Narrative in video games is known to provide various benefits to the player, including aspects such as immersion and engagement. And similarly in educational serious games - that is, a digital game aiming to teach the player a certain concept or skill - a compelling narrative is shown to have various pedagogical benefits. But, across both commercial games and serious games alike, the importance of narrative does not seem to be addressed nearly as much as, for instance, graphical or gameplay elements.
This thesis project strives to combine various existing narrative techniques for serious games in order to measure whether games designed following such combined methodology have any merit when compared to conventional serious game design methods. The three techniques addressed include Narrative Serious Game Mechanics, a type of composite mechanic which employs both narrative mechanics, learning mechanics, and game mechanics at various levels, brought together through joint purpose, process, and structure. Then there is the Learning Method Integration, which seeks to embed learning content in minigames parallel to the main game, allowing the main game to focus on fun primarily. While I embed the content in narrative instead of minigames, the idea to delegate responsibility of facilitating learning remains the same. Last, there is hermeneutic theory, an iterative method of understanding, which would allow players to repeatedly cycle over small segments of serious content for as long or as little as they need in order to understand this.
In order to answer the research question, two serious game prototype variants were developed in Unity: One following the combined methodology, using an infinite-type game and various mechanics connecting the narrative and gameplay, and one following conventional methodologies in which bits of narrative are shown before and after each level, without any gameplay connections. Both prototype variants contained the same serious content, both striving to educate the player on the concept of 'Induced Demand'.
With the help of a focus group, the prototype was refined, and a questionnaire-based user study was conducted between the two variants. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two prototype variants, and queried on both the learning effectiveness of the game as well as their experience playing it. In total I collected four data series covering learning effectiveness, three series covering functional player experience, and three covering psychosocial player experience. A total of twenty participants responded, ten for each prototype variant.
The data was analysed using a comparative T-Test for most of the series, and an analysis of variance to compare the reported knowledge before and after gameplay between the two groups. Overall, results showed a rather low statistical significance -- likely due to a small sample size. There were significant learning effects overall between pre- and post-gameplay, but no significant difference between groups. The results broadly seem to indicate the two prototype variants performing similarly, but again there is little statistical significance to back this up.
Regardless, if the two variants appear to behave similarly, does this mean the combined method is good enough? In a vacuum, perhaps -- but it is equally important to consider the increased time and resources required to facilitate the combined approach. Creating interactive narratives is dificult, especially if a pedagogical vector is added. And in this context, 'just as good' in terms of results is not likely to weigh up against the conventional method which requires fewer resources, especially in a competitive environment. 'Just as good', in this context, is not Good Enough.