=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3712/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Designing XR Games that Bring us Closer: A Workshop to Combine Game Design and Psychological Determinants of Closeness
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3712/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3712
|authors=Eva Licht,Cordula Baur,Franzisca Maas,Tamara Friedenberger,Fabian Hemmert,Jörn Hurtienne
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/mum/LichtBMFHH23
}}
==Designing XR Games that Bring us Closer: A Workshop to Combine Game Design and Psychological Determinants of Closeness==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3712/paper1.pdf
Designing XR Games that Bring us Closer: A
Workshop to Combine Game Design and
Psychological Determinants of Closeness
Eva Licht1,∗ , Cordula Baur2 , Franzisca Maas2 , Tamara Friedenberger2 ,
Fabian Hemmert1 and Jörn Hurtienne2
1
University of Wuppertal, Fuhlrottstr. 10, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany
2
Julius-Maximilians University Würzburg, Oswald-Külpe-Weg, Geb. 82, 97074 Würzburg, Germany
Abstract
The following paper discusses the SPIELEND project, which aims to foster social connections through
play among friends and families separated by physical distances using Extended Reality (XR) and smart
textiles. The project combines psychological insights on closeness with game design to create XR
games that bring people closer. The paper outlines a workshop conducted as part of the project, where
participants explored various game mechanics and their impact on social closeness. Findings show
the successful combination of game principles and closeness determinants, paving the way for further
development, evaluation and socially enriched game design. The SPIELEND project explores solutions
for addressing the challenges of distance and social isolation in modern society.
Keywords
Extended Reality, Game Design, Games, Play, Social Presence, Closeness, Intimacy
1. Introduction
In our society, it is quite normal that friends or family members move to another city or, due
to ongoing globalisation, even go abroad for reasons of study or work. In-person meetings
become rare, a lot of communication happens digitally, even more so during the COVID-19
pandemic: 52 percent of people aged 16-29 used video calls to communicate with family and
friends [1]. Nevertheless, digital communication lacks spontaneity, non-verbal exchange and
emotionality and thus is in its current form not able to replace meetings in co-presence, as
became obvious when ”Zoom fatigue” spread during COVID-19 [2]. To make matters worse,
according to the World Health Organization (WHO) we are in the middle of a mental health
crisis with increasing numbers of depression and anxiety, especially among young people [3].
This made us wonder: How can we foster true social connection across distance? And what
technological tools can we use or create for this purpose, and how can we determine whether
these brought people actually closer?
Joint Workshops at the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia 2023
∗
Corresponding author.
Envelope-Open licht@uni-wuppertal.de (E. Licht); cordula.baur@uni-wuerzburg.de (C. Baur);
franzisca.maas@uni-wuerzburg.de (F. Maas); tamara.friedenberger@uni-wuerzburg.de (T. Friedenberger);
hemmert@uni-wuppertal.de (F. Hemmert); joern.hurtienne@uni-wuerzburg.de (J. Hurtienne)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
The project SPIELEND [German for ”playing”] (an acronym for: ”Soziale Präsenz durch
immersive, emotionale und lebendige Erfahrungen von Nähe auf Distanz”) addresses these
questions by developing innovative approaches for creating high quality social interaction and
fostering closeness among family and friends living across distance through play.
2. SPIELEND Project
The SPIELEND project investigates how to design a game fostering closeness and social presence,
through play, sensory modalities and representation of the fellow player. For this purpose, we
aim to develop game concepts based on existing game patterns, and extend them with sensory
qualities using Extended Reality (XR) and Smart Textiles. As an interdisciplinary project, funded
by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany, the SPIELEND project will (1)
investigate psychological concepts and their influence on experiences of closeness in a game
situation and develop new measurement methods, as currently many different psychological
concepts are used in HCI [4] (Julius-Maximilians University Würzburg), (2) conduct a user-
centered design process to design different games and other essential components to promote
social closeness (University of Wuppertal), (3) investigate and realise the Extended Reality
components and player representation (Augmented Robotics and OFFIS), (4) and develop Smart
Textiles for enhanced sensory experience through wearable and tangible game components
(ITA Group of the Aachen University).
In the first phase of the project, different psychological concepts (e.g. social presence, close-
ness, intimacy, togetherness) were investigated and factors influencing these concepts were
collected. Further, 21 user interviews on the topics of playful habits, shared play, and emotional
closeness were conducted and informed the design of user scenarios and personas.
3. A Workshop to Design Concepts for XR Games that bring us
closer
In this position paper, we report on how we designed and conducted a workshop that aids the
exploration of design concepts for XR games that bring people closer despite physical distance.
To achieve a shared vision of the planned XR-game application within our project group, it was
necessary to create a common understanding of the previously conducted work and findings,
as well as selecting influencing factors on closeness and game patterns.
For this, we organised a workshop where all participants became familiar with visions and
psychological factors for enhancing closeness, and were able to experience the game mechanics
first hand. Furthermore, the workshop offered space for feedback and exchange and provided
a starting point for the process of a game design which fosters closeness and can be realised
through augmented reality and smart textiles.
3.1. The Workshop and Material
The workshop took place as part of a project meeting in Berlin, Germany, in October 2023.
Nine people participated in the workshop, including four of the authors of this paper, who
had prepared the workshop. Overall, the workshop took three hours from start to finish. The
workshop was structured as follows: (1) introduction to the workshop, (2) introduction to our
10 ways to design concepts for XR games that bring us closer, (3) presentation and discussion of
two XR game scenarios, (4) game circle and assessing closeness determinants, and (5) group
reflection. Below, we will provide insight into every phase.
Introduction to the Workshop. First, we welcomed all participants and introduced the
premise of the workshop, namely testing game patterns and assessing how the game might
foster closeness through psychological determinants.
Introduction to our 10 Ways to Design XR Games that Bring us Closer. The second
phase of the workshop introduced participants to 10 Ways to Design Concepts for XR Games
that bring us Closer. Through literature research across different concepts of closeness, e.g.,
[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], in the run-up to the workshop, we had identified 95 influencing factors in total.
In order to make them usable in a half-day workshop for game design, we categorised them into
two groups: 1) more relevant for fundamental game conception, which need to be addressed in
the early stage of game design (35 influencing factors relevant for the workshop), and 2) more
detail-oriented, which can be incorporated later in the process.
We inductively clustered the influencing factors deemed relevant for game conception into
10 determinants: (1) Non-verbal Communication, which includes aspects like physical proximity
and facial expression, as well as the capability to express emotions; (2) Modality and Tangibility,
which considers different sensory modalities as well as tangible tokens; (3) Shared (Embodied)
Experience, which includes the experience of touch, synchronous movement and a shared
environment; and (4) Self-disclosure, which refers to sharing emotions, thoughts, or experiences.
Further determinants are (5) Supporting Each Other, which includes mutual trust, support
and obligations; (6) Perspective Taking, which means taking over the physical or emotional
perspective of another player; and (7) Integrated Communication, the ability to communicate
with each other within the gaming applications, which fosters the feeling of connectedness.
Determinant (8) Nature of the Task incorporates different aspects, such as mutual dependency, gift
giving and different ways of social communication; (9) Frequency and Duration predicts a higher
experience of closeness through more and longer interaction and (10) the Unforeseeable considers
playfulness beyond the game and lucky coincidences. Further, the additional determinant Beyond
the Game considers how a game can become integrated in daily routines and how the players
relationships can be made salient outside of the game.
Presentation and discussion of two MR game scenarios.
As a cornerstone of the game development, two scenarios and five personas had been devel-
oped based on the user interviews. The focus in this project is on spatially separated relationships
between friends (scenario one, see Fig. 1) and family members (scenario two, see Fig. 2). The
first scenario shows two friends maintaining their relationship over a great distance. However,
both lack the feeling of being together that can only be poorly covered by telephone calls.
The novel game, in which both friends have XR glasses and tangible smart objects, enriches
communication with a shared immersive activity and the feeling of co-presence. The second
scenario shows a shared gaming experience between family members (daughter and mother).
In contrast to scenario one, here only one person has XR glasses, while the other person plays
via a mobile device. In this scenario, the difference in technical affinity as well as the different
end devices is decisive for the game development and the fulfilment of user needs.
Figure 1: SPIELEND scenario one, playing with friends.
Figure 2: The second SPIELEND scenario, playing with family members.
Game circle and assessing closeness determinants. Since the final game will be designed
as a two player scenario, participants were grouped in pairs to explore the game patterns through
the game circle activity (see Figure 3). The game circle consisted of five stations which offered a
variety of mini-games, across different categories: competitive, cooperative, or communicative
game mode while putting a focus on the body, a game board, or the room. Each of the games
focused on a different combination of these categories, as well as different game patterns. The
selected game patterns and mechanics stood out in our prior research to have a positive impact
on social interaction, or were frequently mentioned as particularly entertaining in our user
interviews. Above all, mutual teasing, lying and cheating were mentioned surprisingly often in
Figure 3: Exploring game interactions through the game circle
our user interviews as important and especially entertaining interactions when playing together.
This ”mean” way of playing is also referred to as treacherous play [10]. To successfully design a
treacherous game interaction, Carter suggests four main game patterns: open communication,
interactions that require trust between the players, consequential play and, most importantly,
ambiguous relations [10]. Movement-based games were also particularly popular among our
interviewees. As part of the literature research, this finding was supplemented by coordinated
action, such as lifting objects together, as a play mechanism to particularly support social
closeness [11]. Furthermore, the equal distribution of responsibility and commitment in the
game, often referred to as a sense of fairness and purpose by our interviewees, came up in our
interviews and in the prior literature research as a core component of social interaction in the
game [12]. These game patterns can be easily integrated as a game mechanism, for example
in the form of alternating turns and balanced role distribution. The design of asymmetrical
information, perspectives and objects also including complementary abilities is also conducive
to social interaction between the players, as it creates a need for cooperation [12]. In general
we found that, keeping the rules for the mini-games simple and focusing on one core game
mechanism allowed for a clearer evaluation of the effect of each selected game mechanism.
The first game was designed as a competitive board game, focusing on the game mechanics
of lying and cheating. The goal of the game was to reach the finish line before your opponent.
To do this, cards were alternately drawn with the number of moves allowed or instructions,
such as ”back to the start”. The players could then decide whether to follow these instructions
or lie and make a different number of moves. The opponent in turn had to assess whether the
move was true or a lie. If the player was accused and the move was true, the accuser had to go
back to the start, and vice versa.
The second game focused solely on communication and used body movement and nonverbal
clues as a game mechanics combination, in which participants explained prompts to their fellow
players through pantomime. Here, the players cooperated through communication to win the
race against time and tried to guess as many terms as possible in just 5 minutes. This game
was well known to all the players. However, it could be observed that the success of the game
depended heavily on the team combination, the difficulty of the terms and the player’s own
ability to self-reveal.
The third game was of a cooperative nature again, based on the game pattern of asymmetrical
information and complementary abilities. The players stood in front of a playing field with
4x4 squares. Their goal was to reach the treasure without stepping on a mine. One player was
equipped with information in the form of a map and had to guide the other across a field of
mines to the treasure. To find out how the map needed to be oriented, the first player needed a
first clue from the second player by finding out what’s under the first field. The second player
had to turn over each field upon stepping onto it. If the entered field represented a mine, all
fields were covered up again, the players swapped roles and had to start again from a different
starting position. This role reversal therefore also required that the uncovered information –
the direction of the map and the symbol on the field – was passed on to each other and kept by
both players, which meant that the responsibility for achieving the goal was shared equally.
