Advertisement

InterPlayces: Results of an Intergenerational Games Study

  • Michael Lankes
  • Jürgen Hagler
  • Fabiola Gattringer
  • Barbara Stiglbauer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10622)

Abstract

Our submission describes the conceptualization and the results of an intergenerational games study composed of various games held in the Welios Science Center. We aim to identify design criteria (game mechanics, goals, etc.) for intergenerational digital games with haptic elements in a museum context that are not only fun, but also foster the communication between old and young players. In order to reach our goal, we confronted players with several different commercially available games as well as a specifically developed game prototype. To address the physical context (museum) in our methods and our game design we also carried out observations of existing installations plus interviews with museum guides. Results show that cooperative intergenerational games in a museum should include haptic elements, consist of several phases, with the possibility of reruns and should not be too complex, both technically and conceptually.

Keywords

Intergenerational play Game design Cooperative play 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been funded by the project InterPlayces: Intergenerational Co-located Play for Old and Young (contract no. 850843), funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Chua, P.H., Jung, Y., Lwin, M.O., Theng, Y.L.: Let’s play together: effects of video-game play on intergenerational perceptions among youth and elderly participants. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(6), 2303–2311 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gajadhar, B.J., Nap, H.H., de Kort, Y.A.W., IJsselsteijn, W.A.: Out of sight, out of mind: co-player effects on seniors’ player experience. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games, Fun and Games 2010, pp. 74–83. ACM, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1823818.1823826
  3. 3.
    Hornecker, E., Stifter, M.: Learning from interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings. In: Proceedings of 18th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments. OZCHI 2006, pp. 135–142. ACM, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1228175.1228201
  4. 4.
    IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., Poels, K.: The game experience questionnaire (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ijsselsteijn, W., Nap, H.H., de Kort, Y., Poels, K.: Digital game design for elderly users. In: Proceedings of 2007 Conference on Future Play, Future Play 2007, pp. 17–22. ACM, New York (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1328202.1328206
  6. 6.
    Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P.: Investigating computer game immersion and the component real world dissociation. In: CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2009, pp. 3407–3412. ACM, New York (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520494
  7. 7.
    Khoo, E.T., Merritt, T., Cheok, A.D.: Designing physical and social intergenerational family entertainment. Interacting with Computers 21(12), 76–87 (2009). special issue: Enactive Interfaces Physicality & Interaction. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953543808000702
  8. 8.
    Kooiman, B.J., Sheehan, D.P.: Intergenerational remote exergaming with family and friends for health and leisure. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 12(4), 413–424 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014.962442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loos, E.: Designing meaningful intergenerational digital games. In: International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design, pp. 46–51 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahmud, A.A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., Martens, J.B.: Designing social games for children and older adults: two related case studies. Entertain. Comput. 1(3–4), 147–156 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markopoulos, P., Read, J.C., MacFarlane, S., Hoysniemi, J.: Evaluating Children’s Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osmanovic, S., Pecchioni, L.: Beyond entertainment. Games Cult. 11(1–2), 130–149 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015602819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Read, J.C., MacFarlane, S.: Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In: Proceedings of 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC 2006, pp. 81–88. ACM, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1139073.1139096
  14. 14.
    Rice, M., Tan, W.P., Ong, J., Yau, L.J., Wan, M., Ng, J.: The dynamics of younger and older adult’s paired behavior when playing an interactive silhouette game. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 1081–1090. ACM, New York (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466138
  15. 15.
    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., Koestner, R.: Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(4), 736–750 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schutter, B.D.: Never too old to play: the appeal of digital games to an older audience. Games Cult. 6(2), 155–170 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412010364978 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanden Abeele, V., Schutter, B.: Designing intergenerational play via enactive interaction, competition and acceleration. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 14(5), 425–433 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0262-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanden Abeele, V.A., Van Rompaey, V.: Introducing human-centered research to game design: designing game concepts for and with senior citizens. In: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2006, pp. 1469–1474. ACM, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125721
  20. 20.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Voida, A., Greenberg, S.: Console gaming across generations: exploring intergenerational interactions in collocated console gaming. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 11(1), 45–56 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0232-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Lankes
    • 1
  • Jürgen Hagler
    • 1
  • Fabiola Gattringer
    • 2
  • Barbara Stiglbauer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Digital MediaUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper AustriaHagenbergAustria
  2. 2.Department of Education and PsychologyJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations