A User Study to Analyse the Experience of Augmented Reality Board Games
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bachelor’s Thesis in Digital Game Development June 2019 A user study to analyse the experience of augmented reality board games Giedre Jursenaite Daniel Bengtsson Faculty of Computing, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Computing at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor’s Thesis in Digital Game Development. The thesis is equivalent to 10 weeks of full-time studies. The authors declare that they are the sole authors of this thesis and that they have not used any sources other than those listed in the bibliography and identified as references. They further declare that they have not submitted this thesis at any other institution to obtain a degree. Contact Information: Author(s): Giedre Jursenaite E-mail: [email protected] Daniel Bengtsson E-mail: [email protected] University advisor: M.Sc. Diego Navarro Department of Computer Science Faculty of Computing Internet : www.bth.se Blekinge Institute of Technology Phone : +46 455 38 50 00 SE–371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden Fax : +46 455 38 50 57 Abstract Background. Augmented Reality (AR) is a variant of virtual reality (VR), but where VR replaces reality with a virtual one, AR expands it allowing the user to see the real world and virtual information at the same time. Many have tried to adapt this technology for video and board games and although there are plenty of AR video games or mobile game applications there are no one selling AR board games. Some studies keep coming up from time to time trying to enhance board games with AR through graphics and extra information about player statistics, but there are not many that adapt game logic in AR games. Objectives. A literature review was conducted on related topics building the theo- retical background. Then a multiplayer board game that could be played both with and without AR was created. The game was created in the Unity Engine using the Vuforia Engine for the AR, and assets were created for the AR. Design game logic with Unity and player interaction with AR. Create the analog assets. Conduct a user study for participants to rate the experience and analyse the gathered data from the user study. Methods. A user study was conducted with twelve participants who played two versions of the same board game within a controlled environment. One version was analog, and the other featuring AR. After each of the versions, the participants an- swered a questionnaire about the experience as described in the Game Experience Questionnaire. Results. The results show that participants thought the AR board game was a fun and interesting take on the traditional board games. However, participants also thought that the AR stability and the discomfort of holding up a mobile phone while playing was a worse experience. The statistical results also concluded that there was no significant difference between AR and none-AR board game versions. Conclusions. With the results gathered, the experience were more or less the same. Participants thought the AR version of the board game was fun and interesting be- cause it improved their sense of discovery and imagination. However, because the AR felt unstable and uncomfortable, it disrupted the game flow and player immersion. With better implementation and a more suited device, AR could be enjoyable. Keywords: Augmented Reality, Board Games, User Experience, User Study. Acknowledgments We thank Diego Navarro, our supervisor, for giving us the idea to work with this subject in the first place, but also for giving us constant feedback and advice for this thesis. We would also like to thank Eva Schramm, Felicia Spångberg, David Bond and Madelein Nyblom for letting us use their 3D-models and textures for our project. Lastly we want to thank all our participants because without them this thesis never would have been finished. iii Contents Abstract i Acknowledgments iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aim and objectives ............................ 3 1.2 Research questions ............................ 3 1.3 Expected outcomes ............................ 3 2 Related Work 5 3 Method 7 3.1 Experimentation ............................. 8 3.2 Apparatus ................................. 10 3.2.1 Photoshop ............................. 10 3.2.2 ZBrush ............................... 10 3.2.3 Maya ................................ 10 3.2.4 Unity ............................... 11 3.2.5 Vuforia ............................... 11 3.2.6 Visual Studio ........................... 11 3.2.7 Ultimaker Cura .......................... 11 3.2.8 Google Forms ........................... 11 3.2.9 Word ................................ 11 3.2.10 Excel . ............................. 12 3.2.11 Sony Xperia X Compact ..................... 12 3.2.12 Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact .................... 12 3.2.13 Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.5 Wi-Fi (32GB) .......... 13 3.3 Monsters and Treasure .......................... 14 3.4 Implementation .............................. 16 3.4.1 Physical Board Game ....................... 16 3.4.2 Game logic with AR ....................... 17 3.5Ethics................................... 17 3.6 Validity Threats and Limitations .................... 18 4 Results 23 4.1 GEQ Results ............................... 24 4.1.1 Competence............................ 24 4.1.2 Sensory and Imaginative Immersion ............... 25 v 4.1.3 Flow ................................ 25 4.1.4 Tension and Annoyance ..................... 25 4.1.5 Challenge ............................. 25 4.1.6 Negative and Positive Affects .................. 26 4.1.7 Psychological Involvement: Empathy and Negative feelings . 26 4.1.8 Behavioural Involvement ..................... 26 4.1.9 Negative and Positive experience ................ 27 4.1.10 Tiredness ............................. 27 4.1.11 Return to Reality ......................... 27 4.2 Missing Data ............................... 28 5 Analysis and Discussion 35 6 Conclusions and Future Work 39 6.1 Conclusion ................................. 39 6.2FutureWork................................ 40 Appendices 45 A Experimentation Questionnaire 47 B Information Letter 9 C Consent Form 11 D How to play Monsters and Treasure 13 E Cheat Sheet to Monsters and Treasure 21 F The Overall Questionnaire Results 25 vi List of Figures 3.1 Picture shows how the setup for experiment looked like. The table is prepared for three players and includes the board, cards, pawns, and penandpaper............................... 8 3.2 Picture shows participant group of three playing the None-AR part of the game. Most of them during this phase were writing down their statistics on the sheet of paper. ..................... 8 3.3 The picture shows how AR was used in combat. When players put their cards close to the monster card, the character enters the battle stance. The picture has also small descriptions, added to help navigate the games user interface. ......................... 14 3.4 The figure explains how "Player Help" works. The first picture (at the top) show a player’s and monster’s power and suggests that player should use "Player Help" to defeat the monster. The second picture (in the middle) shows how to enter another player’s power after they agreed to help. The final picture (at the bottom) shows that the player has now increased his power with the help of an ally. The ally’s power is added to the player’s and now the player is stronger than the monster. 15 3.5 Shows the board of the game and explains how different parts of it is meant to be used. ............................. 16 3.6 The figure explains how equipping items work with AR. The first picture (at the top) shows the current player’s power and a sword with a number above it indicating the bonuses it gives in combat. The second picture (in the middle) shows how to equip an item using the virtual button. The final picture (at the bottom) shows character with a sword equipped and its level enhanced with the bonuses of the sword. Because this character is a fighter class, it gets an additional extra point for every equipped item. That is why it has the power of four and not three. ............................ 19 3.7 Picture shows 3D models rendered on top of the game board as it is recognized by AR. ............................ 20 3.8 These are the three character pawns on their corresponding cards. The figurines were 3D printed and then colored with acrylic paint. 20 3.9 These are the two card decks: Treasure cards on the left and the Door cards on the right. The picture also shows one of the cards that can be found in each deck. On the left, it is an item card with boots and on the right its a monster card with a Necromancer. .......... 20 vii 3.10 Shows three variants of the same card. The first one (first to the left) shows the actual colored version of the in-game card. The middle one shows the gray-scale version of the card that is sent to Vuforia as an image-target. The last one (the first to the right) represents the card in the Vuforia image target database. The yellow dots show the points that Vuforia will recognize in an image-target. ............. 21 4.1 Shows the distribution of averaged values of answers of participants of different agreement to statements in category Competence in GEQ. Value 0 representing "not at all", 1 being equivalent to "slightly", 2 to "moderately", 3 to "fairly" and 4 meaning "extremely". ...... 24 4.2 Shows the distribution of averaged values of answers of participant of different agreement to statements in category Sensory and Imaginative Immersion in GEQ. Value 0 representing "not at all", 1 being equiv- alent to "slightly", 2 to "moderately", 3 to "fairly" and 4 meaning "extremely". ................................ 25 4.3 Shows the distribution of averaged values of answers from participants of different agreement to statements in category Flow in GEQ. Value 0 representing "not at all", 1 being equivalent to "slightly", 2 to "mod- erately", 3 to "fairly" and 4 meaning "extremely". ........... 26 4.4 Shows the distribution of averaged values of answers of participant of different agreement to statements in category Tension and Annoy- ance in GEQ.