A Model for the Quantitative Assessment of Freedom of Choice in Adventure Digital Games
Abstract
The concept of freedom in player interaction with digital games, the nature of the choices that make it up and the subjective assessment as to whether a game is considered free-form or structured are at the heart of the interest of this paper. Free-form games that give room to many different playergenerated gameplay paths may amuse a player, while structured games that constrain players to follow a single path to one objective may bore them, thus resulting in different styles of interaction with this specific type of digital media. The aim of this study is to contribute to formalizing a concept of freedom of choice, and be able to evaluate its presence/absence in different adventure digital games; more specifically, the research aims at the formalization and, eventually, at the quantitative assessment of a concept of freedom of choice in free-form and structured adventure digital games, and attempts to arrive at a typology that allows different adventure digital games to be placed at various points on an axis between totally free-form activity and formally structured goal-driven activity. This effort, at the same time, is contextualized within a broader research plan for using adventure games as digital media-based learning frameworks, with a view to ultimately taking stock of player experience and interaction drivers, such as freedom of choice, as enablers for better player/learner
engagement and more effective learning through these media.
Downloads
References
Adams, E., & Rollings, A. (2007). Fundamentals of Game Design (Game Design and Development). Design.
Almeida, S. de J. (2013). The player and video game interplay in the gameplay experience construct TT -A interação jogador e videojogo na construção da experiência de jogo. PQDT -Global.
Arneson, R. (1998). Real freedom and distributive justice. Freedom in Economics, 1–50. Retrieved from http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/FACULTY/RARNESON/rlrlfree.pdf
Arsenault, D., & Perron, B. (2009). In the Frame of the Magic Cycle: The Circle(s) of Gameplay. In B. Perron/M. Wolf (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader 2(pp. 109–131). London: Routledge.
Arvidsson, A., & Sandvik, K. (2007). Gameplay as design. Uses of computer players’ immaterial labour. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 5((1)), 89–104.
Ashton, D., & Newman, J. (2010). Relations of control: walkthroughs and the structuring of player agency. The Fibreculture Journal, 16, 110.
Beavis, B., & Rowley, C. K. (1983). NOTES EVALUATING CHOICE : A NOTE, 3, 10079.
Berger, B. M., Caillois, R., & Barash, M. (1963). Man, Play, and Games. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090095
Berlin, I. (1976). Four essays on Liberty. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.14.090176.000245
Cardoso, P., & Carvalhais, M. (2013). Breaking the game: The traversal of the emergent narrative in video games. Sci. Technol. Arts, 5, 25–31.
Carter, I. (1999). A Measure of Freedom. In A Measure of Freedom. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198294530.001.0001
Carter, I. A. N. (1992). The Measurement of Pure Negative Freedom. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01759.x
Charles, A. (2009). Playing with one’s self. Notions of subjectivity and agency in digital games. Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture,3(2), 281–294.
Christou, I Perdikaris, N. Tragazikis, P. Douros, A. Galani, A. Gouscos D. & Meimaris, M. (2009). The magic potion –an adventure game for learning. In 2nd Workshop on Story-Telling and Educational Games (STEG2009), in conjunction with the 8th International Conference on Web-based Learning. Aachen, Germany.
Crawford, C. (1982). The Art of Computer Game Design: Reflections of a Master Game Designer.Berkeley, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Crawford, C. (1982). The Art of Computer Game Design. Computer. https://doi.org/10.2307/3183801
D’Agata, A. (2009). Measures of freedom. Journal of Socio-Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.07.017
Domsch, D. (2013). Storyplaying: Agency and Narrative in Video Games. Narrating Futures(Vol. Volume 4). MA: De Gruyter.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2008). Understanding video games.The Essential Introduction. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Eichner, S. (2014). Agency and Media Reception: Experiencing Video Games, Film, and Television. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Ermi, L. & Mayra, F., (2005). (n.d.). 02. WeFundamental Components of the Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersionb Library | Mendeley. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/guides/web/01-web-library
Falstein, N. (2005). Understanding Fun -The Theory of Natural Funativity. In Rabin, S. (Ed.), Introduction to Game Development(pp. 71–97). Hingham, Massachutetts, USA: Charles River Media, Inc.
Frasca, G. (2003). Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology. In The Video Game Theory Reader.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital Games in Education : The Design of Games-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/Article
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331
Herz, J. C. (1997). Joystick nation : how videogames ate our quarters, won our hearts, and rewired our minds. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Kirginas, S., & Gouscos, D. (2016). Exploring the Impact of Free-Formand Structured Digital Games on the Player Experience of Kindergarten and Primary School Students. In J. Russell, D. Laffey (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Gaming Trends in P-12 Education(pp. 394–420). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9629-7.ch019
Kirginas, S., & Gouscos, D. (2016). Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Perceptions of Freedom of Choice in Digital Games. International Journal of Serious Games, 3(2), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v3i2.120
Kirginas, S., & Gouscos, D. (2017). Exploring the impact of freeform gameplay on players ’ experience : an experiment with maze games at varying levels of freedom of movement. International Journal of Serious Games, 4(4), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v4i4.175
Kramer, M. H. (2005). The Quality of Freedom. The Quality of Freedom. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199247560.001.0001
Mitgutsch, K. (2008). Digital play-based learning: A philosophical-pedagogical perspective on learning and playing in computer games. Human IT. https://doi.org/University College of Borås
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT Press.
Newman, J. (2008). PlayinMurray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT Press.g with Videogames. London: Routledge.
Pattanaik, P. K., & Xu, Y. (1990). On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Économiques de Louvain / Louvain Economic Review.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital Game-based Learning. St. Paul, Minn: Paragon House.
Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2006). Fundamentals of Game Design. Prentice Hall.
Rommeswinkel, H. (2014). Measuring freedom in games.
Roto, V. (2007). User experience from product creation perspective. Towards a UX Manifesto Workshop.
Said, A., Tikk, D., & Cremonesi, P. (2014). Benchmarking: A methodology for ensuring the relative quality of recommendation systems in software engineering. In Recommendation Systems in Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45135-5_11
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. Japanese Journal of Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxs150
Sotaama. (2010). Play, Create, Share? Console Gaming, Player Production and Agency. The Fibreculture Journal, 16.
Steiner, H. I. (1983). Reason and Intuition in Ethics. Ratio, 25.
Steiner, H. I. (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Taylor, C. (1991). What’s Wrong with Negative Liberty. Liberty.
Van Eck, R., & Hung, W. (2010). A taxonomy and framework for designing educational games to promote problem solving. In The Videogame Cultures & the Future of Interactive Entertainment Annual Conference of the Inter-Disciplinary.net Group.Oxford, UK: Mansfield College
.Wiemeyer, J., Nacke, L., Moser, C., and Mueller, F. (2016). Player Experience. In Serious Games, R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg, and J. Wiemeyer (Eds.)(pp. 243–271). Springer VS.
Wolf, M. J. P. (2006). Assessing Interactivity in Video Game Design. Mechademia. https://doi.org/10.1353/mec.0.0095
Copyright (c) 2018 Sotiris Kirginas, Dimitris Gouscos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in the JDMI agree to the following terms:
-
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0. This licensing allows others to share the work with no changes and acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal, but not for commercial use.
-
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
-
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Copyrights to illustrations published in the journal remain with their current copyright holders.
It is the author's responsibility to obtain permission to quote from copyright sources.
Any fees required to obtain illustrations or to secure copyright permissions are the responsibility of authors.
Additional Information
All correspondence concerning contributions, books and other review material should be sent to: deca-jdmi@ua.pt