Given that peak interactions tend to be reached in the later phases of the game, it becomes obvious that interactions increase over the course of a simulation gaming event with interactions dipping towards the end of the game for some groups.

 

Sheer total of interactions is certainly important to the aims of this study, although it is also important to understand the quality of these interactions and how they evolve over the course of the game simulation events and the four phases of gameplay that have been analyzed for this study. Results of the interaction analysis have been used to show the characteristics of the interactions for each phase of gameplay.

 

Phase 1: The first phase is characterized by interactions regarding the game artifact itself; in all cases, early dialogue revolves around figuring out the game UI (user interface) and investigating the actions one can take within the game. This phase also tends to be characterized by intermittent silences between participates. Non-verbal language tends to be more closed off with some participants having crossed-arms. As well there tends to be few examples of eye contact between participants. Conversations tend to be formal. In all cases interactions are at their lowest in this phase.

 

Phase 2: During this phase, interactions tend to revolve around more strategic aspects of the game. Team discussions tend to revolve around the planning of the virtual watershed. There are, however, still discussions going on concerning the UI of the game. Discussions tend to be very collaborative with all members contributing to group discussions. During this phase, there is an increase in laughter shared between teammates. In some cases, players begin to refer to other teammates using first names. Non-verbal body language tends to be more open and direct eye-contact is increased. In some cases, personal discussions occur within this phase with players sharing anecdotes. Interactions although not hitting their maximum tend to be quite high during this phase. 

 

Phase 3: This phase is marked by an increase in personal discussions. In many cases players began discussing aspects of their personal life and sharing anecdotes and perspectives. Laughter tends to be at its highest in this phase with non-verbal body language being very open. Discussions become more strategic as players are now familiar with how the game works. Discussions about the UI of the game are minor. Interactions for most groups tend to maximize in this phase.

Phase 4: In this final phase interactions hit their maximum in 3 out of 7 groups while they begin to decrease in the other 4 groups as the game winds down. During this phase, players begin to discuss time more and many players tend to note their fatigue at this point. Silences increase at this point. Conversations are still friendly and there are many examples of laughter as players have become more comfortable with each other by this phase. Non-verbal language is still very open except for certain members showing signs of fatigue such as the rubbing of eyes and the checking of watches/cellphones for time.

 

The following table synthesizes the above information:

 

Table 1 Qualitative Interaction Analysis

 

Of the seven groups analyzed, three groups had members who knew each other prior to the start  of the game simulation events. This provides an opportunity to investigate whether and how these prior relationships may affect the quality and quantity of interactions throughout the simulation gaming experience. To develop a better understanding of the effects of these relationships it is essential to look at interactions taking place at an individual level throughout the game.

 

Of the stakeholder events; two groups emerged with a large disparity in terms of the familiarity between members where two participants had strong prior relationships with each before the beginning of the simulation gaming event.

 

Interaction maps made from raw interaction data are used to investigate these relationships further. The first two of the below maps show one four-member group from the Ottawa event wherein two of the members noted on the participant questionnaire that they already have a strong working relationship. Everyone else in the group has passing knowledge of the others though they reported to not know the others well. The red color in the maps is used to isolate the two players with a strong prior bond.

 

The maps represent phases 1 and phases 2 of gameplay. One can see that phase one has many interactions between players 1 and players 2 who were familiar with each other before the game. The establishment of this dynamic was then reflected by the other two members who began to interact with each other. As the game proceeded however and players entered phase two, we see the breakdown of these dynamics. In phase two there is much less interaction between players 1 and players 2. Group interactions increase for all participants excluding participant 1 whose interactions with the group remain roughly the same. A new dynamic emerges where interactions tend to be directed at player 3 who is controlling the simulation. This trend proceeds throughout the other phases as interactions become increasingly collaborative.