A Framework for Game Immersion
Quinten Damen
10771255Bachelor Thesis Information Science Supervisor: Jacobijn Sandberg
University of Amsterdam January 20, 2018
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to develop and test an integrative framework for game immersion. Previous frameworks do exist, they do, however not encompass all aspects of immersion. In this study an encompassing framework is developed, based on a combination of relevant theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. The framework consists of three levels of immersion: engagement,
engrossment, and total immersion. Each level has entry barriers that need to be overcome to reach that level of immersion. A concurrent- and post-test were conducted to compare two games of different immersion levels, validating the accuracy of the framework. A concurrent and post-test design was used to investigate experienced immersion levels of gamers who played two games, one that, based on the framework, was supposed to induce engrossment and one that, according to the framework, was supposed to induce total immersion. The results show that the total immersion game did indeed meet all criteria reflected in the framework whereas the engrossment game did not meet one of the two criteria, namely character credibility. From these results we conclude that the proposed framework contributes to theoretical refinement of the concept of immersion, helps in the evaluation of existing games, and may guide the development of future games.
2
1 INTRODUCTION --- 4
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND --- 4
2.1 Levels of immersion --- 4 2.1.1 Engagement --- 4 2.1.2 Engrossment --- 4 2.1.3 Total immersion --- 5 2.2 Forms of immersion --- 6 2.2.1 Sensory immersion --- 6 2.2.2 Challenge-based immersion --- 6 2.2.3 Imaginative immersion --- 6 2.3 Empathy --- 7 2.4 Atmosphere--- 82.4 Implications for the study --- 9
2.4.1 What creates game immersion and how can game immersion be improved? --- 9
2.4.2 What creates game immersion? --- 10
2.4.3 What improves game immersion? --- 10
2.4.4 Affect the gamer’s emotions directly --- 10
2.4.4.1 Matching and non-matching emotional responses --- 10
2.4.4.2 Emotional situation of a game --- 11
2.4.4.3 Examples --- 11
2.4.5 Suspending the disbelief in the game world --- 13
2.4.6 Invoke a feeling of empathy --- 13
2.4.7 Create a unique atmosphere --- 13
2.4.8 Expectations--- 14
3 METHOD --- 14
3.1 Participants--- 14 3.2 Design --- 14 3.3 Materials --- 15 3.3.2 Game A--- 15 3.3.2 Game B --- 163.4 Mid- and post-test --- 17
3.5 Survey --- 17
3.6 Procedure --- 18
3.7 Data analysis --- 18
4 RESULTS --- 18
3 5.1 Hypothesis --- 23 5.2 Methodological considerations --- 24 5.2.1 The games --- 24 5.2.2 Facial expression--- 24 5.2.3 Participants --- 24 5.3 Theoretical contribution --- 24 5.4 Final conclusion --- 24
REFERENCES --- 26
APPENDIX A --- 27
APPENDIX B --- 27
APPENDIX C --- 28
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Gaming can create a powerful experience of immersion. Although immersion is an important part of gaming, it is hard to define which aspects of immersion contribute most to the gamer’s experience. Over the years, the term immersion has been defined into different frameworks. According to Brown and Cairns (2004) there are three levels of immersion: Engagement, engrossment, and total immersion. Each level of immersion has its own entry barriers, needed to be overcome in order to reach the level of immersion. Another framework is the SCI-model that distinguishes three forms of immersion: Sensory
immersion, Challenge-based immersion, and imaginative immersion (Emri & Mayra, 2005).
This paper will use these two frameworks to construct a more in-depth framework for immersion, specifically tailored to games and validate this framework through testing. The purpose of the framework will not just be to define immersion in games, but to be a guideline for development of games focused on creating immersive experiences.
The paper describes the method and results of the study together with a discussion about the findings and implications for future work.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The next section first discusses the levels of immersion in more detail, followed by a presentation of the SCI-model that distinguishes three forms of immersion: sensory immersion, challenge-based
immersion, and imaginative immersion (Emri & Mayra, 2005). The section concludes with a synthesis
of the levels and forms, which further guides the development of measurable factors related to each barrier.
2.1 Levels of immersion
2.1.1 Engagement
Engagement is the first level of immersion. This is the lowest level of immersion and must occur before any level. In order to lower the barriers to enter this level of immersion, the gamer needs to invest time, effort, and attention. An initial barrier for engagement is access, which refers to the gamers preference. There are three barriers for entering engagement level of immersion: access, effort, and attention
(Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). Access relates to relation between the style of the game and the gamer’s preference. If the gamer is not attracted to the style of the game, the access barrier will not be overcome and the first level of immersion will not be reached. Game controls is another access related aspect of games. Game controls need to correspond in an appropriate manner so that the user can become expert
(Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). Again, if this access related aspect is not reached, the first level of immersion cannot be entered and therefor there will be no immersion.
The second barrier to engagement is the effort the gamer puts into the game. The more effort the gamer puts into the game, the more they become focused and lose track of time (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004).
Another aspect of effort is the energy gamers put into the game and learning how to play. Finally, effort also relates to expected rewards. Effort invested in the game should equal the rewards of success in order to create a satisfying effort reward balance. The final barrier of the first level of immersion is attention. Attention can best be described as willingness to concentrate (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004).
The game must provide something worthy for the gamer to devote attention to. Overall, it seems that higher levels of immersion demand higher levels of attention.
Together, access, effort, and attention form the barriers for entering the engagement level of immersion. Once two of these barriers are lowered, the game can begin to feel engaged. The only thing this engagement lacks is the emotional level of attachment, which can be found in higher levels of immersion.
2.1.2 Engrossment
The next level of immersion is engrossment. Engrossment can only be reached after all the barriers of engagement have been overcome. The only barrier for reaching engrossment is game construction
5
(Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). This is when the game features combine in such a way that the gamers’
emotions are directly affected by the game. Game construction can be defined as the effort and attention that has been put into the game by the developer, making it feel like every aspect has been considered. Good visuals, interesting tasks, strong plot; All these points help develop a form of respect for the game from the gamers and contribute to the overall quality of construction of the game. Because of
engrossment being a higher level of involvement compared to engagement, the time, effort and attention
put in the game result in a high level of emotional investment from the gamer (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). The high emotional involvement can lead to the feeling of being emotionally drained after the gamer has stopped playing. The game becomes the most important part of the gamers’ attention and therefore their emotions will directly be affected by the game. The essence of engrossment is feeling more than just physically involved as a gamer by also being emotionally affected by the game. This level of involvement enables gamers to suspend their disbelief in the game world and enables gamers to be able to move to the highest level of immersion: total immersion (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004).
2.1.3 Total immersion
Total immersion is what gamers describe as “being cut off from the reality and detachment to such an extent that the game is all that matters” (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004, p. 1299). Total immersion is presence, a feeling of being in the game. For gamers to be able to reach total immersion, there are two barriers that need to be overcome: empathy and atmosphere. Empathy is the growth of attachment, while atmosphere is the development of game construction. Together, empathy and atmosphere cover the complete collection of aspects presented in games. The importance of empathy and atmosphere are high, since both are the last and final barrier to the highest level of immersion.
Table 1.
An overview of the levels of immersion and their respective barrier(s) for entering.
Level of immersion Barrier(s) for entering
Engagement (first level) Access Effort Attention
Engrossment (second level) Game construction Total immersion (third level) Empathy
6
2.2 Forms of immersion
The different levels of immersion are only one aspect of immersion. Another aspect are the forms of immersion. According to the SCI-model, there are three forms of immersion: Sensory immersion,
challenge-based immersion, and imaginative immersion (Emri & Mayra, 2005). By using this model to
help define the precise barriers for each level of immersion, a framework can be created.
2.2.1 Sensory immersion
The first form of immersion is sensory immersion. Sensory immersion is related to the audio-visual execution of games (Emri & Mayra, 2005). Large screens and powerful sound can overpower real-world stimuli, which results in the gamer becoming entirely focused on the game. With regards to the gamers’ focus, similarities between sensory immersion and the engagement barrier attention can be seen. Audio-visual execution helps getting the attention of the gamer by overpowering real-world audio-Audio-visual stimuli. Another similarity can be seen with access (also a barrier of the engagement level of immersion).
Access concerns the style of the game: The graphics, the animations, the sound. Games have their own
audio-visual styles, which have to match with the gamer’s preference in order to overcome the access barrier.
2.2.2 Challenge-based immersion
In comparison to sensory immersion, the other two forms of immersion are more specific to games.
Challenge-based immersion is fundamentally based on the interaction aspect of games. Challenge-based immersion is the feeling of immersion that is at its most powerful when one is able to achieve a satisfying
balance between challenges and abilities (Emri & Mayra, 2005). A great part of challenge-based
immersion is gameplay. Gameplay needs to feel fair and responsive. The engagement barrier access
relates to this aspect of challenge-based immersion. The interactions or controls must respond in such a matter that the gamer is able to become the master. Another aspect of challenge-based immersion is challenge-reward balance. The challenge and rewards must be in balance, otherwise the game feels too easy or unfair. Here, challenge-based immersion shows similarities with effort. If the game is fair and the gamer is able to follow the learning curve, the gamer is likely to put more effort in the game and will reach an engagement level of immersion. The engrossment barrier game construction also shows similarities with challenge-based immersion. Game construction centres around the general balance of the game. Good game construction balances the effort put into the game by the gamer out with the right amount of reward. Aspects like interesting tasks, good graphics, strong plot all contribute to the flow of the game: The flow of effort and reward. If the flow is balanced, it encourages the player to take on challenges, knowing that the reward will be worth the effort put into it. In comparison with the
engagement barriers access and effort, game construction reaches a higher level of challenge-based immersion.
2.2.3 Imaginative immersion
The last form of immersion is imaginative immersion. Imaginative immersion is when the gamer becomes absorbed with the stories and the world of the game, or empathizes or identify with a game character (Emri & Mayra, 2005). Centralized around the gamer’s perception, imaginative immersion is more abstract than the other two forms of immersion. For imaginative immersion to be present, every aspect from the game must feel convincing and as a whole. Similar requirements can be found in total immersion. Both empathy and atmosphere contribute to the suspension of the gamer’s disbelief in the game world. The game world has to have a certain depth in order to let the gamer become absorbed. Since both empathy and atmosphere are barriers with a lot more depth than other, lower level barriers, the connection to imaginative immersion alone will not suffice. Therefore, we will devote more research to analyse the full spectrum of empathy and atmosphere, building a stronger basis than can be provided by the imaginative form of immersion.
7 Table 2.
An overview of the levels of immersion, barrier(s) for entering and their forms of immersion.
Levels of immersion Barrier(s) for entering Forms of immersion
Engagement (first level) Access Sensory / challenge
Effort Challenge
Attention Sensory
Engrossment (second level) Game construction Challenge-based
Total immersion (third level) Empathy Imaginative
Atmosphere Imaginative
2.3 Empathy
Empathy is crucial for reaching the highest level of immersion, total immersion. There are two broad
categories of empathy, according to social science literature: cognitive and emotional (Hoffman, 1987; Stephan & Finlay, 1999). Cognitive empathy refers to the experience of intentionally taking another person’s point of view (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). By doing this, the gamer is able to see situations from the other’s perspective and will begin to feel empathy towards the other person. When there are significant differences between the subjects, cognitive empathy needs to overcome these differences. The other form of empathy is emotional empathy. Emotional empathy can be divided into two distinct subtypes: Parallel and reactive (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). Parallel empathy is understanding the emotional situation of another person and experiencing a similar emotional state. A good example of parallel empathy is vicarious shame. Reactive empathy, on the contrary, describes an emotional response that is unlike the other person is experiencing (Belman & Flanagan, 2010).
Credible emotions are crucial for empathy in games. Belman & Flanagan propose four game design principles, based on both cognitive and emotional empathy, which helps creating believable emotional situations in games. These principles help understand the defining factors of empathy in games.
