Cited by 0Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaArtificial Intelligence in Games

Learning the Game: Decoding the Differences between Novice and Expert Players in a Citizen Science Game with Millions of Players

Open access
Cai, Eddie, Sarrazin-Gendron, Roman, Mutalova, Renata, Ghasemloo Gheidari, Parham, Butyaev, Alexander, Richard, Gabriel, Caisse, Sébastien, Knight, Rob +3 more·2024·Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games

Abstract

In recent years, video games have surged in popularity, attracting millions of players across platforms. Citizen science games (CSGs) leverage the processing power of gamers to solve computational and scientific problems. Borderlands Science (BLS) is a mini-game within the mass market game Borderlands 3 that turns multiple sequence alignment (MSA) problems into puzzles. Parallel research demonstrated that BLS players outperformed classical approaches solving small sequence alignment tasks. This study aims to analyze the strategical differences in player solutions in BLS as they gain experience. Through the many collected player solutions from players of different experience level, we gained insights into players’ strategies, differences between expert and non-expert players, and how strategies evolve. We developed a Markov chain trained on solutions from players of different experience levels to understand their actions and outcomes. Results indicate that expert players utilize more gaps and achieve more matches, gradually improving and converging toward unique strategies. Our findings reveal distinct and evolving player strategies. For future citizen science projects, it will be important to consider the identification of player strategies and their evolution over time to improve the game design and data processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3649921.3649993

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.5555/2841933.2841936 · DOI
  2. Bruno Strasser, Jérôme Baudry, Dana Mahr, Gabriela Sanchez, and Elise Tancoigne. 2019. " Citizen science"? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies 32, ARTICLE (2019), 52–76.
  3. Sheng Kung Michael Yi, Mark Steyvers, Michael D Lee, and Matthew J Dry. 2012. The wisdom of the crowd in combinatorial problems. Cognitive science 36, 3 (2012), 452–470.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Cai, E., Sarrazin-Gendron, R., Mutalova, R., Ghasemloo Gheidari, P., Butyaev, A., Richard, G., Caisse, S., Knight, R., Blanchette, M., Szantner, A., & Waldispühl, J.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • School of Computer Science, McGill University, Canada
  • Gearbox Studio Québec, Canada
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Massively Multiplayer Online Science, Switzerland
Venue
Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-21
Pages
1-10
OpenAlex
W4400361140
Cited by
0
References
28
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
  • McGill-DEV
Funders
Génome Québec
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
multiple sequence alignment, player strategies, strategy evolution, puzzle games

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review