User-centered design in games
By R. J. Pagulayan, Kevin Keeker, Dennis R. Wixon, Ramon L. Romero, Thomas Fuller. 2012
441 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Human-Computer Interaction
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10c43245335bde7d951bf49749b59c5a0d91189a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Human-Computer Interaction
Citations in the corpus
- GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games (2005, background): “( Pagulayan et al, 2003 ), but should invite players to try new strategies and extend”
- A fuzzy physiological approach for continuously modeling emotion during interaction with play technologies (2007, background): “Traditional measures for productivity environments, such as task performance, are not applicable to affective environments since we are not interested in performance; we are interested in what kind of emotional experience is provided by the play technology and environment, regardless of performance ”
- Introducing Archetypal Analysis for Player Classification in Games (2011, background): “In addition, behavioral classification provides the basis for selecting playtesting participants that cover the behavioral range of the users, which supplements traditional demographic approaches towards segmenting target audience for user-oriented testing [19, 9, 12].”
- Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences (2020, methodology): “To analyze and evaluate player experiences, GUR experts have many tools in their toolbox, e.g., play-testing protocols Medlock et al. (2002); Pagulayan et al. (2003), playability heuristics Desurvire and Wiberg (2009); Korhonen and Koivisto (2006), game analytics El-Nasr et al. (2016), biometrics…”
- The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design (2015, background): “With a word processor, overall context and user expectations chart a corridor of likely goals and activities, but the actual goals and objects a given user works on at a given time are widely divergent (Pagulayan, Keeker, Fuller, Wixon, & Romero, 2008, p. 743).”