Principle 1: Players are likely to empathize only when they make an intentional effort to do so as the game begins. The game may explicitly ask players to empathize, or it may more subtly encourage them to take on a focused empathetic posture. However, without some kind of effective empathy induction at the outset, most people will play “unempathetically. (p.9)
Games may be more likely to influence attitudes and behaviours when players are induced at the outset to make an intentional effort to empathize. People do not play empathetically unless stimulated. Stimulating empathetic play can help focussing the gamer’s mind to emotional responses. This way, gamers will play more empathetically and will try to infer the thoughts and feelings of people or groups represented in the game (cognitive empathy), and/or they prepare themselves for an emotional response (emotional empathy) (Belman & Flanagan, 2010).
8
Principle 2: Give players specific recommendations about how their actions can address the issues represented in the game. (p.10)
Although the link between empathy and helping behaviour is well-established, there is little research directly addressing the question of how people feel or react when they are unable to help those with whom they empathize (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). If on does not know how to help the other person, the pain caused by empathy will have no obvious remedy. Inducing empathy without providing a “way out” of empathetic pain through helping may have negative consequences (Schroeder, Penner, Dividio & Piliavin, 1995). The lack of an obvious remedy to the suffered emotional pain may induce people to guard themselves against the suffering by avoiding empathy to avoid similarly unpleasant experiences. Helping gamers with recommendations may stimulate gamers to engage with more empathy in following situations.
Principle 3: A short burst of emotional empathy works well if desired outcomes to not require significant shifts in how players’ beliefs about themselves, the world, or themselves in relation to the world. But if these kinds of shifts are a design goal, the game should integrate both cognitive and emotional empathy. (p.10)
To explain the basis of principle 3, two situations have to be taken into consideration. The first situation is when the gamer’s beliefs do not require significant shifts. The encountered empathic situation is in line with the beliefs of the gamer and will trigger the arousal of emotional empathy through game activities. Because of the gamer’s beliefs not requiring significant shifts, a short burst of emotional
empathy should lead to the desired outcome: empathy. The second situation is when the gamer’s beliefs
do require significant shifts in order to achieve the same goal as in the first situation. Since the encountered empathic situation is not in line with the beliefs of the gamer, there will be no emotional
empathy for the gamer. These differences can be overcome with cognitive empathy, as described
before. By using cognitive empathy, the gamer’s beliefs can be shifted enough to be able to reach an arousal of emotional empathy with the same situation as before.
Principle 4: Emphasize points of similarity between the player and people or groups with whom she is supposed to empathize, but beware of provoking defensive avoidance. (p.11)
As noted before, cognitive empathy can be used to encourage the gamer to perceive common ground between himself or herself and others. However, overdoing cognitive empathy can result in heavy drawbacks. Too much perceived common ground can lead to a defensive reaction, such as completely refusing the perceived common ground in order to establish one selves’ identity. Once defensive avoidance is reached, it is really hard the induce empathy again, since every act of cognitive empathy will result in defensive avoidance again.
2.4 Atmosphere
Similar to empathy, atmosphere is critical for reaching total immersion. Although atmosphere is created from the same elements as game construction, it is not the same as game construction.
Atmosphere refers to the relevance of the elements of game construction. The elements (graphics,
plot, and sounds) combined need to be relevant to each other and relevant to the actions and the location of the game characters (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). Atmosphere helps the gamer feel actual physical presence in the game world. There are two main factors which help bringing the game world to life and making it believable and immersive for the gamer: vividness and interactivity (Bayliss, 2007).
Vividness refers to the sensory quality, both in terms of the quality and variety of sensory stimuli. It
means the representational richness of a mediated environment as defined by its formal features; that is, the way in which an environment presents information to the senses (Steuer, 1992). Vividness can, again, be divided into two different variables, which are equally important for creating vividness:
Sensory breadth and sensory depth. Sensory breadth refers to the number of sensory dimensions
9
information across the senses (Steuer, 1992). In gaming only three of the five human senses can be addressed: Vision, audition and touch. For sensory breadth to be perceived as being qualitatively high, it has to be addressed to at least two senses available for gaming. On the other side, sensory depth refers to the resolution of these presented sensory dimensions. Higher resolution leads to stronger stimuli, which in return will lead to a higher attention level of the gamer. While addressing multiple sensory dimensions with high resolution stimuli coming from one source is redundant, it is this redundancy which recreates and enhances the perceived vividness of the game world.
The other factor of atmosphere is interactivity. Interactivity is the extent to which gamers can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real time (Steuer, 1992).
Interactivity in this sense extents further than just controlling the main character, since it refers to the
game world, which is often perceived as static. There are three factors that contribute to interactivity: Speed, range, and mapping (Steuer, 1992). However, these factors cannot be used for determining the
interactivity of the game world, since they stretch not far enough into the scope of the whole game
world. Therefore, two other factors will be used for defining interactivity: influence and
interactiveness. Influence is the level of control the player has on the game world. The game world has
to acknowledge the actions and decisions of the gamer and respond in appropriate matter. If the
influence of the gamer lacks acknowledgement, the gamer will feel disconnected from the game world.
The other factor of interactivity is interactiveness. The perceived realism of the game world is enhanced if the elements within the game world interact not only with the player, but also with each other.
Fig. 1. A framework for game immersion.
2.4 Implications for the study
2.4.1 What creates game immersion and how can game immersion be improved?
The research question 'What creates game immersion?' can be answered by using the literature and theoretical framework. After defining what creates game immersion and with that setting the standard
10
for game immersion, the research question 'How can game immersion be improved?' has been answered by using the theoretical framework in combination with empirical testing.
2.4.2 What creates game immersion?
To answer this question, the theoretical framework has been used. Three levels of immersion have been defined, each with their respective barriers and aspects. With the engagement level barriers overcome, the game has all the elements to start letting the gamer feel immersed. Since engagement is the lowest level of immersion, it would not have sufficed as the standard of immersion. At the engrossment level of immersion, the barrier game construction has to be passed, which meant that the elements had to combine as a whole. Overcoming the engrossment level barrier proved that the game has the elements for immersion as well as the ability to combine these elements to further increase immersion. So, the lowest level representable immersion could be measured on the engrossment level of immersion. Aspects defined in the framework could be used to indicate if engrossment has been reached. The gamer needs to overcome the barrier game construction to reach the engrossment level of immersion. This meant that the game has to:
- Affect the gamer’s emotions directly - Suspend the disbelief in the game world
If the game fulfils these conditions, an engrossment level of immersion has been reached and immersion is present. A game that reached an engrossment level of immersion has passed the barriers, but is not yet able to reach total immersion without some improvements.
