ISSN: 2312-7694

Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

A Comprehensive Study on Quality Assurance in Game Development

Maria Komal

Zaineb Khalil

Fatima Jinnah Women University,

The Mall Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Komalmaria.km@gmail.com

Fatima Jinnah Women University,

The Mall Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Zaineb55@gmail.com

Mehreen Sirshar
Fatima Jinnah Women University,
The Mall Rawalpindi, Pakistan
msirshar@gmail.com

Abstract Due to the recent technological advancements, Games

have become one of the most demanding applications. Gaming
industry is rapidly growing and the key to success in this industry
is the development of good quality games, which is a highly
competitive issue. The ultimate goal of game developers is to
provide players satisfaction by developing high quality games.
This research is the comprehensive survey of techniques followed
by game industries to ensure games quality. After analysis of
various techniques, it has been found that quality simulation
according to ISO standards and play test methods are used to
ensure games quality. Because game development requires cross
disciplined team, an increasing trend towards distributed game
development has been observed. This paper evaluates the
strengths and weaknesses of current methodologies used in game
industry and draws a conclusion. We have also proposed quality
parameters which can be used as a heuristic framework to
identify those attributes which have high testing priorities.

Keywords
Games development, Quality assurance, Standards, Heuristics,
Human Factor, Playability, Evaluation Techniques.

I. INTRODUCTION
Games have been getting extraordinary growth within the past
few years. Games are one of the most demanding applications
nowadays. High quality games get more popularity and thus
increases industries market shares.
Quality in Gaming has three main factors

Software Quality (game mechanics, functionality,

code quality etc.)
Game Quality (art, design, creativity etc.)
User Experience Quality (fun factor, user experience,
satisfaction etc.)

Quality of a game application is mainly determined by

players satisfaction and happiness. This depends on system

and service quality. Service quality refers to the

trustworthiness, response time, game playability and
compassion while, system quality is evaluated on the basis of
games availability, easiness to use, utility, and learning [1].
Game development methodology is different from software
development life cycle as game development is an engineering
process as well as an artistic creational process [4]. The
gaming industry has different needs e.g. multimedia assets
management and fun in game play [16]. GDLC comprise of
two phases: Pre production and production. Pre-production is
the main idea of game scenarios and its mechanics, while
production is the mapping of this idea to game specifications
and design document [6]. Unfortunately, no framework is
available to standardize the transition process from preproduction to production phase. Game Evaluation is an
important part of game development Life cycle as it verifies
and validates game quality. Games playability evaluation is
usually done after the game development and hence it is very
costly and time consuming process [14].
Playability
evaluation is usually done by users and experts. Users play the
game and then share their experience. Users feedback is not
sufficient as the user can only judge some characteristics.
Experts can review the game more technically at every phase
of its development [3].
The trends in game development are shifting towards
pervasive games which are a fusion of digital, virtual and
physical world. Another genre of games is Serious Games
(SGs) which are developed for learning and goal achievement
[13]. The Developers need advance techniques and
methodologies as these games have a different set of
requirements including interoperability, usability, code and
design patterns, and services [8]. Game development requires
team members with diverse knowledge of different domains.
Multi-disciplined people work on a game project while they
are physically apart from one another.
Effective
communication among team members and project
11 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

management is a challenge for distributed game development

[10].
Game development faces a highly competitive market
environment and rapidly changing customer needs and
responses. Although agile practices provide flexibility in this
respect, proper requirements engineering and risk management
has become a critical issue [18]. With the technology
advancement, many challenges such as quality, sophistication,
and constant innovation are faced by gaming industry [19]. To
address all mentioned issues, the paper surveys various
methodologies proposed for quality assurance in gaming
industry. These methodologies have been analyzed according
to an evaluation criterion based on different quality parameters
and finally a conclusion is drawn.
The rest of the paper is as follows: Section II discusses the
existing game development practices and frameworks for
quality evaluation in detail. These techniques are analyzed
against gaming quality parameters in Section III. Section IV
concludes the paper and suggests basis for future work.

II. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS IN

GAME DEVELOPMENT
In this survey, we have studied in detail about the quality
assurance standards and techniques used in game
development. Evaluation criteria have been described in table
1, different techniques are compared according to the
evaluation criteria, and results of comparison are given in
analyses. The recent trends and practices in game quality
assurance are presented in conclusion. A review of quality
assurance techniques has been described below.

B. Perceptual View Inconsistency: An Objective

Evaluation Framework for Online Game Quality of
Experience (QoE) [2]
In this article the author has evaluated the fundamental
relationship among network delay, system consistency and
QoE. This paper has presented the objective playability
assessment criteria after capturing data of a single game
scenario. QoE is comprised by responsiveness, accuracy and
complete view. Responsiveness and accuracy depends on
clients device whereas complete view or the current state of
all the participants in a multi player gaming environment
depends upon the network quality and speed. Actions
preciseness enhances response time of an action. The
inconsistencies in these parameters do not satisfy users
expectations and thus cause reduction in quality of
Experience.

C. A Generic Framework for Evaluation Phase in

Games Development Methodologies [3]
Game Evaluation is an important part of game development
Life cycle. Evaluation is usually done by users and experts.
Users play the game and then share their experience in the
form of questionnaires or interviews. Users feedback is not
sufficient as the user can only judge some characteristics.
Experts can review the game more technically at every phase
of its development. The authors have identified important
issues in games after doing critical analysis and proposed a
generic heuristic set for inspecting games. This advanced
heuristic set shown in Figure 1, unlike previous heuristics, can
be used iteratively to assess games of every genre. Moreover,
the proposed heuristic framework can be used at initial stages
of game development.

A. The Influences of System Quality and Service

Quality to Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty in
On-Line Game Industry [1]
In this research paper the author has described the
correspondence among four aspects: System quality, Service
quality, Consumer satisfaction, and Loyalty. Questionnaires
were used to collect users feedback. Service quality refers to
the trustworthiness, response time, game playability and
compassion. System quality is evaluated on the basis of
games availability, easiness to use, utility, learning and
security. Loyal players pay for games and also recommend
these games to others. Players happiness, pleasure and its
requirements fulfillment is termed as user satisfaction.
Consumer satisfaction depends on system quality and service
quality. System quality and service quality are correlated but
does not determine the consumers loyalty.

Figure 1: Game evaluation criteria [3]

D. Game Development Life Cycle Guidelines [4]

Game development methodology is different from software
development life cycle as game development is a hybrid of
engineering and arts. In this article, authors have compared the
previous GDLCs, highlighted their weaknesses, and proposed
a new framework and set of rules to develop high quality
games. This framework takes an iterative approach towards
12 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

game development which efficiently incorporates changes

made during the development process. The suggested GDLC
also guarantees a high quality game by validating quality at
every phase. This new methodology is utilized in
implementing a real time game project which depicts that it is
a complete framework for delivering high quality mobile
games.

E. Defining Usability Quality Metric for Game

Prototype Using Software Attributes [5]
In order to develop good quality games, quality measurement
methods must be applied at early stages of game development
life cycle. In this paper, a quality metric is described to ensure
games usability for all sorts of game genre. This usability
metric is applicable in games prototype and enhances games
quality, reduces bugs and minimizes cost. This research
incorporates two features: quality simulation according to ISO
standards and play test methods. The authors have also
explained the steps to apply this usability metric in game
prototype development. If developers want this quality metric
to be successful then they must implant it in design and
implementation phases.

F. Quality Requirements for Multimedia Interactive

Informative Systems [6]
Requirements elicitation process for Multimedia Interactive
Informative Systems (MIIS) requires the participation of
domain experts along with end-users and stakeholders. This
paper proposes the development methodology for videogames
and focuses upon pre-production and production. Preproduction is the main idea of game scenarios and its
mechanics and mapping of this idea to game specifications
and design document is called production. This paper suggests
the use of communicational attributes and Meta modeling to
make transition from pre-production to production. Meta
model is used to gather requirements and then these
requirements are evaluated against communicational
attributes. To assess specifications, a working prototype is
evaluated by end users. This new methodology is validated by
applying it to a case study.

