Tankwar Tabletop war gaming in augmented reality Trond Nilsen, Julian Looser HIT Lab NZ / Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand [trond.nilsen,julian.looser]@hitlabnz.org
Introduction
Table top games
Social
Diverse physical interactions
Limited in complexity
Limited meta-game support
Computer games
Complex – AI, Simulations
Rich visualization and content
Mediated social interaction
Narrow interaction (mouse, keyboard, game pad)
As a merging of virtual and real, augmented reality may allow the development of games that possess the best characteristics of both.
Engagement model
Based on Stapleton’s Mixed Fantasy
Four ways in which players become engaged in games
Mental
Physical
Social
Emotional
To engage players in each of these ways, we must consider our game’s design in different ways.
Our Approach
Game design
Iterative – design, play and evaluate, repeat.
Play testing with gamers.
The ‘Art’ of game design.
Distributed game architecture
To support various player / spectator roles, different interfaces are required.
AR – Primary player interface (AR lens, paddle interactions)
PDA – auxiliary player interface
Projection screen – spectator interface
Video See Through AR
AR-Toolkit
Players wear HMDs – their view of the world is mediated
Lens-based Interaction
See-through selection tool attached to game pad.
Focus / Context visualization
AR Tankwar – Game Design
Real time strategy
Players control armies of tanks, artillery and helicopters, attempting to complete mission objectives similar to PC real time strategy games, either competitively or collaboratively.
Slow – Speed is adjustable, but default is quite slow
Compromise between turn-based tabletop games and rapid PC games
Allows ample time for consideration, discussion and interaction (AR interaction is still comparatively slow
Non-scrollable 3D landscape
If players can scroll the landscape, they are no longer visualizing in the same context, thus some social cues (pointing, gaze)
Collaboration aids
View frustums – gaze
Partial transparencies – see own hands
Immersive perspectives
AR Tankwar – Screenshots
AR Tankwar – Screenshots
AR Tankwar – Screenshots
Evaluation - Difficulties
Games are hard to evaluate objectively
Objective measures do not easily characterize player enjoyment
Possibility space is huge, so game design decisions have large impact
Games exhibit emergence – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Thus, decomposition into laboratory tasks is deficient
Novelty confounds
Observational results
Typical problems with AR remain
Social interaction is constrained by players wearing HMDs
Interaction metaphors not mature
Communication between players is observed to be greater
Players engage in banter, issue threats, and discuss strategy to a greater degree than in PC games (to be verified empirically)
To our surprise, players find the user interface easy to use.
Comparative ‘ethnographic’ study to come.
Future Work
Evaluations – as described
Re-implementation / enhancement
Iterative design
New features
Exhibition at GenCon 2005.
Development of game design guidelines for design of AR table top games.
Experimental examination of social communication through HMDs
0 comments
Post a comment