Craftmanship was the basis in the development of toys and dolls in the early inventions. These creations of artistry are used all over the world to serve various purposes such as challenging the mind, entertainment and physical body exercises. The toy sector is faced with competition and some toys face obsolescence as new and better ones are introduced into the market. With technological advancements in many spheres of life, traditional toys have seen a declining a demand. The trend has left an impression that the market for toys is dying. The toy-to-life games have not died as combining games and toys will be the trend in the future since the combination will create more annovative and creative designs.
Pervasive games that are dominantly adopted in the current world are usually location-aware applications which are played on computing devices. Considering that these games are meant for children, it is reasonable to point out that the paradigm of interaction offered by the existing games presents a limitation on essential outdoor aspects such as face-to-communications, physical movements and social interactions (Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse 435). Combining games and toys help to present a genre of games known as “Head Up Games” which have the capability of liberating players from the boredom of facing down on their screens or only concentrating on less entertaining and interactive dolls. This paper explores examples of HUG games, outlining their characteristic attributes to examine how toys can be combined with games to give rise to innovative artistic products.
“Toys-to-life” is a genre name given to dolls with wireless chips embedded inside them to talk about figures in video games (Peckham). According to Peckham, physical toys are paired with special software to pull figures into a video game, store information about the playing style of a video game player or unlock special features. These toys have remained significant in the design of games as they add influence to games. Despite the challenges that have faced video games producers and forced them to stop relying on toys-to-life, the concept has not died yet. One of the current games that use this application is the Starlink Battle for Atlas
(Laurent). This game entails an action adventure using the elements of toys-to-life in a way that a player uses a toy to swap components of the game such as weapons, cockpit, pilot and wings. The toy can be mounted on the controller and its digital counterpart appears on the screen. Image 1 below shows the toy used in the Starlink Battle for Atlas.
Image 1: Controller toy used in Starlink Battle for Atlas. Source: Geekodrome.Com, 2018
The current pervasive games emerged because of the availability of augmented reality and context sensing technologies. This genre of games is described as a “a genre in which traditional, real world games are augmented with computing functionality or depending on the perspective, purely virtual computer entertainment is brought back to the world” (Magerkurth et al. 4). Some of these games raise concerns particularly on outdoor physical activities for children. Common examples of these games include Catchbob! and Can You See Me Now. The design of Catchbob! incorporated location-awareness with the use of mobile technology by grouping players into three who are then supposed to locate a virtual object by surrounding it with a triangle that is formed by the position of each participant. On the other hand, Can You See Me Now focuses on creating a research tool as well as a work of art to investigate the location-awareness technologies outside a laboratory environment.
The two games mentioned above are examples of those that require devices with Wi-Fi and GPS capabilities to play. They rely heavily on the use of computer devices as opposed to toys. Although the games entail outdoor play which is traditionally essential for children, the lack of toys in the game makes them not much suitable. Outdoor play is fundamentally beneficial for development among children as it offers them plentiful learning opportunities. However, it is important to design games which make use of toys rather than depending entirely on computing technologies. Errors arising from GPS can affect the game whereas the use of location-awareness technology does not guarantee an automatically better performance in a game (Nova et al. 228). Therefore, there is need for mechanisms that enhance interactions between players as well as the content of the game. Incorporating toys in a game is one of such mechanisms.
To address the gap that exists in the games and toy industry, a new genre is introduced to combine toys and games to create single products. This innovation helps to reduce the prevalence of computer games which are conventionally not much enticing among children as far as physical activities are concerned. The new category targets children between the age of 6 to 11 as they have the ability to follow rules (Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse 436). Outdoor play is well-catered for by these games and they also enhance interactions between children. Different from the traditional games that require players to “look down” on their screens, HUGs allow players to keep their heads up and enjoy the advantages of outdoor activities. The incorporation of modern technology in HUGs differentiates them from the old straightforward games such as ball games, tag and hide-and-seek. Some of the common attributes of traditional games include; (a) they involve physical activities, (b) they need few materials such as a hoop, ball or skipping cord to play. Since these games involve multiple players in one physical space, they enrich social interactions. By combining toys with games, the benefits of modern technology are utilized alongside those of traditional outdoor plays. Image 2 below, demonstrates how simple and straightforward the old children games were.
Image 2: A painting of children playing in the 16th century by Brueghel. Sourced from Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse.
Theories on child development acknowledge the essence of play in the development of a child. For instance, a play with a make-believe concept assists to improve one’s abstract thinking while group plays enhance social skills. Many of the modern games tend to neglect toys and focus much on the use of computing technology thereby depriving children of physical activities and social interactions with their peers. The lack of backyard play is also likely to interfere with the moral development of children (Scarlett et al. 168). Although the internet is known to provide a medium for creating social relationships, there are concerns about the quality and depth of such relationships as compared to offline relationships. From this perspective, computer games which are characterized with limited interactions between players are not healthy and productive as compared to physical plays that combine toys and games for children. Combining games and toys brings together the appeal of technology and the essentials of outdoor play to enrich the experience of gaming for children. The objectives of these combinations focus on encouraging social interactions, stimulate physical activities, create fun and support reasonable gaming rules.
A game provides an avenue for socializing through cooperation, competition, negotiation and other activities. Even though the advancements in computer games have enabled social interaction, it is constrained to online chats and other kinds of mediated communications. However, face-to-face interactions remain superior to the mediated communications as non-verbal cues can only be conveyed in the former. HUGs make good use of the advantages of the players’ co-presence in a field to enable and encourage players to interact widely. Playing outdoor games usually entails physical activities. Children tend to enjoy more fun from outdoor plays that have physical activities. children in their late childhood, that is, between the ages 6 to 11 can successfully play games that have rules (Scarlett et al. 73). Many games have flexible rules to suit different contexts of play. The win or lose rules are not usually fixed but are negotiated between players. As children get close to the upper limit of childhood, they tend to enjoy game rules and making the rules much more precise and complex through negotiation. Elements of children socialization process includes addressing their individual abilities and preferences, availing the necessary resources, playing in accordance to game rules and ensuring fair game play (Scarlett et al. 79).
HUGs that are designed from the combination of toys and games typically focus on creating games which aim at inspiring fun experiences. Children will keep repeating playing such games in a similar way they do enjoy playing the likes of hide-and-seek and tag games. HUGs resolve the shortcomings associated with other common pervasive games in such ways as minimizing the use of screen technology and instead enhance more direct personal interactions among players. Many current games typically hold players in postures of people attending to computer devices as they play with their heads bent down in attempts to observe and act in their virtual worlds through handheld devices. Although computer-based games can offer a player engaging and interesting experiences, one is denied personal interactions with others as well as physical activities such as running around. Combining toys and games entails not emphasizing the creation of virtual game worlds and augmenting them with the physical world. Instead, the idea focuses mostly on enhancing the physical game play. Make-believe plays have a vital developmental function of freeing thoughts from perception. The heavy reliance of computer game technology on visual and audio effects competes with the human imagination of children. HUGs employ a wide variety of interaction forays in games such as using sensors for contact, motion and proximity.
Games Dominated with Physical Activities
While games bound with location-based technologies have limited portability due to Wi-Fi connectivity and GPS coverages, it is easy to play traditional games anywhere provided the space is safe and large enough. Players only need to know the rules and a few objects for the game. Intelligent products concept provides the starting point for open-ended plays (Bekker et al. 389). Fixed game structures are not required in open-ended games and instead, intelligent toys are used to offer a setting in which children have the freedom to create games of their own. Considering their interest in supporting plays and physical activities, games from intelligent products are similar to HUGs even though HUGs lack open-endedness. There are no rules in open-ended games and a player can distinguish them from other types of games based on the description of the “Magic Circle” play by Salen & Zimmerman. “…with a toy it may be difficult to say exactly when the play begins and ends. But with a game, the activity is richly formalized. The game has a beginning, a middle, and a quantifiable outcome at the end…. Either the children are playing Tic-Tac-Toe or not” (Salen, Tekinbaş & Zimmerman 95).
There are existing products which have combined toys and games based on the HUG concept. They include Camelot which was introduced in 2006, Stop the Bomb of 2007 which was later renamed Save the Safe in 2008 after some further developments on the game (Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse 438). HeartBeat
is another example that was created on the same concept. These products were developed iteratively and, in a user-centred manner, meaning that their design process entailed regularly letting users to play with the prototypes and collect comments from users to be used in further iterations. Developing these products ends with an evaluation to determine if the design goals are achieved. Some of the evaluation parameters include the number and age of participants, game duration, number of participants in a game session and the number of sessions played. Table 1 below shows a summative evaluation of three examples of games as recorded by the developers.
Save the Safe
Camelot
HeartBeat
No. of participants
27
10
32
Average duration (minutes)
3-4
8-9
4-5
Participants’ age range
8-9
7-10
11-13
Sessions played
3
2
2
No. of players per session
8
4
8
Table 1: Summary evaluation of games during the design process to assess the achievement of intended goals. Source: Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse
Camelot
Camelot is a game of building a castle by children who are divided into two competing teams. The teams are supposed to collect various types of building resources that are spread in zones across the playing field. These resources are basically the toys in the game. A team that completes building the castle ahead of the other wins the game. Camelot has four phases whereby each phase entails building a particular part of the castle using different resources that are collected. Players are allowed to store a limited quantity of resources at the site of construction as well as trade resources with the other team. The game also involves random appearance of a ghost trying to steal building resources and therefore, it is the duty of the players to prevent this from happening so that they can successfully complete the construction in the shortest time possible. Screen displays are not used in the game and instead, small devices are designed to assist players in acquiring, storing and exchanging resources. PIC microcontrollers are used to implement collectors and zones and support the logic of the game. Infrared technology is used to enable devices to communicate to each other whereas LED light relays feedback to the players. A central computer control system is not needed as devices are designed to work as stand-alone units. Collectors are light to enable children to carry them and run around easily. The zones are portable and small, hence the game play can be performed anywhere.
Image 3: Children playing Camelot. Source: Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse
Image 4: Camelot players charging their collectors. Source: Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse
Images 3 and 4 above show children engaged in the Camelot game. On the left and right of image 3, players are running after obtaining resources whereas in the middle of the same image, players are building a castle at their site. The left of image 4 shows players recharging collectors at the zones. The top right inset on image 4 shows a resource zone while the bottom shows a collector.
Camelot involves team cooperation, competition, and tactical discussions as the key social interactions of the game. Fun in Camelot is derived from the social interactions, team competition as well as the suspense that is caused by the random ghost appearance. Camelot demonstrates how pervasive games can be created using different technologies other than heavily depending on screen technologies. Simple technologies can therefore provide enjoyable and novel gaming experiences. Camelot is a well-balanced game with intense physical activities that alternate with periodical rests in a way that the game does not resemble a sports application.
Save the Safe
Save the Safe
is a revised version of the Stop the Bomb after its full development. The game is based on the idea of guarding or obtaining a key needed for the protection or breaking of a safe. Players in this game are divided into two teams; one as guards and other as burglars. Guards win if they succeed to protect the key from burglars for a specified duration. Similarly, it is a win for the burglars if they succeed to steal the key and break into the safe. Every player puts on a belt mounted with LED lights around the waist with a communication device and a vibrator motor embedded inside the belts. At the start of the game, the units are set to automatically create a special link. The communication devices inside the belts are not meant to enable players to communicate among themselves but instead, the purpose is to determine the distance from one player to another using the strength of the signal between belts.
At the game’s startup, belts indicate two distinct colors for the two teams. Therefore, players on one team will have their belts showing the same color. Other than indicating the team to which a player belongs, the belts vibrate to show when a player is possessing the virtual key. The key automatically transfers to a new player’s belt when one gets close enough to the one with the key. Players are randomly assigned to the two teams with the help of the color light in the belt and the game starts when the key is assigned to the guards.
A summative evaluation of two versions of this game; one that uses a physical key and the other with a virtual one reveals varying observations regarding how physicality affects game play. High pace gaming is associated with Save the Safe especially in a version with a key that is physical rather than virtual. Players who are physically inclined find this game more appealing to them than those players who like using tactics. The high pace of the game limits the time for social interactions particularly regarding tactical discussions. However, the versions of the game have their admirable merits. A physical object draws a considerable level of attention of players and enables them to have an effective coordination of their actions. On the other hand, a virtual object with a good design can enhance suspense, intense activity and uncertainty. Image 5 below shows players checking the colors shown in the belts to know to which team one belongs. The inset on the image shows a focused image of the belt.