2.4.3 What improves game immersion?
The question ‘What improves game immersion?’ can be answered by using the theoretical framework. The best improvement can be seen between the engrossment and total immersion levels of immersion. Improving elements to reach the highest level of immersion, total immersion, should be the main goal of creating an immersive game. Total immersion consists of two barriers that have to be overcome: Empathy and atmosphere. Considering these two barriers as conditions, to reach total immersion, the game has to:
- Invoke a feeling of empathy - Create a unique atmosphere
If the game shows elements of these conditions, there is a sign of the possibility to reach total immersion. However, since the barriers of the engrossment level of immersion have to be overcome first before total immersion can be reached, the elements of total immersion are only significant if all the conditions of engrossment have been overcome. Therefore, a game on the total immersion level has overcome the barriers of engagement and engrossment, while also showing the ability to overcome the barriers of total immersion.
2.4.4 Affect the gamer’s emotions directly
Humans can express emotions by using facial expressions. Facial expressions are a strong indicator of the current emotional state of the person. However, facial expressions consist of a complex combination of muscular movements in the human face, together forming an expression that can be related to a certain emotional state. Since the automatic recognition of emotions by facial movement is still not optimal, facial expressions have been manually interpreted and connected to the six basic emotions defined by Ekman (2003): anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Ekman describes how facial expressions can be used to recognize one of the basic emotions.
2.4.4.1 Matching and non-matching emotional responses
The goal with emotional situations in games is creating immersion. As stated before, immersion through emotional situations can only occur with the desired emotional response. The emotional response of the gamer has to be similar to the desired emotional response in order to contribute to immersion. When this
11
condition is not met, a non-matching emotional response is observed in the gamer. Non-matching emotions are not similar to the desired emotions and will therefore not contribute to immersion. There are two types of non-matching emotions: emotions towards the game as an object and emotions towards the substance of the game. Emotions to the game as an object are, for example, boredom and frustration. This type of non-matching emotions does not relate to the substance of the game as much as they relate to the game as an object. A game can be unfair, sparking frustration, but a game can also contain too little action, invoking a feeling of boredom. The other type of non-matching emotions is emotions towards the substance of the game. In particular, emotions which do not fit the emotional situation in the game. When the emotional response of the gamer is in contrast with the desired emotional response, it can be described as an unfitting reaction to the situation.
Matching emotions are the opposite of non-matching emotions. Here, there are also two types of emotions: Emotions towards the game as an object and emotions towards the substance of the game. In case the desired emotional response is similar to the emotional response of the gamer, the emotions of the gamer are matching emotions. Matching emotions are not limited to positive emotions, since the match does not relate to the kind of emotion, but rather to the relationship between the desired emotions and the gamer’s emotions.
2.4.4.2 Emotional situation of a game
The desired emotional response can be defined by analysing the game situation. Often, games copy elements of real world emotional simulations to recreate convincing emotional situations. By deconstructing situations encountered in games, it is possible to define the different elements of the situation and connect them to a desired emotional response. A condition for this is that the situation must have enough clearly defined elements. Particular situations in games which contain a large number of emotional elements are story driven scenes. Often, these scenes are a combination of passive “cut-scenes” and active playable parts, together forming a tool for storytelling. Emotional situations are defined by cutscenes and/or gameplay moments that are story driven.
2.4.4.3 Examples
Figure 2 shows that there are four categories, with object/substance on the horizontal axis and matching/non-matching on the vertical axis. A combination is given for each example, showing how the different categories connect to the relation between the emotions of the gamer and the desired emotions.
12
Fig. 2. The four categories for emotional situations in games
Category A: A matching emotional response towards the game as an object.
A matching emotional response towards the game as an object is an emotional response that is triggered when the game, as an object, invokes the right emotional response from the player. A good example of this category is motion controls. The Nintendo Wii makes use of motion controls with games that involve controlling a vehicle. The controller can act as a steering wheel, giving the player a unique feeling of interaction with the game. Motion controls, in this case, make the player feel more enjoyment than, for example, arrow key controls. The desired emotional response is joy, which is invoked by the unique way of controlling. A matching emotional response towards the game as an object only appears when the game handles of feels like the gamer expected it to be and with that creating an emotional response that was intended by the developers.
Category B: A matching emotional response towards the substance of the game.
Unlike the game as an object, the substance of the game is not related to the controls of the game. The substance of the game is the story and setting of the game. In category B, the gamer reacts to the situation as you would expect. Sad moments invoke a feeling of sadness or compassion. Happy moments invoke joy and excitement. Scary moments invoke feelings of caution and fear. However, it can be more complicated than that. For instance, when a character who is being portrayed as evil experiences a negative situation, the gamer can get a feeling of enjoyment, since the evil character is being punished. Although the situation and the emotional response of the gamer are different, the joy felt by the gamer is still the desired emotional response and therefore falls under category B.
Category C: A non-matching emotional response towards the game as an object.
When a non-matching emotional response is given towards the game as an object, the game does not meet the expectations of the gamer. For example, boredom can arise when the game is not challenging enough or there is just not enough action to keep the gamer interested. Frustration is another good example for category C. Frustration can be the result of the game being too hard. Both emotional responses show that the game does not let the player enjoy the game likes it is supposed to be. The feel
13
of the game does not meet the expectations of the gamer and therefore invokes an undesired feeling towards the game as an object.
Category D: A non-matching emotional response towards the substance of the game.
The last category is category D. Here, the emotional response of the gamer does not meet the desired emotional response, regarding the substance of the game. For example, feeling joy during a sad moment. The emotional response of the gamer is misplaced and therefore non-matching. If the emotional response is categorized in D, it means that the game does not clearly communicate the desired emotional response, leaving the gamer to fill it in and creating the possibility for a non-matching emotional response. A good example of this is an intense sad moment at the start of the game. If the emotions do not feel real enough, in combination with the fact that the gamer does not know the characters well enough to feel empathy, the situation can come across as comic instead of sad.
2.4.5 Suspending the disbelief in the game world
Games can be seen as narrative tools, similar to books and movies. Since suspending disbelief in a game shows too much similarities to immersion as a whole, the focus was on the game construction range of suspending disbelief. Suspending disbelief related to game construction shows similarities to suspending disbelief in fictional narratives found in books, since it is more narrative focused. The narrative aspects of the game have been more important for measuring the willingness of the gamer to suspend disbelief in the game world. In “Appreciating Fiction: Suspending Disbelief or Pretending Belief?”, by Walton (1980), suspension of disbelief is not considered as a full believe in a fictional world, but rather the willingness to descend to the fictional level. Descending to the fictional level means that, in this case, the reader is willing to overlook errors and inconsistencies, making the story more convincing.
The overall willingness to suspend disbelief in the game world has come down to two contributing factors: Narrative and characters. Narrative relates to the strength of the storytelling. The gamer must be able to understand the story before willingness of suspending disbelief in the game world can arise. Understanding the story can be done by having a good narrative, which helps forming the story and enhancing the credibility of the story towards the player. The character factor has been geared towards the relationship between the story and the characters. Characters need to not only feel realistic within the game world, but their actions must be coherent with the narrative. Otherwise, characters can actually break the story and thereby the willingness of the gamer to suspend disbelief in the game world.
2.4.6 Invoke a feeling of empathy
There are two types of empathy: Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy. Emotional empathy can be further divided into parallel empathy and reactive empathy. Parallel empathy is about understanding the emotional situation of another person and experiencing a similar emotional state, while reactive empathy describes an emotional response that is unlike the other person is experiencing (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). Cognitive empathy refers to the experience of intentionally taking another person’s point of view (Belman & Flanagan, 2010).
In this research, emotional empathy has been the main focus, since the emotional response contributed most to overcoming the total immersion level barrier, empathy. Cognitive empathy has been used solely to explain the lack of emotional empathy. The two factors of emotional empathy, parallel empathy and reactive empathy, have been used to define the type of emotional response regarding empathy.
2.4.7 Create a unique atmosphere
A step up from game construction is atmosphere. Atmosphere refers to the relevance of the elements of game construction. It helps the gamer feel actual physical presence in the game world. The two factors of atmosphere helped to define atmosphere more precisely: Interactivity and vividness.
14
Vividness refers to the sensory quality, both in terms of the quality and variety of sensory stimuli. It means the representational richness of a mediated environment as defined by its formal features; that is, the way in which an environment presents information to the senses (Steuer, 1992). There are two factors that, together, define vividness: Sensory breadth and sensory depth. Sensory breadth refers to the
number of sensory dimensions simultaneously presented and is the function of the ability of a communication medium to present information across the senses (Steuer, 1992). On the other side,
sensory depth refers to the resolution of these presented sensory dimensions.
Interactivity is the extent to which gamers can participate in modifying the form and content of a
mediated environment in real time (Steuer, 1992). We can divide interactivity into two types: Influence and interactiveness. Influence is the level of control the gamer has on the game world. The actions of the gamer must have relevance in the game world in order to invoke the feeling of influence. The other type of interactivity is interactiveness. Interactiveness is the level of interaction between elements within the game world. If the elements in the game world interact with each other, it gives a feeling of the game world being autonomous and not really centred around the gamer. For example, wolfs hunting rabbits, villagers talking with each other.
2.4.8 Expectations
With the specifications for an engrossment level game and a total immersion level game defined, two games can now be selected, one for each immersion level. Game A will reach an engrossment level of immersion, but will fail to overcome the barriers for total immersion. Game B will also reach an engrossment level of immersion, but will be able to also overcome the barriers for total immersion. By using the defined factors for each barrier, the games can be tested on each factor and after that the scores of game A will be compared to the scores of game B. The results of comparing the two games have to meet the following expectations:
1. Game A will overcome the engrossment barriers, but not the total immersion barriers. 2. Game B will overcome the engrossment barriers and the total immersion barriers. 3. Game B will score higher on the engrossment barriers than game A.
3 METHOD
3.1 Participants
Convenience sampling has been used for gathering the participants. In total, there were 8 participants. Each participant was subjected to game A and B. The order in which the participants were subjected to the two games has a 50/50 rate. With the within-subjects testing method, independent variables as age, gender, and if someone is an avid gamer or not, will not have as much influence compared to a between-subjects test design.
3.2 Design
The study was based on a within-subjects mid-and post-test design in which each participant experienced both games. Since the focus was on the differences between game A and game B, the error caused by individual differences of participants has been reduced by using a within-subjects design. The carry-over effects were a weakness of the within-subjects test design. Effects from one game could carry carry-over to the next game, since each participant was subjected to both games. To help avoid any carry-over effects there was a pause between testing the games. For counterbalancing, half of the participants started with game A and the other half of the participants started with game B. The games were used as independent variables and the test results were used as dependent variables. Sequence was used as another independent variable. Sequence AB is the group which started with game A and sequence BA is the group which started with game B.
15
3.3 Materials
In order to compare an engrossment level game with a total immersion level game, two games had to be chosen that each fulfil certain requirements. In table 3, the requirements for both the engrossment level game, game A, and the total immersion level game, game B, are given. Game A needs to have the characteristics of each element in order to overcome the engrossment level barriers. On top of the engrossment level requirements, game B also has to overcome the total immersion level requirements. Game A and game B have each been chosen, guided by the barriers the games have to overcome.
Table 3.
Barriers that need to me overcome for each game.
Barriers Characteristics Game
A
Game B
Suspending the disbelief in the game world.
Strong narrative / Believable characters
+
+
Affect the player’s emotions directly.
Matching emotions towards object / substance
+
+
Invoke a feeling of empathy. Feeling empathy towards the
characters
-
+
Create a unique atmosphere. Vivid and interactive game world
-
+
3.3.2 Game A
A game eligible for passing the requirements set for game A is Skyrim. Skyrim is an open-world adventure game, which means that the players themselves decide the path they take and which mission they follow. The open-world setting gave the player the ability chose their own adventure, personalizing the gaming experience. Memorable quests and unique characters allow the game to suspend the players disbelief in the game world. The other requirement, affecting the player’s emotions directly, is met by the player character being personalized by the player, allowing for parallel empathy. In table 4, the emotional situations and desired emotional responses for both the substance of the game and game as an object are described.
16 Table 4.
The emotional situations and desired emotional responses of game A. Game A
Emotional situations Substance Object
First act (fleeing from a dragon) Fear / surprise Learning the basic controls
Second act (Escaping a cave) Fear / surprise Learning to fight
Third act (Exploring the game world) Happiness Learning about the world
Fourth act (Visiting the first town) Happiness / surprise Interacting with other characters
3.3.2 Game B
The game chosen for condition B is called The Last of Us. This game is an adventure game with horror, survival and shooter elements. The participants play a man called Joel in a zombie invested post-apocalyptic world. Good facial expressions and realistic voice acting, together with a strong narrative, enable the player to suspend the disbelief in the game world. Due to the numerous emotional cutscenes, the player is taken through emotional highs and lows, allowing for empathy for the characters. The detailed world and environments that reflect the aspects of the narrative, along with the fact that the player can interact with items and buildings in the game world, make for a unique atmosphere that enhances the player experience. In table 5, the emotional situations and desired emotional responses for both the substance of the game and game as an object are described.
Table 5.
The emotional situations and desired emotional responses of game B. Game B
Emotional situations Substance Object
First act (Looking for your dad) Fear / surprise Learning the basic controls
Second act (Riding in the care) Fear / surprise -
Third act (Running from enemies) Fear Reactive skills
17
3.4 Concurrent- and post-test
The gameplay has been measured by using a concurrent- and post-test design. The concurrent-test involved the recording of facial expressions and audio recordings of vocal expressions. Facial expression has been used to determine the emotional response of the participant, while the vocal expressions have been used to monitor the thoughts of the participants. The concurrent-test has been used to measure if the participant was emotionally affected by the game and if there was a feeling of empathy. The emotional response of the participant is compared to the desired emotional response, from which it has been determined whether or not the given emotional response was matching. Empathy was tested by looking at the type of emotional response towards certain situations. The participant had been asked to think aloud, which, together with the emotional response recorded by capturing the facial expressions, helped to determine the presence of empathy and the type of empathy
The post-test consisted of a survey, covering multiple different aspects from both engagement and total immersion barriers. The survey consisted of statements which the participant could score. Ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), scores would then determine whether the participant had overcome the desired barriers of engrossment and/or total immersion. The following factors have been tested by using a survey: Suspending the disbelief in the game world, invoke a feeling of empathy, and create a unique atmosphere. Suspending the disbelief in the game world contains the categories characters and narrative, invoke a feeling of empathy contains the category cognitive empathy, and create a unique atmosphere contains the categories sensory breadth and sensory depth. For each category a mean higher than 4 must have been reach in order to state that the particular part of the barrier has been overcome.
3.5 Survey
In table 6, the categories, subcategories and further subcategories used for the survey can be found. The survey has 7 parts: Characters, narrative, cognitive empathy, sensory breadth, sensory depth, influence and interactiveness. Each part has 5 questions related to the category of that chapter. Here are examples of questions for each category:
- The conversations felt realistic and natural. Characters
- The story was coherent. Narrative
- I felt a connection with my character. Cognitive empathy
- The visuals often made events more intense. Sensory breadth
- I was often able to determine where sounds came from. Sensory depth
- I often felt that I had control on the game through my actions Influence
- The game world felt interactable Interactiveness
All the chapters combined gives a total of 35 theoretical questions. With 4 general questions (name, age, gender, number of hours per week spent on games), 4 questions regarding the participant’s opinion of the played game and 1 questions about which game the participant played during the test, the survey contained 44 questions. The complete survey can be found in appendix C.
18 Table 6.
An overview of the categories, subcategories and further subcategories.
Category Subcategory Further subcategories
Suspending disbelief Characters / Narrative -
Empathy Cognitive empathy -
Atmosphere Vividness Sensory breadth /
Sensory depth
Interactivity Influence / Interactiveness
3.6 Procedure
There were a number of things that were explained to the participant beforehand. First, an introduction was given of what could be expected. The participant was told he or she was going to play a game and that both the facial expressions and the vocal expressions would be recorded. The participant was also asked to think out loud as much as possible. While the game loaded, the controls were explained to the participants. When they started playing, the participants were allowed to ask questions about the controls or what they had to do in the game. After the participants had reached a certain predefined point in the game, the participant was told to stop the game and fill in the survey. This is the point that concluded one game. The same steps were repeated for testing the second game.
3.7 Data analysis
A reliability analysis was conducted on the combined results of both game A and game B, per category. This yielded the following results. The whole survey consisted of 70 items (α = 0.919). The category suspending disbelief consisted of 20 items (α = 0.898), the category empathy had 10 items (α = 0.730), and the category atmosphere consisted of 40 items (α = 0.824).
To assess the differences between game A and game B for each category, a paired samples t-test was used. A repeated measurements test has been conducted to compare the differences between sequence AB and sequence BA, to look for any carry-over effects.
Finally, correlation tests have been conducted to discover the similarities and difference the categories.
4 RESULTS
We start out with displaying the general data for the two games, for each category and in total (Table 7).
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare game A and game B by each category. This yielded the following results. There was a significant difference in the scores in the category SUS_NAR for game A (M=4.53, SD=1.51) and game B (M=6.40, SD=0.56); t(7)=-4.11, p=0.005. The narrative aspect of suspending the disbelief in the game world had a stronger presence in game B than in game A. There was a significant difference in the scores in the category SUS_CHA for game A (M=3.30, SD=1.13) and game B (M=6.43, SD=0.61); t(7)=-7.49, p=0.000. The characters aspect of suspending the disbelief in the game world had considerable less presence in game A compared to game B. There was a significant difference in the scores in the category EMP_COG for game A (M=3.43, SD=1.24) and game B (M=6.00, SD=0.60); t(7)=-5.88, p=0.001. The cognitive empathy aspect of invoke a feeling of empathy was more present in game B than in game A. There was a significant difference in the scores in the
19
category ATM_VIV_SBR for game A (M=3.93, SD=1.52) and game B (M=5.98, SD=0.81); t(7)=-3.27, p=0.014. The sensory breadth aspect of create a unique atmosphere had a presence in game A, but a stronger presence in game B. There was a significant difference in the scores in the category ATM_VIV_SDP for game A (M=3.93, SD=1.24) and game B (M=5.56, SD=0.74); t(7)=-3.29, p=0.013. The sensory depth aspect of create a unique atmosphere had a stronger presence in game B than in game A. No significant results were found for ATM_INT_INF and ATM_INT_INT.
Table 7.
Mean scores and standard deviations for both games on all categories.
Category
Game A Game B
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation
SUS_NAR 4.53 1.51 6.40 0.56 SUS_CHA 3.30 1.13 6.43 0.61 EMP_COG 3.43 1.24 6.00 0.60 ATM_VIV_SBR 3.93 1.52 5.98 0.81 ATM_VIV_SDP 3.93 1.24 5.56 0.74 ATM_INT_INF 4.15 1.23 4.70 0.86 ATM_INT_INT 4.68 1.09 5.38 0.84 TOTAL 3.99 1.05 5.78 0.51
A repeated measurements test has been conducted to compare the difference between the scores from sequence AB and the scores from sequence BA. For this, we only took the categories which showed a significant difference between the scores of games A and B. The test yielded the following results. The order in which the participants were subjected to the games did not appear to affect the results: No significant differences between the groups of each sequence were found.
In Table 8, we see the expected results compared with the measured results, for each game and category. In the notes the rules for each symbol can be found.
20 Table 8.
Difference between expected scores and measured scores.
Category Game A Game B
Expected Measured Expected Measured
Narrative + + ++ ++
Characters + - ++ ++
Empathy - - + ++
Sensory breadth - - + ++
Sensory depth - - + ++
Note. Calculated by mean and std. deviation. -- = Mean < 4.0 and std. deviation > 1.0 - = Mean < 4.0 and std. deviation < 1.0 + = Mean > 4.0 and std. deviation > 1.0 ++ = Mean > 4.0 and std. deviation < 1.0
The table shows an overview how the expected results compare with the measured results. It gives an insight in how the games performed and if games met their own standards for testing. The expected results for game A where:
- > 4.0 on characters - > 4.0 on narrative
For game A, the only subcategory where the measured result (M=3.30) did not match the expected results (M>4.0) is characters. The measured scores turned out lower than expected, meaning that game A did not pass the predefined requirements and therefore did not reach the engrossment level of immersion in the manner predicted by the theoretical framework.
The expected results for game B where: - > 4.0 on characters
- > 4.0 on narrative
- > 4.0 on cognitive empathy - > 4.0 on sensory breadth - > 4.0 on sensory depth
For game B, all measured results matched the expected results: Narrative, characters, empathy, sensory breadth and sensory depth all measured higher than expected. Game B easily passed the total immersion level barriers.
In figure 3, an analysis of emotional responses while playing game A can be seen. This yielded the following results.
Participants 1 and 2 showed a non-matching emotional response towards the game as an object. The game as an object affects the emotions of the gamer incorrectly, invoking an undesired emotional response. Participants 3, 4, and 5 showed a non-matching emotional response to the substance of the game. The substance of the game affects the emotions of the gamer incorrectly, invoking an undesired emotional response. Participants 6, 7, and 8 showed a matching emotional response to the substance
21
of the game. The substance of the game delivers the emotional content correctly, invoking a desired emotional response.
Fig. 3. Analysis of emotional responses in game A.
For game B, all participants showed matching emotional responses towards the substance of the game. A Pearson correlation was used to determine the correlation of categories within game A. This yielded the following results (Table 9). The categories within game A with significant correlation all seemed to have a positive correlation. This means that the game scored consistently throughout these categories with a significant correlation.
A Pearson correlation was used to determine the correlation of categories within game B. This yielded the following results (Table 10). The only significant correlation within game B could be found between the total immersion categories. The significant correlations are all positive correlations, indicating that game B scored consistently in the categories related to total immersion.
Game B shows in general more correlation between categories than game A. An explanation for this can be that game B outperformed game A in overcoming barriers for engagement. This means that game B was able to immerse the participant in the game. The participant was more involved in the game and therefore had a better understanding of the game as a whole. A better understanding led to more similarity between the answers within different categories, finally resulting in a higher correlation between categories than game A.
Table 9.
Correlation of categories within game A.
1 2 3 1. SUS - 2. EMP 0.911** - 3. ATM_VIV 0.808* 0.693 - 4. ATM_INT 0.728* 0.747* 0.520 Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
22 Table 10.
Correlation of categories within game B.
1 2 3 1. SUS - 2. EMP 0.381 - 3. ATM_VIV 0.087 0.702 - 4. ATM_INT -0.075 0.721* 0.764* Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
A Pearson correlation was run to determine the relationship between the categories of game A. This yielded the following results (Table 11). There were two highly significant positive correlations: EMP_COG with SUS_CHA (r = 0.874, p < 0.01), and ATM_VIV_SDP with ATM_VIV_SBR (r = 0.976, p < 0.05).
For the first pair, the relationship between empathy and characters can be the cause of the high correlation. For the second pair, both subcategories are in the same category, showing that sensory breadth and sensory depth are closely related within game A.
A Pearson correlation was run to determine the relationship between the categories of game B. This yielded the following results (Table 12). There was a highly significant positive correlation between SUS_NAR and SUS_CHA (r = 0.895, p < 0.05). Both subcategories are within the same category, indicating that game B scores consistently throughout the category SUS.
Table 11.
Correlation of subcategories within game A.
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. SUS_NAR - 2. SUS_CHA 0.654 - 3. EMP_COG 0.797* 0.874** - 4. ATM_VIV_SBR 0.759* 0.763* 0.742* - 5. ATM_VIV_SDP 0.687 0.709* 0.624 0.976** - 6. ATM_INT_INF 0.155 0.422 0.373 0.179 0.069 - 7. ATM_INT_INT 0.805* 0.791* 0.823* 0.760* 0.657 0.221 Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
23 Table 12.
Correlation of subcategories within game B.
