翻译原文（继上一篇博客）

上一篇博客（即中文译文）的链接：https://blog.csdn.net/Keddy17766475969/article/details/88836760

Theme 3: Cognition

This theme describes game engagement from the perspective of cognition.

Flow theory

Researchers (Cox, Cairns, Shah, & Carroll, 2012; Lucas & Sherry, 2004; Weibel &
Wissmath, 2011) defined flow as the cognitive aspect of experience (involvement)
with the task. Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) was defined as a mental state of being
completely immersed, losing complete awareness even of bodily needs, with attention
completely dedicated to a particular task at hand. He added that flow occurs when
there is an optimal alignment between a user’s skill level and the challenges posed by
the task. There are seven additional elements needed to support that optimal
alignment: clear goals, merging of action and awareness, concentration, autonomy,
loss of consciousness, time distortion, and autotelic experience.
Past works (e.g., Piselli, Claypool, & Doyle, 2009) have supported flow theory by
showing that the most satisfying and engaging moment for players is when there is an
optimal alignment between the player’s level of skill and the challenges provided by
the game (e.g., barely victorious), while, when the challenge is too easy or too difficult
(e.g., totally victorious) for players, the game becomes less engaging. Flow theory has
been used extensively to explain the phenomenon of game engagement—for example,
the GameFlow model (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Nevertheless, Nakamura and
Csikszentmihalyi (2002) found that enjoyment may occur independently of flow (i.e.,
flow describes an extreme gaming experience, which may not cover more casual
experiences of enjoyment and lightweight absorption).

Immersion

Jennett et al. (2008) considered immersion as a result of good gaming experience.
Immersion (Brown & Cairns, 2004; Cheng & Cairns, 2005; Jennett et al., 2008;
Sanders & Cairns, 2010) comprises three main features: (a) temporal dissociation, (b)
spatial dissociation and © merging of task and self. Jennett et al. (2008) argued that
immersion is different from flow in the sense of extremity, i.e., since immersion is a
less extreme version of flow, thus immersion can be used more effectively to describe
a variety of player experiences (e.g., in casual gaming). Brown and Cairns (2004)
defined immersion as the degree of involvement within gameplay, ranging from low
(engagement) to moderate (engrossment) to high immersion (total immersion).
Douglas and Hargadon (2000) viewed immersion as one of the primary sources of
pleasures. Curran (2013) classified five types of immersion—general immersion,
vicarious immersion (involved with the world and characters), action visceral
immersion (involved with action and play), mental visceral immersion (involved with
the tactics and strategies), and group immersion (involved with cooperative play).

Presence

Presence is closely related to immersion. Most commonly, researchers (Slater et al.,
1994; Witmer & Singer, 1998) define presence as the sense of being there in the
virtual environment without actually perceiving the existence of the medium. (Some
refer presence to both task absorption and transportation into the environment. To
avoid confusion, this chapter refers to presence specifically as spatial presence.)
Researchers (Slater et al., 1994; Witmer & Singer, 1998) have found that the
naturalness of the interactions and realism affect presence. Baños et al. (2004) found
an association between emotion and presence—affective content (story) increases
presence in a virtual simulation role‐playing game. Jennett et al. (2008) argued that
presence is only a small part of gaming experience; for example, one may experience
immersion without presence in a puzzle game. On the other hand, one may experience
presence without immersion, as when performing a boring task in a virtual simulation
world. It can also be arguably said that presence is synonymous with spatial immersion
(Weibel & Wissmath, 2011).
In terms of the impact of presence on enjoyment, Lombard and Ditton (1997)
suggested that a high sense of presence leads to greater enjoyment. On the other
hand, Weibel and Wissmath (2011) stated that the impact of presence depends on the
types of games—presence is more important in vivid, realistic games like first‐person
shooters / role‐playing games than in abstract puzzle / memory games, which require
less realism.

Embodiment theory

Researchers (Bayliss, 2010; Benford & Bowers, 1995; Gee, 2008) described game
experiences as an embodied phenomenon. Embodied cognition (Gee, 2008) refers to
the state in which mind and body are connected and how they influence one another.
It is specifically argued that bodily experiences can influence cognitions, unlike
previous assumptions that envisaged the mind and body as separate entities. The
concept of embodiment has often been used by researchers to describe the experience
in full‐body games (Bianchi‐Berthouze, 2013), which have shown that body
movement influences one’s emotions and engagement. Embodiment also has been
used to describe some role‐playing games (Bayliss, 2010; Benford & Bowers, 1995;
Gee, 2008), where the player’s mind is influenced by the avatar’s bodily experiences
(i.e., the concept of embodiment can explain how players can become one with the
avatar and feel deeply immersed). Embodiment illuminates our understanding that
the mind, the body, and the environment (input device, outdoor, indoor) are all
connected, which influences the player’s engagement. This entirely suggested that
cognition (embodied cognition) is not solely composed of the mind, but also
influenced by bodily actions.

Goals

Clark (2007) argued that having goals is one of the primary motivating factors of
games. Goals allow players to focus their attention fully onto one task (Clark, 2007).
Habgood (2007) studied the correlation between extrinsic goals (e.g., rewards) in
games and intrinsic goals (e.g., learning) and found that games are most powerful
when the extrinsic goal of the game is aligned to the intrinsic goal. On the other hand,
Andersen et al. (2011) studied secondary objectives in games. They found that
secondary objectives such as collecting items or rewards that do not align with the
primary goal of the game produced undesirable effects, such as boredom and
frustration in players. Conversely, they found that these effects can be easily reversed
by simply adjusting secondary objective items so that they align with the primary goal.
When this is achieved, players become more engaged. In our view, users tend to be
more engaged when they have one clear goal to focus on. By contrast, when there are
many distracting goals (which do not have any strong or direct connection to the
primary goal), users tend to become less engaged.

Theme 4: Relationships

This theme considers how social interaction can positively or negatively influence
game engagement.

Fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation theory

Fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation (FIRO) Theory (Schutz, 1958)
argues that all humans are governed by three social needs: inclusion, affection, and
control. Inclusion refers to the need to belong to a social group and the need to
interact with others. Affection refers the need to feel the sense of love and warmth in
relationships. Control refers to the need to have influence / control over others’
decisions / actions. Fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation theory also
asserts that these orientations and priorities vary across people. Lucas and Sherry
(2004) argued that these three factors can be exploited to enhance game engagement,
for example by structuring gameplay around collaboration and competition to satisfy
players’ need for inclusion, affection, and control.

Social facilitation theory

Social facilitation theory (Zajonc, 1965) states that people have a tendency to per-
form differently in the presence of other people. Specifically, in the presence of other
people, one would perform better in very familiar tasks but perform worse in less
familiar tasks. Researchers mostly agreed that the changed performance is a result of
awareness of possible evaluations from others, which can be readily observed in
competition or collaboration scenarios in games. Nevertheless, the degree to which a
person is influenced by social presence varies. De Kort et al. (2007) developed the
Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ) with social presence of others (e.g.,
playing with friends) as the primary source of motivation in gameplay.
Other relevant theories include social proof theory (Cialdini, 2008), which predicts
that players are likely to engage in behaviors that others are also engaged in, while
social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) describes that humans share a sense of
who they are based on their social groups (e.g., countries, gender, affiliations) as a
process of self‐image enhancement. Beenen et al. (2004) suggested that individuals
are most socially motivated when their uniqueness and contribution is being
acknowledged in a team environment.
Entirely, these theories suggest that humans are social in nature and that they seek
the approval and avoid the disapproval. As a result, social factors such as social identity
and status play important roles in enhancing game engagement.

Social comparison theory

Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) states that social experiences are driven by
the need to better understand the self (accurate self‐evaluations) as well as the need to
improve one’s self‐esteem. This relationship between self‐evaluations, comparison
with others, and self‐esteem implies that needs pertaining to competence and
relatedness in self‐determination may be associated. For example, in an online game
environment, players, driven by the need to improve their self‐esteem, may seek self‐
enhancement and verification from others about their skills level. If this observation is
correct, it also implies that social experience may also partly driven by the need of
competence. Thus social mechanisms, such as pushing high scores to the leader board,
sharing trophies on public Web space, or even showing off their skills in public or with
their friends may further promote sense of competence.

Theme 5: Aesthetics

This theme describes game engagement from the perspective of aesthetics—audio,
visuals, and realism.

Audiovisual

Music and sound engage users by evoking and enhancing the intensity of emotions
(Rossoff, Tzanetakis, & Gooch, 2010). Parker and Heerema (2007) described that
sound creates a feeling of presence, reminding gamers that the game is still going on.
Fast music may represent a lot of activity, and vice versa for slow music. They also
suggest that sound affects emotions faster than visual display. Nacke et al. (2010)
found significant correlations between audio and game engagement constructs.
In terms of visuals, LaViola and Litwiller (2011) found that players enjoyed playing
using a 3D stereo display compared to a 2D display. Ermi and Mäyrä (2005) found
that audiovisual capability and visual‐motor links are fundamental in enabling a higher
quality of gaming experience such as immersion. Takatalo, Häkkinen, Komulainen,
Särkelä, and Nyman (2006) reported that screen size has no significant impact on
engagement, although Banos et al. (2004) found otherwise. It appears that the
importance of visual fidelity depends on the type of games (more important in role‐
playing / first person games). In terms of graphical aesthetics, Andersen, Liu, Snider,
Szeto, and Popović (2011) found that gameplay variations affected play time three
times as much as a variation in aesthetics. This finding suggests the supporting role of
aesthetics on the overall gameplay.

Realism and fidelity

Realism is the extent to which a game resembles the real world. Realism is affected by
the quality of aesthetics (visual and audible) in games, as well as the surrounding envi-
ronment of players during gameplay. A similar term is fidelity, which Hays and Singer
(1988) defined as the “degree of correspondence between simulation and real circum-
stances.” Fidelity may cover the broader scope of realism to include physics and natural
laws. Often, the more realistic the game, the more easily players feel a higher sense of
presence, and more easily become immersed in the game, especially in vivid and realistic
games (e.g., first‐person shooting or simulation game) (Hays & Singer, 1988; Mcmahan,
2003; Slater et al., 1994; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Several studies about realism have
been conducted, e.g., artificial gun vs. mouse (Kim, Biocca, & Jeong, 2011); large
screen versus PC monitor (Baños et al., 2004); stereoscopic 3D games versus 2D games
(Schild, LaViola, & Masuch, 2012). These studies indicate that realism increased level
of presence; however, Weibel and Wissmath (2011) implied that realism plays a more
important role in vivid, realistic games (first‐person shooting / role‐playing game) than
in other puzzle / abstract games that require less realism.

Discussion

Needs satisfaction

From the review, we can better understand about game engagement. Game
engagement has been often associated with needs satisfaction in SD theory and U&G
theory. Needs satisfaction is considered by many researchers to be the key explanation
of game engagement, where various psychological needs have been identified and
mapped. SD theory describes explicit, high‐level needs including autonomy,
competence, and relatedness, while U&G covers broader range of needs including
implicit needs such as relaxation and pleasure. Game engagement has also been
identified as a selective and voluntary process in U&G theory, suggesting that game
engagement varies across different persons.
There is strong evidence (Ryan et al., 2006; Tamborini et al., 2010; Yee, 2005) that
games satisfy the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. There are also
evidence that games satisfy other needs such as escape and relaxation (Sherry et al.,
2006). Researchers found that needs satisfaction predicts long‐term engagement
(Ryan et al., 2006; Tamborini et al., 2010). Among all the needs, challenge
(competence) is consistently rated as the key factors for engagement in SD theory
(Ryan et al., 2006) and in U&G theory (Sherry et al., 2006).