How Can Wii Learn From Video Games?

Abstract

Motion controlling technology allows game players to interact with video games using kinesthetic body motions that replicate real-world activities. A 2x2 fully crossed, between-subjects experiment, plus control group was designed to empirically test how the type of controller (motion controller vs. symbolic controller) and avatar customization (customized vs. not customized) contributed to affective and behavioral responses when playing the Tiger Woods PGA Tour video game. Findings indicated that using the motion controller led to better video game performance, in addition to better performance in a real-world putting task. Further, use of the motion controller led to greater perceptions of golf efficacy (indirectly through presence), and was positively correlated with liking of the video game, which in turn led to greater perceptions of liking of the game of golf. Theoretical and practical implications for these findings are discussed.

The Influence of Naturally Mapped Control Interfaces for Video Games on the Player Experience and Intuitive Interaction

“…Some previous research measured the amount of hours or frequency participants played video games over a set period of time (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010;Johnson et al, 2002;McGloin et al, 2011;Mizobata et al, 2014;Sah et al, 2010;Skalski et al, 2011). However, different research has measured the duration or frequency of play per session (Cairns et al, 2014), per day (Sah et al, 2010;Skalski et al, 2011) and per week (E. P. Downs & Oliver, 2016;Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010;Jennett et al, 2008;McGloin et al, 2011).…”

“…Competence are discussed in section 2.1.6, and while they can be frequently overlooked for their role in shaping the player experience, existing work shows they can be useful measures when seeking a holistic view of the player response (Abeele et al, 2013;E. P. Downs & Oliver, 2016;Ryan et al, 2006).…”

“…When the impact on enjoyment or engagement is not assumed or implied by interpreting results from other constructs, however, games researchers have demonstrated a range of approaches to their independent measurement (E. P. Downs & Oliver, 2016;Isbister, Rao, Schwekendiek, Hayward, & Lidasan, 2011;Limperos et al, 2011;Sah, Ahn, & Sundar, 2010;Shafer et al, 2011). These vary from tracking body movement (Bianchi-Berthouze, 2013), as discussed in section 2.1.2, to using a range of existing validated instruments (Bianchi-Berthouze, 2013;Limperos et al, 2011;Shafer et al, 2014) or custom-designing scales to operationalise these constructs within the context of study (J.…”

“…While some NMCI research measures enjoyment levels using existing scales Gerling et al, 2011;Tamborini et al, 2010), more frequently, these impacts are either extrapolated from other constructs (such as presence or flow) or measured using custom-designed scales (S. Bateman et al, 2011;Bowman & Boyan, 2008;E. P. Downs & Oliver, 2016;Isbister et al, 2011;Skalski et al, 2011 (Mayers, 2013).…”

“…It continues to be measured in a range of studies in the domain to both examine the impact of controls on performance and to control for or consider how performance might contextualise the broader player experience (Abeele et al, 2013; E. P. Downs & Oliver, 2016;Gerling et al, 2011;Limperos et al, 2011).…”