Advertisement

Setting Up and Conducting the Co-design of an Intergenerational Digital Game: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review

  • Eugène LoosEmail author
  • Teresa de la Hera
  • Monique Simons
  • Dorus Gevers
Conference paper
  • 669 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11592)

Abstract

In our ageing society, health and social problems of older people are on the rise. A possible way to deal with these issues is to ensure older people remain actively engaged in society by stimulating social interaction with other generations, such as (grand) children. Playing intergenerational digital games could be a way to achieve this kind of social interaction. The present state-of-the-art literature review aims to provide insight into the factors to take into consideration for setting up and conducting the co-design (involving younger and older adults interacting both with one another and with game designers) for an intergenerational digital game. Finally, this paper offers recommendations for the co-design of such games.

Keywords

State-of-the-art literature review Intergenerational digital games Co-design Design recommendations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Focus Area Game Research at Utrecht University and the paper was written within the project “Persuasive Gaming in Context. From theory-based design to validation and back” funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). See www.persuasivegaming.nl.

References

  1. 1.
    Davis, H., Vetere, F., Francis, P., Gibbs, M., Howard, S.: “I wish we could get together”: exploring intergenerational play across a distance via a ‘Magic Box’. J. Intergener. Relat. 6(2), 191–210 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lloyd, J.: The State of Intergenerational Relations Today. International Longevity Centre, London (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rice, M., Yau, L.J., Ong, J., Wan, M., Ng, J.: Intergenerational gameplay: evaluating social interaction between younger and older players. In: CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2333–2338. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huizinga, J.: Homo Ludens: A Proeve eener bepaling van het spel-element der cultuur. [Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture]. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (1938) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogost, I.: Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Video Games. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juul, J.: A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their Players. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa, L., Veloso, A.: Being (Grand) Players: Review of Digital Games and their Potential to Enhance Intergenerational Interactions. J. Intergener. Relat. 14(1), 43–59 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, F., Kaufman, D.: A review of intergenerational play for facilitating interactions and learning. Gerontechnology 14(3), 127–138 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De la Hera, T., Paz Aléncar, A.: Collaborative digital games as mediation tool to foster intercultural integration in primary Dutch schools. eLearn. Pap. 43, 13–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart, J., et al.: The potential of digital games for empowerment and social inclusion of groups at risk of social and economic exclusion: evidence and opportunity for policy. Joint Research Centre, European Commission (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loos, E.F.: Designing meaningful intergenerational digital games. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design, Istanbul, 24–26 April 2014, pp. 46–51 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romero, M.: Intergenerational learning, life narratives and games. In: Proceedings of the SGISS 2015, vol. 1. Université Laval, Centre de recherche et d’intervention sur la réussite scolaire, Québec (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romero, M., Ouellet, H.: Scaffolding digital game design activities grouping older adults, younger adults and teens. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9754, pp. 74–81. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeSmet, A., Thompson, D., Baranowski, T., Palmeira, A., Verloigne, M., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.: Is participatory design associated with the effectiveness of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion? A meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(4), e94 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play: Fundamentals of Game Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Schutter, B., Vanden Abeele, V.: Meaningful play in elderly life. In: Paper Presented at the 58th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association “Communicating for Social Impact”, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanden Abeele, V., De Schutter, B., Annema, J.H., Husson, J., Desmet, S., Geerts, D.: Van co-design tot playtest: een leidraad voor een player-centered design process. KU Leuven, e-Media Lab van Groep T en het Centrum voor User Experience Onderzoek, Leuven (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uhlenberg, P.: Integration of old and young. Gerontol. 40(3), 276–279 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De la Hera, T., Loos, E.F., Simons, M., Blom, J.: Benefits and factors influencing the design of intergenerational digital games: a systematic literature review. Societies 7(3), 18 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen, H.T., Tapanainen, T., Theng, Y.L., Lundberg, S., Luimula, M.: Fostering communication between the Elderly and the Youth with social games. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antonucci, T.C., Jackson, J.S., Biggs, S.: Intergenerational relations: theory, research, and policy. J. Soc. Issues 63(4), 679–693 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tomlin, A.M.: Grandparents’ influences on grandchildren. In: Szinovacz, M. (ed.), Handbook on Grandparenthood, pp. 159–170. Greenwood Publishing Group Santa Barbara, California, U.S. Census Bureau (2016). An Aging World: 2015 - International Population Reports (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khoo, E.T., Cheok, A.D., Nguyen, T.H.D., Pan, Z.: Age invaders: social and physical inter-generational mixed reality family entertainment. Virtual Reality 12(1), 3–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khoo, E.T., Merritt, T., Cheok, A.D.: Designing physical and social intergenerational family entertainment. Interact. Comput. 21(1), 76–87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M., Howard, S.: The magic box and collage: responding to the challenge of distributed intergenerational play. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 67(2), 165–178 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ermi, L., Mäyrä, F.: Player-centred game design: experiences in using scenario study to inform mobile game design. Game Stud. 5(1), 1–10 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., Stienstra, M.: Configuring the user as everybody: gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 29(1), 30–63 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akrich, M.: User representations: practices, methods and sociology. In: Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, pp. 167–184. Pinter, London (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T.: How Users Matter: the Co-construction of Users and Technology (Inside Technology). MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pearce, C.: The truth about baby boomer gamers a study of over-forty computer game players. Games Cult. 3(2), 142–174 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nap, H., Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W.: Senior gamers: preferences, motivations and needs. Gerontechnology 8(4), 247–262 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schultheiss, D.: Entertainment for retirement?: Silvergamers and the internet. Pub. Commun. Rev. 2(2), 62–71 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Osmanovic, S., Pecchioni, L.: Family matters: the role of intergenerational gameplay in successful aging. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9755, pp. 352–363. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39949-2_34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wen, J., Kow, Y.M., Chen, Y.: Online games and family ties: influences of social networking game on family relationship. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23765-2_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gajadhar, B.J., Nap, H., Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W.: Out of sight, out of mind: co-player effects on seniors’ player experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games, Fun and Games 2010, pp. 74–83. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chiong, C.: Can video games promote intergenerational play & literacy learning? In: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vanden Abeele, V., De Schutter, B.: Designing intergenerational play via enactive interaction, competition and acceleration. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 14(5), 425–433 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    IJsselsteijn, W.A., Nap H.H., de Kort, Y.A.W, et al.: Digital game design for elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, Toronto, ON, Canada, 14 November 2007, pp. 17–22 (2007). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1328206
  39. 39.
    Charness, N., Jastrzembki, T.S.: Gerontechnology. In: Saariluoma, P., Somäki, H. (eds.) Future Interaction Design II, pp. 1–30. Springer, London (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vasconcelos, A., Silva, P. A., Caseiro, J., Nunes, F., Teixeira, L.F.: Designing tablet-based games for seniors: the example of CogniPlay, a cognitive gaming platform. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fun and Games (FnG 2012), pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martínez, A.I.G., Morán, A.L., Gámez, E.H.C.: Towards a taxonomy of factors implicated in children-elderly interaction when using entertainment technology. In: Proceedings of the 4th Mexican Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2012, pp. 51–54. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ridley, D.: The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students. Sage, Los Angeles (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knudtzon, K., et al.: Starting an intergenerational technology design team: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 51–58. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van den Abeele, V., De Schutter, B.: Blast of the past: applying the P-III framework. Gerontology 13(2), 163 (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Al Mahmud, A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., Martens, J.B.: Designing social games for children and older adults: two related case studies. Entertain. Comput. 1(3), 147–156 (2010). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952110000066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Derboven, J., Van Gils, M., De Grooff, D.: Designing for collaboration: a study in intergenerational social game design. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 11(1), 57–65 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rice, M., Cheong, Y.L., Ng, J., Chua, P.H., Theng, Y.L.: Co-creating games through intergenerational design workshops. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 368–377. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xie, B., et al.: Connecting generations: developing co-design methods for older adults and children. Behav. Inf. Technol. 31(4), 413–423 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25(1), 54–67 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ryan, R.M., Rigby, C.S., Przybylski, A.: The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot. 30(4), 344–360 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ruggiero, T.E.: Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Commun. Soc. 3(1), 3–37 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sherry, J.L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B.S., Lachlan, K.: Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preferences. In: Vorderer, P., Bryant, J. (eds.) Playing Video Games - Motives, Responses, and Consequences, pp. 213–224. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    De Schutter, B.: Never too old to play: the appeal of digital games to an older audience. Games Cult. 6, 155–770 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Haddon, L.: Empirical studies using the domestication framework. In: Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., Ward, K. (eds.) Domestication of Media and Technologies, pp. 103–122. Open University Press, Maidenhead (2005)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    De Schutter, B., Brown, J.A., Van den Abeele, V.: The domestication of digital games in the lives of older adults. New Media Soc. 17(7), 1170–1186 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugène Loos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Teresa de la Hera
    • 2
  • Monique Simons
    • 3
  • Dorus Gevers
    • 4
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Maastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations