Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Entertainment Computing

journal homepage: ees .e lsevier .com/entcom

Designing social games for children and older adults: Two related case studies

Abdullah Al Mahmud a, Omar Mubin a,⇑, Suleman Shahid b, Jean-Bernard Martens a

a Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlandsb Tilburg Centre for Creative Computing, Department of Information and Communication Sciences, University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 January 2010Revised 7 September 2010Accepted 7 September 2010

Keywords:Social gameTangible playChildrenOlder adultsTabletop systemIntergenerational game design

1875-9521/$ - see front matter � 2010 Internationaldoi:10.1016/j.entcom.2010.09.001

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: a.al-mahmud@tue.nl (A. Al Mahmu

s.shahid@uvt.nl (S. Shahid), j.b.o.s.martens@tue.nl (J.-B. M

a b s t r a c t

Augmented games, aim at promoting social interaction between participating players, as this is consid-ered a major characteristic of any good multi-player game. In this paper, we discuss two related casestudies where we investigated various options for enhancing the gaming experience through augmentedtabletop games for children and older adults. Later on we also executed an intergenerational case study toinform intergenerational game design where children and elderly played together. Our findings indicatethat the use of tangible play in combination with a guessing element in a tabletop game does indeed facil-itate social interaction and adds to the aspect of fun. Our results also indicate that senior citizens foundthe electronic tabletop version of the game to be more immersive and absorbing, as compared to a staticpaper version. Analyzing the non-verbal behavior of both older adults and children, it was concluded thatplayers were socially more engaged with their opponents than with their team members. This effect wasmore pronounced in the case of children. We also discuss some implications for social game design thatcan be deduced from the qualitative feedback provided by our participants.

� 2010 International Federation for Information Processing All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [2,18]. Most existing applications are however targeted towards

Augmented tabletop technology can be applied to multi-playergaming since it allows combining traditional board games withcomputing technology. It is a way of offering richer gaming expe-riences that are well-established in the realm of computing tech-nology [16], and presenting them in a context that is moresocially binding, as is for instance evidenced by the popularity oftraditional board games. Tabletop games provide co-located, col-laborative and face-to-face interaction, while the tangible interac-tion elements that are often part of such an environment providean enjoyable user experience because it is based on natural inter-action. It is our position that, the static nature of conventionaltabletop games limits the scope of realizable games [15], so thatfurther extensions of the augmented tabletop concept are worthexploring. Currently more focus is given to investigate the designof social games such as mentioned in [2,27] while focusing onthe particular design principles [6] for children.

2. Related research

2.1. Games for children

The potential of tabletop gaming has been well substantiatedwithin several research prototypes [26] and especially for children

Federation for Information Process

d), o.mubin@tue.nl (O. Mubin),artens).

adult (experienced) players. In order to better illustrate the poten-tial impact of augmented tabletop gaming, and in order to improveaccessibility for a broader audience, more applications that appealto non-expert users, such as children, are required. There are somerecent examples of tabletop applications for children within re-search prototypes such as READ-It [26] or SIDES [17]. The READ-Itgame was created to enhance the development of reading skills of5–7-year-old children. The SIDES tool was designed to provide so-cial group therapy for adolescents having Asperger’s syndrome. Itis evident that most tabletop games have been built either for edu-cational purposes or for social skills development within specialgroups of children. We know of relatively little work in the areaof tabletop gaming for children, solely for the purpose of entertain-ment and fun. Therefore, we feel that there is an uncharted poten-tial for utilizing tabletop technology within such a context sincechildren are more positive towards technology [11].

2.2. Games for older adults

Gaming is widely experienced as a means for social interactionand enjoyment, and playing games can help to improve the qualityof life, especially for the older adults who have ample leisure time.They seem to be less inclined towards computer games than youn-ger people are. Some contributing factors to this difference areobviously that they are less familiar with the games being offeredand more afraid of the complexity involved in installing and play-ing the games [29]. Another factor may however be that existingcomputer games simply deviate too much from the games that

ing All rights reserved.

148 A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

are familiar to the older adults, and that current games insuffi-ciently take into account their real needs (or wishes) [7]. Thereare hardly any examples of computer games that were especiallydeveloped for the older adults, one being a video game used fortherapy, i.e., to help improve social and educational skills (see [9]for a detailed treatment). Though there are many games availabletoday for children and adults, not much attention has been devotedup to now to games for senior citizens, especially not in the area ofaugmented tabletop gaming. One notable exception is ‘SharePic’,an application aimed at older adults for sharing digital photo-graphs [3]. Examples of tangible tabletop games not aimed at olderadults users are Weathergods [4] and Tankwar [21].

2.3. Intergenerational games

Over the years a new trend in games has emerged which isknown as intergenerational games, which involves game play be-tween children and the older adults (parents, grandparents, etc.).Intergenerational games are known to enhance social bonding be-tween children and the older adults and provide a gateway to over-come and breach social distances. Some games are designedspecifically for either the children or the older adults but somegames are inherently playable by any user group, for example sim-ple low-tech games such as Ludo and Snakes and Ladders. Exam-ples of hi-tech intergenerational games in literature are, forexample the Magic Box and Collage [30], which aims to improveintergenerational relationships. However, one of the bigger chal-lenges while designing intergenerational games is to be aware ofthe fact that both user groups have distinct gaming and userrequirements directly influenced by their age. In [30], there wasno customizability involved in the game and there was no colloca-tion or physical presence of the user groups. We try to understandthe gaming requirements of the children and the older adults in asituation where they are socially connected physically and con-template over the opportunities of providing customizability tothem. Other examples of intergenerational games include AgeInvaders [12] that is a mixed reality interaction platform whereolder adults and children are physically active while playing agame.

2.4. Tangibility and social interaction

Although pc-based games have obvious (functional) merits,they also have (social and usability) deficits that may influenceend-user acceptance. For instance, PC games do not allow for per-sonal face-to-face contact, an aspect that is crucial in traditionalgames. The complexity of the interfaces to many existing computergames may also create a threshold for their widespread accep-tance. Especially older adults are likely to be more sensitive thanmost to such aspects, so that they might also profit more fromalternative approaches such as tangible interaction, on augmentedtabletop surfaces. Increasingly, researchers are now focusing ondesigning social games, for example in [20], where several playerscan be involved in a co-located and collaborative way. For a de-tailed review on tabletop games for social aspects please see[19]. Augmented tabletop gaming is one possible approach toallowing more players to participate and enjoy the flavor of tradi-tional board games in a new setting. Combining board games withthe rich media that are typically used within computer games, suchas audio and computer graphics, allows to create new experiences.The game environment can also be made more challenging andmore engaging by adapting dynamically to the game situation.Tangible interaction is a strong point of traditional board gamesand it helps to provide an enjoyable user experience for players.It can be incorporated in tabletop games by augmenting physicalgame elements with digital functionality.

2.5. Research motivation

We designed and implemented a tabletop game for older adultsand children, having almost identical game rules and similar gameplay. However, the theme of the game was tailored for both usergroups, details of which will be revealed in the subsequent sec-tions. Game interaction was kept consistent for both game types.

The prototype that we built has contributions towards socialgame design for older adults and children. We aimed to explorewhat are the different trends in social interaction between thetwo user groups of children and older adults. Secondly, we alsowished to ascertain if social interaction can be enhanced withthe opportunities afforded by a digital tabletop game. Thirdly, wewanted to determine if and how the user game experience variesacross user groups and game types. Lastly, we attempted to moti-vate intergenerational games by first analyzing individual gameplay trends of the two user groups and consequently reflectingon the prospects of intergenerational game design by taking intoaccount the interests of both user groups. Since we used the samegame customized for both user groups we had already moved astep towards employing the use of an intergenerational game.For an intergenerational game to be enjoyed by both main usergroups the role of customizability is very important to be under-stood and this was another reason why we evaluated the gameacross both user groups separately.

Broadly, results from our study also reveal that guessing behav-ior enhances fun and social interaction in collaborative tabletopgame play. The study provides evidence for the fact that the con-text and game rules within a tabletop environment lead to a moreabsorbing gaming experience.

First, we will discuss case study I where we will explain thegame design process that was adopted for children and we also re-port on the evaluation of the game. Next, we will explain casestudy II where a similar game was designed for the older adultsby adapting the rules from the children’s version of the game. Thisadaptation was based on the lessons learned with a field enquiry.An attempt was also made to compare paper and digital versionsof the game using both qualitative and quantitative methods (suchas the Game Experience Questionnaire [10]). Finally, we presentthe analysis of the non-verbal behavior by analyzing video record-ings of the game play sessions for both groups. Finally, we provideimplications for social game design. The major lessons learnedfrom developing and evaluating the game will be explained atthe end in conjunction with possible directions for future work.

3. Case study I

The goal of the reported study was to explore novel ways ofdesigning social games for children for true entertainment pur-poses, based on the technical options afforded by augmented table-top technology. The ambition was to create a more engaging andsocial gaming experience. Early on in the study, it was suggestedthat social interaction and fun could possibly be promoted by usingguessing behavior. From the start, the target users in our designwere children aged between 7 and 11 years old. The children atthis stage start structured learning; they are able to understandrules and engage in structured game play [31].

3.1. Game design process

The game concept emerged after several user studies with chil-dren [24]. Next to the game rules, the role of guessing had to bedeveloped in depth. We are of the opinion that guessing can poten-tially add tension and animosity to a game and seems to be widelyappreciated as an aspect of games. The rules of the game were

A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156 149

drawn up in a participatory manner, which meant that feedbackand suggestions from the children guided the design choices. Thegame rules also needed to be outlined in such a manner that anappropriate level of difficulty was maintained throughout thegame.

As the starting point in understanding the games that childrenplay we visited several schools in our locality as part of field obser-vations. We concentrated on games that were played in indoors bythe children. The formal design process started with a sequence ofsessions that aimed at establishing the key aspects that we wantedto incorporate into our tabletop game. This was done by slightlyaltering the rules of traditional and common games such as Ludo,Liar’s Dice [14], Pacman 3D and Snakes and Ladders. These gameswere played with a total of four children (between 7 and 11 years),who lived in our neighborhood. Various insights were gained inthis initial phase that further led to new conceptual designs whichwere subsequently evaluated with the children via a peer tutoringstrategy [8]. The concepts were extensions of the games that wehad tested earlier. They included Ludo supplemented with a guess-ing aspect.

An intermediate game concept, called Pachisi, was composed bysynthesizing several elements that the children enjoyed in existinggames. A brief evaluation session was conducted with the samefour children as in the previous design stage. The test revealed thatthe game board in Pachisi was perceived as too linear by the chil-dren and they expressed a desire for an overall greater challenge inthe game board path. Therefore, a new game concept called aMazewas developed that included pictures of various mazes and laby-rinths. The aMaze game concept was tested against Pachisi beforesettling on the final game concept SaP: Save aMazed Princess. Thenew game SaP included the game rules from Pachisi, comprising ofthe aspect of guessing, but inspired by the aMaze game, the gameboard was more challenging in order to incite puzzle solving skillsin the children.

3.2. SaP game rules

The game rules of the SaP game are intended to encourage indi-vidual effort and involvement as well as teamwork amongst mem-bers. The game is played with four players, using two dice. Eachteam is divided into two players; with teammates sitting oppositeeach other (see Fig. 1, where player 1 and player 3 constitute oneteam).

Movement of a player’s token on the game board is enabled bythrowing one dice. Player 1 starts the game with the first throw ofthe dice. He or she hides the dice during the throw. The opponentplayer that is the next in line (player 2, in case player 1 has thrownthe dice) is given the option of guessing the opponent’s throw. Ifthe guess is correct, a penalty is inflicted. As a rule, the penalty is

Fig. 1. The VIP platform, the game

to retreat the player’s token back five positions (the last fivesquares in the path followed up till then, as there is no orientationdue to the game board being a maze). If this is not possible (forexample, the throw is only the second throw and the player hasnot advanced far enough yet), then the penalty is to move theplayer back to the starting position. If the guess is incorrect, theplayer in question can take the number of steps based on the num-ber on the dice.

The game is structured as a story, having stages (or chapters).The rules of the complete game are as follows. In the first stageof the game, each player has to cross an iconic resource on themaze board (for example, for the first team, player 1 needs to finda river, while player 3 needs to find a mountain). The dice throwingannex process discussed above is used to move across the board.Once a player has crossed the relevant resource, he/she can registerthis with the system by activating a designated menu button onthe game board. To create a degree of uncertainty and surprise,the game board supports hidden resources; they are only revealedhalfway through the game.

In the second stage of the game, both players in a team are gi-ven a common target resource (a palace). This means that bothplayers from a team have to meet somewhere on the maze andcoexist, after which they can cross the resource target (the palace).The aim of the last stage in the game is to find a princess, in a man-ner similar to finding the palace. The first team to find the princessis declared the winner. Needless to say that the resources in a par-ticular stage of the game are only displayed on the game boardafter the previous stage has been successfully conquered. The flex-ible way of controlling resources and changing the layout of thegame board (to another maze in every round) were made possibleby the fact that the game was implemented as a virtual tabletopgame.

3.3. Game implementation

The prototype was implemented on the Build-It [23] hardwareplatform, using the Visual Interaction Platform (VIP) software [1](see Fig. 1). The setup consists of several artifacts: a data projector,a table supplemented with several tangible checkers (used to rep-resent player’s tokens, and for accessing the game functions). Thetracking system is provided by the VIP platform. Existing softwarelibraries (implemented in C++) that offer vision-based tracking in2D are incorporated into our application. The game engine wasvisualized in OpenGL (see: http://www.opengl.org) and C++, anddeveloped using Visual Studio.NET IDE. Animated 2D/3D soundswere implemented using OpenAL (see http://www.openal.org/).For each game session a new random maze was generated. Gamechallenges were introduced by incorporating dynamic behaviorof the maze. Resources would pop up based on the presence of a

board and team composition.

150 A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

checker on top of them, so resources would stay hidden till then.Images and icons in the game were simple bitmap images designedexternally in Macromedia Fireworks and texture mapped inOpenGL. The images and icons were primarily comical depictionsor caricatures. These images were attached to menu buttons andresource pictures. Each player had a personal interface that wasrendered into his or her corner of the maze/tabletop for reportingthe retrieval of a physical resource (‘‘Team A or B found Resource”).

3.4. Prototype evaluation

The final step in the design process was a twofold evaluation ofthe implemented prototype alongside a low-fi paper version of thesame game. The game was evaluated with 8 children (4 male, 4 fe-male) aged 7–11 years old within two separate videotaped ses-sions (see Fig. 2). All children played both versions of the gameonce. These children were recruited from a local internationalschool who had not participated in the design process so far. Eachsession lasted for 30 min and the teams of children were formedrandomly. All the children were acquainted with their teammatesand opponents before the study and none of them had prior expe-rience in tabletop gaming. Teams were formed randomly by play-ing a simple game, where the children had to match different partsof a motif picture. Each child in the sessions was given a gameboard as a gift for their participation.

We aimed to evaluate the impact of the add-ons to tabletopgaming. The key issues were as follows. Does the game enhance so-cial communication and social bonding, across and within teams?Is the game of entertainment value for the children? How does theadd-on of technology contribute to the overall game experience?

To minimize the risk of technical problems, such as with thecalibration of the tracking system, we tested the game in the samelaboratory where the prototype was developed. The evaluation ses-sion had several parts: training on how to play the game, a freeplay session, followed by group and individual interviews withcard sorting. One of the experimenters explained how to play thegame, the rules and interaction with the game board with respectto the tangible tile and activating the various menu buttons on thegame board. The others were video recording, observing and notestaking.

3.5. Results and discussion

We report our analysis based on observations, interviews andvideos recorded from both sessions of digital and paper version.

3.5.1. Technology enhances the game play experience of childrenOverall, the gaming experience was fascinating for the children

and they appreciated the visualization of the game. Their fascina-tion with the digital version of the game was evident when one

Fig. 2. Snapshots from

child commented: ‘‘The game came from the sky” (referring tothe projection) and another stated: ‘‘Can I play this game (tabletopversion) on my computer?” Moreover, the digital version of thetabletop game afforded dynamic changes to the game board whichmeant that it was much more enjoyable than the static maze ver-sion of the paper game. Therefore, a positive aspect of the entiregame play process was the uncertainty. Suspense was renderedvia various factors such as uncertainty of the appearance of re-sources on the game board.

3.5.2. Role of technology in social interactionDuring the interviews, children appreciated the game and,

interestingly, immediately recognized that it was a combinationof technology and other real world artifacts on the game board,such as checkers. One child stated: ‘‘This game is different fromothers, because you not only use the computer; you also use otherobjects (referring to the table and the checkers)”. The children en-joyed guessing the number on the dice and the dynamic changes tothe maze on the game board meant that all players remained cau-tious about each other’s next move. Social interaction occurred inthe form of cooperation and competition within and between theteams, respectively. From our observation, it was determined thatthe children supported each other as a team while searching for re-sources, finding the shortest way to reach a newly displayed target,etc.

The digital game board as compared to the paper game versionwas ranked as the most preferred game medium by 7 out of the 8children. Furthermore, all seven children showed strong urge tocontinue playing the tabletop game after the evaluation session.They also wished to buy such a game so that they could play withtheir friends, as was evident by one quote: ‘‘Where can I buy thisgame?”

From the evaluation results, it is clear that guessing game playwas experienced as fun, and that it enhanced the social interactionbetween players. While turn taking inherent in various boardgames can be boring as players have to wait for their turn, thiswas not the case in this game, where players were engaged evenwhen it was not their own turn.

No major usability issues were observed in the game interactionexcept that the children had to learn how to place the gaming tileon the game board accurately such that the system would accu-rately recognize its location. The children did not report any orien-tation problems, probably due to the fact that the game board wasdesigned keeping in mind collocated tabletop design guidelines[25]. Even though team formation was carried out as a randomprocess, yet the children expressed no reservations in playing withany of the other children involved.

Initially we aimed to apply the Game Experience Questionnaire(GEQ) [10] to quantify the gaming experience of children acrossboth sessions of the paper and digital game. However, we decided

the play session.

A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156 151

to rely more on qualitative impressions. This decision was as a re-sult of the wording of the questionnaire which was deemed to benot fully understandable by the children.

4. Case study II

The older adults have their own gaming needs in reference totheir age related requirements [9]. We wished to exploit a tabletopenvironment in this context. Additionally, rather than designing acompletely new game, we concentrated on augmenting a familiargame. This seems like the most straightforward way of establishingwhether or not older adults people could be interested in computergames. Therefore we aimed to explore how the SaP game designedfor children could be adapted for the older adults and whether theycould also be engaged in game play and what commonalities anddifferences could be found between the two groups.

4.1. Game design process: field study

In order to understand the target user group and the differentkinds of games they play we visited a local community center forthe older adults. A community center is a club-like gatheringwhere people visit to socialize. We conducted two observation ses-sions, lasting one hour each. We observed which games the olderadults played and how they behaved during game play. We noticedthat all of them were playing low-tech games such as card games(e.g., bank, poker), guessing games and memory games. The menalso played billiards. The majority of the games played by the olderadults had simple and uncomplicated rules. Most people alsomoved between groups of different people as they played differentgames. Another significant observation was that most of the activ-ities of the older adults, game playing and otherwise, revolvedaround tables.

To develop a deeper understanding of our target users, we con-ducted individual interview sessions with three voluntary seniorcitizens (2 male and 1 female, above 65 years old). The users thatwe interviewed did use the computer occasionally but they didnot play card games on the computer, rather they preferred to playthose games in the community center where they could socialize.One of the interview sessions was carried out at our laboratoryand the other two at the home of the participants. From the inter-views, we concluded that card games such as Black Jack are themost popular. Co-players in such games would usually be their co-horts, friends, peers, family members or sometimes even theirgrandchildren. They informed us that their game playing activitywas most of the time social in nature. The older adults expressedthat they did not like playing card games for money and tendedto avoid gambling. This led us to ascertain that the primary moti-vation of the older adults for playing games was to attain leisureand fun, and to widen and maintain their social network.

4.2. Game rules

The game rules were purposely designed to be simple, intuitiveand exciting for the senior citizens. From our field studies, it wasconcluded that cards were a popular and frequently used game ele-ment. Moreover, senior citizens would often play guessing games.Combining both elements we formulated the rules for our newboard game, where guessing cards was one of the maincharacteristics.

We first constructed a (static) paper prototype of our game.Starting from this paper-based version of the game we also imple-mented a digital and dynamic version on a tabletop. The differ-ences between both versions of the game will be described afterwe have explained the game rules. The tabletop version of the

game was built using the same technology as the SaP game forchildren.

The game rules were more or less the same as in the SaP gamefor children. At the start of the game, each player occupies a cornerof the board on which a city map with a rectangular grid is pro-jected (in our case: the city of Amsterdam). The main objectiveof the game is to move individual checkers around on the gameboard, using the numeric value on a drawn card to decide howmany squares on the grid to advance. This means that a player can-not move forward if a King, Queen or Jack is drawn. The purpose ofthe game is that players find their way across the city map. Playersare instructed to cross three famous monuments in a specific orderthat is specified beforehand. The first monument is different foreach individual player, the second monument is the same for thetwo players within a team and the third and final destination isidentical for all players. Players are placed in a team in the samemanner as the children were in SaP. Each player is provided withone quarter of a deck of playing cards. A turn constitutes a playerpicking a card from his individual deck, and the next player (fromthe opposite team) guessing the suit of the card. Player 1 is the firstto draw a card. After his opponent has made his guess, the card isrevealed to all. Depending on whether or not the opponent guessescorrectly, the player whose turn it is can move his individualchecker according to the numerical value on the card. If the oppo-nent makes a correct guess then the opponent can make the moveand not player 1. A player can successfully cross the second andthird monument only after his/her team member has reached thesame monument. In such case, a player must wait for his/her part-ner, but the partner who is behind can use the numerical value onthe card of his teammate to speed up his advance. The team forwhich both players reach the final monument first is declaredthe winning team. The tracking technology was identical to theone used in the SaP game for children, allowing for hidden monu-ments and registering of crossed monuments by interaction with agame tile on the game board.

4.3. Game experience evaluation

The game was evaluated with eight voluntary participants, 5males and 3 females, aged 65–73 (see Fig. 3). The two separate ses-sions were videotaped. The evaluation was conducted in our labo-ratory, since the augmented tabletop system could not easily bemoved. Prior to participating, each player signed a consent form.The goal of the evaluation was to measure the game experienceof the older adults players. The validated Game ExperienceQuestionnaire (GEQ) [10] was used for this purpose. The question-naire comprises 34 items that need to be rated on a 5-point Likertscale. The items are categorized and averaged into seven subjectiveattributes, which are: Competence, Immersion, Flow, Annoyance,Challenge, Negative Affect and Positive Affect. The evaluationwas carried out in two phases. The participants first played eitherthe paper or the tabletop version of the game. The order of playingeither version of the game was balanced across the two sessions.The first phase ended when one of the teams won the game, afterwhich all participants were asked to individually fill in the GameExperience Questionnaire (GEQ). After filling in the questionnairethey were interviewed by the researchers. The participants subse-quently played the alternative version of the game, followed by fill-ing in the GEQ questionnaire and being interviewed for the secondtime. The session was concluded by a short qualitative interviewsession.

4.4. Results and discussion

Observation notes, video recordings and data extracted fromthe GEQ questionnaire were analyzed. With respect to the seven

Fig. 3. Snapshot from the play sessions (tabletop version).

152 A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

components of the GEQ mentioned earlier, differences were ob-served in the ratings of Immersion and Flow. However, cautionmust be exercised while interpreting our results as the subject poolwas rather small.

All but one participant rated the tabletop version of our game asbeing more immersive than the paper version (see Table 1).Immersion can be defined as the extent of involvement in a game[5]. One player phrased this as follows in the qualitative interview:‘‘This game (tabletop version of the game) connects me more withitself and I feel I am more into the game”.

Flow was unanimously rated as being higher in the tabletopversion of our game (see Table 1). Flow can be informally definedas an optimal state of enjoyment where players are completely ab-sorbed in the game playing activity, as a balance is achieved be-tween challenge and skill [28]. Similar results were mirrored inour observations and in the qualitative remarks of the players. Aparticipant stated: ‘‘The colorful light and music adds a lot to thegame (tabletop version) and I enjoy playing it more” and ‘‘In thisgame, things seem to be moving and changing, which is exciting”.Considering that the tabletop version of the game was dynamicand animated in nature, the fact that it was rated as having moreflow than the paper board game should come as no surprise. For in-stance, the digital tabletop game afforded music, sounds, tangibleinteraction, hidden monuments, uncertainty, etc.; all aspects,which led to the game being perceived as more dynamic. A partic-ipant was quick to point out: ‘‘It (tabletop version) was more chal-lenging because there were more targets (hidden monuments)hence my paths became longer and tricky”.

Overall, the game was well received and appreciated, and thegame rules were easily understood. Social interaction was clearlystimulated, as players not only interacted with their team mem-bers but also with their opponents. At times, players would ap-plaud or congratulate their co-players. They assisted their teammembers in counting and moving their checkers and would keepa watchful eye on their opponents’ every move. From the evalua-tion, guessing was ascertained to be a key element of any engaginggame for the older adults (the same result was observed in the ear-lier described case study for children). During the interview sessionone participant mentioned: ‘‘Guessing was good, it seems we areplaying two games at the same time: guessing and moving aroundand finding things on the map”. Guessing featured regularly as one

Table 1Mean and standard deviation values for flow and immersion.

Variables Mean Std. dev.

Immersion tabletop version 2.08 0.58Immersion paper version 1.67 0.60Flow tabletop version 1.85 0.81Flow paper version 1.40 0.69

of the most popular elements of the game when participants wereasked to rank game elements.

In compliance with the results from our initial field inquiry, theuse of cards was widely appreciated by all players. Therefore to de-sign a more engaging game for the older adults, it is advisable toincorporate cards as part of the game playing process. This rendersthe rules easier to follow. One quote from a participant substanti-ates this finding: ‘‘There are more choices in cards. We can seecards, shuffle them, rearrange them and then ask the opponentto guess”.

In terms of game customization, the older adults remarked thatflexibility of any game and its rules is very important. For example,if there are not enough players to complete the game, the gameshould still be playable. Similarly, the older adults wanted to mod-ify the rule that player 1 would always start the game. They sug-gested having an extra card guessing round before the gamewould commence in order to determine who will have the firstturn.

Generally all players expressed a strong liking for tabletopgames. From the two sessions it was concluded that multimediais an integral component of tabletop games, as participants high-lighted the absence of music, feedback sound and movement inthe paper-based version of our game. The participants did not re-port any interaction problems while using the tangible tile for reg-istering their capture of a resource.

In this case study, we have compared both digital and static ver-sion of a tabletop game with the older adults. The former was gen-erally rated to be as more immersive and engaging by theparticipants. In addition, our study reveals two important findings.Firstly, the game playing experience of the older adults can be en-hanced by digital tabletop games, as technology is latent in themand hence dynamic game behavior can be incorporated, leadingto easy interaction. Secondly, multimedia such as animations (bothvisual and audio) that adapts to game situation plays an importantrole when designing an engaging and enjoyable tabletop game forthe older adults.

5. Analyzing non-verbal behavior: children vs. older adults

In order to fully understand social interaction trends in ourgame evaluation sessions we decided to analyze the non-verbalbehavior of both children and older adults participants in the table-top version of our game. Some researchers have also utilized verbalbehaviors (albeit over two discrete levels) to identify socialengagement in game play [13], however their results generatedfrom both verbal and non-verbal behavior analysis show similartrends. Moreover, our game design was such that it would havebeen difficult to realize the exact target of verbal behavior sincewe had multiple players (four in one game session) and playerswere socially involved with both team members and opponents.

Fig. 4. Looking at behavior: mean of duration.

A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156 153

Therefore, we concentrated on analyzing non-verbal behaviorsonly to understand social interaction.

Therefore, in order to fully ascertain and understand gamebehavior of both the children and older adults we compared thenon-verbal response of the two groups of participants. The objec-tive was to identify and discover commonalities and differencesof both sets of players, for example with regards to social interac-tion trends and game involvement. Such an analysis had the abilityto also highlight game experience trends and game design implica-tions which could not be discovered by other subjective or qualita-tive means. We analyzed the tabletop game sessions offline afterthe completion of the experiments. In total, we had four gameplaying sessions (two for older adults and two for children). Thefirst author was responsible for the video coding of the sessions.

Video recordings of all the sessions were analyzed to in terms ofour dependent variables. Video measurements were performed toidentify specific looking at behavior: how long participants lookedat either of their opponents during the experiment (LookAtOppo-nentDuration), at their team member (LookAtTeamMemberDura-tion), at the game board (LookAtGameBoardDuration), oranywhere else (LookAtOtherDuration); four mutually exclusivestates. Note that we did not differentiate between the two oppo-nents. Moreover the LookAtOther variable was provided for situa-tions when the players were not engaged in game play or wouldlook elsewhere away from the gaming context. There was also ameasurement InvalidGameState when the face of a player wasnot clearly visible in the video.

We also analyzed the frequency of occurrence for each of thethree events (LookAtOpponentFrequency, LookAtTeamMember-Frequency, LookAtGameBoardFrequency). The video recordingswere coded by a single observer with the aid of Noldus Observer[22]. Every video was coded four times for each participant, in totalrendering 16 participants (8 older adults and 8 children). In orderto maintain consistency, all game sessions were coded from thestart till exactly 8 min. The game sessions lasted on average formore than 10 min.

Initially we performed a between subjects Analysis of Variance(ANOVA), where the type of user (older adults, children) was theindependent variable. A significant effect was found for the fre-quency of looking at a team member and the duration of lookingat the opponent was close to significance. See Table 2 for the rele-vant F and p values.

We performed a within subjects ANOVA to ascertain the lookingat behavior. It was revealed that duration of looking at the oppo-nent was significantly more than looking at the team memberF(2, 28) = 206.5, p < 0.001. Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the mean valuesfor each of the dependent variables. These figures do not show datafor the LookAtOther variable, because we believe that it was not ofstatistical interest.

A comparison of non-verbal behavior was not carried out be-tween the paper and electronic versions of the game for the olderadults because both of them did not last for the same time due tothe tabletop version involving extra interaction using the tangible

Table 2F and p values of the first ANOVA.

Variables F(1, 14) pp

LookAtOpponentDuration 3.64 0.07LookAtTeamMemberDuration 1.73 0.21LookAtGameboardDuration 0.02 0.89LookAtOpponentFrequency 1.27 0.28LookAtTeamMemberFrequency 4.99 0.04LookAtGameboardFrequency 0.08 0.78LookAtOtherDuration 0.03 0.88LookAtOtherFrequency 1.57 0.23

tile. However, we have already presented a comparison of the twoversions based on the GEQ questionnaire.

6. Intergenerational case study: children and elderly playtogether

In order to fully identify design guidelines for intergenerationalgames, we have conducted an intergenerational case study in thesame laboratory where we conducted our previous two case stud-ies. Our objective was to evaluate the game experience of childrenand elderly while they play together. Therefore, in this study twogame play sessions were executed where two children and twoelderly played both the child and elderly version of SaP (only the

Fig. 5. Looking at behavior: mean of frequency.

154 A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

digital versions). The rules of both versions of the game were iden-tical to the previous two case studies. We evaluated their gameplay experience by means of qualitative analysis. Two participantswere female children of 7 and 8 years old and the elderly weremales between 65 and 70 years old. One of the elderly was thegrandfather of the two children. The other elderly participantwas living separately but his grandchildren would visit him nowand then. They had previous experience of playing board and com-puter games. Their participation was voluntary and they were re-cruited via email. Participants were firstly introduced to theresearch team and to the game and tabletop environment. The par-ticipants played the children version of the SaP game first followedby the elderly version of the SaP game (see Fig. 6). Prior to playingeach game the rules were explained. At the end of each game, indi-vidual and group interviews were conducted where to tried todetermine the game preferences of each user group and whetherthey liked to play with each other (children playing with elderly)or only with similar age groups. We also inquired about their likesand dislikes in terms of the specific game elements, for example dothey like playing with cards or with dice. We also videotaped thegame and interview sessions for further analysis and took observa-tion notes.

We summarize our main results from the intergenerational casestudy.

Generally, both game sessions were enjoyed by both usergroups. Rules were well understood and there were no barriersin the game play. The children were much more enthusiastic abouttheir own version of SaP. They did not appreciate the elderly ver-sion of SaP to that extent. This can be because of the specific childtheme that was adopted for the SaP game (fairy tale story, princess,etc.). The princess element was their favorite component of thegame. In contrast the elderly were much more flexible and openas they enjoyed both versions of the game almost equally. How-ever, their version of the game where cards were incorporatedrather than dice, was much more enjoyable for them. One of the el-derly players stated: ‘‘I am playing with cards for last 30 years;with cards I can have a lot more fun”. This verified our previousfinding that we observed when we conducted case study II, wherethe elderly appreciated that the cards were incorporated into dig-ital gameplay. However, the children did not have any clear opin-ion between cards and dice and if they preferred any one morethan the other. As with our previous two case studies the guessingelement was positively acclaimed by both user groups.

The elderly were much more diplomatic about their preferencesregarding whom they want to play with. For example, they ex-pressed that they would not mind playing with their grand chil-dren as this is also some kind of a social obligation. For example,one elderly player stated: ‘‘If my grandchildren visit me, it is notnice if I am watching TV rather I should be spending time with

Fig. 6. Intergenerational game play sessions (both SaP gam

them and playing games” and ‘‘I like playing memory games withmy grandchildren as they are equally good for both”. Nevertheless,the elderly still prefer playing with their peers and colleagues, asthey do that often and regularly. The children stated that theywould like playing with their friends the most but they acceptedplaying with elderly as long as the theme is tailored to theirwishes. One of the children stated: ‘‘Can you bring my friendnow, so that I can play with her?”

7. Design implications and recommendations

Upon completing the analysis of both verbal and non-verbalbehavior across both user groups, we present key findings in termsof commonalities and differences which can be incorporated as de-sign implications for future games.

Firstly, an important and fairly evident commonality was ob-served and reported trends in social interaction. Both children andthe older adults were socially engaged in the game. There was afair degree of communication amongst team members as well aswith opponents. This was promoted by the adoption of guessingas an integral part of the game, which was enjoyed by both olderadults and children. This leads us to conclude that the rules ofany game influence the level of social involvement of its players.Social Interaction is deeply related with game rules and playersare expected to interact as much as the rules allow for. Thereforewhile designing social games, elements within game rules mustbe designed with scrutiny which can maximize social interactionof all players. Examples of such elements could be guessing, uncer-tainty of the game situation, incorporating both cooperation andcompetition, etc.

Secondly, both user groups expressed an appreciation of theuncertainty in the game environment. This was one of the key ele-ments that sets an electronic version of a tabletop game apart fromits static paper game board version. Hidden resources and re-sources that would appear only after prior ones were successfullyconquered, meant that new challenges were introduced at anappropriate pace, an important game design technique also advo-cated in [26].

Thirdly, the customizability of a game depending on the usergroup is important. We constructed a simple game and onlyadapted and changed the theme based on the players. For thechildren it was a fairy tale storyline based on cartoon charactersand for the older adults it was a city excursion. Overall, bothgroups were engaged in their own customized version of the game.In particular this is quite enhanced for children as is evident fromthe intergenerational case study in which the children did notappreciate the elderly version of SaP as much as their own cus-tomized version. The elderly are much more flexible and can playboth types of games with almost the same enjoyment factors. In

es, children version: left and elderly version: right).

A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156 155

summary, the theme is important for designing intergenerationalgames, such that the theme and game elements should attractchildren.

Fourthly, both the children and the older adults were immersedin the game. Upon analyzing the non-verbal behavior we can con-clude that both groups were looking at the game board for a sub-stantiated amount of time. All players looked considerably longeron the game board because after all their task was to play on itand we would expect that they would look much more on theboard itself. Immersion as defined in [26] is a state when playersbecome unaware of their surroundings. Note that being over im-mersed in the game environment could be detrimental to socialinteraction. So game rules must be designed in a manner so thatthey maintain a balance between social interaction and immersion.

Lastly, it is pertinent to note that the tabletop game was easilyfollowed and understood by all players, especially by the olderadults. This was only because the game rules were simple and tech-nology was gradually introduced latently to an existing game. This isevident from the game interaction that was simple via checkersand a tangible tile and technology on first sight was not of concernto the players.

Besides the afore-mentioned commonalities, there were someinteresting differences between the two diverse groups: childrenand older adults. Generally the children were found to be more com-petitive. This was ascertained from the quantitative result that thechildren looked at their opponents much more than the olderadults.

Another interesting difference that was discovered was that theolder adults looked at their team members significantly more fre-quently than the children. This could be because of various reasons:either they wished to cooperate more with their team membersand were looking for social cues or they were trying to ask for somehelp or confirmation from their team member. This argument isfurther substantiated by the fact that the frequency of all typesof looking behaviors of the older adults was higher than those ofthe children. Therefore, we claim that there is an imperative needof designing game rules that encourage cooperation. We focusedon this aspect as well, perhaps not enough so that it was super-seded by competition as reflected in the game rules, for examplewe could have modified our rule of guessing such that not oneplayer would make a guess but instead the guess would be madeas a consensus with the team member.

In addition, we observed from the results of the intergenera-tional case study that the elderly have a strong desire to play withtheir grandchildren and are much more open to play with them be-sides their peers. This could be due to the fact that they like spend-ing time with them or that they like to gain new knowledge. On theother hand, children prefer playing with their classmates, but theystill enjoy playing with their grandparents.

In summary we believe that to enhance social interaction be-tween players, game rules must be designed to encourage maxi-mum participation amongst not only opponents but also teammembers. We also realized how a single game can be accommo-dated for diverse user groups (elderly, children) by manipulatinggame elements, the game theme and slightly adapting game rulesand at the same time maintaining the enjoyment factor. Our re-sults can also be utilized for the design of intergenerational gamesas they provide knowledge to adapt games for both user groupsand also to visualize the benefits of providing different game rulesfor different players based on the game type. We believe that sincethe elderly are much more adaptable than children, any intergen-erational game should be designed keeping in mind the prefer-ences of children. We have also illustrated that it is possible toenhance existing low-tech games by adding technology and atthe same time keeping the game rules and game interactionsimple.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the children for their active participa-tion and valuable comments. A special mention to their parentsfor extending their cooperation and for granting permission touse the photos and videos of their children. We are also gratefulfor the enthusiastic participation of all our senior participants.Our deep appreciation for the assistance provided to us by thecommunity center.

References

[1] D. Aliakseyeu, J.B. Martens, S. Subramanian, M. Vroubel, W. Wesselink, Visualinteraction platform, in: M. Hirose (Ed.), Human–Computer InteractionINTERACT’01, Tokyo, IOS Press, The Netherlands, 2001, pp. 232–239.

[2] A. Al Mahmud, O. Mubin, J.R. Octavia, S. Shahid, L. Yeo, P. Markopoulos, J.B.Martens, aMAZEd: designing an affective social game for children, in:Proceedings of the IDC’07, ACM, New York, NY, 2007, pp. 53–56.

[3] T. Apted, J. Kay, A. Quigley, Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for theelderly, in: Proceedings of the CHI’06, ACM, New York, NY, 2006, pp. 781–790.

[4] S. Bakker, D. Vorstenbosch, E. van den Hoven, G. Hollemans, T. Bergman,Weathergods: tangible interaction in a digital tabletop game, in: Proceedingsof the TEI’07, ACM, New York, NY, 2007, pp. 151–152.

[5] E. Brown, P. Cairns, A grounded investigation of game immersion, in: CHI’04Extend Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York,NY, 2004, pp. 1297–1300.

[6] S. Chiasson, C. Gutwin, Design principles for children’s technology, Interfaces 7(2005) 28.

[7] L. Gamberini, M. Alcaniz, G. Barresi, M. Fabregat, F. Ibanez, L. Prontu, Cognition,technology and games for the elderly: an introduction to ELDERGAMES Project,PsychNol. J. 4 (2006) 285–308.

[8] J. Höysniemi, P. Hamalainen, L. Turkki, Using peer tutoring in evaluatingusability of physically interactive computer game with children, Interact.Comput. 15 (3) (2002) 203–225.

[9] W. Ijsselsteijn, H.H. Nap, Y. de Kort, K. Poels, Digital game design for elderlyusers, in: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play Future Play’07,2007.

[10] Y.A.W. de Kort, W.A. IJsselsteijn, K. Poels, Digital games as social presencetechnology: development of the social presence in gaming questionnaire(SPGQ), in: L. Moreno (Ed.), PRESENCE 2007 Proceedings, Starlab, Barcelona,2007, pp. 195–203.

[11] R. Kubey, R. Larson, The use and experience of the new video media amongchildren and young adolescents, Commun. Res. 17 (1) (1990) 107–130.

[12] E.T. Khoo, T. Merritt, et al., Designing physical and social intergenerationalfamily entertainment, Interact. Comput. 21 (1–2) (2009) 76–87.

[13] S.E. Lindley, J. Le Couteur, N.L. Berthouze, Stirring up experience throughmovement in game play: effects on engagement and social behaviour, in:Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems, Chi’08, Florence, Italy, April 05–10, 2008, ACM, New York,NY, pp. 511–514.

[14] Liar’s Dice. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar’s_dice/>.[15] C. Magerkurth, M. Memisoglu, T. Engelke, Towards the next generation of

tabletop gaming experiences, in: Proceedings of the Graphics Interface, 2004,pp. 73–80.

[16] R.L. Mandryk, D.S. Maranan, K.M. Inkpen, False prophets: exploring hybridboard/video games, in: Proceedings of the CHI, 2002, pp. 640–641.

[17] Anne Marie Piper, Eileen O’Brien, M.R. Morris, T. Winograd, SIDES: acooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development, in:Proceedings of the CSCW’2006, November 4–8, 2006.

[18] P. Marshall, R. Fleck, A. Harris, J. Rick, E. Hornecker, Y. Rogers, N. Yuill, N.S.Dalton, Fighting for control: children’s embodied interactions when usingphysical and digital representations, in: Proceedings of the 27th internationalConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA, April04–09, 2009), CHI’09, ACM, New York, NY, 2009, pp. 2149–2152. <http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.15190>.

[19] M.R. Morris, Supporting Effective Interaction with Tabletop Groupware, Ph.D.Dissertation, Stanford University Technical Report, April 2006.

[20] O. Mubin, S. Shahid, A. Al Mahmud, Walk 2 win: towards designing a mobilegame for elderly’s social engagement, in: Proceedings of the 22nd AnnualBritish HCI Conference, vol. II, 2008, pp. 11–14.

[21] T. Nilsen, J. Looser, Tankwar tabletop war gaming in augmented reality, in:Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Pervasive GamingApplications, Munich, Germany, 2005.

[22] Noldus Observer XT Version 8.0. <http://www.noldus.com/human-behavior-research/products/the-observer-xt>.

[23] M. Rauterberg, M. Bichsel, Ulf Leonhardt, M. Meier, BUILD-IT: a computervision-based interaction technique of a planning tool for construction anddesign, INTERACT, 1997, pp. 587–588

[24] K. Salen, E. Zimmerman, Rules of Play, Game Design Fundamentals, The MITPress, Massachusetts, 2003.

156 A. Al Mahmud et al. / Entertainment Computing 1 (2010) 147–156

[25] S.D. Scott, K.D. Grant, R.L. Mandryk, Systems guidelines for co-located,collaborative work on a tabletop display, in: Proceedings of the ECSCW’03,European Conference Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 2003, Helsinki,Finland, September 14–18, 2003.

[26] R.J. Sluis, I. Weevers, C.H. van Schijndel, L. Kolos-Mazuryk, S. Fitrianie, J.B.Martens, Read-It: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletopenvironment, in: Proceedings of the IDC’04, 2004.

[27] J. Sturm, T. Bekker, B. Groenendaal, R. Wesselink, B. Eggen, Key Issues for theSuccessful Design of an Intelligent, Interactive Playground, ACM, New York,NY, USA, 2008. pp. 258–265.

[28] P. Sweetser, P. Wyeth, GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment ingames, Comput. Entertain. 3 (3) (2005) 3.

[29] P. Turner, S. Turner, et al., How older people account for their experiences withinteractive technology, Behav. Inform. Technol. 26 (4) (2007) 287–296.

[30] F. Vetere, H. Davis, et al., The Magic Box and Collage: responding to thechallenge of distributed intergenerational play, Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 67(2) (2009) 165–178.

[31] J.V. Wertsch, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1985.