G. Playability Heuristics for Mobile Games [7]

Mobile games requirements are different from games
developed for other platforms. This paper focuses on generic
requirements for mobile games and their evaluation
techniques. Expert evaluation is the most popular method but
here is a set of playability heuristics, proposed for assessing
mobile games. The suggested heuristic model is comprised of
usability, mobility and game play and this modular can be
used to evaluate mobile games of every genre. Theses
heuristics are used to evaluate five different games and proved
very beneficial. This model can be used in combination with
expert evaluation to evaluate mobile games.

H. Interoperability Standards for Pervasive Games [8]

The next generation of video games is pervasive games which
are a fusion of digital, virtual and physical world. This paper
presents the challenges, requirements, commonalities and
inference of pervasive games. Developers need advance
techniques and methodologies as these games have a different
set of requirements including interoperatibility, usability, code
and design patterns, and services. New languages and
additional middleware may also be needed to develop these
games. This paper depicts that a complete set of standards
must be defined to bring a global uniformity in processes and
conceptual framework will help to resolve problems like
usability, interoperatibility etc. Quality assurance has become
a terrific challenge in this domain and more research is needed
to be done.

I.

Playability as Extension of Quality in Use in Video

Games [9]

In this paper, the author has designed a quality model to

evaluate playability for interactive systems like video games.
Quality standards are different for interactive systems. Focus
of this paper is to provide better players experience and to
increase players happiness by enhancing quality. Author has
highlighted the basic differences between characteristics of
interactive systems and conventional software applications.
Various heuristic metrics are developed according to
international standards to assess video games. A study on
previous work is also conducted to discover the finest method
for evaluation. The drawback is that the suggested metrics is
not applied in real game projects hence its validity is
uncertain.

J. Methods
and
Processes
Definitions
for
Multiplatform Social Network Games Development
with Distributed Teams [10]
In this article the author has shared his experience of
developing games by utilizing scrum approach and developers
were physically away from one another. Effective
communication among team members and project
management is a mandatory part of distributed game
development. Cross platform compatibility and people with
diverse domain knowledge are required. For parallel activities
agile methods are appropriate and teams may conduct a
meeting after every sprint to resolve conflicts. Agile methods
are best suited for distributed game development but this
approach must be validated more by applying in other game
projects as this work presents the result of a single project.

K. Development of Game-Like Simulations for

Procedural Knowledge in Healthcare Education
[11]
In this research paper, Educational Game Development
Approach (EGDA) is presented for the purpose of procedural
13 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

knowledge acquisition games development. It focuses on

analysis, design, implementation, and quality assurance during
game development. To ensure the quality aspects such as
reliability, playfulness, usability, three types of evaluation
(user-centered evaluations, Beta-testing and research
questions) are used. It can easily be applied to develop a game
as it is simple and cost effective. The limitation of this
approach relies with the software (eAdventure) being used
which does not support multi-user games. However the
proposed approach can make game development more easy
and affordable, while ensuring a high quality of the resulting
games.

L. What Do Game
Products?[12]

Developers

Test

in

Their

The main object of this research was to understand test

methods and objectives of game development organizations.
Qualitative approach is used for the research. The main
limitation of this kind of research is that the results are
context-sensitive and outside the scope they are just
considerations and recommendations. It is observed that the
testing priorities and quality assurance approaches of game
developers are different than that of software developers.
Testing in game development focuses into the soft aspects of
the product e.g. player experience, fun factor and game rule
balance rather than other quality aspects e.g. performance,
reliability and security or efficiency. The research results can
direct new game organizations in testing their products and the
process activities improvement.

M. A Systematic Mapping Study on Serious Game

Quality [13]
Serious Games (SGs) are designed for learning and goal
achievement and can be used in education, health, military,
engineering, religion and politics. This research aims at
finding the state of quality initiatives taken for SGs and the
gaps for future research in this context. Systematic Mapping
Study is conducted for this purpose. As SGs provide a means
to achieve personal as well as institutional goals and have a
high social impact, their quality is very critical. The quality
issues of SGs should be resolved by applying quality
assurance methods that focus on effectiveness and playability
rather than efficiency, performance or security. The future
research opportunities are proposing, applying and validating
such quality assurance method that enables quality evaluation
even in early development stages of SGs.

