Why Is This So Hard? Insights from the State Space of a Simple Board Game

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9090)

Abstract

Serious Games research has become an active research topic in the recent years. In order to design Serious Games with an appropriate degree of complexity such that the games are neither boring nor frustrating, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the factors that determine the difficulty of a game. The present work is based on the idea that a game’s difficulty is reflected in the structure of its underlying state space. Therefore, we propose metrics to capture the structure of a state space and examine if their values correlate with the difficulty of the game. However, we find that only one of the metrics, namely the length of the optimal solution, influences the difficulty of the game. In addition, by focusing on the part of the state space, which is actually explored by human players, we can identify properties that predict the game’s difficulty perceived by the players. We thus conclude that it is not the structure of the whole state space that determines the difficulty of a game, but the rather limited part that is explored by human players.

Keywords

Serious games Human problem solving Complexity Rush hour Network analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Frensch, P., Funke, J.: Complex problem solving: The European Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Funke, J.: Problemlösendes Denken (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1972)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halford, G.S., Wilson, W.H., Phillips, S.: Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 21, 803–865 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J.R., Simon, H.A.: Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive psychology 17, 248–294 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson, J.R.: Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newell, A.: Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: the problem space as a fundamental category (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman, M.E.: Networks: An Introduction. OUP Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bockholt, M.: Ein netzwerkanalytischer Ansatz zur Untersuchung der Komplexität des Rush-Hour-Spiels. Bachelor thesis, Heidelberg University, Institute for Computer Science (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson, J.R.: Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist 48 (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarušek, P., Pelánek, R.: What determines difficulty of transport puzzles. In: Proc. of Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 2011), pp. 428–433 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jarušek, P.: Modeling problem solving times in tutoring systems. Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta informatiky, Disertacnı práce (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graph Theory and Complex Network Analysis Group, Department of Computer ScienceTU KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations