Pdf Game Design Document Gdd

AbstrakPermainan video adalah perangkat lunak hiburan, sehingga kepuasan pemainnya adalah tolok ukur utama kualitasnya. Satu elemen penting dari kepuasan pemain adalah tingkat kesulitan yang tepat, yang tidak terlalu mudah maupun sukar. Dewasa ini, cara termutakhir untuk menerapkan tingkat kesulitan yang tepat adalah Pengaturan Kesulitan Dinamis (PKD), yang dapat memodifikasi tingkat kesulitan permainan pada saat run-time. Tipe PKD yang paling populer pada saat ini adalah PKD pasif. Di sisi lain, Dokumen Desain Permainan (DDP) adalah artefak penting dalam pengembangan perangkat lunak permainan video, dan belum ditemukan format DDP yang mendukung perancangan mekanisme PKD pasif. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menemukan format DDP baru yang mendukung perancangan tersebut. Kami memodifikasi sebuah format DDP yang bersifat umum dengan menambahkan bagian-bagian baru untuk perancangan mekanisme PKD pasif. Format hasil modifikasi tersebut diuji dalam proses pengujian yang melibatkan sejumlah pengembang dan sejumlah pemain. Para pengembang mengembangkan sejumlah permainan video menggunakan format DDP yang dimodifikasi dan format yang umum. Proses pengembangan yang mereka jalani diamati dan dinilai kelancarannya. Permainan-permainan video yang dihasilkan dengan kedua format DDP dimainkan oleh para pemain untuk menguji kualitas mekanisme PKD pasifnya. Hasil pengujian oleh para pengembang menyatakan bahwa format DDP yang dimodifikasi lebih baik dari format yang umum. Hasil pengujian oleh para pemain menunjukkan keunggulan permainan-permainan video yang dihasilkan dengan format DDP yang dimodifikasi, walau keunggulan itu tidak signifikan. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut, kami menyatakan bahwa format DDP yang dimodifikasi berhasil mencapai tujuannya.Kata kunci: permainan video, rekayasa kebutuhan, Pengaturan Kesulitan Dinamis, dokumen desain permainan, pengembangan perangkat lunak. AbstractVideo game is a type of entertainment software, and therefore the satisfaction of its players is the primary mean to measure its quality. One important element of player's satisfaction is a proper difficulty level, which is neither too easy nor too hard. The current state-of-the-art way to implement it is with Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA), which allows the difficulty level of a video game to be adjusted at run-time. Currently, the most popular type of DDA is the passive one. Meanwhile, Game Design Document (GDD) is an important artefact in the development process of a video game software, and there is still no GDD format that supports the design of passive DDA mechanism. The aim of this research was to find a new GDD format that supports the mechanism. We modified a general purpose GDD format by adding new parts for designing passive DDA mechanism. We tested the usefulness of the modified format in a testing process involving developers and players. The developers developed video games using the modified GDD format and the general purpose one. Their development processes were observed and evaluated to know if there were any difficulties. The resulting video games were played by the players to find which are better in terms of passive DDA mechanism. The result of developer testing showed that the modified format is better than the general purpose one. The result of player testing showed that the video games made with the modified format are better than their counterparts, albeit by an insignificant margin. Based on the results, we declare that the modified GDD format is successful.Keywords: Video game, requirement engineering, game design document, dynamic difficulty adjustment, software development.

Figures - uploaded by Pratama Atmaja

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Pratama Atmaja

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

86 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive

Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment

Pratama Wirya Atmaja1 , Daniel Oranova Siahaan2 , dan Imam Kuswardayan3

1Teknik Informatika UPN "Veteran" Jawa Timur, Surabaya

2,3 Teknik Informatika ITS, Surabaya

E-mail: 1pratamawiryaatmaja_kuliah@yahoo.com

Abstrak

Permainan video adalah perangkat lunak hiburan, sehingga kepuasan pemainnya adalah tolok ukur

utama kualitasnya. Satu elemen penting dari kepuasan pemain adalah tingkat kesulitan yang tepat, yang

tidak terlalu mudah maupun sukar. Dewasa ini, cara termutakhir untuk menerapkan tingkat kesulitan

yang tepat adalah Pengaturan Kesulitan Dinamis (PKD), yang dapat memodifikasi tingkat kesulitan

permainan pada saat run-time. Tipe PKD yang paling populer pada saat ini adalah PKD pasif. Di sisi

lain, Dokumen Desain Permainan (DDP) adalah artefak penting dalam pengembangan perangkat lunak

permainan video, dan belum ditemukan format DDP yang mendukung perancangan mekanisme PKD

pasif. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menemukan format DDP baru yang mendukung perancangan

tersebut. Kami memodifikasi sebuah format DDP yang bersifat umum dengan menambahkan bagian-

bagian baru untuk perancangan mekanisme PKD pasif. Format hasil modifikasi tersebut diuji dalam

proses pengujian yang melibatkan sejumlah pengembang dan sejumlah pemain. Para pengembang

mengembangkan sejumlah permainan video menggunakan format DDP yang dimodifikasi dan format

yang umum. Proses pengembangan yang mereka jalani diamati dan dinilai kelancarannya. Permainan-

permainan video yang dihasilkan dengan kedua format DDP dimainkan oleh para pemain untuk

menguji kualitas mekanisme PKD pasifnya. Hasil pengujian oleh para pengembang menyatakan bahwa

format DDP yang dimodifikasi lebih baik dari format yang umum. Hasil pengujian oleh para pemain

menunjukkan keunggulan permainan-permainan video yang dihasilkan dengan format DDP yang

dimodifikasi, walau keunggulan itu tidak signifikan. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut, kami menyatakan

bahwa format DDP yang dimodifikasi berhasil mencapai tujuannya.

Kata kunci: permainan video, rekayasa kebutuhan, Pengaturan Kesulitan Dinamis, dokumen desain

permainan, pengembangan perangkat lunak.

Abstract

Video game is a type of entertainment software, and therefore the satisfaction of its players is the primary

mean to measure its quality. One important element of player's satisfaction is a proper difficulty level,

which is neither too easy nor too hard. The current state-of-the-art way to implement it is with Dynamic

Difficulty Adjustment (DDA), which allows the difficulty level of a video game to be adjusted at run-

time. Currently, the most popular type of DDA is the passive one. Meanwhile, Game Design Document

(GDD) is an important artefact in the development process of a video game software, and there is still

no GDD format that supports the design of passive DDA mechanism. The aim of this research was to

find a new GDD format that supports the mechanism. We modified a general purpose GDD format by

adding new parts for designing passive DDA mechanism. We tested the usefulness of the modified

format in a testing process involving developers and players. The developers developed video games

using the modified GDD format and the general purpose one. Their development processes were

observed and evaluated to know if there were any difficulties. The resulting video games were playe d

by the players to find which are better in terms of passive DDA mechanism. The result of developer

testing showed that the modified format is better than the general purpose one. The result of player

testing showed that the video games made with the modified format are better than their counterparts,

albeit by an insignificant margin. Based on the results, we declare that the modified GDD format is

successful.

Keywords: Video game, requirement engineering, game design document, dynamic difficulty

adjustment, software development.

1. Introduction

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

Video game is a type of software intended as an entertainment medium, and therefore the

satisfaction of its players is the primary mean to measure its quality (Callele & Neufeld, 2005). A method

for measuring player's satisfaction has been found in the form of GameFlow model, which was adapted

from Flow theory (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). One important element of GameFlow is a proper difficulty

level, which means a player should neither become bored from playing a too easy game nor become

frustrated from playing a too hard one (Chen, Flow in Games (and everything else), 2007).

Nowadays, the state-of-the-art way to implement a proper difficulty level is through Dynamic

Difficulty Adjustment (DDA) mechanism (Chen, Flow in Games, 2006). The mechanism allows the

difficulty level of a video game to be adjusted at run-time, thus making it easier to ensure that every

player gets the right difficulty level. Currently, the most popular type of DDA is the passive one, which

does not directly involve players in its execution (Alexander, Oikonomou, & Sear, 2013) (Arulraj, 2010)

(Hao, He, Wang, Liu, Yang, & Huang, 2010) (Sha, et al., 2010) (Wu, Chen, He, Sun, Li, & Zhao, 2011)

(Yu, et al., 2010).

In the development process of a video game software, the requirement engineering stage plays a

crucial part in determining the success of the process (Bethke, 2003) (Callele & Neufeld, 2005).

Therefore, the stage needs to be performed carefully by the developer. The most important requirement

engineering artefact of a video game is Game Design Document (GDD), which records the detailed

design of the video game's gameplay.

In relation to passive DDA mechanism, there is still no GDD format that supports it . To improve

the situation, we set to find a new, specialized GDD format for the purpose.

1.1. Video Game Development Process

In principle, the development process of a video game is no different from that of other kinds of

software. If the developer follows waterfall methodology, the process will then be split into three stages

(Bethke, 2003):

1). Pre-production, which consists of:

a. Determining business parameters;

b. Determining the basic concept of the video game;

c. Writing Vision Document;

d. Writing Game Design Document to design the video game's gameplay;

e. Writing Technical Design Document to design the technical implementation of the

gameplay;

2). Production, which consists of:

a. Performing design implementation;

b. Developing the early version of the video game;

c. Developing the alpha version of the video game;

d. Developing the beta version of the video game;

e. Developing the final candidate of the video game;

3). Post-production, which consists of steps related to releasing the video game.

Pure waterfall methodology, which requires the developer to follow the steps linearly, has gained

a negative reputation in video game industry. Because the quality of a video game depends on its players'

satisfaction, performing a strictly linear development process is not realistic because such subjective

satisfaction is hard to pinpoint at the beginning of the process. A more preferred alternative is a modified

waterfall one (Royce, 1970), which allows the developer to leave the production stage and revisit pre-

production in case the video game's design needs to be revised.

1.2. Game Design Document

GDD is an artefact commonly created during the pre-production stage of a video game. The

document records a detailed design of the gameplay players will get to experience. In a video game pre-

production workflow, GDD is positioned after Vision Document, which outlines the concept of the

video game, and before Technical Design Document (TDD), which translates the contents of GDD into

a more technical language that will be used in the production stage (Bethke, 2003).

So far, there is no unified GDD format for all purposes. Every developer in the industry may

create their own format that suits their needs. On the other hand, Salazar et al. has created a GDD format

that follows best practices of Software Requirement Specification (Salazar, Mitre, Olalde, & Sanchez,

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

88 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

2012). The format is intended for video games in general, although some types of video game might

have special characteristics not supported by it. To solve the problem, the format can be adjusted to suit

a specific type of video game.

Arif (Arif, 2014) modified the general GDD format to make it more suited for developing

educational games. The resulting format was tested by two developers, each used it to develop an

educational video game. Both games were the results of reverse engineering of two other, earlier

educational games. All four games were then tested by players in relation to their educational aspect,

and the new ones were rated higher than the earlier ones. Both developers also rated the modified format

positively for being useful and helpful. It can therefore be said that the adjustment was successful.

1.3. Flow Theory and GameFlow

In the field of psychology, Flow theory has been used to understand how humans experience

enjoyment optimally from doing their tasks (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) (Engeser, 2012). According to the

theory, Flow is the state a person is in when he is able to concentrate so much, to the point of becoming

"absorbed" into the activity at hand. When a video game player experiences Flow, he feels a strong

emotional connection with the video game he is playing.

In video game field, Flow has been adapted into GameFlow model (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005)

that can be used to measure the quality of a video game. The model consists of eight elements:

1). Concentration

2). Challenge

3). Player skills

4). Control

5). Clear goals

6). Feedback

7). Immersion

8). Social interaction

GameFlow exists as a union between video game heuristics and the field of positive psychology

as represented by Flow theory. The union is perfectly logical because video games engage their players

emotionally and therefore involve many aspects of human psyche (Altizer) (Bowen) (Freeman, 2003)

(Frome, 2007).

1.4. Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment

Nowadays, DDA has already become a popular method to implement the "challenge" aspect of

GameFlow (Browne, Simon, Michael, Gow, & Baumgarten, 2014). The aim of DDA is to make a video

game more flexible in adapting to different types of player, who have different skill levels and different

tolerances to gameplay challenges. DDA itself can be implemented in an active, player-oriented manner,

or in a passive one (Chen, Flow in Games, 2006). The difference is in whether players can actively

influence the adjustment to the difficulty level. In a video game with active DDA, its players can choose,

as a part of the gameplay, to increase or decrease the difficulty level. On the contrary, a passive DDA

video game does not provide any visible choices of difficulty level during its gameplay session, and

instead works in the background by monitoring changes to gameplay variables.

In relation to GameFlow model, the quality of the DDA mechanism of a video game can be

measured with the "challenge" element and its criteria:

 Challenges in games must match the players's skill levels;

 Games should provide different levels of challenge for different players;

 The level of challenge should increase as the player progresses through the game and increases

their skill level;

 Games should provide new challenges at an appropriate pace.

1.5. Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment

Passive DDA has been gaining popularity and has been actively researched (Alexander,

Oikonomou, & Sear, 2013) (Arulraj, 2010) (Hao, He, Wang, Liu, Yang, & Huang, 2010) (Sha, et al.,

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

2010) (Wu, Chen, He, Sun, Li, & Zhao, 2011) (Yu, et al., 2010). Passive DDA has also been

implemented in commercial video games such as Left 4 Dead (Booth, Replayable Cooperative Game

Design: Left 4 Dead) (Booth, The AI Systems of Left 4 Dead) and God Hand (Bycer).

As seen in Figure 1, a passive DDA mechanism is commonly implemented as a special module

which works separately from main gameplay module. Because it's not an integral part of the gameplay

module, the mechanism can be inserted or removed without breaking the gameplay module. Players

cannot control the mechanism directly and may not even realize its existence, as there is no direct

interaction between them and the mechanism's module.

Figure1Common passive DDA implementation

In principle, there are three aspects of a passive DDA mechanism that need to be prepared

(Browne, Simon, Michael, Gow, & Baumgarten, 2014):

1). Gameplay variables that reflect the performance of the player (the number of defeated enemies,

how many times the player has died, etc);

2). Gameplay variables or elements that influence the difficulty level of the game (the number of

enemies in a level, how often the enemies shoot or attack, etc);

3). Formulas or mappings determining the relations between the two kinds of variable (for example:

the number of enemies in a level equals a constant divided by how many times the player has

died).

1.6. GameMaker

GameMaker is a popular family of video game software development tools, intended primarily

for easy and quick development of two dimensional video games (Habgood & Overmars, 2006). The

latest in the family is GameMaker Studio, which allows developers to deploy their games onto various

mobile platforms.

In order to develop video games with GameMaker, a developer needs to understand some

terminologies (GameMaker, 2015). An object is a class of object that can be deployed as instances in

the game. An object may have a sprite, which is a picture representation of the object. Another kind of

picture is background, which is used in a level and not related to any objects. There are two types of

sounds: sound, which means a sound effect, and music, which plays in the background. Each level in

the game is represented by a room, which contains instances of objects. Program codes are written inside

objects or as scripts which can be called by any objects.

2. Research Methodology

In order to find the right GDD format for passive DDA video games, this research followed these

steps:

1). Literature study, which was mainly done to understand GDD and passive DDA;

2). Creating a new GDD format for video games with passive DDA mechanism, which was based on

the general format by Salazar et al.;

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

90 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

3). Preparation for the testing of the new GDD format, which involved preparing testing

methodology, participants, development process methodology and materials, evaluation criteria,

and development tools;

4). Performing the testing of the new GDD format;

5). Evaluating the new GDD format, which involved revising the format if deemed necessary.

Table 1 Modification to General GDD Format

5.1 Player's Performance

Determiners

This subchapter lists gameplay variables

that reflect the performance of the player.

5.2 Difficulty Level

Determiners

This subchapter lists gameplay variables or

elements that influence the difficulty level

of the game.

5.3 Adjustment Formulas

or Mappings

This subchapter explains the formulas or

mappings between the contents of

preceding subchapters.

6.5 Intrapersonal

Gameplay

6.6 Interpersonal

Gameplay

6.7 Dynamic Difficulty

Adjustment Gameplay

This subchapter explains, from a player's

point of view, the characteristics of the

passive DDA mechanism implementation.

Will the player feel sudden or slow but

steady changes of difficulty level? Will the

changes be moderate or drastic? Etc.

Constraints

and

Assumptions

2.1. Creating a New GDD Format

Based on our literature study, we found that developers who want to employ passive DDA

mechanisms in their video games need to design passive DDA's three important aspects. Therefore, we

decided to modify the general GDD format by Salazer et al. by adding a new chapter for the aspects,

and also a new subchapter. The modification can be seen in Table 1.

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

We inserted the design of passive DDA mechanism as Chapter 5, located after the chapter for

aesthetics. The reasoning for the placement was that the two kinds of determiner in the mechanism may

include gameplay variables and contents, which are designed in chapter 2, 3, and 4. Therefore we saw

that it is appropriate for developers to finish the design for those three chapters before start working on

the passive DDA mechanism.

We also added a new subsection in Experience chapter which explains how players will

experience the passive DDA mechanism. We saw the addition as necessary because the passive DDA

mechanism will contribute to a player's overall experience.

Figure 2 Testing Methodology

Figure 3 Modified Waterfall Methodology

2.2. Testing Methodology

Our testing methodology can be seen in Figure 2. We conducted two testing processes, one

involving developers and the other involving players. Each developer started with a video game concept,

which then was developed into two similar video games with passive DDA mechanisms, one using the

modified GDD format and the other using the old, general one. Their development processes were

observed and evaluated to know which ones were more successful and free of difficulties: the ones using

the old GDD format or the ones using the modified one. On the other hand, the resulting video games

were played and tested by the players to evaluate the qualities of their passive DDA mechanisms.

In each of those two testing processes, there were three possible outcomes for the modified GDD

format: positive if it was proven to be better than the old format, neutral if it wasn't proven to be better

or worse, and negative if it was proven to be worse. Ideally, the modified format should acquire positive

Development Processes

of Video Games

Testing 1:

Development Processes

Developed Video

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

92 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

results in both testing processes. If this ideal condition couldn't be achieved, then at least the format

could get one positive and one neutral result in order to be declared successful.

We see that it was important that two video games with the same basic concept but different GDD

formats were developed by the same developer. This was to achieve two things:

1) Making sure the two video games were not very different, to prevent any biases from players that

might arise from liking one of the games more than the other;

2) Making sure that there was no difference in developer's skill between the two games, so that any

difference in quality score was caused solely by the used GDD format.

2.3. Selecting Developers

Five developers were participated in the developer testing process. Their characteristics were as

follows:

1). Had never known or studied, at the start of the testing, the modified GDD format;

2). Did not interact with each other during the testing;

3). Had some experiences in developing video games, yet could not be categorized as professionals;

4). Had no prior experiences in developing video games with passive DDA mechanisms.

Tabel 2 Technical Design Document Format

1.1 Video Game Software

Description

Short description about the video game

software to be implemented

1.2 General Technical

Specifications

A list of general technical aspects of the

would-be video game software

2.1 Parent and Child Patterns

Explaining the inheritance patterns

between existing game objects

Detailed explanations about all game

objects

Detailed explanations about all sprites,

which are pictures representing game

objects

Detailed explanations about all

background pictures

Detailed explanations about all sound

effects

Detailed explanations about all

background music

5.1 General Room

Specifications

Technical specifications of all existing

rooms in the video game

Explaining how the rooms flow from

and to each other

Detailed explanations about all rooms

Detailed explanations about all used

scripts

2.4. Selecting Development Process Methodology

The developers used modified waterfall methodology to develop video games. The flow of the

methodology can be seen in Figure 3. With modified waterfall methodology, the developers were

allowed to go back from design implementation and testing phase to GDD. This were done to revise the

content of their GDDs as needed. There are five steps, drawn as arrows in the above figure, in a modified

waterfall development process. In order to know how successful the process is, the steps need to be

observed and evaluated. For the purpose of this research, we did not observe the last step because the

10 video games were not released as products.

2.5. Evaluation Criteria for Developer Testing

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

To evaluate the development processes that were performed by the developers, we observed the

aforementioned four steps, from writing to revising GDD. We also gathered the five developers'

opinions on those four steps of their development processes. We gathered their opinions by presenting

them with a questionnaire consisting of four questions, each related to one step in the modified waterfall

methodology. The questions were:

1). Was translating the video game's concept into detailed design in GDD performed smoothly?

2). Could the design in GDD be translated into TDD smoothly?

3). Did implementation of the TDD's content run smoothly?

4). Could revisions to GDD be performed smoothly?

The questionnaire used Likert Scale, ranging from 1 for "disagree strongly" to 5 for "agree

strongly".

2.6. Evaluation Criteria for Player Testing

The resulting video games were evaluated by players in terms of their passive DDA mechanisms.

After playing the video games, the players were presented with a questionnaire with four questions,

taken from the criteria of GameFlow's "challenge" element. As with the previous questionnaire, this

one also used Likert Scale. We reworded the criteria of the GameFlow's element to communicate them

easier to common players:

1). Did you feel that the difficulty level was appropriate for you, which means it was neither too easy

nor too hard?

2). Did the game slowly and steadily become harder as you became better at playing it?

3). Did you feel that the difficulty level was specifically adjusted to make you feel comfortable

playing the game?

4). Was the game able to deliver a continuously challenging experience without making you feel

overwhelmed?

2.7. Development Tools and Technical Design Document Format

We used GameMaker 8.1 and GameMaker Studio as the development tools. Because both tools

are similar to each other, there were no technical differences in the implementation processes of the

video games.

Because Technical Design Document (TDD) is used to design the technical implementation of a

video game software, its format depends on the used development tool. That is why the TDD format

used by the developers was based on GameMaker 8.1 and GameMaker Studio. The structure of the TDD

format can be seen in Table 2.

3. Results And Discussions

3.1. Developed Video Games

Five video game concepts were developed during the developer testing phase, each was developed

twice using the old and the modified GDD format, resulting in two similar video games with some

differences. In the end of the development processes there were 10 video game softwares in total. Four

video game concepts were of vertical scrolling shooter genre and one was of maze exploration genre.

The characteristics of the video games are as follows:

1). Alien Hunter

This is a vertical scrolling shooter game with an endless level. The player fights a neverending

stream of enemies by shooting a machine gun with unlimited ammo or blasting limited but

refillable bombs. The one developed with the modified GDD format presents five types of regular

enemies, while the one with the old format presents only three but with addition of one boss

enemy type. Passive DDA was implemented by monitoring player's lives, score, and the number

of missed enemies, and adjusting the number of regular enemies on screen, the attack frequency

of boss enemies, and the frequency of bomb refill items to match the player's skill.

2). Si Pitung in Space

The gameplay of this game is similar to Alien Hunter, except that there is no boss enemy and

some regular enemies can shoot. The version of this game that was developed with the old GDD

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

94 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

format does not feature bombs for players, but instead the machine gun can be upgraded by taking

upgrade items.

3). Soul Stealer

The gameplay of this game is also similar to Alien Hunter, except that player's bomb

automatically refills itself over time and the player can gain additional lives. The version of this

game that was developed with the modified GDD format gives the player an extra life after

defeating a boss enemy, whereas the bonus is gained based on score in the other version.

4). Maze Evolution

This is a maze exploration game where the player explores mazes filled with traps and enemies.

Its passive DDA mechanism monitors player's health, score, and how many times the player gets

hit and uses the data to adjust enemies' aggressivity and attack frequencies. In the version

developed with the modified GDD format, the player already have weapons but must search for

bullets to shoot them, whereas it's the contrary in the other version.

5). Aurora War

This is a vertical scrolling shooter game but with four levels with definite length each. At the end

of each level the player faces a strong boss enemy. The player can use one standard weapon and

three special ones. The version of the game developed with the modified GDD format requires

the player to gather ammunitions for his special weapons, whereas the other version requires him

to gather the weapons themselves. This game's passive DDA mechanism monitors player's lives,

scores, and the number of escaped regular enemies and uses the data to adjust the speed and attack

frequency of enemies.

3.2. Observation of Development Processes

We observed how the development processes were performed by the developers.

1). In step 1 of development processes, the developers wrote detailed gameplay design in GDDs

based on the basic concept of each video game. For the old GDD format, all developers

experienced two difficulties. The first was when the developers tried to fill in the designs of

passive DDA mechanisms of their games, which involved improvisations to find the places for

the mechanisms. The developers experienced confusions as to how the improvisations should be

done, and the confusions delayed the design processes slightly. On the other hand, there was no

such difficulty when the modified format was used, because the format provides a special chapter

for the designs the mechanisms.

2). In step 2, every GDD was translated into TDD. The passive DDA mechanism of every video

game was implemented in TDD as a program code in one or several objects. This means that the

technical design of the mechanism was written in chapter 2 of the TDD.

For GDDs with the old format, three developers experienced no problems in translating passive

DDA mechanisms. The other two, however, were confused for a while about confusions about

how to do the translations. Should the mechanisms be coded as a part of a single object? Or should

it be split into a number of program codes as parts of various objects? The cause of this confusion

was identified as the uncertainty in placing the designs of passive DDA mechanisms in GDDs.

Different places for the designs influenced somewhat how the developers thought the designs

should be translated in TDDs. This problem did not happen when the developers were translating

GDDs with the modified format.

3). In step 3, the technical designs in TDDs were implemented into video game softwares and then

tested to find flaws. There was no differences observed between implementations of video games

designed with the old GDD format and those with the modified one. Both implementations were

performed smoothly by the developers.

4). In step 4, the developers went back to existing GDDs to revise their contents, based on the results

of testings in step 3. For GDDs with the old format, four developers experienced a problem when

trying to revise the designs of passive DDA mechanisms. As the designs involved improvisations,

the developers had to recall how the improvisations were done before they could revise the passive

DDA mechanisms. As a result, the revision processes were slightly delayed. On the other hand,

no such problem happened during the revisions of the GDDs with the modified format because

the location of the designs of passive DDA mechanisms was known immediately, which was in

chapter 5.

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

Table 2 Developers' Evaluation of the GDD Formats

Table 3 Evaluati on of Developed Video Games

3.3. Developers' Evaluation of GDD Formats

We gathered the five developer's opinions on their experiences in using the old and the modified

GDD formats. The results can be seen in Table 2. The modified format was rated higher than the old

one in almost all development process steps. This result is in line with the observation of how the

development processes were performed as described previously.

As seen in the table, the biggest score difference happened in step 1 of the development processes.

The old GDD format's score is the lowest here compared to in other steps, and the difference from the

modified format's score is also quite significant. This is in line with how the development processes

were performed, because the developers were indeed having difficulties in writing GDD when they used

the old format.

The second lowest score when using the old format is in step 4. Most of the developers

experienced difficulties in revising GDDs written in old format, although the difficulties were minor.

The third lowest score for the old format is in step 2, where only two developers reported problems. We

can say that the most insignificant difference between the two GDD formats is in step 2.

Meanwhile, there is no difference at all in step 3. This proves that which GDD format was used

did not influence the production stage of the development processes, where the video game softwares

were being implemented and tested. Which format was used influenced only the preproduction or design

stage. We see that the reason for this condition was because the old and the modified format are not very

dfferent from each other, because they only differ by one chapter and one subchapter. If the differences

are much more significant, we assume that there would be score differences too in step 3, because how

the preproduction is performed greatly influences the success of the production (Bethke, 2003) (Callele

& Neufeld, 2005).

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

96 | Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, Juli 2016, Volume 2, Nomor 2

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

3.4. Player Testing Results

Testing by players was performed for two weeks. In total, 30 players participated anonimously.

The results can be seen in Table 3.

As seen in the table, three out of five video games developed using the modified GDD format

scored higher than their counterparts. However, the score differences between individual games and

between all the games as a whole are quite insignificant. This shows that which GDD format was used

for which video game had little influence on the quality of said game. We see that the reason for this

was similar to the reason for no differences in step 3 of development processes, which is that the two

GDD formats are not very different from each other.

3.5. Final Evaluation of Modified GDD Format

The testing process by the developers acquired a positive result, because the modified GDD

format was able to make the development processes run more smoothly. On the other hand, the testing

process by the players acquired a neutral result because there was no significant difference in score

between the games made with the old format and those made with the modified one. Based on the results

of those two testing processes, we deemed the modified GDD format successful because it was able to

satisfy the minimal condition for its successfulness, which was one positive result and one neutral result.

We saw that the modified GDD format did not need to be revised. Chapter 5 for three aspects of

a passive DDA mechanism did it job well, judging from positive ratings from the developers. On the

other hand, the new subchapter in chapter 6 did not seem to be utilized much by the developers.

However, we still included the subchapter in the modified GDD format because it serves a purpose and

does not have any negative effects.

4. Conclusions

We have modified general GDD format by Salazar et al. to make it more suitable for developing

video games with a passive DDA mechanism. We have verified its usefulness in two testing processes,

one involving five developers and the other involving 30 anonymous players. In order for the modified

format to be successful, at least one of the testing must g et a positive result and the other got a neutral

one. The developers used the modified and the old GDD format to develop video games with passive

DDA mechanisms. The development processes were based on modified waterfall methodology. The

developers rated the modified format higher than the old one in three, out of four, steps of the

methodology. In relation to their passive DDA mechanisms, the resulting video games were also tested

by players, but there were no significant differences in quality found between those made with the

modified GDD format and those with the old one. Nonetheless, because the developer testing acquired

a positive result and the player testing acquired a neutral one, we see the modified format as successful.

Our suggestions for future improvements:

1). Modifying our GDD format further to make it more suited for specific gameplay types;

2). Modifying our GDD format further to also support player modelling method, in order to support

the development of video games whose passive DDA mechanisms are supported by that method.

5. References

Alexander, J. T., Oikonomou, A., & Sear, J. (2013). An Investigation of the Effects of Game Difficulty

on Player Enjoyment. Entertainment Computing, 4 (1), 53-62.

Altizer. (n.d.). The Emotional Impact of Videogames. Retrieved Juni 25, 2015, from

http://playstation.about.com/od/features/a/emotionalgaming.htm

Arif, I. (2014). Penambahan Unsur Edukasi pada Dokumen Desain Permainan untuk Perbaikan

Kualitas Permainan Edukasi. Surabaya: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November.

Arulraj, J. J. (2010). Adaptive Agent Generation using Machine Learning for Dynamic Difficulty

Adjustment. International Conference on Computer & Communication Technology (ICCCT).

Bethke, E. (2003). Game Development and Production. Wordware Publishing Incorporated.

Booth, M. (n.d.). Replayable Cooperative Game Design: Left 4 Dead. Retrieved Mei 27, 2014, from

http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2009/GDC2009_ReplayableCooperativeGameDesig

n_Left4Dead.pdf

Game Design Document Format For Video Games With Passive Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment eISSN:2502-3357

pISSN:2503-0477

http://www.journal.unipdu.ac.id/index.php/register/article/view/551

Booth, M. (n.d.). The AI Systems of Left 4 Dead. Retrieved Mei 27, 2014, from

http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2009/ai_systems_of_l4d_mike_booth.pdf

Bowen, H. (n.d.). Can Videogames Make You Cry? Retrieved Juni 25, 2015, from

https://www.bowenresearch.com/game-informer-article.php

Browne, C., Simon, C., Michael, C., Gow, J., & Baumgarten, R. (2014). Toward the Adaptive

Generation of Bespoke Game Content. In M. C. Angelides, & H. Agius (Eds.), Handbook of Digital

Games (p. 29). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bycer, J. (n.d.). Examining Subjective Difficulty: How Plumbers Can Fight Demons. Retrieved Mei 27,

2014, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6583/examining_subjective_difficulty_.php

Callele, D., & Neufeld, E. (2005). Requirements Engineering and Creative Process in the Video Game

Industry. Proceedings of the 2005 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements

Engineering, (pp. 240-250).

Chen, J. (2007). Flow in Games (and everything else). Communications of the ACM, 50 (4), 31-34.

Chen, J. (2006). Flow in Games. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row.

Engeser, S. (2012). Advances in Flow Research. Springer.

Freeman, D. (2003). Creating Emotion in Games: The Craft and Art of Emotioneering. New Riders

Publishing.

Frome, J. (2007). Eight Ways Videogames Generate Emotion. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference.

GameMaker. (2015). GameMaker Studio Documentation, 1.4. (Yoyo Games) Retrieved June 27, 2016,

from Yoyo Games: https://docs.yoyogames.com/

Habgood, J., & Overmars, M. (2006). The Game Maker's Apprentice. Apress.

Hao, Y., He, S., Wang, J., Liu, X., Yang, J., & Huang, W. (2010). Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment of

Game AI by MCTS for the Game Pac-Man. Sixth International Conference on Natural

Computation (ICNC 2010), (pp. 3918-3922).

Royce, W. W. (1970). Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. IEEE WESCON 26 (pp.

1-9). TRW.

Salazar, M. G., Mitre, H. A., Olalde, C. L., & Sanchez, J. L. (2012). Proposal of Game Design Document

from Software Engineering Requirements Perspective. The 17th International Conference on

Computer Games.

Sha, L., He, S., Wang, J., Yang, J., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2010). Creating Appropriate Challenge

Level Game Opponent by the Use of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment. Sixth International

Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC 2010), (pp. 3897-3901).

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games.

ACM Computers in Entertainment.

... Pada khususnya game memiliki beberapa komponen yang penting yaitu skenario (alur cerita), level (tingkatan), skor (nilai), karakter, dan obstacle (rintangan) (Karim, 2014) (Atmaja, Siahaan, & Kuswardayan, 2016). Industri game merupakan perwujudan pengembangan industri kreatif yang ada pada saat ini. ...

This chapter explores methods for automatically generating bespoke game content, and games themselves, adapted to individual players to improve their playing experience or achieve a desired effect. It identifies three main aspects of the gaming process: generation of new content and rule sets, measurement of this content and the player, and adaptation of the game to change player experience. An overview of the author's recent and ongoing research is presented. The chapter describes an overall methodology for content generation for adaptive games. It provides case studies that demonstrate the author's ideas over a variety of game types, including 3D action games, arcade games, platformers, board games, puzzles, and open-world games. The chapter talks about the lessons learned, difficulties encountered, and huge potential for adaptive game technology to produce next-generation games and stimulate research in computational creativity. Finally, it draws conclusions about prospects for personalized gaming through adaptive game design.

The Game Design Document (GDD) plays a key role in the design phase of every game development. A poorly elaborated GDD can lead to rework and loss of investment in production and postproduction phases. To address these issues, an analysis of several available GDDs found in the literature was performed, contrasting our findings with the best practices from Software Requirements Specification (SRS). Our improved GDD incorporates a common understanding of terms, quality assurance, decision making, definition of relations, boundaries, limitations and knowledge of game elements. Finally, our GDD is put side by side with a commercial GDD.

Stefan Engeser

Since its discovery as a mental state in the 1970s, flow—the losing of oneself in productive activity—has become an important aspect of positive psychology and motivation research. Its processes have been studied in artists and athletes, applied to education and business, and explored in pursuits as varied as spirituality and internet use. As more analysis is done on optimal states of being, the more interest flow gathers as a focus of inquiry. In Advances in Flow Research, a panel of experts expands on Csikszentmihalyi's classic flow model and opens out key concepts. Contributors address ongoing questions regarding the conditions and components of flow, and consider various methods for measurement and assessment. Current findings are included on flow-related cognitive and personality issues, and the relation of flow to happiness and other affective states. And readers are introduced to emerging areas of study, including possible contributions of flow to negative behavior. Among the topics covered: • Affective, cognitive, and performance-related consequences of flow. • Psychophysiological correlates of flow experience. • Understanding the autotelic personality. • Integrating flow theory and cognitive evaluation theory. • Flow in non-achievement situations. • The dark side of flow. For social psychologists and researchers in flow and motivation, Advances in Flow Research fills a number of purposes: an up-to-date summary of what has been done, an idea book for new frontiers of inquiry, and a trove of useful references.

Justin T. Alexander
John Sear
Andreas Oikonomou

Motivated by the controversial debates on the subject of static difficulty and dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA), we investigate the effects different difficulty settings have on different types of players (i.e. casual or experienced). By doing this, we can help to deduce an important question: what difficulty does the player want? An experiment was conducted with 90 participants, each playing the same experimental game exhibiting either static difficulty or DDA mechanics. The results indicate that players enjoy a game more, if the difficulty provided is reflective of their gaming experience, rather than their actual gaming ability.

David Freeman

Why put emotion into games? The answers are art and money. Sure, it's an unholy alliance, but so are pineapple and pizza, windmills and tiny golf courses, the military and intelligence, and canned fruit and gelatin molds. Don't get me wrong. I think of myself as an artist first and a businessman second. But game companies that don't make a profit aren't game companies for very long. There are at least nine reasons that putting emotion in games can lead to greater profits, and it's worth taking a few minutes to mention them.

Joy James Prabhu Arulraj

Player experience is a significant parameter in evaluating the overall success of a game, both technically and commercially. It is necessary to provide the player a game that provides: (1) satisfaction and (2) challenge. To enhance player experience, the game difficulty needs to be dynamically adjusted with respect to the player. Dynamic scripting is an important learning technique used for dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA), already implemented successfully in commercial games of different genres. However the DDA systems are not sufficiently consistent in creating equally competent agents and do not provide equal opportunity to human players of different capabilities. This paper focuses on solving these issues by introducing these concepts: (a) dynamic weight clipping, (b) differential learning and (c) adrenalin rush. Experimental results indicate that dynamic scripting, in combination with these features, can implement an ideal DDA system for creating a equally competent computer agent who can engage the human player in absorbing games.