skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173714acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Visual Interaction Cue Framework from Video Game Environments for Augmented Reality

Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Based on an analysis of 49 popular contemporary video games, we develop a descriptive framework of visual interaction cues in video games. These cues are used to inform players what can be interacted with, where to look, and where to go within the game world. These cues vary along three dimensions: the purpose of the cue, the visual design of the cue, and the circumstances under which the cue is shown. We demonstrate that this framework can also be used to describe interaction cues for augmented reality applications. Beyond this, we show how the framework can be used to generatively derive new design ideas for visual interaction cues in augmented reality experiences.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1930.mp4

mp4

233.4 MB

References

  1. B. Avery, C. Sandor, and B. H. Thomas. 2009. Improving Spatial Perception for Augmented Reality X-Ray Vision. In 2009 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, 79--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin Avery, Bruce H. Thomas, and Wayne Piekarski. 2008. User Evaluation of See-through Vision for Mobile Outdoor Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '08), 69--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Bane and T. Hollerer. 2004. Interactive tools for virtual x-ray vision in mobile augmented reality. In Third IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 231--239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Shaowen Bardzell. 2008. Systems of Signs and Affordances: Interaction Cues in 3D Games. EnLeino, O: 191--209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mark Billinghurst, Adrian Clark, Gun Lee, and others. 201 A survey of augmented reality. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 8, 2--3: 73--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Detroit Institute of Arts. Lumin. Lumin. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://www.dia.org/about/press/media-kits/luminGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. argon.js. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://www.argonjs.io/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. James J. Gibson. 1977. The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, Robert Shaw and John Bransford (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 67--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Raphael Grasset, Alessandro Mulloni, Mark Billinghurst, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2011. Navigation Techniques in Augmented and Mixed Reality: Crossing the Virtuality Continuum. In Handbook of Augmented Reality. Springer, New York, NY, 379--407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ioanna Iacovides, Anna Cox, Richard Kennedy, Paul Cairns, and Charlene Jennett. 2015. Removing the HUD: The Impact of Non-Diegetic Game Elements and Expertise on Player Involvement. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '15), 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 1Kristine Jørgensen. 2010. Time for new terminology. Diegetic and nondiegetic sounds in computer games revisited. Teoksessa Grimshaw, Mark (toim.): Game Sound Technology and Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference: 78--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kristine Jørgensen. 20 Between the Game System and the Fictional World: A Study of Computer Game Interfaces. Games and Culture 7, 2: 142--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark A. Livingston, J. Edward Swan II, Joseph L. Gabbard, Tobias H. Höllerer, Deborah Hix, Simon J. Julier, Yohan Baillot, and Dennis Brown. 2003. Resolving Multiple Occluded Layers in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2Nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '03), 56--. Retrieved September 17, 2017 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=946248.946796 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lowe's. In-Store Navigation. Lowe's Innovation Labs. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from http://www.lowesinnovationlabs.com/instorenavigation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald A. Norman. 1988. The psychology of everyday things.(The design of everyday things). Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Peacocke, R. J. Teather, J. Carette, and I. S. MacKenzie. 2015. Evaluating the effectiveness of HUDs and diegetic ammo displays in first-person shooter games. In 2015 IEEE Games Entertainment Media Conference (GEM), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerhard Reitmayr and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2004. Scalable techniques for collaborative outdoor augmented reality. In 3rd IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR'04), Arlington. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://www.ims.tuwien.ac.at/publications/tr-1882-02e.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. Salomoni, C. Prandi, M. Roccetti, L. Casanova, and L. Marchetti. 2016. Assessing the efficacy of a diegetic game interface with Oculus Rift. In 2016 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC), 387--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. C. Sandor, A. Dey, A. Cunningham, S. Barbier, U. Eck, D. Urquhart, M. R. Marner, G. Jarvis, and S. Rhee. 2010. Egocentric space-distorting visualizations for rapid environment exploration in mobile mixed reality. In 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR), 47--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jesse Schell. 2014. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. LUDOGRAPHYGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 2K Boston and 2K Australia. (2007). Bioshock. Game. {Windows}. (21 August 2007). 2K Games. Novato, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Bethesda Game Studios. (2011). The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Game. (11 November 2011). Bethesda Softworks. Rockville, MD, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. BioWare Edmonton. (2014). Dragon Age: Inquisition. Game. {PlayStation 4}. (18 November 2014). Electronic Arts. Redwood City, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft. Game. {Windows}. (23 November 2004). Blizzard Entertainment. Irvine, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Blizzard Entertainment. (2016). Overwatch. Game. {Windows}. (24 May 2016). Blizzard Entertainment. Irvine, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. CD Projekt. (2015). The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Game. {Windows}. (19 May 2015). CD Projekt RED. Warsaw, PolandGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Eidos Montreal. (2014) Thief. Game. {Windows}. (February 25, 2014). Square Enix. Tokyo JapanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Guerilla Games. (2017). Horizon Zero Dawn. Game. {Playstation 4}. (February 28, 2017). Sony Interactive Entertainment. Tokyo, JapanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Halfbrick Studios. (2011). Jetpack Joyride. Game. {iOS}. (September 1, 2011). Halfbrick Studios. Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. id Software. (1993). Doom. Game. {MS-DOS}. (10 December 1993). GT Interactive. New York City, NY, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 1id Software. (2016). Doom. Game. {Windows}. (13 May 2016). Bethesda Softworks.Rockville, MD, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. SUPERHOT Team. (2016). Superhot. Game. {Windows}. (25 February 2016). SUPERHOT Team. Łódž, PolandGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Team Ico. (2005), Shadow of the Colossus. Game. {PlayStation 2}. (18 October 2005). Sony Computer Entertainment. Tokyo, JapanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Terrible Toybox. (2017). Thimbleweed Park. Game. {Windows}. (30 March 2017). Terrible Toybox. Seattle, WA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Ubisoft Annecy. (2016). Steep. Game. {Windows}. (2 December 2016). Ubisoft. Rennes, FranceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ubisoft Quebec. (2015. Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Game. {Windows}. (19 November 2015). Ubisoft. Rennes, FranceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Valve Corporation. (2009). Left 4 Dead 2. Game. {Windows}. (November 17, 2009). Valve Corporation. Bellevue, WA, USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Visceral Games. (2013). Dead Space 3. Game. {Windows}. (5 February 2013). Electronic Arts. Redwood City, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Visual Interaction Cue Framework from Video Game Environments for Augmented Reality

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      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 not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader