Player Expectations of Animal Incorporated Computer Games

  • Wim van EckEmail author
  • Maarten H. Lamers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 215)


Animal incorporated games were both hypothesized and shown to serve multiple desired objectives, among which improvement of animal welfare, strengthening pet-owner relations, and creating new experiences for human players. We study the expected player experience of animal incorporated games through the use of an extended survey (n = 177). Our results indicate that respondents expect (a) added unpredictability caused by animal-opponent behavior, (b) increased enjoyment when playing against animals, for a limited duration of time, and (c) that hypothetical exact simulation of animal behavior offers equally interesting opponent behavior. Furthermore, concerns of animal welfare significantly moderate the preference for computer-, exact simulated- or animal-opponents. These outcomes can be used to correct for aspects such as novelty bias, when measuring player experiences in animal incorporated type games.


Animal-Computer Interaction Computer games Animal welfare Player expectations 


  1. 1.
    Riedel-Kruse, I.H., Chung, A.M., Dura, B., Hamilton, A.L., Lee, B.C.: Design, engineering and utility of biotic games. Lab Chip 11(1), 14–22 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Purina Friskies: Games for Cats (2011).
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Geurtsen, A., Lamers, M.H., Schaaf, M.J.M.: Interactive digital gameplay can lower stress hormone levels in home alone dogs—a case for animal welfare informatics. In: Chorianopoulos, K., Divitini, M., Hauge, J.B., Jaccheri, L., Malaka, R. (eds.) ICEC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9353, pp. 238–251. Springer, Cham (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Eck, W., Lamers, M.H.: Animal controlled computer games: playing Pac-Man against real crickets. In: Harper, R., Rauterberg, M., Combetto, M. (eds.) ICEC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4161, pp. 31–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Eck, W., Lamers, M.H.: Biological content generation: evolving game terrains through living organisms. In: Johnson, C., Carballal, A., Correia, J. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2015. LNCS, vol. 9027, pp. 224–235. Springer, Cham (2015). Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fagen, R.: Animal Play Behaviour. Oxford University Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, P.K.: Play in Animals and Humans. Blackwell Pub, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mancini, C.: Animal-computer interaction: a manifesto. Interactions 18(4), 69–73 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noz, F., An, J.: Cat cat revolution: an interspecies gaming experience. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2661–2664 (2011).
  11. 11.
    Tan, R.T.K.C., Cheok, A.D., Peiris, R., Todorovic, V., Loi, H.C., Loh, C.W., Derek, T.B.S.: Metazoa ludens: mixed reality interactions and play for small pets and humans. Leonardo 41(3), 308–309 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westerlaken, M., Stefano G.: Felino: the philosophical practice of making an interspecies videogame. In: The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, pp. 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alfrink, K., van Peer, I., Lagerweij, H., Driessen, C., Bracke, M.: Playing with Pigs (2012).
  14. 14.
    Wirman, H.: Games for/with strangers-captive orangutan (pongo pygmaeus) touch screen play. Antennae 30, 105–115 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Extra Pop.: Games for dogs (2015).
  16. 16.
    Baskin, S., Zamansky, A., Kononova, V.: Exploring human perceptions of dog tablet playful interactions. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (2016).
  17. 17.
    Youtube: African Bull Frog ant crusher (2011).
  18. 18.
    Lee, S.A., Bumbacher, E., Chung, A.M., Cira, N., Walker, B., Park, J.Y., Starr, B., Blikstein, P., Riedel-Kruse, I.H.: Trap it!: a playful human-biology interaction for a museum installation. In: Proceedings of 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2015).
  19. 19.
    Youtube: Fish plays Pokemon: pallet town syndrome (2014).
  20. 20.
    Young, D.: Lumberjacked (2005).
  21. 21.
    Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., Groner, R.: Playing online games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(5), 2274–2291 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rouse, R.: Game Design: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Jones and Barlett Publishers, Sudbury (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mancini, C., Zamansky, A.: Charting unconquered territories: intelligent systems for animal welfare. In: 40th Annual Convention of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, pp. 181–182 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harvey, H., Havard, M., Magnus, D., Cho, M.K., Riedel-Kruse, I.H.: Innocent fun or ‘microslavery’. Hastings Cent. Rep. 44(6), 38–46 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media Technology Research Group, Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Royal Academy of ArtThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations