’t know which path they chose

• You are searching for something of value

• You are simply exploring a new place

• If the game tells you to go through pathway X

(23)

17 Additional to these contexts, an optional comment box was included for each picture where people could explain their choice of paths.

This was done to study how the different contexts affected the participants choices, and how they would argue making choices for different pathways in the optional comment sections.

The stated contexts connect to different type of playstyles found in various genres. “You are hunting someone” can for example connect to multiplayer shooters where players hunt each other down to achieve scores within the game. These connections can be made by comparing the comment section for each section with data of the path choices.

“You are searching for something of value” and “You are simply exploring a new place”

could be analyzed in the same way through the comment section to observe how much people are willing to diverge from what they believe is the “main path” in the game to find other things. “If the game tells you to go through pathway X” examines if people would rather choose what the game communicates is the “right way” or if they would like to deviate from that path. “X” refers to a number designated to a path, for example “[…] pathway three”.

The survey first showed the “small influence” pictures, followed by the “great influence”

pictures. This was to compare how and why choices where changed when new variables (light, color, and signs) were added to the pictures.

3.3 Textual Analysis

When quantitative data from the survey had been collected, the qualitative data had to be analyzed to be presented in the paper. In this case, the qualitative data consisted of the optional comment section for each scene where participants could comment about the choice they had made.

The analysis was done by making a textual analysis. First, comments were organized into different Word documents for each scene. In the documents words and text parts were sorted with color coding. When using color coding different categories was made depending what subjects were talked about in the comments. The different categories were then given a specific color, which could be used highlight different section of the comments that mentioned that particular category. The coding system was driven by the variables that differentiated the scenes from each other. The variables were derived from the various theories described in Section 2, Background.

The categories were divided between mentions of the contexts (hunting, being hunted, searching etc.), influencers such as light, color and architecture, movement patterns (left to right, top to bottom, clockwise etc.), progression paths and key words that were frequently repeated throughout the survey (hide, explore, side path etc.). Progression path refers to the pathway that leads most directly to the end of the level and was chosen since participants often pointed out which path they believed would move the game forward. If needed, the

(24)

18 categories were also divided into sub-categories, for example giving the contexts “hunting”

and “hunted” different colors to easier identify them in the text.

Once that was completed, the number of highlighted sections in each category was counted and transformed into percentages, thus converting some of the qualitative data into

quantitative data. Finally, after having completed this process for each scene, color coding was used once again but this time on all the scene comments. That way one can distinguish a few topics that were prominent in all the scenes.

(25)

19 4 Results

The survey collected 97 answers from anonymous participants. This data shows that the average age of participants were 24 years old with a standard deviation of 4.4 years. The oldest participant was 39 years old and the youngest 16 years old (see Figure 15).

The gender divide between participants was low, with 50.5%

male 46.4% female participants. 3.1% did not identify as either male nor female (see Figure 16).

When asked about the importance to finish a game in its entirety (One being “I play the bare minimum” and ten being “I want to do and find everything”, the average answer was 7.09 on a scale of 1 to 10 with a standard deviation of 1.89 (see Figure 18).

Figure 16 - Gender

Figure 15 - Age

Figure 17 – How often people play Out of the 97 participants, 83.5% played

games on a frequent basis (see Figure 17).

(26)

20 When asked what type of games the participants usually played, the top five genres were:

Adventure (77.3%), RPG (77.3%), Puzzle (48.5%), Shooter (47.4%) and Platformer (41.2%).

7.2% of the participants answered that they rarely or do not play games (see Figure 19).

Figure 19 – Types of games they play Figure 18 – If they finish a game in its entirety

(27)

21 4.1 Scene 1

In this scene the following results were obtained:

Scene 1 - Results

Contexts Path 1 Path 2 Path 3

You are hunted 23.7% 59.8% 16.5%

You are hunting 40.2% 27.8% 32.0%

Searching for valuables 51.5% 22.7% 25.8%

Exploring 61.9% 14.4% 23.7%

Game suggests path two 43.3% 33.0% 23.7%

Path number one was chosen by a majority in every listed context except for “You are hunted”, where path number two had 59.8% of the votes. In the “Exploring” context pathway one had the strongest majority, where 61.9% choose that answer.

There were 53 answers in total in this comment section. The comments generally indicated that the middle door was regarded as the progression path of the game, due to the lighting and placement. 35% of the comments specifically pointed out the second door as the goal or way to progress in the game, and 19% mentioned the lighting around the door. 19% of the comments also answered that they would pick the middle door in case they were being hunted.

The need for exploring was frequently brought up by participants where 38% comments brought up this factor and about 7% specifically mentioned wanting to look for loot or something valuable before proceeding. Aside from ten comments, the answers indicated that people choose the left door over the right. Out of these comments, 21% specifically described their process as going through the doors “systematically” or “clockwise”.

(28)

22 4.2 Scene 2

Contexts Path 1 Path 2

You are hunted 34.0% 66.0%

You are hunting 38.1% 61.9%

Searching for valuables 59.8% 40.2%

Exploring 68.0% 32.0%

Game suggests path one 38.1% 61.9%

Path two had a majority of the answers in the contexts “You are hunted”, “You are hunting”

and “Game suggests path one”, while path one has more votes in the contexts “Searching for valuables” and “Exploring”.

There were 53 answers in total in this comment section. 36% of the comments mentioned where they thought they could exit the building and used that to support their arguments. Out of those comments, 75% thought the exit should be downstairs and 25% thought the exit should be upstairs. 15.5% mentioned the lighting in the scene as a motivator for where they decided to go. For this scene 18.8% of the comments mentioned the need to explore, where 15.5% also mentioned in which order they preferred to explore. 71% of those comments preferred going from top to bottom while 29% wanted to explore from the bottom to the top.

(29)

23 4.3 Scene 3

The results between path one and two for this scene was very even, with only a clear majority visible in the “Game suggests path one” context (63.9% choose path 2). In the rest of the contexts the percental difference between one and two had a maximum value of 19.6%.

There were 37 answers in total in this comment section. 27% of the comments stated where they thought they would progress, and out of those comments there was a 50% split between pathway one and two. 30% of those comments also mentioned lighting as factor in their thought process. 16.2% of comments mentioned the need to explore and 13.5% of said that they thought one of the doors contained something valuable.

(30)

24 4.4 Scene 4

Game suggests path two 60.8% 39.2%

The results for this scene shows that in the hunting contexts more participants chose pathway two, while in the remaining contexts pathway one had the majority of answers. The

“Searching for valuables” contexts had a particular high pathway one answer rate where 93.8% of participants chose that answer. “Exploring” had a similarly high count, where 70.1% of participants chose pathway one.

There were 27 answers in total in this comment section. A great number of participants seemed to believe that treasures or valuables were hidden in pathway one, where 48.1%

mentioned that they would explore this pathway for this reason. 22.2% also mentioned that they believed pathway one was either a side path or a dead end, while the wider path would lead to progression. Some found pathway one as useful place to hide, where 29.6% said this was their reason for picking this path. Lastly, 25.9% of participants said that pathway one made them uncomfortable or claustrophobic.

(31)

25 4.5 Scene 5

The results show that significantly more participants picked pathway one over pathway two.

The only contexts where answers were more even was “Exploring” and “Game suggests path one”, where the maximum value between the two paths were 19.6%.

There were 30 answers in total in this comment section. 40% of the comments mentioned that the forest was a better place to hide or avoid detection than the open field. On top of that, 20%

also mentioned that something of value is probably more likely to be found in the forest than the open field.

Many participants argued that they should go into the forest since most of the space is viewable in the open field. 33.3% used this as an argument to why the forest would be a better path to explore since there is a stronger possibility to find something new there.

(32)

26 4.6 Scene 6

You are hunted 25.8% 14.4% 59.8%

You are hunting 29.9% 27.8% 42.3%

Exploring 54.6% 27.8% 17.5%

Game suggests path three 45.4% 21.6% 33.0%

The results show the same path is not preferred for all contexts, and that no paths holds a stronger majority except for in the “You are hunted” context (path three has a majority with 59.8% answers).

There were 27 answers in total in this comment section. The comments related to this scene mainly revolved around where it would be best to run in case of being hunted or hunting someone. In 37% of the comments the participants describe where they would go if they were hunted or hunting someone, 80% saying they would pick the right door if they were being hunted, and 40% saying they would hunt in the attic.

In this section about 26% of comments talked about exploring, and 22% of comments talked about where loot or valuables would be. For the last mentioned a majority of 83% mentioned the basement as their main target, while the other 17% thought the attic would be the best place to look.

(33)

27 4.7 Scene 7

You are hunted 23.7% 23.7% 52.6%

You are hunting 32.0% 16.5% 51.5%

Exploring 41.2% 29.9% 28.9%

The results show that many seek out the pathway three, which has most votes in three of the contexts. “Searching for valuables” on the other hand has a strong majority with 78.4% if the votes and “Exploring” leans more towards pathway one with a 41.2% majority.

There were 37 answers in total in this comment section. For this scene the comments were consistent, where general topic was around door path two and path three. Participants were informed that they would die within the game if they fell off the path. Despite this, seeming familiar with the risk-reward concept, 43.2% of players said that door two was the riskiest and therefor must contain something valuable.

Door three was regarded as the safest option by all the comments, and 24.4% thought this was the best path for hunting someone, while 19% of the comments said they would choose this door if they were being hunted. Some of the comments (11%) argued that pathway two would be the best choice for escape, thinking that the platforming aspect would slow down the pursuer.

(34)

28 4.8 Scene 8

You are hunted 43.3% 24.7% 32.0%

You are hunting 75.3% 10.3% 14.4%

Exploring 57.7% 11.3% 30.9%

Game suggests path one 43.3% 17.5% 39.2%

Compared to “Scene 1”, the results shifted when new elements were added. This time, the survey leaned heavily toward pathway one in all contexts except for “Searching for valuables”

where the answers are very evenly spread out between path one and path three. Hunting has the highest numbers with a 75.3% majority to pathway one.

There were 37 answers in total in this comment section. Similar to what the quantitative data showed, everyone was interested in the open door. As commenter 11 mentioned; “The open door feels really eye catching in all scenarios here”. 26% said that the one they are hunting must have gone through that door, and 16% said that they themselves would choose to hide there as well. In all mentions, 22.5% were sure that the open door would lead to progression within the game.

Some participants thought the other doors to be locked due to the focus set on the first door, where 16% said the expected not to be able to open door two and three.

(35)

29 4.9 Scene 9

With a shadow added, scene 9 has a different result for scene 2. Most participants voted for path one in all contexts excepts for “You are hunting”, where a large majority chose path two.

The most even choices were seen during the context “Game suggests path two” where 56.7%

decided to listen, and 43.3% chose a different path.

There were 28 answers in total in this comment section. Comments were mostly consistent in topic, where all of them suggested that the shadow was definitely an enemy. 46.4% of

participants said that they would go towards the shadow if they were hunting someone, and that in other cases they would try to avoid it. A good summary of the comments was made by commenter 10 who said: “My instinct is to not be near whatever is casting that shadow, in any context except hunting someone.”

(36)

30 4.10 Scene 10

For this scene there was no great change in results compared to scene 3. Participants leaned a bit stronger toward path two this time, especially for the “Searching for valuables” context where 60.8% chose path two.

There were 24 answers in total in this comment section. The light change was obvious to all the people in the comments. 66.6% of participants commented specifically about how this affected their decisions. The general opinion seemed to be that path one progressed the game, while path two was a dead end (like for example a closet). It was for exactly this reason that many seemed to avoid path 1, so that they could explore the other space before continuing.

Many also thought they could make use of the darkness in path two. 29% of participants commented that they would hide there in case they were hunted.

(37)

31 4.11 Scene 11

Compared to “Scene 4” there was a clear shift in answers for this scene. While the “You are hunting” context previously favored path two, this time path one has the highest vote with 86.6% answers. “You are hunted” also holds a stronger majority this time, going from the previous 58.8% to 79.4%. “Searching for valuables” and “Exploring” had opposite result, with a decrease in answers though still having held the majority. “Game suggests path two”

remains almost unchanged.

There were 24 answers in total in this comment section. The footsteps had most of the attention from the participants, where 43.4% said they would follow the footsteps into path one and 30.4% said they would avoid the footsteps and choose path two. Some of the comments also mentioned that the narrow pathway was more likely to have treasure, where 26% wanted to explore pathway one for that reason.

17.3% of the comments also noticed the door opening and used that as an argument for choosing pathway two in different contexts.

(38)

32 4.12 Scene 12

The results showed that “Scene 5”, path one had high percentage answers in all the contexts.

In this scene however, pathway two has most votes in the contexts “Searching for valuables”

and “Exploring”. The other contexts’ votes for pathway one has also dropped and are now closer to 50% and 60%, rather than 60% to 90%.

There were 23 answers in total in this comment section. For this scene the comments were a bit divided, with no clear indication of a preferred path. For example, 30.4% of the comments said that if they were chased they would hide in pathway one, while 22% thought the tower would be a better place to hide. However, when commenting about value 30.4% wanted to hide in path two, while 13% wanted to hide in path one.

When hunting, participants seemed to seek out the tower in the scene, where 21.7% wanted to hunt in path two and 13% wanted to hunt in path one.

(39)

33 4.13 Scene 13

You are hunted 23.7% 12.4% 63.9%

You are hunting 38.1% 15.5% 46.4%

Exploring 52.6% 37.1% 10.3%

The results of this scene are very similar to the ones shown in “Scene 6”, where there is only around 10% maximum shift in answers through all the contexts. The favored pathway differs where participants mostly choose path three for the hunting contexts, path one for the

exploring and game suggestion and path two for search of valuables.

There were 23 answers in total in this comment section. Both the light and the exit sign in the scene were very noticeable for the survey participants. 50% of the comments mentioned that the door would lead to progression within the game, while 36% mentioned how the light invoked interest in favor of the attic.

The exit was mentioned as a good escape path, where 27.3% of participants said they would chose path three in case they were hunted. The hunters also found path three most convenient where 60% of all hunting mentions thought that the door would be the best option.

18% of participants mentioned the need for exploration, and many of them were interested in finding valuables. 18% of comments thought they could find things of value in the basement,

(40)

34 while 4.5% wanted to look in the attic. None mentioned the door as a possible path for

valuables or exploration.

4.14 All Scenes

Looking over the results of all the scenes, in 10 out of 13 scenes people avoided the path mentioned in the “Game suggests path X”. In 6 out of 13 scenes the comments suggested a common preferred progression path among participants.

There were overall 423 comments made during the survey, in which 28% talked about the hunting/hunted contexts, 22% mentioned where they thought valuables would be, 21% talked about where and if players wanted to explore and 13% commented on the lighting.

Out of all the comments only two commented on colors in scenes.

(41)

35 5 Analysis

The results clearly show that the participants are explorers in nature and want to explore as much as they can before they progress in the game. The numeric combined data also show that in many cases the participants in most part agree on which pathway they consider to be the best way to progress.

A common thread among the scenes seemed to be that when being hunted or hunting, people seek out the path they are confident continues (the progression path). If they are exploring or looking for valuables, they tend to choose every other path except the progression path.

Most of the “Great influence” scenes created a change in results, which one could interpret as the participants also being able to easily pick up on the lighting in the scene and to notice added signs. This can be seen when comparing small influence and great influence scenes side by side.

In “Scene 1” the lighting might have been too strong since some comments mentioned this as a factor in their choices. For a more accurate small influence scene the light should most likely have been less bright or have equally strong lightness spread out in the rest of the scene.

Despite this mistake, this supports the idea of how powerful light influences are to players.

The light played a great part in making people believe that Path 2 was the progression path.

In “Scene 8” the light target shifts to door one, and people’s idea of the “progression path”

followed this shift. What made this scene stand apart from the others was that participants Figure 34 - Scene 8

Figure 35 - Scene 1 Results Figure 36 - Scene 8 Results Figure 33- Scene 1

(42)

36 wanted to enter the path despite believing it was leading toward progression. This was not the case for most of the other scenes, but here participants seemed to believe that both hunting and exploring would be profitable in path one. A theory could be that the open door gives a hint of what is inside and creates curiosity for the player, despite context. The sign of an open door could also perhaps be considered communication from the designers that this is were you are supposed to hide in a hunted scenario.

Some comments also mentioned that the lighting in the scene indicated that the doors were locked or unusable. This could also have been an underlying factor to why people would choose the open door.

In both “Scene 2” and “Scene 9” most participants seemed to believe that the stairs leading down would lead to progression. The reason to this appeared to be because they believed the goal was to get out of the building, thus making a logical conclusion that going downwards from the second floor would lead to an exit. It was for this reason that many wished to explore and look for valuables upwards. That way they thought they would not miss anything or find new interesting areas.

Like previously explained, participants generally moved towards the progression path if they were hunted since they knew the path would continue there. This was adjusted in “Scene 9”

by using signs. Since most of the comments said they believed the shadow to be an enemy, participants thought the progression path would lead to danger. They therefore mostly avoided that path in the hunted context and chose to move upstairs instead.

The shadow also created a sharper focus for the hunters. In “Scene 1” hunters mostly reasoned that the people they were hunting would go downstairs to find the exit, so the

Figure 38 - Scene 9 Figure 37 - Scene 2

Figure 40 - Scene 9 Results Figure 39 - Scene 2 Results

(43)

37 shadow gave them something clear to chase. This is most likely why path two answers

increased with 29.9% in “Scene 9”.

Both “Scene 3” and “Scene 10” produced some interesting results, where answers were more even between path one and two. In specifically “Scene 3” the comments did not point toward a certain progression path, where some thought that path one would lead towards progression and some thought path two.

When lighting was adjusted, and a health pack was added to make path one more appealing in

“Scene 10”, the comments clearly pointed this out as the progression path where many believed that path two was some sort of closet or storage space. The data however did not quite reflect these thoughts as there was only around a 10% shift in the answers. The clearest shift was seen in the search for valuables which increased path two answers with 15.4%.

An assumption behind the disconnect between data and comments could be that some connect dark parts as where one can find something valuable (like suggested by the comments), while some might have a similar approach to “Scene 8” where participants thought the unlit doors were locked or inaccessible. They might have wanted to explore the area beyond the

progression path, but thought they were unable to do so and therefore proceeded to path one.

(44)

38 The comments for these scenes said that participants thought that the narrow path must lead to a dead end, and that path two by default must be the path towards progression. This could be due to experiences they have had in games they have played. The comments support this, since participants also seemed very sure of the possibility of treasure in the narrow space and called a “side path”. This also fits together with the numeric data where, like in previous scenes, participants sought out path on for valuables and exploration.

The results between “Scene 4” and “Scene 11” are similar to the stair scenes, where the hunting results shifted due to added signs. The footsteps leading into the pathway was something the participants were eager to follow when hunting down someone.

An increase of 20.6% in path two answers on the hunted context also indicates that

participants were more confident in their escape path in “Scene 11”. This is most likely due to both the visible entryway, and the light shining around the right corner, which shows two clear options to navigate towards.

There was also an interesting change in numbers between the two scenes in the exploration context. In “Scene 4” 70.1% said they would explore path one, while in “Scene 11” it decreased to 58.8%. What could have affected this is the lighting on path two. The

participants were already interested in the narrow space since they considered it a side path that might hold valuables, but in “Scene 11” the lighting hints of a continued path around the corner that one might be curious to explore. Path two in this picture also displays at least two parts to explore which have been more tempting to some participants. This is supported by a similar decrease in the “Searching for valuables” context, where answers dropped by 26.8%.

Figure 45 - Scene 4 Figure. 46 - Scene 11

(45)

39 The results from “Scene 5” showed that path two was not an attractive choice, and it did not get the majority votes in any of the contexts. Based on what was said the comments, this was mostly due to not seeing anything interesting to explore or look for in the open field, while hunters and hunted felt exposed in the field and would rather seek out the forest.

In “Scene 12” a result was achieved which was similar to the warehouse scenes, where participants were somewhat divided in their answers. The hunt-related context still had more people who preferred the forest, but with a decrease of 20.7% in answers. The reason for this is most likely because there is now a possible place to hide in path two, which means more options for both the hunter and the hunted. A few comments support this assumption, though the majority still thought the forest was a better place to hide.

There were not any “Scene 12” comments regarding the warm/cold colors in the scene.

Whether that was because implementation was too subtle too notice or if it was something participants did not consciously thought about is hard to say. The gain of highest number of answers for path two in the exploring context could however be an argument for its influence, though only in combination with the building placed in the scene. Without the tower the participants would have nothing of interest to explore.

(46)

40

“Scene 6” and “Scene 13” both received very similar results, though the comment sections differed between them. In “Scene 6” there was no clear indication of a obvious progression path in the comments, while “Scene 13” comments suggested the door was the way towards progression due to the exit sign.

That there was no larger shift of results between these scenes indicate that the architectural layout already affected the participants enough in their decision making for light and color to make any significant difference. Neither the light nor color seemed to increase the search for valuables or exploring in the attic, but rather decreased the results in “Scene 13”. This is especially interesting since the attic had the highest votes in “Scene 6”.

In both comment sections, everyone seemed to agree that valuables would be found either in the attic or the basement. Most of the comments thought the dark basement was most likely to hold something more valuable. Some comments mentioned that it was because the basement appear so threatening that they would explore there. An example is commenter 15 who said:

“I don't want to go down into the basement, so I hope the valuable thing, or my prey is down there”.

This suggest a thinking that a higher risk leads to higher rewards which could be why many of the comments mentioned the basement as their target, though there obviously seem to be divided opinions about that if one looks at the numeric data.

(47)

41 The high risk, high reward thinking became further prominent when looking at the result of

“Scene 7”. The numeric data combined with the comments suggested when and for what players are willing to take risk.

In both hunt-related contexts participants showed that they would rather take the safer path when being chased, and that they expected the people they hunted to make the same decision.

When exploring, participants were more willing to explore the other two parts though, as the numeric data shows, not necessarily the riskiest path.

The one thing that made people curious to try the riskiest path was the promise of something valuables. The comments clearly suggested that participants that picked path two expected to be met with something valuable that they would not find somewhere else.

Figure 57 - Scene 7

Fig. 58 - Scene 7 Results

(48)

42 6 Discussion

It has become apparent that one can influence player navigation decisions by using design techniques, but that there are many things that designers must keep in mind when trying to do so. Different contexts within the game will most likely lead to very different decision making from the player. That by default means that different genres of games will have to keep different things in mind when trying to influence their players’ navigation.

From what the data showed, it seems that people’s view of the progression path was not hard to influence, but that context influenced whether they would move towards that path or not.

Looking at the results showed that the hypothesis of the small influence and great influenced categories were weakly supported by the data. Progression paths were influenced by light, signs, placement and size of the pathways, meaning that light, signs and size/shape

architecture all belong in the great influence category, while color belonged and remaining architectural tools belong in the small influence category.

One thing to consider is the explorative nature of a player. 77.3% of these survey participants usually play adventure games which are exploratory in nature and is clearly shown in the results. When entering a new place, they will most likely contemplate their options and decide which path that is most likely to progress the game and then avoid that path until they have finished exploring the other parts of the environment. The data from this study supports the views of Totten (2014). What a designer could do in this scenario is to use light to mark the path that leads towards progression and make it as easily accessible as possible, like suggested in the research by El-Nasr (2009) and Totten (2014). This communicates to the explorers that when you are done with this area, you can use this path to access the next one.

To steer where the player will first explore is a bit trickier to control. One could make places darker to indicate that are locked or unusable, but this seems to be a delicate process. As seen in “Scene 12” and “Scene 10”, darkness can create curiosity for the unknown, which once again supports the views of Totten’s research (2014).

The architectural layout is probably one of the most efficient ways for designer to lure players into different spaces. Though narrow space can be intimidating, it seems to be appealing to exploring players rather than intimate space and prospect space. Whether it is a narrow path in

(49)

43

“Scene 4” or a small forest path in “Scene 12”, the player seeks out the unknown and well- hidden. If the path his hard to reach that will probably increase the likelihood of players seeking that space out due to high risk = high reward, like observed in “Scene 7”.

If one designs a game in a more hunting like scenario, e.g., a shooter game, the designing choices should be significantly different. In those cases, there are two things the players need to know to make their navigation decisions; where the enemy is, and where they can run for cover.

The first can be done by using signs as much as possible in the environment. The signifiers could show where an enemy has recently visited and therefore warn the player to be cautious in those areas. In “Scene 11” for example, footsteps helped players pinpoint where the enemy was. This data greatly supports the views of Friedman (2015), when he talks about methods used byCharles Sanders Peirce.

As seen in “Scene 9“, light sources could also be used to achieve this by placing them in a way that is casting shadows near certain paths.

To help players navigate towards cover, designers can use Christopher Alexander’s technique (Alexander, 1977) where they put out connecting lights that lead towards safety or possible hiding places. For example, if a player were to run down path two in “Scene 9” they would see light shining around the right corner and be led towards that direction.

(50)

44 These are examples of two types of play where the

environment can be adjusted to, and in both, light architecture and signs play a significant role in the environment design. If the designer simply adjusts these three key elements to best fit the objective within the game, influencing their navigation is definitely possible. Games and game genres can of course have multiple goals and quests to deal with at once. At these

times the same rules apply, but designers must do a lot of problem solving to make sure the path they wish to influence the player towards is the most attractive regardless of the goal.

This is what “Scene 8” accomplished so well by being an accessible easy path that also invites curiosity, which pleases both exploring and hunting players.

Figure 65 - Scene 8