## 3 Results
### Game Concept Preference  
The descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of each variable of the IMI, and the correlations between the IMI dimensions and the implemented GDEs in the games helped to answer the first research question (RQ1). For RQ1, it was hypothesized that, based on the number of implemented GDEs, the game preference order would be (1) _Tesoros_, (2) _Anotatlon_, and (3) _Agentes_. However, when participants were asked which game they would play again, the results showed a different order of preference: _Anotatlon_ came out as the preferred game for 24 of the 36 participants who had played it. In second place, we find _Tesoros_ (15/36 participants), and thus in third place was _Agentes_, with only 5/36 participants. In order to explain the participants' reasoning for choosing one game concept over another, the dimensions of IMI were analyzed. First, the descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the Interest/Enjoyment and Effort/Importance levels were higher for the game _Anotatlon_. For _Tesoros_, Competence was higher, and the Tension/Pressure was lower. One-way analyses of variances (ANOVA) revealed significant differences for Interest/Enjoyment and Competence. Post hoc comparisons using [PERSON]'s test were conducted to investigate which pair of games presented these differences. The perceptions of Interest/Enjoyment (\(F_{2,105}~{}=~{}4.827\), \(p<0.001\)) showed a significant difference between _Anotatlon_ and _Agentes_. Similarly, perceived Competence was also statistically significant (\(F_{2,105}~{}=~{}3.941\), \(p<0.01\)) between _Tesoros_ and _Anotatlon_. Effort/Importance and Tension/Pressure did not show significant differences.  
Additionally, a logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine whether the IMI factors influenced the concept preference between the two games played by the players. As shown in Table 2, perceived Competence was a significant predictor for preferring _Anotatlon_ and, in fact, the only construct with an effect on game preference. Thus, the results in Tables 1 and 2 show that, to some extent, the Competence and Interest/Enjoyment influenced the concept preference. However, to discover whether those IMI levels resulted from implementing the GDEs, correlations among IMI constructs and the GDEs were analyzed to determine the differences in respondents' preferences. The following section shows these results.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_Agentes_} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_Tesoros_} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_Anotatlon_} \\  & **MEAN** & **SD** & **MEAN** & **SD** & **MEAN** & **SD** \\ \hline Interest/Enjoyment & 4.49 & 1.57 & 5.18 & 1.30 & 5.46 & 1.15 \\ Competence & 5.37 & 1.15 & 5.79 & 0.89 & 5.07 & 1.22 \\ Effort/Importance & 4.08 & 1.36 & 3.74 & 1.26 & 4.21 & 1.30 \\ Tension/Pressure & 2.80 & 0.91 & 2.62 & 0.81 & 2.70 & 1.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Mean scores and standard deviations for participant perceptions in each game regarding IMI constructs (1—Not at all true, 7—Very true).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Estimate** & **Std. Error** & **z Value** & **Pr(\textgreater{}\(|z|\))** & & **OR** \\ \hline (Intercept) & \(-14.8777\) & 5.6344 & \(-2.6400\) & 0.0083 & **+** & 0.0000 \\ Interest/Enjoyment & 0.9423 & 0.6939 & 1.3580 & 0.1745 & & 2.5660 \\ Competence & 1.3923 & 0.6153 & 2.2630 & 0.0237 & * & 4.0243 \\ Effort/Importance & 0.4474 & 0.5094 & 0.8780 & 0.3799 & & 1.5642 \\ Tension/Pressure & 0.8707 & 0.7750 & 1.1230 & 0.2612 & & 2.3886 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Logistic regression analysis of participants playing _Anotatlon_. * indicates \(p<0.05\), ** indicates \(p<0.01\).