Federoff Usability Master of Science

I've just come across Federoff's Master of Science thesis on usability in games. The case study is a team of five lead developers and their one of a planned five months pre-production prototype. This is extremely early in the lifecycle of a game!

In classic usability terms, Federoff claims that "effectiveness and efficiency are secondary considerations in relation to satisfaction". To support this she cites other studies that claim fun and aesthetically pleasing things appear subjectively more usable, and that when a game is fun players will enjoy learning without being aware of it as an active process. For a game to be fun it must be challenging, and position itself between being too easy (boredom) and too hard (frustration) - c.f. Csikszentmihalyi - which contradicts the normal usability requirements of effectiveness and efficiency (other than in terms of interface usability).

Federoff's conception of gaming is predicated on the transparent ideal of non-mediated immersion. This is a simplification of some of the pleasures of gaming, such as the social aspect of Sing Star or Guitar Hero where the interface becomes a device to be consciously and intentionally manipulated to increase the appeal of the game.

She also positions the principle pleasure in gaming as mastery. Again this is a simplification and a reduction to just one of the pleasures involved. For example, there's a great deal of pleasure in paidia, unstructured play, and the carnal pleasures of amplification (c.f. Giddings, Kennedy: Little Jesuses) and illinx (vertigo). In terms of usability she makes use of the classic game play, game mechanics and game interface triad which I have criticised elsewhere, and in particular the notion that game play is defined in terms of mastery.

Fortunately she does acknowledge that the types of pleasures involved may depend on both the individual and the platform - and hence by implication, the ecology in which they both are situated.

Interestingly she observes that the lack of a shared language between developers and usability experts can prove problematic. This is perhaps an argument for game usability experts to be also game experts. Later on she refers to an argument that normal usability experts are only suitible for analysing interface and mechanics issues, but suggests that double experts (usability and gaming) could be capable of analysing game play as well. Finally she argues the case for having an HCI / usability specialist who is also a gaming expert permanently in-house to assist across the board in a range of development duties.

A list of heuristics from the previous literature is presented, of which the majority deal with game play issues and only a tiny number deal with interface. I have a problem with lists like this as they seem very prescriptive, and it's important to recognise that they're only guidelines which must be tailored for each specific case. They could be applicable across the broadest range of games, but this does not mean their application will lead to a game with broad appeal. Rather the danger is that such a cookie-cutter approach could produce a mediocre game lacking in innovation and cohesive aesthetic integrity.

Federoff analyses Nielsen's heuristics as they relate to video games, and largely I am sympathetic to her examples. However I feel some of her generalisations and reductions to a single, dominant mode of gameplay are inappropriate and this consideration of Nielsen would be more suited to a specific case study. Given a large number of such case studies it might then be reasonable to extrapolate to broader generalisations, but as it stands I feel this thesis suffers from over ambition in this regard.

Federoff describes her method of data collection as passively observing the team members. Unsurprisingly this resulted in some awkwardness. Participant observation is designed to address exactly this problem, but would only really be suitible over a prolonged period and in cases where the participant oberserver had practical skills to contribute, which in such a multi-discipliniary environment would be extremely unlikely. While Extreme Programming might be a viable possibility for participant observation, the same expert would be unlikely to be able to conduct such a working relationship with artists, designers and producers. However, Federoff does state that the most useful technique was to have the observee think out loud while they went about their work.

Overall my evaluation of the game studio in question is that they were perhaps typical but far from being a leading or proto-typical case to be used as an example for others. As such I'd make the case that a more useful study could be conducted at other studios as a large proportion of Federoff's suggestions are in fact already being used by more professional game development companies.

Federoff, Melissa A. Heuristics and Usability Guidelines for the Creation and Evaluation of Fun in Video Games. (Department of Telecommunications, Indiana University, 2002).

Sing Star. SCE London Studio (Sony Computer Entertainment, 2004). PS2.
Guitar Hero. Harmonix Music Systems (RedOctane, 2005). PS2.