Download Gamers' Personality and Their Gaming Preferences PDF

TitleGamers' Personality and Their Gaming Preferences
Author
TagsGaming
LanguageEnglish
File Size1.4 MB
Total Pages147
Table of Contents
                            1: INTRODUCTION
	1.1 Toward Demographic Game Design
	1.2 Research Question of this Thesis
	1.3 Goals, Outcomes, and Scope of this Thesis
	1.4 Methodology
	1.5 Summary of Results
2: THEORY AND TOOLS
	2.1 On Personality
		2.1.1 Psychological Frameworks on Personality
		2.1.2 Personality Tool
	2.2 On Gaming Preferences
		2.2.1 Game Classifications
		2.2.2 From Game Elements to Game Genre
		2.2.3 Gaming Preferences Tool
3: RELATED WORK: PERSONALITY IN GAMING
	3.1 Personality in Gaming
4: GAMING PREFERENCES QUESTIONNAIRE
	4.1 Foundations
	4.2 The Matrix
	4.3 Expert Validation
5: METHODOLOGY
	5.1 Design
	5.2 Participants
	5.3 Procedure and Data Collection
6:  RESULTS
	6.1 Gaming Preferences Questionnaire Analysis
		6.1.1 Weighting Set
		6.1.2 Content Validity
	6.2 Demographic Analysis
		6.2.1 Age
		6.2.2 Country Location
		6.2.3 Gender
		6.2.4 Gaming Habits
	6.3 Statistical Analysis
		6.3.1 Action Shooting
		6.3.2 Action No Shooting
		6.3.3 Action Fighting
		6.3.4 Strategy Turn Based
		6.3.5 Strategy Real Time
		6.3.6 Role Playing Game
		6.3.7 Sports
		6.3.8 Simulation Vehicles
		6.3.9 Simulation Construction
		6.3.10 Simulation Artificial Intelligence
		6.3.11 Adventure
		6.3.12 Puzzle
		6.3.13 Online
		6.3.14 Summary
7: DISCUSSION
	7.1 Game Genre Discussion
		7.1.1 Action Shooting
		7.1.2 Action No Shooting
		7.1.3 Action Fighting
		7.1.4 Sports
		7.1.5 Simulation Vehicle
		7.1.6 Simulation Artificial Intelligence
		7.1.7 Adventure
		7.1.8 Puzzle
		7.1.9 Online
	7.2 Summary
8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
	8.1 Personality
	8.2 Game Classification
	8.3 Game Preference Questionnaire
	8.4 Demographic Game Design
		8.4.1 Personality and Game Genres
	8.5 Future work
	8.6 Final Words
9: APPENDICES
	9.1 Appendix A – NEO-FFI Items Sample
	9.2  Appendix B - Gaming Preferences Matrix
	9.3  Appendix C – Gaming Preferences Questionnaire
	9.4  Appendix D – Participants Consent Form
	9.5  Appendix E – Demographic Questionnaire
10: REFERENCES
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

GAMERS’ PERSONALITY

AND THEIR GAMING PREFERENCES




by


Veronica Lorena Zammitto
Lic. Psychology, Universidad de Belgrano, 2001







THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF


MASTER OF SCIENCE




In the
School of Interactive Arts and Technology






© Veronica Lorena Zammitto, 2010
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Summer 2010


All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada,

this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair
Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private

study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance
with the law, particularly if cited appropriately.

Page 2

ii

APPROVAL

Name: Veronica Lorena Zammitto

Degree: Master of Science

Title of Thesis: Gamers’ Personality and Their Gaming Preferences



Examining Committee:

Chair:

_____________________________________

Dr. Marek Hatala
Associate Professor, School of Interactive Arts and
Technology, Simon Fraser University



_____________________________________

Steve DiPaola, M.A.
Senior Supervisor
Associate Professor, School of Interactive Arts and
Technology, Simon Fraser University



_____________________________________

Dr. Magy Seif El -Nasr
Supervisor
Assistant Professor, School of Interactive Arts and
Technology, Simon Fraser University



_____________________________________

James Bizzocchi , M.Sc.
Supervisor
Assistant Professor, School of Interactive Arts and
Technology, Simon Fraser University



_____________________________________

Dr. David Kaufman
External Examiner
Professor, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University






Date Defended/Approved: _____________________________________

Page 73

62

As explained in Section 2.2.4 this is a 4-point Likert scale answer. There

have been discussion on the interpretation of establishing a value to the gap

between one answer and another due to their subjective nature [78;79]. For

instance, is the difference between ‘strongly agree’ and ‘disagree’ double the

difference than between ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’? Are ‘strongly agree’ and

‘agree’ closer to each other than ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’?

To assure that the questionnaire was collecting consistent data, different

sets of weighting were given to each possible answer, exploring different

distance values for the subjective responses. See 6-1 Weighting Sets for Gaming

Preference Questionnaire.

Table 6-1 Weighting Sets for Gaming Preference Questionnaire

Strongly
Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Set 1 1 0.75 0.25 0

Set 2 1 0.60 0.40 0

Set 3 1 0.66 0.33 0



Set 1 emphasizes the distinction between to agree or to disagree and that

the subjective response to strongly agree or strongly disagree is a smaller

differentiation. Therefore, Set 1 suggests that there is a bigger gap between

agreeing and disagreeing than from disagreeing to strongly disagreeing and from

agreeing to strongly agreeing.

Page 74

63

Set 2 emphasizes how strongly the person agrees or disagrees with the

questionnaire statements, suggesting that the gap between agreeing and

disagreeing is smaller.

Set 3 suggests that the gap among each possible answer is the same.

Thus, the subjective responses are evenly distributed.

Participants’ results were processed and compared employing the three

weighting sets. Scoring was very consistent across all game genres. No bias was

found for any weighting set. This type of finding supports the validity of the

questionnaire.

Set 3 was selected to use for the analysis of results for this study since it

is the most conservative approach, which assumes that the items in the Likert

scaling are equidistant [79]. In the fields of education and business, Set 1 is the

most commonly used.

6.1.2 Content Validity

In addition to the expert validation for the Gaming Preferences

Questionnaire (see Section 4.3 Expert Validation), this section presents content

validity which is a confirmation that the questionnaire collects information that

reflects the game genre conceptualizations.

Participants were asked to state their three favourite games and preferred

game genre. These answers were reviewed and compared to their scoring from

the Gaming Preferences Questionnaire. A sub-sample representing the 10% of

participants was randomly selected (n= 55), their answers were compared to the

Page 146

135

[67] T. Hartmann and C. Klimmt, “The Influence of Personality Factors on Computer
Game Choice,” Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences,
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2006, pp. 115-131.

[68] Maxis, The Sims 2, Electronic Arts, 2004.
[69] C. Bateman, “BrainHex,” BrainHex. What's your BrainHex Class? Available at

http://blog.brainhex.com/
[70] Harmonix, Guitar Hero, 2005: Activision, .
[71] Nintendo SPD, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Nintendo, 2007.
[72] Blizzard Entertainment, World of WarCraft, Blizzard Entertainment, 2004.
[73] J.D. Brown, “What issues affect Likert-scale questionnaire formats?,” Shiken:

JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG, vol. 4, Apr. 2000, pp. 27-30.
[74] J.C. Reinard, Communication Research Statistics, Thousand Oaks, California:

SAGE Publications, 2006.
[75] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[76] C. Schmitz, LimeSurvey version 1.85, Open Source, 2009. Available at

http://www.limesurvey.org
[77] SPSS Statistics, SPSS version 17.0.0, 2008.
[78] G. Norman, “Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics,”

Advances in Health Sciences Education.
[79] I.H. Bernstein, “Likert Scale Analysis,” Encyclopedia of Social Measurement,

New York: Elsevier, 2005, pp. 497-504.
[80] Capcom, Mega Man 3, Capcom, 1990.
[81] Nintendo EAD, Super Mario World, Nintendo, 1990.
[82] BioWare, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, LucasArts, 2003.
[83] A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll),

London, UK: Sage Publications, 2009.
[84] Konami, Silent Hill, Konami, 1999.
[85] K. Graft, “Analyst: Bad Company 2 to Surpass 3 Million During Quarter,”

Gamasutra, March 2010. Available at
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27815/Analyst_Bad_Company_2_To_Surp
ass_3_Million_During_Quarter.php

[86] EA DICE, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Electronic Arts, 2010.
[87] J. Jansz and L. Martens, “Gaming at a LAN event: the social context of playing

video games,” SAGE New Media & Society, vol. 7, 2005, pp. 333-355.
[88] Bungie, Halo 3, USA: Microsoft, 2007.
[89] Infinity Ward, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Activision, 2009.
[90] Sonic Team, Sonic The Hedgehog, Sega, 1991.
[91] Nintendo EAD, Super Mario Bros., Nintendo, 1985.
[92] Harmonix, Rock Band, MTV Games, Electronic Arts, 2007.
[93] Gottlieb, Q*bert, Gottlieb, 1982.
[94] Dimps and Capcom, Street Fighter IV, Capcom, 2009.
[95] EA Sports, NBA Live 10, Electronic Arts, 2009.
[96] EA Tiburon, Madden NFL 10, Electronic Arts, 2009.
[97] EA Sports, NHL 10, Electronic Arts, 2009.
[98] EA Sports, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10, Electronic Arts, 2009.
[99] K. Salen and E. Zimmerman, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals,

Page 147

136

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2004.
[100] Microsoft Game Studios, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Microsoft, 2006.
[101] FASA Interactive, MechWarrior 4: Vengeance, Microsoft, 2000.
[102] Maxis, Spore, Electronic Arts, 2008.
[103] Maxis, The Sims, Electronic Arts, 2000.
[104] LucasArts, The Secret of Monkey Island, LucasArts, 1990.
[105] Cyan Worlds, Myst, Brøderbund, 1993.
[106] Dynamix, Return of the Incredible Machine: Contraptions, Sierra, 2000.
[107] N. Brace, SPSS for Psychologists a Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for

Windows, Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

Similer Documents