International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 63

An Authoring Tool for

Educational Adventure Games:
Concept, Game Models and
Authoring Processes
Florian Mehm, Multimedia Communications Lab (KOM), Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany
Stefan Göbel, Multimedia Communications Lab (KOM), Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany
Ralf Steinmetz, Multimedia Communications Lab (KOM), Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany

ABSTRACT
The genre of educational adventure games is a common and successful choice in game-based learning. The
games combine captivating narratives that motivate players to continue playing with game mechanics that
are conductive to learning: the gameplay is slow-paced, allowing players to learn at their own pace, and
focused on puzzles that can be infused with educational content. While educational adventure games are well
suited for learning in most settings, their creation is often challenging for non-technical experts. Furthermore,
existing game editors do not account specifically for adaptive adventure games, which can maximize the
learning effectiveness of the games by catering to the players’ needs. To address these two challenges, we
present a game model for this genre and use this model to build an authoring tool that lowers the threshold
for adventure game creation and supports adaptive educational games. The implementation of this concept
was evaluated in several studies.

Keywords: Adaptive Game, Adventure Game, Authoring Tool, Digital Educational Game, Game Model

INTRODUCTION such as LucasArt’s “Monkey Island” series or

Educational Adventure Games are the combina-
tion of educational software tools and games
from the genre of adventure games. This genre,
which is among seven game genres categorized
by Gros (2007), is exemplified by classic games
DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2013010105
current games such as “Heavy Rain”. It is char-
acterized by the strong focus on a suspenseful
or comedic narrative, puzzles to be solved by
the players (often by combining items found in
the game or by conversing with virtual charac-
ters) and the relative lack of action-intensive
or time-limited sequences. This combination
offers several positive properties for learning:

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
64 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
educational content can be transported by means
of the strong narrative as well as embedded in
the game world and puzzles and players can
take their time in assimilating the presented
knowledge due to the absence of time limits.
From a production perspective, choosing the
adventure genre is beneficial: adventure games
commonly are not expected to push the limits
concerning graphics or effects (which incurs
high asset production costs in other game
genres), and the interaction in adventure games
is often so similar from game to game (with
vastly differing content at the same time) that
tools for their creation exist.
These are reasons why the genre has re-
ceived the attention of educators for building
educational games both during their first era
of commercial success – see (Cavallari, Hed-
burg, & Harper, 1992) – as well as in recent
times (Malo & Müsebeck, 2010). An example
for a game company producing games for the
educational market is the German developer
studio BrainGame, exemplified by the Geo-
graficus (http://www.geograficus-game.de/)
and Physicus (http://www.physicus-return.
de/) games (in general, Germany can be seen
as one of the strongest markets for adventure
games worldwide).
While the reasons for choosing the ad-
venture game genre for game-based learning
approaches as described above are valid, at the
same time creating educational adventure games
incurs higher production costs compared to
non-educational/purely entertainment-focused
games. This is due to the need to include more
team members with specialized backgrounds
to production teams. Apart from the game
designers, artists and programmers required to
implement a regular game, domain experts for
the domain of the educational game as well as
pedagogues for instructional design have to be
included. Furthermore, the whole team needs to
communicate on issues arising due to this. For
example, the game design has to be adapted in
order to accommodate the educational content
to be taught in the game. Similarly, artists have
to be aware of issues concerning the content,
such as in a historical game where uniforms
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
or villages can’t be designed based on fantasy
but have to be historically accurate. Processes
of coordination such as these increase the pro-
duction costs and times, often aggravated by
different nomenclature in the different specialist
groups and different tools used.
The approach we propose for this problem
is the introduction of a unified authoring tool,
integrating the roles, processes and produc-
tion stages of game development as described
above. This authoring tool allows designers,
programmers and domain experts to collaborate
during game production. Furthermore, this
approach opens the doors to re-authoring of
games. Hereby, we use the nomenclature as
established by Rensing et al. (2005), indicating
a process where existing content is re-combined
to be used in a new scenario. Examples of the
commercial viability of re-releasing games are
found on the console market, with platforms
such as the “Wii Virtual Console” being used
by publishers to re-publish vintage computer
games on modern platforms.
An additional area where authoring tools
can assist during the creation of educational
adventure games is in the development of
adaptive educational games, exemplified by
the 80Days educational game for geography
(Kickmeier-Rust & Albert, 2012). Such games
are able to adapt during runtime to player
characteristics such as the level of previous
knowledge of the game’s subject matter. While
this approach has the potential to increase the
learning effects of the game, it complicates
development, especially for designers, narra-
tive authors and content producers, who have
to provide alternative paths through the game
for different adaptations.
The remainder of this paper describes our
approach to authoring and re-authoring of edu-
cational games, with a focus on the educational
game “Geograficus” by Braingame Publishing,
which was re-authored with the authoring tool
StoryTec. We provide an overview of the state
of the art of educational adventure games and
authoring tools for this genre, with a focus on
adaptive educational games. The (re-)authoring
process using the StoryTec authoring tool is
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 65

