游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

总结社交游戏易用性的8大测试方法

发布时间:2011-05-16 14:01:56 Tags:,,,

游戏的易用性测试是一个相对新的领域,它的侧重点从“该游戏是否能被使用”转变到“该游戏是否能被使用,并是否具有趣味性”,这种转变意味着以前所公认的测试方法不得不重新作出调整,通过提供更有效的游戏评估和强调游戏易用性问题,游戏开发者才能够更好地满足用户的游戏体验需求。

所以,在游戏行业中出现了很多种测试游戏易用性的方法。但是这些方法却不一定能够适用于社交游戏。

在进行进一步的讨论前,我们先来谈谈社交游戏的定义。这篇文章中,社交游戏是指在网友之间进行互动的游戏(游戏邦注:例如在Facebook上进行游戏)

社交游戏需要进行恰当的游戏易用性测试的两个原因:

一是比起传统游戏,社交游戏拥有更广的用户群体,这就意味着社交游戏更注重游戏的易用性而不是竞争性。

二是社交游戏没有“市场壁垒”。因为这种游戏通常都是免费的,所以玩家会有更多的选择。也就是如果游戏开发者不能够快速吸引玩家,他们将彻底失去这些用户。

这就意味着游戏开发者不得不更加关注于游戏的易懂性和易用性,他们不能只是依赖于以前所学的“游戏知识”,而应该深入思考如何做才能够吸引到更多的游戏玩家。

Farmville

Farmville

测试社交游戏的易用性问题

社交游戏所注重的交互性问题意味着社交游戏的易用性测试并不容易:

首先社交游戏强调“社交”,即与朋友们的交流。这种交流很难呈现于测试环境中。

其次社交游戏中常会出现“等待”的现象,就像在《CityVille》中玩家经常需要等待去获取所需的“能量”以继续自己的城市发展之路。这种现象迫使玩家不得不中断游戏,并等待再次进入。那这种情况更是要如何在测试中顺利进行呢?

显然有很多方法能够测试一款游戏是否值得玩家操作,即玩家是否能够通过新手教程或者跳过新手教程就能掌握这款游戏的玩法。然而对于社交游戏,很多易用性测试仅仅只是复制原有的游戏经验,或者只是收集一些相关的社交游戏数据进行测试。基本上,测试“游戏”很容易,但是面对社交游戏中的“社交”因素,这种测试就变得异常困难了。

以下是一些较为知名的游戏易用性测试技巧,其中有些要领或许能够帮助游戏开发者更好地测试社交游戏的易用性。

专家评估

1对1用户测试

游戏易用性小组测试

日记研究

玩家反馈/论坛讨论

焦点小组讨论

分析家的分析

facebook-games

facebook-games

专家评估社交游戏的易用性

专家评估是指由一个或多个游戏易用性或用户体验顾问,通过使用专业知识或者相关经验对游戏易用性问题展开的调查研究。

因为这个方法较为快速且低成本,很多游戏开发者仍然青睐于这种方法。这些专家们能够提供很多建议和方法给游戏开发者们,在游戏易用性测试中扮演着不可或缺的推动作用,能够帮助游戏开发者在游戏发行之前扫除障碍,朝成功迈出重要的一步。

同时必须确保任何的专家评估都应该包含社交游戏的“社交”因素。从低层次来看,游戏开发者必须使玩家能在游戏中方便邀请朋友一起进行游戏;而从高层次来看,即游戏开发者必须使得玩家能在游戏中与朋友们互动、交流。

专家评估的缺点之一是在整个测试过程中游戏开发者并未能与玩家进行交流。这就意味着开发者不能直接了解玩家对于游戏的真实感受,这将导致开发者会对玩家和他们的需求,玩游戏的动机以及期望产生误解。更好地了解玩家的心态是用户调查中不可或缺的一环,同时它还能够帮助游戏开发者直接改善当前或者未来的游戏。

1对1的社交游戏用户测试

这个方法需要挑选符合自己的用户形象的玩家进行测试,同时需要得到相关辅助工具的观察和支持。测试中,游戏开发者需要对玩家提出一些相关问题,主要是针对他们在游戏过程中所遇到的问题,以此了解玩家对游戏的理解和态度。

