Designing a Climate Change Game for Interactive Tabletops

Stefan Kreitmayer stefan@kreitmayer.com

Supervisors Dr. Robin Laney Department/Institute Computing Status Visiting Research Student Probation viva n.a. Starting date February – June 2010 During my 4 months visiting studentship I am developing a game that utilises the affordances of multi-user interaction with tabletop surfaces for a persuasive goal. Players' beliefs about some of the risks of man-made global climate destabilisation should be influenced in a way that supports more responsible behaviour. Persuasive games for personal computers are widespread in practice[1][2], and there is abundant literature suggesting theoretical frameworks and design guidelines[3]. Similarly, designing applications for interactive tabletops is an active field of research. However, there are currently not many persuasive games for interactive tabletops, and emerging design issues have not been fully addressed in the literature. With a growing awareness of the persuasive potential of computer games, and interactive tabletops becoming increasingly affordable, it is to be expected that more game designers will address this medium in the near future. Beyond usability questions, designers will face questions resulting from contradicting paradigms. While the affordances of tabletops to support multi-user collaboration are permanently highlighted[4], the computer game area is only just emerging out of a long tradition of single-user and competitive gameplay[5]. Currently the vast majority of persuasive games are designed for browsers and mobile phones, aimed at single users. Fogg[6] explains fundamental differences in the way persuasion works in single user interaction as opposed to group interaction, and this can be incorporated into design for tabletops. This research aims to contribute towards understanding some of the apparent points of friction between two media and two areas of research. With this in mind, my research question can be summarised as follows: Do players perceive a game's moral message differently depending on whether they engage in collaborative, cooperative, or competitive gameplay? As the single message of the game, I chose out of the vast climate change discourse a fact which is commonly accepted to be true, can be easily conveyed to a broad audience in a small amount of time, but at the same time is not over-advertised in the media. The message is as follows: Architectural designs with most of the window area facing the sun help to save heating energy, thereby supporting CO2 mitigation and lowering the risk of climate change effects.

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 45 of 125

I am planning to develop three versions of the tabletop game which all share the same interface, aesthetic, mechanics, and message. Differences should focus on the supported gameplay: collaborative, cooperative, or competitive respectively. Here we define the three concepts according to [5]: Collaborative gameplay implies that goals, rewards, and penalties are shared among players. Cooperative gameplay differs in that each player eventually wants to reach their individual goal and reward, but they may occasionally choose to collaborate, if the collaboration supports their individual goal. Competitive gameplay means that “the goals of the players are diametrically opposed” [5]. For the sake of simplicity all three versions of the game are designed for two players. A quantitative user study will be conducted to assess the different impacts on players' opinions, depending on which version of the game they have played. Experiments could take place in a public space or in the laboratory. I am planning an experiment with 30 pairs of players, divided into 3 balanced groups, each group engaging with a different type of gameplay: 10 pairs play the collaborative game, 10 pairs play the cooperative game, and 10 pairs play the competitive game. Before and after playing, players should answer questionnaires similar in content to those in the American Climate Values Survey[7]. Using a Likert scale, results can be analysed quantitatively. For more qualitative results, a second experiment could be done with the same participants at the same place and time. After a pair has played their game and completed the questionnaires, they are invited to play the other games as well and give statements about their impressions of whether and how their opinions have changed in relation to different types of gameplay. References: [1] http://persuasivegames.com/ [2] http://www.valuesatplay.org/ [3] I. Bogost. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press, 2007 [4] E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, N. Dalton, Y. Rogers. Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 8-12 Nov 2008, San Diego, CA, USA. [5] J. P. Zagal, J. Rick, I. Hsi. Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. SIMULATION & GAMING, Vol. 37 No. 1, March 2006 24-40. Sage Publications [6] B. J. Fogg. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, 2003 [7] ECOAMERICA.NET. The American Climate Values Survey. Available at http://www.ecoamerica.org/docs/ecoAmerica_ACVS_Summary.pdf Last Accessed 26 Mar 2010.

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 46 of 125