Zoopany Final Presentation
Testing functionality of RELAYTO features
Zoopany By the Zooployees _A game about toxicity in the workplace_
Meet the Zooployees! Yuxiao Kendra Jessica Dennis Jarreau Mia
Special Thanks to our Instructors Edward Melcer Steven Goodale Terry Smith
Special Thanks to our External Collaborators Brent Hopkins - Narrative Derusha Baskaran - UI/UX Lance Mendoza - 3D Animation Chris Gayle - Narrative
Special Thanks to our Subject Matter Experts
Background Problem: ● Abusive leaders in the game industry & toxic behaviors found in the workspace ● Difficult to prevent, identify, and deal with abuse from co-workers and superiors Investigating Three Indie Superstars Accused of Emotional Abuse
Serious Objectives Solution: ● Tedious sensitivity training sessions ● Game-based approach can provide a motivating, engaging experience Goals: ● Bring awareness & understanding of gaslighting in the game development industry ● Creating empathy by experiencing different perspectives
Evolution of Zoopany
Spring Quarter 2022: Concept & Prototyping ● Topic brainstorming & selection ● Created & tested two prototypes ○ Eventually combined ● Hybrid prototype ○ Virtual: Narrative ○ Physical: Movement ● Included: ○ Very early versions of chapters 1 & 2 ■ Chapter 1: Gaslighting ■ Chapter 2: Crunch ○ Most main 2D character sprites ○ Environmental design: office layout
Fall Quarter 2022: Pre-Production ● Started a new project in Unreal Engine 5 + VN Framework ● Onboarded external collaborators ○ 3D animation ○ Narrative design & writing ● Re-wrote chapter 1 ○ Split into 4 acts ○ Much longer than the first iteration ● Conversion to fully virtual game ○ 3D environment w/ interactable NPCs ○ Minigame mechanics ● Implemented Chapter 1 Act 1
Winter Quarter 2023: Production ● Game and serious goals/objectives rethought and clearly redefined ● Narrative polish for Chapter 1 ○ Added journaling after each act ● Implementation and polish of all acts in Chapter 1 ○ Chapter 2 and any sub-chapters about different perspectives were cut ● Scenario art ● Office polished + new rooms ● Music and SFX added ● Customized UI art ● Efficacy testing
Challenges & Solutions
Some Challenges ● Customizing VN Framework ● Properly running chapters ● Showing, not telling
Solutions Customizing VN Framework + Properly Running Chapters ● Extending beyond the developers’ documentation ○ Opening and manually interpreting how each blueprint functioned ○ Adding our own special effects and/or modifications to the overall system to better fit our game’s unique needs ● Utilizing an additional .py script to automate converting chapters into data that Unreal can read
Solutions Showing, not telling ● Reviewing our narrative to define which points can be shown, instead of described ● Making a big list of art assets needed to achieve the above ○ Prop assets (i.e. coffee mug) ○ Scenario art ○ Screens (i.e. Jira -> Jira-ffe)
E昀케cacy Testing
What Did We Measure? Pre- & Post- Understanding of material Pre- & Post- Empathy towards gaslighting scenarios Engagement with material
How We Tested It Target Participants Study Design UC Santa Cruz Mixed methods, between-subjects design ● 23 Participants 1. Pre-survey ● Senior students/new graduates looking 2. Random assignment to: to get into the game development industry a. Industry standard sensitivity training ● Game Design Program Students module ○ SG MS b. Our game ○ GPM MS 3. Post-survey ○ HCI MS ○ CM PhD a. + a short interview at the end ○ CM MS 4. Compare results ○ CS BS ○ CS Games BS
Results: Quantitative Data There’s a lot going on, so we crunched it into numbers and charts…
Results: Quantitative Data Cool! But what does all of this mean?
Results: Knowledge, Empathy, Engagement T-Tests Non-Significant Positive Trend Significant Di昀昀erence Di昀昀erence
Results: Change in Knowledge Average Δ Knowledge Combined Range: -1~4 Game: +0.333 Module: +0.909 p = 0.288 Non-Significant Di昀昀erence The game conveys information about gaslighting just as e昀昀ectively as the sensitivity module because there is no statistically significant di昀昀erence between the two averages.
Results: Change in Empathy Average Δ Empathy Combined Range: -4~4 Game: +0.833 Module: -0.273 p = 0.070 Positive Trend The results show a positive trend towards the game increasing empathy more than the module. With more participants, we would likely see a significant di昀昀erence.
Results: Engagement Average Engagement Likert Scale 1~7 Game: 6.167 Module: 4.727 p = 0.046 Significant Di昀昀erence The game is statistically more engaging than the module because there is a significant di昀昀erence between the two averages.
Qualitative Data
Interview Questions If you were being gaslit by Do yDo you feel likou feel like if ye if you saou saw w your boss, what steps someone being gaslit, ysomeone being gaslit, you ou How do you think being would you take to resolve would step in to do would step in to do gaslit makes you feel? the situation? something about it?something about it? TTesting Actionesting Action Can yCan you go into more ou go into more depth about what ydepth about what you ou markmarked for engagement on ed for engagement Testing Empathy on the post test ?the post test ? Testing knowledge TTesting Engagementesting Engagement
Emerging themes - How engaging was the experience? Gaslighting Module Participant ID #20 (marked 6 /7) “I feel pretty engaged because I have kinda experienced that environment before. The topic was engaging.” Gaslighting module Participant ID # 17 (marked 6/7) “...it was a topic I was curious about because I knew generally what gaslighting was like for example, I didn’t know that it could be unintentional… so there was a lot of things that I thought were interesting.”
Emerging themes - Would you step in to help a gaslighting victim? Game Participant ID #2 “I think I would, depending on the context, like if I had awareness of the situation…that would probably help be more equipped to step in.” Gaslighting Module Participant ID # 18 “I will explain to the victim the current situations… and make them aware that they are being psychologically manipulated. I will advise them to end the relationship.”
So, did we succeed? ● Overall, yes. ✔ ✔ Zoopany teaches gaslighting using game narrative as e昀昀ectively as the sensitivity module ✔ Zoopany is statistically more likely to build higher empathy towards gaslighting ✔ Zoopany is significantly more engaging
Thank you! Any questions? [email protected]
Unique Selling Points - Our game provides : ● Role-playing as multiple characters through various toxic scenarios to promote learning about different perspectives and nuances for all parties involved ● A unique cooperative mode where a team of players can actively discuss dialogue options and work together to promote a healthy work environment ● When compared to competitors, a more engaging way to learn about toxic behavior patterns and how to recognize and resolve them
Roles/Disciplines Producer - Jarreau 2D Artist (Character, Background, UI)- Yuxiao Creative Director - Mia Sound Designers - Mia Tech Director - Dennis Narrative Designers - Yuxiao Programmers - Jess, Jarreau (Subrole), Dennis (Subrole) 3D Animator 3D Artist - Kendra UI/UX Designers
Target Audience Industry Field: Game Development Industry Primary Language: English Positions: Culture Background: ● New Employees US Employees with all ● Current Employees different Cultures ● Decision Makers
Moodboard
Art Style Animal Crossing Aggretsuko
How We’ll deliver/distribute It Reasons Delivery Method ○ Destinations for distribution are various ○ Steam ■ Students looking into the game industry ○ In-person through schools with ■ Employees who are already within game development programs and the games industry industry game development training ○ Best Platform to deliver will be on PC programs and Console ■ PC and Console are both effectively accessible online and in-person for both students and game development employees ■ This game can be played with multiple people with TVs/Monitors.
Game Design con’t
Theoretical Foundations Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory - Made up of six parts: 1. Reciprocal Determinism 4. Reinforcements Interactions between person, environment, and Internal or external responses to a person’s behavior that affect the likelihood behavior resulting from stimuli to achieve goals. of continuing or discontinuing that behavior. 2. Behavioral Capability 5. Expectations Person’s ability to perform a behavior through Anticipated consequences of a person’s behavior essential or acquired knowledge and skills. which are derived from previous experience. 3. Observational Learning 6. Self-efficacy Assertion that people can reproduce actions seen The level of a person’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform a and observed from behaviors of others. behavior influenced by a person’s capabilities/characteristics and environmental factors.
Mechanics Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory Made up of six parts: Mechanics: ● Core ● Serious 1. Choosing perspective 4. Progressing dialogue 2. Narrative choices 5. Moving character 3. Consensus choice through discussion 6. Talking to NPCs
Assessment Procedure ● Hold a Between-subjects study Half the participants will test a current method of sensitivity training while the other half will test the game. ● Hold a Within-subjects study A “before-and-after” surveys and note if there are any strong patterns or changes in the participants’ answers. ○ The result of the feedback system ○ The Post-play Surveys from the players
Competitive Analysis Here are some of the competitors we looked at : ● Vantage point: A Virtual Reality sexual harrasment / sensitivity training ● HR Diversity and Inclusion Certification Program by HR University ● Smalltalk: A simulation by rlietz ● Exhaustion: A Educational Narrative game by dfalzoi ● Gamer Girl: A simulation Visual Novel by A Team That Doesn’t Smile When Told To ● Workplace Harassment Educational Videos by SafetyVideos
What we found - Weaknesses ● Many were un engaging- specifically sensitivity videos with lectures, reading ● Lacked replayability ● Many could benefit from multiple perspectives ● Choices could be very skewed between “act nice”, “ignore the situation”, or “be mean” ● Superficial workplace situations ● Generic caricatures
What we found - Strengths ● Trainings had access to materials from experts ● Trainings provided a large coverage of issues in one training ● In person training allowed for in depth discussion ● Many provided ways for victims to get help ● Games that had narrative made a stronger emotional connection ● Games provided a space to experiment in ways that protected from real life risk
Game Design + What We’ve Done Core Mechanics: 1. Choosing perspectives within game dev. industry 2. Moving character 3. Talking to NPCs 4. Fully running portion of Chapter a. Narrative choices i. Consensus choice through discussion To be implemented in b. Progressing dialogue future narrative!
Game Design + What We’ve Done (Vertical Slice)
Workflow Investigating Three Indie Superstars Accused of Emotional Abuse ● 2 Week Sprints with Themes ● Jira Workboard ● Sprint Review ○ Determining the next important tasks ● Weekly Meetings: ○ All-Team Update meetings ○ Core-Team standups ○ Narrative meetings
Development Process Efficacy Testing: Chapters: 1. Between-subjects study 1. Writing 2. Importing Narrative 3. Importing 2D/3D art A B 4. Designing Placement 5. Playtesting 2. Within-subjects study 6. Revising writing 7. Polish presentation A
Development Plan — December(2022) | January (2023) | February (2023) | March (2023) — Gameplay Unlocking new dialogue Playing through entire Playing through entire Tutorial Ch.1 minigame Ch.1 / Chapter Select Ch.2 Narrative Wrote/imported half Ch.1 fully imported & Ch.2 fully imported Tutorial fully imported of Ch.1 Ch.2 outline written Level Design Created 2 office rooms 1 additional room for Polishing existing Polishing NPC Placed environment decor. Ch.2 characters environment decor w/ interactions sounds 2D/3D Art Created 2D sprites and Rigging/Animating Rigging/Animating Polishing Player/NPC 3D models of all Ch. 1 all Ch.1 characters, Ch.2 2D sprites/ 3D models animations Characters Ch.2 2D sprites/ 3D models created Music Created title/opening music Finalizing basic BGM Narrative mood BGM Polishing mood music /Sound Created Player/Basic UI sfx UI, Character voice(s) Ch.2 environment. sfx Polishing environment sfx Debugging Fixed narrative branching/ Save/Load system, Frame Rate improvements Refactor/optimize unlocking, animation Camera adjustment Ch.2 fully running custom VN transitions Ch.1 fully running framework blueprints Others Disabled softlocking input UI adjustment, Skybox Polish environment decor. Efficacy testing Dynamic lighting Efficacy plan Efficacy test materials
Results: Knowledge, Empathy, Engagement Distribution Module Module Game Game Module Game
Results: Knowledge, Empathy, Engagement T-Tests T-Tests: Determine the significance value (p) ● Any p value less than 0.05 is considered significant ○ p values less than 0.1, but greater than 0.05 means that it is trending towards significance ● Significance: are the two sets of data di昀昀erent enough for us to correctly say that there is a clear distinction between their results? Non-Significant Positive Trend Significant Di昀昀erence Di昀昀erence
Solutions E昀케cacy Testing Recruitment ● What happened? ○ Presented to GAME 170 and recruited senior undergraduate students ○ Posted recruitment announcements in class and club Discord servers ○ Ended up with 1 person signed-up ● Weeks later… ○ Posted to as many relevant Slack and Discord servers ○ Approached as many people as possible individually ○ Worked around the participants’ schedules