skip to main content
10.1145/3424953.3426635acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Interpreting posts in empathic games: assumptions for a conceptual framework

Published:23 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Games are part of a profitable market, with constant innovations and new technologies to meet users' needs. The understanding of elements related to games is a challenge, especially empathic games, i.e., those that foster users' empathy. This category of games makes users think over delicate and moving themes. This study aims at human interpretations of different sorts of data from discussion forums on empathic games. To do so, we considered ratings of user comments analyzed in previous research with two games, "That Dragon, Cancer" and "Valiant Heart", and we used an analysis tool. The data patterns allowed theories to emerge, and also allowed us to analyze users' profiles and comments, by reorganizing the previously proposed categories, but now based on assumptions of Grounded Theory. The methodological path points out ways in which the interpretation of the data proved to be useful for the future development of a conceptual framework for creating and evaluating this kind of game.

References

  1. Gustavo V. Diogo. 2016. Empathy Games: Life, Death, and Digital Narratives. Radboud University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. That Dragon, Cancer, Disponível em: https://store.steampowered.com/app/419460/That_Dragon_Cancer/, acesso em Jun 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. QSR international. 2018. Nvivo Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved from https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/home.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Danilo B. dos Santos, Cristiano Maciel, Vinicius C. Pereira and Eunice P. dos Santos (2018, October). Analysis of the perception of users of empathic games in discussion forums and their relation to death. In Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1--10) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Danilo B. dos Santos, Cristiano Maciel, Vinicius C. Pereira and Eunice P. dos Santos (2019, July). Digital Empathic Games and Their Relation with Mortality: Analysis of Discussion Forums. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 307--319). Springer, Cham Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Valiant Hearts, Disponível em: https://store.steampowered.com/app/260230/Valiant_Hearts_The_Great_War_Soldats_Inconnus_Mmoires_de_la_Grande_Guerre/, acesso em Jun 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chanel Summers and Mary K. Jesse. 2017. Creating immersive and aesthetic auditory spaces in virtual reality," 2017 IEEE 3rd VR Workshop on Sonic Interactions for Virtual Environments (SIVE), Los Angeles, CA, 2017, pp. 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Donald A. Norman, 2008. Design emocional: por que adoramos (ou detestamos) os objetos do dia-a-dia. Rocco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rex Hartson and Pharda S. Pyla. 2012. The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Abigail Sellen, Yvonne Rogers, Richard Harper, and Tom Rodden. 2009. Reflecting human values in the digital age. Commun. ACM 52, 3 (March 2009), 58--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore and Allan Collins. 1990. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rogério A.P. Xavier. 2013. Uma abordagem híbrida para a avaliação da experiência emocional de usuários. Dissertação. Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/540. Acesso em: Junho 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michael Massimi, William Odom, Richard Banks, and David Kirk. 2011. Matters of life and death: locating the end of life in lifespan-oriented hci research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 987--996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cristiano Maciel and Vinicius Carvalho Pereira. 2013. Social Network Users' Religiosity and the Design of Post Mortem Aspects In: Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Vergilius Ferm. 1963. An encyclopedia of religion. London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gary R. Weaver and Bradley R. Agle, 2002. Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of management review, v. 27, n. 1, p. 77--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David Lukoff, Francis Lu and Robert Turner. 1992. Toward a more culturally sensitive DSM-IV - Psychoreligious and psychospiritual problems. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 180(11), 673--682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Harold G. Koenig, Dana King and Versa B. Carson, 2012. Handbook of religion and health. Oup Usa, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael Weber and Lennart E. Nacke. 2018. Vanishing Importance: Studying Immersive Effects of Game Audio Perception on Player Experiences in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 328, 13 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Bernardo F. E. Lins. 2013. Perspectivas da regulação de mídia no Brasil. (June 2013). Retrieved June 8, 2019 from http://www.belins.eng.br/tr01/reports/2013_4200.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kevin Recher. 2016. Game Over... and then? The Representation of Death and the Afterlife in Videogames. Disputatio philosophica, v. 17, n. 1, p. 81--88, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucas A. Goulart. 2017. Jogos vivos para pessoas vivas: composições queer-contrapúblicas nas culturas de jogo digital. UFRGS, Tese de Doutorado. Porto Alegre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert V. Kozinets, 2008. Netnografia: realizando pesquisa etnográfica online. Penso.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Steam. 2019. Plataforma de venda de jogos digitais Steam. Retrieved from https://store.steampowered.com/?l=portuguese.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Bernardo F. E. Lins. 2013. Perspectivas da regulação de mídia no Brasil. (June 2013). Retrieved June 8, 2019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Maria L. P. B. Franco. 2007. Análise de Conteúdo (2nd ed). Liber Livro Editora.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Silvia H.B. Cassiani, Maria H.L.r Caliri, and Nilza T.R. Pelá. 1996. A teoria fundamentada nos dados como abordagem da pesquisa interpretativa. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 4(3), 75--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Kathy Charmaz. 2009. A construção da teoria fundamentada - guia prático para análise qualitativa. Artmed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Barney G. Glasser, and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Fred N. Kerlinger. 1980. Metodologia da pesquisa em ciências sociais. (Ed. Pedagógica e Universitária).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Katja Rogers, Giovanni Ribeiro, Rina R. Wehbe, Michael Weber, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2018. Vanishing Importance: Studying Immersive Effects of Game Audio Perception on Player Experiences in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 328. 2018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Toby Smethrust, and Stef Craps. 2015. "Playing with Trauma: Interreactivity, Empathy, and Complicity in The Walking Dead Video Game". Games and Culture 2015, Vol. 10(3) 269--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartson R., and Pyla S, 2012. The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Theresa Wiseman, 1996. A concept analysis of empathy. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1162--1167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Dimitris Grammenos, Anthony Savidis, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2009. Designing universally accessible games. Magazine Computers in Entertainment (CIE) - Special Issue: Media Arts and Games, 2009, v. 7, p. 29 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Bei Yuan, Eelke Folmer, and Frederick C. Harris. 2011. Game accessibility: a survey. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2011, v. 10, n. 1, p. 81--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Cheung, M. 2006. Therapeutic Games and Guided Imagery: Tools for Mental Health and School Professionals Working with Children, Adolescents, And Their Families. [S.l.]: Lyceum Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kamila R.H. Rodrigues, Paula M. Souza, Thiago Yonamine, Ludmila M. Marques, and Vânia P.A. Neris. 2019. Uma plataforma para autoria de jogos digitais terapêuticos que apoiam o tratamento de crianças com câncer. In: XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais, 2019, Vitória-ES,. p. 25--26 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Kamila R.H. Rodrigues, Daniel B.F. Conrado, and Vânia P.A. Neris. 2018. Lessons Learned in Designing a Digital Therapeutic Game to Support the Treatment and Well-Being of Children with Cancer. In: Marcus A., Wang W. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Users, Contexts and Case Studies. DUXU 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10920. Springer, Cham. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jonathan Belman, and Mary Flanagan. 2010. Designing games to foster empathy. International Journal of Cognitive Technology, v. 15, n. 1, 2010, p. 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Crhistos Malliarakis, Maya Satratzemi, and Stelios Xinogalos. 2014. Designing educational games for computer programming: A holistic framework. EJEL, 12 (3), pp. 281--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Rháleff N.R. Oliveira et al. 2018. Frameworks para Desenvolvimento de Jogos Educacionais: uma revisão e comparação de pesquisas recentes. Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação - SBIE), [S.l.], p. 854, out. 2018. ISSN 2316-6533. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 2004, pp. 1722--1726.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcos S. O. Almeida, and Flávio S. C. da Silva. 2013. Towards a Library of Game Components: A Game Design Framework Proposal. In XII Simpósio Brasileiro de Jogos e Entretenimento Digital --- SBGames, São Paulo, pp. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    IHC '20: Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    October 2020
    519 pages
    ISBN:9781450381727
    DOI:10.1145/3424953

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 December 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    IHC '20 Paper Acceptance Rate60of155submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate331of973submissions,34%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader