Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the
Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015
Design for game situation based on player's personality
Masashi Okubo*, Shingo Yamada, Mamiko Sakata
Doshisha University, 1-3 Tatara-Miyakodani, Kyotanabe, Kyoto,JAPAN
Abstract
Recently, online game has been prevalent because of the spread of Internet and smart phones. Especially the games in which the
player aims to reach a goal and to defeat an enemy with partner are getting popular. In such a game, it is thought that the state of
mind, the motivation and the performance of player are influenced by the relationship of the skill with not only the enemy but
also the partner. In this study, to investigate the influence of these relationships on the player’s state of mind and performance,
the simple game system has been constructed. To prepare the various situations, the partner and the enemy player are computer in
the proposed game system. Using this system, some experiments are performed in various relationships of the skill with the
partner and enemy. As a result,the relationship of player’s game skill with the partner may affect the player’s performance. So,
players are classified in the three types by their performance. And the player’s state of mind and performance for each type are
verified. Using these results, we indicate that the appropriate games for the player can be proposed.
© 2015
Elsevier
B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
©
2015 The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier
B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference.
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
Keywords:Game system; Flow; Mind of state; Performance
1. Introduction
Recently, online game has become a mainstream due to the spread of Internet and smart phones. Most of
conventional video games have been played by one player, trying to defeat an enemy to reach a goal, or creating a
self-made character to compete with the counterparts created by the other player who plays on the same game. So
far a number of researches on player’s state of mind in one-to-one relationship such as between a player and a
competitor or a player and a partner have been conducted [1,2,3]ˊ However, other than such existing one-to-one
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-774-65-6654; fax: +81-774-65-6654.
E-mail address:[email protected]
2351-9789 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.351
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
2127
fighting games, cooperative-type on-line games are the recent trend. In such games, a player makes a team with the
other player and cooperate each other to defeat the enemy team or to achieve goals. It seems that the relationship of
skills and performances among players, partners and enemies affects the player’s state of mind and performance. In
this study we verify how the performance of partner and enemy affect the player’s state of mind and performance.
Although the relevant studies including optimization of platform game levels intended for game itself [4]ˈ
motivation enhancement in operation utilizing game system [5,6] and study on elements of entertainment and design
[7,8] have been conducted. Howeverthere have been few researches evaluating games and thedesigns from a
viewpoint of the relationship with partners and enemies.In this study, we created a simple cooperative fighting-type
game system in order to investigate the impact of the players’ skills within/between teams on the performance and
psychological mind of the players. We also investigated the impact of the difference among the player’s skills on
the performance and psychological mind of the players.Based on the results of the above experiments, we proposed
an appropriate game situation by classifying the players.
Additionallyˈa psychological concept called “Flow theory” proposed by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly, psychologist,
has been paid much attention especially in sociological field. Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person
performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the
process of the activity and this concept has been widely adopted in various fields. Flow is considered to be
experienced when a person perceives his/her skill level matches the challenge level of the operation [9.10.11]ˊ It is
considered that video games can induce Flow state easily. Therefore we investigatedthe elements of Flow theory
from the viewpoint of the player’s psychological mind.
2. Creation of game system
2.1. Position of player’s skill within/between team
The game system created in this study was team-competition game, in which a player cooperates with his/her
partner making one team and defeat the enemy to achieve the goal. The relationship between the skill of the player
and the partner was classified into three conditions as follows; when the partner’s skill was lower than the player
referred to as “L”, when it was equal to the player referred to as “E”and when it was higher than the player referred
to as “H”. The relationship between the skill of the player and the enemy was classified into three conditions
likewise, “L”, “E” and “H”. Therefore there were nine different combinations of the conditions for the relationship
of partner’s and enemy’s skill for player’s skill. For example, when the partner’s skill was higher than the player
(the subject), we indicated as “Player<Partner”.The subject played the game under all these nine conditions as
shown in Table 1.
Table.1 Experimental condition of partner’s and enemy’s skill for player’s skill.
Relation
<Enemy
=Enemy
>Enemy
Player<Partner
HH
HE
HL
Player=Partner
EH
EE
EL
Player>Partner
LH
LE
LL
2.2. Outline of experimental system
In order to investigate the impact of partner’s and enemy’s skill on the player’s performance, the skill levels of
the enemy and the partner was varied variously in this experiment.
As shown in Fig.1, the subject is presented two digits number randomly and asked add these numbers.The subject
and the partner made one team and compete with their counterpart.Both teams answer the prepared numerical
calculations. When the total numbers of correct answers given by both teams become hundred, the team that makes
more correct answers wins the game. The digit number shows the correct answer of player, partner, both of them
and enemy team. And the right bar shows them visually. The partner’s and the enemy’s skills are set three
2128
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
Enemies’
points
Answer
column
Partner’s
points
Player’s
points
Fig. 1.G.U.I. of experimental game system.
levels as follows; “Low=L”, “Equal=E”, and “High=H” based on the average answer time of subject’s practice. The
partner and enemy takes 1.5 times longer to answer the problem than the player, when the skill level is set
to“L”(Low), takes same time referred to as “E”(Equal), and takes half time, referred to as “H”(High).
3. Validation ofimpact of partner’s and enemy’s skill on player’s performance and mind of state
3.1. Objective
Using the system created for this experiment, the subject solves numerical questions under the condition of
controlling the partner’s and enemy’s skills. Then the player’s performance and psychological mind is analyzed
based on the answer time and questionnaire.
3.2. Experimental procedure
A subject was instructed to enter a room and solve several two-digit additions in practice. After being informed
that the partner and enemy were in the different room, the subject was asked to choose the one condition out of nine
shown in Table.1. The subject and partner made one team and compete with the enemy team by solving onehundred additions with playing the game. 36 university male/female students aged between 18 and 22 years were
participated as the subjects. Each subject conducted the experiment under all nine conditions in random order. The
answer time and the number of correct answers of each subject were scored every nine conditions. The subject was
asked to fill out a questionnaireeach time. The questionnaire used one-to-five scale to describe applicable levels
based on the eight elements of the Flow theory: “clear goals”, “intense concentration of attention”, “loss of selfconsciousness”, “distortion of time”, “immediate feedback”, “balance between challenge and skill”, “sense of
control situation and activity”,and “intrinsic value in the activity”. The sum of seven elements’ scores except
“distortion of time” was analyzed as Flow score. Additionally, based upon a Circumplex Model of affect of human
emotions proposed by J. A. Russellwith horizontal axis representing pleasant/unpleasant and with vertical axis
representing awakening/sleeping on horizontal axis [12], the subject answered 12 surveysitems in one-to-four scale:
Tense, Angry, Unpleasant, Depressed, Board, Tired, Relaxed, At Ease, Satisfied, Glad, Astonished, and Excited and
4 survey items answered by many participants in pre-experiment: Eager, Impatience, Resignation and Composure.
Moreover the subject gave a subjective evaluation for the partner’s skill when scoringown skill as 100 point, for the
enemy team’s skill when scoring own team’s skill as 100 point respectively and evaluated fun of the game on a 100point scale.
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
2129
Number of subjects who showed the highest parformance
Number of subjects who showed the lowest parformance
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
㸺 Partner
㸻 Partner
㸼 Partner
㸺 Enemy
㸻 Enemy
㸼 Enemy
Fig.2.Number of subjects who showed the highest and lowest averageanswers time.
3.3. Experimental results
For the relationship with the skill of subject and the partner, and the skill of subject and the enemy, the number of
subjects who took the highest and lowest average answer time was shown in Fig.2. It was considered that the lower
the average answer time showed higher performance and the higher the average answer time showed lower
performance. Also Fig.2 showed that in the relationship with the subject’sand partner’s one, when the partner’s skill
was higher than the subject, there were the least number of the subjects who had the longest average answer time
and the largest number of the subjects who had the shortest average answer time. On contrary, when the subject’s
skill is higher than the partner’s one, there were the largest number of subjects who had the longest average answer
time and the least number of the subjects who had the shortest average answer time. In short, it showed that the
higher the partner’s skill became, the higher the subject’s performance could be. In the relationship with the
subject’s and the enemy’s skill, there was few differences between the number of the subjects who had the longest
and shortest average time. These results indicated that the relationship with the subject’s and partner’s skill was
more likely to impact on the subject’s performance than the relationship with the subject’s and the enemy’s skill.
In each relationship with the subject and the partner, the subject’s emotion evoked in questionnaire was shown in
Fig.3, in which the survey items describing the emotion were answered in one-to-four scale as follows:
1.Applicable, 2.Little Applicable, 3. Not Very Applicable, 4. Not Applicable. The answer 1 and 2 were scored 1
point and the answer 3 and 4 were scored 0 point to average out the all subjects’ answers. Moreover Fig.4 shows the
subject’s emotion evoked by varying the subject’s and the enemy’s skill. Thus it is seen the results from Fig.3 and
Fig.4 that the difference with the partner’s skill has a low impact on the subject’s emotion and the difference with
the enemy’s skill has a greater impact on the subject’s emotion. That is, it was found that the difference with the
enemy’s skill is likely to have a greater impact on the subject’s emotion than the one with the partner’s skill.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
㸺 Partner
㸻 Partner
㸼 Partner
0.1
0
Fig.3. Subjects’ emotion under the relation between subject’s and partner’s skill.
2130
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
㸺 Enemy
0.3
㸻 Enemy
0.2
㸼 Enemy
0.1
0
Fig.4.Subjects’emotion under the relation between subject’s and enemy’s skill.
4. Classification of player’s performance
4.1. Method of classification
Using the result, as shown in the previous chapter, that the relationship with the partner’s skills has a greater
impact on the subject’s performance than the one with the enemy’s skill, 36 subjects were classified focusing on the
difference between the subjects and the partners’ skills. Fig.5 shows the classification result using Ward method
based on the 3 conditions of partner’s skill - “Low”, “Equal” and “High”- against the average answer time
comparing to the subject’s skill. The classification result of 3 type’s subjects is shown in Fig.6ˊIt is seen that the
1st group subjects showed the higher performance when the partner’s skill was equal to that of the subject and the
lower performance when the partner’s skill was lower than that of the subject. Also it is seen that the 2nd group
subjects showed the higher performance when the partner’s skill was higher than that of the subject and the lower
performance when the partner’s skill was equal to that of the subject. In the 3rd group, the subjects’ performances
tended to become higher when the partners skills were lower than those of the subjects.
Ward Method
Fig.5.Classification by Ward's method for player’s performance.
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
䠣䡎䡋䡑䡌䠎
䠣䡎䡋䡑䡌䠍
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻥
㻟㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻤
㻞㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻟
㻞㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻝
㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻤
㻟㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻜
㻝㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻢
㻝㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻞㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻞
㻞㻟
㻜㻚㻤㻝㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻢
㻝㻚㻝㻡㻥
㻝㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻤
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻜
㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻝㻚㻝㻤㻟
㻝㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻡
㻝㻚㻝㻡㻥
㻟㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻤㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻡
㻝㻚㻝㻠㻥
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻣
㻝㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻠
㻟㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻡
㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻞㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻣
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻟
㻝
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻟
㻝㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻜
㻣
㻜㻚㻤㻢㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻤
㻝㻣
㻜㻚㻤㻡㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻥㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻤
㻞㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻞
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻣
㻟㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻠
㻝㻚㻝㻜㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻠
2131
䠣䡎䡋䡑䡌䠏
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻞㻣
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻞
㻞㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻝
㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻤㻟
㻟㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻣
㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻞㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻝
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻟
㻝㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻝㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻡
㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻜㻚㻤㻥㻢
㻝㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻠
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻜
㻜㻚㻤㻤㻡
Fig. 6.Classification of 3types by Ward's method.
Equal type
High type
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻤
㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻤㻟
㻝㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻢
㻝㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻡
㻝㻚㻝㻡㻥
㻝㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻝㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻤
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻜
㻞㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻞
㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻥
㻟㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻤
㻟㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻣
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻣
㻟㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻤㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻡
㻝㻚㻝㻠㻥
㻟㻢
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻥
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻜
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻝
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻟
㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻝㻚㻝㻤㻟
㻣
㻜㻚㻤㻢㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻤
㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻣
㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻝㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻤
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻜
㻝㻣
㻜㻚㻤㻡㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻥㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻤
㻞㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻣
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻟
㻞㻟
㻜㻚㻤㻝㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻢
㻝㻚㻝㻡㻥
㻞㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻞
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻣
㻞㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻟
㻞㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻥
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻝
㻟㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻠
㻝㻚㻝㻜㻜
㻜㻚㻥㻞㻠
㻟㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻥㻡
Low type
㻵㻰 䠘㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 㻩㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞 䠚㻌㻼㼍㼞㼠㼚㼑㼞
㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻤㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻠㻡
㻜㻚㻤㻥㻢
㻝㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻟
㻝㻟
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻣㻡
㻜㻚㻥㻠㻡
㻝㻠
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻜
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻠
㻝㻡
㻝㻚㻜㻞㻠
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻜
㻜㻚㻤㻤㻡
㻞㻝
㻝㻚㻜㻟㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻝
㻞㻞
㻝㻚㻜㻜㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻢㻞
㻜㻚㻥㻢㻠
㻞㻣
㻝㻚㻝㻞㻠
㻜㻚㻥㻡㻟
㻜㻚㻥㻜㻞
㻞㻤
㻝㻚㻜㻝㻢
㻝㻚㻜㻡㻝
㻜㻚㻥㻣㻟
Fig. 7. Classification of 3types bygame performance.
Using each tendency seen in these 3 types, the players were classified more easily. Fig.7. shows the
classification result focusing on the relationship with the partner, under which the subject perform well. The 1st
type is called “Equal type”: the subjects who had the highest performance when their skills were equal to those of
the partners. 13 subjects were classified into this type. The 2nd type is called “High type”: the subjects who had the
highest performance when the partners’ skills were higher than those of the subjects. 14 subjects were classified into
this. The 3rd type is called “Low type”: the subjects who had the highest performance when the partners’ skills
were lower than those of the subjects. 9 subjects were classified into this type.
4.2. Characteristics depending on type
Fig.8 shows the performance of Equal type subjects by focusing on the relationship with the subject’s and
partner’s skills and the one with the subject’s and enemy’s skills. The Equal type subjects naturally shows the
highest performance when the subjects and partners’ skills are as equals and shows the lowest performance when the
partners’ skills are low. Moreover, in the relationship with the subject’s and enemy’s skills, the performance of the
subjects tends to lower when the enemies’ skills are low. Thus the Equal type is likely to show the higher
performance with following 3 conditions: equal partner, equal enemy and high level enemy.
Fig.9indicates the average Flow score of Equal type by focusing on the relationship with the subject’s and
partner’sskills and the one with the subject’s and enemy’s skills. The Flow scores are almost same in varying the
subjects’ and partners’ skill levels. In the relationship with the subject’s and enemy’s skills, Flow scores tends to be
high with the enemies having equal or low skills.
Fig.10 shows the average of the fun of the game in Equal type by focusing on the relationship with the subject’s
and partner’s skills and the one with the subject’s and enemy’s skills. It is seen that the fun of the game and the
Flow score indicates the same tendency.
2132
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
0.6
**
Average answer time
0.7
**
0.8
*
†
** P < 0.01
* P < 0.05
† P < 0.10
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
㸼 Partner 㸻 Partner 㸺 Partner 㸼 Enemy 㸻 Enemy 㸺 Enemy
Fig. 8.Average answer time of Equal type.
**
35
**
Flow score
28
21
14
7
㸼 Partner 㸻 Partner 㸺 Partner 㸼 Enemy 㸻 Enemy 㸺 Enemy
Fig. 9.Flow score of Equal type.
*
100
**
90
80
70
Fun
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
㸼 Partner 㸻 Partner 㸺 Partner 㸼 Enemy 㸻 Enemy 㸺 Enemy
Fig. 10. Fun of Equal type.
From these results, by providing Equal type subject with an equal level partner and enemy, it is more likely to
enable a high performance and satisfaction.
Moreover, the same kinds of analysis were conducted in High type and Low type respectively. Summarizing
these results, Table.2 shows the appropriate game situations sorted by each player’s type using the average answer
time.
Masashi Okubo et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 2126 – 2133
2133
Table 2. Appropriate games to each type by using theaverage answer time.
Type of player
Partner’s skill
Enemy’s skill
Equal type
Equal
Equal
High type
High
Low
Low Type
Low
Equal or Low
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the impact of a player’s skill level in a competitive game on the player’s performance and
state of mind. Moreover we propose an approach for recommending the appropriate game situation for the game
player based on the examination result. The result indicates there is a high possibility that the relationship with the
partner’s skill has more impact on the player’s performance than one with the enemy’s skill. On the other hand, the
relationship with the enemy’s skill is more likely to have the impact on the player’s psychological status comparing
to the one with the partner’s skill. Therefore we classified the players into the following 3 types by focusing on their
performance levels based on the relationship between the players and partners: “Equal type” with highest
performance when the skill of the player and partner is equal, “High type” with the highest performance when the
partner’s skill is higher than that of the player, and “Low type” with the highest performance when the partner’s skill
is lower than that of the player. Moreover weevaluated the performance, motivation and state of mind of each
player’s type. As the result, Equal type is more likely to enable the high performance and satisfaction in providing a
competitive game under the condition of an equally-skilled partner and an equally-skilled enemy. High type is more
likely to enable the high performance and satisfaction in providing a competitive game under thecondition of a
higher-skilled partner and a lower -skilled enemy. Low type has high chance to enable the high performance and
satisfaction in providing a competitive game under thecondition of a lower-skilled partner and a lower or equallyskilled enemy.
We will investigate more details on the validity of the proposed approach and study further on the availability of
this approach in the other fields.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26560016.
References
[1] M. Sakata, T. Yamashita, M. Okubo, Factor Models for Promotion Flow by Game Player’s Skill Level, Lecture No.8016, Springer, (2013)
pp.534-544.
[2]D.WeibelˈB.WissmathˈS.HabeggaerˈY.SteinerˈR.Gronerˈ“Playing Online Games Against Computer- vs. Human-Controlled
Opponents: Effects on Presence, Flow, and Enjoyment”ˈComputers in Human Behavior 24 (2008).
[3]W.AdmiraalˈJ.HuizengaˈS.AkkermanˈG.Dam,”The Concept of Flow in Collaborative Game-Based Learning”,Computers in Human
Behavior 27 (2011).
[4]C.Pedersen, J.Togelius, G.N.Yannakakis,” Optimization of Platform Game Levels for Player Experience”ˈArtificial Intelligence and
Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference(AIIDE) (2009).
[5]Y. Kanno, M. Terada, Y. Yamada, M. Kamakura, N. Doi, A Study on Structural Model of the Motivation for Information Security in
Enterprises, IPSJ Journal, 53 (2012) 2204-2212.
[6] T. Katayama, S. Kuramoto, Y. Shibuya, Practical evaluation of entertainment system with subjective competition for improving workers'
motivation, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, EC-11(2008), pp.69-76.
[7] J. Hoshino, Design Theory of Entertainment, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, EC-9(2008), pp.107-108.
[8] H. Itsuki, H. Matsubara, Reduction of Leveldesign Workload by Visualization of Genetic Algorithm, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, EC6(2007), pp.1-7.
[9] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Good Business, Viking, 2003.
[10] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Handbook of Research Method for Studing Daily Life, Guildford press, 2013.
[11]M. Csikszentmihalyi, Finding Flow: The Psychology Of Engagement With Everyday Life, Basic Books, 2007.
[12] J. A. Russell, A Circumplex Model of Affect, Journal of Personality and Social Psycology, 39(1980), pp.1161-1178.