It became clear here that the complexity of this game is easily scalable due to the size of the
playing field. Due to our spatial and time limitations, we kept the playing field small.
The fourth game required both participants to physically interact with a flexible game board
to guide a marble to its destination, exploring a movement-based game with a game board
focus. The obstacles to be overcome on the way to the destination were holes in the game board,
which the marble had to be circumnavigated by synchronous and asynchronous movements
of the players. Again, scaling the game board up, adding more obstacles and using a smaller
playing figure – in this case, marble – can enhance the complexity of the game.
In the fifth game, we designed a competitive game using the game pattern of ambiguous
relationships and asynchronous information. Each of the players received a postcard. The
postcards showed different motifs from two different locations. The cloze text on the back was
also different on each side. The aim of the players was to fill in the gaps by interrogating the
other player using specific questions about the motif on their postcard, and to find out whether
the other player was an ally or opponent. After completing the cloze, the resulting letters could
be put together as an instruction, telling the player to look for a secret message under the table.
The first player to find this message won the game. One difficulty that became clear in this
game was that in order to create a sense of ambiguity in a relationship, an appropriate narrative
had to be built up, which was also difficult due to the time constraints. In addition, content
should be formulated vaguely enough to leave room for interpretation, which, in combination
with the question of trust, meant that obtaining information was sometimes very tedious for
the players.
Before starting the game circle, we provided every participant with two dockets for evaluating
two closeness determinants after each mini game (see Figure 4). Before starting the game circle,
we provided every participant with two dockets for evaluating two closeness determinants after
each mini game (see Figure 4).
The docket included the name and details about the determinant and space for each mini
game’s evaluation, in which we asked whether the determinant fits well, is already part of this
game, or how it could be applied. If not, participants were asked to provide their reasoning.
Group reflection. Finally, we had every participant reflect how their assigned closeness
Figure 4: An exemplary docket snippet, translated from German into English for publication, showing
the determinant’s name and definition and space to evaluate the first mini game based on the determi-
nant.
determinants fit with each mini-game and whether they thought it could be used to foster
closeness. Insights were, for example, that the factor Frequency and Duration worked better
with repeatable games, rather than ”one and done” game mechanics with limited re-playability,
like in game five. Regarding Modality and Tangibility, one participant suggested the game
board from game four, where players are guiding a marble together, as a physical memento of
the game situation: it could be integrated into player’s everyday surroundings as a decorative
object to increase closeness. Further, Integrated Communication was discussed regarding game
three, where one player guides their partner toward treasure: Participants mentioned, that the
closeness could be improved if the communication was required to go both ways by design,
not just from the player with the map to the treasure hunter. Some pairs coincidentally started
with the right orientation of the map, which lead to a one-sided communication within the
game. Also, depending on the communication skills and personality of the participants, the
game mechanic did not work out as designed. Further findings from the participants related to
Nonverbal Communication in game scenarios, for which visual contact with the other players is
a prerequisite in order to be able to read them. It was also found that intensive gameplay leaves
little time for communication and exchange, which in turn is not an optimal prerequisite for
social closeness.
4. Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion
To investigate the relationship between psychological determinants and game mechanics, we
conducted an interactive workshop. We provided ten determinants extracted from different
psychological concepts and five mini games that embody different game mechanics. Participants
were introduced to these concepts before gaining their own experiences in linking determinants
and game mechanics.
From our closing discussion, we can say that generally, the combination of closeness determi-
nants and game principles worked quite well. We were able to gain valuable insights as well
as design approaches for our general development process, and found that closely linking the
psychological model and the game components right at the beginning of the design process
proved to be useful.
Furthermore, we collected participants’ feedback and reasoning in form of printed dockets.
After the workshop, the dockets were digitised and participants’ answers were organised
according to (1) the underlying psychological determinants and (2) the different game mechanics.
The qualitative data was analysed by three of the authors, who familiarised themselves with the
data by re-reading it several times. Key insights were documented during this process. These
key insights were then discussed and organised in a deductive process. Inspired by Holtzblatt’s
Contextual Design approach [13], we created an Affinity Diagram-like structure and identified
insights and recommendations. Resulting insights include:
In relation to the combination of game mechanics and psychological determinants, it has
been shown that taking the perspective of other players (Perspective Taking) can be an effective
tool for both competitive and cooperative games. Additionally, Nonverbal Communication was
identified as a promising tool for competitive games, such as acting or behaving in a certain
way to deceive or mislead the opponent. Further, Nonverbal Communication was found to be
effective for cooperative games, especially when conversation was restricted. It was frequently
used to convey emotions, with facial expressions being particularly important.
To promote social interaction between players, the game should include shared elements
such as a shared environment, a shared token or game board, or a shared task or interaction.
This relates to the determinants of Modality and Tangibility, and Shared (Embodied) Experience.
Additionally, we identified the limited capacity of players as another important aspect. When a
game demands too much attention, communication and attention towards the fellow player may
decrease. To promote social relationships among players, it is important to ensure that games do
not require excessive attention or mental demand. Here we also found that Shared (Embodied)
Experience contradicts asynchronous game concepts. Furthermore, Nonverbal Communication
and Modality and Tangibility are particularly difficult to combine, as Nonverbal Communication
is difficult to apply in games that require the main focus to be on the game board. Conversely,
Modality and Tangibility are challenging to incorporate when the main focus is on the fellow
player.
Additionally, communication among players and their interdependence can be either uni-
directional or bidirectional, but participants preferred communication in both directions and
balanced interdependence. Self-Disclosure was found to occur in two ways. It can be a central
component of a game mechanic, can occur as an indirect result of the game design, or even just
a side effect, such as intentionally or unintentionally (and possibly subconsciously) displaying
emotions or body language. As it often occurs more subtly as a side effect or alternatively needs
to be explicitly or implicitly incorporated, implementing Self-Disclosure in game mechanics
can be challenging. In relation to the determinant Frequency and Duration, it is important to
consider the repeatability of games. For example, story-based games are less likely to be played
repeatedly.
5. Risks, Challenges and Limitations
The exploration of game mechanisms and the associated psychological closeness determinants,
fused in this workshop, serves as a crucial component of the theoretical foundation for the
game design process. Besides designing a symbiotic combination of game patterns and suitable
closeness determinants, we identified future challenges during the workshop, particularly
related to the transfer of interactions into a remote situation with technical components, as
planned for the final application in Augmented Reality.
Initially, the reliability of technical components and a stable connection are prerequisites
for smooth interaction. If these conditions are not met and the interaction flow between
players is interrupted or delayed, it can negatively impact the perceived social closeness and
eventually create a frustrating experience. Also, the synchronicity of movements, along with
the perception of synchronicity by others, may not fulfil the desired positive effect on perceived
social closeness if hindered by technical issues. These minor discrepancies could lead to a less
immersive experience for players, potentially causing discomfort in the worst case scenario.
The resolution of these individual risks, challenges, and limitations will become evident in the
further development process. By raising awareness of these challenges early on, we can derive
design guidelines and establish a comprehensive solution approach within the system. On the
technical side, the risk of disruptions in the digital space can be minimized in advance through
appropriate design, which demands minimal computational resources, such as the use of graphics
with low polygon density. In terms of content, framing the player experience by storytelling
can help mitigate minor disruptions by contributing to player immersion. Furthermore, this
is complemented by a system with diverse components, such as smart textiles, resulting in
a multisensory feedback and experience. And finally, embedding not one but various social
closeness determinants and player motivations is an integral part of the game design, in order
to engage players in different ways and enhance replay value.
Overall, we found that the success and entertainment of each game depended heavily on
participants’ personalities and the team dynamics, their individual soft skills, such as commu-
nication skills, and game design preferences. This serves as an important insight for future
studies and workshops within the project.
6. Conclusion
Combining insights from the psychological literature on closeness determinants and research
on game design, we developed and conducted a workshop, where participants could try out
different game mechanics for themselves, and in the process, evaluated possible ways to create a
closer social experience with their co-players. We found this combination useful and relevant to
the design process, especially in the early stages. The feedback we received from the participants
confirmed our assumptions and prior research.
7. What’s Next?
Moving forward, we will use the workshop results to guide our selection of game mechanics
and the game’s design, with intermediate evaluations of the effect on closeness between players.
Also, we plan to use the generated insights to further narrow down our theoretical conceptions
about closeness in the context of play. To evaluate the final prototype, we will draw from existing
evaluation methods, and further develop a new evaluation method for assessing closeness based
on image schemas [14].
Acknowledgments
This research was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF) as part of the research program ”Interactive technologies for health and quality of life”.
References
[1] Bitkom, Telefonieren sie vermehrt per video (z.b. whatsapp, skype, facetime etc.) seit
beginn der kontaktbeschränkungen ? [graph], 2020. URL: https://de.statista.com/statistik/
daten/studie/1120062/umfrage/erhoehte-nutzung-von-videoanrufen-nach-alter/.
[2] J. N. Bailenson, Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom
Fatigue, Technology, Mind, and Behavior 2 (2021). URL: https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/
nonverbal-overload.
[3] World Health Organization, Mental health and covid-19: Early evidence of the
pandemic’s impact, 2022. URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/352189/
WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci-Brief-Mental-health-2022.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
[4] B. Schulte, E. Hornecker, Full frontal intimacy - on HCI, design & intimacy, in: Companion
Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, ACM, Eindhoven
Netherlands, 2020, p. 123–129. doi:10.1145/3393914.3395889 .
[5] C. S. Oh, J. N. Bailenson, G. F. Welch, A systematic review of social presence: Definition,
antecedents, and implications, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018) 114. doi:10.3389/
frobt.2018.00114 .
[6] L. Noy, N. Levit-Binun, Y. Golland, Being in the zone: physiological markers of togetherness
in joint improvisation, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9 (2015). doi:10.3389/fnhum.
2015.00187 .
[7] E. Berscheid, M. Snyder, A. M. Omoto, Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptu-
alizing and measuring closeness., Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 10.,
Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US, 1989, p. 63–91.
[8] M. Hassenzahl, S. Heidecker, K. Eckoldt, S. Diefenbach, U. Hillmann, All you need is
love: Current strategies of mediating intimate relationships through technology, ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19 (2012) 1–19. doi:10.1145/2395131.
2395137 .
[9] T. M. Erle, S. Topolinski, The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking., Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 112 (2017) 683–695. doi:10.1037/pspa0000081 .
[10] M. Carter, Treacherous play, MIT Press, 2022.
[11] K. Isbister, How games move us: emotion by design, Playful thinking series, first mit press
paperback edition ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England, 2017.
[12] L. J. Larsen, T. D. Kristensen, B. K. Walther, G. Majgaard, The island of play: Reflections on
how to design multiuser vr to promote social interaction, in: J. Y. C. Chen, G. Fragomeni
(Eds.), Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Design and Development, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, p. 465–484. doi:10.
1007/978- 3- 031- 05939- 1_32 .
[13] K. Holtzblatt, H. Beyer, Contextual Design, Second Edition: Design for Life, 2nd ed.,
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016.
[14] J. Hurtienne, How cognitive linguistics inspires HCI: image schemas and image-schematic
metaphors, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 33 (2017) 1–20. doi:10.
1080/10447318.2016.1232227 .