Exploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming
David Gonçalves, André Rodrigues, Mike L. Richardson, Alexandra A. de Sousa, Michael J. Proulx, Tiago Guerreiro
EExploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming
DAVID GONÇALVES,
LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
ANDRÉ RODRIGUES,
LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
MIKE L. RICHARDSON,
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, United Kingdom
ALEXANDRA A. DE SOUSA,
Centre for Health and Cognition, Bath Spa University, United Kingdom
MICHAEL J. PROULX,
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, United Kingdom
TIAGO GUERREIRO,
LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Fig. 1. Screenshot details presenting the roles in the games: Pilot (A) and Engineer (C) in Rescue: Under Pressure. Pilot (B) andEngineer (D) in Rescue: Mayday
The landscape of digital games is segregated by player ability. For example, sighted players have a multitude of highly visual games attheir disposal, while blind players may choose from a variety of audio games. Attempts at improving cross-ability access to any ofthose are often limited in the experience they provide, or disregard multiplayer experiences. We explore ability-based asymmetricroles as a design approach to create engaging and challenging mixed-ability play. Our team designed and developed two collaborativetestbed games exploring asymmetric interdependent roles. In a remote study with 13 mixed-visual-ability pairs we assessed how rolesaffected perceptions of engagement, competence, and autonomy, using a mixed-methods approach. The games provided an engagingand challenging experience, in which differences in visual ability were not limiting. Our results underline how experiences unequal bydesign can give rise to an equitable joint experience.CCS Concepts: •
Human-centered computing → Accessibility ; Interaction design .Additional Key Words and Phrases: game accessibility, visual impairment, mixed-ability, social gaming, inclusion
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are notmade or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for componentsof this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or toredistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].© 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.Manuscript submitted to ACM 1 a r X i v : . [ c s . H C ] J a n HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
ACM Reference Format:
David Gonçalves, André Rodrigues, Mike L. Richardson, Alexandra A. de Sousa, Michael J. Proulx, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. ExploringAsymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming. In
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), May 8–13, 2021,Yokohama, Japan.
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445494
Games usually target a stereotypical player, with a defined set of abilities. For example, most game designs assumeplayers can press various keys at the same time and have the ability to process visual stimuli. This makes most gamesinaccessible for people who have sensory, motor and/or cognitive disabilities.People with disabilities are used to playing games that are exclusively designed for them [1, 3, 62]. Similar tomainstream games, the specific targeting does not consider the interplay between abilities and/or preferences. The lackof intersection leads to isolated communities based on abilities [16]. For example, audio games are almost exclusivelyplayed by people with visual impairments. These games are typically designed disregarding the stereotypical needs ofsighted people (i.e. most audio games don’t have visuals or are not considered appealing).Despite the availability of a wide variety of accessible games, mixed-ability gaming contexts remain a challenge.Either games cannot be independently played by people with disabilities [45, 62], or games that account for theirabilities do not generate enough interest from others with different sets of abilities [1, 16]. In gaming, we are at a pointwhere it is important to find ways to ensure inclusive experiences, ways that envision mixed-ability interaction asan opportunity, rather than a limitation [12]. In particular, ways to design equally engaging and challenging gamingexperiences that overcome differences in players’ abilities, stigma and promote social inclusion [28]. In our work weexplored the design of asymmetric roles in pursuing such experiences.Asymmetry, in a multiplayer gaming context, means players are presented with distinct gameplays, which can differat different levels (e.g. character abilities, goals, information) [14]. Research has explored asymmetry before and it hasbeen shown to improve connectedness, especially when a tight cooperation is involved through interdependent roles[24].We explored the design of asymmetric roles with ability-based challenges entwined in an interdependent collaborationas a strategy to cater for different abilities. We focused on mixed-visual-ability scenarios, thus one role did not requirevision and was designed around demanding auditory challenges, while the other focused on visual tasks. Past researchhas found how often games that strive to be accessible, do so by simplifying games, leading players to quickly loseinterest [1]. Furthermore, the feeling of unfairness is typically a barrier in mixed-visual-ability gaming experiences [16].As such, a major point in our approach was to ensure players are challenged on par. We designed two games followingthis approach and conducted an exploratory user study with mixed-visual-ability pairs. We had the following researchquestions. • Can asymmetric ability-based roles create engaging experiences for both players? • How do interdependent ability-based challenges affect players perceived competence and autonomy?Our results show how ability-based experiences designed to be unequal can result in equitable gaming spaces wheredifferences in abilities are not limiting. Moreover, the approach showed potential in raising awareness about differentabilities and overcoming stigmas. We aim to encourage new ways of designing for mixed-ability play and inspire otherresearchers and game designers on the path to inclusive gaming. https://audiogames.net/ (Last visited on August 26th, 2020) 2 xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan Here we give an overview of accessible games for people with visual impairments, with a special focus on audio games.Next, we inspect mixed-ability play and asymmetry in gaming by presenting example works from industry and research.
In recent years, the gaming industry has made significant efforts towards more accessible gaming. Notably, the 2015 PS4update included many accessibility features such as text-to-speech and resizable fonts. Microsoft debuted Xbox Copilot in 2017, an ease of access feature that links two controllers to act as one, enabling co-play and player assistance. Also,following the release of the Xbox Adaptive controller in 2018, specially designed for players with motor impairments,Microsoft patented the Xbox Braille Controller [10] in 2019, a controller with a built-in Braille display. Game developercompany Ubisoft Entertainment SA provides audio descriptions for the trailers of its most recent released games [46].However, the adoption of accessibility guidelines is not consistent in mainstream gaming [45]. Importantly, mostgames still remain unplayable by people with severe visual impairments, since they do not benefit from visual enhance-ments (i.e. color and contrast options) and depend on audio feedback. Past research has explored different strategiesto adapt games that require vision to an accessible audio-based gameplay [4, 33, 39, 40, 48, 58, 61]. In most cases asubstantial redesign is needed to ensure that the player is able to perceive the information, determine the correct action,and provide input.Some games are shown to be successful in this adaptation.
Blackbox [44] is an awarded iOS puzzle game, where allpuzzles were rethought to be accessible through sound and haptics after its initial release.
The Last of Us Part II [41], a2020 top-selling game by Naughty Dog, offers more than 60 accessibility options to players [49]. Notably, the gameincludes an audio-based reliable rendition of the gameplay that allows someone to play with no visuals at all [49].Still, a posteriori adaptation has limitations [22, 50]. One of the potential issues is how the core gameplay maysignificantly change [3], namely when it comes to games that are inherently visual. For example, gameplay in
TheWitness [52] involves vision-dependent puzzles which would not be convertible to audio interaction without significantlychanging the game mechanics. In addition, when it comes to multiplayer experiences, this adaptation brings even morereservations. New strategies are needed to ensure that players with different abilities are able to play together, and thatthe experience is engaging, challenging and fair for all.People with severe visual impairments are often limited to games that are designed from the ground up to be playedby blind people (audio games) or games that are compatible with the technologies they use to access devices (text-basedgames). These games are not, for the most part, popular among sighted people and therefore are also exclusive in adifferent way [1, 16]. However, they offer a substantial variety of games that people with visual impairments can play[1, 55].
Audio games are based on audio-based mechanics and interfaces, relying in the conveyance ofspeech, audio cues and sonification techniques like earcons, sonar and auditory icons [62]. They can be played withoutvisuals and most of them do not have visuals at all. Notably, the web site audiogames.net presents a list of games thatgrows frequently with new installments and updated versions. The evolution of audio games and the implicationsfor design have been probed before [2, 3, 32, 55, 56, 62], highlighting the variety of game mechanics and their overallpopularity among visually impaired gamers. Copilot on Xbox One. https://beta.support.xbox.com/help/account-profile/accessibility/copilot (Last visited on September 16th, 2020)3
HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
Andrade et al. [1] established the ability to affect the game narrative is a critical factor that attracted blind peopleto gaming. In fact, many audio and text-based games have a narrative focus. Some also feature rich complex worldsand give players the opportunity to explore them. Previous work has inspected alternative navigation systems ingames, namely audio [4, 37, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59], text-based [13] and haptic [37, 47, 51, 59] interfaces. For instance, in
AudioQuake [4], an adaptation of the popular
Quake [30], researchers use earcons to facilitate in-game interaction. Insome audio-based games there’s an analogy with real-life navigation systems, such as compass and sonar like features[2, 58].
Musicraft [33] is an audio game inspired by Minecraft, in which the world is depicted by abstract musicalrepresentations.In contrast to narrative and exploration focused games, action audio games are typically demanding in terms ofdexterity, implying coordination and reaction challenges. Yuan and Folmer [61] explored the adaptation of a popularrhythm game,
Guitar Hero which, despite being a game about musical performance, depends on visual interaction.Adaptation leveraged the use of a glove with small pager motors attached to the tip of each finger, which transmit theinformation of the notes that must be played. The adaptation of exergames for visually impaired people is also exploredin previous work [39, 40].
There are various initiatives to create games accessible for people with visual impairments. Likewise, others that seekto develop accessible games for those with motor [9, 15, 27], hearing [36] and cognitive [42] disabilities. Previous worksurveyed some of these efforts [62]. However, research and industry tend to depict accessibility as a way of allowingeveryone to experience games, but they typically don’t consider scenarios in which people experience them together.Previously, Gonçalves et al. [16] approached people with and without visual impairments, seeking to characterizemixed-visual-ability gaming experiences. The work outlined two main factors: first, the habits and gaming experienceof people with different visual abilities typically do not intersect, especially at the extremes of visual ability (i.e. sightedpeople play AAA video games, blind people play audio games); second, although these groups find ways to adapt thegames to different needs, gameplay is not designed to fit these needs and, therefore, the experience is usually unbalancedand less engaging and/or unfair for someone.It is also very difficult to adapt certain visual challenges to audio-only challenges, without losing information orcontrol over the gameplay [48]. Smith and Nayar [48] developed the
RAD , an auditory display for gamers with visualimpairments aiming for equal accessibility in racing games. Grabski et al. designed
Kinaptic [17], a tag-like gameto be played by a blind and a sighted person. The sighted player interacts through a Kinect and TV, while the blindplayer relies on a haptic device, wind simulation and 3D sound. The asymmetric setup and multimodality proved to beimportant to ensure players had a fair winning chance. Inspired by the competitiveness of party games, Imbriani etal. [31] developed the fighting game
WaTa Fight . Playtesting with mixed-visual-ability groups has shown the gamestimulated sociality and the sense of integration.Jeremy Kaldobsky is an active audio game developer , whose most games feature minimalist graphics. One exampleis Swamp which is referred to by blind gamers as one of recent games played with sighted friends and family [1]. Hickset al. [26] have shown that graphics, even when purely functioning as an embellishing element conveying redundantinformation, improve player engagement. Similarly, past work suggests that appealing graphics in audio games are animportant factor to engage sighted players [16]. xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan Previous work has also explored game design for groups with different motor abilities [9, 15]. In
Last Tank Rolling [15],one wheelchair-user and one able-bodied player collaborate in a war scenario. The first player controls a war tank withthe movement of their wheelchair and the second controls a soldier using full body gestures. Graf et al. [18] designed iGym , a competitive air hockey inspired exergame, with “ adjustable game mechanics ” to allow for mixed-motor-abilityplay. The authors discuss how the adjustment of parameters, in some cases, ensured fair competition by suppressingthe advantage of able-bodied players and, in others, it was perceived as an undesirable measure that only reversed theadvantage by over facilitating the challenge of players with motor disabilities.There is research into Universally Accessible (UA) Gaming [22]. Namely, there’s the adaptation of traditional gameslike chess [19] and tic-tac-toe [43] as well as complex games that include free world navigation [53]. This work isincredibly informative for game accessibility by discerning a diverse set of accessibility design options and integratingthem into practice. It proves to be above all very important for the establishment of accessibility guidelines, whichare now published and disseminated in various forms [7, 20, 23, 38]. Grammenos et al. [21], following an UA Gamingapproach, present the concept of Parallel Game Universes. In this, customized profiles are used to adapt the interfaceand difficulty to the player. This way, players can play in different ’game universes’, which are bonded, in this casewithin a cooperative experience. However, by proposing the same role and task to both, the solution proposed is toreduce the difficulty of the game for players who cannot keep up with the challenge. We point out the negative effect ofthis specific approach — the portrayal of players with disabilities as less capable and their contribution as less valuable.
Asymmetry can arise at various levels in gameplay (e.g. players have different character abilities). In some games acomplete asymmetry is included within the design (i.e. players have very different ways of interacting and share littleor no mechanics) [14]. For example,
Cook, Serve, Delicious! [57] has a co-op mode where one player is cooking and theother player is managing orders. In
Clandestine [34], players play two interdependent roles — the spy, which involves atypical third person stealth gameplay and the hacker, responsible for cracking infrastructure and defeating securitysystems through a birds-eye view of the map and a grid display. It’s heavily reliant on patience, communication andteamwork, since the contribution of the two players is imperative for the secret infiltration success.Harris and Hancock [24] found, through a study with a collaborative two-player game, that social presence andconnectedness are higher in asymmetric play than in symmetric play, and even higher when tightly-coupled collaboration(i.e. higher interdependence) is involved. It has previously been argued that assuming an explicit asymmetry in gameplaycould be a way to cater for different players and their preferences [11, 16]. Asymmetry has previously been used inresearch for the design of mixed-ability games, although the focus was not the use of asymmetry — in aforementionedresearch [15, 17, 18]. Notably, in
Last Tank Rolling [15], the movement of the wheelchair is metaphorically and physicallylinked with the control of a virtual war tank, which is tougher and more powerful, but slower than the foot soldiercontrolled by the second player. In this example, each role is designed according to the abilities of each player, turningwhat is normally portrayed as a limitation (the use of a wheelchair) as an empowering element and a valuablecontribution. Also, the emergent interdependence of such setting was a catalyst for social play. To the best of ourknowledge, asymmetric roles have not been further explored or evaluated in mixed-ability contexts.
Wobbrock et al. [60] introduced the concept of ability-based design as a replacing set of questions to model accessiblecomputing. Ability-based design is grounded on “what can a person do?", emphasizing that the focus is on abilities, not HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
Table 1. Concept Table.
Concept DescriptionAbility-based
Challenges are designed based on people abilities (through visual/auditory challenges).The auditory role is vision-independent — the task is not easier for a sighted person.The auditory role has complementary graphics (important for low vision) but they donot offer an advantage. Similarly, the visual role may have complementary music andsound effects but they are not relevant to the challenge.
Complete asymmetry
Roles intersect in game dynamics (collaboration, communication), but not mechanics— mechanics are radically different.
Collaboration
The cooperation of two or more people is necessary, as one person would not be ableto perform all tasks on their own.
Interdependence
Players depend on each other to succeed. Avoid the perception that one player is being“assisted” by another.
Agency
There is decision making on the part of both players. The actions of one influencethe other. Avoid the perception that one player is just an “executor" of the game oranother player’s orders.on limitations. It places the responsibility for adaptation in the system, which should be user-adaptable (universallyusable). It’s noted that universal approaches often search for “what can everyone do?”, while ability-based takes it froma design-for-one perspective, that asks “what can you do?”. Similarly, our work is influenced by the Social Model withindisability studies, where the disability is not within one’s body, but in the oppressive social environment [35], as gamesare designed for one stereotypical user [16] disregarding mixed-ability play.More recently, Bennett et al. [6] point out the negative side of assuming people’s independence as the goal ofaccessibility, being that everyone is actually interdependent, relying on others for sustenance, community, and care.From this perspective, the use of assistive devices can provide full autonomy to the user, but can also picture users as“ vulnerable or incapable ". The advantages of acknowledging the essential interdependence existing between all humansare highlighted. Authors argue that an interdependence frame established in personal relationships may emphasizecontributions from people with disabilities and defy traditional hierarchies that rank abilities [6].
From this framing comes the idea of an asymmetric gameplay in which each player performs ability-based tasks,contributing to a common goal — an interdependent group of players that rely on each other to succeed. In short,instead of looking for a single gameplay that can be experienced by players with different abilities, in this approach weexplore the entwining of different gameplays in an interdependent collaboration as a potentially effective design choiceto achieve an engaging and challenging game to both players [Table 1].
We designed and developed two games as a proof-of-concept. Below we describe our design process and technicalaspects of development.
We used the three-tiered model of Hunicke et al. [29] as a framework to ideate. This model describes how a game isperceived from two different perspectives — as in designing the game and as in playing the game. These three layers xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan are Mechanics (i.e. operations and actions afforded), Dynamics (i.e. emerged behaviors and strategies) and Aesthetics(i.e. perceived aspects by the player). Our design process starts with the conception of mechanics mapped to abilities —actions and challenges that depend, for one role on visual abilities and, for the other on auditory abilities. We thenproceeded to think about how these mechanics could work in the context of a collaborative dynamic between twoplayers, in which player actions are interdependent. The collaborative dynamics were discussed and iterated, leading tochanges in the mechanics associated with each role and the synergies between them.The concept of both games comes from picturing ways in which no player has complete information or control overa character, ensuring both game roles are essential to be successful. In the first game, “ Rescue: Under Pressure ” (sub),the player with visual-based interaction is able to move the character (direct control) and the player with audio-basedinteraction has a global perception of the scenario (world awareness). Inspired by how sonar-like abilities were usedbefore in audio-based world navigation [2, 58], in our first game two players control a submarine, one controlling thesonar (auditory challenge) and the other drives the submarine (visual challenge).In the second game, “
Rescue: Mayday ” (air), we reversed the mapping of roles to abilities. One player pilots a rescueaircraft through audio-based interaction and the second is an air traffic controller, with a strong visual task. We drewinspiration from how airline pilots typically do not fly based on visual information and have to rely instead on theinstruments and instructions of air traffic controllers.Communication is essential between the two players to achieve success. This is the basis of play and collaboration inboth games. We ensured that there is considerable diversity in what each player can do. As such, various ability-basedmechanics and synergies were designed to fit this collaborative dynamic. Mechanics imply different skills such asmemory, dexterity, which could turn to be inaccessible in other mixed-ability contexts. We could have built the visualrole as a mix of visual and auditory challenges (since we did not consider hearing impairments), but we chose to focusthe challenges of each role on one sense. We used the word “Pilot” to name the role of the player who has directcontrol over the character and “Engineer” to name the role of the player who has world awareness. For a detailedcharacterization of each role, see Table 2.
We used Unity to develop the two online multiplayer games. All graphics were designed from scratch and soundeffects were collected from various free sound libraries and post-edited. All game menus and options are accessible viakeyboard with pre-rendered (and post-edited) speech from open-source text-to-speech software. Screen readers do notinteract with any game elements (including menus). During development we recruited sighted-sighted (i.e. researcherswith screen reader expertise) and mixed-visual-ability playtester pairs, whose valuable feedback was critical to ensureusability. We made available a version for Windows and a version for OSx. A trailer video that presents both games isavailable . Games are also available for download . Both games imply a synchronous interaction in which players have to be efficient to achieve the goals within a timelimit. Both games include a tutorial mode and a mission mode and require two players. One player plays as the Pilot andthe other as the Engineer. The tutorial guides each player through all available mechanics associated with their role as Unity. https://unity.com/ (Last visited on September 16th, 2020) Games Trailer: https://youtu.be/Sgxxgt-favA Games Repository: https://osf.io/2z3tq/?view_only=8ebb305d04c14552be9b9ed57e3e81f27
HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
Table 2. Roles and mechanics detailed description
Role / Tasks Rescue: Under Pressure Rescue: MaydayPILOT Visual challenge Auditory challenge
Moves and actson the character Drives the submarine; Switches between dif-ferent modes (Collect, Flare, Shoot and Bat-tery Saving). Pilots the airplane (auditory compass); Landsand takes off; Switches between airplane andhelicopter mode.Identifies nearelements Spots ores, enemies, blocked passages andthe treasure within the light around the sub-marine; Flares light up the cave. Audio feedback when the airplane is overrescue spots or under storms; Danger sensorbeeps when there’s hazards ahead.Interacts withthose elements Operates mechanical claw to catch ores;Shoots torpedoes to incapacitate monstersand open blocked passages. Opens floodgates to extinguish fires; Maneu-vers the helicopter and operates the rope torescue people.Supply resourcesto the Engineer Collects ores that are used by the Engineer tocharge the battery, upgrades sonar and craftvarious items. Answers SOS calls that are redirected to theEngineer (with coordinates and time limit);Regularly reports airplane position.
ENGINEER Auditory challenge Visual challenge
Basic informationof the world Binaural soundscape gives information onthe position and proximity of a monster andtreasure (passive sonar). Map screen with control stations marked;Sees airplane position when the Pilot reportsits position.Actively gathersmore information Sends pulses that detect ores, monsters andthe treasure with information on their posi-tion; Upgrades sonar range. Marks rescue spots on the map accordingto coordinates of received SOS calls; Sendspulses to detect storms and other airplanes.Manages variousaspects Controls battery level (charging it when nec-essary); Crafts and load items for the Pilot touse (flares and torpedoes). Watches over the water tank level and thestate of the vehicle; Regularly consults thetime limits for each task.Provides verbalguidance to thePilot Communicates a direction (e.g. “North”), en-suring the Pilot is able to find ores and thetreasure, and to avoid monsters. Communicates a direction (e.g. “North”), en-suring the Pilot is able to reach rescue spots,and to avoid storms and other planes.if they were playing mission mode. The only difference is no time limit to any task, and the prompts to introduce eachmechanic gradually. Players have to cooperate to fulfill their tasks. In mission mode, there are mechanics that imposetime limits to certain tasks, the objectives, resources and challenges are quasirandomly generated (e.g. in sub ensuringthe treasure is at a certain depth). Although the games have a very similar collaborative dynamic, the objectives and theway they manage to achieve them are quite different from game to game.In sub, two players collaborate to rescue a lost treasure using a submarine. Players lose when battery runs out or ifthe submarine is devoured by a sea monster. The Pilot drives the submarine and operates various tools [Fig. 1 - A]. TheEngineer operates the sonar and uses resources to craft items and upgrades (auditory challenge). They must guide thePilot, by actively surveying the submarine surroundings using the sonar in the eight cardinal points [Fig. 1 - C].In air, two players collaborate in air rescue missions with the goal to finish the day without any casualties. Playerslose when rescue missions reach a time limit or if aircraft collides with a commercial airplane. The Pilot lands, takes offand pilots the aircraft, operates various tools and regularly reports the aircraft position (20 seconds cooldown) [Fig. 1 -B]. The Engineer controls air traffic, marks the location of rescue operations and must guide the pilot to them [Fig. 1 - xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D]. A description of role tasks and mechanics is presented in Table 2 and more detailed information about the twogames is also available . We conducted a remote user study with mixed-visual-ability pairs. Our goal was to understand the potential of theapproach in creating inclusive and balanced gaming experiences for players with different visual abilities. Seekingto answer the aforementioned research questions, all pairs played both games. Our research questions focus onunderstanding how asymmetric ability-based roles impact players’ perceptions. To understand the effects of asymmetryirrespective of type of role played, we developed two games to ensure players could experience both. We also expectedgaming preferences (i.e. type of game, type of role) to impact perceptions. Thus, it allowed us to situate players’feedback. Participants completed one questionnaire after playing each game successfully (tutorial + mission). Lastly,participants completed a debriefing questionnaire where we encouraged them to reflect upon the experience. The studywas approved by the Ethics Committee of our school.
We recruited 26 participants, 13 pairs, from 4 countries, aged 16-53 (M=32.31; SD=8.54) [Table 3]. We made an effort torecruit people with different gaming experiences by publicizing the call in dedicated gaming forums and institutions’social networks. We reached expert gamers, casual gamers and also people who are not used to play [Table 3]. Peopleapplied to participate in pairs (one person had to reach out and sent both contacts). One pair element was required tobe a screen reader user due to visual impairments (B1-B13) and the other sighted (S1-S13). 8 participants were totallyblind (i.e. no light perception) and 5 participants (B2, B4, B6, B7, B8) were near totally blind (i.e. visual acuity lowerthan 20/1000). Participants could not have other kinds of severe impairments (mobility, hearing, cognitive), since gameswere not designed considering other disabilities.We purposefully recruited pairs of two non-stranger volunteers (family, friends, etc.) to assess how asymmetry couldbe leveraged in mixed-ability scenarios where people were already familiar with each other. We chose to evaluate withfamiliar pairs for two reasons: 1) to enable friends and family to play together (given the lack of opportunities for theseexperiences to happen, highlighted by previous work [16]), and 2) to ensure participants had a baseline of previousinteractions with each other. Also, social closeness, competence and autonomy could be affected by other factors amongstrangers, and are out of the scope of this work. We compensated all participants who fulfilled the protocol with a €25(or local currency equivalent) voucher, for their time.
After filling out the participant form, pairs were contacted via email with instructions and the link to the first gamethey were required to play. Games were counterbalanced between pairs. Participants had at least one week with thefirst game and were asked to complete the tutorial (about 20 minutes), and play the mission mode for another 10minutes. We suggested recording their game session (screen capture + communication audio), but did not make itmandatory. After meeting the requirements, each participant received an email to fill in the questionnaire about theexperience (detailed below). Participants were free to continue playing if they wished to. After at least one week, andafter completing the experience questionnaire, participants were contacted and given access to the second game (same Games Detailed Description: https://osf.io/rktz2/?view_only=720e3f6b788b4e05bb93d6708e7b4e449
HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
Table 3. Demographic information, gaming frequency and participation details of participants (each row represents a pair); Playtimevalues represent time to complete the tutorial (T) and time playing mission mode (M) and are always rounded down to minutes.
ID GN Age Plays ID GN Age Plays Relation Country sub Playtime air Playtime B1 F 34 Daily S1 F 53 Monthly Friends Australia 27 (T) 18 (M) 22 (T) 14 (M) B2 M 28 Monthly S2 F 26 Occasionally Family USA 18 (T) 11 (M) 20 (T) 31 (M) B3 M 41 Daily S3 F 16 Occasionally Family UK 31 (T) 21 (M) 17 (T) 31 (M) B4 M 38 Monthly S4 M 38 Occasionally Friends Portugal 24 (T) 17 (M) 15 (T) 18 (M) B5 F 16 Daily S5 M 18 Weekly Family USA 15 (T) 38 (M) 16 (T) 15 (M) B6 M 32 Occasionally S6 F 27 Occasionally Partners Portugal 21 (T) 18 (M) 21 (T) 29 (M) B7 F 40 Never S7 F 32 Weekly Friends Portugal 24 (T) 68 (M) 44 (T) 21 (M) B8 M 38 Occasionally S8 F 36 Occasionally Family Portugal 21 (T) 20 (M) 41 (T) 19 (M) B9 M 33 Weekly S9 M 31 Monthly Friends Portugal 27 (T) 53 (M) 23 (T) 35 (M)
B10
F 41 Never
S10
F 38 Occasionally Friends Portugal 38 (T) 23 (M) 48 (T) 27 (M)
B11
M 25 Monthly
S11
M 26 Weekly Friends Portugal 23 (T) 11 (M) 26 (T) 19 (M)
B12
M 37 Never
S12
F 37 Daily Family Portugal 33 (T) 23 (M) 51 (T) 12 (M)
B13
F 35 Occasionally
S13
F 24 Occasionally Family Portugal 48 (T) 32 (M) 58 (T) 30 (M)protocol as described above). After complying with the terms regarding both games, participants had to complete onelast online questionnaire about their final thoughts on the approach. All play sessions were carefully analyzed, searchingfor unexpected difficulties (e.g., quitting the game in the middle of the tutorial). When it happened, we contacted theparticipants and asked if they had any problems playing, offering our help. Participants were also encouraged to reachout to us if they had any issue or question.
Participants completed four online questionnaires: demographics and gaming habits (Q1), game session (Q2 and Q3)and debriefing (Q4). All questionnaires were built in Microsoft Forms and tested for accessibility.Q2 and Q3 consisted of the Ubisoft Player Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ) [5] and open ended questions. UPEQcomprises subscales of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness and its 21 items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale,where higher is better. We adapted three items to instead of referring to “characters" to refer to either “submarine” or“aircraft”, according to each game. Additionally, we removed the question “Other players are friendly towards me" in therelatedness’s subscale, as in the context of our study players were not playing with strangers. The open questions askedthe participants about their experience and thoughts on the roles. Q4 consisted mainly of open-ended questions thatprobed participants’ final thoughts regarding the games and the concept. Questionnaires are available . We conducted an exploratory study aiming to uncover possible relationships between the concepts of interest withoutpre-established assumptions or hypotheses. We performed a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis overall open-ended questions of the survey, undertaken in line with Braun and Clarke’s suggested strategy [8]. We firstfamiliarized with the data, by iteratively reading the answers. Even before we collected the responses from all participants,we started to annotate relevant phrases and recurring ideas in the text. We created an initial set of codes deductivelyinformed by our readings and enriched with the concepts that stem from our research questions (e.g. asymmetry,competence, autonomy). Codes were discussed among the authors, revised and added, as more responses were submitted Study Online Questionnaires: https://osf.io/86sye/?view_only=31311e7aff1c47f295b89a5f0dc340e810 xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan in multiple sessions. In these sessions, using Zoom shared virtual white board, themes were discussed, codes wereaggregated in a shared placed, relationships were identified and discussed with examples (quotes) spread throughoutthe board that illustrated the themes that led the research team discussions. Three authors were involved in the codingprocess. The final codebook and outline of the themes are available .We used UPEQ to quantitatively measure participants engagement, and analysed its subscales of autonomy andcompetence (“ each subscale of UPEQ independently predicts measures of engagement in game and are a reliable alternativefor direct rating of player experience" [5]). We performed mixed within-between analysis of variance to assess theeffects of game and user group on UPEQ scores: all reported analysis meet the assumptions of normality, sphericity,homogeneity of variances, and equality of covariance matrices. Two pairs recorded and sent us videos of their sessions,which we reviewed to situate their feedback and illustrate our results.We chose to assess engagement due to its relationship with players enjoyment and fun, autonomy as it is intrinsicallyrelated with the design concept of interdependence, and lastly, competence due to its relationship with asymmetricroles and the past work findings [1, 16, 48] around simplistic or unfair games created when striving for accessibility.Nonetheless, the study does not focus on the quantitative measures collected, rather the qualitative data collected issupported by them.Using a mixed-method approach, below, we characterize participants’ experiences and perspectives on ability-basedasymmetric game roles. This characterization is primarily based on the thematic analysis of open ended questions. Itis additionally confronted and reinforced by the quantitative data resulting from the administration of UPEQ, gamesession logs, video recordings, demographics and gaming habits. In sub, players took an average of 27.4 minutes (SD=1.7) to complete the tutorial and played mission mode for anaverage of 28.1 minutes (SD=3.2) (over multiple attempts). In 31 attempts, pairs were devoured by a monster and in 14they ran out of battery. One pair succeeded in the mission. In air, players averaged 31.5 minutes (SD=2.9) to completethe tutorial and played mission mode for an average of 23.6 minutes (SD=1.5). None of the pairs was able to successfullycomplete a mission in air, 43 attempts collided with another plane, and 25 were due to the time limits of the rescueoperations. 6 played remotely and used audio call to communicate, 6 played co-located and were close enough tocommunicate, and one pair (B5 and S5) played co-located via audio call. Individual information about each participant’sgame session is shown in Table 3, namely time playing sub and air.
Only two sighted participants (S2 and S13) had previously played games with someone with visual impairments (bothhad played tabletop games with their study partners). Most visually impaired participants reported previous experiencesbut pointed out that most games do not meet the different needs of groups with mixed visual abilities.“
There aren’t many games that both blind and sighted players want to play and can play together. Mostgames are not accessible and sighted people aren’t interested in playing poorly designed blindy games " – B1The lack of options for group play among people with different visual abilities was highlighted, which is in line withprevious work [16]. The games in the study were portrayed by participants as an exception to the rule. Participants Codebook & Themes: https://osf.io/ydurt/?view_only=bfd44c100f0e4870ab65ee8546f4e0ff11
HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
Table 4. Quantitative data resulting from the administration of UPEQ. All values are presented in mean (standard deviation) pairs, forsub and air, given all participants (A), just visually impaired participants (VI) and just sighted participants (S). sub-A sub-VI sub-S air-A air-VI air-S
Average score
Competence score
Autonomy score we shared an adventure withoutlimitations “– S9) and family.“
I haven’t been able to find any games that are fun for my brother and I to play together. [...] I feel like it’s agreat concept and it was a lot of fun being able to play with my brother. " – B5Participants believed the approach provided an inclusive experience and attributed its cause to the asymmetryof feedback and tasks. Referencing asymmetry as: “ [...] fundamental aspect to allow inclusive fun. " (B4); “ [...] focusedon the best capabilities of each one, games become rewarding for both players " (S4). One participant highlighted howmixed-ability gaming with balanced roles, as an inclusive experience, can be leveraged for bonding activities.“ [Mixed-visual-ability gaming] inspires bonding between people, trust, team spirit. [...] If there are gameswith roles for people with visual impairments this can help this integration and equality between partners. Ireally liked the idea, mainly because the person with visual impairments was not given an easier or lessimportant role, but a role as important as that of the other player. " – B7
All participants reported a positive experience with at least one of the games. Regarding overall engagement with sub,participants reported an average UPEQ score of 3.95 (SD=.08), (visually impaired M=3.89, SD=.48 and sighted M=4.02,SD=.36). In air, participants reported an average UPEQ M=3.65 (SD=.11), (visually impaired M=3.68, SD=.60 and sightedM=3.63, SD=.59). We conducted a mixed within-between analysis of variance to assess the impact of game and user group on Overall Engagement . There was no significant interaction between user group and game , Wilk’s Lambda=.965, F(1,24)=8.69, p=.36, partial eta squared=.04. There was a substantial main effect for game , Wilks’s Lambda=.706, F(1, 24)=9.99,p=.004, partial eta squared=.29, with both groups showing to be more engaged in sub. The main effect comparing usergroup was not significant, F(1, 24)=.046, p=.832, partial eta squared=.002.When we asked participants to choose the game they preferred, 19 participants answered sub and 5 (one of themsighted) answered air. B10 did not answer the question and B3 chose neither, as he states: “
I can’t really pick as I enjoyedthem equally. "Overall, the experience with sub was significantly more engaging for both sighted and visually impaired participants.Particularly, sighted participants highlighted how being the Pilot on sub was more engaging. S2 commented it was moreintuitive and “ more fun and easy to move around ". On the other hand, participants with visual impairments highlightedhow immersive was being the Pilot of the aircraft:“
I really liked my role. [...] I really like using the different controls to work on the airplane, going where Iwanted it as well. I felt like I was actually doing the mission. " – B5, referring to air xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan In both games, most participants enjoyed the challenge of managing several aspects at the same time, when playingas the Engineer. However, some participants perceived the role as limited, admitting they would like to have moreagency in the action (e.g. in shooting monsters, in rescuing people). The preferences of the players stood out in theirperspectives, suggesting changes in the controls and tasks of their role, and even giving ideas for other games withasymmetric roles. Particularly, the narrative setting of each game influenced the feelings of each player, both positively(“
I really like the sea. [..] I really imagined the underwater scenario " – B7), and negatively.“
Maybe, airplanes, storms and fires are not something I find particularly nice. [...] Apart from the setting, itwas a nice game to play with a blind friend. " – S2, referring to airB5 mentioned she tried to play text-based games with her brother, but pointed out that, in comparison with these, thegames in the study “ were fun because you were actually moving around and doing something ". Audio-based mechanicswere praised by participants with visual impairments, such as the helicopter mode (“
I want more of that " – B2) andactive sonar (“
Really interesting concept using sonar to find different types of materials under water. " – B5).
Regarding sub, participants reported an average competence of 3.67 (SD=.46) (visually impaired M=3.65, SD=.44 andsighted M=3.68, SD=.49). In air, participants reported an average competence M=3.09 (SD=.98), (visually impairedM=3.22, SD=1.1 and sighted M=2.97, SD=.89).We conducted a mixed within-between analysis of variance to assess the impact of game and user group on Competence .There was no significant interaction between user group and game , Wilk’s Lambda=.979, F(1, 24)=.524, p=.476, partialeta squared=.02. There was a substantial main effect for game , Wilks’s Lambda=.719, F(1, 24)=9.36, p=.005, partial etasquared=.28, with both groups showing to feel more competent in sub. The main effect comparing user group was notsignificant, F(1, 24)=.204, p=.656, partial eta squared=.008.Regarding sub, participants reported an average autonomy score of 3.83 (SD.56), (visually impaired M=3.76, SD=.59and sighted M=3.89, SD=.54). In air, participants reported an average autonomy score of 3.44 (SD=.68), (visuallyimpaired M=3.41, SD=.67 and sighted M=3.47, SD=.72). A mixed within-between analysis of variance showed nosignificant interaction between user group and game on Autonomy (Wilk’s Lambda=.996, F(1, 24)=.105, p=.749, partialeta squared=.004). There was a substantial main effect for game , Wilks’s Lambda=.701, F(1, 24)=10.23, p=.004, partial etasquared=.29, with both groups showing to feel more autonomous in sub. The main effect comparing user group wasagain not significant, F(1, 24)=.224, p=.640, partial eta squared=.009.Participants pointed out how the games were challenging, with the UPEQ item - "I was good at playing" having thelowest average score M=2.63. This suggests participants did not feel they had mastered the game in a single play session.As already mentioned, only one of the pairs (B7 and S7) managed to successfully complete a mission, in sub. They donot play often [Table 3], but showed enthusiasm for the game considering the time they played (68 minutes, over 8attempts) and answers to the survey. In air, two pairs were able to accomplish three rescue tasks (they extinguishedtwo fires, rescued a person and landed to deliver the person), but none managed to reach the end of the mission.Participants felt significantly more autonomous and competent playing sub than air. Some perceived air as toochallenging which detracted from the experience.“
Not knowing the plane’s position on the map more often induces a very high degree of difficulty thatprevents the game from being more engaging. " – S4, referring to air HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
In air, the Engineer can only see the aircraft’s position on the map when the Pilot reports it. We have limited thereporting feature to once every 20 seconds. Its intermittence coupled with the aircraft continuous movement madenavigation time sensitive, thus perceived as more demanding. Some pairs felt frustrated because they were unable toreach the relevant locations to complete the objectives.Participants described how they reflected on the experience and identified points where they could improve as a team,figuring out how to communicate efficiently. In a particular case, which we were able to observe in full through videorecording, a pair (B4 and S4) found an unexpected way to achieve an understanding of roles and collaborative dynamicsin air. S4 was not understanding how the aircraft’s navigation worked and was not sure how to give directions, so thepair decided to reverse roles. Although they were unable to complete the tutorial (the role of Engineer is not accessibleto B4), it was enough to reach an understanding and to collaborate in harmony. In this case, participants were unable toovercome one of the challenges that the game proposes — reach reconciliation through effective dialogue — and madethis curious decision.The Pilot’s dependence on the Engineer was highlighted by some. However, others mention, in sub, the Pilot hasmore freedom to explore and have a reference of where ores can be, by following the walls.“
I found there is a logical dependence on the Engineer. But there is also the possibility for the Pilot to find anore [close by]. There is a sense of freedom of action. " – S9, referring to subIn fact, unlike the Pilot in air, the Pilot in sub has a visual reference of where important elements may be (an idea of"path", formed by the claustrophobic cave). This led to a sense of autonomy, even though, in both games, the Pilot canonly perceive elements at a minimum distance and has no way of avoiding dangers without the help of the Engineer.This perception is explicable given that, although there is equivalent information in air when close to fire and rescuelocations, the feedback is more spaced out.While the approach was effective in acknowledging and suppressing differences in abilities, other differences had animpact on the experience. For example, B2 played first sub and explains how the experience has become unbalancedbecause his partner “ was not an experienced gamer, so it was difficult for her to find objects and move around the space" .Likewise, after playing air, B2 commented “ there’s no way I can help the Engineer be better. So if they are strugglingand I’m just going in circles, it’s not very useful" . This happened with other pairs. For example, B1, who plays digitalgames daily, mentions the role of Engineer in air implied a task in which there was " too much to concentrate on for her[partner] ".This was expected, as players have to be efficient playing their roles to succeed as a team. Some participantsrecognized they would have preferred to have more autonomy during the game: “
I wanted to take charge, but myrole is not one that allows me to take charge. " (B2, referring to air). For some pairs, it is likely that a loosely coupledinterdependence would be more appropriate. B2 adds that “ a collaborative game where you’re two separate entities, like awood cutter and a builder, would be better, as then we will be in control of our own section. ". The collaboration through game roles with tasks and interactions mapped to abilities was associated with socialinclusion. With UPEQ, we did not find significant interaction between user group and game in engagement, autonomyor competence. Although experiences with the games were different for all pairs, for most, games were successful increating a space to have fun, irrespective of abilities. xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan “ In the end, inclusion and team spirit win, and the barriers between people become more blurred. " – B6“
On the other side there was just another player with whom I was having fun, and there was no perceptionthat he was a person with a disability. " – S4For most participants, control over the collaboration was balanced and tasks were evenly divided through the tworoles. Participants mentioned this in relation to both games. The collaborative dynamic was described as a shift inleadership from one role to another depending on what the game status required.“
I don’t think there was one person who was more in charge. I needed the Pilot to control the submarine, buthe needed me to find different objects and monsters [...]. I like that there wasn’t a bigger role. " – B5, referringto subGames offered different gameplays to each player, which, in this case, allowed for a balanced joint experience.Participants’ perceptions illustrate how equality does not mean equity (“ [...] giving players a sense of equal circumstancesregardless of their characteristics. " – B6). Moreover, games showed potential in raising awareness of different abilities,through a social and playful experience. Participants highlighted how they could be leveraged to educate people whomay have preconceptions about the impact of a visual disability.“
It would be a great way of educating sighted people in to what blind people can do in a socialnon-educational environment. " – B3
Participants enjoyed how game mechanisms stimulated communication and interaction between players. This washighlighted in both games, since in both the Pilot depends on clear and succinct indications, not being aware ofwhat surrounds them from a distance. One of the challenges both games featured was the need to figure out how tocommunicate effectively given the asymmetry of information available for each player. S1 comments how the games“ allow team work and [are] a great teacher of proper communication between players. ". Information asymmetry wasrecognized as the main catalyst.“
The Engineer and I played next to each other. I could see his screen but it didn’t give me any clues, whichincreased the verbal interaction between us. I know the Engineer was notified of the missions beingaccomplished because he cheered. " – S2, referring to subThe tight communication was a highlight of the experience for most participants. However the repetitive nature oftheir tasks made communication "boring" for some, who suggested alternative forms of communication — e.g. “ like ahigh five emoji or something visible/hearable " (S2), moving beacons of light, as well as new game mechanics.“
I feel like maybe more aspects of the game should be us trying to communicate with each other. Like when Idrop the rope, he has to guide it or something. " – B5, referring to airInformation asymmetry caused tensions between players, as it required pairs to solve the problem together andestablish a consensus despite neither having all the required information. In the case of S6 and B6, the asymmetricexperience caused divisive moments.“
The interaction was not so good because, in the beginning, we were always seeing who was to blame for notbeing able to achieve the goal. Me saying I was giving the indications of what I was seeing and he saying hewas following the indications he was hearing. " – S6, referring to air HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro
During design phase, we made decisions to keep information asymmetric, in order to stimulate communication. Forexample, we discussed whether in sub, the Pilot should have graphical indications of battery level and ammunition. Wedecided not to, since it is up to the Engineer to control these aspects and to communicate them to the Pilot. Some pairswere successful in finding an efficient way to communicate. As mentioned, one pair was more ingenious and tried toplay the tutorial in opposite roles. Participants also highlighted the unity and trust that must exist between the twoplayers to be able to work better as a team.“
We have to trust our game partner and accept the information he gives us. Therefore, trust, constantinteraction and good communication are essential to fulfill the mission. " – B7, referring to sub
Participants commented how they got to try both roles (Pilot and Engineer) accordingly to the game, and found theability-based roles to be fundamental for inclusion and equity. However, 3 participants (B1, B2 and B13) mentioned thatby having only one accessible role is not very inclusive because the game cannot be played by two visually impairedpeople. The way we designed the asymmetry fits a very specific scenario: mixed-ability pairs. Some participantsmentioned that designing for mixed-ability gaming is “ inherently discriminatory " (B2). Two participants with visualimpairments pointed out that one of the biggest barriers is not having sighted people to play with. It was suggestedthat games should allow people with visual impairments to play among themselves or even to play alone: “ there shouldbe a way in which we can play alone, so we are not always dependent on the availability of another sighted person. " (B13)
The study was seen by most participants as an opportunity to share a playful moment with a family member or friend,with whom they do not usually play. Seven participants mentioned this was the first experience in which they knowinglyplayed with someone with a different level of vision. Most participants pointed out the lack of games that can beenjoyed by both people with and without visual impairments. In previous work, the lack of intersection of gaminghabits and communities in this context was highlighted [16], which is also emphasized in our results. We collectedvaluable feedback from participants’ perceptions we consider to be informative for research in gaming and accessibility.Some of these observations are related to the nature of collaborative games and asymmetric games, but we focusedhere on issues particularly relevant for mixed-ability gaming contexts.
Participants found the games to be engaging and inclusive experiences, with some wishing for more content, customiza-tion and variety that would enable them to keep playing together. When it comes to mixed-ability gaming, we argue itis not just a question of people being able to play. The ultimate goal, from a hedonic and social perspective, is to designgames that people want to play together. By including two stereotypes in the games through a designed asymmetry, theneeds of each player were met. We did not seek for universally accessible gameplay. Rather, we focused design on theindividual. It successfully provided an intersection space in which both players felt included, challenged and engagedand in which differences in abilities were not limiting. Moreover, we found for most pairs it successfully provided abalanced collaborative gameplay in which both players felt as valuable contributors. Although the experience was notequal for both, it provided equity. xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan Our findings suggest that, in a context of mixed-visual-ability, ability-based roles can create engaging experiencesfor both players, which answers our first research question. The concept proved to have potential and it should inspireother researchers and game designers to explore alternative approaches to achieve inclusive fun, even if they appear tosuffer some shortcomings towards universal accessibility.
Participants considered the collaboration in both games balanced, in the sense that none of the players was leadingor as if the leadership was constantly shifting between the roles as the situation required. Both roles, in both games,were highly interdependent, to the point that communication was constantly required, which was, for the majority,a highlight of the experience. The asymmetric nature of the information coupled with the interdependence of theroles required participants to: 1) figure out a way to communicate effectively; and 2) trust each other’s judgment andinformation. This led to roles where both players felt valuable, necessary and where the underlying design approachof each role representing an ability did not have any weight to the overall experience, other than guaranteeing aninclusive game. These findings inform how interdependent ability-based roles can impact players’ perceived autonomyand competence, which answers our second research question.There were only brief tasks that players could engage on their own (e.g. collect a found ore, build a torpedo). The tightdependence on each other led some players (particularly when gaming expertise were diverse in the pair) to report a lackof autonomy and wish for overlapping mechanisms, feedback or a different division of tasks. Harris and Hancock [24]have faced this issue when analyzing the impact of different degrees of interdependence on players’ perceptions. Theirresults showed that players felt more connected, engaged and interested when interdependence was tighter. However,similar to what we found, they also showed that less skilled pairs preferred looser interdependence. Harris and Hancockpresent the concept of rhythm of interdependence, in which the level of dependence between players varies in intensityand dynamics. We argue that in mixed-ability contexts using asymmetric ability-based roles, there is an opportunityto explore how to guarantee a challenging experience for all players without sacrificing the interdependence andasymmetry that appears to be at the center of both players feeling necessary, competent and trusted. We believe that,for example, by providing difficulty customization within each role it is possible to accommodate players of differentexpertise levels and maintain high interdependence.
The educational value of games was recognized in raising awareness of the capabilities and gaming habits of peoplewith different abilities. Participants mentioned the experience would be a good way to show how people with visualimpairments are playing digital games. Although the games were strictly designed to be for mixed-ability contexts,participants highlighted how even two sighted players with no accessibility awareness could play the game togetherand be educated of how blind gamers play.In multiplayer games, players typically have an equivalent general perception of the world and the agents in thatworld (e.g. in a shooter, one player can see others shooting). In games with complete asymmetry, like ours, playershave very different information and this perception is divergent. Participants frequently reported the unawarenessof the opposite role (i.e. how it was mechanically and interactively), which in some cases aroused curiosity. This isdue to the nature of asymmetric gameplay and the fact that participants could not play in reversed roles (one role isinaccessible). Also, to stimulate communication we made decisions in order to maintain asymmetrical information asmuch as possible. From players’ perspectives, we realized the actions and contributions of each person were for the most HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro part implicit, and had to be communicated verbally. This overall unawareness by design, was associated with “ blurring "the abilities of each player. In particular, sighted participants mentioned how they wouldn’t be able to tell they wereplaying with a visually impaired player. This provides an opportunity to explore asymmetric games, as a multiplayerentertainment for visually impaired players, where their disabilities do not need to be conveyed or accommodated.For one pair, asymmetry information gave rise to tension due to the difficulty in finding consensus. However, thesame asymmetry inspired the feeling of unity and trust. We find a potential to break stigmas and raise awareness aboutdifferent abilities. As already mentioned, the individuals who struggled and had to adapt were the ones with less gamingexpertise which is expected giving the games were designed to be challenging. We see reflected the potential recognizedby Bennett et al. [6] of acknowledging the interdependence between people — valuing each person’s contributions anddestabilizing traditional hierarchies that rank abilities.
To minimize the tensions that could arise from having a single role accessible, and the possible connotations with it,we developed two games where a different role was accessible in each. In addition, the two different contexts of playenabled us to explore asymmetric ability-based roles where there is a certain equivalence between the same role indifferent games [Table 2]).We acknowledge that having roles inaccessible by design can be controversial, particularly when we consider howdifficult it is to get someone sighted to play with, due to the isolated gaming communities. During our recruitment wewere contacted by 6 more visually impaired people who wished to participate but did not have any sighted partnersthey could play with. We argue that the isolated communities and lack of mixed-ability play is a symptom of the lack ofbalanced and engaging opportunities to play which we address with our approach, by design. Previous work cautionedabout the negative effects found in other contexts where there is a separation of technologies [25]. In this study, wefound that assuming an explicit asymmetry in gameplay provided an inclusive, engaging and challenging experiencefor mixed-visual-ability pairs which is not readily available elsewhere.Accessibility should not be an a posteriori effort to adapt something to the needs of people with disabilities. Thisseems to be recurrent in gaming accessibility. We argue it should be about finding ways to include these different needsfrom the beginning of the concept and design process. It is urgent to think of the population as the complex and diversecompound that it is and to find ways to close the gaps that divide different communities, either because of their abilities,their age, or culture. The more work there is, the more faded the perception that games (and more) have to be done fora single stereotypical player without disabilities and the closer we will be to a world where differences exist and theyare proudly embraced by design.
We conducted a fully remote study with asynchronous communication with participants. As such, we could not controlaspects such as the Internet connection of participants, devices they used to play, etc. Although our game prototypeswere able to detect disconnections, they were unable to reconnect if the connection was lost for an extended period oftime (above 10 seconds). One group, unfortunately, was unable to participate due to frequent connection issues.Past work has highlighted the lack of opportunities for mixed-ability play, and how audio games are not appealingto sighted players. Thus, although we found our games to be overall engaging, participants have none to limited pastexperiences playing together. xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan It is important to note that these games are prototypes, which are probably not at the level of what participants areused to playing. Although most participants had an engaging experience, it was also associated with tedious momentsas the tasks and the way players solved them started to get repetitive.
Recognizing that mixed-ability digital play remains rare, we sought to explore a different approach to game design thatcaters for different abilities. We created prototypes of games in which there’s a complete asymmetry in the gameplaydesign based on stereotypical abilities (i.e. visual and auditory). Although we focused on mixed-visual-ability pairs,we believe the approach is promising to any mixed-ability context, where roles are designed based on a chosen set ofabilities. We showed the approach was able to provide an inclusive experience unlike the games participants usuallyplay. Our work shows the potential for novel approaches where equity does not necessarily come from equality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We kindly thank all of our participants. This work was supported by FCT through LASIGE Research Unit funding,ref. UIDB/00408/2020 and ref. UIDP/00408/2020, Portugal-UK Bilateral Research Fund (PARSUK BRF) through project“INPLAY: Designing games for inclusive play with the visually impaired and sighted", and the UKRI Centre for theAnalysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications (CAMERA 2.0; EP/T022523/1).
REFERENCES [1] Ronny Andrade, Melissa J. Rogerson, Jenny Waycott, Steven Baker, and Frank Vetere. 2019. Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with VisualImpairment. In
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 116:1–116:14.https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300346 event-place: Glasgow, Scotland Uk.[2] Ronny Andrade, Melissa J. Rogerson, Jenny Waycott, Steven Baker, and Frank Vetere. 2020. Introducing the Gamer Information-Control Framework:Enabling Access to Digital Games for People with Visual Impairment. In
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376211[3] Dominique Archambault, Roland Ossmann, Thomas Gaudy, and Klaus Miesenberger. 2007. Computer games and visually impaired people.
Upgrade (Jan. 2007).[4] Matthew Atkinson, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, Colin Machin, and Adrian Lawrence. 2006. Making the mainstream accessible: Redefining the game. (072006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1183316.1183321[5] Ahmad Azadvar and Alessandro Canossa. 2018. UPEQ: ubisoft perceived experience questionnaire: a self-determination evaluation tool for videogames. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3235765.3235780[6] Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence As a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. In
Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’18)
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Asymmetric Play - Can One Game Cater to Many Playstyles?
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Game Design Workshop. A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games . https://doi.org/10.1201/b2230919
HI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan D. Gonçalves, A. Rodrigues, M. L. Richardson, A. A. Sousa, M. J. Proulx, T. Guerreiro [15] Kathrin Gerling and Laura Buttrick. 2014. Last Tank Rolling: Exploring Shared Motion-based Play to Empower Persons Using Wheelchairs. In
Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’14) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 415–416.https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2661303 event-place: Toronto, Ontario, Canada.[16] David Gonçalves, André Rodrigues, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2020. Playing With Others: Depicting Multiplayer Gaming Experiences of People WithVisual Impairments. In
The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20) .Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418304[17] A. Grabski, T. Toni, T. Zigrand, R. Weller, and G. Zachmann. 2016. Kinaptic - Techniques and insights for creating competitive accessible 3D gamesfor sighted and visually impaired users. In . 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/HAPTICS.2016.7463198[18] Roland Graf, Pallavi Benawri, Amy E. Whitesall, Dashiell Carichner, Zixuan Li, Michael Nebeling, and Hun Seok Kim. 2019. IGYM: An InteractiveFloor Projection System for Inclusive Exergame Environments. In
Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Barcelona, Spain) (CHI PLAY ’19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347161[19] Dimitris Grammenos. 2005. UA-Chess: A universally accessible board game.
HCI: Exploring New Interaction Environments
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08) . Association for Computing Machinery, 1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357281[21] Dimitris Grammenos, Anthony Savidis, Yannis Georgalis, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2006. Access Invaders: Developing a Universally AccessibleAction Game. In
Computers Helping People with Special Needs (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Klaus Miesenberger, Joachim Klaus, Wolfgang L.Zagler, and Arthur I. Karshmer (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 388–395.[22] Dimitris Grammenos, Anthony Savidis, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2009. Designing Universally Accessible Games.
Comput. Entertain.
7, 1, Article8 (Feb. 2009), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1486508.1486516[23] Ian Hamilton, Barrie Ellis, Gareth Ford-Williams, Lynsey Graham, Dimitris Grammenos, Headstrong Games, Ed Lee, Jake Manion, and ThomasWestin. 2012. Game accessibility guidelines | A straightforward reference for inclusive game design. http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com/[24] John Harris and Mark Hancock. 2019. To Asymmetry and Beyond!: Improving Social Connectedness by Increasing Designed Interdependence inCooperative Play. In
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9:1–9:12.https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300239 event-place: Glasgow, Scotland Uk.[25] Brenda Hazard. 2008. Separate But Equal? A Comparison of Content on Library Web Pages and Their Text Versions.
Journal of Web Librarianship
Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’19) . ACM, NewYork, NY, USA, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347171 event-place: Barcelona, Spain.[27] David Hobbs, Martin Henschke, Brett Wilkinson, and Karen Reynolds. 2012. Game on! Accessible gaming for children with disabilities.[28] Catherine Holloway. 2019. Disability Interaction (DIX): A Manifesto.
Interactions
26, 2 (Feb. 2019), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3310322[29] Robin Hunicke, Marc Leblanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research.
AAAI Workshop - TechnicalReport
Quake . Game [MS-DOS, AmigaOS, Classic Mac OS, RISC OS, Sega Saturn, Nintendo 64, Linux, Microsoft Windows]. GTInteractive.[31] Luca Imbriani, Ilaria Mariani, and Maresa Bertolo. 2018. WaTa Fight! How situated multiplayer competitive gaming can facilitate the inclusion oflow vision and blind players.
G|A|M|E Games as Art, Media, Entertainment
Proceedings of the 5th EAI InternationalConference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good (Valencia, Spain) (GoodTechs ’19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY, USA, 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342428.3342682[33] Alexis Kirke. 2018.
When the Soundtrack Is the Game: From Audio-Games to Gaming the Music . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 65–83.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72272-6_7[34] Logic Artists. 2015.
Clandestine . Game [Microsoft Windows]. Copenhagen, Denmark, Logic Artists.[35] Deborah Marks. 1997. Models of disability.
Disability and Rehabilitation
19, 3 (1997), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289709166831arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289709166831 PMID: 9134350.[36] T. D. Mascio, R. Gennari, A. Melonio, and Pierpaolo Vittorini. 2013. Designing games for deaf children: first guidelines.
International Journal ofTechnology Enhanced Learning . 002826–002827. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2016.7844667[38] Klaus Miesenberger, Roland Ossmann, Dominique Archambault, Gig Searle, and Andreas Holzinger. 2008. More Than Just a Game: Accessibility inComputer Games. In
HCI and Usability for Education and Work (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Andreas Holzinger (Ed.). Springer, 247–260.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_18[39] Tony Morelli, John Foley, Luis Columna, Lauren Lieberman, and Eelke Folmer. 2010. VI-Tennis: A Vibrotactile/Audio Exergame for Players WhoAre Visually Impaired. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’10) . ACM, New York, NY, USA,20 xploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan
ASSETS’10 -Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878836[41] Naughty Dog. 2020.
The Last of Us Part II . Game [PlayStation 4]. San Mateo, California, United States, Sony Interactive Entertainment.[42] Peter Ohring. 2008. Web-Based Multi-Player Games to Encourage Flexibility and Social Interaction in High-Functioning Children with AutismSpectrum Disorder. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Chicago, Illinois) (IDC ’08) . Association forComputing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463750[43] Roland Ossmann, Klaus Miesenberger, and Dominique Archambault. 2008. A Computer Game Designed for All. In
Proceedings of the 11th InternationalConference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP ’08) . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_83 event-place: linz, Austria.[44] Grow Pixel. 2016.
Blackbox . Game [iOS]. Grow Pixel.[45] John R. Porter and Julie A. Kientz. 2013. An Empirical Study of Issues and Barriers to Mainstream Video Game Accessibility. In
Proceedingsof the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’13)
User Interfaces for All: New perspectives into Human-Computer Interaction . 3–17.[51] Jaime Sánchez, Mauricio Sáenz, and Jose Garrido-Miranda. 2010. Usability of a Multimodal Video Game to Improve Navigation Skills for BlindChildren.
TACCESS
The Witness . Game [Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nvidia Shield, macOS, iOS]. San Francisco, CA, United States,Thekla, Inc.[53] Shari Trewin, Vicki L. Hanson, Mark R. Laff, and Anna Cavender. 2008. PowerUp: An Accessible Virtual World. In
Proceedings of the 10th InternationalACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets ’08) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414504event-place: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.[54] Shari Trewin, Mark Laff, Anna Cavender, and Vicki Hanson. 2008. Accessibility in virtual worlds.
Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems - Proceedings , 2727–2732. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358752[55] Michael Urbanek and Florian Güldenpfennig. 2019. Celebrating 20 Years of Computer-based Audio Gaming. 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3356590.3356605[56] Michael Urbanek and Florian Güldenpfennig. 2019. Unpacking the Audio Game Experience: Lessons Learned from Game Veterans. In
Proceedingsof the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’19) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347182 event-place: Barcelona, Spain.[57] Vertigo Gaming Inc. 2012.
Cook, Serve, Delicious!
Game [Microsoft Windows, macOS, iOS, Android]. Texas, United States, Vertigo Gaming Inc.[58] T. Westin. 2004. Game accessibility case study: Terraformers – a real-time 3d graphic game. In
In Proc. of the The Fifth International Conference onDisability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies . 95–100.[59] Gareth White, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Graham McAllister. 2008. Toward accessible 3D virtual environments for the blind and visually impaired.https://doi.org/10.1145/1413634.1413663[60] Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles andExamples.
ACM Trans. Access. Comput.
3, 3 (April 2011), 9:1–9:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384[61] Bei Yuan and Eelke Folmer. 2008. Blind Hero: Enabling Guitar Hero for the Visually Impaired.
ASSETS’08: The 10th International ACM SIGACCESSConference on Computers and Accessibility , 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414503[62] Bei Yuan, Eelke Folmer, and Frederick C. Harris, Jr. 2011. Game Accessibility: A Survey.