PLAYFUL AND SOCIAL INTERACTION IN PHYSICAL GAME: A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STUDY OF REAL-LIFE ESCAPE ROOM

Abstract

This study investigated the player experience, playful design factors, and player behaviors of real-life escape room games. A questionnaire survey, group interviews, and behavioral observation were conducted to gather players' demographic information, game experience, social presence, game behaviors, and social interactions while playing a reallife escape room game. Results indicate that a player's background and the theme of the escape room affect game performance and game experience. The playful design factors are sorted into five categories: story, clue, puzzle, mechanism, and interior design. The player behaviors include individual and team behaviors: searching, thinking, monitoring, physical activity, communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation.

Headnote

Abstract. This study investigated the player experience, playful design factors, and player behaviors of real-life escape room games. A questionnaire survey, group interviews, and behavioral observation were conducted to gather players' demographic information, game experience, social presence, game behaviors, and social interactions while playing a reallife escape room game. Results indicate that a player's background and the theme of the escape room affect game performance and game experience. The playful design factors are sorted into five categories: story, clue, puzzle, mechanism, and interior design. The player behaviors include individual and team behaviors: searching, thinking, monitoring, physical activity, communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation.

Keywords: player experience, player behavior, social interaction, escape game, real-life escape room

Received 5 March 2022, accepted 17 March 2022, printed and available online 10 June 2022

1.Introduction

The real-life escape room is a new genre of game. In this game, players must work together as a team to discover clues, solve puzzles, and accomplish tasks to escape a locked room in a limited time. The origins of escape rooms are liveaction role playing games, point-and-click adventures, puzzle and treasure hunts, interactive theater and haunted houses, adventure game shows and movies, and the themed entertainment industry (Nicholson 2015). Technology and mechanical equipment such as sensors, displays, lasers, and radio signals are the key elements of many real-life escape rooms. Therefore, during gameplay, a player interacts not only with other team members but also with physical objects.

Games provide a broad range of player experience (PX) resulting from active participation. PX includes involvement, immersion, presence, engagement, flow, and fun (Takatalo et al. 2015). As the game market expands rapidly and competition intensifies, game designers have identified the significance of player experience assessment in the acceptance and success of games.Some researchers have reached consensus that the psychological dimensions compose the overall player experience in the real-life escape room game (Wong 2015). However, little is known about what kinds of player experiences are generated when playing the real-life escape room games and which design elements of the escape room can induce such experiences in players.

Social interaction is an important issue in the game design as well. An escape game is a real-life interactive game consisting of a team of players; hence, PX is considered to be strongly affected by both the interactions between game facilities and players and the game elements that shape the interactions between the persons participating in the play session. Lo et al. (2017) attempted to discover the collaborative roles that the team members assume and the communication methods that the team uses to facilitate interaction. Nevertheless, connections between the sense of social presence, the sociability of the environment, and PX have not yet been sufficiently investigated.

This study applied a questionnaire survey, group interviews, and behavioral observation to investigate the player experience and social interactions among players in a real-life escape room game. In the questionnaire survey, the core game experience and social presence were examined. In the group interview, the design factors of the real-life escape room were identified. In the group interview and behavioral observation, the individual and team behaviors were explored.

2.Literature review

2.1.Real-life escape rooms

Real-life escape rooms, which are themed physical adventure games, are growing in popularity worldwide. Nicholson (2015) conducted a survey of 175 escape rooms around the world and categorized the diverse theme of escape rooms. Though the themes and settings differ the games typically involve two or more players, who have generally an hour to solve a room full of puzzles in order to escape. Currently, there are more than 7,000 real-life escape rooms of different types in 100 countries (Egnor 2014).

Escape rooms require collaboration and communication, and they encourage players to engage in critical thinking. Because escape rooms are live-action games taking place in the physical world, players collaborate to share clues and solve puzzles through both verbal and non-verbal communication (Pan et al. 2017). In the escape room, which is filled with various forms and styles of puzzles, the players have to think creatively and use different mechanical skills to decipher the puzzles (Wiemker et al. 2015). Hence, solving puzzles and ultimately escaping will require that the players work on the puzzles using multiple approaches to knowledge.

2.2.Scope of player experience

PX has been approached from a variety of perspectives on game play. Poels et al. (2007) identified nine main dimensions of player experience in digital games: enjoyment, flow, imaginative immersion, sensory immersion, suspense, competence, negative affect, control, and social presence. The dimensions of immersion, fun, and playability are often critical to game motivation and enjoyment (Ghumanand Griffiths 2012, Brown and Cairns 2004, Nacke et al. 2009). Furthermore, Weibel et al (2008) found positive correlations between presence, flow, and enjoyment in game play. Some research has showed that, for most players, immersion equals the degree of involvement within a game and makes them lose track of time and outside concerns (Wiemker et al. 2015, Brown and Cairns 2004, Jennettet al. 2008).

Several studies have indicated specific features of games that are thought to increase enjoyment. Klimmt et al. (2009) found that suspense was a driver of game enjoyment: A suspenseful version of a game is more enjoyable than a non-suspenseful version. Visual and aural aesthetics are also the keys to creating the desired feeling of immersion. The visual style and fidelity are closely tied to the aspects of immersion and flow (McLaughlin et al. 2010). Music and sound effects not only enrich the game-worlds and assist player navigation but are also important for the semantic operations of games (Whalen 2004). Physical tools or elements also impact the play experience in several manners (Ullmer and Ishii 2000, Buur et al. 2004). Schneider et al. (2004) proposed that players felt a greater sense of presence when a game was structured around a story. Thus, different game design features affect a player's experience of interacting with the game.

2.3.Player experience in social interaction

Social interaction is becoming an increasingly important topic in multiplayer gaming. In multiplayer games, social interaction is inbuilt and direct in the core gameplay. A number of studies have pointed out that playing with other people and friends induces more fun, physiological arousal, engagement, and positive affect (Clarke and Duimering 2006, Mandryk and Inkpen 2004, Ravaja et al. 2006). Experiences of interaction can create feelings of camaraderie and make players feel more connected to each other. In fact, individuals cite social interaction as one of the main reasons why they play multiplayer games (Chou and Tsai 2007, Pagulayan et al. 2003).

Social interaction processes in game play include monitoring, awareness, verbal communication, and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. Monitoring of other players' actions contributes to the maintenance of game awareness (Tseet al. 2007). Xu et al. (2008) reported that more social presence in awareness of others offered the most opportunities for interpersonal interactions. Since communicating can give players opportunities to express and share emotions and in-game information, social presence also appeared to be highest when people could see and hear each other while communicating (Rettie 1995, Kuoppala and Finnerman 2012). Overall, the social interaction process can occur at different levels of a game and has a clear impact on the player's experience.

2.4.Player Experience Evaluation Questionnaires

Several questionnaires for evaluating player experience have been developed and validated. Some of these questionnaires, such as the Player Experience of Need Satisfaction, the Immersive Experience Questionnaire, and the Game Engagement Questionnaire (Ryan et al. 2006, Sweetser and Wyeth 2005, Jennett et al. 2008), concentrate on the related constructs of motivation, immersion, or engagement. Other scales, such as the Game Flow Questionnaire (Brockmyer et al. 2009), and the Game Enjoyment Instrument (Fang et al. 2008), focus on player enjoyment.

The Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ), which has been applied in many game research studies of PX (Mahmud et al. 2008, Gajadhar et al. 2008), assesses both player game experience and social presence (Poels et al. 2007). The GEQ contains a multi-dimensional self-report measure of game experience including both a core module and a social presence module. The core module includes seven dimensions: competence, immersion, flow, tension, challenge, negative affect, and positive affect. The social presence module comprises three dimensions: empathy, negative feelings, and behavioral involvement. Each dimension consists of multiple items. In total, the questionnaire includes 50 statements.

3.Research objectives and hypotheses

The objectives of the study were to investigate the kinds of player experiences generated when playing a real-life escape room game, the design elements of an escape room that can induce player experiences, and the social interactions with team members in the game. To carry out the objectives of the study, the following questions were addressed:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of players who play real-life escape room games?

2. What design factors affect players' feelings and perceptions while playing reallife escape room games?

3. What are players' game and social experiences within real-life escape room games?

4.Research methods

This study applied both quantitative (questionnaire survey) and qualitative (group interview and behavioral observation) methods to gather the player experience of real-life escape room games. The game experience questionnaire (GEQ) was used to collect subjective responses from the participants. Observational research provided a reliable measurement of actual participant behavior and the natural context (Smith 1944). The group interview was used to collect additional insights through the interactions of ideas and suggestions from the group (Robson 2000).

The research was conducted in three phases. Phase one was participant recruitment. Phase two was data collection, which included the questionnaire survey, group interview, and behavioral observation. Finally, phase three was data analysis of the player experience, which consisted of both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

4.1.Participant recruitment phase

This study was carried out at PEACH FUN real-life escape rooms. Hence, the participants were recruited through word-of-mouth advertising and poster advertisements at the PEACH FUN real-life escape room game counter in The Monster Village in Taiwan. Three real-life escape rooms with different themes (Silent Mirror, Hungry Nights, and Nin Ja) were provided by PEACH FUN (PEACHFUN 2015). The teams of players could pick one of the three themed escape room games themselves or follow the recommendation of the staff of PEACH FUN on which themed escape room was suitable for the team. The team was then given 45 minutes to solve the puzzles. In such games, the proper number of team players depends on the varying degrees of difficulty of the escape rooms (i.e., the number of puzzles). Figure 1 shows one such puzzle, which is a meta- and multi-linear puzzle in an escape room designed by PEACH FUN. The suitable team sizes of PEACH FUN real-life escape games proposed by the staff are listed in Table 1. Teams can be composed of friends, family, or even strangers. During the game, each team has two opportunities to ask for hints from the game master of PEACH FUN when they are stumped. At the end of the game, the game master leads the team through a debriefing process, answering questions and explaining the puzzles if the team members have questions. Table 2 lists the groups by theme, team size, and team composition for real-life escape room game challenges.

This study acquired ethical approval from PEACH FUN. Written consent was sought from all participants to ensure their rights and confidentiality. Before the beginning of the game, the researcher explained the purpose of the study, obtained the participants' permission to video and audio record the game playing process, and obtained consent for the group interview. At the same time, the researcher informed the participants that video and audio data would be kept in a secure place during the study and erased afterwards, and that pseudonyms would be used to maintain participant anonymity with regard to the game playing and interview results. After the game finished, the questionnaire survey was administered and the group interview was performed in the counseling room of PEACH FUN. Participants were rewarded NTD 100 (about USD 4) for their participation.

4.2.Data collection phase

The data collection phase consisted of three steps: questionnaire survey, group interview, and behavioral observation.

Questionnaire survey: The questionnaire survey comprised a section on the participants' backgrounds and the GEQ. The participants' background information included gender, age, education, and previous experience of real-life escape room games. Given the objectives of our study, which included player game experience and social presence, we collected data on the subjective game experience using Chinese translated versions of the GEQ. The statements of the core module and social presence were respectively 33 and 17. Each statement was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate the intensity of the described player experience. Each participant filled out the questionnaire individually. For participants such as elementary school students who could not recognize the vocabulary in the questionnaire, a researcher (second author) read and explained the vocabulary and statement, and made sure the participant fully understood the question and without misunderstanding.

Group interview: The aims of the group interview were to survey the behaviors of the participants in the real-life escape room game and to elicit implicit issues encountered by the participants while game playing. Questions in the interviews contained general probes to elicit detailed information from the participants. Table 3 shows an example of a participant's responses to questions, subsequent probes, and responses to probes in the group interview. The interview lasted approximately 30 minutes, and the questions were predetermined in a semi-structured questionnaire format (see Table 4). Additionally, all interview questions from the researchers and responses from the participants were audio recorded and later transcribed.

Behavioral observation: The non-participatory observation method was used to observe the activities and collect data on player behaviors, communication, and interaction. The researcher did not engage in or disturb the participants' activities, and one team member volunteered to wear a Go Pro HERO5 on his or her head during the game-play. Hence, the individual behaviors and team interactions were observed by video recording.

4.3.Data analysis phase

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were adopted in the analysis. Data obtained from the GEQ were entered into IBM SPSS version 22. Prior to the data analysis, the data were checked by a second researcher. In addition, the variables were examined for normality assumptions. Once it was confirmed that the data were normally distributed, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were utilized to determine the gender, age, education of the participants, as well as the way the theme of the escape room (degree of game difficultly) significantly affected the player experience. If dependent variables were found to be significantly affected by main factors, the LSD and Scheffe's post hoc test for multiple comparisons were adopted to determine the levels of the significant main factors. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

All the data acquired in group interviews were transcribed before being imported into Nvivo 11. The researcher performed the code assignments subjectively. For instance, the second answers to the second question from two participants of group 2 presented in Figure 2 were both coded as 'searching'. Table 5 summarizes the 10 different answers that were coded as 'searching'. After all the data were coded, we grouped the codes into clusters and categorized them into themes based on their attributes.

5.Quantitative results

5.1.Basic demographics

Twelve groups of players, including a total of fifty-two people (23 males and 29 females) agreed to participant in this study. All participants reported that they were not physically or psychologically disabled, and all were aged between 7 to 55 years old. Over 75% of the participants were under age 30, and 69% of the participants were undergraduate or graduate students. Seven of the fifty-two participants had played in at least one real-life escape room prior to the study. More than 70% of the participants did not know about real-life escape rooms. Over 86% of the participants had never played either real-life or virtual escape room games.

5.2.Reliability and descriptive statistics of the GEQ

The reliability and descriptive statistics for the dimensions of the GEQ are shown in Table 6. In the core module, the two highest scores were immersion and positive affect, and the two lowest scores were tension and negative affect. Both immersion (t(311) = 28.982, p < 0.000) and positive affect (t(259) = 33.325, p < 0.000) were rated significantly higher than the scale midpoint. Tension (t(155) = -13.711, p < 0.000) and negative affect (t(259) = -7.570, p < 0.000) of the core module were scored significantly lower than the scale midpoint. In the social presence module, the highest and lowest scores were respectively empathy (M = 4.18, SD = 0.76) and negative feelings (M = 2.39, SD = 1.30). The reliability of flow and negative affect of the core module were lower than 0.6.

5.3.Game Performance

The results showed that four of the twelve groups succeeded in escaping the locked room. The ANOVA results presented a significant effect of participant experience on game result f 50) = 11.275, p < 0.05). The LSD post hoc test indicated that game performance was higher for experienced players (M = 1.67, SD = 0.49) than for inexperienced players (M = 1.22, SD = 0.42). There were no significant differences for gender, age, and education on game performance. The theme of the escape room also had a significant effect on game performance (f(249) = 4.655, p < 0.05). The LSD post hoc test indicated that game performance was lower in Nin Ja (M = 1.00, SD = 0.13) than in Hungry Night (M = 1.46, SD = 0.09) and Silent Mirror (M = 1.43, SD = 0.12).

5.4.Core module of GEQ

The MANOVA showed significant differences for participants' backgrounds on the game experiences of the core module: gender (f(287767) = 2.912, p < 0.05) and age (f(28,602) = 1.690, p < 0.05). Gender (f(1,50) = 10.801, p < 0.05) and age (f(4,47) = 6.101, p < 0.001) had significant effects on positive affect (see Figure 3). The Scheffe's post hoc test indicated that positive affect was higher in females (M = 4.54, SD = 0.61) than in males (M = 4.21, SD = 0.71) and in groups of participants aged under 10 yrs. (M = 4.63, SD = 0.63) than in groups of participants aged between 31 yrs. and 40 yrs. (M = 3.80, SD = 0.65).

Furthermore, the theme of the escape room (f(563609) = 1.93 0, p < 0.05) also had a significant effect on the core module. The theme of the escape room had significant effects on competence (f(249) = 9.962, p < 0.001), immersion (f(249) = 3.309, p < 0.05), flow (f(249) = 3.267, p < 0.05), negative affect (f(249) = 3.294, p < 0.05), and positive affect (f(249) = 3.828, p < 0.05) of the core module (see Figure 3). The Scheffe's post hoc test indicated that competence, immersion, flow, and positive affect were lower in the theme of Nin Ja than in the themes of Hungry Night and Silent Mirror. Negative affect was higher in the theme of Nin Ja than in the themes of Hungry Night and Silent Mirror (see Table 7).

5.5.Social presence module of the GEQ

The results of the social presence module analyzed by MANOVA indicated that neither the participants' backgrounds nor the theme of the escape room had significant effects on any dimensions, including empathy, negative feelings, and behavioral involvement. Both empathy (t(311) = 27.364, p < 0.000) and behavioral involvement (t(311) = 8.339, p < 0.000) were rated significantly higher than the scale midpoint. Negative feelings (t(259) = -7.570, p < 0.000) were rated significantly lower than the scale midpoint.

6.Qualitative results

6.1. Design factors of escape rooms

In the qualitative analysis, the playful design factors of the escape room game were discovered during the group interview. Five groups of codes were identified for playful design factors of the escape room game: story, clue, puzzle, mechanism, and interior design (as shown in Table8). Many escape rooms have themes, and hidden information and physical objects are added to the room to create the clues, puzzles and tasks (Brockmyer 2009).The five playful design factor categories were supported by all groups (sources = 12), and at least 15 references were counted for each of them (see Figure 4). The following example presents participant responses to the theme story, interior design, clue settings, and puzzle and mechanism design, thus demonstrating the relationships among those design factors.

'I felt scared when I heard about the theme story (story), but I was still looking forward to it and eager to have a try.'... 'The room was dark and just like the scenario of the theme story (interior design). I felt terrible and so scared. But my older brother told me not to be scared, there were no ghosts.'I would never have discovered the map drawn on the window and behind the curtain (clue design). It was ingenious.'... 'It's very challenging to solve some puzzles (puzzle design), but it's a good opportunity to stimulate my mind and have fun. 'It was funny that I had to put the steamed stuffed bun on the hand beside the door to release the door lock (gimmick)'.

6.2.Individual and team behaviors in the escape room

The behaviors of the participants in the real-life escape room game were collected from group interviews and behavioral observation. In the game, participants acted both independently and in cooperation with other team members. Hence, the participants' behaviors, comprising both individual and team behaviors, were identified into eight groups of codes: searching, thinking, monitoring, physical activity, communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation (see Table 9). The eight categories were supported by all groups (sources = 12), and at least 21 references were counted for each of them (see Figure 4). Real-life escape rooms are physical adventure games; participants have to explore the room and search for clues, think of answers to the puzzles, and accomplish tasks (Wiemker et al. 2015).An escape room game also relies on teamwork, which includes diverse behavioral processes such as communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation (Dominick et al. 1997, Janz et al. 1997). At the same time, team members may monitor others' actions and provide different forms of support. For example, the sample transcript below demonstrates the participants' responses to the relationships among the participants' behaviors.

' We acted independently after stepping into the room, and we looked around to find clues or anything suspicious. We searched through drawers and closets, and underneath and behind everything. (searching/physical activity)'... 'They showed us what they had discovered, and then we thought about and discussed the clues to figure out what the clues meant and how to solve the puzzle (information sharing/ communication/thinking /cooperation)... 'I noticed that she found a few pieces of bricks and I moved to her; then we combined the bricks and tried to figure out the answer to the puzzle. There were more than three possible answers for the puzzle, some from her, some from me, and we decided to try hers first (monitoring/ cooperation/physical activity/decision making). But in the end, our possible answers were all wrong.'

6.3.Social interaction in the escape room

Personal interaction and being physically immersed in the real-life escape room game make a great difference in the way a player might perceive a game. Players have to engage physically and communicate face-to-face with team members such as family, friends, or strangers in the room. The following example shows participant viewpoints for interacting with the physical objects and other players with physical interaction.

'In our family, everyone is generally busy doing their own thing, and we don't spend a lot of time together. This game allowed the four of us to interact face-to-face and work toward the same goal. Even though we didn't win the challenge, it was really a special experience. '... 'In the beginning, I thought it would not work to play the game with strangers. But we worked closely and escaped from the locked room successfully. Actually, I just added them to my Line friends list.'...'I was so excited since this was my first time to play an escape room game. Unfortunately, we ran out of time, but it was quite fun to explore and solve the puzzles with my friends. We will face the challenge of another real-life escape room together soon.'

