DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGICAL TOOL FOR ANALYSING … fileblevet testet for sin gyldighed,...

DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGICAL TOOL FOR ANALYSING THE

REASONING DEMAND OF VIDEOGAMES IN AN AGILE AND

STRUCTURAL MANNER

CARLOS MAURICIO CASTAÑO DÍAZ

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Media, Cognition and Communication

MA Cognition and Communication,

University of Copenhagen,

Copenhagen – 2012

Thesis Supervisor – Prof. Andreas Gregersen, PhD.

Development of a Methodological Tool


Abstract

The present work aims to develop a methodology that allows the agile analysis of

videogames’ reasoning demand by taking an objective structural approach. For this

purpose, an analytical method based on Newell and Simon’s (1972) task analysis will be

developed, making emphasis on cognitive reasoning theories as well as the objective

analysis proposed by Newell and Simon. The methodology developed was pilot tested

for validity, reliability and usability; proving to be a valuable tool for rough grained and

agile cognitive demand analysis of videogames.

Keywords: Reasoning, videogames, cognitive psychology, videogame analysis, task

analysis.


Abstrakt

Det foreliggende arbejde bestræber sig på at udvikle en metode der tillader en agil

analyse af videospils behovsræsonnering ved en struktureret objektiv tilgang. Til dette

formål vil der blive udviklet en analytisk metode, der er baseret på Newell og Simon’s

(1972) opgaveanalyse. Analysen lægger vægt på kognitive logiske teorier, så vel som

den objektive analyse først fremlagt af Newell og Simon. Udviklingen af metoden er

blevet testet for sin gyldighed, pålidelighed og brugbarhed. Testen har vist metoden som

et værdifuldt redskab for en overordnet, hurtig, kognitiv behovsanalyse af videospil.

Nøgleord: Ræsonnering, videospil, kognitiv psykologi, videospil analyse, opgave

analyse.


For my mom Fabiola and my dad Alberto. They gave me the strength, the courage and open the

doors for my future.

For my mentor Liliana. Without her none of this would have been possible. Thank you for

believing in me.

For my husband Jesper. All his support, care and patience have been a priceless

encouragement during this phase of my life.

And last but not least, for my assessor Andreas. All his patience and advice were precious

during this whole process.

To all of them, thank you very much. I am happy the destiny let my road meet with yours.


Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

Previous work ............................................................................................................... 3

Problem ........................................................................................................................ 6

Justification................................................................................................................... 7

Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 8

General objective....................................................................................................... 8

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 8

Theoretical framework .................................................................................................. 9

Task analysis ............................................................................................................. 9

Components. ........................................................................................................ 12

Structure. ............................................................................................................. 13

Problem solving. .................................................................................................. 14

Thinking, reasoning and problem solving ................................................................ 17

Thinking. ............................................................................................................. 18

Reasoning. ........................................................................................................... 19

Videogames............................................................................................................. 39

Outlining game’s components. ............................................................................. 40

Methodological Tool Proposal .................................................................................... 42

Characteristics of the methodology .......................................................................... 42

Description of the methodological tool .................................................................... 43

Codification............................................................................................................. 47

Representational characteristics of the methodology ................................................ 49

Analysis .................................................................................................................. 56

Research Methodology................................................................................................ 59

Approach ................................................................................................................. 59


Research level ......................................................................................................... 60

Research design ....................................................................................................... 60

Sample .................................................................................................................... 60

Operationalization of variables ................................................................................ 61

Data collection ........................................................................................................ 62

Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 64

Results ........................................................................................................................ 66

Analysing validity ................................................................................................... 66

Analysis of reliability and usability.......................................................................... 77

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 84

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 86

References .................................................................................................................. 88

Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 93

Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 102

Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 109

Appendix D .............................................................................................................. 115

Appendix E ............................................................................................................... 125

Appendix F ............................................................................................................... 126

Appendix G .............................................................................................................. 128

Appendix H .............................................................................................................. 138

Appendix I ................................................................................................................ 140

Appendix J ................................................................................................................ 145

Appendix K .............................................................................................................. 146

Appendix L ............................................................................................................... 147

Appendix M .............................................................................................................. 148

Appendix N .............................................................................................................. 150

Appendix O .............................................................................................................. 154


Development of a Methodological Tool 1

Introduction

With the boom of videogames as an everyday leisure activity, some theorists

have started to investigate their educational value (Gee, 2005, 2007; Prensky, 2006).

While some specialized videogame producers have focused their market on learning and

serious games, created with educational and curriculum contents (Castell, Jenson, &

Taylor, 2007; Galarneau, 2005; Rosas et al., 2003), commercial-non-educational

videogames continue to be the most sold and played ones (Helm, 2005) . In this matter,

some academics have proposed that videogames possess a learning value and can be

used in the classroom for learning purposes (Gee, 2007; Prensky, 2006).

Studies have been carried out in order to know if videogames increase the

capacity of learning (Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, & Gratton, 2008; Dye, Green, &

Bavelier, 2009; Gee, 2005, 2007; Juul, 2007; Prensky, 2006) or if a certain game

developed for the classroom has the persuasive power to help children to learn or

improve their cognitive skills (Burak, Keylor, & Sweeney, 2005; Nacke, Ing, Nacke, &

Lindley, 2009; Rosas et al., 2003).

The present work focuses on the idea that videogames can be learning tools,

taking as presets the studies made by Piaget and Vygotsky about the playing activity as

a learning tool. The action of playing, as stated by Piaget (Lipsit & Reese, 1981, pp.

129-152) is one of the primary forms through which the human being has to establish

relationships with himself, his peers and environment. For Vygotsky (1979, p. 141)

playing activity starts from the beginning of human life, helping the child not only to

acquire new skills, but also to practice those he has already learned.

Taking into account the aforementioned approach made by Gee and Prensky

about the video gaming activity as learning and cognitive development activity, the

present research aims to develop a methodology that allows communication

researchers, cognitive psychologists, game analysts, professors and teachers to carry out

cognitive analysis of videogames. This methodology would have the characteristics of

being structural (not based on user’s experience, but on game design structure), agile

(fast and efficient), and provide the theoretical elements required for an analysis focused

on reasoning skills.


For the development of this methodology, an approach to Newell and Simon

(1972) task analysis will be taken, using the former elements of their representational

theory on tasks analysis in order to outline the formal elements of the methodology.

As a last step, the methodology will be pilot tested against Cognitive Task

Analysis (CTA), a methodology used to study the reasoning demand on task using

human interaction. In addition usability tests will be carried out, comparing the results

of different applicants on the same material using the developed method. This contrast

will test the validity and reliability of the tool as well as its agile characteristic.


Previous work

Videogame analysis is a broad field of study, as there are many aspects

concerning different videogame theorists’ focus on. Each field of study has its own

methodologies and theoretical background.

Aarseth (2003) states that even though psychology and economy disciplines

have outlined some methods to study videogames, it is an interdisciplinary and

empirically varied field. He highlights how different disciplines can be employed for

different purposes, drawing attention to the curriculum proposed for academic game

studies by the International Game Developers Association as an example of this point.

He stresses the variety of disciplines involved in games’ studies, from computer

sciences to music composition and management.

Aarseth further indicates three constitutive dimensions of game analysis: (1)

Gameplay: involves player actions and strategies. (2) Game-structure: consisting of the

set of game rules. (3) Game world, comprising in the fictional content, topology, level

design amongst others. Taking this into account is possible to say (Aarseth, 2003) that

different kinds of fields are concerned with different parts of the game: sociology,

psychology, anthropology, etc. are concerned with the gameplay. Game design,

business, computer sciences deal with the game-rules. Economics, art, history, media

studies investigate the game-world. In this last line of thinking, it is possible to state that

the way to analyze games is highly dependent on who makes the analysis and why.

(Aarseth, 2003) lists eleven sources to make non-player analysis: (1) previous

knowledge of the genre, (2) Previous knowledge of the game-system, (3) other player’s

reports, (4) reviews, (5) walkthroughs, (6) discussions, (7) observing others play, (8)

interviewing players, (9) game documentation, (10) playtesting reports and (11)

interviews with game developers.

Lindley and Sennersten (2006) developed a theoretical framework in order to

analyze the game play schema of Role Playing Games (RPG) videogame players

(Lindley & Sennersten, 2008). The authors make a nomological network development

in order to provide construct validity for their methodology. They start the game

analysis by carrying out game task analysis (a methodology proposed by Rollings and

Adams (2003, pp. 298-311) to analyze and balance game mechanics) , including


configuration, teleological as well as planning task proper of RPG’s. “The result of a

game task analysis is a game task model, which is a representation of the goal

environment by which play is made meaningful” (Lindley & Sennersten, 2006, p. 3).

For the analysis the authors make use of Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA), defined as “a

variety of methods to analyze and represent the knowledge and cognitive activities that

people utilize to perform complex tasks in a work domain” (Lindley & Sennersten,

2006, p. 4). Taking into account different CTA methods, the study emphasises different

aspects of a task and their context.

Lindley and Sennersten (2008) indicate that the player needs to learn how to

play before (or while) they play. They divide this type of learning into three phases:

learning interaction mechanics (peripheries), learning interaction semantics (mapping)

and learning the game play (select and perform in-game actions that derives in game

progress). Game play involves the ability to decode perceptual information, evaluate the

understanding of the game, make decisions and perform actions. Their research aims to

study game play schemas, defined as “a cognitive structure for orchestrating the various

cognitive resources required to generate motor outputs of game play in response to the

ongoing perception of an unfolding game” (Lindley & Sennersten, 2008, p. 49). In that

article the authors propose a methodology to identify game play schemas: the analysis

of the design features of test games, logging of player key strokes and mouse

movements, recording of the screen history of play, eye tracking data showing the locus

and dynamics of the player’s gaze, think-aloud protocols. The analysis of the data is a

process of detailed analysis of individual play sessions, identification of statistical

patterns of play interaction as well as iteration through the process in order to refine the

identified schema.

Conslavo and Dutton (2006) developed a methodological toolkit for the

qualitative study of videogames. Their method aims at studying the interaction between

the mapping, objects in the world, interface (Head-up Display), map interaction and

gameplay log, in such a way that the game play as well as game emergence are taken

into account for the study. For this purpose, the researchers use a series of questions

about the objects, interface, gameplay, play log and the relation between the elements of

the game, the main characters and the environment.


Canossa (2009), with the aim of studying play-personas (behaviours and belief

system of the user of a certain videogame) designs a methodology to facilitate him,

captures the gameplay of players as well as their actions in a quantitative manner. This

method let him analyze patterns of interaction along with statistical recurrences of a

certain player within a certain environment.

The previous work cited in the present research is the most representative works

carried out in relation to the present project. It is possible to see how these studies are

mostly player-centred, translating in a big amount of time and resources needed to study

certain game as the researcher needs a sample to play the game, record player

performance or make interviews. Most of the studies are qualitative, meaning they focus

on the user experience rather than the game design; even those based on CTA need

previous exhaustive interviews in order to focus the cognitive object of study. Finally, it

is important to highlight that most of the studies try to create cognitive theory of gamers

or to explore what is happening in the player’s mind while they play; none of these are

made to do the opposite, that is to say departing from cognitive theories in order to

analyze how the game is designed.


Problem

How can an agile methodology for analysing cognitive demands in games, based

on design documentation be developed?

In addition to this central research question, this work goes a step further to

outline the major characteristics of this methodology. To this end another minor

research question can be asked: which are the characteristics of a methodology that aims

to an agile analysis of cognitive demands based in design documentation?

Lastly, since it has been created from scratch it is also pertinent for ask a

question related to the validity, reliability and usability of the methodological tool: what

is the validity, reliability and usability reach of the tool developed?


Justification

The present work will generate a tool to evaluate reasoning demand on

videogames in an agile way.

The research will also generate a theoretical framework to understand the

methodology, to facilitate communication to researchers, cognitive psychologist, game

analysts, professors and teachers so that they can carry out an agile cognitive analysis of

videogames.

The research will also contribute to the knowledge about game analysis,

particularly cognitive game analysis.


Objectives

General objective

Taking into account the previously outlined justification and the prospective of

the research presented in this paper, it is important to present the objective and its sub-

objective. Thus, the major goal is to develop an agile structural methodological tool to

analyze reasoning demand on videogames, entitled MAARDI. In order to achieve this,

particular steps need to be undertaken, which here and further in the text are called

specific objective. These will provide an insight into the logical steps that lie behind the

development of MAARDI methodological tool.

Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this research encompass the issue related to the

theoretical concepts underlying the methodological tool hereby developed, major

characteristics of MAARDI as well as test its reliability, usability and validity

In order to build a methodological tool, it is necessary first to build a theoretical

framework about reasoning enabling the objective analysis of thinking. For the present

work focus on Newell and Simon’s (1972) task analysis was chosen, as it is considered

as a classic methodology for human problem solving by the researcher of the present

work.

Furthermore, it is necessary to characterize and develop an agile objective

methodological tool with the aim of facilitate the analysis of reasoning in videogames.

For this step, a methodology based in human reasoning theories will be developed and

exemplified.

Lastly, the methodology should be Tested for two types of validity, to

distinguish how similar are its results compared with other methodologies. It will be

tested for reliability in order to know how much the inter-subject application results are

stable. And finally it will be tested for usability, in order to identify if the tool is easy

understandable and usable within the target population.


Theoretical framework

Task analysis

Since psychologist started to ask about the human mind and the reasoning skills

in humans, different methods started to be developed in order to access, describe and

understand human mind and reasoning.

There are different kinds of methods to evaluate reasoning. The most common

methods are: (1) The experimental method, which allows the use of precise executive

measures about the thinking process, comparing them with other tests and measure

indexes. (2) The simulation model, which possesses two kinds of approaches (Kahney,

1986): (a) The program design approach, expecting to study human mental processes in

order to create human thinking on a computer, and (b) the simulation model of human

behaviour, centred on simulating human mental processes by means of a computer in

order to understand better how the human mind works. (3) Thinking aloud protocols

methodology consists of asking the participant to tell everything s/he is thinking about

while solving a problem, this lets the evaluator assess and analyse what is happening in

the process of thinking of a person when solving a certain task. (4) Task analysis, the

methodology proposed by Newell and Simon (1972) refers to the analysis of the

problem space of the task as well as the set of all the possible answers of the subjects

contrasted with the actual answers.

In the present research the fourth approach would be used since it enables a

structural way to analyse games. This method also enables a variation of a transversal

agile methodology without the need for experimental settings, making it ideal for

further studies concerning videogames and cognition.

Newell and Simon (1972) task analysis is a methodology for studying human

problem solving based on the information processing theory (IPT). The IPT started with

Turing (1950), propounded to create an analogy between the way a computer and the

human mind process information in order to understand how humans think. In this

sense, the task analysis methodology treats the human mind as if it were a computer:

there is a memory where the information is stored; also a series of operations that can be

applied to the information as well as a space where the processes can be executed.


Using the IPT, Newell and Simon define a solver as an information processing

system (IPS). An IPS is a system consisting of a memory containing symbol structures,

a processor, effectors and receptors.

A symbol structure consists of an arrangement of instances of symbols

connected by a set of relations.

Memory is a component capable of storing and retaining symbols.

Information process processes symbolic structures as inputs or outputs.

A processor consists of a set of elementary information processes, a short term

memory holding the input/output symbols, and an interpreter determining the sequence

to be executed.

A symbol designates an object if there is an information processes that admits

the symbol in its structure, or designates a program if the object designates an IPS (we

will call this type of programs embedded systems in the future references in the present

work). The symbol is primitive if its designation is fixed to the elementary information

process or the external environment.

Figure 1. General structure of an information processing system. Newell and Simon (1972, p. 20)

Object is a symbol structure stored in an IPS memory. It is a process an IPS is

capable of executing, an external environment of readable stimuli. For convention,

reading is the creation of internal symbol structures in the memory that designate


external stimuli; writing is the creation of responses in the external environment that

designate internal symbol structures.

In the present research some of the aforementioned concepts will be used to

describe the developed methodology: symbol structure (also referred in the present

work as system), information process (or problem solving), processor (also referred as

mechanics or rules), symbol and object.

The task analysis places emphasis on the mechanisms producing an outcome by

using the information rather than the products of the aforementioned processes. The

theory is individual, as its goal is to be applied by means of individual specific tasks

with the purpose of studying the human as a whole complex mechanism whose

elements and connections can be deciphered.

Here are some of the characteristics of this theory. For one thing, the authors

point out that their theory is strongly content oriented, as every task has a set of

determined information within a domain in such a way that a simple interpreter can

describe it. This also eases the extension of the theory. The theory is dynamic in the

sense that it describes the change of a system in the time.

Furthermore, it is an empirical, non-experimental theory. The authors underline

that the experimental designs, described in psychology, are of little use. Instead, it is

essential to gather all the data possible from the individual in order to identify how s/he

processes the information. Lastly, the theory is also no statistical, because in order to

identify the underlying processes required to solve a task, the task itself must be well

defined.

Newell and Simon (1972, p. 83) approach the task description as a technique

using the by-products of thinking. They apply this technique in order to describe

different paths through the problem space or internal representations created by the

problem solver while solving a problem. In other words, their technique allows the

creation of a topology for the problem space. Newell and Simon point out that they

analyse problem solving situations in which motivation is not in question and emotion is

not aroused, meaning that they do not take the aforementioned variables into account

when realizing task analysis.


Components.

As a way of assortment, the components of the task analysis proposed by Newell

and Simon will be summarized below. The task analysis theory proposed by Newell and

Simon (1972) possesses 11 main components which should be identified to accurately

define and describe a task:

Task dimension, also called task environment: this term refers to the objective

conditions (goal, problem or task) or the set of structural elements and their relation

within the situation, as if described by an omniscience observer. It can be described in

symbolic terms.

Demand of the task environment: the constraint on the behaviour of the problem

solver that must be satisfied in order for the goal to be attained. In other words, these are

the rules the solver must follow in order to solve the task. Newell and Simon argue the

environment per se does not make demands, instead, it is the lack of intermediate steps

between the initial and final situation within the solver’s mind what makes the demands

emerge.

Task invariants: environment, problem solver and goal are considered for the

authors as requirements for a task to exist.

Problem space: the representation within the solver’s mind about the task

dimension when the solver tries to reach the solution. In this respect, Newell and Simon

point out that subjects can represent a certain task dimension in different ways; that is

why the distinction between task dimension and problem space concepts is important.

Solver’s mind representations can be defined in terms of symbol structures

Game tree: a situation where the subject considers all the possibilities within the

problem. This model is more used in the objective-researcher environment of problem

solving, as the human problem solvers are not very likely to use this approach, but

instead use a heuristic approach (heuristics are shortcuts people use to solve problems

based on previous experiences).

Operators: a series of rules within the system that can be applied to the

information in order to reach the solution.


Initial state: the state from where the system starts, this indicates the basic

information (statements) the solver should use in order to move forward to the final

state.

Final state: defines the ideal state of the problem, the goal towards the solver

should move.

Describe traces: the step-by-step accounts of the sequences, processes and

symbolic structures occurring when a particular program is executed in a particular task

environment.

Encode protocols: records of the human subjects used to test the theories.

Product of rule: the immediate product of the application of an operator over a

statement.

In the present work, most of these 11 components will be used to characterize

the methodology developed. Although some of the components will not be used for the

characterization, it is important to state them as they are the bases of Newell and

Simon’s methodology.

Structure.

The structure of the task analysis as defined by Newell and Simon (1972)

consists of four steps:

Task dimension analysis: the objective analysis of the task, the set of structural

elements and the relationship between them, considering all the possible states of the

system given by the game tree. This level also includes the analysis of restrictions of the

task.

Problem space analysis: the analysis of the mental representation (memory, in

this model) of the problem and the game tree given by the solver when s/he is

confronted with the task.

Real time procedures analysis: the analysis of the problem solving task as it is

deciphered by the solver, taking into account the information and operators used, as

well as the products of rule present at each step of the process.


Computational model of the operation of the cognitive system: the interpretation

of the rules, products of rule and transformations of the system given by the solver, in

order to construe a model of the mental architecture of the solver.

It is necessary to highlight that not all this phases will be used in the present

work in order to characterize the methodology as the last two steps proposed by Newell

and Simon can only be achieved by subjective-human protocol analysis. Instead the first

two steps will be used and tuned in order to allow a quantitative design-oriented

analysis.

Problem solving.

There is no doubt humans possess the ability to reflect on, plan and solve tasks

as they take place in our lives. From tying our shoes every day to sending a spaceship to

the moon, human beings possess the ability to solve problems of varied complexity.

This ability starts from the prehistoric times, kept and developed by means of biological

as well as social heritage (Eysenck & Keane, 2003).

Although various theoretical positions have been adopted in order to study the

problem solving ability in humans and animals (e.g. the psychological Gestalt school),

for the present work, the problem-space theory proposed by Allan Newell and Herbert

Simon will be emphasised, since it supplements the theory that we will raised in the

seventh chapter for the task analysis in videogames.

Newell and Simon (in Eysenck and Keane (2003)) suggest the main structure of

a problem involves principally two states: an initial and an ending state, connecting

many intermediate steps in order to move from the former to the last. To move from one

state to the other, the solver should apply some operators valid within the problem

space. Applying certain operator during a state of the problem will lead to different

alternate states. Thus, all the possible states and operators structuring the problem are

called problem-space; they describe the abstract structure of the problem.

To have a problem implies that certain information is given to the problem

solver: what is desired, under what conditions, by means of what tools and operations,

starting with what initial information, and with access to what resources. The problem

solver has an interpretation of the information; part of it is a goal, the other is the side

conditions.


Newell and Simon (1972, p. 55) distinguish two aspects of the theory of problem

solving: demands of the task environment and psychology of the subject. For the present

work, the second part of the theory will be put aside as it is time consuming, whereas

the methodology we are proposing has the particularity of being agile. In other words,

the methodology proposed in the present work propounds a structural and objective

analysis of videogame, taking it as a whole unity, independent of how the player plays.

Defining “problem”.

Newell and Simon (1972) define problem as any situation where a person wants

something but does not know which series of actions s/he has to execute in order to get

it. The way this problem is solved is then evaluated in terms of efficiency, which is to

say, accuracy versus time spent both in grounding plus implementing a solution for the

problem.

The authors point out on the page 73 that a problem is well defined if: a test

exists, performable (with a relative amount of processing effort) by the system,

determining whether an object is proposed as a solution is in fact a solution.

Problem solving phases.

Different authors describe different phases followed by the solver when solving

a certain problem. In the present work, three main approaches will be used: Newell and

Simon (1972), Luria and Tsvetkova (1990) and Carretero and Asensio (2004)

For Newell and Simon (1972) problem solutions are defined by: characteristics

of a terminal state, an initial sate, conditions for the admissible transformation of states,

characteristics of the intermediate states.

Luria and Tsvetkova (1990), by making use of an objective and subjective

approach, characterize every problem solving situation as a relatively predetermined

structure, general, not based on a specific domain, able to produce and reproduce basic

schemas. For Luria and Tsvetkova the problem solving process belongs to a general

structure, its contents can be different according to the specific domain of the problem.

They propose a general structure for problem solving based on Newell and Simon’s


problem solving theory, dividing the problem solving phases in four components: (1)

Orientation within the premises, the analysis of the information given by the task,

determining which information is significant, familiar or unfamiliar; (2) Development

of a general solution schema, this corresponds to the development of a strategy (set of

operations) the solver will execute in order to achieve the goal. (3) Selection of the

auxiliary operations involving the development of an objective algorithm for the

resolution of the task. (4) The verification of the answers, which consists of the

comparison between the actual results, the expected results and the statements given at

the beginning of the problem. For these authors, this problem solving structure underlies

an activity controlled by the central nervous system.

Carretero and Asensio (2004) suggest three phases a person needs to cover in

order to solve a problem, this pointing to a simplified version of the proposal made by

Luria and Tsvetkova: (1) Preparation phase that is the understanding of the problem. It

implies the analysis and interpretation of the available data. (2) Production phase, which

is when the person applies a strategy (set of operations) in order to get to the goal. (3)

Reflection phase, where the person evaluates the current solution and compares it with

the goal criterion so that s/he knows the goal has been achieved or if something needs to

be tuned.

For the present work we will use the later model of problem solving proposed by

Carretero and Asensio, since it is a simplified version of Newell and Simon’s problem

solving theories.

Types of problems.

As well as with the problem phases, different authors depict different types of

problems. For the present approach the categories of problems developed by Greeno

(1978) as they are concise and at the same time cover a wide variety of problem that can

be found.

Greeno (1978) proposes a classification of different types of problems. There are

five basic types of problems: (1) Transformation problems, consisting of an initial

situation, a goal and a set of operations carried out in order to transform the initial

situation in the goal. This problem type belongs to the description of problem made by


Newell and Simon. (2) Structure induction problems are problems where the solution

consists of identifying structural analogies amongst elements on different domains. (3)

Verbal analogies, that use the structure: A is to B as C is to D, where the solver knows

the relationship between A and B, and must discover the relationship between C and D

in the same logical way of that for A and B. This problem type makes use of logic,

analogies as well as abstraction. (4) Complex analogies consist of knowing the solution

for a different problem as a model to solve the current problem. (5) Organization

problems: here the person gets a series of elements with the task consisting of

organizing them according to certain criteria.

A sixth type of problem suggested by Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner (1983) is

the social problem. These types of problems are poorly defined, structured and do not

have a unique solution. They are linked with social and political contexts, making use of

everyday and reasoning for its solution.

Although the type of problems proposed by Greeno are the ones of most use in

the majority of commercial videogames, some simulation videogames (e.g. SimCity

(Maxis, 1989)) and some serious games (e.g. PeaceMaker (ImpactGames, 2007)) point

more to the type of problems stated by Voss. In these games the player cannot achieve a

goal; rather the goal is to maintain a balance of a certain socio-political situation by

means of negotiation.

So far the model proposed by Newell and Simon as well as its structure has been

described. In a similar way the concept of problem, the problem types and the different

phases proposed in order to solve a problem has been described. Following this line, the

relationship between thinking and problem solving will be introduced.

Thinking, reasoning and problem solving

When talking about cognitive high processes in the present work, seven

processes cognitive psychology are referred. They have studied in depth, as they are the

fundamental processes of human thinking and intellectual development (Eysenck &

Keane, 2003; Sternberg, 2006). These seven processes (perception, attention, memory,

representation, language, problem solving and decision making) have been studied in

thoroughly by different branches within the cognitive psychology.


Nonetheless, there are many other cognitive capacities the humans are capable

of, some of them very basic (e.g. emotion, which neural structures are located in our

inner most primitive cortex) and some of them very complex (e.g. thinking, which

requires several of the high processes to combine in order to be carried out).

In spite of the importance of all the type processes, the present work will make

emphasis on three of them: thinking, reasoning and problem solving process. One

reason for this is to focus only in certain cognitive aspects the videogames can enhance.

Another reason is that these three elements constitute a crucial aspect for understanding

Newell and Simon’s theories.

Thinking.

From a theoretical perspective, thinking is a is a highly demanding cognitive

skill involving four processes: reasoning, problem solving, creativity and decision

making (Eysenck & Keane, 2003, pp. 431-433). Thinking requires conscious awareness,

being in that sense an intentional faculty (when people think, they always think about

something, being impossible to think as an abstract process). However, people tend to

be conscious of the products of thinking rather than the processes involved.

Gilhooly (1998, in Eysenck and Keane (2003, p. 432)) indicates that thinking

can differ depending on its goal. It can be extremely undirected, but it can also be

extremely sharp. As undirected thinking is very difficult to study and isolate in

laboratory environment, most research about thinking has been conducted in a well

defined, goal-driven situations, pointing towards sharp type of thinking.

Eysenk and Keane also explain that the amount and type of knowledge required

for the thinking activity is wide-ranging. Not meaning with this thinking activity

requiring little amount of knowledge is easier than an activity involving a big amount of

information, but that the context in which the person is immersed varies requiring

different approaches to different problems.

It is possible to say that thinking is a broad, highly demanding process,

constituted by sub-processes which are themselves complex. Moreover, the process of

thinking can differ depending on the goal or the knowledge required, furthermore it

cannot be studied in a pure abstract manner. For this reason, there is no a unified theory


about thinking, but rather different approaches and models about how humans think.

These theories are based on the products of thinking (what is before and after the

process) inferring the processes by the clues left in the middle of the road between the

beginning and the end. Due to its complexity, the present research will focus on the

activities of reasoning and problem solving.

Reasoning.

Reasoning is an important constituent of thinking. It is the psychological process

that makes possible to reach logic conclusions based on evidence or a series of

premises. Reasoning is one of the oldest areas of research in psychology as it has been

considered to be the key question about the human nature and the difference between

humans and animals (Eysenck & Keane, 2003, p. 488).

Traditional studies on reasoning belong to philosophy and logic, considering the

laws of logic to be its base. This tradition was followed by psychology studies situating

the logic domain in a linguistic domain in such a way that, generally, human reasoning

constitutes a set of (logic) rules in the shape of linguistic statements culminating in a

“true” conclusion (Eysenck & Keane, 2003, p. 488).

Different theoretical approaches have been taken in order to tackle the question

of the reasoning. As pointed before, one of them is the logic approach as proposed by

Boole 1854 (In Eysenck (2003)), stating that reasoning works with propositional

connectors taken from logic.

A second approach was taken by O’Brien and Braine (In Eysenck (2003, p.

491)). The abstract rule theories of deduction assume people reason in a valid way

applying abstract and content free rules of inference, in a similar way the logic applies

propositional logic. They called this mental logic.

Johnson-Laird and Byrne (In Eysenck (2003, p. 491)) propose the idea of mental

models theory. It states that people create mental models representing possible states of

the world, then verify them using a set of semantic premises similar to those of the

logic. For this approach people reach a “true” conclusion from their premises if there

are no counterexamples to it.


The logic tradition in the study of reasoning has divided it into two main types:

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning (Eysenck & Keane, 2003, p. 488).

Nevertheless, with the advent of cognitive sciences, the reasoning theory has changed

the dichotomic vision for a broader one. In the new vision, specific skills with their own

set of rules are taken into account; so that it is possible to explain how the subject can

successfully transform a set of contextual premises into a conclusion true within the set

of rules of the system. This approach is called domain-specific rule theories (Eysenck &

Keane, 2003, pp. 513-515)

The present study will make use of the latter approach to reasoning, considering

ten types of domain-specific reasoning: deductive, inductive, abductive, scientific,

spatial, logic, physic, statistic, moral and everyday reasoning. By the end of the chapter,

a brief introduction to the cognitive bias in reasoning will be done in order to, not only

point out another important branch of study in psychology, but also to illustrate more

accurately how human reasoning works. At the same time, examples taken from

videogames will be given in order to illustrate better how the theory of reasoning is

connected with the aim of the present research.

Deductive reasoning.

Deductive and inductive reasoning are directly derived from the first reasoning

model taken from the logic. It was first George Boole in his book “The laws of thought

(1854)” who proposed this approach. Boole, in Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p. 80)

defines deductive reasoning as: “A deductive inference is one in which one statement

follows from a set of other statements, in the sense that there is no way that the set of

statements could be true and the conclusion false”.

Schoenbach and Rosamond (2000, pp. 269-286) proposes the notion of

deductive inference departing from the very notion of causality, but along the lines of

Boole’s work. The notion of causality is a basic form of the Boolean deductive

reasoning: given a certain event X it is possible to infer a certain event Y to be derived

from X, even without seeing Y to happen. Also, in the opposite way, if X causes Y, the

presence of Y will indicate X had to happen before.


Taking into account these postures, it is possible to say that, even if it is derived

from the notion of causality or the Boolean logic, deductive reasoning implies two

things: first, it obeys the Aristotelian logic laws, in the sense that there is always an

implicit relation of logic causality, the relationship between A and B is a sufficient and

necessary relationship. Second, the deductive reasoning is a bottom-top analysis,

meaning it starts from general premises and ends in a conclusion derived from them but

not necessarily points to them.

Here is how these theoretical premises operate in practice. Take for instance the

case of Minesweeper (Microsoft, 1990) (figure 2). Minesweeper is a game where the

player is given a grid of a certain size (simulating a mine field). The grid is divided into

columns and rows forming squares. When the player presses a square, s/he can find

under it: a mine, a number or nothing. If the player uncovers a mine, the game finishes

and the player losses. If the player uncovers nothing, it means no mines can be found

nearby. If instead, the player uncovers a number the game opens more possibilities: the

number states if there is a mine nearby as well as how many there are if more than one,

but does not indicate where. The mine can be all around the number, in the adjacent

squares or in the corner squares. Although the first turn in minesweeper is a matter of

luck (as player does not count with any information), the subsequent moves require the

player to examine the evidence he has available in order to find out where the mine is

hidden, so that s/he does not uncover it. The player takes the numbers in a deductive

way: for instance, if there are three ones in a row, it might indicate the existence of a

mine under the number one of the centre. The inference will be done in the following

way: The “one” in the right, as it does not have anything at its right and has a “one” at

its left should indicate the presence of a mine diagonal to it. A similar reasoning applies

to the number in the left. The “one” in the middle indicates the presence of a mine

nearby, but if there were at one of its sides the number should not be one but other

number (because the number always states all the mines nearby), so the mine should be

in the square just below the “one” in the centre (figure 3). Now, our player has taken all

the (mathematical and logical) premises, coming to a conclusion using all the

information around in order to point to a truth, in this case, where the mine is hidden.


Figure 2. Classic Mine Sweeper game for Windows. 1

Figure 3. Depiction of the analysis done by the Minesweeper player.

Inductive reasoning.

Johnson-Laird (1993, p. 60) defines induction as: “Any process of thought

yielding a conclusion that increases the semantic information in its initial observations

or premises” meaning the conclusion of the induction process instead of setting an

answer, increases the uncertainty of the information present at the beginning of the

process.

1 http://www.csg.is.titech.ac.jp/~kourai/software/images/xmine.jpg

http://www.csg.is.titech.ac.jp/~kourai/software/images/xmine.jpg


For Hardy and Jackson (1994) deductive reasoning is merely experience-based

learning, and is highly dependent on random events. In addition, once a belief is formed

the human being would try to refute it by looking for counter-facts that test their belief.

Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p. 119) state that even though a person starts from

true premises by looking for a certain conclusion, no matter what procedure they use in

order to reach the conclusion, it is impossible to determine whether it is true or not. This

fact makes the conclusion become provisional; in other words, the conclusion is

transformed into a falsifiable hypothesis. In this order of ideas, the importance of the

Inductive reasoning lies in the principle of falsifiability it entails.

The inductive reasoning is then, not only opposite to the deductive reasoning (in

the sense that it starts from the conclusion, trying to infer the general principles that

have lead to it), but also points to a principle of uncertainty where every answer must be

tested in order to know the veracity of the correct answer.

In other words, if we use inductive reasoning in the previous mine sweeper

example, coming to the conclusion “under the one in the centre lies a mine” is not

enough, so the player should corroborate the information by pressing and revealing the

mine, only then the player can test his conclusion. But then, the player would have lost

the game.

This does not mean inductive reasoning is useless; it depends on the situation it

is used where its importance arises. The phenomenon B may or may not be caused by

A, so, sometimes it is good to look for alternative answers.

A good example of a game that demands inductive reasoning is Mastermind

(Meirowitz, 1970) (figure 4). Mastermind is a two player game; it consists on a board,

colour pegs along with black and white pegs. At the beginning of the game one of the

players (the code master) places four pegs in a special part of the board, hidden from the

second player. The second player (the code breaker) has to place some colour pegs on

the board, to which the code master will answer by placing up to four black or white

pegs in the board at the side of the last colour pegs placed. The black pegs indicate the

existence of pegs of the correct colour positioned in the place they belong. White pegs

indicate the presence of pegs of the correct colour, but positioned in the wrong place.

The game ends when the turns have finished or the pattern has been found. For this


problem, the (second) player must work top-bottom in order to break the code: s/he has

the information, which pegs are good, semi-good or bad positioned, and need to find the

correct combinations by analyzing the cues given in the answer, and then venture to

create another hypothesis to work on again with the given answers.

Figure 4. Classic Mastermind Board.2

Abductive reasoning.

Abductive reasoning explained by Johnson-Laird (1993) is a variation of the

inductive reasoning which, seen from the logic perspective consists of the denial of an

antecedent given a certain consequent. This denial of a “logical” antecedent leads to the

search of alternative antecedents. In other words, abductive reasoning turns 180 degrees

the inductive logic, transforming it into a question what normally would be the premise.

The main problem with the abductive reasoning is that it is not deductively

valid, so it must be tested every time, that is to say, abductive reasoning cannot be

generalized. Instead, abductive reasoning is used in order to discover the world. Given

an event not experienced before by the subject, a theory about the general aspects of the

event can be created, tested and, depending of the results, generalized to other situations

(Johnson-Laird, 1983, in Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p. 122)).

2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Mastermind.jpg/200px-Mastermind.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Mastermind.jpg/200px-Mastermind.jpg


What abductive reasoning proposes is that every time a certain event arises, its

antecedents are unknown. This is good in order to formulate hypotheses and explore

new situations. For instance, suppose you throw an apple expecting it to fall to the floor,

but instead it falls to middle air and starts to “float”. You will ask what happened, as the

apple should have fallen. Then a series of hypotheses will come to be tested: is the apple

connected to a string? Is there a glass I cannot see? Is the apple a real apple? And so on

until one of the hypotheses proves to be enough to explain the phenomenon.

We can consider I wanna be the guy (O'Reilly, 2007) (IWBTG, figure 5) as a

game where abductive reasoning is being used by the player. The game claims to be the

most difficult game in the world and for that, it plays with the clichés of the

videogames, transforming things a player knows into something different. Even more,

not even the gravity of the game works as it does in real life or videogames. The first

scenario of IWBTG is simple, there are several trees with apples hanging, the player can

move back, forward, jump and shot. One of the first things the player uses to do is to get

the apples (because in several games the apples gives you life or points), finding out

apples actually kill them. The next thing is to avoid the apples, but then they find the

apples can actually fall to the floor killing them. So the player tries another approach, to

jump over the apples, finding out that some apples fall to the sky (or to the sides of the

screen) and kill them. After that, the player has to test every apple to know how they

work in order to get an idea of how to finish the level.


Figure 5. I wanna be the guy. First level3

Scientific reasoning.

We understand scientific reasoning as the type of reasoning using induction to

generate hypotheses about a situation. These hypotheses can be tested for falsifiability

using a deductive approach.

One of the most studied topics in psychology related to the scientific reasoning

is Wason tasks(Garnham & Oakhill, 1994, p. 131). Wason tasks consist of introducing a

person to a problem, asking him/her to solve it in the most efficient (accurate and fast)

way possible. To study the scientific reasoning Wason designed three tasks: The

selection task, the THOG task and the 2-4-6 task.

All these three tasks correspond to different level of abstraction, generation of

rules and hypothesis testing. What the tasks implementation has shown is that the more

general the rule, the more difficult is for the person to generate and test hypotheses.

Likewise, the less information given in the deductive phase, the broader the hypotheses

generation system becomes (Garnham & Oakhill, 1994, pp. 131-152).

The scientific reasoning is then, a way of using the inductive and deductive

reasoning combining them into one task that requires the constant formulation of

provisional theories with hypothesis testing. In other words, to reduce the uncertainty

space between the questions and the answers, propending for answers that can be

generalized to other situations. The scientific reasoning is both inductive and deductive,

working both processes in a parallel way, aiming to produce the most efficient result.

We can think about our example of Mastermind (Meirowitz, 1970) (figure 4).

We have already explained how the inductive part of mastermind works, then, we will

explain how the deductive part enters into play to conform a scientific reasoning game.

When the player has played at least his second line of code, he starts to have a list of

results (denoted by the black and white pegs, as well as the absent pegs indicating the

absence of good answers). Then it is expected that the player starts to make small

changes in his code in order to know which answer corresponds to a black peg and

3 http://firsthour.net/screenshots/i-wanna-be-the-guy/i-wanna-be-the-guy-apples-further-thumb.jpg

http://firsthour.net/screenshots/i-wanna-be-the-guy/i-wanna-be-the-guy-apples-further-thumb.jpg


which to a white peg. For this process, the player has to take into account a list of

previous results, as well as a hypothesis of which colours are well or badly assigned,

trying to test the hypothesis in order to, slowly, get the correct sequence.

Spatial reasoning.

Car, A and Frank, A. (1994) define spatial reasoning as the capacity to recognize

and organize spatial structures in different ways. This includes the ability to recognize

ourselves in a particular space, relating our position to a location as well as projecting

the position to a different goal/location.

Feng, Spence, and Pratt (2007) define spatial reasoning in a more general way as

the capacity to distinguish, differentiate, relate and rotate objects in two and three

dimensions. For these authors the most important part of spatial reasoning is the ability

to deal with everyday objects in a manipulative and in a representational way.

The previous paragraphs introduce us to two main aspects of the spatial

reasoning: the ability to spatially use and locate objects, as well as the ability of

spatially locating ourselves. Both theories also point towards two important aspects of

the spatial reasoning: the ability to relate all the proprieties of the object in a real space,

but also in a representational (imaginary) space.

The first ability is developed from the early stages of human growth (it is also

developed in some animals, including primates). It is possible to observe this behaviour

when a child rotates a shaped object to make it match in a hole on a toy box. Later on,

this ability is interiorized and can be used in a representational way, which is to say

there is no need to actually rotate the object, it can be mentally rotated before matching

it.

The second ability is different, as it requires a mental representation of us, the

world, and a combination of both, in a two- or three-dimensional way. The person must

be familiar with their surroundings, and create landmarks in order to know where to

locate the things, giving them an idea of where they are. This ability is developed in a

three-dimensional manner first (e.g. the child knows where to locate the toilet within the

house). Also, two-dimensional representations are used in order to help people to

allocate themselves in new environments (e.g. maps and GPS systems).


Videogame wise, Tetris (Bullet_Proof_Software, 1986) (figure 6) is a good

example of the first type of spatial reasoning. The original version of Tetris consists of

basic figures made of four blocks in the shapes of a cube, an L letter, an inverse L, a Z

letter, amongst others. The goal of the game is to create a solid row of blocks (this is

called a line); afterwards the row is erased, increasing the score. The game is over when

the pile of blocks reaches the ceiling of the stage. The way the player creates the lines is

to move and rotate the figures in the space to make them fit together. Once a figure has

been positioned, it cannot be moved again. So in order to win the game, the player has

to project, move and rotate two-dimensional figures within the game space, both in a

mental and in a practical way.

Three-dimensional adventure games are a good example of the second type of

spatial reasoning. Although some games like Doom (id_Software, 1993) do not make

use of a map system, giving the player the work of making a map of the zone in their

heads by exploring, other games as Resident Evil(Capcom, 1996) make use of a map

system. While games, such as Doom, let the player the task of making a three-

dimensional map on the head of the player by establishing landmarks, Resident Evil set

the player the task of transforming a representational two-dimensional environment in a

three-dimensional actual location (figures 7 and 8).


Figure 6. Classical view of a Tetris game.4

Figure 7. Map representation of the police station’s first floor in Resident Evil 3(Capcom, 1999) .5

4 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-45FcHF9PsDA/TdwgJ4ZypzI/AAAAAAAADVo/TPGp-

LhkcU4/s1600/tetrisgames.gif 5

http://residentevilumbrella.webs.com/Resident%20Evil%203%20Police%20Station%201F%20Map.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-45FcHF9PsDA/TdwgJ4ZypzI/AAAAAAAADVo/TPGp-LhkcU4/s1600/tetrisgames.gif

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-45FcHF9PsDA/TdwgJ4ZypzI/AAAAAAAADVo/TPGp-LhkcU4/s1600/tetrisgames.gif

http://residentevilumbrella.webs.com/Resident%20Evil%203%20Police%20Station%201F%20Map.JPG


Figure 8. Actual location of the player with reference to the Police Station’s first floor. 6

Logic reasoning.

As it can be noticed, during long time the theory of reasoning has obeyed the

laws of Aristotelian logic, therefore sometimes the general concept of reasoning and

logic reasoning can be confuse as the same thing. Nevertheless, logic reasoning can be

also found under other names such as syllogistic reasoning in the literature.

The first approach to reasoning was made from the logic by George Boole. So it

is possible to figure out the role of the logic reasoning within the reasoning theory. Mill

(1874. In Best (1997, p. 349)), for instance, proposes the laws of logic (as the truth

tables) as homologous to the laws of thinking, therefore the laws of thinking were

reducible to the laws of logic. In this same line of thinking, James (1890. In Best (1997,

p. 349)) proposes the abstraction as the basic component of logic reasoning, meaning

that the basis of the logic reasoning is to divide and isolate the components of a certain

phenomenon, designating relationships amongst them.

There are two phenomena about logic reasoning: first of all, the syllogisms can

vary in difficulty in such a way that, for some of them even small children can find the

conclusions, while others are hardly understandable for lay adults. Second, people not

trained in logic vary their ability to make logic deductions in a wide range (Bara,

Bucciarelli, & Johnson-Laird, 1995). Two main theories have been developed in order

to explain this phenomenon: the first one suggested by Hamill, 1990 (In Bara et al.

6

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090916202738/residentevil/images/f/fa/R_P_D_Main_(RE3).jp

g

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090916202738/residentevil/images/f/fa/R_P_D_Main_(RE3).jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090916202738/residentevil/images/f/fa/R_P_D_Main_(RE3).jpg


(1995)) states that logic competence is innate to the human being and can be improved

during the normal development. The second, suggested by Gilhooly, 1990 (In Bara et al.

(1995)) suggests that people without training in formal logic will not be able to make

logic reasoning in a formal way, but their answer will always point to one of the

premises.

Johnson-Laird, 1983 (In Holyoak and Morrison (2005)) develop an alternate

theory to understand the logic reasoning: The theory of the mental models. This

proposition states that logic reasoning is not based on formal logic, but on semantic

logic, providing arguments based on premises of logic probabilities but not in formal

rules.

As we can see, in spite of the importance of the logic in general reasoning

theory, there are still discrepancies in the conception of logic within human

development. For the present research the assumption that formal logic is a special

branch of the mathematics and should be understood as such will be taken. Nevertheless

humans, from early stages of life, develop some notions of logic related to formal logic

(such as the if-then relation). These notions of logic are, as stated by Johnson-Laird

(1983), known and developed by the children as semantic premises, not as formal rules.

Logic reasoning, as a set of given (sometimes semantic) rules, can be found

easily in puzzle games. Professor Layton and the Curious Village’s (Level-5, 2008)

puzzle 29 is a good example of this. The puzzle is a semantic logic trial as follows:

Five suspects are called into police headquarters for questioning. They give the

following statements.

A: "One of the five of us is lying."

B: "Two of the five of us are lying."

C: "I know these guys, and three of the five of us are lying."

D: "Don't listen to a word they say. Out of the five of us, four are lying."

E: "All five of us are dirty rotten liars!"

The police only want to release the suspects who are telling the truth. How many

people should they let go?


To solve this puzzle, it is required that the player examine each of the premises

of the five suspects, contrasting them with the veracity of the other four statements

using the logic forms: “If…Then…”, “and (˄)”, “or (˅)” and “not (¬). Using

mathematical (logic) notation: If (A ˄ B) → ¬A ˅ ¬B. Or in semantic logic terms: If A

is saying the truth and B is saying the truth, either A is lying or B is lying, because both

statements are contradictory so both cannot be true at the same time.

Physical reasoning.

Physical reasoning has been studied for the last 20 years. It is developed from

early stages of life, having been proved that children at the age of 2.5 months are able to

expect and predict phenomena of the physical world such as occlusion, containment and

covering (Baillargeon, 2004). Experiments of violation of expectations have been

carried out on young children, showing surprise not only when one of these phenomena

is violated, but also others, such as gravity.

Physical reasoning can be found also under the category of mechanics reasoning;

as this type reasoning refers to the physics we use in everyday life, in a naïve, intuitive

way and does not consider higher types of physics (e.g. fields physics), as they are not

intuitive phenomena, but rather academic knowledge (Reiner, Slotta, Chi, & Resnick,

2000).

Chi and Slotta (1993) make reference to the physical reasoning as intuitive

physics. They point out ten ontological categories recurrent in previous studies on the

topic: (1) Intuitive physics is our conceptual knowledge of the physical world, including

naïve sense of mechanisms. (2) It is robust, resistant to change. (3) It is

phenomenological, related to person’s experience. (4) It is contextual. (5) It is primitive,

requires no explanation and provides the basis for higher level reasoning. (6) Is not

highly organized or theoretically coherent. (7) It is organized in a weakly primitive

schema called p-primis. (8) The educational implications consist of refining these

schemata, not in replacing it. (9) Development of physic reasoning to expertise requires

the subordination of the p-primis to formal principles. (10) it is not organized according

to ontological attributes.


As it is mentioned above, physical reasoning corresponds to our intuitive

conception of the physical world, as well as the conceptual models of the world we

develop in a practical way. As some theorists have pointed out, the knowledge about our

physical world seems to be present since early stages of life, being probably a biological

adaptation derived from the evolutionary development of the human kind.

Cogs (Lazy_8_Studios, 2009) (figure 9) is a game where physic principles are

tested. Although some puzzles correspond to some sort of pipe contraptions, Cogs, as its

name states, points to the underlying mechanics of the cogs, such as: two cogs near will

rotate in opposite angular directions. Three cogs touching each other will not be able to

move. A small cog moves slower, but can move more weight, while a big one moves

faster, but cannot move the same weight.

Figure 9. Screenshot of Cogs, a mechanic puzzle game. 7

Statistic reasoning.

Authors like Nisbett et al. (1983. In Nickerson (2004)), also Sarkar and Gosh

(1996), postulate the statistic reasoning as a type reasoning necessary for our everyday

life, arguing it is the type of reasoning people use when it is necessary to make

decisions under uncertainty. They add that this type of reasoning gives people the

capacity to collect the necessary information in order to solve a certain problem. They

7 http://www.lazy8studios.com/images/cogs/gears.jpg

http://www.lazy8studios.com/images/cogs/gears.jpg


also argue that people tend to use statistical procedures in the same way they use

inference.

Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p. 153) state that only few authors have tackled the

topic of the statistic or probabilistic reasoning. Although the statistic verification of

hypothesis is important for the practical everyday reasoning, most of the times it seems

to be discordant with the intuitive nature of the premises. Adding to this, this kind of

reasoning is sometimes biased by the weight people put on the statistical elements of the

problem, leading aside the real characteristics of the problem.

About this topic, the authors also add that people do not possess an innate ability

to use statistics in order to make inferences, so conclusions are the result of a mixture

between statistics, intuitions, beliefs and wishes.

On the other hand, authors like Jones, Langrall, Thornton, and Mogill (1999),

also Wild and Pfannkuch (1999), argue that Statistic reasoning is not an innate type of

reasoning, on the contrary, it can only be developed by studying formal statistic theory.

They state this is the only way for a person to understand as well as use contextual

information in a statistical way in order to solve a problem.

In the present work we will take the positions of Garnham and Oakhill (1994),

Jones et al. (1999), also Wild and Pfannkuch (1999), assuming that, although

probabilistic reasoning is used by adult humans for problem solving, it is used in a

biased way. The probabilities of an event are calculated based on ease of representation,

scripts, wishes and beliefs rather than actual statistics. In order for a person to make real

statistic inferences they need to know formal statistic theory.

Card and dice games are based in probability theory. Yahtzee (Milton_Bradley,

1956) (figure 10) is a dice game in which probability matters in order to make decisions.

In the classic version of the game you roll five six-face dices, then according to the

results you can chose to roll again, to roll certain dices or to assign your results to a

certain category (three of a kind, four of a kind, Yahtzee, etc.). The dices can be rolled

to three times. The probabilities of getting certain result in each roll depends on the

formation of dices you want to obtain, your decision of rolling all the dices or rolling

some of them. The probabilities to obtain a specific formation with a specific set of

numbers are also lower than obtaining any set of numbers for the same combination.


Serious studies about probability and game theory have been carried out in this respect,

indicating, for instance the probability of a Yahtzee is 5%, with a probability for a

specific Yahtzee of 1%. Other formations such as three of a kind have 45% of

probability of happening in the third roll, while four of a kind has a 35% of probability

of occurrence in the third roll.

Figure 10. Digital version of the game Yahtzee.8

Moral reasoning.

Fisher and Ott (1996, in Abdolmohammadi and Baker (2006)) depict moral

reasoning as a construct describing the cognitive processes a person uses to identify and

solve moral problems as well as dilemmas.

Kohlberg (1981) describes moral function in Piaget terms, as the level of moral

development of a person. Kohlberg proposes a stage model for moral development: the

pre-conventional level, the conventional level and the post-conventional level. Each of

them is divided in two sub-stages. The pre-conventional level is proper of the children;

it is egocentric, tending to judge the actions by their direct consequences. The

conventional level is proper of teenagers and adults; in this level the actions are judged

plus compared with society’s rules and expectations. The post-conventional level marks

a realization of the individual’s own principles contrasted with the society’s point of

8 http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j83/MikeMoore123/yahtzee.png

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j83/MikeMoore123/yahtzee.png


view. This last level is abstract, flexible and context oriented, in other words, this stage

corresponds to the development of ethics.

Jean Piaget (1934, in Golse (1987)) includes in his theory of developmental

stage a side for the moral development. For Piaget the development of the morals starts

with the game and notions of why not to cheat. According to this theory, in a first stage,

the child does not see the game as a competition, but rather as a repetition of what adults

do. In a second stage, the children learn the rules, using them in an absolute inflexible

way, the author calls this period, the stage of “moral absolutism”. In a third stage,

children understand the social character of the rules, starting to modify them for their

own benefit. In the last stage, the child (teenager) internalizes the rules, transforming

them in principles (ethics) rather than rules.

As stated by the previous authors, we can see how morals develop from an early

age, crossing various stages in the normal development of the human. These stages go

from the repetition of the rules in an automated way to the construction of rigid rules,

finishing in the development of ethics. Something else to add about morals is that they

are social and highly depending on the context, but once they have been critically

internalized by the subject, they become ethics. Ethics are less society dependant, but

context dependant, they are related with the history of the person and the way s/he sees

the world. It is to say, while a moral person will follow the rule because the society

states it, an ethic person may break the rule because s/he thinks it is not fair in a certain

context.

Some videogames focus on moral decisions and moral reasoning, such as Black

and White (Lionhead_Studios, 2005) (figure 11). In this game the player is a god that

possesses powers and controls a creature representing him/her in the world. In one of

the missions, the player must recover certain stone in order to gain more power, one of

the peasants in the village hold this stone in her house. When the player goes to the

peasant house she tells the player her husband is very sick so she will give away the

rock if the player gets some medicinal plant for her. The player can either decide to help

her or burn her house to ashes to get the stone by him/her self, but his/her actions (good

and bad) will be reflected in the way you are seen by others within the game. The

creature representing the player in the game becomes ugly, demon-like if s/he is a bad

god, and shiny with wings if player’s actions are good. People also start to react with


love or fear towards the player depending on his/her actions. Moral dilemmas arise

constantly in this game. The player has two counsellors (conscience) that guides

him/her to make decisions.

Figure 11. Black and White 2: Screenshot. The good conscience covers his eyes while you do bad things in the

world.9

Everyday reasoning.

Although formal reasoning is very important and has been highly studied, it has

also been highly criticized as the studies in this matter are always done under strict

laboratory situations. Laboratory tests are highly controlled and well defined, but the

everyday life reasoning is not present in the same ways as those of the laboratory, is not

subject to specific rules, or the person does not use the rules stated in the laboratory.

Galotti (1989, in Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p. 257)) propose three possible

ways to understand the relationship between formal and everyday reasoning: Everyday

reasoning is covered formal reasoning. Everyday reasoning shares some psychological

processes with formal reasoning, or (Perkins (1985), in Garnham and Oakhill (1994, p.

257)) Both types of reasoning use different processes and do not have much in common,

they are different also somewhat exclusive types of reasoning.

9 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-

lYGPEM1DJdo/Tlx2f0ehR1I/AAAAAAAAR8Q/ULZHCeqTHSs/s1600/Black+And+White+2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lYGPEM1DJdo/Tlx2f0ehR1I/AAAAAAAAR8Q/ULZHCeqTHSs/s1600/Black+And+White+2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lYGPEM1DJdo/Tlx2f0ehR1I/AAAAAAAAR8Q/ULZHCeqTHSs/s1600/Black+And+White+2.jpg


Perkins points out that for the formal reasoning the given premises are static,

leading to a unique conclusion. Meanwhile, in everyday reasoning the premises have to

be taken from the context, can be changed and reviewed according to the information

available; in addition they can lead to different probabilistic arguments for or against

different conclusions. Furthermore, the formal reasoning is composed by a succession

of deductive steps, while everyday reasoning consists in parallel inductive and

deductive steps.

In the present study we will use everyday reasoning as Perkins proposes,

defining it as a way to solve the problems corresponding to a form of logic different

from the formal logic. This type of logic is individual and contextual, related to the

person’s history as well as his/her own way of previous successful steps when solving

problems. In this line of thinking, everyday reasoning does not have a series of steps or

rules to follow, but is highly personal, based on what is called common sense.

There is a puzzle in Professor Layton and Pandora’s Box (Level-5, 2009)

demanding this type of reasoning. Puzzle 74 (figure 12) depicts three containers, two of

them with garlic and one with flowers. The vases are connected by some sort of pipes to

three exits. Then two corks are given to the player in order to use them in the holes in

such a way so that it is not possible to smell the garlic, but as the player only has two

corks his/her decision must be wise. When the player has used his spatial reasoning

skills to realize the two corks are not enough to stop the smell of the garlic, they might

turn to the everyday reasoning. The only way the player can prevent anything from

smell is not to smell it, therefore the two corks must be placed in the nose, which is the

correct solution (figure 13).


Figure 12. Professor Layton and Pandora’s box puzzle 74 screenshot. 10

Figure 13. Professor Layton and Pandora’s box puzzle 74 solution.

So far we have made a concise theoretical approach to the main types of

reasoning to be analyzed in the videogames. They all have their own set of

developmental stages and theories explaining how they work as well as neuro-

psychological structures underlying them. Some of them possess a theoretical consensus

about its origins or the way they work, while others have been debated and do not have

a strong framework to work with, but several positions of view we had to conciliate

before proceeding. We have also started the exercise of relating these kinds of reasoning

with the videogames field plus point out the reasoning is not perfect, but may be biased.

Videogames

It is necessary to start defining videogame by defining what a game is. Fullerton

(2008) defines games as closed formal systems that engage the player in a structured

conflict, resolving its uncertainty in an unequal outcome. Rogers (2010) defines game in

a more simple way as an activity which requires someone (at least one person) to be part

of it, has rules and a victory condition.

In both cases the definition of videogame corresponds to the same definition of

game, but it is played on a video screen (Rogers, 2010).

10 http://professorlayton2walkthrough.blogspot.dk/2008/11/puzzle074.html

http://professorlayton2walkthrough.blogspot.dk/2008/11/puzzle074.html


Outlining game’s components.

Games are not isolated images, but rather complex systems composed by

different aspects of aesthetics, technologies, mechanics and storytelling.

Fullerton (2008) divides the components of videogames into two big categories:

Formal elements and dramatic elements.

Formal elements state the way the game should be played, its rules, objectives,

assets, controllers, amongst others:

1. Player dynamics: this refers to the dynamics the player use to interact

with the game (player vs. game, player vs. player, multilateral

competition, unilateral competition, cooperative play and team

competition)

2. Objectives: it refers to the accomplishments of the player, what makes

the player moves in the game (capture, Chase, Race, Alignment, Rescue,

escape, Forbidden act, construction, exploration, solution, outwit).

3. Procedures: these are the actions the player can make in order to achieve

the goals projected.

4. Rules: define which actions are and are not allow within the game

system. They determine objects, concepts, restrict actions, as well as

determine effects.

5. Resources: these are the assets available for the player within the game

(lives, units, health, currency, actions, power ups, inventory, special

terrain, time)

6. Conflict: it emerges when the player tries to accomplish the goal within

the rules and boundaries

7. Outcome: it is the way the game resolves the tension and the equalities,

by stating a winner.

Dramatic elements are the way to engage the player in the game. They

encompass 3 elements:


1. Characters: the agents through whose actions drama is told, creating

identification and empathy.

2. Story: the story gives a setting (context) to the game’s conflict and

objectives.

3. System: the way the elements of the game interact with each other to

conform to a structure of possibilities and forbidden acts in such a way

that the game becomes interesting for the player.

Rogers (2010) adds other two elements to the dramatic component of the

videogame: camera and heads-up display (HUD). The position of the camera within the

game is important not only to add dramatic quality, but also to indicate clues and create

atmosphere within the game. The HUD maps and shows the player the assets he has

available to play with, how close he is to achieving his/her goal or giving clues about

the environment.

It is possible to distinguish similarities between the formal/dramatic elements of

the videogame and the elements of the space-problem theory stated by Newell and

Simon (1972). The game has an objective (final state), a set of procedures and rules

(operators) to apply within the game helping the player (solver) to get closer to the goal,

it has some resources (information), a conflict (inequality between the initial and the

final state) that must be solved in a non-obvious way, a system plus a story helping to

configure the problem space.

Other dramatic elements, as the story and the camera position, have the objective

to motivate the player, making the tasks meaningful.

So far the theoretical framework has been developed, moving from Newell and

Simon’s task analysis proposal to reasoning theories based on the domain-specific rule

theories, explaining ten types of reasoning and exemplifying them with basis on

videogames. The main constitutional characteristics of the videogames have been

outlined in order to understand them better. Following the methodological tool will be

proposed based on the previous theories.


Methodological Tool Proposal

The methodological model that is to be proposed with the present research is

projected so as to make a transversal cognitive demand analysis of any videogame in an

agile and structural way. From now on it will be referred to it as MAARDI

(Methodology for the Agile Analysis of Reasoning Demand on vIdeogames).

Characteristics of the methodology

The methodology created in the present work has the characteristics of being:

Structural: the methodology aims at creating models of the game as it was

designed, taking into account all the elements necessary to analyze the cognitive task

demand. The essentials of the game are used in such a way that the elements and the

relationships within them can be represented and analyzed in an objective way.

Objective: the methodology is intended for a non-player-centred analysis. The

construction of the inner structure of the game as designed will lead to the analysis of

the cognitive demand of the game in such a way that it is statistically traceable, while

tendencies and comparisons with other games can be drawn.

Agile: MAARDI is created in such a way that, by using non-player sources such

as walkthroughs, game maps, game documentation, amongst others, the user can carry a

reasoning demand analysis of a videogame in less time than player oriented analyses

with a similar reliability.

Design oriented: the methodology propound to analyze the design of the game

as an object, differing with the approaches that analyze the game as an emergent

phenomenon interacted by a (human) player.

Representational: the analysis will be based on representation of information

such as the ones used by Newell (1966); Newell and Simon (1972), with the purpose of

structure and ease the use of information located in the game design documentation.


Scalable: different phases of the MAARDI methodology can be scalable in such

a way that the analyst can adjust the depth of the game analysis depending on their

necessities. The user of the tool may decide to make more emphasis on subsystems of

the game by clustering them in such a way so the analysis is less detailed but with more

span.

Flexible: the methodology is intended to be scalable enough to let the users

make their own emphasis of analysis according to their necessities (e.g. be more

detailed, more agile or focus more in certain tasks within the environment). The

methodology does not oppose to the use of player-play techniques, so they can be used

to improve and refine the results found by the tool.

Description of the methodological tool

The methodological tool consists of six phases:

Based on Aarseth (2003) source search for non-player game analysis, a set of

reviews, walkthroughs, play records, game documentation or game maps is compiled in

order to be analyzed.

A specific task within the game is chosen for task dimension analysis.

For the task dimension analysis, the task is depicted with all its constituent

elements (games trees, operators, initial state, final state and rules) in a graphic way

(figure 14).


Figure 14. Depiction of the task dimension decomposition process.

The way we understand problem space in our methodology is different of what

Newell and Simon (1972) propose. The problem space for the present methodology will

not take into account players’ representations of the task dimension as we are only

interested in what Aarseth (2003) define as game-structure and game world. For this

reason the problem space part of MAARDI will be referred as problem context. This

part represents the historic-contextual part of the analysis and allows a transversal

analysis of any game (figure 15). The results of this analysis will be presented in a

graphic way.


Figure 15. Decomposition of the problem context.

The problem context will be traced back to other scenarios if it is necessary

(figure 16). The tutorial (or introduction to basic mechanics) of the game will also be

analyzed in order to trace elements and operations that could have been explained in

advance within the game, in order to differentiate some kinds of reasoning (e.g.

inductive from deductive) (figure 17).

Figure 16. Depiction of the relationship of the scenarios within the game system.


Figure 17. Depiction of the decomposition of the system components.

The schemas and structures will be analyzed using the theoretical framework in

order to evaluate which reasoning skills are required for solving a specific task. This

part also includes the historic-contextual part of the task.

A meta-analysis of the data will be carried out in order to distinguish tendencies

within a game. This part will be done only if more than one analysis is carried out in a

specific game.

The present design can be classified as bottom-up, because it starts from a

particular task within a videogame, going backwards to the beginning of it in order to

trace the “history of cognitive requirements” for the task.

This methodology allows a transversal cognitive analysis of a game, taking into

account a series of cognitive requirements in order to accomplish a defined task. This

model can be applied to various tasks within the game generating schemas of tendencies

for the game. Moreover, this method creates a semi-random way of analysis on games,

enabling both the increment of reliability of the studies using this method plus an agile

way of study (figure 18).


Figure 18. Cake shaped depiction of the semi-random selection of the components within the game.

For both the second and third steps of the methodology Luria and Tsvetkova

(1990) approach will be used: analysis of the information given by the task,

development of a set of operations to solve the problem as well as comparison between

the states of the task and its final state.

Codification

The MAARDI methodology has been thought to be a representational tool.

MAARDI proposes the representation of reasoning skills demanded by the game, using

linkable symbols, which are subject to analysis. We call these symbols Cognitive

Operators, and they designate deductive, inductive, abductive, scientific, spatial, logic,

physical, statistic, moral and everyday types of reasoning.

Table 1 presents a list of cognitive operators used to designate the operators the

player needs to use in order to transform IS into the FS. In the end the representational

method expect to depict and identify the use of different kinds of reasoning, their

recurrence and relevance for the problem solving task.


Table 1

Operators used for the graphical description of the task dimension and problem context

Type Symbol

Deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning

Scientific reasoning

Spatial reasoning

Logic reasoning

Physical reasoning

Statistic reasoning

Moral reasoning

Everyday reasoning

In order to correctly apply the operators that will be analyzed afterwards it is

necessary for the user to make use of the cognitive theoretical framework used to

construct the tool and ask him/her self some questions when reviewing the

documentation. For instance: does the current action involve the application of a rule?

Does the player know the rule beforehand or does s/he has to infer it from his/hers

actions? Does s/he have to use intuitive physics such as gravity? Is the task presented in

such a way that the player must be confronted with ethical or moral dilemmas? Does the

task point towards a solution that involves causality, conjunction and disjunction of

choices or is it more related with combination of possibilities?

In order to correctly apply the methodology, the user must be familiar with the

theoretical framework. Nevertheless, it is possible to apply the methodology using a

summarized version like the one used for the usability test (Appendix G). The user must

be aware that the more familiar s/he is with the methodology and the theory, the better

the information will be represented.


Representational characteristics of the methodology

So far, two ways of depicting the information in order to be processed have been

mentioned, the graphic (decision tree) way and the algorithmic way. The first one is

based on Newell (1966); Newell and Simon (1972) codification of information within a

task, where the graphical cognitive operators describe associations (attributes and

values) between the elements conforming the task. The second one is based on the logic

description proposed by Newell and Simon (1972), but with a variation of flow

diagrams presented by the same authors on page 32.

Pictures 19 to 27 exemplify how the MAARDI methodology is represented at

the time that is applied in an adventure (survival horror) game. For the construction of

the structural task dimension and problem context a walkthrough (Appendix A) of the

game as well as some maps in addition to videos of the puzzle were used.

The task dimension we chose is the goal of the chapter eight of the game Fatal

Frame 2 (Tecmo, 2003). It consists of a puzzle describing a system of four clockwise

rotating wheels with a fifth wheel in the centre that should match with the numbers of

the peripheral wheels, rotating counter clockwise when any of the other wheels rotate

(this part corresponds to the task dimension). The player must make the colour of the

centre wheel with their periphery match within six movements (figure 19). Now, in

order to start the puzzle, the player should have in his/her possession four of the five

wheels composing the system. To get those wheels, the player must travel a 3D

environment of a haunted Japanese village (figure 20).


Figure 19. Pinwheel puzzle as seen by the player in Fatal Frame 2, chapter eight11.

Figure 20. Design art depicting All God’s Village12.

11 Game screenshot taken from the video in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YqwOWN9Ig 12 http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2012/151/c/6/fatal_frame_2__minakami_village_by_kangeis-

d51rl7w.jpg


The problem context we are going to trace goes back to the beginning of the

chapter eight, where the player finds herself in front of the Kiryu house with one of the

pieces of the puzzle needed to finish the chapter (figure 21).

Figure 21. All God’s Village map and zone names13.

13 http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/fatal_frame_2_agv.gif


Figure 22. Osaka house map and zone names14.

For the task dimension (pinwheel puzzle) the representation seen in the figure 23

was done. Following a graphic description with all the possible states of the system was

done in a graphic way based on the limit of six movements as depicted in the figure 24.

Figure 23. Symbolic representation of the pinwheel puzzle.

14 http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/fatal_frame_2_osaka.gif


Figure 24. Configuration of the possible states of any of the wheels in the pinwheel puzzle at a certain moment.

Following this depiction, an analysis of the structure of the puzzle was carried

out in a visual-relational way both taking into account all the possible states (figure 25)

and the effective solution (figure 26) proposed in the walkthrough (rotate B once, rotate

C twice and rotate D three times). The figures also highlight the Initial state of the

puzzle (IS), its final state (FS) and the solution (S).

It is necessary to highlight that the following depiction of the task is considered

an in deep depiction of the task, and it is made as an example of how detailed the

description of a task can be. Nevertheless, for an agile analysis it is not necessary to go


so far in the analysis, but to go as in deep it is necessary to spot the kinds of reasoning

demanded by the game in the task dimension.

Figure 25. Depiction of the possible states of the pinwheel puzzle taking into account the answer and the relationship

between its elements.

Figure 26. Depiction o the solution of the pinwheel puzzle using the most effective algorithm.

For the problem context the representation seen in the figure 27 was done using

the cues taken from the walkthrough, the All God’s village and Osaka house maps as

well as notation (figures 21 and 22).


Following, the cues taken from the walkthrough about the progress of the game

in the chapter eight: 12 (the player starts here with one crest) ->17 ->22 ->9 ->17 ->14 -

>2(Here the player has access to a map indicating the other pinwheels can be found in

the locations 1, 10 and 18) ->1 (sub system, Osaka house, the player will get a crest

after defeating an enemy) ->10 (sub system, Kiryu house, the player will get a crest

after defeating an enemy) ->7 ->5 ->14 ->20 ->21 ->18(the player will get a crest after

defeating an enemy ) ->17 (wheel puzzle, end of chapter).

The structural depiction of the task is done in such a way that only one

embedded systems is described. This is made in order to exemplify the scalable and

flexible characteristics of the methodology.

Following, the cues taken from the walkthrough about the progress of the game

in the Osaka house: 12 ->3(boss battle, the player will get a crest after defeating it) ->2 -

>5 ->7 ->16 ->4 ->2. The steps following the boss battle are considered a side quest as

they are not necessary to finish the chapter.


Figure 27. Structural depiction of the walk through All God’s Village using the MAARDI notation.

Analysis

Taking into account the previous codified data, it is possible to carry out an

analysis using different operators necessary to solve the task, its recurrence,

relationships as well as objects involved in the task.

For the task dimension, taking a closer look to the figures 24, 25 and 26, it is

possible to realize a series of details: first of all, the wheel A will always finish in the

same position no matter the combination of move we make with B, C, D or E. In that

case, an effective problem solver will take this into account to plan ahead so that the

wheels aim in a certain place according to where A will be in the turn six. Second, each

movement diminishes the degrees of freedom (further movements) of all the wheels

except for A, as each movement will decrease the counter of six movements. Third, it


does not matter if the first one being moved is B, C or D, if the amount of rotation for

each of them is maintained, the answer will be the same.

It is possible to infer from the previous information that the task we chose to be

the centre of our study is a combinatory puzzle, demanding logic reasoning present in

the causal linkage between the wheels plus the planning required (to solve the task in an

efficient way player must realize the position where A is going to be after six turns). It

also requires statistic reasoning, as the linkage between the wheels creates a network of

probabilities with a limited degree of freedom. The puzzle also makes use of deductive

reasoning because the player is applying a certain set of familiar rules (The walkthrough

describes a similar puzzle in chapter five) in order to solve the puzzle. If the player did

not know the rules beforehand the reasoning would start as inductive, after certain tries

it will become deductive.

So, summing up, the cognitive demand of the task dimension we chose to

analyze is: inductive/deductive, logic and statistic reasoning.

For the analysis of the problem context it is possible to see on the figure 28 the

recurrence of some cognitive operators. 19 spatial connectors are shown in the main

map plus four in one of the subsystems analyzed. In addition there is a different spatial

connector corresponding to the location of the crests on a map; this is a different type of

spatial reasoning, the first kind is related to the movement of one’s character within a

3D environment already known, the second kind is related to the interpretation of a 2D

map relating it to a 3D location within the environment. There are 23 connectors plus

one spatial connector. There is one logic connector linked to a barrier (key-locked

door). Also three sub-objectives (the crests) indicating logic reasoning as they act in the

same way as the key-locked door system. Finally there are three boss fights indicating

the use of deductive reasoning (they require a strategy in order to be defeated, but

similar fights have already taken place as indicated by the walkthrough, so the strategies

are already known).


Figure 28. Summary of the operators present in the problem context.

It is possible to say the problem context has a high spatial reasoning demand,

followed by deductive and logic reasoning.

By tying the task dimension and problem context analysis, it is possible to say

that the chapter eight of fatal frame has high demand of spatial reasoning (75%),

followed by logic and deductive reasoning (13% and 9% respectively), with a minor

component of statistic reasoning (3%).

Table 2

Amount and percentage of cognitive demand operators found on the tasks

Cognitive

Demand

Task

Dimension

Problem

context

Sub

System Total Percentage

1 2 1 4 0,13

0 20 4 24 0,75

1 2 0 3 0,09

1 0 0 1 0,03

32 1,00


Research Methodology

In order to test the methodological tool, two different kinds of analysis will be

carried out. The first one (Test 1), referent to the validity of the tool will compare the

use of it with human protocols based on Cognitive Task Analysis (The use of CTA

methods was choose because it is, now a days, the most common method used by

psychologist to gather information about knowledge, thinking processes and task

performance (Schraagen, Chipman, & Shalin, 2000, pp. 3-21) ). The second (Test2),

directed to test usability and reliability will be carried out asking two subjects to use

MAARDI with certain game design documents. The results will be compared with the

same analysis carried out by the researcher looking for divergence and convergence in

the results in order to test how similar the results are. This part of the test will be

complemented with a structured interview with open answers about the usability of the

tool (Tullis & Albert, 2008, pp. 128-134).

Approach

The approach of the current research is empirical, qualitative and quantitative. It

is empirical because it intends to make use of MAARDI methodology, comparing it

with CTA methodologies in order to test its reliability. It also aims at making other

people apply this methodology, comparing the results of the different applications to

test is usability and reliability.

Furthermore, it is also qualitative because the Test 1 will compare the tool with a

qualitative CTA method in order to test if the findings done with MAARDI are the same

as the ones made using CTA.

Finally, the methodology can be characterised as quantitative as well, since it

describes quantitatively how much one method is similar to the other. The validity of

the tool will be tested using a triangulation method, comparing expected results (given

by the CTA methods) with the current results (given by MAARDI analysis). For this

reason a T-test will be carried out. The reliability will be tested using a Chi-square

analysis on the application of the tool by different subjects.


Research level

The level of the research is analytical, descriptive and comparative.

The first type of analysis intends to decompose a case (game scenario),

describing it in terms of two different methodologies. Then two different results will be

compared in order to know how similar they are.

The second part intends to decompose and describe a game using a one

methodology but different subjects. Then the results generated by the subjects will be

compared in order to know the degree of similarity amongst the results.

Research design

The design of the study is non-experimental, case study, pilot testing.

The study is non experimental because it only reaches the descriptive level and

no variables will be manipulated.

It is a case study as only one scenario in one videogame will be chosen for

analysis and comparison.

It is pilot testing as the number of measures taken is not representative enough to

generalize the results, but rather it indicates strengths and weaknesses of the

methodology for a subsequent tuning (Morey, 2003, p. 394). Pilot testing methodologies

are used as a fast and cheap way to obtain and insight of how efficient a methodology is,

so that it can be tuned for further testing.

Sample

The sample is a non-random, typical case sample. Typical case sample was

chosen as it is representative, yet small enough for a pilot test.

For the two tests that will be carried out, one game has been chosen as a

representative case. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Nintendo, 1998) is an

adventure game containing elements of Role Playing Game and puzzle. It has been one

of the biggest sellers in the history of Nintendo with nearly 2.5 million units sold in

United States of America within six weeks of its release (IGNStaff, 1999) and 7.6


million copies sold worldwide (IGNStaff, 2004 ). The game also has the highest

rankings in Game Rankings with 97,48% of approval based on 25 reviews

(GameRankings, 1998) being the first one on the same page when looking for the best

games in all categories during in the whole story (GameRankings, 2012). It also has a

metascore of 99/100 on Metacritic, based on 22 critics (Metacritic, 1998).

For the different kind of tests the analysis of the first dungeon of the game will

be used. The last boss fight will be used as task dimension and the dungeon as problem

context. For the first test using CTA methods the Nintendo 3DS version of the game

(Nintendo & Grezzo, 2011) will be used. For the first and second test using MAARDI

the introduction plus dungeon section of three walkthroughs (Alex, 2007; Banjo2553,

2009; ZeldaDungeon.Net, 2012) will be used (Appendices B, C and D). In addition the

map ripped by Peardian (1998) with the map depicted in ZeldaDungeon.Net (2012) will

be used (Appendices E and F).

Operationalization of variables

Videogame: defined as an array of scenarios, linear or non linear. The

collections of scenarios constitute a whole: they share a story, a start point and a finish

point, foes as well as non player characters (NPCs) and player characters.

Scenario: is an interactive temporal structure where certain actions are

developed. It possesses a beginning and an end as well as certain goals or challenges the

player must overcome in order to finish it. A scenario also encloses a collection of

mechanics, visual aesthetics, foes and music that can be shared with other scenarios or

can be exclusive.

Task dimension: all the structural elements composing the task and their

relationships. It is described in terms of game tree and algorithms.

Problem context: all the historic-contextual elements the task is submerged in. It

is described in terms of a game tree and algorithms.

Game tree: the graphic description of a task or scenario taking into account all

the possible paths the solver (player) can take.


Algorithms: a simple logic representation of the series of operators the player

has to apply in order to reach the final state of the task.

Operators: the rules and actions the player must follow in order to solve the task.

They are given in verbs.

Cognitive operators: representation of the different kinds of cognitive demands

in videogames expressed in reasoning terms.

Initial state: is the state of the task or scenario at the start.

Final state: is the goal of the task.

Reasoning: is the action realized when confronted with a task where the initial

state and final state are known but not the intermediate steps to follow in order to go

from the initial to the final state. It is a non-routine, non-automated action which

requires effort from the player to realize.

Data collection

Taking into account two tests will be carried out (validity and reliability tests,

Test 1 and Test 2 respectively) the following steps will be carried out:

For the Test 1, game documentation (walkthroughs and maps) of the game “The

legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” will be taken and analyzed using MAARDI

methodology.

Using the Nintendo 3DS version of “The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” as

a cognitive elicitor, a think-aloud, a diagram drawing and an unstructured interview will

be carried out.

The think-aloud methodology (Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006, pp. 94-97)

aims to gather information on player’s thoughts and problem solving schemas by gather

and analyzing verbalization of cognitive actions. As it is a broadly used technique

(Crandall et al., 2006, pp. 94-97) its results can be more adaptable when referring to the

contrast with other methodology. The think-aloud session will be carried out in the

following way: first, a play session prior to the main game play will be done. In this

session with a different game that of the main one; the participant will be trained on

think-aloud playing. Once the participant has learnt to do it s/he will be asked to play


while stating all the thoughts s/he has, such as plans, insights, difficulties, associations,

etc. The think-aloud session will be recorded on tape to be transcribed and analyzed

afterwards.

After the participant has finished the task, s/he will be asked to make a mind

map describing the “flow” of the game or how the game progressed while s/he played

(Crandall et al., 2006, pp. 41-47). Although mind maps are not of wide use for cognitive

process evaluation, for the current research it was considered important due to the

representational characteristics of MAARDI methodology and the lack of this

characteristic when using the think-aloud method.

Following, a semi-structured interview will be carried out in order to refine the

details not clear with the former two methodologies. The interview will be structured

under the previous observations of the think aloud session as well as the mind map

drawing.

After the data has been codified and analyzed, the results of both methodologies

will be compared and contrasted in order to find similarities and differences between the

results testing the reliability of MAARDI.

For the Test 2, the set of walkthroughs and maps referring to The Legend of

Zelda: Ocarina of Time will be given to two participants a Master degree student on

Game Design and a Master degree student on Psychology. To the same study

participants a copy of the MAARDI methodology as well as a synthesis of the

theoretical framework of the present work will be given (Appendix G).

The participants will be asked to read the theory and methodology booklet

(Appendix G), using it to make an analysis similar to the example on chapter 7 with the

documents referent to the game of Zelda.

Due to the length of the methodology and the fact that we want to test how much

the method is understandable by the users, no in-vivo application or training in the use

of the method will be done. The untrained application of the methodology will give the

researchers an insight about how similar is the methodology understood and used by

different kinds of users (even those in different fields). In addition, this fact will help, by

means of the semi-structured interview, to point the strong and weak points of the

methodology during the pilot test, even those related with the instructions booklet

(Tullis & Albert, 2008).

Participants will be given a virtual structured interview with open answers to

enquire about the usability of the methodology such as time, ease, likeability of use,


amongst others (Appendix H). The use of open answers with specific questions will

facilitate the respondents to add any information they think it is relevant in order to

qualify the methodology in the subjects required.

The analysis made by the researcher for the first type of analysis (corresponding

to MAARDI type analysis) will be compared with the results of the analysis made by

the subjects in order to spot similarities and differences, testing the validity of the

method.

Data analysis

The qualitative data gathered by means of CTA will be analyzed using

qualitative emergent methodologies (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009, pp. 181-197) with

the help of the Qualitative Data Analysis and Research Software: ATLAS.ti. The

purpose of this analysis is to create categories and relationships that allow a relation of

the CTA findings with the MAARDI findings. Afterwards, the values of the percentages

for use of cognitive operators in both methodologies will be compared using

percentages and descriptive statistics. This decision was taken due to the lack of a

statistical methodology that allows comparison of statistical significance amongst

percentages or samples with irregular n.

For the reliability analysis, the recurrence of cognitive operators found by the

different analysts will be compared using Chi-square, so the coherence between the

different analyses carried using the same methodology can be tested. For this purpose

the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences: SPSS will be used. This methodology is

considered appropriate for the present study as it allows the statistical comparison of

population differences in order to test a hypothesis, nevertheless, some problems with

this methodology were found. As stated by Grayson (2001), the best way to test

coherence between analyses carried out by different evaluator is the use of an inter-

coder reliability test like Cohen’s Kappa. However, inter-coder tests are created in order

to contrast a fix set of given nominal data with a fix set of cases. Grayson (2001) argues

also that when data is not nominal or the cases are not fixed, the only way to compare

difference between evaluations is by means of a general measure like Chi-square, with

the disadvantage that the categorical measure has to be put aside. As the data to measure


reliability for our study does not have the characteristics required for an inter-coder test,

Chi-square is considered the most appropriate alternative.


Results

Analysing validity

Test 1, the game The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was used as a case with

the intention of comparing the MAARDI methodology with a human protocol

methodology based on Cognitive Task Analysis methods (think aloud protocols, graphic

cognitive elicitation, and unstructured interviews) This experiment aims to compare

both techniques in order to test the validity of the MAARDI methodology by comparing

the similarity between the results of the application of both methodologies.

There are different ways to test the validity in social sciences and humanities.

For the present study, two kinds of validity have been selected: construct validity and

content validity. Construct validity refers to the degree in which the test reflects what it

claims to measure, it requires operationalized variables that are comparable. Content

validity is related to external evaluation and can be done by means of asking the

participants if they think the test reflects what it is intended to measure (Vanderstoep &

Johnston, 2009, pp. 59-60).

For the construct validity a triangulation approach will be employed, comparing

MAARDI with methodologies normally used for similar studies. Although comparison

between at least three methodologies is suggested for this approach, only a comparison

between MAARDI and CTA methods can be done due to the lack of a third

methodology with characteristics comparable with those of MAARDI.

For the content validity, the section corresponding to the methodology in the

usability test will be used.

For Test 1, the maps shown in the Appendix F as well as the walkthrough shown

in the Appendix D where taken by the researcher and analysed using MAARDI. The

results of the researcher’s analysis will be compared with the results of Participant A’s

analysis. Researcher’s results will be used for the Test 2 as well.

Participant A, a male Master’s student in Games was trained in thinking aloud

methods and asked to play the first dungeon of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time,

while describing everything that happens, including the thoughts he was having while

he played (Appendix I). Then a small open interview based on the observations by the


researcher was carried out (see Appendix J). Afterwards, the participant was asked to

draw his performance during the game using any representation he found comfortable

(figure 35).

The use of MAARDI methodology showed the following results for the task

environment:

Figure 29. Pattern of the attack of the boss Ghoma

Figure 29 depicts a pattern of attack by the boss Ghoma, the task environment

analyzed in the Deku tree dungeon. The boss performs a pattern of attack based on the

following actions: attack-climb to the ceiling-lay three eggs-jump down when the eggs

are destroyed-attack again. The player must, first, by the use of induction, find out the

pattern of attack as well as which actions are allowed during each phase of the attack

(for instance attacking different parts of the boss’ body to know where is it vulnerable).

When the player has figured out the pattern of attack and what to do during each phase

(e.g. wait, attack, which items harm the boss and which does not), it is possible to apply

the rules to the whole system, transforming the boss defeating task in a whole task of

scientific reasoning: make a hypothesis and test it, and if it works, do it again, else look

for other solutions.


Figure 30. Representation of Deku tree dungeon using MAARDI

Figure 30 shows the representation of cognitive demands in the Deku tree

dungeon based on the notation shown in the Appendix K. The representation shows the

blockages of the path as well as the sequence the player should advance through the

whole dungeon. The arrows point the movement between rooms (spatial localization),

while the red blocks with the logic operators represent, for instance, the need of a tool in

order to open the path that leads to the third floor (logic connector in D). Other

connectors as the inductive and abductive in C depicts the encounter with a new enemy

that requires a new fighting strategy, the strategy is in the end an alternative strategy as

the enemy is not defeated by normal means (sword), but bouncing his own attack back

with the shield. These representation leads to figure 31, depicting the recurrence of the

use of the different cognitive demands (deductive, inductive, abductive, scientific,

spatial, logic and physical) during this game scenario.


Figure 31. Amount of cognitive operators present in the MAARDI analysis of the Deku tree dungeon

Based on figure 31 it is possible to say that the game has a high cognitive

demand of spatial reasoning, but also presents a high amount of deductive reasoning as

well as logic reasoning in a necessary form: “For...is necessary to...” In addition, the

main task describes a big sequence of scientific reasoning by the continuous use of

deductive and inductive reasoning. Table 3 shows the percentage of reasoning used in

each case. The task dimension adds four to the inductive and abductive reasoning

necessary for each of the four actions of the boss during her attach pattern.

Table 3


Cognitive

Demand

Task

Dimension

Problem

context Total Percentage

4 6 10 0,27

4 3 6 0,16

0 3 3 0,08

1 0 1 0,03

0 12 12 0,32

0 4 4 0,11

0 1 1 0,03

32 1,00

The use of CTA methodologies showed the following results:


For the thinking aloud protocol and the interview the Qualitative Data Analysis

and Research Software: ATLAS.ti was used. Using a qualitative emergent type analysis

the following categories came out from the analysis of the data: assertion of

information, control mapping, environment mapping, hypothesis formulation,

hypothesis testing, information inquiry, insight, new information obtained, pattern

finding, previous knowledge and spatial localization info. It is necessary to state that

some of the expressions may refer to more than one category and some of the categories

may overlap.

The analysis of the qualitative data lacks inter-coder reliability, as it was done

only by the researcher. Nevertheless the quotations were revised by the analyst three

times looking for coherence. Then the codes were reviewed and relationships were

drawn between the most common appearances of codes (for an overview of how the

codification was done, please refer to de Appendix O).

In order to have a better insight into the results of the qualitative analyses, below

are presented the major findings for each category. The first one to emerge after the

analysis was assertion of information. It refers to the action of merely describing what

the player is seeing (e.g. “enemies falling out of the ceiling”, “so now I can open this

door”, “solid rock in this one”).

Control mapping category emerged when the researcher found expressions

showing that the player is trying to map the controllers to the actions of Link (the

avatar) within the game (e.g. “hold A to dive”, B for sword”, joystick moves...D-pad

doesn’t do anything”).

The third category, environment mapping, makes reference to the identification

and verbalization of the player that a part of the map is salient or can be used as a

landmark (e.g. “this is shallow”, “there is a switch”, “moving platform...spiky pole”).

Hypothesis formulation describes the use of the words such as “maybe”,

“probably”, “I think”, “I guess”, “if” or the use of self questioning statements (e.g. “Can

I open this door?”, “I can probably climb them”, “maybe I have to stick on the other

first”), indicating there is some kind of not-yet-carried action that can be done in order

to test if it is part of the rules or part of the prohibitions of the game.


The category hypothesis testing indicates the use of expressions describing failed

or successful actions carried for the first time by the player (e.g. “I cannot tag one

there”, “If I shoot the eye...yes!”, “that should be ok...but I can’t put on the block”).

Information inquiry, the sixth category, emerged when the researcher found

expressions denoting the open inquiry of information by the player while he plays (e.g.

“where am I?”, “how do I get out from the spider?”, “how many times do I have to hit

her?”).

The seventh category, insight, refers to the expressions used by the player to

express an insight or sudden discovery of a solution or an answer to a question (e.g.

“OK...Hit them doesn’t make them turn, I just have to wait”, “Aha!...yes!”, “Oh! You

can hit her”).

The category new information obtained emerged when the researcher spotter

verbalizations indicating that the player obtains new information about the game or the

environment and he makes it obvious by stating it, this information may be explicit

given by the game or obtained by the player via insight or abstraction of clues (e.g. “try

the switch...and the fire dissolved the cobwebs ok...”, “so I can go and equip them”,

“attack while she’s stunned”).

The pattern finding category emerged when, in a verbal way, the player points

towards a pattern finding, mostly by trial and error (inductively). In this way, the player

points towards a sequence of actions that work in an arbitrary and cyclic form (e.g. “so

it comes...oops...so I can’t use the sword”, “she turns to the side...looks down...looks

up...right..down...maybe let’s try to...in circles”).

The tenth category, previous knowledge, refers to the verbalization of mental

mapping of previous knowledge (memory). This knowledge could be acquired

previously in the game or can be a schema taken from another game or real life (e.g.

“looks like a trap actually”, “I guess these must be the brothers”, “because is clicking,

like a clock”).

The last category found, spatial localization info, relates to the situations when

the player states or asks something about his actual spatial state or when he points

towards the 2D map (e.g. “so now...if you go from left to right you will have one two


three...and that was the order I have to attack them”, “There’s a red arrow on the

map...is there the last place I was or is it where I need to go?”).

Departing from the categories found and the overlapping of codes, some

relationships were found: hypothesis testing follows hypothesis formulation indicating

high use of scientific reasoning (inductive and deductive combination) within the game

(figure 32). Nevertheless, the hypothesis was not always formulated or tested aloud as

indicated in the recurrence of categories within the text (44 hypothesis formulation and

32 hypothesis testing)

Figure 32. Relation between hypothesis formulation and hypothesis testing

Hypothesis testing is highly associated with the acquisition of new information

and insight (probably as they all are a way of acquisition of information, one by trial

and error and one by creative realization). All three are linked to the pattern findings as

described in the figure 33. Pattern finding is also associated with another kind of

knowledge, which is previous knowledge of the player; probably as the player tries a

new thing with basis in real world patterns or previously played games.

Other patterns that imply a relationship between categories was found. It allows

the researcher spotting similarities between the current created categories and MAARDI

cognitive operators. These patterns are as follows:

Information inquiry and spatial localization are associated with new information

in an indirect way (figure 34). In the case of the information inquiry it is probably

because a search for new information leads the player to openly make questions. In the

case of spatial localization could be because the cognitive demand of the game is highly


spatial (navigating in a 3D environment), which makes necessary for most of the

information to be linked with spatial representations.

Figure 33. Relation between the forms of acquisition of new information and the pattern finding

Figure 34. Second order links to the pattern finding.

For the analysis of the cognitive graphic elicitation methodology, the order of

the drawing was taken into account, as well as the visual and verbal cues given by the

participant.

The participant drew the sections of the map as depicted by the numbers (figure

35), starting from the first section and finishing with the fourth section, indicating a

strong sequential linkage between the task resolution and its representation (to solve the

game the player should go from the first floor to the second and third, and then to

basement one and two). The drawing was also made following the order of the rooms

visited by the player while solving the task and describing the landmarks and the


representative elements of each room, showing not only sequential linkage, but also

strong spatial and episodic representations.

Key elements in the logic consecution of goals were also drawn by the

participant: Slingshot-vines, spider web-jump to break, torch-burned spider web, secret

of the brothers-three brothers, eye above the closed door-slingshot, push blocks-burn

spider web. In the end of the drawing it is possible to find a summary of the strategy to

beat the boss: “hit her with stunning seeds and attack the eye”.

Figure 35. Cognitive graphic elicitation methodology applied to Participant A after playing the Deku tree dungeon in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

So far the researcher analysis using MAARDI and the analysis using CTA

methods have been made and explained. Following, the comparison between these two

analyses will be done in order to test their comparative validity.

In order to compare the analysis made by the researcher and the analysis made

by the Participant A, it was necessary to operationalize both in the same way. For this

purpose the qualitative data obtained using CTA methods were described using


MAARDI terminology. Thus the previous stated relationships between the categories

found in the CTA will be used to support the translation of terminology.

Environment mapping as well as spatial localization info is directly linked with

spatial reasoning, as both make reference to manipulation of spatial information.

Hypothesis formulation refers to the use of deductive reasoning as it departs from rules

already known and aims to test them. The test of hypothesis is linked to the use of

scientific reasoning because it implies the proof of a theory that could or not be stated

aloud. Insight refers to the finding of alternate, unknown or unexpected paths in the

solution of a problem, by chance or by trial and error, pointing towards abductive

reasoning. The pattern finding process corresponds to both inductive and scientific

approach in order to get patterns out of trials and errors (what is to say, to find rules and

then generalize them). The categories new information obtained, previous knowledge,

information inquiry and assertion of information refer to descriptive categories or

memory mapping by the player (codification or recover of information in the memory

of the player). As we are not including the memory category in the MAARDI analysis

we will not take into account these categories. Control mapping refers more to learning

and fine motor skills, and the same statement done above applies for this category.

The qualitative analysis points towards the reasoning types deductive, inductive,

abductive, spatial and scientific of the MAARDI method. In addition, the graphic

representation method helps us to distinguish the use of logic links by the player, with

four linked yet separated areas within the dungeon as well as a series of items or events

linked in a causal way. For this analysis the number of causal items depicted by the

player will be counted, in addition to the division of the dungeon (compass, slingshot,

jump to break, vines and spiders, ladder, spider web, burn web, secret of the brothers,

shot the eye, push blocks, tunnel to the upper area, spider web burn, three brothers). The

creation of a map depicting the dungeon also implies the use of spatial reasoning not

only during the game play but also during the evocation of the play session.

The combination of both methodologies is summarized in the table 4.


Table 4

Amount and percentage of reasoning categories found in the qualitative methodology

Qualitative category MAARDI reasoning Total items Percentage

Hypothesis formulation Deductive reasoning 44 0,33

Hypothesis testing Scientific reasoning 32 0,24

Insight Abductive reasoning 11 0,08

Pattern finding Inductive reasoning 8 0,06

Spatial localization and

environment mapping Spatial reasoning

20 0,16

casual links depicted in

the drawing Logic reasoning

17 0,13

133 1,00

In order to test construct validity, the percentages of appearance of cognitive

operators will be descriptively compared, this is primarily because the amount of

measures is irregular for both methodologies and statistical methodologies as Chi-

square do not work with percentages.

Figure 36: comparison between percentages of cognitive demand used in the CTA and MAARDI methods

Figure 36 depicts the percentages of cognitive demand spotted in the game

analyses by different methodologies. It is possible to observe how most of the data

found (deductive, abductive, logic, physical, moral and everyday reasoning) are very

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CTA

MAARDI


close in each of the methodologies with less than seven percent of difference between

each other. The non appearance of statistic and moral reasoning are due to the fact that

none of these kinds of reasoning were demanded by the game. The stability of the

measures points out that the method’s construct validity for the categories deductive,

abductive, logic, physical, statistic, moral and everyday reasoning is fine, while the

inductive, scientific and spatial reasoning categories does not share the same construct

validity as the difference between both methodologies sometimes surpasses the ten

percent of difference.

The analysis shows that, although both methodologies are different and both

possesses different advantages and problems, they are fairly similar to each other, so

that it is possible to infer that both possess a similar kind of construct validity for

deductive, abductive, logic, physical, moral and everyday reasoning types.

Nevertheless, when analyzing figure 36 it is possible to realize that MAARDI is better

on spotting inductive and spatial kinds of reasoning, while CTA methodologies are ore

fine grained when it comes to spot scientific reasoning.

For the content validity, the answers given by the participants of Test 2

(specifically the usability test) were taken. Participants stated in consensus that the

methodology and the theory were easy to relate to the material to analyse. Both

participants agreed to be satisfied with the results, liked the methodology and found it

suitable for its purpose. When asked about the characteristics of the methodology, both

participants found it agile and appropriate for the target population.

Taking into account that most of the percentages for the construct validity are

very close and the answers about the measures taken with MAARDI were consensually

positive, it is possible to say that the tool possesses construct and content validity for the

pilot test.

Analysis of reliability and usability

For the analysis of reliability and usability the previous MAARDI analysis of

Deku tree dungeon in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, was used.


Two people were asked to read a 17 pages document containing the theoretical

information about the MAARDI methodology as well as some examples of its

application (Appendix G). Then they were asked to apply the methodology using

standard material given by the researcher (Appendices B, C, D, E and F). After the

participants have finished applying the methodology they were asked to fill out a survey

containing some questions about the usability and likeability of the methodology

(Appendix H). The participants were asked to do this via e-mail and were given a period

of five days to read the information document, apply the methodology and answer the

questions (Appendix L).

The participants chosen for the test belonged to the population for which the

methodology was created. Participant B is a female student of Master’s in Games.

Participant C is a male student of Master’s in Psychology.

After both participants have finished the analysis, a table containing the

recurrence of reasoning demand was obtained for each participant, allowing a later

comparison using a Chi-square test (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009, pp. 99-100)

Table 5

Table summarizing the analysis made by Participant B of The legend of Zelda: Ocarina

of Time

Type of reasoning Recurrence Percentage

Deductive 17 33,33

Inductive 2 3,92

Abductive 1 1,96

Scientific 2 3,92

Spatial 17 33,33

Logic 4 7,84

Physical 5 9,80

Statistical 0 0,00

Moral 0 0,00

Everyday 3 5,88


Table 6

Table summarizing the analysis made by Participant C of The legend of Zelda: Ocarina

of Time

Cognitive

Demand

Task

Dimension

Problem

context

Sub


2 0 2 4 0,21

0 0 3 3 0,15

1 0 3 4 0,21

0 0 4 4 0,21

0 0 1 1 0,05

0 0 1 1 0,05

0 0 2 2 0,10

For a detailed description of the analysis made by Participant B and Participant

C, please refer to the appendices M and N respectively.

In order to better depict the relationship between the three measures the graphic

37 indicates in a visual way the relationship between the percentages of cognitive

demand highlighted by each participant in their analysis.

Figure 37: graphic depiction of the relationship between the percentages of cognitive demand spotted by the participants and the researcher

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Researcher

Participant B

Participant C


To analyse the reliability of the test three Chi-square tests were carried out: one

between the main analysis and the analysis made by Participant B, one between the

main analysis and the analysis made by Participant C, and one between the analysis

made by Participants B and C.

For the analyses between the main-B analysis, main-C analysis, as well as the

analysis between the Participants B and C analyses a Chi-square test, comparing the

percentages of appearance of reasoning categories were used. A significance degree of

Sig=0,05 was taken.

For all the analysis the null hypothesis was p>0,05 indicating there are no

significant differences between the groups.

Table 7

Chi-square test carried out between the results of the analysis done by Participant B

and the researcher’s analysis.

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square 9.695 7 0,207

N of Valid

Cases 88

Statistic and moral reasoning items were not calculated because there are no occurrences

Data presented in Table 7 depicts the Chi-square results for the contrast between

the researcher’s and the Participant B analyses. The present results for a significance of

p<0,05 and a degree of freedom of df=7 indicates that any data below the measure of

14,07 will test the null hypothesis. As it can be seen in the table the significance of the

test is 0,21, rejecting the null hypothesis and supporting the research hypothesis of

similarities between the use of MAARDI by the researcher and Participant B with the

same material.


Table 8

Chi-square test carried out between the results of the analysis done by Participant C

and the researcher’s analysis.

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square 5.622 7 0,585

N of Valid

Cases 55



the researcher’s and the Participant C analyses. The present results for a significance of




similarities between the use of MAARDI by the researcher and Participant C with the

same material.

Table 9

Chi-square test carried out between the results of the analysis done by Participant B

and the analysis done by Participant C.

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson

Chi-

Square

12.680 7 0,080

N of

Valid

Cases

69



the Participant B and the Participant C analyses. The present results for a significance of





similarities between the use of MAARDI by the Participant B and Participant C with the

same material.

Some categories like statistic and moral reasoning were not analysed for validity

or reliability, due to the lack of use inside the game.

It can be observed that all three tests done in order to prove the reliability of the

methodology proved the null hypothesis, supporting the research hypothesis of stability

between applications of the same methodology using the same material by different

participants. Therefore, at far as the pilot test it is concerned, it is possible to say that

MAARDI is a reliable tool.

In addition to the information brought by the testers, an alternative way of using

the MAARDI method was considered for one of the participants. MAARDI was

primarily designed as a representational method; therefore some signs (cognitive

demand operators) are used in the descriptions. Nevertheless, Participant B instead of

using the cognitive operators, made a structural analysis assigning reasoning categories

directly to some of the actions stated in the walkthroughs and maps (Appendix M).

Concerning the usability test, both participants agreed that the information given

to them was enough and understandable. However it is necessary to use more examples

of how to employ the methodology in order for it to be more understandable.

Participants also pointed out the time the spent understanding and applying MAARDI

was less and easier than other methodologies they were familiar with. Both participants

based their analysis on only one walkthrough (Appendix B) and took between three and

four hours to apply the method, highlighting the methodology is agile as promised.

Participants B and C stated to be satisfied with the results and the methodology and

found it suitable for its purpose and the population it is directed. Participants stated they

would suggest the use of this methodology to their colleagues interested in cognitive or

education studies. Some suggestions indicate more examples should be included in the

material, not only for the application but also for spotting and assigning the reasoning

types. One of the participants suggested it would be better if the researcher played the

game directly instead of just analysing walkthrough and maps.

Concerning the agile characteristic of the method, it was found that, without

taking into account the time spent learning the methodology, the time taken by the


participants reading the material and making the analyses was six hours for both

participants B and C respectively, while it took two hours to the researcher to do the

whole MAARDI analysis. In comparison, the CTA method used by the researcher,

without taking into account the time spent learning the methodology, took more than 13

hours to carry out (one and a half hours of application, four hours of transcription, six

hours of codification and revision and two hours of analysis). Scaling these results it is

possible to say that the application of MAARDI by non-trained people takes half the

time it takes to apply a CTA methodology based on human protocols. If trained people

can complete it within two hours as the researchers did, it would imply MAARDI can

be seven times faster than a CTA methodology, with a good validity and reliability

proved by the pilot test.


Discussion

Although the validity and reliability of MAARDI proved to be in place or viable,

results cannot be generalized as only a pilot testing was carried out. In order to better

test the validity and reliability of the tool, extensive and representative studies should be

carried out in order to compare different subject application as well as contrasting the

methodology with other methodologies.

It is suggested by the researcher that alternative ways for testing validity and

reliability are carried out, as the ones proposed privilege the sample size and number of

measurements. Other methodologies for testing reliability as inter-coder reliability are

can also be applied.

It is also suggested that in order to test the validity in a better way, a good

triangulation study should be done (as the present lacked one measure and can be

considered a comparison more than a triangulation). In addition, to the CTA methods, it

is suggested that the content analysis and code making have an agreement consensus

given by a team, as it increases the validity of the test carried out with these results.

The manual distributed to the participants of the usability study should be

remade containing more examples not only of the application of the methodology, but

also the spotting and differentiation of reasoning operators. The document should also

contain the alternative (non representational) way of application of the methodology

used by one of the participants of study.

Subjects from different disciplines (as communication researchers and teachers)

should be also tested in the use of this methodology as in the present pilot testing no

sample representing this two kind of population could be obtained.

Furthermore, more research using different games with different cognitive

demand; especially moral and statistical reasoning should be done, since the game used

in the pilot test did not have any of those kind of reasoning so it was not possible to test

their reliability or validity.

Subjects applying the methodology did not seem to use the symbolic

representation of the task, but instead preferred other type of structural/verbal

representation. Taking that into account as well as the possible problems internalizing

and using the cognitive operators, other ways for applying the methodology should be


added to the current form of representation. It is also suggested that the current graphic

representation can be changed for a combination of visual and verbal representations

like mental maps, charts or diagrams.


Conclusions

MAARDI methodology was created in order to test the possibility of

construction of a tool that allows for the analysis of cognitive demand of videogames in

terms of reasoning, using design material in an objective and structural way rather than

being based on human performance and qualitative methodologies.

Employing Newell and Simon’s task analysis and cognitive reasoning theories, a

methodology that uses design documents as walkthroughs and game play maps was

created and tested for validity, reliability and usability.

The validity test was carried out descriptively comparing the methodology

against classic Cognitive Task Analysis methodologies. The results of this test showed

that the tool created is possesses a good content validity, while the construct validity

proved to be better for the constructs of deductive, abductive, logic, physical, moral and

everyday reasoning. MAARDI is better used with rough grained data rather than fine

grained data; for this last purpose the classic human protocols are considered to be

better tools. In addition the construct validity analysis showed that MAARDI is a good

tool when spotting Inductive and Spatial reasoning, while CTA methods are better on

spotting scientific reasoning. The pilot testing showed that MAARDI is agile enough to

let a person in the fields of game design and psychology analyse big amounts of data in

considerably less time than the classic human protocols methodologies.

The reliability test was carried out comparing the application of MAARDI by

the researchers and two participants, one from the game design field and one from the

psychological field. The tool showed high reliability when compared one by one using

Chi-square tests.

The methodology proved to be agile and structural, as well as representational

and analytical tool for the analysis and abstraction of cognitive reasoning demands in

videogames. It also proved, by the pilot test, to be a valid tool to show results in a

quantitative way, avoiding the possible lack of information or over information taken

from classic CTA methodologies.

MAARDI proved not to be a fine-grained tool when pointing the use of

scientific reasoning, as CTA protocols are more detailed when describing hypothesis

formulation and testing system in the player. On the other hand, MAARDI showed to be


very reliable to spot spatial reasoning, with the factor that the game used requires spatial

reasoning the whole game play (this fact was pointed out in Participant C analysis. See

Appendix N), but only certain actions can be evaluated as spatial reasoning.

As a tool for measuring a big amount of data related to cognitive demand in a

short amount of time, the MAARDI stands as a quantitative, rough grained

methodology with a good validity and reliability, easy to understand and quick to apply.


References

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing Research:Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis.

Fine Art Forum, 17(8).

Abdolmohammadi, M., & Baker, R. (2006). Accountants' Value Preferences and Moral

Reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(1), 11-25.

Alex. (2007, 2005). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Retrieved July 30th, 2012,

from http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_t.txt

Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants' Physical World. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 13(3), 89-94.

Banjo2553. (2009). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 5. Retrieved July 30th, 2012,

from http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_ad.txt

Bara, B., Bucciarelli, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1995). Development of Syllogistic

Reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 157-193.

Best, J. (1997). Psicología Cognoscitiva (5a ed.). Mexico: Thomson Learning.

Boot, W., Kramer, A., Simons, D., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2008). The Effects of

Video Game Playing on Attention, Memory, and Executive Control. Acta

Psychologica, 129, 387-398.

Bullet_Proof_Software. (1986). Tetris.

Burak, A., Keylor, E., & Sweeney, T. (2005). Pacemaker: A Video Game to Teach

Peace. Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment Proceedings 3814,

307-310.

Canossa, A. (2009). Play-Persona: Modeling Player Behaviour in Computer Games.

Doctor of Philosophy, Danmarks Design Skole.

Capcom. (1996). Resident Evil.

Capcom. (1999). Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.

Car, A., & Frank, A. (1994). General Principles of Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning: The

Case of Wayfinding. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Symposium on Spatial

Data Handling, SDH, Edinburg. Escotland.

Carretero, M., & Asensio, M. (2004). Psicología del Pensamiento. Madrid: Alianza.

Castell, S., Jenson, J., & Taylor, N. (2007). Digital Games for Education: When

Meanings Play. Paper presented at the Situated Play.

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_t.txt

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_ad.txt


Conslavo, M., & Dutton, N. (2006). Game analysis: Developing a Methodological

Toolkit for the Qualitative Study of Games. The International Journal of

Computer Game Research, 6(1).

Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Woring Minds: A Prectitioner's Guide to

Cognitive Task Analysis. England: The MIT Press.

Chi, M., & Slotta, J. (1993). The Ontological Coherence of Intuitive Physics. Cognition

and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 249-260.

Dye, M., Green, C., & Bavelier, D. (2009). The Development of Attention Skills in

Action Video Game Players. Neuropsychologia 47, 1780-1789.

Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2003). Cognitive Psychology A Student’s Handbook (4th

ed.). USA: Psychology Press.

Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender

Differences in Spatial Cognition. Psychological Science, 18(10), 850-855.

Fullerton, T. (2008). Game Design Workshop. USA: Elsevier.

Galarneau, L. (2005). Authentic Learning Experiences Through Play: Games,

Simulations and the Construction of Knowledge. Paper presented at the

Changing Views – Worlds in Play.

GameRankings. (1998). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Retrieved July 30th,

2012, from http://www.gamerankings.com/n64/197771-the-legend-of-zelda-

ocarina-of-time/index.html

GameRankings. (2012). Browse and Search Games Retrieved July 30th, 2012, from

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html

Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and Reasoning. USA: Basil Blackwell Inc.

Gee, J. (2005). Why Video Games are Good for your Soul. Australia: Common Ground

Publishing Pty Ltd.

Gee, J. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy

USA: Library of Congress.

Golse, B. (1987). El Desarrollo Afectivo e Intelectual del Niño. Barcelona: Masson.

Grayson, K. (2001). Interrater Reliability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1 & 2),

71-73.

Greeno, J. (1978). Advances in Instructional Psychology: A Study fo Problem Solving

(Vol. 1). USA: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Hardy, T., & Jackson, R. (1994). Learning and Cognition (4th ed.). USA: Prentice Hall.

http://www.gamerankings.com/n64/197771-the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time/index.html

http://www.gamerankings.com/n64/197771-the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time/index.html

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html


Helm, B. (2005). Educational Games Crank Up the Fun Retrieved 13, 2012, from

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-22/educational-games-crank-up-

the-fun

Holyoak, K., & Morrison, M. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and

Reasoning. USA: Cambridge University Press.

id_Software. (1993). Doom.

IGNStaff. (1999). Zelda Breaks All Records Retrieved July 30th, 2012, from

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/066/066340p1.html

IGNStaff. (2004 ). GDC 2004: The History of Zelda Retrieved July 30th, 2012, from

http://cube.ign.com/articles/501/501970p1.html

ImpactGames. (2007). PeaceMaker.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1993). Human and Machine Thinking. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Mogill, A. (1999). Student's Probabilistic

Thinking in Instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5),

487-519.

Juul, J. (2007). A Certain Level of Abstraction. Retrieved from

www.jesperjuul.net/text/acertainlevel website:

Kahney, H. (1986). Problem Solving: A Cognitive Approach. USA: Open University

Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea

of Justice USA: Harper & Row.

Lazy_8_Studios. (2009). Cogs.

Level-5. (2008). Professor Layton and the Curious Village.

Level-5. (2009). Professor Layton and Pandora's Box.

Lindley, C., & Sennersten, C. (2006). A Cognitive Framework for the Analysis of Game

Play: Tasks, Schemas and Attention Theory. Paper presented at the Workshop on

the Cognitive Science of Games and Game Play, Vancouver, Canada.

Lindley, C., & Sennersten, C. (2008). Game Play Schemas: From Player Analysis to

Adaptive Game Mechanics. Internationa Journal of Computer Games

Technology, 2008, 47-53.

Lionhead_Studios. (2005). Black & White 2.

Lipsit, L., & Reese, H. (1981). Desarrollo Infantil. Mexico: Trillas.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-22/educational-games-crank-up-the-fun

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-22/educational-games-crank-up-the-fun

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/066/066340p1.html

http://cube.ign.com/articles/501/501970p1.html

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/acertainlevel


Luria, A., & Tsvetkova, L. (1990). The Neuropsychological Analysis of Problem

Solving. (A. Mikheyev & S. Mikheyev, Trans.). USA: Paul M. Deutsch Press,

Inc.

Maxis. (1989). SimCity.

Meirowitz, M. (1970). Mastermind.

Metacritic. (1998). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Retrieved July 30th, 2012,

from http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-

of-time

Microsoft. (1990). Windows Minesweeper.

Milton_Bradley. (1956). Yahtzee.

Morey, L. (2003). Measuring Personality and Psychopathology. In J. Schinka & W.

Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of Pshychology (Vol. Volume 2. Research Methods in

Psychology). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nacke, L., Ing, D., Nacke, A., & Lindley, C. (2009). Brain Training for Silver Gamers:

Effects of Age and Game Form on Effectiveness, Efficiency, Self-Assessment,

and Gameplay Experience. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 2(5), 493-499.

Newell, A. (1966). On the Analysisof Human Problem Solving Protocols. Paper

presented at the International Symposium ofn Mathematical and Computational

Methods in the Social Sciences, Rome.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. USA: Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson, R. (2004). Cognition and Chance. The psychology of Probabilistic

reasoning. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nintendo, E. (1998). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Nintendo, E., & Grezzo. (2011). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D.

O'Reilly, M. K. (2007). I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game (IWBTG).

Peardian. (1998). Inside The Deku Tree (Top) Retrieved July 30th, 2012, from

http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/N64/LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Present-

InsideTheDekuTree(Top).jpg

Prensky, M. (2006). "Don't Bother me Mom-I'm Learning". USA: Paragon House.

Reiner, M., Slotta, J., Chi, M., & Resnick, L. (2000). Naive Physics Reasoning: A

Commitment to Substance-Based Conceptions. Cognition and Instruction,

18(1), 1-34.

Rogers, S. (2010). Level Up: A Guide to Great Videogame Design. USA: John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time

http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time

http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/N64/LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Present-InsideTheDekuTree(Top).jpg

http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/N64/LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Present-InsideTheDekuTree(Top).jpg


Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game

Design. USA: New Riders Publishing.

Rosas, R., Nussbum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., . . . Salinas,

M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and Assessment of Educational Video

Games for First and Second Grade Students. Computers & Education, 40, 71-94.

Sarkar, S., & Gosh, D. (1996). A Probabilistic Reasoning Model: Formulation and

Control Strategy. Decision Support Systems, 16, 365-386.

Schoenbach, V., & Rosamond, W. (2000). Understanding the Fundamentals of

Epidemiology. USA: University of North Carolina.

Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S., & Shalin, V. (2000). Cognitive Task Analysis. USA:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Sternberg, R. (2006). Cognitive Psychology (5th ed.). USA: Library of Congress.

Tecmo. (2003). Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly.

Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the User Experience. USA: Elsevier Inc.

Turing, A. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.

Vanderstoep, S., & Johnston, D. (2009). Research Methods for Everyday Life. USA:

Jossey-Bass.

Voss, J., Greene, T., Post, T., & Penner, B. (1983). Problem Solving Skill In the Social

Siences. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and

Theory, 17, 165-213.

Vygotsky, L. (1979). El Desarrollo de los Procesos Psicológicos Superiores.

Barcelona: Crítica.

Wild, C., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical Thinking in Empirical Enquiry.

International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223-265.

ZeldaDungeon.Net. (2012). Chapter 1 - Kokiri's Emerald Retrieved July 30th, 2012,

from http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Zelda05-ocarina-of-time-walkthrough-

01.php

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Zelda05-ocarina-of-time-walkthrough-01.php



Appendix A

Fatal Frame 2 walkthrough. Chapter eight. Extract from the full walkthrough at

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/fatal_frame_2_d.txt

H. CHAPTER EIGHT: HALF MOON

***************************

Your mission during Chapter Eight is to find and use the four Pinwheel Crests to open

the secret passage out of the Village. You already have the Tachibana Crest.

[NOTE: During Chapter Eight you are likely to have a random encounter with Woman

in Dark, especially in the Misono Hill area. There are no pre-set battles with this ghost,

so if you want to add her to your Spirit List you must seek out one of these random

battles. Woman in Dark attacks in much the same way as Man in Dark, but she is a

little faster and her Shutter Moment doesn't occur until she is very very close to you.]

--VILLAGE, KIRYU HOUSE FRONT

First thing to do is go to the Old Tree. Go W along the road, across the little bridge and

past the shrine, until you reach the tree.

--VILLAGE, THE OLD TREE

Take a photograph of the spirit blocking the entrance to the tree and you'll receive a

photo of ALTAR. Do you remember this place? It's in the Kureha Shrine. Go up the

stairs and head towards the shrine.

--VILLAGE, KUREHA SHRINE PATH

A Vanishing Ghost will appear when you get to the top of the steps.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: MAN AT SHRINE (~1050)

This is an easy capture. He'll be standing right in front of you when you get to the top

of the stairs. Just draw your Camera and shoot! [NOTE: It is also possible to capture

this ghost earlier in the game, during Chapter Two. Even if you capture him both times,

it still counts as only one entry in your Spirit List.]

**********

After capturing the ghost, enter the Shrine.

--VILLAGE, KUREHA SHRINE

Your filament begins to react as soon as you enter the Shrine. Take a picture of the altar

to banish the spirit that locks the tree. You'll receive a photo of ESCAPING TWINS.

Head for the hole in the lattice to the right of the altar and you'll find FOLKLORIST 7.

As soon as you pick up this item, you'll be attacked by a ghost.

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: VEILED PRIEST

It's your old friend, the Veiled Priest! He attacks in the exact same pattern that he used

in all your previous battles. Often he will go after your sister, which is great because it's


easy for you to get a Zero Shot while he's attacking her. You'll want to conduct your

battle from the middle of the room so the ghost can't hide behind the various walls and

lattices. He has A LOT more stamina than before, but even so, you should be able to

win quite easily.

**********

After the battle you will find a GLOWING YELLOW CRYSTAL and a SPIRIT ORB.

After grabbing these items, return to the Old Tree.

--VILLAGE, KUREHA SHRINE PATH

When you get to the bottom of the stairs, your pal returns for another round.

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: VEILED PRIEST

How many times must you brutalize this ghost before he gets the point? If anything,

this battle is even easier than the last one because there's nothing for him to hide behind.

Keep pounding him with Zero shots until you win.

**********

You don't get any items after this battle. Go S and enter the Old Tree.

--VILLAGE, OLD TREE

After a short cutscene, ... Mayu will collapse in exhaustion. You'll be on your own for a

while. You can photograph her to get another entry in your Spirit List.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: FALLEN MAYU (0)

Just aim and shoot. How easy can it get?

**********

In between the entrances to the tree, you'll find FOLKLORIST 12. Mayu has made a

new entry in her Memo Book, TWIN ORDER. Then search the Pinwheel Shrine and

you'll receive the OCTAGON KEY. This will allow you to finally enter the Storehouse

where Itsuki is held prisoner. Now if you photograph the Shrine, you will see what it

looks like with all the pinwheel crests in place. After taking this picture, you'll be able

to take another picture of Mayu and receive STOREHOUSE WOMAN. You can try

talking to Mayu to see an optional cutscene. She will give you vague hints about where

to find the other pinwheel crests. You're done here for now, so leave through the left

opening, then head toward the E side of the village.

--VILLAGE, OSAKA HOUSE FRONT

A Vanishing Ghost appears as you walk down the path.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: STOREHOUSE BOUND (~250)

Sae appears ahead of you, walking down the path. You have captured an image almost

exactly like this earlier, and it even had the same name. However, this appearance

counts as a separate entry in your Spirit List.

**********


There will be another Vanishing Ghost as you pass by the empty building between the

Osaka House and the Storehouse.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: ROAMING DOLL (~3500)

As you pass the empty building, you will see a static haze blurring the screen. There

will be no sound effects and your Filament will not react. Switch to the Finder as soon

as you see the static, and aim S into the building. You'll see a disembodied pair of legs

strolling by. Your Capture Circle will not glow, but you can use the Lock Circle as a

guide.

**********

Now go use the Octagon Key to unlock the door to the Storehouse.

--VILLAGE, STOREHOUSE

After a cutscene, ... a Vanishing Ghost will appear.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: IMPRISONED BOY (~300)

It's an image of Itsuki. Immediately after the cutscene ends, switch to the Finder and

you'll be perfectly lined up for a shot.

**********

Before entering the cell, pick up the TYPE-ZERO FILM that's lying there on the floor.

In the cell you'll find BOUND DIARY 4 and CRYSTAL ORE. Search the cabinet in

the corner to find BOUND DIARY 3 and BOUND DIARY 5. Take a picture of the

map hanging on the wall to get ALL GOD'S VILLAGE MAP. This map shows you

where to find the other 3 Pinwheel Crests. It looks like there's one in Osaka House, one

in Kiryu House, and one in the Cemetery. Nice. Also, the Trapped Boy memo will be

amended to the ITSUKI MEMO in Mio's notebook. There's nothing up the stairs, but

don't let that stop you from going up to have a look around through your Finder. Your

next destination is the Osaka House. Go inside and make your way to the Kimono

Room.

--OSAKA, 1F KIMONO ROOM

There's some TYPE-14 FILM lying on the ground. Then head into the S closet and

examine the kimono box. After a cutscene ... you'll be attacked by the same ghost that

you fought here before.

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: WOMAN IN BOX

This battle is exactly like the last battle you had with this ghost in Chapter 2, except that

she has more stamina. You should be able to defeat this ghost effortlessly.

**********

The OSAKA CREST will be left behind after the battle. Be sure to SAVE THE GAME

before you leave the room, because when you return to the Fireplace Room, there is an

extremely tough Vanishing Ghost opportunity.

--OSAKA, SUNKEN FIREPLACE ROOM


Before you take a single step into the room, switch to a high-speed film like Type-61 or

Type-90.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghosts: RUNNING CHILD (~700), RUNNING CHILD x2 (~2000)

Walk very slowly into the room. After you've taken a couple of steps, the perspective

will change. Immediately switch to the Finder when this happens. The three ghosts

will all appear at the same time, but you won't be able to capture them all in one shot.

The first ghost, a girl in a red kimono, will run past you from right to left and head up

the stairs. Quickly snap her as she runs past. Then aim to the right and you'll see the

two other ghosts; one is running toward the Altar Room, the other is running down the

hallway. If you are using high-speed film, you'll barely have enough time to get a shot

of both of these ghosts at once. This is a very tough capture, but fortunately it's very

near a save point so you can try it again if you want. It's a lot easier to catch these

ghosts the second time you play through the game, when you can use your Zoom

Function to widen your field of view. So, you might not worry about it until then.

**********

After the ghosts disappear, you have an optional side quest of hunting them down. If

you go do it, you receive a very powerful upgrade for your camera. First, go through the

W door into the Big Tatami Room.

--OSAKA, 1F BIG TATAMI ROOM

There's HERBAL MEDICINE on the cushions in the corner. That's about it. Now go

upstairs to find the first ghost.

--OSAKA, 2F SERVANT'S ROOM/GUEST ROOMS/STUDY

As soon as you enter, run into the second Guest Room to find a Vanishing Ghost.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: HIDING CHILD (~1200)

You must move quickly to capture this ghost before she vanishes. She's hiding behind

the kimono against the W wall. If you hesitate, she will vanish before you can get close

enough to take the shot.

**********

After the ghost vanishes, a GARNET will be left behind. On your way out, pick up the

Sacred Water that's in the little hallway. You're all done here, so make your way back

downstairs to the Family Altar Room.

--OSAKA, 1F FAMILY ALTAR ROOM

Head into the S part of the room to find another one of the hiding children.

**********


To trigger this ghost's appearance, go into the little alcove with the dead flowers and the

faded painting. The ghost will appear crouching at your feet. Draw your Camera and

aim down to capture it.

**********


There are no items here. If you need a Stone Mirror, and you didn't pick it up before,

there's one down in the basement. Now, go to the Back Room to capture the final ghost

child.

--OSAKA, 1F BACK ROOM

You'll find the final ghost child hiding in this room.

**********


As soon as you enter the room, quickly run over to the deck area to find this ghost

finding in the corner on your left. Run and capture him quickly before he disappears!

**********

After capturing this ghost, ARAGONITE (SMALL) is left behind. Pick it up and then

you can find another creepy Vanishing Ghost.

**********

!!-Vanishing Ghost: LATTICE ARM (~2800)

This ghost will not cause your Filament or Capture Circle to react. If you aim out into

the Atrium, you'll see half a dozen ghostly arms reaching through the nearby window.

Step to the right so that you can get a clear shot that's unobstructed by the hanging

screen. This ghost will persist until you take the picture.

**********

Ready? Now you can go back to the Fireplace Room where you will have a final battle

with the three ghost children.

--OSAKA, 1F FIREPLACE ROOM

Here we go...

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: GIRL PLAYING TAG, BOY PLAYING TAG, BOY PLAYING

TAG

This battle only occurs if you have found the hiding places of all three ghost children.

(It is not necessary for you to have captured all of the ghost children.) The three ghost

children are very tricky. They will teleport quite frequently and try to confuse you.

There are two ways to get a Zero Shot against these ghosts--the first way is when they

teasingly cry "Over here!" just before teleporting. The second way is to wait for them

to attack; there will be a Shutter Moment as they close in to grab you. To avoid a sneak

attack, don't linger in Finder Mode and stay in the middle of the room where you can

see as much as possible. If you see the ghost beginning to step toward you, get ready to

take your shot. Don't forget to use the Zero Lens or Blast Lens to inflict extra damage.

While these ghosts are annoying, they're not very strong, so you should be able to beat

them on the first try. Each of the three ghosts counts as a separate entry in your Spirit

List.

**********

After the battle, an item will be left behind. It's the SAVE FUNCTION (with THE

"SAVE" FUNCTION tutorial and TYPE-14 FILM). This amazing function will allow

you to absorb twice as much Spirit Power as before with each shot. This means you can


use your Power-Up Lenses more often. And now, you're finally done in this house.

Leave and take the path W into the Village. Go through the big door at the S end of

Kiryu House. Head through the Hanging Doll Room and the Tatami Hallway, then

enter the Sealed Room (use your map to find the way).

--KIRYU, 1F SEALED ROOM

The doll maker's ghost is lingering here.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: YOSHITATSU KIRYU (1000)

To find this ghost, aim your camera at the doll maker's workbench. His ghost still

haunts the site of his death....!

**********

There are no items here, so get going. Return to the hallway and go N to the next door.

--KIRYU, 1F FAMILY ALTAR ROOM

A Hidden Ghost has appeared in this room. You will only be able to find it if you are

replaying the game, however.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: PHOTO WOMAN (1000) [Sense Function required.]

To find the ghost, stand next to the table in the NE part of the room and aim up at the

row of three pictures in the corner.

**********

After capturing this ghost, use your map find the way back through the Tatami Room

Hallway and Staircase-Hallway to the Hallway of Contrasts.

--KIRYU, 1F HALLWAY OF CONTRASTS

Enter the little closet where you previously found one of the parts of the doll statue.

There's a hidden ghost in this little room.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: JAMES MIELKE (1000)

Right. This is obviously a crucial part of the story. To find him, aim your camera out

the Storeroom window, using your Filament as a guide. Easy.

**********

After capturing this...ghost...go through the door in the middle of the hallway and return

to the Twins' Room.

--KIRYU, 1F TWINS' ROOM

The only thing to do here is to grab the SPIRIT ORB on the floor. After you get this

item, make your way to the Clock Hall and go up the stairs.

--KIRYU, 2F STAIRWAY ROOM

If you're replaying the game and you have the Sense Function, you can find a hidden

ghost here.

**********


!!-Hidden Ghost: FREE FALL (1000) [Sense Function required.]

To find this ghost, stand near the broken railing at the top of the stairs and aim down

into the first floor. Take your shot when the capture circle turns blue.

**********

Feel free to SAVE THE GAME before going on. Then, go through the door at the NE

end of the hallway to return to the Sliding Screen Room.

--KIRYU, 2F SLIDING SCREEN ROOM

You will see an image of Azami standing in the hallway here. Photograph her and you

will receive a picture: GIRL GOES INTO WALL. You can find some TYPE-14 FILM

lying on the floor. Then search the W wall next to the Kimono to find a secret door,

leading to a hidden room.

--KIRYU, 2F HIDDEN ROOM

You'll find the KIRYU CREST hidden in this room. When you try to leave, there's a

cutscene ... and then you're thrust into battle.

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: TWIN'S DOLL and TWIN'S SPIRIT

Leave the hidden room--you definitely don't want to try to fight in there. You should be

familiar with the technique of fighting these ghosts by now. While the Twin's Spirit has

slightly more stamina than before, you should be able to win with no problem.

**********

After defeating the twin girls, you'll be able to find a Hidden Ghost.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: DAVE HALVERSON (1000)

Of course! Dave Halverson! Anyway...to find this ghost, approach the door that leads

to the Connecting Corridor. When your Filament begins to glow, aim your Camera

through the torn paper screen to find this guy.

**********

You're finally done in the Kiryu House, and there's only one more crest to go. Go

downstairs and leave through the side door.

--VILLAGE, KIRYU-TACHIBANA

You can find a hidden ghost in this area.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: JUMPING WOMAN (1000)

To find this ghost, go down the stairs and stand underneath the Sky Bridge. Aim your

Camera up at the bridge to capture the ghost.

**********

Now go N through the gate to find a ghost hiding by Whisper Bridge.

--VILLAGE, WHISPER BRIDGE

There's a ghost hiding here.

**********


!!-Hidden Ghost: JOE RYBICKI (1000)

Several game magazine editors were allowed to enter a contest to get their pictures

hidden in FF2. This is one of the winners. Find him by standing on the shore at the SW

end of the bridge, and aiming down at the water.

**********

After capturing him, head back S through the Village to Osaka House.

--VILLAGE, OSAKA HOUSE FRONT

There is a Hidden Ghost that you can find here, but only if you're replaying the game.

**********

!!-Hidden Ghost: WINDOW WOMAN (1000) [Sense Function required.]

If you stand near the SE corner of the Osaka House, you see the window of the

Storeroom (where you talked to the trapped boy) in the background. Stand near the

Twin Deities monument and aim at the window. Your Filament will not glow at all, but

you will see the Capture Circle turn blue when you aim at the right spot.

**********

--VILLAGE, MISONO HILL

You'll see some TYPE-14 FILM lying on the ground when you get to the top of the hill.

You can also SAVE THE GAME before continuing to the Cemetery.

--VILLAGE, ALL GOD'S CEMETERY

After you cross the bridge, you'll see some HERBAL MEDICINE lying among the

leaves. Enter the Cemetery and look for the Tsuchihara Altar using your Filament to

guide you. Take a picture of the altar and you'll get the photo of a GRAVESTONE. As

you go down the aisle of the tombs, your Filament will react to one of the headstones.

Photograph it to get a picture of GRAVE SHADOW. This will unlock the Tsuchihara

Altar, but you'll have to battle a ghost before opening it.

**********

!!-Attacking Ghost: BROKEN NECK WOMAN

You've had many battles with this ghost before, but now she's got more stamina. Use

the same tactics that you have in prior battles, and don't forget to use your Blast Lens

for extra pain.

**********

After the battle, return to the Tsuchihara Altar to get the TSUCHIHARA CREST. Now

you have all four crests! Go to the N end of the Cemetery and re-enter the Old Tree.

--VILLAGE, OLD TREE

Amazingly, Mayu is still here. Examine the shrine, and you'll get another chance to

solve a pinwheel puzzle. This puzzle works just like the one in the Altar Room of

Osaka House, except that you have six turns to solve the puzzle instead of four. The

solution:

Upper Left: Rotate once.


Upper Right: Rotate twice.

Lower Right: Rotate three times.

After you solve the puzzle, there will be a cutscene. ... And you've now

reached the end of Chapter Eight!


Appendix B

The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time first part walkthrough. From

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_t.txt

+-- (_/ KOKIRI FOREST ------------------------------------------ 01.01 --+

Please note that for every area of this walkthrough, there is an identical area below in

the item checklist section of the guide where you can keep track of all the items you

find in an area to help see any that you may have missed.

When the game begins, you are a young Link, lying in bed and greeted by a Fairy. The

instant Link wakes up you are able to move around and control him. Acquaint yourself

with the controls and leave Link's house. As you leave, the young elf girl Saria comes

running and greets you. Approach her and press the A button to speak, listen to what

she has to say. Note that all directions I will use, such as east, west, north, south etc will

pertain to those directions on the map in the corner of your screen. Head west of where

you start and you will come across a ramp leading up to a higher level. Go up the ramp

to reach a kind of fenced in area. What you want to do is navigate between the fences,

on the other side there is a little crawlspace in the wall for Link to crawl into. Simply

approach the crawlspace and press the A button to enter it. Hold up on the analog stick

and Link will crawl along to the other side. You can read the sign directly ahead of you,

it will give you all sorts of helpful tips on how to control young Link. What you need to

be careful of here is a large boulder, it is rolling around this area and there's not much

you can do to stop it, hiding in the little alcoves is about your only chance to avoid it.

Start running east and then make a right, then a left and then a right. This will lead you

to a large chest which contains the KOKIRI SWORD. Open up the menu and select the

sword from the equipment section, if it appears in Link's hand that that means you have

equipped it correctly. Now you can press the B button whenever you wish to swing the

sword and attack your foes. Press the A button after standing stationary for a moment

and you can put the sword away. Also if you hold the B button for a couple of seconds

and release you can perform a spinning sword slash.

Return to the Kokiri Forest back through the crawlspace that you came in from now.

With the sword in your possession you can begin to gather Rupees, enough to purchase

the shield. You won't be let out of the village unless you have a sword and shield so

you might as well start collecting. Here are the best ways to accumulate the 40 Rupees

that you will need. First of all, in the area where you got the sword you should have

found a couple of blue Rupees, these are worth five Rupees apiece. Slashing plants will

often new you maybe one Rupee or so, but there are better ways. Head back past the

fenced area and run down the sloping path again, into the house at the bottom, the one

beside that circle of rocks. There are four treasure chests in this room, open them all to

acquire a BLUE RUPEE, a RECOVERY HEART, a BLUE RUPEE, and a pathetic

GREEN RUPEE. Now you'll be at approximately 25 Rupees, we're getting there.


Directly east of this house you will notice a few square shaped platforms sticking up out

of the water. Run toward these platforms, as you come to the edge Link will

automatically jump in the direction you are moving assuming you are running. Jump

across all three of these platforms on the water to get a Blue Rupee. Head back to

Link's house, east of it is a building with a ramp that you can go up to reach the top of

the house. It leads to a bridge, cross this bridge and the other bridge to reach a raised

platform with a girl and a Blue Rupee on it. At this point you had might as well just run

around the village slashing all the shrubs and gradually collecting Rupees until you have

acquired 40 of them. Once you do have 40 Rupees, then your destination will be the

shop. It has kind of an orange roof and is located on the northeast side where all of the

water is.

Inside the shop, speak with the shopkeeper. Use the analog stick to move left and right

and make your selections. You'll find the Deku Shield located on the lower shelf on the

right side, select it and purchase it if you have 40 Rupees. You just bought yourself a

DEKU SHIELD! Be sure to equip it in the menu, after that you can use it with the R

button. If you press and hold the L/Z button while defending with the shield, then you

can move around while using it. Now make sure that both your sword and shield are

equipped and make your way east. Speak with the little elf guy blocking the path and

he will allow you to pass if you are properly equipped. Pass by Mido and begin your

trek down the path. As you do suddenly something happens, some evil plants pop out

of the ground. If you hold the L/Z button you can approach the enemy carefully while

you target it and swing your sword, it should go down with a single strike. You will

most likely acquire a Deku Stick after defeating this enemy. A Deku Stick has many

uses, it can be used as a weapon instead of your sword, but that's really not what it's for,

it's likely to beak that way. Just keep it in your inventory and you'll use it later.

Proceed to defeat the other plant enemies before you go any further. Approach the great

Deku Tree and listen to what it has to say. The great Deku Tree opens its mouth wide to

reveal and entrance. It's now time to go inside the tree and break the curse.

+-- (_/___ / DEKU TREE -------------------------------------------- 01.02 --+

The plants inside this dungeon are a little nastier than the ones you have already fought.

Instead of sitting there and taking the punishment, these ones are going to lunge at you.

Fortunately they cannot go any further than their stems will let them. Keep your

distance and attack with your sword. These enemies will drop Deku Nuts, another new

item which you can use to stun your enemies. Note that at any point when you hear

Navi call "Hey!" to you, you can listen to her by pressing C-up. Sometimes if she has

something really important to say, she'll just say it anyway without having you press a

button. Note there is a ladder on the wall here to the left of you when you come in from

the main entrance. Across at the far end there is also a vine growing on the wall. Both

can be climbed to bring you up to the ledge above, take either one it doesn't matter. If

you went up the ladder then you will have to run around and jump across to the top of

the vines. From there proceed along the path as it gradually slopes up. At the top of the


path you will come across a large chest. Open this chest to acquire the DUNGEON

MAP. Most if not all dungeons have a Dungeon Map which fills up the map in your

menu to show the entire dungeon and hopefully give you a better idea of where to go.

Since you cannot get up the vine wall beside the chest yet, that means you had might as

well continue along the path you are currently on. Soon enough you will come to a

door, Navi gives you a little tutorial on how to open doors, it's really about as easy as it

sounds. Opening a door isn't particularly difficult. Walk up to the door and press A to

go through it. When you do you will see something in the middle of the room. It keeps

popping out of the ground over and over again, firing Deku Nuts at you. When you try

to go close to it and attack with your sword it just pops back down into the ground

again. The solution? Stand a little ways back, far enough so that it isn't afraid to pop

up, and hold the R button to bring up your shield. Deflect the nut back at the enemy,

that is how you defeat him. The easiest way to aim it of course is to hold the L/Z button

to target him, and then defend with your shield. After doing this then chase the little

guy down, when you corner him he will speak to you. Grab the Recovery Heart that the

Deku Scrub drops and proceed through the door that just opened, not the one you came

through.

There is a floating platform in this room, you can try to jump to it and jump across.

Once you land on it the platform will break, it doesn't matter if you fall though, simply

climb up the vines on the other side. They lead up to a large treasure chest, open it to

find out what's inside. The item inside turns out to be the FAIRY SLINGSHOT. The

Fairy Slingshot fires Deku Seeds, you are given 30 of them automatically to start with

and you can find many more just by slashing grass and stuff. Equip the Fairy Slingshot

to one of the C buttons. To pull back, hold that C button and then let go of it when

you're ready to fire. You can aim while holding the button. Now you may be

wondering how to get back across to the door since there aren't any vines to climb, The

solution is simple, now that you have the Fairy Slingshot, use it and take aim at the

ladder above the door you came in from. When you hit the ladder it falls down. Before

going back to the door note the vine beside this chest that you can climb up, it leads to a

small hidden room with a treasure chest containing RECOVERY HEART. After

getting it then you can leave.

Return to the main room, the large inner trunk area and go back to the chest where you

got the Dungeon Map, the chest beside those vines on the wall. Before you couldn't

climb up the vines because those damn Skulltula things would knock you off. Now you

can safely stand below them on the ground and fire upward using your Fairy Slingshot.

You can aim manually if you want, but it's even easier to aim by targeting the enemy

using the L/Z button and then simply tapping the C button to fire directly at it. It should

only take a single hit to drop these enemies, though you may have to aim manually to

hit the third one higher up. Once they have been dispatched then you can safely begin

to climb this wall. When you reach the top of the vines make a right and drop down

onto the walkway. Directly in front of you is a larger Skulltula. These ones are a bit


more difficult to defeat. What you have to do is wait for them to drop down. After a

moment they will spin around and reveal their back, this is your chance to strike. After

striking the Skulltula will go up in the air again, wait for it to descend and do the same

thing. The second hit will kill the enemy. Continue along this path past where you

fought the enemy and go through the first door you come to.

When you enter the room take a look to your right, there is a large button on the floor.

When you step on this button three platforms rise up out of the ground in the middle of

the room. They won't stay up forever it is only temporary so you have to move quickly.

Jump to the first platform, then the one on your left, then the one on your right and

finally from that one to the ledge. There is a large treasure chest here and inside it you

will find the COMPASS for the dungeon. The Compass takes your map and places an

indicator on it which shows your exact position and the direction you are facing, very

helpful and will make it a lot easier for me to refer to directions like east and west.

Return to the entrance of the room and press the button again. This time jump from the

first platform, to the second platform and then jump south to the other ledge. Open the

small chest here to get a RECOVERY HEART from it. Notice the Skulltula on the

wall, it is different from any other you have faced so far, it's more... golden than the rest.

This is a special Skulltula called a Gold Skulltula. To defeat it all you have to do is

swing your sword, it doesn't have a protective faceplate like the other. When the enemy

has been defeated it will drop an item. This is GOLD SKULLTULA [001] token that

proves you killed it. The reason I list the number beside it is so you can use the

checklist at the bottom of this guide and note that you have number 001 already, it will

really help out later to know which ones you have and which ones you don't. There are

exactly 100 Gold Skulltula throughout the game and something good will happen if you

kill them all, so we'll work toward that as we progress along with the walkthrough.

Now head back to the door.

You will notice the door is still locked and you cannot leave. What you are going to

need here is a Deku Stick, if you don’t have one then drop down and kill the plant

enemy, it is sure to drop one. Set the Deku Stick to one of your C buttons and whip it

out so that you are holding it. Walk up to the torch which is on fire and it will light the

Deku Stick. Now run quickly over to the other torch and light it using the stick, you

don't have to swing the stick, just approach the torch. After it is lit, you can pick the

stick away before it burns out entirely by pressing the B button. Now that the door is no

longer locked, leave this room. On your left there is another large Skulltula to kill.

Approach it and eliminate it. Now what you have to do is jump down all the way to the

very bottom, remember that spider web in the middle of the room when you came in?

Well it's time to break that web, and you break it by falling from such a huge distance

down on top of it right in the middle. If you land on the side of the web you'll be fine

but it won't break. I find that if you run to the edge, jump and let go of the analog stick

immediately after jumping, then usually that's just about perfect.


There should be a low ledge there beside you when you land, grab hold of the edge and

climb up. Defeat the plant monster here that is in your way. The first thing you are

going to want to do is take out your Fairy Slingshot and aim up at the Gold Skulltula on

the vine beside you. Fire two shots at it to kill the monster and then climb up the vine to

grab the GOLD SKULLTULA [002]. Now get in the water and find an area, right next

to the large button on the higher ledge, that you can stand on while in the water, the

platform is only slightly submerged underwater. While standing on it look over toward

the water gate and note the Gold Skulltula crawling around on it. Take out your handy

dandy Fairy Slingshot and fire two shots at the enemy to kill it. Now jump from the

ledge with the big button toward the water gate and grab the GOLD SKULLTULA

[003] in mid air. Climb back up onto the platform with the big button and step on the

big button. This will ignite the torch behind you. Open the chest beside the torch to get

a RECOVERY HEART and then whip out one of your many Deku Sticks. Set the stick

on fire and jump into the water, but not the deep water, jump onto the raised area which

is only slightly submerged. From there you can jump to the lower ledge without ever

having to actually swim. When you start swimming the Deku Stick obviously gets

extinguished. Once you reach this lower platform with the burning Deku Stick, run up

to the web and the fire will burn it away, now go through the door.

Once again there is a damn little Deku Scrub in this room. What you have to do of

course is target the enemy with the L/Z button and then hold the R button to use your

shield and deflect the Deku Nut back at him. The scrub tells you that you cannot defeat

the brothers unless you punish them in the right order. The correct order is 2, 3, 1.

Keep that in mind or just look back at this sentence I guess. The scrub will drop a

Recovery Heart for you to pick up but you still can't get out of this room. Here's the

trick, equip your Fairy Slingshot and aim up at the eyeball above the door. Fire away at

the eyeball and the bars will disappear, the door will be unlocked.

In this next room there is a rolling spike log thing that you are going to have to avoid

somehow. Navi gives you a tip right at the beginning, you can dive underwater while

swimming if you press the A button. Jump into the water and dive under, take a look

along the south wall to find an underwater button and when you swim up to it, the

button is automatically pressed. Now with the button pressed the water level in this

room drops and the moving platform is lower than the rolling spike log. Return to the

entrance and jump down onto the platform, you will be able to move safely underneath

it and jump to the ledge on the other side. There is a Skulltula here, not a gold one, I'm

sure you remember how to kill it, simply strike when the enemy's back is turned.

Notice the kind of depression in the ground and a block on the side. If you run up to

this block and press the A button you can grab hold of it from any side if you are

standing stationary. If you are moving toward the block when you press A beside it,

then you will climb up on top, like Navi says just keep an eye on the green action button

at the top of the screen, it tells you what it will do. Push the block along this depression

until it can't move any further and then climb on top. Climb from there up to the door

and proceed through it. The doors in this room are locked and there are some dangerous


plants growing about. Don't bother killing them all, they just respawn. Your goal is to

equip a Deku Stick and light it on fire, then use it to light all of the torches in this room.

This will unlock both doors, head north now.

Immediately as you enter this room a Skulltula drops down in front of you, be ready to

strike and defend yourself. Upon reaching the centre of this room, three new enemies

drop down. These will be the first enemies you have fought which can actually move

freely. Their weak point is the eyes on the front, I find it is easiest to simply fight these

enemies without using the targeting system, it will allow you to move about easier.

Once the three of them have been defeated then equip another Deku Stick and light it on

fire. Use the fiery Deku Stick to burn the spider web on the east side. It will reveal a

path to a crawlspace, approach the crawlspace and enter it using the A button. When

you pop out you'll notice that you have actually been here before, it's the large room

with all the water but you're up on top of a platform that you could not reach before.

The first thing you are going to want to do is locate the box that you can push along the

depression in the ground. Push it over the edge down into the water, this way you can

always get back up here quickly instead of going the long way around like you just did.

Jump down from here to the area with the large button. Light another Deku Stick and

then jump from this platform directly onto the box you just pushed and then from that

box up onto the platform. With your Deku Stick on fire, stand on top of the spider web

and press the C button that corresponds to the Deku Stick to swing it and set the web on

fire. Get ready for a big free fall down a level.

There are a number of hearts here in the water so you should be okay in terms of health.

This is exactly what the Deku Scrub was talking about, there are three of them here and

you have to catch them in the correct order. That order was 2, 3, 1, from left to right.

So basically start by deflecting the Deku Nut back at the scrub in the middle, then the

one on the far right and then the one on the far left. Catch him and he'll speak with you.

The scrub now reveals the secret of Queen Gohma, which as you probably guessed, is

the boss. You have to strike while she is stunned, doesn't sound too complicated. Grab

the Recovery Heart that the scrub leaves behind and enter the next room.

Prepare yourself for the first boss battle, the battle against Queen Gohma, the enemy

that the Deku Scrub was talking about. When the door slams shut, equip your Fairy

Slingshot and aim it up at the ceiling, once you make eye contact the battle against

Parasitic Armored Arachnid, Gohma will begin. At the very beginning of the battle,

Gohma will pretty much be wandering around doing her own this, this is your chance to

attack. Hold the L/Z button to target her eye and tap the Fairy Slingshot button to fire a

Deku Seed right into it, stunning the boss. While the boss is stunned, run up to her and

begin to slash her with your sword as many times as you possibly can. After this the

boss will begin climbing up the wall and shimmy onto the roof. After a few seconds

she will drop three eggs down directly below where she is on the ceiling. You now

have a small amount of time to go and strike those eggs, one single hit will kill them

however if you are not fast enough they will hatch into those little one eyed enemies


you fought before. Wait another few seconds and Gohma will drop down again, and the

pattern begins anew. Target Gohma's eye and let her get close, while she is up on her

back legs and the eye is red that is the best time to fire. It should take no more than

three or four sessions of stunning the boss and attacking with your sword.

When the battle is over there is a full HEART CONTAINER [001]. Your hearts have

now been increased to four, that's pretty nice. Step onto the blue portal and it will

automatically warp you outside of the Deku Tree. Listen to everything the Deku Tree

has to say because it's all very important. After the tree speaks it gives you the

KOKIRI'S EMERALD. Return to Kokiri Forest but there really isn't much to do there

at all, it's time to depart for Hyrule Field. Simply run all the way west to the exit of the

forest, a scene will take place between Link and Saria. She will give Link the FAIRY

OCARINA.


Appendix C


http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_ad.txt

Fairy-less Boy [Wlk1]

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

The game starts out telling basically the same story I told in the Game Story section,

calls Navi the fairy to assist Link, and the game starts shortly thereafter.

Get used to the controls, and walk outside the hut. Once outside, Saria will greet you.

You've been called to see the Great Deku Tree, so head east from your house (facing

away from it) to reach the entrance to the Great Deku Tree meadow, and a Kokiri is

blocking the way. He tells you that you need a sword and a shield in order to pass.

Alright...head back to your house, and head west to the maze of fences beside it. Past all

the fences, there's a hole you can crawl into by pressing A while directly facing it.

(There's a Kokiri boy next to the hole who teaches the basics of locking-on to objects.)

Once at the other side, you'll be at a small maze with a giant rolling boulder. At your

right there's a Blue Rupee (worth 5). Collect it. You'll need 40 Rupees to buy that

shield. Now, from the hole, head left, then take the first right, then left (there's a Blue

Rupee in the corner on the right), then right again. You'll find a treasure chest with the

KOKIRI SWORD inside. Congratulations, you've gotten the sword you need! Now let's

gather money for that shield. I'll start with Blue Rupee locations. Here:

- A Blue Rupee is found by locking-on to the rock beside the entrance to the hole to the

maze. Lock-on, face your house, and backflip. You should get a Blue Rupee.

- To the east of your hut is another hut with a path spiraling up it. Head up the path, and

follow the wooden bridges to a Kokiri girl and a Blue Rupee.

- North of your hut is a small pond with three platforms. Start at one end, and jump

across all of them. (You jump automatically after running off an edge.) A Blue Rupee

should appear on the last platform.

- There are two Blue Rupees in the maze, but you should have them already.

- There's also a Blue Rupee behind the Great Mido's house. (Check the signs beside the

huts to see where his house is.)

After finding those, head to the hut that's to the east of the northern-most pond. Before

entering, a Kokiri girl might try to get your attention. Z-targeting her before pressing A

will allow you to talk to her from the hut's canopy. Aside enemies, you can also Z-

Target people to talk to them over a distance, which she taught you just now. Head into

the hut. (Which is a shop.)


Before buying anything, head through the little extra space on the far end of the shop to

find another Blue Rupee, which should now get you 40 Rupees. Now, talk to the shop

owner and buy that DEKU SHIELD. Now, this is an okay shield made with very strong

wood, but remember, it is still wooden, and can be burnt completely off, rendering you

defenseless, so remember that and be careful among fire or fire-based enemies. You

shouldn't worry about that at this particular moment, but there will be a time when you

will be facing fire-based enemies. Now, head out of the shop and head east to talk to

Mido again. He'll let you pass now that you have your sword and shield equipped. (Go

to the Equipment screen and press A on the sword and shield to equip them.) Go

through the path and defeat the Deku Babas. (They shouldn't harm you.) They'll drop

some DEKU STICKS. Grab some, you're gonna need a few for the upcoming dungeon.

Continue and you'll find the Great Deku Tree. He'll explain to you what's going on and

will then open his mouth to allow passage. Head inside.

--------------

ITEM SUMMARY

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

EQUIPMENT:

Swords: Kokiri Sword

Shields: Deku Shield

Tunics: Kokiri Tunic

Boots: Kokiri Boots

Other: Bullet Bag (Holds 30)

ITEMS: (shown left to right)

Deku Sticks

OCARINA SONGS: 0

TEMPORARY/SIDEQUEST ITEMS: 0

EMPTY BOTTLES: 0

UPGRADE ITEMS:

Gold Skulltulas: 0

Heart Pieces: 0 (0)

Upgrades: 0

Boss Heart Containers: 0

GREAT FAIRY UPGRADES: 0

Total Health: 3 Hearts


X---------------------------X

Deku Tree Danger [Wlk2]

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Welcome to your first dungeon! This is the easiest and shortest, of course. In this very

tall room, there's a cobweb covering a hole in the center and a bunch of Deku Babas

surrounding it. Kill the Deku Babas if you want and climb either the ladder or the vines

on the wall to climb up. Either way, head over to where the treasure chest is. Open it to

get the DUNGEON MAP! To view the map, press START and go to the map screen

whenever you're in this dungeon. Blue rooms shown are ones you've been to already.

There are multiple floors in many dungeons. Continue along the path and enter the door

at the end. (Press A while standing in front of a door to open it.)

The door will lock behind you, leaving you to face a Deku Scrub. This Scrub fires Deku

Nuts at you. The problem is, when you try to come up to them to slash them, they

retreat into their hole. The trick is to guard using your shield. You see, whenever a

projectile hits your shield, it bounces back (usually). Shielding against the Deku Nuts

fires them back, so deflect the Deku Nut back at the Scrub and it'll run away. Catch the

Scrub and he'll talk to you and open the doors again. Head into the next door to reach a

room with a floating platform. Get on the platform and then quickly jump to the other

side. (The platform will fall soon after you land on it.) Open the chest here to get the

FAIRY SLINGSHOT.

This item needs Deku Seeds as ammunition. Luckily, this chest has ammunition for it as

well. To the left of the chest is a ladder. Climb it to reach another chest. Open it for a

mere RECOVERY HEART. Climb back down and face the gap where the platform

used to be. Take out your Fairy Slingshot and aim upwards toward the ladder there.

Shoot at it to make it drop down and serve to get you back to the entrance door. (You

can also Z target it for easier aiming.) Drop down (slash some grass for some Deku

Seeds if you need any) and climb up the ladder. Head back to the main room.

Head back to those vines near the treasure chest that had a map. Aim up at the spiders

(Skullwalltulas) and use the Fairy Slingshot to kill them. It should take one Deku Seed

to kill them. Climb the vines after getting rid of all three (you may have to aim manually

to get the top one) and get off on either side. Head along this path, defeating any Big

Skulltulas you come across (striking the stomach kills them), and come into the door

here.

Again, the door locks behind you. This room is a little larger than the others you've

visited, but nothing too much. First, step on the switch here to raise the three platforms

ahead. Head into the left alcove, but be careful of the Big Skulltula that may come

down. In this alcove is a Gold Skulltula. These are special Skulltulas that drop a token

(spirit) when defeated. It can be defeated using any means, and touch the token to

collect it. There are 100 of these Gold Skulltulas, collecting certain amounts will get

you prizes. (More on that later, or see the Gold Skulltula locations section.) Kill the


Skulltula and collect the token it leaves behind. (GOLD SKULLTULAS: 001 out of

100) The chest here contains another RECOVERY HEART.

Head over to the other side with a treasure chest (you may have to hit the switch again

to raise the platforms again). Open the chest to get the COMPASS. Now when you view

the map, it'll show the locations of any treasure chests hidden in this dungeon. Also on

the mini-map, it'll show where you are in the room, and the red arrow shows where you

entered the room/area from. Head back to the entrance of this room. Whip out a Deku

Stick and light it using the lit torch here. Bring it over to the unlit torch to light it, thus

releasing the bars on the exit door. You have to hurry; the Deku Stick will burn out after

a few seconds, wasting a stick. Once you are done, press A to put the stick away and

burn out the flames, saving the Deku Stick you used. Head back into the main room.

OK, time for a leap of faith.....You may have noticed the bridge-like platforms reaching

out to the middle of the room. You must jump off one of these and land on the cobweb

patch on the ground to break it. It helps if you stop pressing up on the Control Stick

after you've jumped. If successful, you'll fall far into a watery room. Get onto dry land,

and look along the vines to climb back up. There's another Gold Skulltula here. Kill the

Skulltula and climb up the vines to get the token. (GOLD SKULLTULAS: 002 out of

100) There's yet another one. Look over to the northern grate to see another Gold

Skulltula. Kill it with a Deku Seed, then jump over to the token. (GOLD

SKULLTULAS: 003 out of 100)

Get on the platform with the switch. There's a chest near the unlit torch here which

contains another RECOVERY HEART. Step on the switch to light the torch. Now, get

out a Deku Stick, and drop down to the raised part of the water. Once on that raised

land, get on the southern ledge. Once on there (make sure the stick is still lighted) head

over to the cobwebs blocking the door and burn them down with the lit stick. Put the

stick away then head into the next room. There's another Deku Scrub. Kill it the same

way as the other one. Talk to him and he'll tell you how to defeat his three brothers.

Remember the sequence. Fairy Slingshot the silver eye switch on the wall to unlock the

door here. Enter.

Here's a room with a couple interesting things: A spiked log suspended above a deep

lake of water, and a moving platform moving back and forth. Jump into the water and

dive down (holding A) to the switch to the left. When you hit the switch, the water will

be lowered temporarily. Use this time to get back onto surface and hop onto the moving

platform. If you're fast enough, you'll pass under the spiked spinning log unscathed.

After crossing this moat, kill the Big Skulltula, then push the block to the other side of

the indentation of the floor so you can enter the next door. (To push or pull a block,

press A while facing against it to grab it, then use the control stick to move it. To climb

onto a block, push the Control Stick towards the block then press A.)


In this room, ignore the Deku Babas (they respawn) and light the torches herewith a

Deku Stick to proceed into the next room. Kill the Big Skulltula upon entering here,

then head into the center of the room. Gohma Larvae will drop down. Hitting them in

the eye will kill them. After killing them all, burn down the cobwebs with a Deku Stick,

and head through the hole that was behind one of them. Past the hole, you'll find that

you're at the higher ledge in the watery room. Go over to the block, and push it into the

water, that way you can get here without going the long way. Now get a Deku Stick and

light it from the torch below. Now use the block and quickly get to the cobweb on the

floor of the higher ledge, and burn it by waving it around (press the C Button that the

Deku Sticks are assigned to to swing the stick, you might have to keep swinging until

Link does his upward swing). Once the cobweb is burned, drop down. (There's water

below, so don't worry about losing health.)

In this room, there's RECOVERY HEARTs in the water, and the three Deku brothers.

Remember that order the other Deku Scrub told you to get them in? Harm them in the

correct sequence and they'll open the door to Queen Gohma.

---------------

BOSS: Queen Gohma, Parasitic Armored Arachnid

This is the first boss, so it should be fairly easy to figure her out. But first, you have to

start the fight. Look up toward the ceiling once you enter the room, and you'll see a

huge eye. This is Queen Gohma. She'll see you, then descend so you can see her full

body. The last Deku Scrub you hit told her that she has to be stunned before she can be

hit. Well, the eye is a big hint.

Hit the eye with the Fairy Slingshot to stun her, then get up to her eye and slash at the

eye repeatedly. This is the way to hurt her. After slashing a few times, she'll run away

and start crawling up the walls. Once she's at the ceiling, she'll drop eggs that contain

her offspring. Break the eggs before the Larvae hatch so that you won't have any

trouble. After this, she'll try to drop on you. Move around so she can't. Once she drops

down, repeat the process until she's dead.

SPEEDY STRATEGY:

Stun her with the Fairy Slingshot, then jump slash with a Deku Stick to do a lot of

damage. Afterwards, hold R while facing her (without locking on) and press B

repeatedly to stab her to death. This method should only require one sequence. If by

chance you don't kill her in time, when she's at the ceiling laying eggs, shoot her in the

eye while it's red with the Fairy Slingshot, and she'll fall to the ground, open for another

attack. (Thanks to Bryson and...some other guy who's name I forgot for this tip....sorry,

other guy! >_<)

---------------

Either way, after she's dead, a light and HEART CONTAINER will appear. Make sure

you pick up the Container before leaving by stepping into the light. This Container will


give you an extra heart for your health. Nice. After stepping into the light, you'll appear

back in front of the Great Deku Tree. He'll talk to you a bit more, give you the Kokiri

Emerald, and then die. (Due to the curse.) Head out, and Mido will blame you for the

Deku Tree's death. (......) Check on a few things, and then leave the Kokiri Forest by

heading west. While leaving, Saria will stop you and talk to you. After giving you the

FAIRY OCARINA, she'll let you leave.

--------------

ITEM SUMMARY

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

EQUIPMENT:

Swords: Kokiri Sword

Shields: Deku Shield

Tunics: Kokiri Tunic

Boots: Kokiri Boots

Other: Bullet Bag (Holds 30)

ITEMS: (shown left to right)

Deku Sticks

Deku Nuts

Fairy Slingshot

Fairy Ocarina

OCARINA SONGS: 0

TEMPORARY/SIDEQUEST ITEMS: 0

EMPTY BOTTLES: 0

UPGRADE ITEMS:

Gold Skulltulas: 3

Heart Pieces: 0 (0)

Upgrades: 0 (Deku Seeds: 30, Deku Sticks: 10, Deku Nuts: 20)

Boss Heart Containers: 1

GREAT FAIRY UPGRADES: 0

Total Health: 4 Hearts


Appendix D













Appendix E

The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time first dungeon map. From

http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/N64/LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Present-

InsideTheDekuTree(Top).jpg


Appendix F

The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time first dungeon map. From





Appendix G

Theoretical and methodological synthesis given to the participants of the usability

test

The MAARDI methodology

MAARDI (Methodology for the Agile Analysis of Reasoning Demand on vIdeogames) is a

methodology designed to analyse cognitive reasoning demand on videogames on an agile and

structural way based on game design.

This method does not make use of human game play. Instead it takes documents as walkthroughs,

game design documents, maps and video records in order to build a representational game structure

susceptible of analysis in terms of reasoning.

The tool, based on Newell and Simon (1972) task analysis, aims to to analyse the cognitive demand of

ten types of reasoning: Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, scientific

reasoning, spatial reasoning, logic reasoning, physical reasoning, statistic reasoning, moral reasoning

and everyday reasoning.

Theoretical Background

What is task analysis?

Newell and Simon (1972) task analysis is a methodology to study human problem solving based on

the information processing theory (IPT). The IPT propend to create an analogy between the way a

computer process information and the human mind in order to understand how humans think. In this

sense, the task analysis methodology treats the human mind as if it were a computer: there is a

memory where the information is stored; there is a series of operations that can be applied to the

information and a space where the processes can be executed.

The task analysis theory proposed by Newell and Simon (1972) possesses 11 main components that

should be identified to accurately define and describe a task. In this document we will refer to seven

of them as we are not using Newell and Simon’s theory but a variant of it:

Task dimension, also called task environment: Refers to the objective conditions (goal, problem or

task) or the set of structural elements and their relation within the situation as if described by and

omniscience observer. It can be described in symbolic terms.

Demand of the task environment: These are the rules the solver must follow in order to solve the task.

Task invariants: Environment, a problem solver and a goal are considered for the authors as

requirements for a task to exist.

Problem space: Is the representation within the solver’s mind about the task dimension when the

solver tries to reach the solution. At this respect, Newell and Simon point that subjects can represent a

certain task dimension in different ways, and that’s why it is important the distinction between task

dimension and problem space concepts. These representations can be defined in terms of symbol

structures.

Operators: Are a series of actions or rules within the system that can be applied to the information in

order to reach the solution.

Initial state: Is the state from where the system starts, this indicates the basic information (statements)

the solver should use in order to move forward to the final state.

Final state: Defines the ideal state of the problem, the goal towards the solver should move.

What is reasoning?

Reasoning is an important constituent of thinking. It is the psychological process by means of it is

possible to reach logic conclusions from evidence or a series of premises.

The present study will focus on Eysenck and Keane (2003, pp. 513-515) approach called the domain-

specific rule theories, which proposes that specific skills with their own set of rules are taken into

account to successfully transform a set of contextual premises into a conclusion that is true within the


set of rules of the system.

In the present work we will distinguish ten types of reasoning:

Deductive reasoning: Is the one in which one statement follows from a set of other statements, in the

sense that there is no way that the set of statements could be true and the conclusion false (Garnham &

Oakhill, 1994, p. 80)

Inductive reasoning: The inductive reasoning is opposite to the deductive reasoning (in the sense that

is starts from the conclusion and tries to infer the general principles that have lead to it), creating an

uncertainty in which every answer must be tested in order to know if the answer is correct.

Abductive reasoning: What abductive reasoning proposes is that every time a certain event arises, its

antecedents are unknown, which is very good in order to formulate hypotheses and know the world or

explore new situations. For instance, suppose you throw an apple expecting it to fall to the floor, but

instead it falls to middle air and then starts to “float”. You will ask what happen in that case, as it

should have fallen. Then a series of hypotheses will come and be tested: is there a string? Is there a

glass I cannot see? Is the apple a real apple? And so on until one of the hypotheses proves to be

enough to explain the phenomenon, in which case can be generalized.

Scientific reasoning: We understand scientific reasoning as the type of reasoning which uses

induction to generate hypotheses about a situation. These hypotheses can be tested for falsifiability

using a deductive approach.

Spatial reasoning: Spatial reasoning has two aspects: the first refers to the capacity to distinguish,

differentiate, relate and rotate objects both in two and three dimensions. The second one refers to the

ability to recognize ourselves in a particular space, relating our position with a location and projecting

that position to a different goal/location (such as spatial navigation or map reading).

Logic reasoning: We will work under the assumption that formal logic is a special branch of the

mathematics and should be treated as such. Nevertheless humans, from early stages of life, develop

some notions of logic that are related to formal logic (such as the if-then relation).

Physical reasoning: Corresponds to our intuitive conception of the physical world, as well as the

conceptual models of the world we develop in a practical way (such as parabolic throw).

Statistic reasoning: corresponds to the necessity of the use of probabilities or combinatorial analysis in

order to solve certain problems, for example: the probability to get a sum of one when throwing two

six faced dices is null, while the probability of getting a sum of seven is 16.67%.

Moral reasoning: is a construct that describes the cognitive processes a person uses to identify and

solve moral problems and dilemmas.

Everyday reasoning: Is a way to solve the problems that correspond to a form of logic different from

the formal logic. This type of logic is individual and contextual, and is related to the person’s history

as well as his own way of previous successful steps when solving problems. In this line of thinking,

everyday reasoning does not have a series of steps or rules to follow, but are highly personal and

based in what is called common sense.

The methodology

Characteristics

MAARDI has the characteristics of being:

a) Structural: The methodology propend to create models of the game as it was designed by the

designer, taking into account all the elements necessary to analyze the cognitive task

demand. The essentials of the game are used in such a way that the elements and the

relationships within them can be represented and analyzed in an objective way.

b) Objective: The methodology is intended to a non-player-centred analysis. The construction of

the inner structure of the game as designed will lead to the analysis of the cognitive demand

of the game in such a way that is statistically traceable and tendencies and comparisons with

other games can be drawn.

c) Agile: MAARDI is created in such a way that, by using non-player sources such as

walkthroughs, game maps, game documentation, amongst others, the user can realize a

reasoning demand analysis of a videogame in less time than player oriented analysis and with


a similar reliability.

d) Design oriented: The methodology propend to analyze the design of the game as an object,

differing with the approaches that analyze the game as an emergent phenomenon interacted

by a (human) player.

e) Scalable: The different phases of the MAARDI methodology can be scalable in such a way

that the analyst can make more or less in deep analysis of the game depending on their

necessities. In that sense the user of the tool may decide to make more emphasis in

subsystems of the game or to cluster them so that the analysis is less detailed but with more

span.

f) Flexible: The methodology is intended to be scalable enough to let the user make their own

choice and emphasis of analysis according to their necessities (e.g. be more detailed or be

more agile or focus more in certain tasks within the environment). The methodology does not

oppose to the use of player-play techniques, so they can be used to improve or refine the

results found by the tool.

Description

The methodological tool consists of six phases:

1. Based on Aarseth (2003) source search for non-player game analysis, a set of reviews,

walkthroughs, play records, game documentations or game maps is compiled in order to be

analyzed.

2. A specific task within the game is chosen for task dimension analysis.

3. For the task dimension analysis, the task is depicted with all its constituent elements (games

trees, operators, initial state, final state and rules) in a graphic way (figure 1).

Figure 1. Depiction of the task dimension decomposition process.

4. The way we understand problem space in our methodology is different of what Newell and

Simon (1972) propose. The problem space for the present methodology will not take into

account players’ representations of the task dimension. This part represents the historic-

contextual part of the analysis and is what will let a transversal analysis of any game (figure

2). The results of this analysis will be presented in a graphic way.


Figure 2. Decomposition of the problem space.

5. The problem space will be traced back to other scenarios if it is necessary (figure 3). The

tutorial (or introduction to basic mechanics) of the game will also be analyzed in order to

trace elements and operations that could have been explained in advance within the game, in

order to differentiate some kinds of reasoning (e.g. inductive from deductive) (figure 4).

Figure 3. Depiction of the relationship of the scenarios within the game system.

Figure 4. Depiction of the decomposition of the system components.

6. The schemas and structures will be analyzed using the theoretical framework in order to

evaluate which kind of reasoning skills are required for solving a specific task. This part also

includes the historic-contextual part of the task.

7. A meta-analysis of the data will be carried out in order to distinguish tendencies within a

game. This part will be done only if more than one analysis is carried out in a specific game.

This methodology allows a transversal cognitive analysis of a game, taking into account series of

cognitive requirements in order to accomplish a defined task. This model can be applied to various

tasks within the game generating schemas of tendencies for the game. Moreover, this method creates a

semi-random way of analysis on games that enables both the increment of reliability of the studies

using this method and an agile way of study (figure 5).


Figure 5. Cake shaped depiction of the semi-random selection of the components within the game.

Codification

The MAARDI methodology proposes a representation of information that transforms the

aforementioned representations in symbols susceptible of analysis.

Table 1 presents a list of symbols used to designate the operators the player needs to use in order to

transform IS into the FS. These operators point directly towards the different kind of reasoning skills

mentioned before and tries to depict and identify the use of different kinds of reasoning as well as

their recurrence and relevance for the problem solving.

Table 10

Operators used for the graphical description of the task dimension and problem space

Type Symbol

Deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning

Scientific reasoning

Spatial reasoning

Logic reasoning

Physical reasoning

Statistic reasoning

Moral reasoning

Everyday reasoning

In order to correctly apply the operators that will be analyzed afterwards it is necessary that the user

refers to the cognitive theoretical framework used to construct the tool and ask him/her self some

questions when reviewing the documentation. For instance: does the current action involve the

application of a rule? Does the player know the rule beforehand or does s/he has to infer it from

his/hers actions? Does s/he have to use intuitive physics such as gravity? Is the task presented in such

a way that the player must be confronted with ethical or moral dilemmas? Does the task point towards

a solution that involves causality, conjunction and disjunction of choices or is it more related with

combination of possibilities?

In order to correctly apply the methodology, the user must be familiar with the theoretical framework.

Nevertheless, it is possible to apply the methodology using a summarized version like the one used for

the usability test (see appendix 7). User must be aware that the more familiar s/he is with the

methodology and the theory, the better the information will be represented.

MAARDI application example

Pictures 6 to 14 exemplify how the MAARDI methodology is represented and applied in an adventure

(survival horror) game. For the construction of the structural task dimension and problem space a


walkthrough of the game as well as some maps and videos of the puzzle were used.

The task dimension we chose is the goal of the chapter eight of the game Fatal Frame 2 (Tecmo,

2003). It consist of a puzzle describing a system of four clockwise rotating wheels with a fifth wheel

in the centre that should match with the numbers of the peripheral wheels and that rotates counter

clockwise when any of the other wheels rotate (this part corresponds to the task dimension). The

player must make the colour of the centre wheel with their periphery match within six movements

(figure 6). Now, in order to start the puzzle, the player should have in his/her possession four of the

five wheels that compose the system. To get those wheels, the player must travel a 3D environment of

a haunted Japanese village (figure 7).

Figure 6. Pinwheel puzzle as seen by the player in Fatal Frame 2, chapter eight

Figure 7. Design art depicting All God’s Village.

The problem space we are going to trace go back to the beginning of the chapter eight, where the

player finds herself in front of the Kiryu house with one of the pieces of the puzzle needed to finish

the chapter (figure 8).


Figure 8. All God’s Village map and zone names

Figure 9. Osaka house map and zone names

For the task dimension (pinwheel puzzle) the representation seen in the figure 10 was done. Following

a graphic description with all the possible states of the system was done in a graphic way based on the

limit of six movements as depicted in the figure 11.

Figure 10. Symbolic representation of the pinwheel puzzle.


Figure 11. Configuration of the possible states of any of the wheels in the pinwheel puzzle at a certain moment.

Following this depiction, an analysis of the structure of the puzzle was carried out in a visual

relational way both taking into account all the possible states (figure 12) and the effective solution

(figure 13) proposed in the walkthrough (rotate B once, rotate C twice and rotate D three times). It

also states the Initial state of the puzzle (IS), the final state of it (FS) and the solution (S)

Figure 12. Depiction of the possible states of the pinwheel puzzle taking into account the answer and the relationship between

its elements.

Figure13. Depiction o the solution of the pinwheel puzzle using the most effective algorithm.

For the problem space the representation seen in the figure 14 was done using the cues taken from the

walkthrough and the All God’s village and Osaka house maps and notation (figures 8 and 9).

Following, the cues taken from the walkthrough about the progress of the game in the chapter eight:

12 (the player starts here with one crest) ->17 ->22 ->9 ->17 ->14 ->2(Here the player has access to a

map that indicates the other pinwheels can be found in the locations 1, 10 and 18) ->1 (sub system,

Osaka house, the player will get a crest after defeating an enemy there) ->10 (sub system, Kiryu

house, the player will get a crest after defeating an enemy there) ->7 ->5 ->14 ->20 ->21 ->18(the


player will get a crest after defeating an enemy there) ->17 (wheel puzzle, end of chapter).

The structural depiction of the task is done in such a way that only one embedded systems is

described. This is made in order to exemplify the scalable and flexible characteristics of the

methodology.

Following, the cues taken from the walkthrough about the progress of the game in the Osaka house:

12 ->3(boss battle, the player will get a crest after defeating it) ->2 ->5 ->7 ->16 ->4 ->2. The steps

following the boss battle are considered a side quest as they are not necessary to finish the chapter.

Figure 14. Structural depiction of the walk through All God’s Village using the MAARDI notation.

Analysis

Taking into account the previous codified data, it is possible to carry out an analysis using the

different operators necessary to solve the task, its recurrence, relationships and objects involved in the

task.

For the task dimension, taking a closer look to the figures 11, 12 and 13, it is possible to realize a

series of details: first of all, the wheel A will always finish in the same position no matter the

combination of move we make with B, C, D or E. In that case, an effective problem solver will take

this into account and plan ahead so that the wheels aim in a certain place according to where A will be

in the turn six. Second, each movement diminishes the space of freedom (further movements) of all

the wheels except for A, as each movement will decrease the counter of six movements. Third, it does

not matter if the first on being moved is B, C or D, if the amount of rotation for each of them is

maintained, the answer will be the same.

It is possible then to infer from the previous information that the task we chose to be the centre of our

study is a combinatory puzzle which demands logic reasoning, present in the causal linkage between

the wheels and the planning required (to solve the task in an efficient way player must realize the

position where A is going to be after six turns). It also requires statistic reasoning, as the linkage

between the wheels creates a network of probabilities with a limited degree of freedom. The puzzle

also makes use of deductive reasoning because the player is applying a certain set of familiar rules

(The walkthrough describes a similar puzzle in chapter five) in order to solve the puzzle. If the player

did not know the rules beforehand the reasoning would start as inductive and after certain tries it will

become deductive.

So, the cognitive demand of the problem we chose to analyze is: inductive/deductive, logic and

statistic reasoning.

For the analysis of the problem space we can see in figure 15 the recurrence of some symbols. There

are 19 spatial connectors in the main map plus four in one of the subsystems analyzed. In addition


there is a different spatial connector corresponding to the location of the crests on a map; this is a

different type of spatial reasoning, the first kind is related to move one’s character within a 3D

environment one already know, the second kind is related to the interpretation of a 2D map and relate

it to a 3D location within the environment. So there are a total of 23 plus one spatial connectors. There

is one logic connector linked to a barrier (key-locked door). There are three sub-objectives (the crests)

which indicate logic reasoning as they act in the same way as the key and the locked door. And finally

there are three boss fights that indicate the use of deductive reasoning (they require a strategy in order

to be defeated, but similar fights have already taken place as indicated by the walkthrough, so the

strategies are already known).

Figure 15. Summary of the operators present in the problem space.

Then, it is possible to say that the problem space has a high spatial reasoning demand, followed by

deductive and logic reasoning.

Tying the task dimension and problem space analysis it is possible to say that the chapter eight of fatal

frame has high demand of spatial reasoning (75%), followed by logic and deductive reasoning (13%

and 9% respectively) and with a minor component of statistical reasoning (3%) (table 2).

Table 11


Cognitive

Demand

Task

Dimension

Problem

Space

Sub


0 20 4 24 0,75

1 2 1 4 0,13

1 2 0 3 0,09

1 0 0 1 0,03

32 1,00

References

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing Research:Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis. Fine Art Forum,

17(8).

Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2003). Cognitive Psychology A Student’s Handbook (4th ed.). USA:

Psychology Press.

Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and Reasoning. USA: Basil Blackwell Inc.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. USA: Prentice-Hall.

Tecmo. (2003). Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly.


Appendix H

Semi structured interview made to the participants of the usability test.

MAARDI usability test

The purpose of the present survey is to inquire about the usability and likeability of the

MAARDI methodology to analyse cognitive demand in videogames.

We want you to answer the questions in the most honest way.

If you have further questions or suggestions, you can write them down in the

suggestions section.

Thank you very much for your participation.

Personal information

Age

Previous Studies

Current studies or Degree

MAARDI booklet

In this section you will be asked about how the methodology was presented and

explained in the booklet

Is the booklet too big?

Does it have the necessary information to understand and apply the methodology?

Is the language used in the booklet understandable?

Does it contain enough examples?

Are the examples understandable?

Do you consider the time taking reading/understanding the booklet is too much?

Approximately how much time did it take for you to read/understand the information in

the booklet?

Usability

This section will inquire about the usability of the methodology

Did you think the methodology was easy to use?

Do you think it is easy to relate the material to analyse with the method?

Do you think it is easy to relate the material to analyse with the theory?

Did you use all the analysis material given to you? if not, which of them did you use?

How much time did it take for you to go through the analysis material?

How much time did it take to apply the methodology with the selected material?

Are you satisfied with the results and amount of work put in the analysis?

Do you think this methodology is suitable for communication researchers,

psychologists, game analysts, professors and teachers to use?

Likeability

In this section you will be asked about how much did you like the methodology

Did you like the methodology?

Did you find it suitable for its purpose?


Did you find it agile?

Consider agile to apply, do not take into account the time required to learn the method

Would you applied it in a future? If yes, in which contexts?

Would you suggest this methodology to your friends and/or colleagues?

If the last answer was positive, which kind of friends/colleagues would you suggest the

method? Consider the proficiency, studies or field of work of your friends.

Please let us know any question you may have

Please let us know any suggestion you may have

Thank you very much for participate in this study.


Appendix I

Thinking Aloud Session: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Interviewer: Have you played Zelda before?

Player: hmm...not this one...I don’t think. But I’ve played other Zeldas.

I: OK, this one is the same as the 64 version.

P: Oh! OK, I’ve played that a long time ago.

I: OK, that’s nice. So...the only thing we will ask you to do is...mmm...to go to...ehem...

You can use this [shows the 3DS pen] but mainly you can play with this [3DS controls]

P: OK.

I: Ehem...the main thing we will ask you to do is to get familiar with the controls and

then go to the Deku Tree dungeon ...

P: ...Aha...

I: ...Go through all the dungeon and finish the dungeon and when you beat the boss it

would be finished. Alright...so...that’s pretty much it...

P: So...joystick moves...D-pad doesn’t do anything...why...no...no...OK...oh...that’s the

snap view...

I: You can also...if you like the 3D you can also put it in 3D...Is I always get a little bit

eeeh...

P: ...Dizzy...

I: Yeah dizzy...

P: yeah...

P: OK, I’m outside and now I can do things, all right...B for sword...[long silence]...is

there anything else there...I don’t remember...I can’t see the tree...OK...that’s only a

house...this is...sheikah stones...I hope people find me a play...OK.

To the tree...to the tree...[mumbling]...oh! that’s kind of nice, take a look around, that

looks like blocked. This is...let’s just head to the tree [mumbling] there’s no trail

I: yeah

P: the twins...oh...that’s [mumbling] ...OK...through the tunnel...oh!...OK, took care of

them.

I: Oh! You can turn the volume on, if you want.

P: the what?

I: the volume, yes...

P: Oh! Great.


I: Yeah.

P: mmm that’s much

I: yea

I: well...just...whatever you are doing...erm...and...erm...thinking and...yeah planning

and everything, just say it.

P: so...there’s a hearth up there...and some vines I can probably climb them...and there

are plants...is like that...some deku nuts!...I can set them to A...mmm there will flash or

stun...this one’s useful...I’m going to the ladder...what Navy?...thank you Navy, I know

I can climb them...mmm now is that a normal hearth point...looks like that, looks like a

trap actually...so let’s go up...wow...what was...open this...and I get...a dungeon map,

OK.

That’s some spiders...lets head then now...then jump...[mumbling]...there’s a

glowing...and I don’t know the next...that’s should do...I’m locked in...and...that should

be OK...but I can’t put on the block...Yes! OK...no...no...now is back in...OK...OK I

caught him...now is clear I can go...next [mumbling]...can I block?...can I jump?...yes

oh what’s that?...eh I can go here maybe I should go up and...There’s a treasure

chest...wait...and...Still wonder what happens...oh a slingshot, wonderful. So I can go

and equip them...so, OK, I press the button...not in gear...place in item...OK...so...put it

on X...OK...this is backwards...alright and maybe I should put this somewhere,

just...just...in case of any...so now I have a slingshot and sticks...and there’s a

[mumbling] on me...chest...and I get a heart, great, so...so let’s go back...hmmm there’s

a ladder here in the end...I guess I’ll shoot it...aha...now I can go back.

Where is the bush dude...now is gone, he quit. I guess now I’m in front the vine wall

were the spiders were...slingshot is safer than...mmm...no I cannot tag one there...on

the...trunk so probably I need to watch out for my step...I can go that vine ‘cause...oh!

yeah...maybe I have to stick on other first...or I can...oh! I think that I have it

wrong...hmm...deku stick...back up, let’s try this again...Maybe another way...no...I’m

still too far away...maybe if I try it from the other side...no...OK...so...how do I get out

from the spider... I can cross right here...the idea is to hide behind it...ha! that’s how it

is! Wow!...not fast enough?...mmmm...[long silence]...OK...back up there...maybe is

different...[long silence]...she turns to the side...looks down...looks up...right...down...

maybe let’s try to...in circles...there’s kinda be a way to look up...I hope I’ll clear...OK I

cleared, all the way through...down, now where am I?...OK, is just round..oh! There’s

spiders and openings...this one looks empty...through the door I guess then...locked


again...take one stick...caught fire...and one...and what is this...is a switch, and

it’s...timed...

I: How do you know it is timed?

P: Because is clicking, like a clock, like a bun clock, yeah!...there’s no ladders it seems

like I can [mumble] some spider, I can...If I like this...oh! I just can go back...OK...so

let’s try to get there...oh OK...[mumble]...oh! I think I have to get here first...yes I know

Navy, it’s not going to get me dead...OMG that’s difficult...OK...any way to go up,

no...right...then...aha...yes...OK, that’s...maybe I have to do it but not now...oops, jump

back off...let’s try to do this from a steady cross...[mumble]...oops...can I jump,

yes...oops will I miss it, ne...OK...what’s in the chest?...a compass...OK there isn’t many

things in the dungeon, can I use this one?...Do I have arch in the garage...no, actually

not...mmm I guess...that door’s already open...OK you can’t hit the skull...aha you have

to hit in the other side, not the skull...and she’s gone for good...looks like it...open...I got

a heart, oh that’s useful...[mumble]...ah! There’s a treasure monster...of some

sort...so...what will that give me?...compass...which tells me that...

I have to get rid of the spiders up here...oh! maybe I have to get really high and jump to

the spider web...OK...hit them doesn’t make them turn around, I just have to wait...oh

lots of hearts...OK...so I have the way up and these three...I guess the only thing...let’s

try to...jumping off...Yea, that was it, OK, now I’m in the water...mmm...let’s go the

vine...oh...OK...there’s not...is not the way...OK let’s see here...OK so when I climb

here pass the spider...can I open this door? No, is blocked by cobwebs of some sort...I

can’t jump across...what is...oh this is shallow...[long silence]...there is a switch and

there’s another golden...but how do I...get...oh maybe I...OK...It doesn’t help me but is

something...let’s see...that looks like a torch...OK...OK let’s try this...[long

silence]...OK...[long silence]...there might be a way up...OK so let’s try to get over

there...there is a block of some sort...try the switch...and the fire dissolved the cobwebs

OK...so I have to use the fire to get rid of the cobwebs...fire...is...here...so...Is like

this...then I jump...so now I can open this door...

Oh! Hmm there’s one...Block...ketch...I don’t like that kind of, let’s get closer...I am to

close I guess...[long silence]...can’t close it? There you are...two, three, one...OK...oh...I

still can’t go through the door...hm...there’s an eye on it...[long silence]...Oh I found

something, deku seeds...sling charges, OK...So I maybe something else open that

door...Maybe if I try climbing the vine...there’s something...the spider is back...so let’s

go...this way...[long silence]...so let’s see where this goes...[long silence]...seem like it


will take me back the hole, I don’t think that’s helpful...let’s go back down...[long

silence]...so maybe there’s a way to cross...Is too high for...yes should I

climb...OK...[long silence]...did I miss something?...hem...[long silence]...It called me

out again but how do I...What Navy?...[long silence]...you said hey but...you don’t have

anything to tell me...[long silence]...

I: If she says hey, you press here.

P: OK...[long silence]...ah! there you go!...the door is sealed you must find a way to

make it open...That was really helpful Navy, thanks...OK, but how...[mumble]...red

arrows must press it?...mmm secrets...[mumble]...[long silence]...If I shoot the

eye...yes...[long silence]...there you go...now what...moving platform...spiky

pole...[mumble]...hold A to dive...[mumble]...and...there’s a switch...that’s...empties the

water...ah! I know...[long silence]...Am I safe enough? Yeah, now I don’t get hit by the

spikes...OK...so...spider webs...[mumble]...[long silence]...there is a block...[long

silence]...no, no I can’t, I think...[long silence]...I can push the block...and can...[long

silence]...and...[long silence]...OK...[Long silence]...fire...am I wrong?

No...OK...and...take care of the spider...now what do we have? Oh...one

torch...oh...enemies falling out of the sky...[long silence]...and there’s a...way

down...yes...and...there’s a spider web...let’s get rid of the cobwebs first...[long

silence]...oh...OK...dead end...so again...[long silence]...right...small hole on this

one...and...solid rock in this one...seems to be...OK...so I guess is the small hole...can I

fetch?...I think I can, and I do...[long silence]...now where am I?...[long silence]...on top

where I was, right...block...let’s get pushing the block...[long silence]...I can go back...Is

there anything else up here?...[long silence]...Can I go down the hole...can I crack

it?...[long silence]...

This is back where I was...mmm...[long silence]...there’s a red arrow on the map...is

there the last place I was or is it where I need to go?...[long silence]...this is the last

place I went...[long silence]...seems like there’s no place to go...I must have go back

up...for something...perhaps...[long silence]...Finally did [mumbling]...can I set it on fire

somehow...[long silence]...ah, maybe if...I go here...[long silence]...yeah...I am falling

again...I’ll get the hearts here...now I’m full and healthy...and I’m in ah...oh! I guess this

is must be the brothers so, two, three, one...[long silence]...OK...[long silence]... I’m

hoping the steps are right...[long silence 35 seconds]...

I: How did you realize you have to do that?


P: it was the guy before...he told me that to beat the brothers you have to do it two three

one...so now...if you go from left to right you will have one two three...and that was the

order I have to attack them...so...is it the boss now?...attack her while she’s

stunned...[long silence]...so...[long silence]...[mumbling]...[long silence] so it

comes...oops...so I can’t use the sword...[long silence]...or shooting it...[long silence 24

seconds]...I wonder what it is...can use this...seems like I can use the stunning...seeds...it

seems much better...hearts, hearts, hearts in the weeds....perfect...[long silence]...so if it

is like previous games I need to hit her three times...[long silence]...so...I will have time

for more nuts...yeah...hit them before they hatch...yes...and then she comes back

down...yes...then stun it...can only hit her one...one time...yes...probably three times in a

row...[long silence]...waiting for everyone, here I am...and wait for her down...stunning

seeds...OK, I guess is more than three...[long silence]...so...more eggs...yeah...[long

silence]...so how may time do I have to hit her?...slingshots...slingshots...[long

silence]... stun her...it seems like I can hit her more than once...[long silence]...and there

she is...[long silence]...[mumbling]...Oh! you can hit her...[long silence]...OK...now it’s

the end...and there’s a heart container...and, magic circle...and that’s what takes me

back.


Appendix J

Interview after the thinking aloud activity

Interviewer: which part was the part you think was more difficult for you?

Player: Ah...I had a lot of trouble with the spiders in the vines, I think, for some reason I

wasn’t going in the first person so I aimed the same spots or I was shooting straight at

the same level as link instead of shooting up at the spiders. But then later I figured out

how to shoot in first person so it was easy, but then I forgot how to shoot straight at

the...at the same level. The little guys, ehem, the bush guys that shoot at you where

kinda hard to catch. I think those were the difficult parts.

I: which part did you found more difficult to figure out what to do?

P: I was stuck with the eye, I think it stuck me for the longest, I didn’t think to shoot the

eye for a while

I: And how did you figured it out?

P: When there were nowhere else to go I thought that there must be some way to

interact with the door and then I thought: maybe I can shoot the eye.

I: And what about the boss, how did you figured out how to beat the boss?

P: The three brothers said that I had the stun hand, and I knew that I had the seeds that I

can throw them to stun enemies, so I tried to use that. And then the eye is kind of a

weak point, it seems like, so I tried that and that worked I didn’t really know that I can

knock her out of the ceiling until the very end because I shot her a couple, shot at her

and she didn’t fall, like kind of I wasn’t aiming in the right spot, right place.

I: Did you find out some kind of strategy to beat the boss or...

P: She followed a pattern of: if you hit her she crawl up to the ceiling and drop down

some eggs and then if you destroy the eggs she comes back down and you stun her and

attack her again.


Appendix K


Appendix L

Thank you for participating in our study about the usability of the MAARDI methodology ( Methodology for the Agile Analysis of Reasoning Demand on vIdeogames).

To carry out the test we will require you to follow the steps described below:

1. Read carefully the document "The MAARDI Methodology" annexed to this mail.

2. After reading it or while reading it, write down the questions you have or what you do not

understand, we will require this information later.

3. When you have finish reading the text, proceed to apply the methodology using the attached

material: "TheLegendofZelda-TheOcarinaofTimeWalkthrough1", "TheLegendofZelda-

TheOcarinaofTimeWalkthrough2", "TheLegendofZelda-TheOcarinaofTimeWalkthrough3",

"LegendOfZelda-OcarinaOfTime-Present-InsideTheDekuTree(Top)", "Map_DekuTree2F", "Map_DekuTree3F", "Map_DekuTreeB1" and "Map_DekuTreeB2".

Note: you don't have to use all the material attached, only the one you consider necessary in order to

make the MAARDI analysis.

4. To the analysis, you can use any way convenient for you to represent the information, it can be

paper sheets, power point, paint drawings. Just remember we will require this material afterwards, so

we would need a picture or a copy of your work.

5. When making the analysis remember the main task or task dimension will be the boss fight, the

"Deku Tree" dungeon will be the problem space and all the information before the dungeon will be

considered learning curve.

6. The analysis should contain a graphic description of the task dimension and the problem space's

cognitive demand, as well as small a written text that state why things are connected in the way you

are representing them. Some statistics about the demand of some abilities should be also included. 7. After you have finished the analysis and submitted the material, we will ask you to fill this survey

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dEMyR2RHbGQxejdKM

3NpVWNLOHMxWlE6MQ. Remember to include the things you didn't understand of the material

we gave to you.

As we know this is a long work, we want to give you up to five days to do it.

After you finish the work you will be entitled to a gift card as gratitude for your participation.

We ask you to please do things with your heart, an if you cannot do it or cannot hand in by the date,

please tell us.

If it is too hard or long, we will ask you to please tell us too.

Thank you very much.

Carlos Mauricio Castaño Díaz

Psychologist Universidad de Antioquia.

MA Cognition and Communication student. KUA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dEMyR2RHbGQxejdKM3NpVWNLOHMxWlE6MQ

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dEMyR2RHbGQxejdKM3NpVWNLOHMxWlE6MQ


Appendix M

Analysis made by Participant B of the First walkthrough and map of The Legend of

Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Walkthrough step Reasoning type Comments/Trying to justify my

reasoning for picking certain less

obvious types

climb to ledge above spatial

opening a door deductive following the in-game tutorial

kill thing popping out of

ground

spatial

abductive Unusual behavior, must

hypothesize about using the

shield to throw back nuts

chase the little guy down spatial

go across platform spatial

get back across to the door physical

secret room spatial

climb wall spatial

shoot Skulltula deductive

defeat larger Skulltula scientific Hypothesize on where to shoot it,

try it out, eventually figure out

you have to shoot its back?

go through the first door spatial

button on the floor everyday

platforms spatial

other ledge spatial

Gold Skulltula inductive

unlock door everyday

kill large Skulltula deductive same monster as last time, same

method

jump and break web spatial

physical

grab hold of the edge and

climb up

spatial

defeat the plant monster deductive

Gold Skulltula deductive

platform spatial

Gold Skulltula deductive

climb back up spatial

big button deductive

burn web spatial

logic


physical

Deku Scrub deductive

punish them in the right

order

scientific

aim up at the eyeball

above the door

logic

underwater button spatial

deductive

the ledge on the other side spatial

Skulltula deductive

push the block physical

climb to door spatial

light all of the torches in

this room

deductive

Skulltula deductive

new enemies drop down logic

to burn the spider web deductive

crawlspace deductive

push box physical

set web on fire deductive

catch them in the correct

order

deductive

target her eye inductive

strike while she is stunned deductive

strike eggs logic

Step onto the blue portal everyday


Appendix N

Analysis made by Participant C of the First walkthrough and map of The Legend of

Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

The Problem Space selected is the first dungeon of the game The Legend of Zelda:

Ocarina of Time. Inside the “Deku Tree” the player must recover Kokiri’s Emerald, this

condition is fulfilled when the player defeat the final boss. To achieve this goal the

player must travel a three dimensional space with various puzzles. The player should

recover different items which lets him tackle different obstacles in order to reach the

dungeon boss.

This representation has been used by Participant C in order to characterize the problem space.

According to the walkthrough, the player starts in the dungeon in the number 1 of the

map. The starting point is the first floor. From this point the player can identify some

floors above him and a cobweb covering a hole in the floor. Navy, the sidekick says

something about the cobweb and the vine in A. Therefore player could discover the path

using everyday or spatial reasoning.


In the second floor, the player finds a chest containing a map of the dungeon. Due to the

previous findings of chests within the game, the player knows how to interact with it.

Although the map is not a requirement to finish the dungeon it is useful to navigate

within the space. The map use requires spatial reasoning, because the player needs to

identify his location within the map and relate it with the elements in the 3D

environment.

The player has then two options, one is to climb the vine (which he cannot do due to the

presence of enemies there) or go towards the door. As the only road is the door, he

should go there (number 3 on the map). In this room there is an enemy, and the player

can infer inductively that the way to continue is to defeat the enemy. When he

approaches the enemy it buries himself, suggesting an alternate way for defeating it.

The way to defeat the enemy is using the shield. Due to the lack of information in the

walkthrough about how the player can defeat the enemy, it is possible that he has to

come to this conclusion using abduction.

In the 4 room there is an item (Fairy slingshot). Due to the perspective that this room

has, the player may think he is trapped inside. Nevertheless there is a ladder over the

exit, and the player should use the recently acquired item in order to take the ladder

down. The player can reach this conclusion inductively.

After returning the second floor, the player can use the new item to defeat the enemies

in the vines and climb up to the third floor using B. In the third floor the player can find

new enemies. To beat this enemy the player can use Navy’s suggestions or come up

with a strategy using induction taking into account the items available for him and the

feedback given by the boss. In this floor the player can go to the room 6 to find a

compass, this lets the player find his own location in the map as well as the location of

the chest in the dungeon. When the player tries to leave the room, he finds himself

locked. In order to go out he needs to set a “deku stick” in fire and light the torch at the

other side of the room.

When in the third floor, the player must jump from a plank so that he can destroy the

cobweb in the first floor. Navy may give some clues about the cobweb, but in case the

player doesn’t get them, he may reason about the physical conditions in the environment

and conclude that a jump from that high may be enough to beak the cobweb.


After falling, the player will find himself in B1, specifically where points C and D are.

When pressing the button in C a torch is lighted and the fire will burn the cobwebs. At

the south of C there is a cobweb blocking the path, so after the player have seen what

happened with the web, he can infer that doing the same action as in the compass room

(setting fire to the cobwebs using a deku stick) it is possible to unblock the path. In this

way the player is reasoning in a deductive manner, applying rules he knows in order to

open the door.

In the room 9, player will find an enemy as the one in the room 3. So the player already

knows the strategy to defeat it (deductive reasoning). After the player has defeated the

enemy he will reveal a clue to defeat “the brothers”: “You that you cannot defeat the

brothers unless you punish them in the right order. The correct order is 2,3,1”. Contrary

to room 3, the door will not open after defeating the enemy. The player must use the

fairy slingshot to shot the eye over the door. In this way the player must reason in an

inductive way to progress to the next room.

In the room 10, the player finds a cylinder full of thorns. Although the walkthrough

states that Navy gives a clue to the player, it is not clear the kind of information she is

giving to the player. The player needs to dive. Before the dungeon the player has never

used this ability, so, only exploring the player may know he has this ability. In order to

continue the player must press a button located under the water. This will make the

water level to lower so that the player can use the middle platform without hitting the

thorny cylinder. Player must use abductive reasoning using the environmental elements

in order to figure out how to proceed. At the other side of the room, the player will find

a giant cube and a door he cannot reach. Before this, the player has never use the ability

to push objects. Nevertheless in the game tutorial is suggested to be aware of the actions

described under the green action button. Using everyday reasoning, the player may

identify the objective of this situation: move the cube in such a way he can reach the

door.

In the next room, the player will find some unlighted torches and a closed door. This

situation was already applied in other room, so that the player only has to apply the

same principle of lighting the torches to open the door.

In room 11 there is a cobweb and a torch, so the player must use the same principle used

in previous rooms. After the player has burned the cobweb, he will find a way to the


next room. In that moment the player will find himself in the point D, where he can see

a cobweb in the floor and a block like the one in the room 10. The player should move

the cube and throw it to the water so it will make a sort of ladder. In order to destroy the

cobweb the player must follow the same principle as in the previous rooms, to light the

torch and use the cube as a ladder in order to take the fire to the cobweb.

When the player burns the cobweb he will fall to B2 in D, there he will find the three

brothers mentioned in the room 9. At this moment the player must use the clue in order

to hit the enemies in the correct order. The player must reason deductively and apply the

rule. When the enemies are defeated, they will give the player a clue to defeat the boss

“You have to strike while she is stunned”.

To defeat the boss, the player should use the fairy slingshot and shoot at the eye. During

the entire dungeon the player has been using the item, and in one occasion the player

shot to an “eye” to open a door. In addition, the eye of the enemy turns red during the

combat, giving environmental clues about its weak spot. The clue given to the player by

the Deku brothers refers to the item “deku nuts”. The player will make an association

with the item if he has used it before. If the player doesn’t know its meaning, he must,

abductively discover it due to Deku brother’s clue.

It is important to highlight that it is impossible to count the spatial reasoning because it

has been in use during the entire dungeon. Nevertheless in the table (see Table 7) I point

out four times its appearance, due to the importance of this kind of reasoning at this

point of the game. In addition, it is possible to infer that the use of spatial reasoning

could increase if the player doesn’t acquire the “compass” item.


Appendix O

Date post:	10-Sep-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGICAL TOOL FOR ANALYSING … fileblevet testet for sin gyldighed,...

Documents