Hybrid Game Value: the power of physical games to the power of digital potential

Iets voor Ine en Djoons om uit te proberen, bijvoorbeeld het spel Alchemists?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking away the most computational or setting up parts of a game may be good to improve the smoothness of the game (for example, the shuffling of a deck in a card game that makes many rounds like heads-up poker). However, as was found by Xu et al. (2011), it should actually be the case that some of the trivial tasks like chores remain present in a gaming event since it facilitates the needed breaks for social values of interaction and emotion.

One may think digitalization has a negative effect on social interactions, but it appeared that digitalization actually offers many opportunities and incentives for social interaction, both in the home (Heljakka, 2016) and the public setting (Tieben et al., 2014). Of course it is important to distinct between complete digitalization and the inclusion of specific digital aspects; hence the term hybridity. Like in the first example, game chores could better not be digitally replaced. On the other hand, digitalization can offer rich tools that empower the player to express personal preferences (autonomy) like the 3D-printing technology of game characters (Heljakka, 2016).

Moreover, hybridity can also stimulate physical activity. An easy one here is to think of Pokémon Go or the Wii and its successors. But by augmented reality, it will also be possible to act through natural interfaces instead of using a controller while sitting. For example, if one wants to play a wizard, this is way more physically active (and realistic) by using an Oculus rift, Wii mote and Cyberith virtualizer than by playing on a traditional gaming console.

As mentioned before, Heljakka (2016) stresses the positive influence of the combination of technology and toys for family bonding by quoting the Toy Industry Association: “According to TIA’s trend analysts in their annual Key trends report, they are “seeing a growing number of toys that incorporate technology while also promoting socialization, face-to-face interaction, and family bonding for all” (TIA Newsletter 22 February 2016: Key trends 2016: Family matters).” I especially like this family bonding part since technology itself was first found to have a negative effect on social interactions in households due to individual seperation (Kraut et al., 1998). By playing games in a contemporary way, technology can restore or even improve the former family relationships. This shows perfectly how novel technology in itself is neither good nor bad, but the designing implications and thinking through determines whether technology positively influences our overall well-being.

Heljakka, K. (2016). Strategies of Social Screen Play (ers) across the Ecosystem of Play: Toys, games and hybrid social play in technologically mediated playscapes. Wider Screen, 1-2.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American psychologist, 53(9), 1017.

Tieben, R., Sturm, J., Bekker, T., & Schouten, B. (2014). Playful persuasion: Designing for ambient playful interactions in public spaces. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(4), 341-357.

Xu, Y., Barba, E., Radu, I., Gandy, M., & MacIntyre, B. (2011). Chores are fun: Understanding social play in board games for digital tabletop game design. In Think design play: The fifth international conference of the digital research association (DIGRA) (Vol. 16).