7.Discussion

The quantitative results showed that the experience of the participants and the theme of the escape room had significant effects on game performance. Consistent with cognitive psychology research, the players were sorted and acted based on their relative experiences to accommodate insights into the circumstances (Graham et al. 2006). Therefore, experienced participants performed better than inexperienced participants. Meanwhile, game levels that are too easy and or too hard will leave players bored or frustrated (Klimmt et al. 2009). Consequently, the competence and positive affect of players was lower for the escape room that contained a higher number of puzzles. In contrast, the negative affect and feelings were higher for that room.

The participants' backgrounds, including gender and age, had a significant effect on the core game experience. Females thought the game was more fun than females. Younger children felt happier than adults. Usually, children played game with more pure joy than did adults. On the other hand, adults performed more mental exploration tasks in the environment (Piccone 1999).

This study found that neither participants' backgrounds nor theme of the escape room had significant effects on the social presence module of the GEQ. But participants did experience higher levels of empathic and behavioral involvement with others. The qualitative results described below also support this point of view.

In terms of qualitative results, the coded playful design factors of the escape room game were sorted into five categories: story, clue, puzzle, mechanism, and interior design. Many escape rooms have a collection of puzzles, physical objects, and tasks with a theme or a narrative, all of which can immerse players in the game (Nicholson 2015). Participants reported that the interior design and decorations of the escape room matched the theme or story, which added to the ambience. The clue exploration and puzzle-solving process were not easy but still fun. The unexpected mechanisms of clues, puzzles, or other tasks in the room surprised participants. Designers of real-life escape room games have to consider all of the design factors in the design process.

The participants' behaviors were composed of individual and team behaviors, which were identified into eight groups: searching, thinking, monitoring, physical activity, communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation. Participants had to perform various physical activities while they searching for clues and solving the puzzles in the escape room. Communication and information sharing can help teams make decisions and cooperate effectively (Rousseau et al. 2006). Moreover, participants thought physically communicating face-to-face and interacting with team members were more impressive than success in escaping. The social interactions were discovered both during and after the game.

The results also indicated that the reliabilities of a few dimensions of the GEQ were too low. A Cronbach's Alpha value should be greater than 0.6, which indicates that the internal consistency of all facets is good (Fornell and Larcker 1981). There are five questions in the flow dimension, including "I forgot everything around me" and "I lost track of time". However, players had to look around to discover the clues and pay attention to the time limit during the real-life escape room game. This difference in gameplay settings can potentially explain the differences in the feelings of the flow dimension. Regarding the negative affect, players might use multiple approaches to think about and solve the puzzles. That could contravene other players' thoughts about other things, which is one of the questions on negative affect. Also, the results of the positive affect and focus group indicated that participants were entertained (had fun) and were interested, which were not negative feelings.

8.Conclusion

Player experience is an important area of research in games. This study applied quantitative and qualitative research approaches to investigate the player experience in real-life escape rooms. The GEQ was adopted to explore the feelings and social presence of the players while playing the game. The results showed that players' backgrounds and the theme of the escape room (game level) affected the player experience. The design factors (story, clue, puzzle, mechanism, and interior design) were discovered through the group interview. Both group interviews and taskobservation were conducted to understand the deeper behaviors (searching, thinking, monitoring, physical activity, communication, information sharing, decision making, and cooperation) and social interactions of players during the game. The findings may allow developers and game designers to better understand the player experience whilst playing real-life escape room games, and they also shed light on the fundamentals of real-life escape room design.

This study focused on the player experiences and social interactions of the players in the real-life escape room game. However, further testing and designs are necessary to provide support in the development of design guidelines for physical games. At the same time, real-life escape rooms are a new genre of games, and they are growing in popularity worldwide. The absence of a coherent and complete set of methods and tools that enable the measurement of entertainment experiences is one of the major challenges facing the gaming research community. Appropriate questionnaire items and descriptions would assist in the collection of accurate responses from the participants (Richardson 1999). Thus, future work on developing a validated methodology for assessing physical adventure games is necessary.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the PEACH FUN real-life escape room company for making this research possible.

Address:

Hsiao-Ping Chiu

Department of Industrial Design

Tunghai University

No. 1727, Sec. 4

Taiwan Boulevard

Xitun District

Taichung City 407224

Taiwan R.O.C.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel.: [phone] #18

References

Reference

Brockmyer, J. H., C. M. Fox, K. A. Curtiss, E. McBroom, K. M. Burkhart, and J. N. Pidruzny (2009) "The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 4, 624-634.

Brown, E. and P. Cairns (2004) "A grounded investigation of game immersion". CHI '04: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vienna, Austria, ACM: 1297-1300.

Buur, J., M. V Jensen, and T. Djajadiningrat, (2004) "Hands-only scenarios and video action walls: novel methods for tangible user interaction design". Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 185-192. Cambridge, MA, USA.

Chou, C. and Tsai M. J. (2007) "Gender differences in Taiwan high school students' computer game playing". Computers in Human Behavior 23, 1, 812-824.

Clarke, D. and P. R Duimering. (2006) "How computer gamers experience the game situation: a behavioral study". Computers in Entertainment 4, 3, 1-23.

Dominick, P. G., R. R. Reilly, and J. W. Mcgourty (1997) "The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior". Group and Organization Management 22, 4, 508-520.

Egnor, D. (2014) Escape room directory. Available online at<http://escaperoomdirectory.com/>. Accessed on 12.05.2021.

Fang, X., S. Chan, J. Brzezinski, and C. Nair (2008) "Measuring enjoyment of computer game play". Proceedings of the fourteenth Americas conference on information systems, 1-10. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker (1981) "Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics". Journal of Marketing Research 18, 3, 382-388.

Gajadhar, B. J., Yvonne A. W. de Kort, and W. A. Ijsselsteijn (2008) "Shared fun is doubled fun: player enjoyment as a function of social setting". In P. Markopoulos, B. de Ruyter, W. Ijsselsteijn and D. Rowland, eds., Fun and games: second international conference, 106-117. Eindhoven: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ghuman, D. and M. Griffiths (2012) "A cross-genre study of online gaming: player demographics, motivation for play, and social interactions among players". International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning 2, 1, 13-29.

Graham, J., L. Zheng, and C. Gonzalez (2006) "A cognitive approach to game usability and design: mental model development in novice real-time strategy gamers". Cyber Psychology and Behaviour 9, 3, 361-366.

Janz, B. D., J. A. Colquitt, and R. A. Noe (1997) "Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables". Personnel Psychology 50, 4, 877-904.

Jennett, C., A. L. Cox, P. Cairns, S. Dhoparee, A. Epps, T. Tijs, and A. Walton (2008) "Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games". International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 9, 641-661.

Klimmt, C., C. Blake, D. Hefner, P. Vorderer, and C. Roth (2009) "Player performance, satisfaction, and video game enjoyment". In S. Natkin and J. Dupire, eds. Entertainment computing - ICEC 2009: 8th International Conference, 1-12. Paris, France.

Kuoppala, A. and T. Finnerman (2012) Customer experience of a digitally delivered computer game - case: Battlefield 3. Master dissertation, University of Oulu. Available online at<http://jultika. oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201403131181 .pdf>. Accessed on 20.06.2021.

Mahmud, A. A., O. Mubin, S. Shahid, and J. B. Martens (2008) "Designing and evaluating the tabletop game experience for senior citizens". Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Humancomputer interaction: building bridges, 403-406. Lund, Sweden.

Mandryk, R. L., and K. M. Inkpen (2004) "Physiological indicators for the evaluation of co-located collaborative play". Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, 102-111. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

McLaughlin, T., D. Smith, and I. A. Brown (2010) "A framework for evidence based visual style development for serious games". Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the foundations of digital games, 132-138. Monterey, California.

Nacke, L., A. Drachen, K. Kuikkaniemi, J. Niesenhaus, H. Korhonen, W. M. van den Hoogen, K. Poels, W. Jsselsteijn, and Y. D. Kort (2009) Playability and player experience research. London: DiGRA.

Nicholson, S. (2015) Peeking behind the locked door: a survey of escape room facilities, white paper. Available online at<http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/erfacwhite.pdf>. Accessed on 25.05.2012.

Pagulayan, R. J., K. Keeker, D. Wixon, R. L. Romero, and T. Fuller (2003) "User-centered design in games". In A. J. Julie and S. Andrew, eds., The human-computer interaction handbook, 883- 906. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pan, R., H. Lo, and C. Neustaedter (2017) "Collaboration, awareness, and communication in real-life escape rooms". Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems, 1353- 1364. Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

PEACHFUN (2015) GAMES. Available online at <http://www.peachfun.com/games>: Accessed on 28.02.2021.

Piccone, J. (1999) Curiosity and exploration. Available online at <http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/ students/curious.htm>. Accessed on 03.06.2021.

Poels, K., Y D. Kort, and W. Ijsselsteijn (2007) "'It is always a lot of fun!' exploring dimensions of digital game experience using focus group methodology". Proceedings of the 2007 conference on future play, 83-89. Toronto, Canada.

Poels, K., Y D. Kort, and W. Ijsselsteijn (2007) D3.3: Game Experience Questionnaire: development of a self-report measure to assess the psychological impact of digital games. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

Ravaja, N., T. Saari, M. Turpeinen, J. Laarni, M. Salminen, and M. Kivikangas (2006) "Spatial presence and emotions during video game playing: does it matter with whom you play?" .Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15, 4, 381-392.

Rettie, R. (1995) "Connectedness, awareness and social presence". 6th annual international workshop on presence, 6-8. Aalborg, Denmark.

Richardson, A. (1999) "Subjective experience: its conceptual status, method of investigation, and psychological significance". The Journal of Psychology 133, 5, 469-485.

Robson, C. (2000) Small-scale evaluation: principles and practice. London, Sage.

Rousseau, V, C. Aubé, and A. Savoie (2006) "Teamwork behaviors: a review and an integration of frameworks". Small Group Research 37, 5, 540-570.

Ryan, R. M., C. S. Rigby, and A. Przybylski (2006) "The motivational pull of video games: a selfdetermination theory approach". Motivation and Emotion 30, 4, 344-360.

Schneider, E. F., A. Lang, M. Shin, and S. D. Bradley (2004) "Death with a store: how story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games". Human Communication Research 30, 361-375.

Smith, H. L. (1944) Educational research: principles and practices. Michigan: Educational Publications.

Sweetser, P and P. Wyeth (2005) "GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games". Computers in Entertainment 3, 3, 3-3.

Takatalo, J., J. Häkkinen, and G. Nyman (2015) "Understanding presence, involvement, and flow in digital games". In B. Regina, eds., Game user experience evaluation, 87-111. London: Springer International Publishing.

Tse, E., S. Greenberg, C. Shen, and C. Forlines (2007) "Multimodal multiplayer tabletop gaming". Computers in Entertainment 5, 2, Article 12.

Ullmer, B. and H. Ishii (2000) "Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces". IBM Systems Journal 39, 3-4, 915-931.

Weibel, D., B. Wissmath, S. Habegger, Y Steiner, and R. Groner (2008) "Playing online games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment". Computers in Human Behavior 24, 5, 2274-2291.

Whalen Z. N. (2004) "Play along - an approach to videogame music". The International Journal of Computer Game Research 4, 1, 1-31.

Wiemker, M., E. Elumir, and A. Clare (2015) Escape room games: can you transform an unpleasant situation into a pleasant one? Available online at <https://thecodex.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2016/08/00511Wiemker-et-al-Paper-Escape-Room-Games.pdf>. Accessed on 30.04.2021.

Wong, D. S. L. (2015) Exploring the impact of team building on group cohesion of a multicultural team. Master dissertation, Pepperdine University. Available online at <http://search.proquest. com/openview/f5d12d75f4f88fea775046d7afe6fd9e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss =y>. Accessed on 22.03.2021.

Xu Y, M. Gandy, S. Deen, B. Schrank, K. Spreen, M. Gorbsky, T. White, E. Barba, I. Radu, J. Bolter, and B. MacIntyre (2008) "Brag Fish: exploring physical and social interaction in co-located handheld augmented reality games". Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology, 276-283. Yokohama, Japan.