Image 5: players preparing for the Save the Safe
game. Source Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse
HeartBeat
HeartBeat was designed with the intension of testing the use of biofeedback in games. It is said to have been adapted from Capture the Flag and utilized the elements of Hide-and-Seek
as well as those of Tag. Randomly, players are grouped into two; the defending and attacking teams. One player from the defending side is assigned a virtual treasure which, together with other teammates, must ensure that it remains untagged by any of the attackers for the entire game duration. Achieving this objective lets the defending team to win. However, if any attacker tags the player with the treasure, the defending team is said to have captured the treasure and therefore the attacking team emerges as winners. Therefore, playing this game entails attackers hunting down defenders particularly the one with the treasure and tag that specific player. Defenders are supposed to protect their teammate with the treasure from attackers. Instead of players running away to avoid attackers, they can also hide in bushes or strive to keep their heart rates as low as possible to stay virtually hidden. The tension that arises is essential in adding suspense and interest to the game.
Trivial and portable devices are used in HeartBeat. Every player has his or her own device which is used to assign players to the two competing teams in a random manner. Once a defender has been tagged, teams switch roles by docking the opposite devices. The same technique is used to pass on the treasure from one defender to another. Biofeedback is applied in this game by using the heartbeat rate of players as an input. Players wear sensors to monitor the heartbeat rates of individual players as they play. If the heart rate of a player exceeds a predetermined value, the device of that particular player starts to broadcast his or heart rate to the opposing team’s devices that are nearby. With the combination of hiding and running, HeartBeat has a higher mixed pace than Save the Safe. Children tend to relate well when playing in the outdoors with a technological enhancement. Heartbeat sensing is novel to children and has positive impacts on the game. Image 6 below shows children engaged in the HeartBeat game with the devices used shown in the inset of the image.
Image 6: Children players in the HeartBeat game and the devices used for the game Source: Source Soute, Markopoulos & Magielse.
Conclusion
From the discussion above, it is evident that toy-to-life is not dead. Combining games and toys is the future as it inspires innovative and creative designs. Most children start to play intelligent entertainment products or online games when they are young. Physical toys have a long history and it is good to make them much more appealing to children. As a toy designer and a lover of games, I hope to combine games with toys to develop more creative products that can satisfy children's interests and preferences and also keep the elements of physical toys. There are already examples of such combinations on the market as discussed in the paper. Products designed from this idea are interesting and for children’s essential needs such as physical activities and social interactions.
Evaluative Annotations
Bekker, Tilde, et al. "Interactive Play Objects and The Effects of Open-Ended Play on Social Interaction and Fun." Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 2008.
[Author Credentials] All the five co-authors; Tilde Bekker, Janienke Sturm, Rik Wesselink, Bas Groenendaal and Berry Eggen are from Netherlands. By the time of publishing this article, Bekker, Sturm and Eggen worked with the Netherland’s department of industrial design whereas Wesselink and and Groenendaal worked with NYOYN.
[Type of source/Audience] This source is a research article on computer entertainment technology. The target audience for this article are probably undergraduates majoring in computer technology art designs.
[Point of view] The researchers built a game prototype which they used to investigate if children can enjoy playing with intelligent objects that are conventionally simple. At the end of the study, they established that free-play allows children to create a variety of games and practise numerous social skills to negotiate rules of different games. The researchers conclude that it is more fun for children to play with objects in free-plays than in games with pre-set rules.
[Currency] The article was established in 2008 based on the insights gained from the international conference on advancements in entertainment based on computer technology.
[Content] The article focuses mainly on designing open-ended games using intelligent objects to increase the propensity of children enjoying more fan than with other traditional games. The source deeply discusses open-ended games that use interactive objects to inspire fun and interaction experiences among children.
[Relevance] The article discusses creation of games combined with physical objects for children. I was interested in the literature of how children find the idea of combining games and toys.
Nova, Nicolas, et al. "The Underwhelming Effects of Automatic Location-Awareness on Collaboration in A Pervasive Game." Cooperative Systems Design: Seamless Integration of Artifacts and Conversations-Enhanced Concepts of Infrastructure for Communication. No. CRAFT-CONF-2006-005. 2006.
[Author Credentials] The four co-authors; Nicolas Nova, Fabien Girardin, Gaelle Molinari and Pierre DillenBourge are all Spanish. By the time they authored this article, they were working as tutors with different organizations that deal with computer science.
[Type of source/Audience] The source is a research article. The likely audience are art designers who use computer technology to develop games. The article is mostly text-based with a few diagrams that illustrate the designing procedures.
[Point of view] The researchers developed the CatchBob! game that uses the location-awareness technology to illustrate the impacts of automating this technology. From their findings, they elaborate that automatic location-awareness has no improvement effect on task performance and instead it can have detrimental impacts on socio-cognition.
[Currency] The article was published in 2006 when the location-awareness technology had just been introduced in computer games to break the monotony of players sitting and focusing their eyes and minds on screens. The technology is still used to develop outdoor games using GPS and Wi-Fi connectivity.
[Content] The article has a narrow focus on the application of location-awareness technology in the development of games.
[Relevance] The article discusses the use of location-based technology to develop video games and the resultant impacts. My interest was on the effects of using technology when designing games for children.
Peckham, Matt. "Skylanders Superchargers Versus Disney Infinity Versus Nintendo Amiibo Versus LEGO Dimensions". TIME, 2018, time.com/4152325/toys-to-life-buyers-guide/. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.
[Author Credentials] Matt Peckham is a digital writer working with the TIME magazine. The author specializes more in writing about computer technology mainly on video games. The author has written many articles on the same subject.
[Type of source/Audience] This source is a website article. The target audience for this source include video game developers and consumers of the same games.
[Point of view] The author defines the genre of toy-to-life games, taking an expert perspective to elaborate different aspects of these games such as how the games are made and played. In the article, it is argued that the toy-to-life idea is still relevant in the industry.
[Currency] The article was authored in 2015 and explains the toy-to-life genre and its competitiveness in the industry, pointing out how this category of games is a great innovation.
[Content] The author briefly discusses the top toy-to-life games of 2015 with a breakdown of their appeal, their cost and what players require to play the games.
[Relevance] The source discusses some examples of intelligent products that are developed from the combination of games and toys.
Soute, Iris et al. "Head Up Games: Combining the Best of Both Worlds by Merging Traditional and Digital Play". Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol 14, no. 5, 2009, pp. 435-444. Springer Nature, doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0265-0.
[Author Credentials] Iris Soute is an expert in computer games, game design and other related disciples. She works with Hogeschool Fontys in Netherlands. Panos Markopoulos is a PhD holder and conducts his research in Human-computer Interaction and Interaction designs. Remco Magielse holds a MSc in industrial designs with expertise in games and interaction design.
[Type of source/Audience] This source is a peer-reviewed journal. The target audience is probably art students and industrial designers in computer games.
[Point of view] The authors argue that traditional pervasive games have limitations regarding outdoor play elements such as physical movements, social interactions and face-to-face communications.
[Currency] The article was published in 2009 when video games had dominated the industry with the effect of interfering with physical activities that are essential for children. The problem is yet to be fully solved.
[Content] The article presents a new genre of games known as HUGs that are meant to solve the shortcomings of current computer games. Examples of these games are deeply explained to elaborate how toys can be combined with games to inspire more fun.
[Relevance] This source uses adequate examples to demonstrate how toys and games can be combined to create intelligent and super effective play for children.
Works Cited
Bekker, Tilde, et al. "Interactive Play Objects and The Effects of Open-Ended Play on Social Interaction and Fun." Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 2008.
Laurent, T. "Are Toys to Life Really Dead?". Geekodrome.Com, 2018, https://www.geekodrome.com/are-toys-to-life-really-dead/2018/03/05/. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
Magerkurth, Carsten et al. "Pervasive Games". Computers in Entertainment, vol 3, no. 3, 2005, p. 4. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), doi:10.1145/1077246.1077257.
Nova, Nicolas, et al. "The Underwhelming Effects of Automatic Location-Awareness on Collaboration in A Pervasive Game." Cooperative Systems Design: Seamless Integration of Artifacts and Conversations-Enhanced Concepts of Infrastructure for Communication. No. CRAFT-CONF-2006-005. 2006.
Peckham, Matt. "Skylanders Superchargers Versus Disney Infinity Versus Nintendo Amiibo Versus LEGO Dimensions". TIME, 2018, http://time.com/4152325/toys-to-life-buyers-guide/. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.
Salen, Katie, Katie Salen Tekinbaş, and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press, 2004.
Scarlett, W. George, et al. Children's play. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 2005.
Soute, Iris et al. "Head Up Games: Combining the Best of Both Worlds by Merging Traditional and Digital Play". Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol 14, no. 5, 2009, pp. 435-444. Springer Nature, doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0265-0.