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. SUS_NAR - 2. SUS_CHA 0.895** - 3. EMP_COG 0.294 0.441 - 4. ATM_VIV_SBR -0.254 -0.195 0.486 - 5. ATM_VIV_SDP 0.318 0.481 0.800* 0.643 - 6. ATM_INT_INF -0.143 0.136 0.724* 0.561 0.708* - 7. ATM_INT_INT -0.268 -0.032 0.659 0.767* 0.626 0.844** Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Hypothesis
1. Game A will overcome the engrossment barriers, but not the total immersion barriers.
The first hypothesis has been rejected. Game A failed to overcome the suspending disbelief in the game world barrier by scoring lower than expected on the characters element. The strong correlation between SUS_CHA and EMP_COG indicated that the game failed to convey convincing human emotions through characters. The emotional responses show a similar trend, being game A failing to correctly deliver emotions to the participant. The sequence had no effect on the scores of game A.
2. Game B will overcome the engrossment barriers and the total immersion barriers.
The second hypothesis has been met. The measured scores were equal to the expected scores in the engrossment categories. The measured scores were higher than the expected scores in the total immersion categories. Correlations indicated that the game B scored consistently within the engrossment categories and total immersion categories. The sequence had no influence on the scores of game B. 3. Game B will score higher on the engrossment barriers than game A.
The final hypothesis has been met. The game B scored higher than game A on every category. There was no correlation between the categories and subcategories of the game A and game B. With the exception of the subcategories ATM_INT_INF and ATM_INT_INT, all subcategories indicated significant differences between game A and game B. The sequence had no influence on the scores of both games.
24
5.2 Methodological considerations
5.2.1 The games
The first consideration regarding the games is the time spent playing. Since both games are over 30 hours long, the participants only played a fraction of the full games. This may lead to a wrong representation of the game, resulting in the game scoring much lower on certain elements. Giving participants more hours with the game could lead to different results. The characters aspect in Skyrim scored lower than expected, which could be contributed to the fact that the initial inability of Skyrim to make the characters feel credible has been increased by the lack of play time for the participants. The Last of Us already showed strong characters, but with more play time the game could have scored even higher. The second consideration is the chosen games themselves. There were other games that met the requirements better, but due to availability issues they could not be used. For future research, better equipment and availability of games could improve the validity of the results.
5.2.2 Facial expression
The facial expression data did not yield as much data as expected. Participants were concentrated more on the game, leading to a facial expression of concentration instead of emotional expressions. This resulted in fewer data than expected, since concentrated facial expression yield little to no emotion. In the future, making the participants more familiar with the game should open up for more diverse facial expressions than concentration.
5.2.3 Participants
The way participants were chosen was not ideal and only considered due to time constraints. By making the sample size larger and more diverse, the results may have been different. The sample size also did give the possibility to separate the participants which played games often from the participants which played little to no games. Grouping participants on different personal aspects could lead to more different results.
5.3 Theoretical contribution
The aim of this study is to construct a framework that helps with the understanding of game immersion. As stated in the introduction, while immersion is an important part of gaming, it is hard to define which aspects of immersion contribute the most to the gamer’s experience.
This study integrates the existing theory and empirical evidence into one framework, covering all known aspects of immersion.
Not only does this framework contain different levels of immersion, but also which barriers need to be overcome to reach a certain level and which factors are of influence within these barriers. Together, it provides an in-depth framework for game immersion.
The framework can be used for different purposes. It can be used to define the level of immersion in a game. Categorizing the games on immersion levels can be useful for future research purposes. The framework can also be used for the development of games by using it as a checklist. It gives developers a roadmap for development, prioritizing the lower levels of immersion first before trying to reach total immersion.
The results are promising. The framework has successfully predicted that game B would reach total immersion. However, game A only partially met the prediction of the framework. This may imply that the framework lacks some essential elements pertaining to character credibility, or that the game was not selected carefully enough in that the game was too shallow in character expression.
5.4 Final conclusion
The results of the study show that the framework allows a reasonable categorization of games in terms of their level of immersion. Furthermore, it properly guides empirical investigation of game immersion
25
by providing a reliable survey instrument. Finally, it may serve as an additional guide for game developers to support the design and implementation of game features in service of immersion.
26
REFERENCES
Bayliss, P. (2007, December). Beings in the game-world: characters, avatars, and players. In Proceedings of the 4th Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment (p. 4). RMIT University.
Belman, J., & Flanagan, M. (2010). Designing games to foster empathy. International Journal of Cognitive Technology, 15(1), 11. ISO 690
Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004, April). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1297-1300). ACM.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Measuring facial movement. Environmental psychology and
nonverbal behaviour, 1(1), 56-75.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial
clues. Ishk.
Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games research, 37(2), 37-53.
Hoffman, M. L. (1994). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. Reaching out: Caring, altruism, and prosocial behaviour, 7, 161-194.
Järvinen, A. (2002, June). Gran Stylissimo: The Audiovisual Elements and Styles in Computer and Video Games. In CGDC Conf..
Lewis, M. L., Weber, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2008). “They may be pixels, but they're MY pixels:” Developing a metric of character attachment in role-playing video games. CyberPsychology &
Behaviour, 11(4), 515-518.
Schroeder, D., Penner, L., Dovidio, J., & Piliavin, J. (1995). The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw Hill.
Someren, M. V., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: a practical
approach to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social issues, 55(4), 729-743.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of
communication, 42(4), 73-93.
Van den Hoogen, W., IJsselsteijn, W. A., & De Kort, Y. A. (2009). Effects of Sensory Immersion on Behavioural Indicators of Player Experience: Movement Synchrony and Controller Pressure.
In DiGRA Conference.
Walton, K. L. (1980). Appreciating fiction: suspending disbelief or pretending belief?. Dispositio, 5(13/14), 1-18.
27
APPENDIX A
Overview of the results from the paired samples t-test.
APPENDIX B
28
