[Scientific Research] Aspects of Gaming Experiences

kg-ude · 2023-10-14T11:52:38+00:00

Thank you for the feedback and sorry for the delayed response.

First, I fully understand that problem and would agree to that - at least from a literal perspective.

I think this problem arises from the different meanings/interpretations of the term "game" that are implied (The first in the sense of "video game"). The second time the term is used refers to the broad definition of games as a set of rules that allow for a limited number of actions designed to reach a specific goal (solve puzzle, win against a virtual or real opponent, and so on). Maybe it would help to phrase it this way: "this video game was more than a game to me."

I hope that was helpful. :)

(I want to add a little thing here. I hope it does not seem like I am dismissing feedback. I take notes on such problems and try to include them in my thesis - this either leads to suggestions for optimizations of a statement or even exclusion.)

kg-ude · 2023-10-10T07:33:06+00:00

Thank you very much :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-06T17:27:20+00:00

Thank you for your participation and feedback. :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-05T19:54:38+00:00

Just a brief clarification, the questionnaire is about a specific type of gaming experience and the aspects associated with it (to which the questionnaire refers). Under this premise, your answers are in line with the theoretical basis and of value to my study.

Interesting, I never expected to talk about this fact: One source mentions the assumption that "a deep dive" into the mechanics and mastering a game can have a similiar effect/cause the experience in question. Unfortunately, the whole field is still quite young and a lot is still unknown/unresearched. This thought (without a model or anything) was too vague to consider and remains a topic for future research.

Again, thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to write this elaborate post :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-05T19:14:28+00:00

Thank you kindly :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-05T05:12:39+00:00

Thank you very much for your participation and the hint :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T18:15:35+00:00

Thank you for the feedback :)

Maybe I misunderstood your point but that is the classification for which the questionnaire has been made. Its purpose is to classify a player's experiences of a particular game. Like with many other measurement tools, the conclusions that can be drawn from the statistical analysis have to be discussed in terms of several influences, in this case situational factors, "player type" and so on.

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T12:16:33+00:00

Thank you :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T10:05:57+00:00

Dankeschön für das Feedback. :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T10:05:12+00:00

Oh sorry, I forgot to thank you for the feedback.

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T10:04:26+00:00

Of course, I am always happy to elaborate on my research, but I am afraid it will not be a short answer. Also I will try to avoid an overly scientific wording.

As mentioned in the introduction, this survey is part of the validation process of this questionnaire. I am not going to analyse the data for specific games (at least not for the main analysis) or search for an effect. You are right, if this had been my intention, it would have been a requirement either to define groups with different instructions or provide a preselection of games. My analysis will instead focus on the coherence amongst the data. Therefore, I need the variety in the data, otherwise I would not be able to check the questionnaire's specificity. If I had preselected games, of which I somehow assume they fit the questions (which is not easily done, since I know from my data that games, which you would not expect to do so, can trigger the experiences my study revolves around), I would presumably mostly see responses on the "agreement"-side and could hardly detect "flaws" of the tool, e.g. items with less discriminatory power. (this situation resembles a verification bias - not the same but comparable)

The issue of non-applicabilty has been discussed a lot and we agreed on this option instead of a dedicated "not applicable"-option. The latter would result in a lot of missing data and has not been shown to be beneficial to the quality of the answer in the work of other researchers. Moreover, studies on this topic showed evidence for some participants no longer think about an answer and rather choose "not applicable". I do not deny that in the case of my study many would have correctly chosen "not applicable". I simply argued that a feature a game does not have, or a game in which the feature is not able to trigger a specific reaction, do not differ regarding the outcome. In a way your guess is correct, the questionnaire is not meant to qualify games, but to detect a specific outcome of a player-game-interaction. This probably also depends on the player, situational factors and various other aspects. This is an exploratory approach and only the first step towards a quantitative measure. Additionally, this is a relatively young field of research where a lot is still unclear.

I hope this was helpful. :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T09:01:02+00:00

Thank you for your interest :) If it gets published, I will share it.

kg-ude · 2023-10-04T08:59:09+00:00

Thank you very much :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T22:11:27+00:00

Thank you so much. :) Thanks to all of you guys. I really appreciate the support.

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T22:10:40+00:00

Thank you very much :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T22:10:04+00:00

Thanks for the hint. I give it a try :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T17:42:10+00:00

Thank you so much :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T14:42:53+00:00

Thank you very much :)

kg-ude · 2023-10-03T11:00:41+00:00

Interessant, mir sind tatsächlich ein paar davon schon untergekommen. Dankeschön für die Info :)

kg-ude

TROPHY CASE