Many Games Have Been Ported From The PC Platform

Activity 64many Games Have Been Ported From The Pc Platform To The Ce

Activity 64many Games Have Been Ported From The Pc Platform To The Ce

ACTIVITY 6.4 Many games have been ported from the PC platform to the cell phone. Because of the screen size, however, they tend to be simpler and sometimes more abstract. To what extent does this adaptation of the interface affect the experience of playing the same game? Figure 6.17 Two screenshots from the game Snake – the one on the left is played on a PC and the one on the right on a cell phone. In both games, the goal is to move the snake (the blue thing and the black squares, respectively) towards targets that pop up on the screen (e.g. the bridge, the star) and to avoid obstacles (e.g. a flower, the end of the snake’s tail).

When a player successfully moves his snake head over or under a target, the snake increases its length by one blob or block. The longer the snake gets the harder it is to avoid obstacles. If the snake hits an obstacle the game is over. On the PC version there are lots of extra features that make the game more complicated, including more obstacles and ways of moving. The cell phone version has a simple 2D bird’s eye representation, whereas the PC version adopts a 3D third-person avatar perspective.

Assignment In Activity 6.4 we asked you to compare the experience of playing the game of Snake on a PC with playing on a cell phone. For this assignment, we want you to consider the pros and cons of playing the same game using different interfaces. Select three interfaces, other than the GUI and mobile ones (e.g. tangible, wearable, and shareable) and describe how the game could be redesigned for each of these, taking into account the user group being targeted. For example, the tangible game could be designed for young children, the wearable interface for young adults, and the shareable interface for elderly people. (a) Go through the research and design issues for each interface and consider whether they are relevant for the game setting and what issues they raise.

(b) Describe a hypothetical scenario of how the game would be played for each of the three interfaces. (c) Consider specific design issues that will need to be addressed. For example, for the shareable surface would it be best to have a tabletop or a wall-based surface? How will the users interact with the snake for each of the different interfaces; by using a pen, fingertips, or other input device? Is it best to have a representation of a snake for each player or one they take turns to play with? If multiple snakes are used, what will happen if one person tries to move another person’s snake? Would you add any other rules? And so on. (d) Compare the pros and cons of designing the Snake game using the three different interfaces with respect to how it is played on the cell phone and the PC.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The adaptation of games from PC to mobile platforms introduces significant changes in user interaction, which can profoundly influence gameplay experience. Extending this consideration to alternative interfaces such as tangible, wearable, and shareable surfaces involves examining how these modalities impact design, user engagement, and accessibility for targeted user groups. This paper explores each interface type, their research and design issues, hypothetical gameplay scenarios, specific design considerations, and a comparative analysis with traditional PC and mobile game interfaces.

Tangible Interface

The tangible interface involves physical objects that users manipulate to interact with the game. For example, a tangible version of Snake for young children could include a set of physical blocks or tokens representing the snake segments and targets placed on a large table or countertop. Users would physically move these tokens to guide the snake, providing a direct and intuitive interaction modality suitable for children developing fine motor skills. The main research issues here involve ensuring the physical objects are age-appropriate, durable, and safe; designing intuitive spatial arrangements; and integrating digital feedback with tangible manipulation. Cognitive load should be minimized to foster engagement without causing frustration. This interface promotes hands-on learning and physical activity, crucial for early education.

Hypothetically, children would manipulate tokens on a table, moving their "snake" segments towards various targets appearing randomly. The physical setup could include sensors or computer vision to track token movements reliably. Challenges include preventing accidental displacements and designing a system that responds swiftly to physical inputs. Rules such as collaborative play, turn-taking, or scoring systems could be implemented to foster social interaction and competitiveness. The tangible interface inherently encourages physical movement and socialization but might be limited by size constraints and the need for supervision.

Wearable Interface

The wearable interface, such as smart glasses or wristbands, targets young adults, emphasizing mobility and continuous interaction. Comfort and hygiene are paramount; devices should be lightweight, non-intrusive, and easy to clean. The design issues involve gesture recognition, haptic feedback, and ensuring the game remains engaging without causing fatigue. For Snake, gameplay could involve wearing gloves equipped with sensors that detect hand movements controlling the snake's direction or using head movements via smart glasses to steer. These setups allow for dynamic, immersive gaming experiences, such as running or moving through real-world environments while guiding a virtual snake.

In a hypothetical scenario, a young adult would wear a smart glove and navigate the snake by gestures—clenching their fists to speed up, sweeping their hand to turn. The device could provide haptic cues for successful moves or obstacles. Comfort considerations include avoiding long-term fatigue, ensuring the device is lightweight, and maintaining hygiene through easy cleaning or disposable components. The key design challenge is balancing responsiveness and comfort, ensuring natural interactions do not cause strain. Wearables also raise data privacy concerns, necessitating secure data handling.

Shareable Surface Interface

The shareable surface, such as a large tabletop or wall display, caters to elderly users, emphasizing social interaction. For example, a wall-mounted touch screen could display the Snake game, with users interacting via pens, fingertips, or specialized stylus devices. Design considerations involve selecting an interface size that encourages multiple users, and interaction methods should be simple enough for users with limited dexterity.

A hypothetical scenario involves elderly users, perhaps in a community center, collaboratively guiding multiple snakes on a large wall display. They could take turns or play simultaneously, with each user controlling a snake via a stylus or finger input. If multiple snakes are enabled, rules should address conflicts—such as turn-based play or cooperative modes—and prevent users from interfering with others' snakes. The surface should be robust, accessible for those with mobility challenges, and designed to support multiple inputs concurrently without confusion. Rules might include scoring, turn-taking, or cooperative objectives to bolster social bonds and cognitive engagement.

Comparison of Interface Designs

Designing Snake across different interfaces exemplifies contrasting pros and cons. The tangible interface offers physical engagement and aids in early development but may be limited by scale and complexity. Wearable interfaces enable immersive experiences and promote mobility but can cause fatigue and pose hygiene challenges. Shareable surfaces foster social interaction and accessibility for elders but require careful ergonomic and input device considerations. Traditional PC and mobile interfaces typically optimize for individual, seated gameplay with precise, easy-to-use input methods.

While PCs facilitate complex graphics and features, mobile devices prioritize portability and simplicity. Tangible interfaces enhance physical interaction but may require space and supervision. Wearables expand mobility but at the cost of comfort and increased technical demands. Shareable interfaces support social play but need extensive design considerations for multi-user input and accessibility. Each interface thus offers unique benefits and challenges, influencing game engagement, accessibility, and user experience.

In conclusion, expanding game interfaces beyond traditional GUI and mobile platforms enables tailored experiences for diverse user groups but demands careful attention to research and design issues associated with each modality. The integration of physical, wearable, and social interfaces can enrich gaming experiences when thoughtfully designed, considering user capabilities, context, and accessibility needs.

References

• Götz, S., & Hjort, M. (2019). Tangible User Interfaces in Gaming: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Game Design & Development Education, 4(2), 34-50.
• Huang, Y., & Johnson, L. (2021). Wearable Technologies and Their Impact on Gaming Experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(10), 923-938.
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books.
• Saunders, J., & Vasconcelos, M. (2018). Shareable Interfaces for Social Gaming: Enhancing Elderly Engagement. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 86.
• Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley.
• Wang, T., & Lee, S. (2020). Designing for Accessibility and Inclusivity in Game Interfaces. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 10(1), 45-60.
• Wilson, M. (2014). The role of physicality in game interfaces. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(3), 45-58.
• Yuffa, C., & Soler, F. (2017). Challenges in Wearable Game Interfaces. Entertainment Computing, 19, 35-43.
• Zhou, Z., & Chen, H. (2020). Multi-user Interaction on Large Display Surfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 35(6), 538-560.
• Zuckerman, O. (2016). Embodied Interaction in Gaming: The Future of User Engagement. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, 119-129.