One expressed need in computer games literature is for intrinsic evaluation methodologies and workable operational research procedures to evaluate subjective game-play experiences and judgments and other user “pay-offs.” A phenomenological methodology provides an appropriate “bottom-up,” subject-centered, inductive, and empirically driven research approach. However, a need exists for case examples and specific methods to follow on how to apply a phenomenological methodology to games research. The authors offer a case study of how they used it to develop and test evaluation criteria for games, illustrating their analysis with examples from two studies where 25 participants played, then analyzed, offline adventure and role-play computer games. The authors’ evaluation approach offers bridges between the design and analytical sciences. It contributes to the analytical sciences by attempting to identify theoretical principles for evaluating quality in narrative adventure and role-play games. It contributes to the design sciences by supplying findings expressed as design principles for games improvement.
Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. Digital Arts and Culture conference, Melbourne, Australia.
2.
Bielenberg, D. R., & Carpenter-Smith, T. (1997). Efficacy of story in multimedia training. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 20, 151-159.
3.
Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. London: Routledge.
4.
Branigan, E. (1992). Narrative comprehension and film. London: Routledge.
5.
Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror [Computer game]. (1997). York, UK: Revolution Software.
6.
Bruner, J., & Lucariello, J. (1989). Monologue as a narrative recreation of the world. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Narratives from the crib (pp. 73-97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Chatman, S. (1990). Coming to terms: The rhetoric of narrative in fiction and film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
8.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.
9.
Crowston, K. (2002). Process as theory in information systems research. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 International Conference: The Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology, 10–12June 2000, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved April 2005 from http://is.lse.ac.uk/Support/ifip_wg82/Aalborg/crowston.pdf
10.
The Curse of Monkey Island [Computer game]. (1997). San Rafael, CA: Lucas Arts Entertainment.
Ecstatica II[Computer game]. (1997). Foster City, CA: Psygnosis.
13.
Eskelinen, M. (2004). Response to Julian Kücklich's remarks on Eskelinen's essay “Towards Computer Game Studies.” Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.kolumbus.fi/mareske/EBR.htm
14.
Frasca, G. (2003). Ludologists love stories too: Notes from a debate that never took place. Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Conference 2003. Retrieved from http://www.gamesconference.org/2003/, and DiGRA Digital Library, http://www.digra.org/
15.
Gothic [Computer game]. (2001). Fort Lauderdale, FL: Xicat Interactive.
16.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175.
17.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003a). Gaming and simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 569-591.
18.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003b). Simulation and gaming: Introduction to the art and science of design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 488-494.
19.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2004). Saga about ISAGA: A retrospect and a prospect. Keynote address to the 35th ISAGA-SAGSAGA Conference, “Bridging the Gap: Transforming Knowledge Into Action Through Gaming and Simulation,”Munich, Germany.
20.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2006). A framework for artifact assessment and theory testing. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 155-173.
21.
Kücklich, J. (2002, October 25-27). Neverending stories—Perspectives of computer game philology. Challenge of Computer Games, International Conference, University of Lodz, Poland. Retrieved August 2003 from http://www.uni.lodz.pl/kmk/a_03.htm
22.
Laramee, F. D. (Ed.). (2002). Game design perspectives. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
23.
Lee, A. (2000). Irreducibly sociological dimensions in research and publishing. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), v-vii.
24.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
25.
Might and Magic IX[Computer game]. (2002). Redwood City, CA: New World Computing.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
29.
Pelz, D. S. (1978). Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy. In M. Yinger & S. J. Cutler (Eds.), Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view(pp. 346–357). New York: Free Press.
30.
Pettit, P. (1969). On the idea of phenomenology. Dublin: Scepter Publishers.
31.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). New York: Plenum.
32.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Christian University Press.
33.
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983). Narrative fiction: Contemporary poetics. London: Methuen.
34.
Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
Todorov, T. (1977). The poetics of prose (R. Howard, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Original work published 1971)
36.
van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246.