shown, followed by the results of evaluation and should continue. Therefore, a major part of the
comparison studies carried out with StoryTec. design is the choice among these alternatives.
We conclude this paper with a discussion of While the basic set of conventions is clearly
results and an outlook. defined, the remaining content of the game
(including narrative, characters, backstory,
art direction, and sound) are very free and are
EDUCATIONAL defined in this stage, resulting in a game design
ADVENTURE GAMES document. This includes work by game design-
ers, including the game rules and puzzles, the
The idea of using the genre of adventure games
most important aspect of adventure games.
for education has a long history in the educa-
Furthermore, it consists of input by story writers
tional software community. First examples
concerning the game’s narrative and by concept
are as old as the genre itself, see for example
artists detailing the look and feel of the game
Cavallari et al. (1992). For the development
as well as the game interface.
of educational adventure games, Minovic,
For an educational adventure game, domain
Štavljanin, Milovanovic, and Starcevic (2010)
experts and pedagogues should be included at
propose an architecture that, similar to our
this stage as well. Domain experts contribute
system, separates the tasks of game designers
the information about the field to be taught in
and domain experts and gives each specialized
the game, while pedagogues are concerned with
tools for their work on an adventure game. Ho,
the instructional design, ensuring that different
Huang, & Chung (2007) describe the develop-
learner types are addressed and that educational
ment of the cultural heritage adventure game
content is presented in an order beneficial for
“Ataiyal Legend”. More recent example include
learning. This process can also entail the creation
the game “Winterfest”, developed as a game
of exercise pools or task definitions for the
for supporting functional illiterates (Malo &
educational aspect of the game. Since the game
Müsebeck, 2010) and the action-adventure game
should integrate both the educational and the
“Ludwig” for teaching phyiscs (Wernbacher,
play aspects and not have a break between them,
Pfeiffer, Wagner, & Hofstätter, 2012).
the collaboration between the game developers
The following analysis of the production
and the educational experts has to be fostered
process of (educational) adventure games is
already at the design stage. For example, the
based on the authors’ interactions with a com-
puzzle design can be inspired by the curriculum
mercial educational game developer as well as
to be taught and include puzzles which require
other accounts from the literature, including
domain knowledge to solve.
those of Amory (2001), Hodgson, Man, and
After the design stage has been finished,
Leung (2010) and Sommeregger and Kellner
the game’s production commences. This stage is
(2012).
divided into two major strands of work, content
As with other game genres, the production
production and technical development. The
of an educational adventure game starts with
technical basis for the game has to be provided,
game design. Adventure games are a genre
a task which is carried out by programmers
with strong conventions which lead to many
who provide a game engine into which game
of the games conforming to one of a set of
content and rules are inserted. Thereby, the
paradigmatic games. This can for example be
game’s mechanics as described in the game
concerning the perspective – 1st or 3rd person;
design document have to be realizable in the
the way in which commands are given to the
game engine. Simultaneously, the production of
character – using verbs or symbolic icons or
the game’s assets (images, 3D models, textures,
concerning dialogues – using complete utter-
sounds, GUI elements.) is carried out by artists,
ances in a multiple choice way or only icons
based on the game design and the educational
representing the theme in which a conversation

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
66 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
requirements. The actual integration of content
is usually carried out using programming (script-
ing) languages and game editors, specialized
tools for this task. Therefore, this task has lower
technical requirements than the game engine
programming, but still calls for a user trained
in the tool and in the used scripting language.
During the game’s development and after
the content and technical integration has been
finished, the quality of the game has to be assured
by the QA team. For educational games, this
also means testing the educational components
of the game and whether the learners in the
target group (e.g. concerning age or previous
knowledge) are able to efficiently learn with
the game.
Adaptive games add another layer to this
production process. These games react to player
input and maximize aspects of the play experi-
ence, for example the difficulty, the enjoyment,
or for educational games, the motivation for
learning. While commercial games have used
such techniques for some time, for an example
in the area of dynamic difficulty adjustment
(Hunicke & Chapman, 2004), adaptive educa-
tional games have only recently been created. A
number of related areas influence the develop-
ment of adaptive educational games.
The field of E-Learning provides many
example of adaptive systems, which usually
are based on a set of models, often including a
content model that maps the learning domain
and interdependencies between elements of a
curriculum, a learner model that summarizes
characteristics of the learner such as skills or
learning preferences and an instruction model
binding the two previously mentioned by as-
suring the learner is provided with the right
information or assessment at the right time (see
Shute & Towle (2003)).
In Interactive Storytelling, the process
of storytelling is adapted at runtime based on
narrative goals such as upholding a story arc.
A good example of an AI-based system is the
Façade experience described by Mateas & Stern
(2005), in which an interactive story is created
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
by adapting a pool of existing story elements
(“beats”) to the actions of the user interacting
with the system.
Finally, some examples for adaptive games
exist, which commonly capture the informa-
tion about the player in the form of a player
model. The PaSSAGE (Thue, Bulitko, Spetch,
& Wasylishen, 2007a) project uses a model
categorizing players into one of 5 possible cat-
egories, other player modelling approaches use
the model presented by Richard Bartle (1996).
The combination of these approaches and
its application to educational games is the model
of Narrative Game-Based Learning Objects
(Göbel, Wendel, Ritter, & Steinmetz, 2010).
In this approach, the three aspects storytelling,
learning and gaming are united in one model
and used to maximize these aspects during play.
This model has also been used as the basis for
educational adventure games as detailed below.
AUTHORING TOOLS
FOR EDUCATIONAL
ADVENTURE GAMES
The concept of authoring tools as software
solutions for editing and composing content
for authors stems from the fields of multime-
dia computing and e-learning. Examples from
e-Learning show the general approach of au-
thoring tools: to provide an easy-to-understand
and -use interface for content which is then
transformed internally by the authoring tool to
a platform for publishing, for example as a set
of web pages on a web server for e-Learning
products. For an overview, see Brusilovsky
(2003).
Authoring tools which can be used for
educational adventure games originate from two
fields: that of general adventure game editors
and that of authoring tools with specialized fea-
tures for educational adventure games. The first
field is exemplified by a number of tools avail-
able both commercially and free. Mentionable
are the free Adventure Game Studio (AGS)1,
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 67
which has generated a large community of freely
available independent adventure games as well
as the Visionaire2 Studio toolset, used both
for large recent commercial adventure game
releases as well as the educational adventure
game Winterfest intended for functional illiter-
ates (Malo & Müsebeck, 2010).
Authoring tools featuring specialized tools
for educational game authoring offer the same
or similar functionality as those of the group
described above, with additional features ad-
dressing the needs of an educational game. For
example, they can include editors for visualizing
or editing the curriculum to be taught in a game,
or be linked to a Learning Content Manage-
ment System to import educational content.
In this field, the major system to be seen is the
e-Adventure authoring tool (Torrente, Blanco,
Cañizal, Moreno-ger, & Fernandéz-Manjón,
2008), intended for the development of First-
and Third-Person adventure games. It provides
the possibility to export a game created with
the tool to a Learning Management System to
be viewed as part of an e-Learning course (Del
Blanco et al., 2010) and the possibility to create
in-game books to transport knowledge textually.
Est, Poelman, & Bidarra (2010) describe
the SHAI Scenario Editor, a tool abstracting
from low-level programming tasks and focusing
on providing a graphical interface for defining
high-level logic in an educational game-based
scenario. This approach is related directly to
the ActionSet editor component of StoryTec as
described below, sharing the idea of providing
a high-level graphical interface and separating
this from the low-level logic of the game.
STORYTEC FOR EDUCATIONAL
ADVENTURE GAMES
Game Model
Games in StoryTec are not programmed in-
dividually, but are rather seen as instances of
a general-purpose game model that has been
derived from an analysis of common game
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
structures. Authors manipulate the aspects of
this model in the authoring tool using visual
editors.
The model is based on the notion of
“scenes”, similar to theater or interactive sto-
rytelling. A game of any size is broken down
into a set of scenes which cover small parts or
situations of the game. This approach fits very
well to adventure games, which often feature
“screens” that are connected to each other and
which are defined by the image of the game
world they depict. This connection is modeled
as a transition in StoryTec, resulting in a directed
graph of connected scenes. In each scene, objects
can be placed which the player might interact
with. In an adventure game, common objects
are the items players can collect and the virtual
characters they interact with.
In order to evade the need for program-
ming and therefore lower the threshold for
non-programmers, StoryTec features a visual
programming language which is based on two
basic concepts. “Stimuli” are events that are
triggered by the player (e.g. by clicking on an
exit in an adventure screen). For each stimulus,
an author can set up a set of “actions” that are
carried out by objects in the game. Conceptually,
this can be seen as a pendant to “stage directions”
in theater. Actions can be arranged linearly,
resulting in a sequential execution, and by the
introduction of logical conditions, sequences of
actions can interrupted or branched.
Finally, the highest-level control structure
in StoryTec are templates, which exist in two
related but distinct flavors. Structural templates
are often-used (sub-)graphs that can be instan-
tiated by authors. For example, best practice-
structures can be provided as structural tem-
plates. On the other hand, interaction templates
encapsulate game mechanics that would be
hard to describe using the visual programming
language of StoryTec. By placing an interac-
tion template in a scene, authors instantiate the
game mechanics of the interaction template and
can configure this template. An example along
with conceptual and implementation details is
provided by Mehm, Göbel, & Steinmetz (2011).
68 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
In order to create adaptive games, authors
make use of the game model and the concept
of Narrative Game-Based Learning Objects
(Göbel et al., 2010). Each scene in the game
can be annotated with narrative, learning and
gaming information. For narrative purposes, the
function of the scene in a standard story model
is defined. The “Hero’s Journey” (Campbell,
1972) is supplied as the default story model. In-
formation about the learning context is provided
in the form of lists of prerequisite (required to
understand the scene’s learning content) and
associated (that which is taught in the scene)
knowledge. Finally, gaming information is con-
cerned with the category of player which will
enjoy the gameplay in the annotated scene. By
default, the player model with four categories
by Bartle (1996) is used.
Authors then have two tasks in order to
supply the necessary information for adaptiv-
ity. First, events in the game (stimuli) have to
be interpreted as updates to the models of the
player (narrative, learner and player model).
For example, whenever a stimulus indicates
that a player prefers exploration to action, the
“explorer” attribute of the player model should
be increased. Authors can annotate stimuli with
this information. Secondly, transitions have to
be marked as “free” in order to be considered
by the adaptive algorithms. Whenever a scene
is exited which has free transitions to other
scenes, the most appropriate scene is chosen
from the available scenes, based on the current
state of the models of the player and the scene
annotations. For details, the reader is referred
to Göbel et al. (2010).
The interpretation of this model is carried
out by a component referred to as story engine.
This interpreter is connected to a game engine
and communicates with it in two directions.
First, stimuli are sent from the game engine
to the story engine and trigger the execution
of actions and the updates of player models.
Second, the story engine effects changes in the
game engine by sending the actions as defined
by the author, which are then realized in the
game by the game engine.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Re-Authoring Workflow
In the following, the use-case of re-authoring
the game Geograficus, an educational adventure
game for teaching geology, is provided as an
example for the authoring process of StoryTec.
In order to carry out the re-authoring, the game
was first analyzed by means of a thorough
playthrough, noting the structure of the game
and identifying the necessary interaction tem-
plates for implementing the game. An example
for such an interaction template would be a
hotspot, a clickable area on the game’s screen.
Another interaction template is that of manag-
ing an inventory, a characteristic feature of
adventure games (see Figure 1 for the realiza-
tion in StoryTec).
The use case shown in the remainder of
this paper gave the player the task of identify-
ing several gems by their color. This task is
embedded in the game in a puzzle surrounding
a machine that has to be fixed. The realization
of this interaction template is an example for
hotspots that can be linked to assets, e.g. to
images. Each gem is realized as a hotspot linked
to a set of images which are cycled whenever
the player clicks the hotspot. The puzzle is
solved as soon as the player gets the right
combination of gems.
This example shows the instructional de-
sign used in the case of re-authoring this game.
Knowledge about the game’s domain (here: the
colors of various gems) is made available to the
player in the game world and has to be applied
in a puzzle in order to advance the game. This
pattern is often used in educational adventure
games since it naturally fits the genre (cf. Dickey,
2006). Knowledge can for example be offered
in dialogues with characters or in books in the
game world and then used in puzzles such as this.
StoryTec
The basic approach of StoryTec is to integrate
the work of the game development roles as
described above into one authoring tool. Both
for authoring and re-authoring, this has many
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 69

Figure 1. The GUI of StoryTec with the interconnected editors: Stage Editor (upper left), Story
Editor (lower left), Objects Browser (upper right) and Property Editor (lower right).

advantages. Two possibilities for collaboration
in game development teams as noted by Tran
and Biddle (2008) are acknowledged by this
concept. It diminishes the centralized role of
programmers, thereby removing a possible
bottleneck from the project and balancing the
responsibilities of the team members. On the
other hand, it increases the common vision of
the project, since authors all work in a single
tool, being able to see the game during each
step of the project. The problem of different
tools being used and the need to communicate
between different groups is also addressed by
mapping almost all roles of the game develop-
ment process into one authoring tool.
The modular authoring tool is composed of
several interlinked editors. The first editor to be
used commonly by authors is the Story Editor.
This editor is used to configure the high-level
structure of the game, by breaking down the
whole game into a set of scenes and defining
the transitions between scenes. Figure 1 shows
the structure of the use case scene in the Story
Editor in the bottom.
Individual scenes are embellished in the
Stage Editor, into which authors can drop objects
such as background images, hotspots or videos
dragged from the Objects Browser in order to
instantiate them. In the case of the re-authored
situation, the scene in question consisted of a
hotspot for navigation purposes (lower high-
lighted area in the Stage Editor) as well as six
hotspots with a cycle of images of gems (upper
highlighted area in the Stage Editor).
For the specialized interactions with items
in adventure games (players can collect items
and combine the collected items with other
collected items or objects in the world to create
new items or effect changes in the world), a new
editor for such items was created (see Figure
2). It allows assigning images to the items and
defining how the item can be created from a
combination of other items (for example, the
combination “empty lamp” and “can of oil”
results in a “working lamp” object).
After scenes have been defined and filled
with objects, in a next step properties and
metadata of objects are defined. This is carried
out via the property editor component. Proper-
ties of objects such as hotspots can be the
filenames of associated images (e.g. the gems
in the use case). For scenes this can be data
such as the scene’s name or metadata such as
the approximate playing time (for control pur-

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
70 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
Figure 2. The realization of inventory items in StoryTec
pose) or parameters for adaptation such as the
appropriateness for leaning or certain player
types.
As an alternative to common scripting
languages used in game programming, StoryTec
relies on the ActionSet Editor (see Figure 3). In
this editor, actions to be carried out by the game
as the reaction to stimuli triggered by the player
are defined and put into sequences visually.
An example for this are the images hotspots
(employed in the use case to realize the gems),
which feature one stimulus which is triggered
whenever a player has set up the correct com-
bination of gems. In this case, the first reaction
of the game should be to play a sound for mak-
ing the player aware of a change in the environ-
ment. The subsequent action should be a change
of scene to a new image reflecting the change
in the scenery. This is realized in the ActionSet
Editor by adding two actions in a sequence.
Clicking on a sequence allows fine-tuning the
parameters of the actions, such as the target
object (e.g. a sound file to be played) as well
as the exact action to carry out (e.g. “play”) and
parameters where necessary (e.g. “play once”
vs. “play looping”).
Apart from adding the data for the flow of
the game, metadata for game content can be
added. As describe above, these data are sub-
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
sumed under the term Narrative Game-Based
Learning Objects (Göbel et al., 2010). This
encompasses the mapping of scenes to stages of
a story model, the definition of learning content
including the prerequisite requirements between
individual skills/knowledge bits as well as the
mapping to types of players with differing play
preferences.
INTEGRATED FEATURES
Apart from the advantages of the integrated
approach of StoryTec outlined above, several
features of StoryTec are positive for authors,
when developing a new game or when re-
authoring an existing game.
Adaptation
Using the concept of NGLOBs allows adap-
tation along the adaptation axes defined by
NGLOBs. In the context of a learning adventure,
adaptation, especially based on the learning state
of the player, is a useful feature. One example
could be the increased number of specific tips
and background information for players failing
several puzzles in a row. Another possibility
is the adaptation to play preferences of play-
ers using the means of adventure games, for
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 71

Figure 3. The ActionSet editor for configuration of control flow during the game

example by offering action-oriented players
more action-centered game section e.g. by
implementing mini games.
Introducing New Game Content
Due to the flexible design and development
of games in StoryTec it is possible to add new
scenes to an existing game being re-authored.
The limiting factor here is the need to create
new assets for the added content, e.g. new
graphics for new locations. Since individual
scenes being added can be tested rapidly (see
following subsection), it is possible to test new
content by adding it in the form of placeholders
(e.g. mock-up level graphics instead of refined
art assets) before going ahead with the actual
production. In this process, original 3D data
are advantageous since they can be re-used
for rendering.
Rapid Prototyping, Testing
The paradigm of rapid prototyping is supported
in StoryTec by the player application StoryPlay
(Mehm, Wendel, Göbel, & Steinmetz, 2010)3,
which allows the simultaneous play of a Sto-
ryTec created game and the analysis of context
information about the game flow and the internal
data of algorithms (e.g. concerning adaptation)
as well as the creation of log data, which can be
evaluated later on. This allows authors to test
new games or extensions to the re-authored
games prototypically and decide upon next steps
based on the gained insights. This is in line with
the recommendations made by Musil, Schweda,
Winkler, and Biffl (2010), who argued for an
agile approach to game development including
iterative development of the game.
StoryPlay is based on the story engine and
is split into a player aspect and an evaluation
aspect. Whereas the player aspect allows the
interaction with the game, the evaluation aspect
offers an overview of gathered data and infor-
mation. This includes the history of the game
until the current point in the play session, an
overview of the curriculum of the game and
the current state of the player model and the
player model built by observing the player’s
choices in the game.

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
72 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
Portability
One goal of the development of StoryTec is the
deployment of games on various game plat-
forms. The technical realization of this feature
on the game platform side was carried out by
KTX Software Development4 and allows the
deployment of games on the platforms Nintendo
DS, Apple iOS and Browser platforms (see Fig-
ure 4). The version of StoryTec available to the
public allows deployment on Android devices,
HTML 5-compatible browsers and Java-capable
desktop devices due to legal constraints.
The portability of games is made possible
by the design of StoryTec and by leveraging
the used xml-based description language ICML
as a platform-independent intermediate format.
For porting purposes, it is therefore only neces-
sary to port the configurable interaction tem-
plates described above onto the target hardware/
software. The basic structure and control remain
the same across platforms. Necessary steps for
adapting the game’s content to the peculiarities
of the target platform (such as scaling of im-
ages to the display resolution) are carried out
by a set of tools realizing a pipeline for the
creation of platform-specific version.
Figure 4. Deployment options of games created with StoryTec
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
EVALUATION
Usability Studies
A first evaluation of StoryTec with other game
content was described by Mehm, Göbel, Radke,
& Steinmetz (2009). In this section, we first
show results gained during the Hessen Mod-
ellProjekt “StoryTec”, which was based on
content of Geograficus.
In order to gain qualitative and quantita-
tive test results, two test methods were used in
the evaluation of StoryTec – a usability test in
a controlled environment, was well as ques-
tionnaire-supported test using a questionnaire
based on the usability standard ISO 9241/10.
The evaluation was carried out over the course
of two days with a total of 26 participants, one
of which was female. The mean age of the
participants was 25.2 years with a standard
deviation of 3.71 years.
During the tests, an adapted form of the
“Thinking Aloud” method was used. The par-
ticipants were given one of three roles – a reader,
a performer and an observer. The reader’s task
was to read out the steps of the task list aloud.
The performer was given control of mouse and
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 73
keyboard and asked to follow the instructions
of the reader. The observer’s role entailed being
perceptive and giving additional instructions to
the performer in order to understand the software
and solve the assigned task.
After completing the assigned tasks, the
participants evaluated the tool by means of
the questionnaire. Table 1 show the results of
the questionnaire grouped to the seven basic
principles of the usability standard ISO 9241-10.
A positive tendency in the judgments of
the participants concerning the ergonomics of
StoryTec can be observed. The lowest mean
value is 3.42 on the scale of “Error tolerance”,
while the highest mean value is along the scale
of “Suitability for learning”.
In order to test whether using StoryTec
had an influence on the participants’ moods,
they were asked to rate their current mood on
a seven-point psychometric scale supported by
graphical icons. To this end, the individual items
of the scale were realized as “Smiley” symbols
inspired by their use by Kunin (1955) in the
measurement of work contentment.
For the pretest measurement, a mean value
of 2.72 (standard deviation 0.74) was reached
(lower values indicate a positive mood and vice
versa). The posttest measurement resulted in a
mean value of 2.4 (standard deviation 0.71).
The low difference between pre- and posttest
measurement resulted in no statistically sig-
nificant difference when subjected to a t-Test.
Table 1. The results of the usability questionnaire
Basic Principle
Suitability to the task
Self-description
Controllability
Conformity with user expectations
Error tolerance
Suitability for individualization
Suitability for learning
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
This gives an indication that the use of
StoryTec did not have a statistically significant
effect on the mood of users. If the ergonomics
of the software had been inadequate, the users
would have been frustrated, resulting in a nega-
tive change in mood.
A second evaluation was carried out in the
form of a focus group study with 3 participants
(aged 31, 37, 46), all strongly involved in the pro-
duction of educational games in a commercial
game studio. The participants were given similar
tasks as during the first evaluation, adapted for
only one person. Afterwards, the participants
took place in individual guided interviews,
including questions about the applicability
of StoryTec in their fields of work (including
game design, graphics and programming). As
a result, it can be noted that the experts were
interested to hear about the development of
StoryTec and, keeping the prototypical state
of the system shown to them, they noted that a
full version might be used for game develop-
ment. In the state it was demonstrated to them,
they regarded it as suitable for storyboarding
and prototyping.
Comparison Study
The most recent and extensive study of StoryTec
focused on a comparison with a second author-
ing tool instead of analyzing the usability of
StoryTec in isolation. This comparison study
Mean Value Standard Deviation
4.74 0.88
3.51 0.93
5.48 0.77
4.55 1.06
3.42 0.80
4.42 0.72
5.14 0.78
74 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013
involved N = 47 test subjects (8 male, 39 female,
age range from 21 to 32 years (m= 24.79; SD=
2.62;)), recruited from a university course on
Serious Game. The experiment was set up as a
series of three tasks in which the test subjects
were asked to re-create parts of the Geograficus
adventure game that had been deleted in the test
setup. The three tasks were intended to have
an increasing complexity and to involve an
increasing number of authoring tool features.
The three tasks involved the following skills:
• Task 1: Exchange an existing image in
the game;
• Task 2: Re-create a whole scene;
◦◦ Task 2a: Create the scene, load the
correct background image;
◦◦ Task 2b: Set up the connections with
other scenes correctly;
◦◦ Task 2b: Set the game to start in this
scene;
• Task 3: Build a puzzle involving a set of
images of gems that have to be arranged
in the correct sequence.
Both tasks were worded in a neutral way
in order to use nomenclature either shared by
both authoring tools (for example, “scene”) or
general terms. The task description was identi-
cal for both tools, and did not include detailed
instructions for any of the two tools.
The evaluation was carried out with groups
of up to 8 participants at individual work sta-
tions. Each group was randomized to use either
StoryTec or e-Adventure first and the other
authoring tool second. The test time for each
authoring tool was 25 minutes, during which the
test operator did not supply help for the tasks.
n(1) = 25 participants started working with
StoryTec and n(2) = 22 started with e-Adventure.
The study results were drawn from two
sources. After completing the test in both au-
thoring tools, the participants were handed a
questionnaire, again based on the areas of the
ISO 9241-10 standard, which included identical
questions for both authoring tools. Additionally,
the questionnaire included background informa-
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
tion, an assessment of the perceived level of
mastery of the respective authoring tool, the
question which authoring tool the participants
preferred and questions for demographical data.
The results indicate that StoryTec (m=
4.58; SD=1.17;) was preferred compared
to e-Adventure (m= 4.21; SD=0.78;) by the
participants (p= .084). We found an effect of
gender on the results, with male participants
rating StoryTec higher (p=.023) than female
participants who did not rate the tools differ-
ently (p > .20). This effect could be due to the
low ratio of female participants in the study.
The interaction between gender (male, female)
and tool (StoryTec, e-Adventure) borders sig-
nificant (p=.072).
The second source of data for the evalu-
ation was by asking participants to save their
state of the game whenever they felt they had
fully completed one of the tasks or when they
had the impression that they would not be able
to complete it without help. In order to prevent
users from saving over previous versions, but-
tons for allowing the saving of the project files
to an automatic location only once were added
to both tools. This data was evaluated first by
analyzing the time stamps on the project files.
Due to technical complications, 4 data points
from the third task were not saved for the
StoryTec case and are therefore missing in the
calculation of the following data.
Figure 5 displays the average time durations
the participants used for each tool. As can be
seen, the participants spent 58% more time on
task 1 and 18% more time on task 2 in StoryTec
as compared to e-Adventure, however, they
required only 55% of the time spent on task 3
in StoryTec compare to e-Adventure. In aver-
age, the participants using StoryTec finished the
three tasks earlier than using e-Adventure and
also finished the task before the end of the 25
minute duration of the test (StoryTec: m=1409
seconds, SD=296 seconds, e-Adventure:
m=1535 seconds, SD=181 seconds).
Furthermore, the actual project files were
rated by a set of criteria that judged whether
the task was completed fully and accurately. In
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 75

Figure 5. Comparison of the completion times for the three tasks in E-Adventure and StoryTec.
The line indicates the test end time after 25 minutes.

both tools, a task was counted as completely
accurate even when participants named objects
or scenes other than the way the task descrip-
tions indicated. The results of this rating are
shown in Figure 6. Task one could be success-
fully accomplished by almost all subjects in
both tools. Task 2 and 3 were solved com-
pletely correctly by 52% and 57% of participants
with StoryTec, compared to 30% and 24% of
participants using e-Adventure. 7 users (17%)
only committed a minor error in StoryTec, and
68% of participants showed that they had the
correct idea how the task could be completed.
55% of e-Adventure users showed that they
had the correct idea, but as the numbers indicate,
about half of these participants made an error
while working on the task.
Discussion
When comparing the times required for the
tasks in e-Adventure and StoryTec, we see that
initially, users required more time to work in
StoryTec than in e-Adventure. This might be
explained by the user interfaces of the tools: e-
Adventure uses a user interface more similar to
regular desktop applications, whereas StoryTec
employs a more customized style and follows

