On Human Centred Design
[A guest lecture to BCFE; Wed 16 Oct 2019, Lecture Room 32, 12:00pm - 2:00pm]Watch the IDEO shopping cart video from ABC Nightline (1999) (search term links) and Reimagining the shopping cart page at (IDEO))
You are designers, game designers, graphic designers, level designers, film designers.
Should we design games like IDEO designed the shopping cart?
If not, why not?
If so, how?
Jesse Schell, author of The Art of Game Design, gatherer, creator and curator of the game design lenses says that the most important skill for a game designer to develop is listening.
\quote{When you listen hopefully you observe everything and constantly ask yourself questions. "Is that right?" "Why is it that way?" "Is this how she really feels?" "Now that I know that what does it mean?"}\citep[p. 5]{She2008aa}There are five kinds of listening: listening to your game, listening to the client, listening to yourself, listening to your team, listening to your audience.
The last, listening to your audience is crucial once you have something to show, it addresses the people who will play (or are playing) your game.
Remember, the game is made for a player.
You must learn to know your audience.
For some this means understanding the demographics of your target market.
That is, the audience may be broken down by the classic age and gender profiles.
Stereotypes get applied; boys, girls, men, women, others?
One type values mastery, competition, destruction, spatial puzzles, trial and error; the other type likes to see emotion, real-world scenarios, engage in nurturing, enjoys dialogue and verbal puzzles, and prefers learning by example.
Marc LeBlanc's taxonomy of game design pleasures attempt to go beyond the extrinsic determinants of age and gender.
The intrinsic internal personal characteristics that define us as human, at least partially.
LeBlanc considers the following to be the primary \enquote{game pleasures}:
Sensation; fantasy; narrative; challenge; fellowship; discovery; expression; and submission.
Bartel considers players to exemplify aspects of four player types: achiever; explorer; socialiser; killer.
Schell, like many, cautions against the appeal of generic stereotypes and drives. It is so easy to add more or question the relevance of others depending on the context.
We need always be mindful that a game experience is in the player's mind. Play is an existential, embodied, lived experience that involves imagination, motivation, judgement and action. There are objects of attention and (sometimes) others present, other players, community, and their own immediate audience of the game-in-play.
So how do you as a game designer get into the mind of your player?
(Ernest Adams : https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/fundamentals-of-game/9780133435726/)
For many designers and many projects, the player is a mere play of imagination, a cipher and proxy for the designer's own intentions. As the designer we often rely upon our own desires and implement them in the game. You/we are an audience of one. The player/designer is the most powerful player, Player One. You are the player who creates the game, who controls its structure and design in the first instance.
How can you as a designer gain insights from your audience? How do you get into these other players' minds? Understand what makes it fun for them?
In fact already we have a broad palette of research tools and user research methods from sociology, psychology, business, and engineering.
It is work, it is difficult, hard, challenging work.
Why do it?
You should do it to test the assumptions you made, perhaps even reveal your previously hidden implicit assumptions (often hidden from ourself perception - JoHari diagram).
At the least you'll learn something.
Perhaps you were right all along, but now you'll have quantifiable evidence that it is the case.
At best you'll learn something unexpected and truly valuable.
Remember, the game is made for a player.
You must learn to know your audience.
For some this means understanding the demographics of your target market.
That is, the audience may be broken down by the classic age and gender profiles.
Stereotypes get applied; boys, girls, men, women, others?
One type values mastery, competition, destruction, spatial puzzles, trial and error; the other type likes to see emotion, real-world scenarios, engage in nurturing, enjoys dialogue and verbal puzzles, and prefers learning by example.
Lens #16: The lens of the player prompts the designer to ask about the people who will play the game:A number of social and psychological theories have been applied to game design and interpretation.
In general what today like?
What don't they like? Why?
What do they expect to see in a game?
If I were in their place what would I want to see in a game?
What would they like or dislike about my game in particular?
\citep[p. 106]{She2008aa}
Marc LeBlanc's taxonomy of game design pleasures attempt to go beyond the extrinsic determinants of age and gender.
The intrinsic internal personal characteristics that define us as human, at least partially.
LeBlanc considers the following to be the primary \enquote{game pleasures}:
Sensation; fantasy; narrative; challenge; fellowship; discovery; expression; and submission.
Bartel considers players to exemplify aspects of four player types: achiever; explorer; socialiser; killer.
Schell, like many, cautions against the appeal of generic stereotypes and drives. It is so easy to add more or question the relevance of others depending on the context.
We need always be mindful that a game experience is in the player's mind. Play is an existential, embodied, lived experience that involves imagination, motivation, judgement and action. There are objects of attention and (sometimes) others present, other players, community, and their own immediate audience of the game-in-play.
So how do you as a game designer get into the mind of your player?
(Ernest Adams : https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/fundamentals-of-game/9780133435726/)
For many designers and many projects, the player is a mere play of imagination, a cipher and proxy for the designer's own intentions. As the designer we often rely upon our own desires and implement them in the game. You/we are an audience of one. The player/designer is the most powerful player, Player One. You are the player who creates the game, who controls its structure and design in the first instance.
You are also the most biased player.
If your design choices are decided by gut feel, your own solitary opinion, you risk not learning from others, not learning from your audience, of not understanding how other players have taken up your wonderful design ideas.
Do they get it?
Designers can overcome this bias by seeking data, data independent of their own opinion, 3rd party, objective, measurable (sometimes), open to interpretation yes, but open!
Do they get it?
Designers can overcome this bias by seeking data, data independent of their own opinion, 3rd party, objective, measurable (sometimes), open to interpretation yes, but open!
What are our biases?
How can you as a designer gain insights from your audience? How do you get into these other players' minds? Understand what makes it fun for them?
In fact already we have a broad palette of research tools and user research methods from sociology, psychology, business, and engineering.
It is work, it is difficult, hard, challenging work.
Why do it?
You should do it to test the assumptions you made, perhaps even reveal your previously hidden implicit assumptions (often hidden from ourself perception - JoHari diagram).
At the least you'll learn something.
Perhaps you were right all along, but now you'll have quantifiable evidence that it is the case.
At best you'll learn something unexpected and truly valuable.
Further reading:
4-Layers, A Narrative Design Approach by Thomas Grip, Frictional Games.
