Aplicando o modelo MALTU na avaliação da experiência do usuário no jogo "papers, please": identificação de limitações e propostas de refinamento

Abstract

This work proposes and validates an adaptation of the MALTU Model (Model for the Evaluation of Interaction in Social Systems based on User Textual Language) for the context of digital games. Although MALTU is effective in evaluating traditional information systems, where efficiency and the absence of errors are priorities, its direct application to games reveals critical limitations, especially in titles that use discomfort and difficulty as aesthetic resources. The case study focused on the game Papers, Please, chosen for its mechanic of intentional friction. A total of 90 real URPs (Usage-Related Posts) were collected and analyzed from multiple sources (Steam, Metacritic, and specialized websites), totaling 105 entries after the procedure of splitting posts with multiple intentions. The results highlight three main limitations of the original model: (1) ambiguity regarding the origin of friction, failing to distinguish between deliberate design and technical failure; (2) absence of specific Game UX goals, lacking categories for depth, narrative, and ethical tension; and (3) reduction of emotional complexity, hindering the capture of ambivalence. As a methodological contribution, this work proposes three empirically validated refinements: (1) a new "Origin of Friction" dimension; (2) expansion of UUX goals with an explicit separation between traditional HCI goals and specific game goals; and (3) subcategories for reflexive emotions. Validation on the corpus demonstrated that 75.9% of friction mentions were classified as intentional and valued, while 13.8% were identified as unintentional (technical portability issues). The most mentioned Game UX goals were: Depth (35 mentions), Design (34), and Moral Reflection (32). Among the reflexive subcategories, Sociopolitical Reflection (30.4%) and Ethical Tension (23.2%) stood out. These data corroborate the need for evaluative frameworks that recognize the legitimacy of controlled discomfort as an aesthetic resource and clearly differentiate narrative challenge from usability barriers.