通过1对1用户测试,游戏开发者能够掌握一些更深入的游戏质量问题。因为比起其他测试方法,这种方法更注重调查玩家行为背后一些细节性的问题。

社交游戏的测试与所有游戏的测试大致相同,但是却还有几点需要补充之处:

评估组的成员应该确保对“添加好友”这个机制的评估,同时也应该关注于测试社交游戏中的“交流”因素(游戏邦注:游戏开发者可以选择马上进行这2个测试,确保玩家能够与朋友们进行交流)。

游戏开发者可以考虑停止使用“能量”机制,延长玩家的游戏时间。

提高还原期的恢复速度,确保玩家能够在短时间(即完成一份问卷调查的时间)内再次回到游戏中。

游戏开发者可以考虑让玩家设置第二个游戏账号,使得他们能够在第一个游戏账号“精疲力竭”后使用第二个账号。这个更高级别的测试能够使开发者更好地评估游戏的入门介绍,同时也能帮助他们更好地对游戏进行定位。

1对1用户测试存在的最大问题是它需要高密集的劳动力,而很多资金不足的开发者却支付不起这高额的成本。认知负荷也是这种测试方式存在的重要弊端,即当玩家在进行一款“忙碌”的游戏时,他将没有多少时间和精力去与朋友进行交流。所以游戏开发者应该更有针对性地对游戏做出相应的调整。

社交游戏易用性小组测试

游戏易用性小组测试是指在1、2个辅助工具的支持下,对同一个房间里一起进行游戏的一群人进行调查。这种测试的成本与1对1用户测试差不多,但却能够同时调查更多的玩家。

然而,因为辅助工具同时涉及的用户较多,导致游戏开发者将不能够获得更深入的信息。你也许会注意到易用性问题的出现,但是你却不能够因此质问玩家,也就是你将不能够理解这个问题出现的原因。

一款真正合适的社交游戏易用性测试必须使得玩家能够在游戏中与他人交流,即游戏开发者必须重视社交游戏的“社交性”的测试。然而它却只是通过让所有的“朋友”待在一个房间进行游戏这种人为的方法去测试游戏的“社交性”。

这种方法的另外一个弊端是,如果玩家想要在测试过程中发表反馈意见,他的意见则会被当成“集体思考”后的意见,即在这个过程中所有玩家的反馈都会受到其他玩家的影响。游戏开发者如果想要减少这种风险则可以通过让玩家完成问卷调查作出反馈,而不是通过口头描述,虽然这样做玩家仍然能够相互影响(例如他们能够通过肢体语言或者无意识发出的感叹等对他人造成影响)。

通过日记研究以测试社交游戏

这种方法需要接受调查的玩家能够记录下他们玩游戏的感受,而这种记录是公开的,即任何一个玩家都能对此发表评论,其中包括:

他们玩的是什么游戏或者游戏级别是多少

玩游戏时间的长短

他们喜欢(不喜欢)什么游戏,为什么

玩家的感受

他们与谁一起玩游戏

或者其他你想要找出的问题都可以在这里发出提问!

日记研究能够帮助游戏开发者更好地掌握玩家的想法,它等于提供给开发者一扇窗子,使他们能够更直接地了解玩家的生活和游戏行为。通过这种方法,游戏开发者能够获得大量数据。比起1对1用户测试只能够帮助了解玩家的需求,动机和期望,日记研究能够延长期限,进一步对玩家做出深入的研究。

这种方法的最大优点之一即它很适合用于社交游戏的测试中。因为在这个延长期中,它能够帮助收集更多的用户信息,帮助游戏开发者根据玩家的游戏时间安排拟定出更适合的游戏发行时间,使得他们的游戏不需要在众多游戏中挤得头破血流。

而这种方法最大的弊端则是游戏开发者需要投入大量的时间和精力去进行这项测试,即这种方法是最昂贵的方法之一。在日记研究中,开发者必须保持对研究对象的随时观察,而这将会大大增加测试的成本。同时,收集数据需要耗费开发者大量的时间,以及研究对象的高损耗率(退出研究)也是这种方法不可避免的问题所在。

最后,日记研究所依赖的用户自我报告(游戏行为)方法虽然存在着潜在的风险,但是却是个很有利的测试方法。因为游戏开发者能够通过发现用户的行为而进一步发现他们的游戏易用性的相关问题。

通过用户反馈改善社交游戏

用户反馈方法得到了普遍认可,经常被用于改善游戏中,特别对社交游戏而言,这种方法能够用于游戏发行后的测试。这个方法可以说是一个巨大的金矿,对于未来的社交游戏发展更是具有巨大的潜力。

这种方法成本较低,游戏开发者能够与玩家进行互动,以此获得更多玩家的信息(包括玩家的需求,期望,动机和行为等)。如果条件允许,开发者们不应该忽视这种好方法。

但是比起日记研究和用户反馈,这两个以来用户的“自我报告”行为以获取大量的用户信息方法,用户反馈看起来就比较逊色了。因为开发者并不能通过用户反馈去了解一些游戏的易用性问题,比如玩家在新手教程中遇到了什么问题等。

这种方法存在的另外一个弊端即,游戏开发者只能与那些积极的玩家进行沟通,却不能直接了解那些对游戏存在想法的玩家们的看法。因为很少有玩家会在新手教程中遇到问题后上网告诉开发者这些问题,反而他们会提醒朋友们不要尝试这款游戏。

社交游戏的关注小组评估

关注小组评估经常被用于评价玩家对游戏的接受度问题。但是它却不适用于评估游戏易用性问题(就像用户反馈),因为玩家如何进行游戏与玩家对游戏有何要求是两个完全不同的概念。

和用户反馈一样,这也是个低成本高效益的方法,它能够帮助游戏开发者与很多潜在玩家进行交流,使开发者能够对玩家进行更深入的了解。所以不要忽视关注小组评估的这个优点,它只是不适用于评估游戏易用性问题而已。

关注小组评估同样也依靠用户的“自我报告”行为,这意味着这个方法不适用于研究游戏易用性问题。

通过分析工具优化社交游戏

如今,越来越多游戏开发者使用分析数据去评估他们的游戏,同时,对于用户体验顾问来说,这个方法还能够帮助他们获得更多的相关信息。

但是分析数据只能够确定用户退出了哪款游戏,而不能说明用户为什么退出游戏。游戏开发者能够把该方法与上诉几个方法结合在一起快速评估相关页面和过程,但却不能作为一个独立的解决方法单独使用。

为了更有效地使用分析家的分析,游戏开发者必须牢记几个具体问题。如果忽视了这些问题,他们将只会被无数的数据所淹没而不能找到根本的原因。如下:

在游戏的开始阶段或新手教程中,玩家是在游戏的哪个环节中退出的?

玩家是否能够通过检验?

哪一个游戏页面的玩家损耗率最高?

有多少玩家在使用社交游戏的“社交”功能?

选择一个合适的方法

选择一个适当的游戏评估方法很难,而选择一个适当的社交游戏评估方法更难。因为社交游戏的特别限制,选择一个适合的游戏评估方法对于游戏开发者来说就更加重要了。

在这么多游戏评估方法中,如何才能找到最适合的方法呢?游戏开发者必须仔细思考他们作此选择的目的是什么,想通过这个方法学到什么,发现什么,并根据相关知识和经验做出判断。这些因素能够帮助开发者缩小选择范围,以找到最适合自己游戏的评估方法。

总结

在进行游戏易用性的评估时,社交游戏给开发者出了一道很难的题目。因为社交游戏的“社交”功能,使得社交游戏的易用性评估面临了很多现实问题。即使存在解决方法,游戏开发者仍需做出适当调整,才能更好地实现这些方法的使用价值。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,转载请注明来源:游戏邦)

Top methods for social game usability testing

by Alistair Gray

Testing games for their usability is a relatively new field. It required a change in focus, from “Can it be used?” to “Can it be used, and is it fun?”. This change in focus meant previously recognised methods had to be adjusted and entirely new ones created to enable user experience to effectively evaluate games and highlight usability issues.

So – there are now many methods available to assess game usability; however many of these methods struggle with regards to social games.

Before we go further it’s best to define ‘social’ games. When it is used through this article, it refers to games that can be played between friends online (for example those played through the medium of Facebook).

Social games are the perfect game to receive game usability treatment for two reasons:

They are often played by a much wider audience than typical games, meaning the focus on ease of use needs to be much sharper. There’s no ‘barrier to entry’. The games are usually free, and the player has lots to choose from. If they can’t pick up a game quickly they’ll take their time elsewhere. This means developers have to take extra care to ensure that the game is understood and easily played by anyone – they can’t rely on previously learnt “game knowledge”, or that players will push their way through problems.

The issues with testing social game usabilityThe interaction required by social games doesn’t lend itself easily to testing. Specifically:

The ‘social’ aspect, interacting with friends. This is very hard to reproduce in a testing environment The time delay encouraged by games, e.g. Cityville’s ‘energy’ (needed to do almost any development), naturally enforces breaks in play… and keeps you coming back. How do you take this into account in testing? There are methods available to tell you whether players are able to play, such as can they play through the tutorial and beyond. However most methods struggle to reproduce the ‘natural’ playing experience or gather data on the social play. Essentially it’s easy to assess the ‘game’, but much harder to assess the ‘social’ aspect of a social game.

Below are a summary of some of the more popular game usability techniques, and some tips to help adjusting them to assess a social game usability.

Expert evaluation 1-on-1 user testing Usability group playtesting Diary studies Customer feedback/Forum Focus groups Analytics analysis Expert evaluation of a social games usabilityAn expert evaluation is an assessment by 1 or more usability/user experience consultants using their knowledge and previous experience to look for usability issues.

Expert evaluations are still one of the more common methods used to assess game usability – they’re quick and inexpensive. They have a lot to offer a developer, and are a great method to kick-start a larger game usability project, removing all the ‘low hanging fruit’ before looking further up the tree.

Ensure any expert evaluation of a social game also includes an assessment of the ‘social’ aspect of play. This can be low level, such as how easy it is for players to invite friends to join, or higher level, looking at the whole experience on offer for players and their interaction with and between friends.

One reservation around an expert evaluation is that the whole process can be completed without any contact with users. This means you miss a great opportunity to see your players interact with your products, and as a result developing a greater understanding of your players and their needs, motivations and desires. This is a real value add to user research as this understanding can be used directly to improve the current/future games.

Online poll

Which one of the following would make you more likely to book a holiday online?

Cheap deals/Internet prices Reputable ‘brand’ airline or agent Availability of flights/accommodation Inspirational information & new ideas Positive reviews on sites like TripAdvisor  (Submit your answer and we’ll show you the results so far)

1-on-1 user testing of a social gameThis involves participants fitting your user profile playing the game with a facilitator observing and supporting. Relevant questions can be asked as players play/encounter issues to discover the player’s understanding and mindset.

1-on-1 user testing of a game leads to lots of quality in-depth information. This is because the reasoning behind player behaviour can be investigated and examined in much greater detail than through almost any other method available.

Testing with a social game is very similar to game usability testing for all games, but there are various pieces of finesse that can be added:

A member of the assessment team sitting online elsewhere can be the player’s “friend” enabling the ‘add friend’ mechanic to be assessed, as well as social interaction elements (an alternative option could be to run 2 test sessions at once, allowing both players to interact with each other) Consider disabling the ‘energy’ mechanic, to allow the player to keep playing longer than they would be able to do normally Alternatively speed the recovery period, to ensure the player is able to return to playing after a mini-break (potentially spent completing a questionnaire about the game) Or consider setting up a second account the player can log into after ‘exhausting’ their first account. This could be at a much more advanced level, allowing you to assess the introduction to the game, as well as a much more advanced position The biggest issues with 1-on-1 user testing is that it’s very labour intensive, and as a result off-putting to many cash-strapped developers. Another potential issue is the cognitive load when playing a particularly busy game often leaves players little time/mental capacity to talk during play. This means the technique needs to be adjusted depending on how much effort is required to play.

Game usability playtesting of a social gameGame usability playtesting is the term I use to describe multiple people playing in a room together with 1 or 2 facilitators supporting all of them. This allows the game to be played by more people than through 1-on-1 user testing, at around the same cost.

However this breadth comes at a loss in fidelity, as the facilitator is stretched over more people, meaning the depth of information is much lower. You may observe a usability issue occurring, but without being able to interrogate the player, you may not understand why it’s occurring. The understanding of your players and their behaviour is not as complete as it could be when compared to other methods.

A real strength of game usability playtesting a social game is that the players are able to play with each other, meaning the social interaction aspects of the game can be tested by players. However this is a very artificial manner to attempt to play a social game – with all the ‘friends’ in the same room.

A further issue with group playtesting, especially if you plan to use verbal feedback during the session is “Groupthink”. This is where players are potentially influenced by other player’s responses. The risk can be reduced by asking participants to complete written questionnaires, rather than giving verbal feedback, but other players will still influence each other (for example through body language, or involuntary exclamations “that sucks!”, “that’s so cool!”).

Diary study to assess a social gameDuring a diary study players are asked to keep a record of their play with a game. What this record contains is open – it can be defined by you. This could include:

What they played (games or levels) How long What they liked/disliked/found confusing How they felt Who they played with Anything else you want to find out! Diary studies are an interesting method to develop a great understanding of your players; it really gives you a window into their lives and into their playing habits. And results in a vast amount of data for your use. This method, as 1-on-1 user testing allows you to develop a real understanding of your players and their needs, motivations and desires, and their play habits, as the diary can record play over an extended period.

A real advantage in using diary studies when assessing a social game is that they are particularly well suited. They allow data to be gathered over this extended period, fitting around the players natural play schedule, meaning play doesn’t need to be squeezed into 1 quick play/assessment session.

One of the biggest disadvantages to diary studies is the large amount of time and effort required to conduct them, meaning they are one of the more expensive methods available. A diary study is best used when followed up with interviews of the participants, to clarify contents, adding more to the cost. A further disadvantage is the extra time required to gather data, and the large attrition (drop out) rate of participants that occurs as a result.

Finally diary studies are reliant on users ‘self-reporting’ their behaviour. This comes with potential risks, and gains. When discovering about user behaviour, this is particularly useful, when looking to find usability issues, observing player behaviour to be a much more powerful approach.

Using customer feedback to improve a social gameUsing feedback from players is a well recognised and often used technique to improve a game – particularly social games, as they often develop over an extended period after release. It can be a real goldmine of ideas, particularly around possible future developments in social interaction.

It’s also a very inexpensive contact point between you and your players, enabling to learn about them so much more (their needs, expectations, motivations, behaviours). It should never be ignored if it’s available.

As diary studies, customer feedback relies on ‘self reporting’ behaviour, meaning this is less efficient at looking for usability issues. You couldn’t use player feedback to get an idea of, for example, what issues they encountered in the tutorial.

Another issue with customer feedback is that you are only listening to players motivated enough to get in contact. This may not include those players you’re trying to improve the game for. Very few people who are baffled by a games tutorial will proceed to go online and tell the developer (but they may well warn their friends away).

Focus group assessment of a social gameFocus group assessment of a game is often used as a gauge to assess player acceptance. It is less well suited to finding usability issues, as (just like customer feedback) how people play is very different to how people claim to play.

Once more, it’s a cost effective tool to give you access to and contact with lots of potential players, enabling you to develop a greater understanding of them. Don’t overlook it for this reason, but it’s simply not suitable to find usability issues.

Focus groups also rely on ‘self-reporting’ behaviour, meaning they are not best suited to find specific usability issues.

Analytics analysis to improve a social gameAnalytical data is being used more and more to aid game balancing, but analytics are also a crucial source of information for user experience consultants. With effective page tracking individual issue pages in a process, or whole problem processes are easily identified.

Remember analytics data cannot identify why people are dropping out, just where. This can allow you to very quickly pinpoint what pages and processes need assessment using the other methods mentioned in this article, but cannot be used as a standalone method.

In order for analytics analysis to be effective you must ensure to approach the data with specific questions in mind. Without these questions it becomes extremely difficult to prevent yourself from drowning in data. Low-level sample questions include:

Where in the sign up/tutorial do players drop out to a significant degree? Are players able to proceed through the checkout? What pages have the largest attrition (drop out rates)? How many players ‘use’ your social interaction facilities? Choosing an appropriate methodSelecting an appropriate method to assess your game is tough, it’s even hard when looking to assess a social game. When assessing a social game’s usability selecting the appropriate method is made even more important, due to the special restrictions social games place on players.

With so many methods available, all of which will “do a job” to a greater or lesser extent, how do you pick between them? Think about your aims, what you need to learn, what you want to find out and your previous knowledge, what you already know. These two factors can help you narrow down significantly the methods and help you find which method will be best suited for you.

ConclusionsSocial games offer a particular challenge when assessing their games usability. With the social interaction possible in a social game, assessing the usability can create some real issues. Methods are available, but many need to be adjusted to get full value from their use.(source:webcredible


上一篇:

下一篇: