Edited by author 10-16-2001 03:04 AM
Game - Boogle
Hugh was a sport. She didn't have much time to figure out the game, and the rest of us were giving her answers.

We had a really awesome write up completed, and someone erased it, so I will reconstruct as much as I can remember.

MARK - Anne
Challenge
The challenge was high because Hugh had never played a game like boogle before, and she was piloting it before us. She was never comfortable with the game. It seemed like if there had been variable levels, she would have liked it better.


Curiousity - Hugh said there was nothing about the game that made her curious. She didn't understand the directions, but she didn't stop and try to find them either. However, she wrote "fake" words to see if she could get points, and kept trying to get points for two letter words. So she seemed curious about seeing if she could cheat.


Control - When she accidently figured out how to get control of the game by stopping the game to get the score her interest was much higher....temporarily. There was no way for Hugh to figure out how many points she had and this was disconcerting to her. I think she might have made some different strategies if she had known how many points each word was worth.


Fantasy - I guess the idea that Hugh might be able to get the machine to let her input a two letter word, or give her points for a name is about as far into fantasy as this game went for Hugh. There was no character or context involvement, no analogies or metaphors presented, however the exogenous fantasy of getting the right answer was fairly lost because she didn't understand the rules.

Hugh did a great job playing the game for the first time. It is an interesting game, and once you establish patterns it is fairly simply and fun. However, like anything else, if you don't know what is expected it can be very difficult.

Hugh played the game Age of Empires 2. Overall the game's complexity both frustrated and engaged him.

Lepper
The simulation/game that engaged Mike for twenty minutes, for the most part, successfully captured Lepper's criteria that determine motivation and fun.

CHALLENGE:
The goals were clear and the outcomes were certainly not predetermined.
Given the genuine difficulties in mastering this game, success would
clearly generate "self-esteem." This first criterion, however, was perhaps the one condition that could intimidate the more faint-hearted from mastering this game. The rapid development of the complexity of the game appeared to generate situations that impeded a continuously optimal or "intermediate" level of difficulty. While excited and clearly enthusiastic, Mike definitely moved into reflections of "not pleased," "annoyed," "astonished," and "frustrated" in the latter half of the game.

CURIOSITY:
This game had a robust approach to stimulating curiosity. An interesting and increasingly varied geography was only partially revealed as the player explored new areas. There was a palpable suspense in awaiting what new vistas emerged with exploration. Additionally, players cannot become complacent when dealing with the complex interplay between the many various components.

CONTROL:
This great strength of the game, the player's omnipotence over his/her
micro-world, can also be a source of frustration. Mike shared a number of times that the multitude of decisions was overwhelming some times. Game characters he controlled were frequently sent out on missions and then forgotten while the urgency or immediacy of some other activity took his attention.

FANTASY:
I think the simulation matches a broad view of the Emotional Aspect of this component. Lepper suggests that fantasies "should encourage identification with imagined characters or contexts." I doubt Mike truly empathized with the resilient villagers; they struck me as having the single-mindedness of ants despite the fact that someone may have rained insecticide on their ant colony. On the other hand, I do think that there is an aesthetic appreciation of watching one's fiefdom develop through the implementation of decisions the player has chosen.


Flow
The player was almost constantly at a state just above the "flow" line (ideal for learning.) As the game progressed the task difficulty increased along with the player's anxiety. The game offered clear goals and feedback in the form of visual cues (i.e. townpeople building homes, icons listing current states of resources, and enemy ships attacking.) If the player had set the game controls at a more moderate pace, flow would have been achieved. However, this fast paced game probably increased his skill level, so that flow will occur at a higher state next time.


ARCS
Attention
Age of Empires easily captured the players attention. It was full of audio and visual effects that were constantly changing. It also has a problem to be solved, the player must conquer the enemy. The changing scenery adds variability.

Relevance
While this game is not necessarily educational, it does have some historical relevance. There is a distinct goal that corresponds with an actual historical outcome.

Confidence
This game builds confidence by having a beginner level. It increases in difficulty as the player goes through a campaign and onto other levels. The player also has a complete control of the game, he must make decisions to attack, fortify his compound, and build armies.

Satisfaction
Ultimate satisfaction comes from defeating the enemy. However, there are consequences when the game strategy isn't successful. The player's armies can be destroyed or razed and then the player must rebuild or refortify.

No helps within the game. It was a hit and miss. She didn't understand what to do. Didn't see any learning value. Didn't know what some of the codes meant within the game. Didn't think it was fun - at all. The game was frustrating because she didn't know what to do. The prices of the drugs changed but she couldn't see the pattern. She would try and steal a car but wasn't sure if or when she got the stolen vehicle. There was too much attention to detail. If the user didn't know math very well and didn't keep track, they would lose their money very quickly.

Robin = Hugh (the game player)
Matt = Mike and Mark (Lepper and the Flow Guy)
Peyri = John (Keller)

Robin played a gangster-style game called Payback. It was a demo so it timed out after 5 minutes. Robin played four times.

For the first 10 minutes the game reached the four criteria for motivation, according to Lepper: challenge, curiosity, control, and fantasy. For Robin the game was most motivating as he was trying to figure out how it worked and what he could and could not do.

Payback did not meet the optimal balance between anxiety and boredom. Robin seemed to stay within the lower portions of "flow," sometimes reaching boredom. He never peaked into anxiety. This was especially apparent when the game started over. Time passed quickly but Robin never lost contact with the real world.

As for the ARCS model, the game initially held Robin's attention and thus he was motivated to play. Because he is a game player, Payback held relevance. Robin was confident that he would be successful in the game. The satisfaction of trying new things and receiving instant feedback was motivating also. This led to his response of "engaged" and "pleased" for more than 50% of his play time.

The game was Snood. The rules were clear and the outcome obvious. The object of the game, to link 3 or more objects in a row before they are automatically deleted.

Lepper & Malone

Challenge: A game of skills and definitely challenging. The simplicity of the game allowed you to master it after time. It is not about intelligence but reaction and recognition. Eye hand coordination and use of mouse presented difficulty.

Curiosity: Object emerged- still uncertain of the purpose but remained a part of the game. Curiosity was not a motivating factor of the game.

Control: At a certain point Hugh realized the patterns and was more prepared in the next round.

Fantasy: Sound effects made it more of a micro world and became an engaging game.

Keller’s ARCS

Attention: Easily caught Hugh’s attention with color, sound and moving pieces.

Relevance: The development of eye-hand coordination.

Confidence: Was gained as Hugh continued to play, the score increased with each round of play.

Satisfaction: Obvious increase in satisfaction as game play improved.

The Russell’s Affect Grid demonstrated a heightened sense of satisfaction as game play improved. The emotional response at the beginning of the game while play was still be learned was negative and inactive. As play was in progress, Hugh was engaged and eventually displayed excitement with mastery of the game.

Hugh played Epsilon Tahari and was mostly excited throughout the game play.

Keller ARCS
Attention: for the most part, the game had Hugh's attention. She was excited during game play. Uncertainty and lower arousal/pleasant levels came about when going through set up and training modules.

Relevance: Hugh is actually a trained pilot, but that did not fully play into the relevance of the game. She mentioned that the mechanics were fun to figure out and how to reach the goal, in a similar way with piloting (except for the obvious fact that there is no trial and error in regular piloting).

Confidence: confidence was built in the game with each subsequent trial. Even though Hugh did not reach teh ultimate goal of the game, each attempt at it gave her more and more confidence upon which to build for the next try. This is to say that each trial had a learning component.

Satisfaction: satisfaction is tied in with the comment on confidence wherein Hugh was able to learn from each trial. Each trial gave her confidence and therefore satisfaction with the game in being able to progress in the game toward the goal by building skills.

Examining the game from the perspective of Malone and Lepper:

Of the 7 catagories in the Taxonomy we were concerned with 4: Challenge, Curiosity, Fantasy, and Control.

Curiosity:
Much of the players engagement in the game was driven by Curiosity. The game has a number of complex keyborard mappings that must be mastered to operate the simulated aircraft. The majority of the game play period was spent learning these features in "Training" mode, and then going back to the set-up page that described the controls. Also the game provides the player with a 3-D landscape with targets that must be seeked-out. It was not always obvious where to go or how to get there. Curiousity as to how to fly, where to fly, and what to do was a source of motivation.

Fantasy:
The fantasy of flying an aircraft through a 3-D world drove was another source of the player's motivation and engagement. The game's explicit storyline was not a compellling ingredient in the player's involvement in this game.

Control:
The games control was a mixed bag. It was satisfaction in undestanding and utilizing that understanding to pilot the aircraft. The complexity and steep learning curve. of the controls hindered a true sense of "control" for the player.

Challenge:
The games goals were not something the player worked with, so the explcit challenge of the game was not something that motivated or engaged the player.

The Conditions of Flow -
From the perspective of a 'narrow ribbon' where a game-player travels between boredom and excitement, it was clear that our 'Hugh' was engaged throughout the course of the simulation. There really was never a point when she could have been described as 'bored'; rather, there were some frustrating moments while she tried to familiarize herself with the complex controls and the object of the game, but was still stimulated by the game itself and engaged in it's usage.

One aspect that helped keep the player engaged was the immediate feedback provided by the game; during both training missions and actual game play, she could experiment with the controls and obtain feedback right away to let her know when she was using them correctly or incorrectly.

However, one of our team members pointed out that there was *not* clear negative or positive feedback acting as a 'guide' to the player as to what they were doing right or wrong. In essence, the player was left to herself to work out how to use things correctly, and it was mostly her own resolve and innate curiousity that pushed her to continue and learn how to successfully navigate through the game. This member said that she would have become far too frustrated very quickly with the lack of useful feedback as to how to play the game successfully. The only feedback provided as that of trial and error on the player's part.

Judy played the game Blobs 4.01 by Lars Gafvert for 20 minutes and stayed engaged and motivated for most of the game. She described herself as staying in the positively pleased and excited quadrant of the Game Response Matrix. When she could use the bomb to blow portions of the game up, her excitement level soared. When the game became more difficult (after she switched to a higher level) her frustration level also rose.

Malone: The initial motivation was self esteem as she questioned her ability to learn the game with others watching. She moved on to sensory curiosity as she noticed she had passed a level and was aware of the game enviornment changing and she adapted to the new elements. She became more excited with mastery of these elements.

Lepper: The recognition factor was apparent to all viewing the game and added to Judy's motivation to succeed. She segmented the activity into different parts.

Keller and Suzuki:
Attention: The colors and sounds presented sufficient motivation to keep her attention. There was no Relevance in the game to her life. She expected her Confidence level to be high as she anticipated succeeding. The game was simple to learn which boosted her confidence yet she lost confidence as the difficulty level rose. Her Satisfaction level was high especially as she mastered the higher levels which had previously lowered her confidence. Overall her motivation was high to try the game again and beat her previously high level.

Mr. C:
Judy's motivation was influenced by and relative to her success in the game. Her motivation dropped to boredom when the game wasn't moving fast enough. She also felt hopeless when the game was too difficult or she thought she could not succeed. She described the band of FLOW as very narrow between boredom and anxiety at these points in the game.

The Game of Snood as viewed by Lepper and Malone and interpreted by Marino

Lauren played Snood for about 25 minutes. She played without sound so there was no motivation from any of the fantasy that sounds would have created. She picked up the mode of play quickly but for the first part of the game (6 of the first 8 minutes0 she stated she was annoyed. This was because she was learning the rules and strategy and was unable to understand how to “win” the game. She was obviously challenged beyond her ability to perform well. In terms of uncertainty, the outcome seemed less than 50% that she would do well in the game. Her first game score was 220, which was low in comparison to other scores.

She continued to learn the game, and started to become pleased when she started scoring higher. She was obviously curious, asking questions about how the canon worked and which piece was coming out next. After about 10 minutes of playing she moved from being annoyed to being engaged in the game and pleased. She was more in control, scoring higher and getting feedback for doing well. Once or twice she stated she was frustrated because even though she was scoring high and floating the snoods, she did not understand why she was doing well; In addition, when the cannon didn’t shoot where she wanted it to, she became frustrated. I interpreted this to mean that she did not feel in control because she did not think she could produce the effects under her own power but it was caused more by random chance or accident.

Her last game lasted over 10 minutes and she had mastered the technique and strategy of how to score high. Except for one short period when she was frustrated (lack of control) she was either pleased or engaged the entire time. When she won the final game and made her highest score she was excited and also astonished (much as she described how she would feel if she had gotten an A on a tough exam.) She had been challenged the entire game and uncertain of the outcome. She was getting more and more positive feedback as she continued to succeed and she felt more and greater control of the situation. Her final act was to obtain the recognition of the highest score as she registered her game.

One observation of her play the entire time was that she was always above the half way point on the X-axis of the Game Response Adjective Matrix. The game was thus stimulating enough for her to be responsive and energetic.

Edited by author 10-26-2003 08:48 PM
Keller's ARCS Model of Motivation as seen while playing Snood

My 10 year old son, Samuel, was very motivated to play Snood. This was at least partly due to extrinsic motivation, since he got to take a break from his homework to help me with mine. However, he was very excited to play anything that involved the computer, and funny robot-like faces, and he seemed pretty intrigued with the game name.

The novelty effect and curiosity were high at the beginning, which are both part of the “A” in ARCS, for attention. Samuel reported being “excited” before starting the game.
Throughout the game his attention was engaged by the graphics and sounds, as well as the game play. I am not sure he figured out the cause and effect of the different angles and icons (I know I didn’t!).

He also liked exploring the different levels of the game. He started with “child” then went for “evil”. He enjoyed the challenge of evil, even though it was more difficult. Then he cycled through several other levels but ended up on difficult. Using various problems to solve on the different levels and varying the elements fits into the ARCS model for keeping Attention. When he switched between the different levels he asked questions out loud like “I wonder if it has the creepy multiplier thing—that was cool!” This shows that inquiry arousal was happening throughout the game. He wondered who drew the Snoods, which shows an interest in the graphics and creativity of the game.

It may be that the audio got a little overwhelming, even though he liked the “ta da” sound after a successful move, at one point he commented “pay no attention to the beeping noise behind the screen”.

The “R” in ARCS, for Relevance, was a little less closely matched with Snood. My son remarked that he had played games similar to this one, so that relates to “Familiarity”. The Goal Orientation was a little fuzzy for me, since it seemed like the goal was a bit fuzzy for my son (at least on the cause and effect relationships). I think the score card was motivating, which tied in with why Keller and Suzuki say games can give a “heightened sense of relevance”.

There was very little role playing or fantasy, other than getting to shoot snoods at other snoods, so I didn’t think that element of relevance was used.

C is for Confidence, and my son had it playing Snood. He didn’t mind trying hard levels and not doing as well. He was not overly concerned when he lost a round. He started with the easier mode, which fits in with ARCS model by presenting opportunities for early success as a motivational factor. I think he would have liked to have been able to reach the toolbar and switch levels or start a game over, but he didn’t seem unmotivated about having to finish out a game before getting that access.

Satisfaction was high for Samuel while playing Snood. He enjoyed it. He especially liked the music that played for good moves and commented on it several times. This is a form of positive reinforcement recommended in the ARCS model. The graphics were also very well matched to my son’s interests. Samuel put himself in the “engaged” category throughout the game, and also “relaxed”. When I stopped him at the two minute intervals he was eager to resume the game. His comments indicated that he was figuring out how to control the Snoods, such as “Looks like some snoods are more aerodynamic”.

I think I can safely conclude that Snood is very motivating for a 10 year old boy in all four aspects of the ARCS model.

Edited by author 10-26-2003 09:59 PM
I recruited my wife to play Snoodle which I knew would produce some interesting results given that she really doesn't play video games and that Snoodle would provide some challenges for her--even at the easiest setting.

She played the game for approximately 20 minutes starting off "annoyed" and "uncertain" in the first 2 session before spending the rest of the session in the lower left quadrant vacillating between "bored" (4 times) "turned off" (2) and eventually "miserable (1). She did creep into the "sleepy" square for one session but I suspect she made that selection just to spice up the results a little. Obviously the game wasn't interesting for her at all.

Applying the Lepper/Malone Taxonomy to the feedback session provided a solid explanation for her lack of interest.

First off, the instructions didn't provide her much helpful information about what she was supposed to do once she started playing even though she said that she read each of the instructions carefully. She said that the directions were very poorly presented (my experience as well) so when she first started playing she was uncertain about the basic goals of the game and especially what she needed to do to win. While she did figure out the basics of the game she was not successful at winning any of the 5 games that she played. The game was too challenging in her opinion. She never really mastered the aiming of the cannon and as a result felt no control of the game. She did get better at not losing as quickly but there was never any uncertainty about the outcome which contributed to her boredom the more she lost. Her lack of success didn't do much for her self-esteem or cognitive curiosity either. As for sensory curiosity, the addition of feedback sounds after the first session provided no added appeal for her either---I had turned off the sound during my last session of playing the game. Even her minor successes, as evidenced by the audio feedback, didn't do much to increase her curiosity and helping with the challenge issue.

The crux of the problem, I believe, was revealed by her negative comments about the fantasy aspect of the game and her inability to identify with the characters. She was very vocal about the incrogruity between the stated goal of the game to "save the Snoods" and their scary, demented personas. She also didn't understand why she was shooting heads out of a cannon in order to save them. She suggest that making the characters more lovable or cuddly may have helped with the identification process. I'm not so sure though since the basic challenge of the game and her inability to control the game mechanism were beyond her desire to develop any cognitive or sensory curiosity.

For Keller's ARC model, the first letter stands for Attention, but since I had seen the game and been exposed to it prior to today, it didn't hold my attention the way it might have otherwise. This led to the initial rating of Tranquil, no Super-Excited. I could have been more aroused if this had been the first time I had seen it. From Lepper's point of view, it was interesting because i had played this game before and remarked that it was more fun with competition to play against. From Mike C's point of view, as I increased the activity to the point that it made as much of a challenge as possible for my skills, I became more involved in the game, sort of in the flow, but not as much as if it were more complicated and really required me to stretch my talents. It seemed as if the game didn't increase in difficulty level to compensate for my increase in skill. Malone: the game didn't arouse my curiosity, taking the game to a more difficult level didn't do much except increase the speed of the game. According to Mike C, in order to really get into the flow, it would have had to force me to focus so much on it that I would have just been concentrating on the game, not on others around me or possibly even my own self. Instead, I was forced to increase the challenge of the game myself to stay somewhat in the flow. It was interesting that when my confidence increased, my motivation increased, my pleasure and arousal increased, I was getting bored with it, but then I saw my own score (which was quite high) and the next rating I gave was engaged (and trying to challenge myself further with what the game could offer.

Team3: and Monica
Started in the Uncertain quadrant and moved progressively to the frustrated. The game was difficult to figure-out which increased movement in the left quadrant.

Regarding The Flow Channel Matrix, the player began in the upper section with anxiety due to the task's difficulty and lack of knowledge and skills. A the player gained familiarity with the game, the player moved downward towards the flow channel.

Regarding the Lepper and Malone's model, it lacked the control element as well as cooperation, competition and recognition.

Keller's ARCS Model: Although it contained the attention element, it lacked relevance. The player did not feel confident and did not gain satisfaction from playing.

Matt, Tony, Polly, Andrea, and Kat:

Our game was Snood. It's a shooting gallery, strategy, pattern game.

From the Csikszentmihalyi perpsective, there was never a level of engagement. There was never a clear goal, adn the subject (game player) did not feel that he had control over his own success because the feedback was inconsistent with his inputs. The subject stated that there was no clear pattern to the progression of difficulties.

The subject experienced erratic swings between boredom and anxiety, and at no time did the game balance those two elements to achieve flow.

From Lepper's perspective, the fantasy's purpose and structure was unclear, but simple enough that he could immerse himself in it. The challenge was varied but not graduated properly. He had inconsistent control of his aim and the eventual destination of the projectiles. Cooperation, competition, and recognition were irrelevent elements. The curiostiy consisted of figuring the game out.

Using the ARCS model, attention was high at first out of pure curiousity, but petered off as the game became more familiar and more frustrating. The game initially had relevance because it fit into a paradigm similar to Tetris, but this relevance was limited. The subject's confidence level fluctuated. It was low at first because the subject did not know the rules of the game. As he played and figured out how to play, his confidence grew. But then his confidence left him when the difficulty level shot up unexpectedly and tremendously. He can't get no satisfaction.

The subject was all over the game response adjective matrix. He spent the most time, however, closest to the center of the grid suggesting that the game didn't really provoke any strong emotion. There was greater variation in pleasure and displeasure than in arousal and non-arousal.

Amy (Lepper):
For the first half of the session, the user felt significantly challenged by the game. Even when the game became unpleasant, the user remained aroused and alert. The user also remained pretty curious during this first half. She expressed a high level of interest in the game and in perfecting her understaning of the rules. However, her sense of control fluctuated during the beginning portion of the session. At first, she felt confident, then she became alarmed and certain that she was "..about to die."

At around the 16 minute mark, the user's level of engagement and sense of feeling challenged by the game dropped significantly. The game remained a pleasant experience for the remainder of the session, but she not express feelings of arousal. Her sense of control remained high and consistent, but her sense of curiosity tapered off, and did not rise again.

Csikszentmihalyi: Conditions of Flow (Molly)
Prior to the start of the game, the user was excited. The user was in flow at the early levels of the game between the 2-minute marker and the 6-minute marker. When the game became more challenging (more color balloons and more blocks that prevent the user from placing the balloons), the users was out of flow--the user was feeling alarmed and annoyed between the 8-minute marker and the 12-marker. The user was in flow again when she restarted the game. By the 18-minute makrer, the user was moving out of flow--feeling unchallenged and bored.

Keller's ARCS model (Pei-shan)
The player was very excited to play the game in the first place. She was very motivated in the first 6 minutes, she felt excited, engaged, and pleased for doing well. At this period, her attention level was very high and through the "doing well" feeling, I can tell a sense of confidence was also occuring.
After the minute 8, the game got more challenging. The player began to express annoyed and alarmed. Her sense of satisfaction was impaired. Confidence level was also getting lower at this point.
The game started again in the 14 minute. The attention drived by excitment was back and the feeling of content/confidence came back. However, the player got bored and sleepy quickly as she has learned the necessary strategies. Therefore, although she had confidence, she was not satisfied. She stopped playing quickly.
Relevance factors did not exist in this game.

Blobs 4.01 Motivational Analysis Notes
Being a Keller ARCS zealot, I prepared my fiancée for a test with Bloobs. Snoods were not used, because she became fairly effective Snoods players with evolving strategies that addressed the rising levels of difficulty (don’t use the Armageddon level on your fiancée for evaluating motivation – you’ll never hear the end of it) (I tried it – don’t go there).

Since Bloobs isn’t a shooting game, I had to give basic rules and hint at an objective.

Attention –
Before the first blob was dropped, W (fiancée) described that she was feeling uncertain in the upper left quadrant of the Adjective Matrix (AM). She also described that the game interface was somewhat mysterious and that interested her – increased her curiosity. At the 2 minute mark, she had cleared a group of read blobs, and she commented that she felt engaged on the AM, and she said that she was paying close attention to where the blobs were placed and what there numbers were – arousal with increased attention. Through out the 20 minute evaluation time, other than the initial uncertain description, W stayed in the upper right quadrant of the AM. She reached the level of excited four times, and she associated that with exploding large groups of blobs and finishing a level. W loved the colors of the blobs, the dropping and exploding sound effects, and the soothing music of Blobs 4.01. This was a far better evaluation than using the Armageddon level in Snoods.

Relevance –
I did not see any direct relevance to the real world, but M said that it indirectly reminded her of problem solving at work. The game reminded her that she needs to be creative in her problem solving. I agreed with her that when problems at work were solved that they should explode and your score would increase.

Confidence –
At the onset of the game, W felt low in her confidence toward the game. However, as the game progressed, she gained positive experiences in manipulating the game and its interactions. She quickly was able to develop strategies that worked on existing blobs and on blobs on different levels of difficulty. In our closing discussion, she talked about using her strategies to increase her confidence when a large group of blobs were lost or boxed in. The strategies help her predict the outcome of future moves and mental actions. I saw that her confidence and her enjoyability of the game increased when she had a working mental model of that game.

Satisfaction –
Just after the onset of the game until the end, W showed increasing satisfaction with the game play. She was impressed with her ability to develop strategies and with the changing information – how she would then adapt those strategies. W liked how fast she was thinking in the game environment. Up to the end, W kept control of her focus within the game. In the end, W felt that she was highly motivated.

Snood Exercise with Keller and the ARCS model

I tried this exercise on a friend at work and was very pleased with the results. I gave Mario, my friend, the directions beforehand so that he could have an understanding of the game. Before Mario started, he was in a relaxed state.

During play, he made a lot of noises that gave me an idea of his state of mind. I heard a lot of things like, “You suck!” “Yeah!” and, “They’re laughing at me!” At this point it was just the beginning of the game and he said he was engaged because he was trying to figure out the strategy.

At the four-minute mark, Mario declared that he was annoyed. He felt that there was no way to win. I asked him if he would have continued to play had he been on his own. I thought his answer would be “no” since he was losing confidence and satisfaction. He surprised me by saying that yes, he would have continued to play as he wanted to figure out how to beat the Snood. Did I mention he is very competitive? Even though there wasn’t much relevance outside of his doing me a favor, the game kept his attention and was feeding his ego. Attention is the first level of the ARCS model.

As Mario continued to play, he figured out the game and went into excitement mode. He figured out that he could win. His ability to win gave him confidence and satisfaction, important items for achieving flow. There was only one point in the last twelve minutes of play that he got out of the excitement zone and went into alarm. He had made a bad choice in the game and thought his strategy had failed. He thought he was going to lose. Oh no!

He continued to play, reaching the level of excitement again. He was winning. He told me, “It’s us against the Snoods, Nancy. We have to win.” Mario was getting really into it. Throughout the game, he continued to make noises of pleasure and frustration. Most of his comments I can’t post as he got a bit vulgar. The one comment Mario made when the exercise was all done was that there was nothing to learn in it. Relevance was certainly missing in this exercise. Aside from that, it followed the ARCS model of motivation pretty well.