Figure 6. Percentage of correctly solved tasks in E-Adventure and StoryTec

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
76 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013

the design principles of creative/content creation model checking (cf. Mehm, Reuter, Göbel, &
applications rather than normal office tools. Steinmetz, 2012) is essential, especially for
Furthermore, StoryTec has been designed for cases where the included (visual) programming
use with Serious Game authoring in general and language is extensively used to make authors
is not limited to adventure games and therefore aware of errors like this.
exposes more features than e-Adventure.
We observed that users in both tools used
the copy & paste-functionality, since the tasks CONCLUSION
could all be solved by duplicating and adapting
We have described both the strengths of us-
existing objects. Therefore, we conclude that
ing the adventure game genre for game-based
this functionality is important, even for novice
learning and the problems arising from typical
users. This underlines the use of structural tem-
game development practices. These problems
plates, which formalize the process of copying
are more pronounced in the case of educational
and re-using parts of a game.
games due to an increase in the need for col-
When analysing the sub-tasks of task 2, we
laboration and communication.
find that in both tools, creating a scene and set-
The basic architecture of StoryTec was pre-
ting up connections with other scenes could be
sented, intending to unify the software platforms
carried out equally well. However, many users
for educational game development by mapping
in e-Adventure failed at setting the start scene
the tasks of almost all involved groups in game
correctly. This setting is found in the proper-
teams into various parts of the authoring tool,
ties of a chapter in e-Adventure, whereas it is
thereby increasing the potential collaboration
visualized in StoryTec in the Story Editor and
between team members and simultaneously
can be set there. This corroborates the intensive
structuring the development process. This ap-
use of the Story Editor in StoryTec to allow
proach has been demonstrated both for authoring
authors to have a good overview of the game
of new games as well as for re-authoring of ex-
they are creating.
isting games, allowing upvaluation of the game
The third task could be solved in StoryTec
in both cases by mechanisms such as adding
either by using an interaction template or by
adaptivity, easing portability to diverse hard-
employing the programming functionalities of
ware platforms or by iterative development. The
the Action Set Editor. In e-Adventure, the game
results usability and comparison studies were
could only be created with the programming
shown, indicating the applicability of StoryTec
functionalities of the tool and extensive use of
in the domain of educational adventure games.
conditions and effects. This was not transparent
As the comparison study showed, the concept of
to the test subjects, who seemed to be largely
interaction templates sets StoryTec apart from
unable to understand the solution to the prob-
other tools and allows programmers to supply
lem, even though the state of the puzzle in the
re-usable game elements that enable authors
project file test subjects were given included
to create intricate gameplay without requiring
the solution which could be finalized by copy-
programming knowledge. The viability of Sto-
ing the existing parts. However, many of the
ryTec for educational adventure games has been
test subjects who started this process were not
shown by implementing all required interaction
able to completely emulate the way in which
templates for an existing commercial game and
the example objects were set up. We conclude
authoring it prototypically using representative
that the dedicated interaction template helped
segments of the game.
authors minimize the errors and understand the
process quickly. Furthermore, we suggest that

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 77
REFERENCES
Amory, A. (2001). Building an educational adven-
ture game: Theory, design and lessons. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 12(2/3), 249–263.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades:
Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research,
1(1), 19.
Brusilovsky, P. (2003). Developing adaptive edu-
cational hypermedia systems: From design models
to authoring tools. In T. Murray, S. Blessing, & S.
Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced
technology learning environment (pp. 377–409).
Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0819-7_13.
Campbell, J. (1972). The hero with a thousand faces.
Princeton University Press.
Cavallari, B., Hedburg, J. G., & Harper, B. (1992).
Adventure games in education: A review. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 172–184.
Del Blanco, A., Torrente, J., Marchiori, E., Martinez-
Ortiz, I., Moreno-Ger, P., & Fernandez-Manjon, B.
(2010). Easing assessment of game-based learning
with e-adventure and LAMS. In Proceedings of the
Second ACM International Workshop on Multimedia
Technologies for Distance Learning (pp. 25–30).
New York, NY: ACM
Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game design narrative for
learning: Appropriating adventure game design
narrative devices and techniques for the design of
interactive learning environments. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 54(3), 245–263.
doi:10.1007/s11423-006-8806-y.
Est, C. V., Poelman, R., & Bidarra, R. (2010). High-
level scenario editing for serious games. In P. Richard
& J. Braz (Eds.), GRAPP 2011 - Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computer Graphics
Theory and Applications (pp. 339–346). SciTePress.
Göbel, S., Wendel, V., Ritter, C., & Steinmetz, R.
(2010, August 16-18). Personalized, adaptive digi-
tal educational games using narrative, game-based
learning objects. In Entertainment for Education.
Digital Techniques and Systems 5th International
Conference on E-learning and Games, Edutainment
2010, Changchun, China (pp. 438–445). Berlin/
Heidelberg: Springer.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The
design of games-based learning environments.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
1(40), 23–38.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Ho, P.-C., Huang, C.-H., & Chung, S.-M. (2007). A
computer adventure game applied in e-learning. In
Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference
on Intelligent Pervasive Computing (pp. 446–451).
IEEE.
Hodgson, P., Man, D., & Leung, J. (2010). Managing
the development of digital educational games. In
Proceedings of DIGITEL 2010 Third IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent
Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 191–193). IEEE.
Hunicke, R., & Chapman, V. (2004). AI for dynamic
difficulty adjustment in games. In Proceedings of
the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.
91–96). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press
Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., & Albert, D. (2012). An
alien’s guide to multi-adaptive educational computer
games. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.
Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type
of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 51(4),
823–824. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00739.x.
Malo, S., & Müsebeck, P. (2010). Winterfest - An
adventure game for basic education. In Workshop-
Proceedings Informatik 2 : 3rd Workshop on Inclusive
E-Learning (pp. 61–65). Hildesheim, Germany:
Franzbecker.
Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2005). Structuring content
in the Facade interactive drama architecture. In
Young, M., & Laird, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
First Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital
Entertainment Conference (pp. 93-98). Palo Alto,
CA: AAAI Press
Mehm, F., Göbel, S., Radke, S., & Steinmetz, R.
(2009). Authoring environment for story-based
digital educational games. In M. D. Kickmeier-Rust
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Open
Workshop on Intelligent Personalization and Adapta-
tion in Digital Educational Games (pp. 113–124).
Mehm, F., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2011). In-
troducing component-based templates into a game
authoring tool. In M. M. Dimitris Gouscos (Ed.),
5th European Conference on Games Based Learn-
ing (pp. 395–403). Academic Conferences Limited,
Reading, UK.
Mehm, F., Reuter, C., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R.
(2012). future trends in game authoring tools. In
Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Game Devel-
opment and Model-Driven Software Development.
Berlin / Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
78 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013

Mehm, F., Wendel, V., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R.
(2010). Bat cave: A testing and evaluation platform
for digital educational games. In Meyer, B. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on
Games Based Learning (pp. 251–260). Reading,
UK: Academic Conferences International.
Minovic, M., Štavljanin, V., Milovanovic, M., &
Starcevic, D. (2010). Adventure game learning
platform. International Journal of Knowledge
Society Research, 1(1), 1022–1032. doi:10.4018/
jksr.2010010102.
Musil, J., Schweda, A., Winkler, D., & Biffl, S.
(2010). Improving video game development: Fa-
cilitating heterogeneous team collaboration through
flexible software processes. In A. Riel, R. O’Connor,
S. Tichkiewitch, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), Proceed-
ings 17th European Systems and Software Process
Improvement and Innovation Conference EuroSPI
2010 (Vol. 99, pp. 83–94). Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger-
many: Springer.
Rensing, C., Bergsträßer, S., Hildebrandt, T., Meyer,
M., Zimmermann, B., Faatz, A., et al. (2005). Re-use
and re-authoring of learning resources - definitions
and examples (KOM-TR-2005-02). Darmstadt,
Germany.
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learn-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 105–114.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3802_5.
Sommeregger, P., & Kellner, G. (2012). Brief
guidelines for educational adventure games creation
(EAGC). In M. Sugimoto, V. Aleven, Y. S. Chee, &
B. Fernández-Manjón (Eds.), Fourth IEEE Inter-
national Conference On Digital Game And Intel-
ligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 120–22). IEEE
Computer Society.
Torrente, J., Blanco, Á. D., Cañizal, G., Moreno-ger,
P., & Fernandéz-Manjón, B. (2008). <e-Adven-
ture3D>: An open source authoring environment
for 3d adventure games in education. In ACE ’08
Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference
on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology
(pp.191-194). New York, NY: ACM.
Tran, M. Q., & Biddle, R. (2008). Collaboration
in serious game development. In B. Kapralos, M.
Katchabaw, & R. Jay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008
Conference on Future Play Research Play Share
Future Play 08 (pp. 49–56). New York: ACM Press.
Wernbacher, T., Pfeiffer, A., Wagner, M., & Hof-
stätter, J. (2012). Learning by playing: Can serious
games be fun? In P. Felicia (Ed.), Proceedings of 6th
European Conference on Games Based Learning
(pp. 534 – 541). Reading, UK: Academic Confer-
ences Limited.
ENDNOTES
1
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk
2
http://www.visionaire-studio.net/cms/adven-
ture-game-engine.html
3
Previously referred to as Bat Cave
4
http://www.ktx-software.com/

Florian Mehm is a founding member of the Serious Games group of the Multimedia Communi-
cations Lab (KOM) of Technische Universität Darmstadt since 2009. He continued his work on
authoring tools from his previous position at the Computer Graphics Center in Darmstadt where
he was active from 2008 to 2009. His research areas include authoring systems for storytelling-
based Digital Educational games and serious games, personalization and adaptation in games
and technologies for games and edutainment applications. The implementation of his concepts for
authoring tools is the StoryTec authoring tool along with the associated framework of software
tools, including a cross-platform player for serious games.

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 63-79, January-March 2013 79

Stefan Göbel holds a PhD in computer science from TU Darmstadt and has long-term experience
in Graphic Information Systems, Interactive Digital Storytelling, Edutainment applications and
Serious Games. After five years work as researcher at the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer
Graphics, from 2002 to 2008 he was heading the Digital Storytelling group at the Computer
Graphics Center in Darmstadt. Late 2008, Dr. Göbel moved to TUD and is heading the prosper-
ing Serious Gaming group at the Multimedia Communications Lab. Stefan is the initiator and
permanent host of the GameDays, project leader of different research and science meets busi-
ness projects on regional, national and international level. Further, he is author of numerous
papers and member of different program committees in the area of Multimedia Technologies,
Edutainment and Serious Games.

Ralf Steinmetz is a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Information

Technology as well as in the Department of Computer Science at the Technische Universität
Darmstadt, Germany. From 2002 to 2004, he managed the department as dean. Since 1996,
he is managing director of the “Multimedia Communications Lab” and until end of 2001, he
directed a Fraunhofer Institute. In 1999, he founded the Hessian Telemedia Technology Com-
petence Center and holds a chair position. He is the author and co-author of more than 550
publications. He has edited and co-written a multimedia course which reflects the major issues
of the first in-depth technical book on multimedia technology. He has served as editor of various
IEEE, ACM and other journals.

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.