N. Predict the Storm: A simulation model to measure

the playability before the game development [14]
Games playability evaluation is very costly and time
consuming process as it is done after the game is developed.
In this research paper, a simulation model has been proposed
for the validation of game playability in terms of the quality of
users experience and scalability of game before the actual

game development. The model is validated using a simple

game implementation. This model is powerful as its main
focus is quality of experience. Currently, it cant be used for
large and complex gaming projects. Game designers can use
this model to get an insight of game playability by running a
simulation before beginning the actual development process of
the game and can save their time and cost. The proposed
model can serve as a basis for the future work related to
further game simulation techniques.

O. Peer-Assisted Online
Reciprocity [15]

Games

with

Social

In todays world, online games on social networks have

become very common. High quality multi-player games cant
be deployed this way because of the servers large operational
cost. This paper suggests a peer-to-peer based networked
online game design that can be used to lower the server cost
by using social reciprocities among peers for efficient
contribution and scheduling of high-quality online games. The
proposed design is capable of achieving benefits in terms of
resource contribution, load balancing and resource scheduling
of social online games. The major limitation of the proposed
strategy is that it does not incorporate the security need to
resist peers cheating. This design can serve as basis for
achieving large-scale high-quality social games.

P. Software Engineering
Development [16]

Challenges

in

Game

Game Development is a unique field in Software Engineering

(SE) as it is a blend of the work from different domains like
art, music and programming. In this paper, it is suggested that
the challenges faced by game development can be addressed
by using SE practices. The game development industry has
different needs e.g. multimedia assets management and fun in
game play, so the project management should be very strong.
Requirements engineering, risk management and software
quality assurance must be properly applied to make the project
successful. Agile methods and spiral model can be collectively
used for the development. Team collaboration is very
important as the members are from different domains. For
bigger projects, the use of third-party technology is
recommended.

Q. Games in the workplace: Revolutionary or Run-ofthe-mill?[17]

The main focus of this paper is the use of productivity games
to enhance the quality of software products by improving team
collaboration, employee involvement, and cost reduction.
These games can be used in the workplace to highlight many
aspects of quality in software development lifecycle like
reliability, responsiveness and usability. Only tester is not
responsible to point out necessary improvements in the
product quality but designers, product managers and security
and localization experts can also contribute in this process.
14 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

Traditionally testing is done in a tedious and isolated

environment, the techniques used have become less effective
thus product quality improvement has become difficult. With
the help of productivity games software testing can be done in
context of play.

R. Risk Management in Video Game Development

Projects [18]
This paper discusses the major risk factors in video game
development and how entertainment software project
managers deal with these factors. The risk factors directly
affecting the quality in video game development are
development strategy, staffing, schedule and budget,
inadequate specification and user fun factor. Since video game
development faces a highly competitive market environment
and rapidly changing customer needs and responses, so agile
software development is basically used as it provides customer
satisfaction by adaptation, reduces defect rates and
development time. Although agile practices provide flexibility,
careful risk management is also required to ensure quality and
user satisfaction. As entertainment software are mixture of art
and technology so the development teams must be carefully
selected to balance the skills.

S. Reuse in Digital Game Development [19]

This research paper focuses on reuse in Game Development.
The History of Gaming is very old. With the advancement in
technology, game development faces many challenges
regarding the quality, sophistication, and constant innovation.
Reuse in Game development lifecycle reduces the time and
cost while improving the quality and productivity. The quality
in game development can be assured by introducing product
lines as a strategy in the development process. Usually two
product lines are connected to a game, one is related to the
domain of the game and the other is based on the framework
or the engine. Framework based product lines can be used to
meet the industry needs as it provides efficient code reuse,
modularization and quick reconfiguration while promising
high product quality.

T. From Playability to a Hierarchical Game Usability

Model [20]
The base of any digital game is operational technology which
affects the quality of the system .This paper presents a
hierarchical usability model for high-level game development.
Quality assurance in this model is done using play testing and
bug tracking. This model focuses on numerical evaluations of
aspects such as functional playability, technological
functionality, and usability of game. These evaluations are
player centered and use subjective as well as objective
measures. This model is helpful in structural playability
evaluation of any game. It also provides a way to measure the
cultural significance of a game using anthropological and
sociological approaches. This model can be expanded in

future and can be enhanced to make it applicable for all phases

of game development.

III. ANALYSIS
For the quality assurance in game development different
quality parameters are being followed commonly. We have
surveyed twenty techniques and used fifteen parameters for
their evaluation. Table 2 and table 3 show the results of
analysis based on the evaluation criteria defined in table 1.
Analysis reveals that main focus in game development is
always on playability, not on the technical aspects, stated by
Chen et al [2], Korhonen et al [7], Snchez et al [9], Peres et
al [10], Kasurinen and Smolander [12], Vargas et al [13],
Mishra et al [14], Kanode and Haddad [16], Neto et al [19],
and Lennart Nacke [20]. Hsien et al [1], Srisuriyasavad et al
[5], Snchez et al [9] suggests that accessibility is a sub factor
of system quality especially in video games. It determines the
level of players satisfaction. Chen et al [2], Azawi et al [3],
Levy et al [6], Korhonen et a[7], Branton et al [8], Snchez et
al [9] and Neto et al [19] talks about adaptability as a
necessary characteristic for multi-platform games. Chen et al
[2], Azawi et al [3], Ramadan et al [4], Srisuriyasavad et al
[5], Levy et al [6], Branton et al [8], Snchez et al [9],
Kasurinen and Smolander [12] put emphasis on attractiveness
as a key feature for quality games. Chen et al [2], Azawi et al
[3], Ramadan et al [4], Korhonen et al [7], Branton et al [8],
Peres et al [10], Wang et al [15] and Lennart Nacke [20] says
that mobility is more important in games which are developed
for situated learning. Multimedia interactive informative
games are used to collaborate with learners in real time rather
than for entertainment. Hsien et al [1], Chen et al [2], Branton
et al [8], Torrente et al [11], Vargas et al [13], Neto et al [19]
and Lennart Nacke [20] believes that user experience depends
on system quality, service quality, responsiveness, fairness
and precision. Hsien et al [1],Chen et al [2], Korhonen et al
[7], Branton et al [8], Torrente et al [11], Vargas et al [13]
and Li et al [17] mention that reliability is a challenge in
pervasive games based on augmented reality and virtual
world. All techniques incorporate game usability except Levy
et al [6], Branton et al [8], Peres et al [10], Mishra et al [14],
Wang et al [15], Kanode and Haddad [16], Schmalz et al [18]
and Neto et al [19]. Game development is different from
conventional view of software engineering as it demands
creativity as indicated by Levy et al [6], Kasurinen and
Smolander [12] and Kanode and Haddad [16]. Azawi et al [3],
Srisuriyasavad et al [5], Snchez et al [9], Kasurinen and
Smolander [12], Vargas et al [13], Mishra et al [14], Wang et
al [15] and Lennart Nacke [20] considers efficiency as an
important quality factor. Performance has key importance in
game quality, according to Hsien et al [1], Chen et al [2],
Azawi et al [3], Korhonen et al [7], Snchez et al [9], Peres et
al [10] and Neto et al [19]. Azawi et al [3], Ramadan et al [4],
Srisuriyasavad et al [5], Levy et al [6] and Vargas et al [13]
says that functionality is important factor and must be tested to
15 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

enhance quality. Chen et al [2], Ramadan et al [4],

Srisuriyasavad et al [5], Branton et al [8], Snchez et al [9],
Torrente et al [11], Kasurinen and Smolander [12], Schmalz et
al [18] and Neto et al [19] informs that Fun Factor is vital in
games which are developed for entertainment. Ramadan et al
[4], Peres et al [10] and Neto et al [19] indicate that
maintainability, the typical quality attribute of Software
Engineering (SE), is also followed in game development. Most
Game organizations focus on soft aspects such as game
mechanics over technical aspects such as stability and security
as stated by Srisuriyasavad et al [5], Snchez et al [9],
Torrente et al [11] and Kasurinen and Smolander [12].
Some parameters are common for all types of games, for
example playability, usability, fun factor, game mechanics and
user experience. While, it depends on games genre that which
quality parameter from table 2. has the highest priority over
others and must be incorporated in games. For example if the
game is developed for physically impaired people, then
accessibility is more important than any other parameters.

IV. CONCLUSION
Quality Assurance is considered as a critical factor in game
development to avoid flawed game release. GDLC (Game
Development Life Cycle) is different from traditional SDLC
(Software Development Life Cycle) as it incorporates different
domains like programming, art, video and audio. In order to
develop good quality games, quality measurement methods
must be applied at early stages of game development life cycle
rather than after the development of game. This is a cost
effective practice as it enables easy bug removal and improves
productivity.
In this paper, we have surveyed different methodologies which
are used to ensure development of quality games. The analysis
of these methodologies has been discussed according to an
evaluation criterion based on different quality parameters.
From this survey research, it is concluded that the main focus
in game development is on the soft aspects of the game such
as player experience, fun factor and game rule balance rather
than other quality aspects e.g. performance, reliability,
security, or efficiency. Game development requires crossdisciplined team with diverse domain knowledge. Effective
communication between team members is the key element for
the quality of the game. Therefore, Agile techniques are useful
for proper communication and collaboration of team
members. It has been observed that there are no set of
standards to bring a global uniformity in quality practices like
usability and interoperability in game development.
Therefore, it is suggested that a complete set of standards must
be defined to bring uniformity in game development processes
to resolve problems such as usability and interoperability. It is

the need of hour to develop a technique that would measure a

game's quality systematically, efficiently, and reliably in order
to satisfy players' gaming experience.

REFERENCES
[1] Azawi, R.A., A generic framework for evaluation phase in
games development methodologies, in Proc. Science and
Information Conf., London, UK, 7-9, Oct. 2013.
[2] Ramadan, R. and Widyani, Y. Game development life cycle
guidelines, in Proc. ICACSIS, 2013.
[3] Srisuriyasavad A. and Prompoon, N. Defining usability quality
metric for game prototype using software attributes, in Proc.
The International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists, vol. I, Hong Kong, 13-15, Mar. 2013.
[4] Levy, S. and Gamboa, F. Quality requirements for multimedia
interactive informative systems, Journal of Software
Engineering and Applications, 2013, pp. 416-425.
[5] Korhonen, H. and Koivisto, E.M. Playability heuristics for
mobile games, in Proc. Mobile HCI, Helsinki, Finland, 1215,
Sep. 2006.
[6] Tu, Y.H. and Hung, K.M. The influences of system quality and
service quality to consumer satisfaction and loyalty in on-line
game industry, IEEE, 2010.
[7] Chen, P. and Zarki, M.E. Perceptual view inconsistency: an
objective evaluation framework for online game quality of
experience (QoE), IEEE, 2011.
[8] Branton, C. Interoperability standards for pervasive games, in
Proc. Working Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces,
2011ACM, USA, 22, May. 2011, pp. 4347.
[9] Snchez, J. L. Playability as extension of quality in use in video
games, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Nov.
2008, pp. 728-738.
[10] Peres, A.L. Methods and processes definitions for multiplatform
social network games development with distributed teams in
Proceedings of HCI International , San Diego, California, USA,
2009.
[11] Torrente, J. Development of Game-Like Simulations for
Procedural Knowledge in Healthcare Education, IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 7, pp. 6982, Dec.
2013.
12] Kasurinen, J. and Smolander, K. What do game developers test
in their products?, in Proc. 8th ACM/IEEE International
Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and
Measurement (ESEM), Torino, Italy, 2014.
[13]
Vargas, J.A., Mundo, L.G., Genero, M. and Piattini, M. A
systematic mapping study on serious game quality, in Proc.
18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering (EASE), London, England, BC, United
Kingdom, 2014.
[14] Mishra, D., Rachamalla, S. and Zarki, M.E. Predict the Storm:
A simulation model to measure the playability before the game
development, in Fourth International Conference on
Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT),
Bhopal, 2014.

16 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)
[15] Z. Wang, C. Wu, L. Sun, and S. Yang, Peer-Assisted Online
Games with Social Reciprocity, in 19th International
Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS), San Jose, CA, 2011.
[16] C. M. Kanode and H. M. Haddad, Software Engineering
Challenges in Game Development, in Sixth International
Conference on Information Technology: New Generations,
2009.
[17] C. Li, S. Ranganathan and S. Vijayachandran, Games in the
workplace: Revolutionary or Run-of-the-mill?, in International
Games Innovation Conference (IGIC), Vancouver, BC, 2013.
[18] M. Schmalz, A. Finn and H. Taylor, Risk Management in
Video Game Development Projects, in 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),
Waikoloa, HI, 2014.
[19] B. Neto, L. Fernandes, C. Werner, and J. M. Souza, Reuse in
Digital Game Development, in Proc. 4th International
Conference on Ubiquitous Information Technologies &
Applications, Fukuoka, 2009.
[20]
Lennart Nacke, From Playability to a Hierarchical Game
Usability Model, in Proc. Conference on Future Play,
Vancouver, Canada.

Table 1: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR GAME DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation
Parameters
Accessibility
Adaptability
Attractiveness

Playability

Mobility
User
Experience

Reliability

Meaning
Accessible to all the users even
with different types of disabilities.
Changes its behavior according to
changes in its environment.
eye-catching and good looking
the degree to which player can
achieve specified goals with
effectiveness,
efficiency,
satisfaction and fun.
Transferring from one place to
another and run in different
environment.
Players perceptions about a game
after playing it such as ease of use
and efficiency.
Failure-free
operation
or
maintaining level of performance
under different conditions for a
stated period of time.

Possible
Values
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No

Yes, No

Yes, No

Yes, No

Yes , No

Usability

How easy it is for the player to play

game. Also stated as degree of ease
of use.

Yes, No

Creativity

Level of innovation

Yes, No

Efficiency
Performance
Functionality
Fun Factor
Maintainability
Game
Mechanics

Giving best gaming experience

using minimum resources
Minimum response time and mean
time of failure
Capability of serving the purpose
for which the game is being
developed
How much pleasure user gets while
playing the game
How easily the game can be
corrected and modified
Constructs of rules or methods for
user interaction with the game state

Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No

17 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)

TABLE II: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TECHNIQUES FOR GAME DEVELOPMENT

Sr #

Techniques

Hsien
2010

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Accessibil
ity
Yes

Adaptability

Playabilit
y
No

Mobility

No

Attractive
ness
No

Reliability

Usability

No

User
Experience
Yes

Yes

Yes

Chen et al, 2011

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Azawi et al,
2013
Ramadan et al,
2013

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Srisuriyasavad
et al, 2013
Levy et al, 2013

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Korhonen et al,
2006
Branton et al,
2011
Snchez et al,
2008
Peres et al, 2009

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Torrente et al,
2013
Kasurinen and
Smolander,
2014
Vargas et al,
2014
Mishra et al,
2014
Wang et al,
2011
Kanode
and
Haddad, 2009
Li et al, 2013

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

62.50%

No

64.92%

Yes

45.54%

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Schmalz et al,
2014
Neto et al, 2009

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Lennart Nacke,
2009

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

et

al,

18 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com

ISSN: 2312-7694
Maria et al. / International Journal of Computer and Communication System Engineering (IJCCSE)
TABLE III: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TECHNIQUES FOR GAME DEVELOPMENT
S
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0

Techniques

Creativity

Efficiency

Performance

Functionality

Maintainability

No

Fun
Factor
No

No

Game
Mechanics
No

Hsien et al,
2010
Chen et al,
2011
Azawi et al,
2013
Ramadan et
al, 2013
Srisuriyasava
d et al, 2013
Levy et al,
2013
Korhonen et
al, 2006
Branton et al,
2011
Snchez et al,
2008
Peres et al,
2009
Torrente et al,
2013
Kasurinen and
Smolander,
2014
Vargas et al,
2014
Mishra et al,
2014
Wang et al,
2011
Kanode and
Haddad, 2009
Li et al, 2013

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

78.57%

No

8.93%

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Schmalz et al,
2014
Neto et al,
2009
Lennart
Nacke, 2009

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

19 | P a g e

2014, IJCCSE All Rights Reserved

Vol. 02 No.01 February 2015

www.ijccse.com