Pergames2005 Paper


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pergames2005 Paper

  1. 1. 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]
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Table top games </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diverse physical interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited in complexity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited meta-game support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Computer games </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex – AI, Simulations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich visualization and content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mediated social interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Narrow interaction (mouse, keyboard, game pad) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>As a merging of virtual and real, augmented reality may allow the development of games that possess the best characteristics of both. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Engagement model <ul><li>Based on Stapleton’s Mixed Fantasy </li></ul><ul><li>Four ways in which players become engaged in games </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mental </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Physical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To engage players in each of these ways, we must consider our game’s design in different ways. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Our Approach <ul><li>Game design </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Iterative – design, play and evaluate, repeat. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Play testing with gamers. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The ‘Art’ of game design. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Distributed game architecture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To support various player / spectator roles, different interfaces are required. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>AR – Primary player interface (AR lens, paddle interactions) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PDA – auxiliary player interface </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Projection screen – spectator interface </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Video See Through AR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AR-Toolkit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Players wear HMDs – their view of the world is mediated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lens-based Interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>See-through selection tool attached to game pad. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus / Context visualization </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. AR Tankwar – Game Design <ul><li>Real time strategy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Players control armies of tanks, artillery and helicopters, attempting to complete mission objectives similar to PC real time strategy games, either competitively or collaboratively. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Slow – Speed is adjustable, but default is quite slow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compromise between turn-based tabletop games and rapid PC games </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows ample time for consideration, discussion and interaction (AR interaction is still comparatively slow </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-scrollable 3D landscape </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If players can scroll the landscape, they are no longer visualizing in the same context, thus some social cues (pointing, gaze) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaboration aids </li></ul><ul><ul><li>View frustums – gaze </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partial transparencies – see own hands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Immersive perspectives </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. AR Tankwar – Screenshots
  7. 7. AR Tankwar – Screenshots
  8. 8. AR Tankwar – Screenshots
  9. 9. Evaluation - Difficulties <ul><li>Games are hard to evaluate objectively </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective measures do not easily characterize player enjoyment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possibility space is huge, so game design decisions have large impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Games exhibit emergence – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Thus, decomposition into laboratory tasks is deficient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Novelty confounds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Observational results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Typical problems with AR remain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social interaction is constrained by players wearing HMDs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction metaphors not mature </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication between players is observed to be greater </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Players engage in banter, issue threats, and discuss strategy to a greater degree than in PC games (to be verified empirically) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To our surprise, players find the user interface easy to use. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comparative ‘ethnographic’ study to come. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Future Work <ul><li>Evaluations – as described </li></ul><ul><li>Re-implementation / enhancement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Iterative design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New features </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exhibition at GenCon 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Development of game design guidelines for design of AR table top games. </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental examination of social communication through HMDs </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Contact: </li></ul>