LITERATURE REVIEW ON MOBILE GAMES EVALUATION
Collectible card games (CCGs) were a unique type of playing cards embellished with images from horror, fantasy, or adventure artwork on their faces. These cards were played in special strategy, science fiction, and fantasy games in conjunction with other booster cards. Some games using CCGs were played with dice or counters leading to the creation of tournaments with predetermined prizes and hierarchies (Turkay, Adinolf and Tirthali, 2012). These cards have been mass produced since the early 1990s and by the end of 2010, more than one billion cards had been produced and traded. Interestingly, once digital forms of CCGs and other realistic digital games overtook the physical ones, trade in the original CCGs began to take precedence and is estimated to be a multi-million dollar affair.
Digital collectible card games (DCCGs) have overtaken physical CCGs are digital technology takes over the gaming industry. Consequently, DGCCs are present in mobile phones, desktop and laptop computers, as well as tablets. These games initially imitated CCGs using avatars and other imaging technology (Kordaki and Gousiou, 2017). Additionally, game play was aligned as closely as possible with real CCG-based gaming through monitoring avatar health, elimination of damaged creatures, and even deck shuffling when appropriate. However, there remains concerns that DGCCs could have some subtle differences with physical CCG-based gameplay (Kordaki and Gousiou, 2017). Many scholars, researchers, and industry gamers have resulted to using mobile game evaluation methodology to analyze parameters such as reproduction similarity, playability, and even digital advantages inherent.
One of the most common methods of evaluating mobile games is heuristics evaluation. This method involves the investigation of software or game usability through analysis of potential problems with user interface (UI) design (Skiba, 2017). Game play and mobile game evaluation usually depend on UI analysis to detect problems that could compromise game play or quality of gamer immersion. Therefore, for games such as DCCGs that are based on real games, heuristics evaluation could possibly offer clues into the degree of similarity between the actual game and its digital counterpart. In essence, heuristics denote the known characteristics of CCGs that the DCCG is supposed to emulate as closely as possible.
One problem of heuristics evaluation involving large software variations such as games is the cost and computing costs. DCCGs involve the reproduction of hundreds of CCGs meaning that heuristics evaluation of the entire batch could be a time-consuming and costly process (Pierre, 2015). Therefore, modern practices involve computerized heuristics evaluation using special hardware and software. Such heuristics evaluation tools depend on input heuristics and games undergoing evaluation to determine playability or UI variations.
Playability heuristics evaluation systems commonly come into the picture during DCCGs mobile game evaluation. The common practice, with significant computing capability present, is to conduct the heuristics evaluation several times. This strategy ensures that more heuristics problems in these games are identified in the shortest time period (al-Nowaihi and Dhami, 2015). Additionally, such repeated evaluation reduces costs associated with recalls and missed heuristics mismatches.
While DCCGs have replaced CCGs, subtle differences do exist that continue to make physical cards more appealing to fanatics and aficionados. Even with the competition present in the form of CCGs trading, many people still engage in physical CCGs (Turkay, Adinolf and Tirthali, 2012). Perhaps that is caused by the realization that DCCGs will never completely mimic physical CCGs. Interestingly, augmented and virtual reality seem keen to bridge the tiny gap between CCGs and DCCGs. However, technological developments are bridging that gap relatively fast.