Console Gaming Across Generations: Exploring Intergenerational Interactions in Collocated Console Gaming

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the intergenerational gaming practices of four generations of console gamers, from ages 3 to 83
and, in particular, the roles that gamers of different generations take on when playing together in groups. Our data highlight
the extent to which existing gaming technologies support interactions within collocated intergenerational groups, and our
analysis reveals a more generationally flexible suite of roles in these computer-mediated interactions than have been documented
by previous studies of more traditional collocated, intergenerational interactions. Finally, we offer implications for game
designers who wish to make console games more accessible to intergenerational groups.

Full text

1
Console Gaming Across Generations:
Exploring Intergenerational Interactions in
Collocated Console Gaming
Amy Voida & Saul Greenberg
Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
{avoida, saul.greenberg}@ucalgary.ca
In this paper, we examine the intergenerational gaming practices of four generations of console
gamers, from ages 3 to 83 and, in particular, the roles that gamers of different generations take on
when playing together in groups. Our data highlight the extent to which existing gaming
technologies support interactions within collocated intergenerational groups and our analysis
reveals a more generationally flexible suite of roles in these computer-mediated interactions than
have been documented by previous studies of more traditional collocated, intergenerational
interactions. Finally, we offer implications for game designers who wish to make console games
more accessible to intergenerational groups.
Intergenerational gaming, console games, video games, Wii, Playstation
Introduction
Since the 1920s, opportunities for interactions among individuals of different
generations have decreased dramatically [17]. There are a number of reasons for
this decline including a residential revolution in which older generations stopped
living with their younger family members; a movement toward mass schooling,
which promoted graded interactions based on age and fostered the development of
age-specific subcultures; and the rise of pension-supported retirement.
The decline in opportunities for intergenerational interaction is a significant
concern [2, 19]. From a developmental perspective, interactions with individuals
of different generations are critical to human well-being. Younger individuals

2
need to be able to explore the diverse relationships between themselves and
others; interactions with their elders provide important opportunities for youth to
expand the diversity of people with whom they interact. Additionally, older adults
can be valuable role models for younger individuals, “recognizing [their]
accomplishments, providing many opportunities for success, and modeling
cooperation, non-violence, and other pro-social behaviors” [2]. Older individuals
need opportunities to develop intimacy and to nurture others—giving of
themselves, their knowledge and experiences [13]. Interactions with younger
individuals can provide these kinds of opportunities for intimacy and legacy
building.
Social isolation within any generation, young or old, is a significant problem [2,
19]. Increasingly, however, researchers in human-computer interaction are
exploring ways that technology can help to reduce social isolation, providing
opportunities for increased computer-mediated intergenerational interactions.
Because of the increasingly geographically dispersed nature of many families,
much attention has been paid to designing technologies that support distributed
intergenerational interactions. Some of this work has focused on supporting the
critical and pragmatic need for maintaining an awareness of the everyday
activities of elders who remain in their own homes as they age (e.g., the Digital
Family Portrait [11], the Internet Tea Kettle1, etc…). A second vein of research
has explored technologies that can foster important social and playful connections
among distributed family members (e.g., Age Invaders [9], The Collage [21],
Curball [8], Distributed Hide and Seek [22], and Peek-A-Drawer [16]). A third
line of research has emerged from an underlying acknowledgement that important
social interactions may not always come from family members; these researchers
have explored the participation of elders in intergenerational online communities
such as SeniorNet [10] and YouTube [6].
There has been relatively little research, however, in human-computer interaction
exploring technologies that support interactions within collocated
intergenerational groups. While we absolutely agree that fostering social
interactions among distributed intergenerational groups is a critical focus for
1 http://www.mimamori.net/

3
research, we also believe that technologies fostering collocated interactions
warrant closer examination. Such collocated interactions could involve one’s
extended family, whether they live nearby or visit occasionally from out-of-town.
Such interactions could also involve intergenerational activities among members
of the local community without involving one’s extended family at all. In this
paper, we suggest that console gaming adds to the potential repertoire of
collocated intergenerational activities in some compelling ways.
As part of our broader research agenda, we have explored various practices
surrounding group console gaming. Among the gamers that we have studied,
ranging in age from 3 to 83, we found that console games have served as a
computational meeting place, bringing together individuals with diverse ages,
backgrounds, experiences, expertise, and interests [23]. This diversity has
presented a number of challenges for gaming groups and required careful decision
making about what gaming platforms to use, what games to play, and how to
construct the social dynamics of the gaming environment. Most gamers we
interviewed wanted to play console games with existing friends or family
members; gaming skill or level of expertise was not the deciding factor when
assembling gaming groups. As such, gamers adjusted to diversity as being part of
the highly desired and highly valued sociability at the heart of console gaming.
The diverse sampling of gamers in our research has included many who played
games in intergenerational contexts. In fact, one of our study participants
expressly articulated the belief that console gaming was a “bridge” that was able
to connect individuals of different generations:
P25 [Mother]: I think [our son] likes the electronicness of it.
P24 [Son]: Anything electronic I would do.
P25 [Mother]: Yeah. You just have to evolve into the new world with the
youngsters…. You know, I’m not sure we would play if it
wasn’t for him. At least I don’t think I would. We probably
wouldn’t have the Wii.… Do you think we’d have the Wii if it
wasn’t for him?
P26 [Father]: No.
P25 [Mother]: I don’t think so…. It bridges the gap.
P26 [Father]: Yeah.

4
P25 [Mother]: From him to us.
Further, other researchers studying the use of computer and video games in
domestic settings have suggested that the generational diversity in households was
exploited by various family members as a highly strategic resource for
intergenerational interactions—for gaining access to social time with children, for
celebrating competencies, or for controlling the organization of the gaming
activity [1].
The importance of console games as a bridge among and resource for multiple
generations, along with the surprising amount of diversity within gaming groups
in our study, motivated us to explore intergenerational gaming practices, more
specifically. In this paper, we turn to examine the intergenerational gaming
practices of four generations of gamers and the roles that gamers of different
generations take on when playing together in groups. Our data highlight the extent
to which existing gaming technologies support interactions within collocated
intergenerational groups and our analysis reveals a more generationally flexible
suite of roles in these computer-mediated interactions than have been documented
by previous studies of more traditional collocated, intergenerational interactions.
Finally, we offer implications for game designers who wish to make console
games more accessible to intergenerational groups.
Method
We conducted a mixed-methods study of collocated group console gaming,
recruiting 36 participants who belonged to groups that gathered regularly to play
console video games. Participants engaged in four research activities:
1. Questionnaire. Participants completed a questionnaire that asked about
their previous experiences with various game genres and gaming
platforms. Participants also reported basic demographic information such
as sex and age.
2. Group gameplay. Participants gathered in groups of friends or family
who regularly get together to play console games. These existing groups

5
played the game or games that they typically play with one another for
anywhere between thirty minutes and two hours (an hour and fifteen
minutes, on average). We observed, kept fieldnotes, and videotaped
groups as they played a variety of games on a variety of gaming platforms.
Descriptions of the gaming groups and a list of the games that were
observed are reported in Table 1.
3. Gaming environment sketch. Participants sketched their ideal group
gaming environment. This activity was modeled after the sketching task
suggested by Sall and Grinter [14].
4. Focus group. Individuals participated in a semi-structured focus group
with other members of their gaming group. The focus group protocol
included questions about the participants’ gaming environment sketches,
their motivations for getting together to play games, and their gameplay
preferences when gaming in various contexts.
Table 1 Overview of participant population.
Participant Demographics
Youth
Adults
Mature Adults
Elders
Gaming
Group
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Platform
Observed
Games
Observed
Group A
Siblings & their Cousin
P1–P3
Wii
Super Smash Bros Brawl
Mario Kart Wii
Group B
Friends
P4–P6
Wii
Wii Sports—Tennis
Wii Sports—Golf
Group C
Siblings
P7, P8
Gamecube
Paper Mario
Group D
Couple
P9
P10
Wii
Lego Star Wars
Group E
Friends
P11, P12
Xbox360
Grand Theft Auto IV
Burnout Paradise
Halo 3
Group F
Couple
P13
P14
Xbox360
Guitar Hero III
Rock Band
Group G
Residents of a Retirement
Community
P15–P17
Wii
Wii Sports—Bowling
Group H
Residents of a Retirement
Community
P18–P20
Wii
Wii Sports—Bowling
Group I
Child & his Parents
P21
P22
P23
Wii
PS2
Boom Blox
American Idol (Karaoke)
Group J
Child & his Parents
P24
P25
P26
Wii
Wii Sports—Tennis
Wii Sports—Bowling
Dance Dance Revolution
Hottest Party
Rock Band
Group K
Couple &
her Mother
P27
P28
P29
PS3
Rock Band
Group L
Siblings, their Parents,
Uncle & Grandparents
P30, P31
P32
P33, P34
P35
P36
Wii
Wii Sports—Tennis
Wii Sports—Baseball
Wii Sports—Golf

6
We carried out our study in whatever setting the groups typically gathered to play
games. All groups gathered in residential settings—family rooms, recreational
basements, or the shared common areas of retirement communities.
In a previous publication, we characterized the strong social motivations for group
console gaming [23]. In that publication, our analysis focused primarily on the
focus group data. In this paper, our analysis focuses on two different slices of
data that center on intergenerational gaming activities—data from the
questionnaires as well as data gathered during group gameplay. First, we analyzed
data from the questionnaires to understand the extent to which our participants
engaged in intergenerational gaming. We employed descriptive statistical
techniques to characterize these data and augmented these findings, where
relevant, with additional information gleaned from the focus group data and the
observations of group gameplay.
We also analyzed a subset of our observational gameplay data—the video and
fieldnotes captured during the group gameplay of the four intergenerational
gaming groups in our study (Groups I, J, K, and L). We transcribed the video
recordings for each of these groups and then divided each transcript into discrete
episodic units of intergenerational interaction. For each of these episodic units, we
inductively generated descriptors for the roles taken on by the different
individuals in the interaction (e.g., instructor/instructed or decision
maker/supplicant). We iterated over the labeling of these roles until we arrived at
descriptive language that was broad enough to encompass roles that were highly
similar (e.g., the performer role was created to include both dancing and dramatic
reading) and specific enough to convey the nuances that we felt were important in
distinguishing among the different roles. In this analysis, we were inspired by the
work of Vetere et al., who analyzed the grandparent–grandchild roles present in
ten vignettes taken from their observations of grandparent–grandchild playgroups
[21]. Our similar analytic process enabled us to draw some comparisons between
our findings in a computer-mediated setting and their findings in more traditional
play settings.

7
Participants
Our participants included 36 individuals who were each part of a group that
gathered regularly to play console video games. We recruited participants in the
context of both inter- and intra-generational gaming groups: three groups of all
youth participants, three groups of all adult participants, two groups of all elder
participants, and four groups whose participants spanned multiple generations
(Table 1). Based on the self-reported ages of and relationships among our
participants, we clustered our participants into four generational groups. Youth
participants ranged in age from 3 to 15; adult participants, from age 26 to 41;
mature adult participants, from age 52 to 59; and elder participants, from age 68
to 84. In the four intergenerational gaming groups that we studied, two groups
were composed of youth and adult gamers (children and their parents), one group
was composed of adult and mature adult gamers (adult children and their parents),
and one group was composed of youth, adult, and mature adult gamers (children,
their parents, uncle, and grandparents).
Although we specifically contacted retirement communities to recruit groups of
elder participants, all other groups were recruited via snowball sampling. We did
not turn away any groups; the diversity of participants in our study was a naturally
occurring result of the snowball sampling. While our sampling method does allow
us to examine the rich gaming practices of these 36 gamers, we do caution against
over-generalizing from this small, self-selected participant population.
In all but three cases, every member of the gaming group present on the day of the
observation participated in the full research design. Participants in Group F were
joined briefly in their gameplay by a housemate who was just passing through the
room. Participants in Groups G and H were a subset of larger gaming groups;
these larger groups fluctuated in membership from 7 to 28 individuals. While a
researcher observed the gameplay of the entire group, the activity coordinator at
each of these retirement communities recommended individuals to participate in
the remainder of the study based on their health and the schedule of other
activities.

8
In this paper, we refer to all of our study participants and individuals with whom
they play games as “gamers.” We have explicitly chosen not to perpetuate other
cultural definitions of “gamer” that legitimize only certain kinds of gameplay [4].
Results & Discussion
Generations of Console Gaming Partners
In a questionnaire, we asked our participants to indicate with what generations,
relative to their own, they have played video games:
 People who are my same general age or stage in life,
 People who are a generation younger than I am,
 People who are two or more generations younger than I am,
 People who are a generation older than I am, and
 People who are two or more generations older than I am.
Participants in this study reported playing games with an average of 2.1 different
generations of gamers. Thirty-one percent of the participants in our study reported
playing with only one other generation of gamer—typically peers in their own
generation. Sixty-nine percent of the gamers in our study played with gaming
partners of a generation different from their own. While we do not have data to
indicate the amount of time participants spent playing console games with various
generations of gamers, these data suggest that individuals of all generations adopt
gaming partners across multiple generations and, as such, intergenerational
console gaming practices warrant closer examination by the research community.
If we look at the generations of console gaming partners broken down by each of
the four generations of participants, we begin to see different patterns for different
generations of gamers (Table 2).
Table 2 Generations of console gaming partners reported by each participant
Generations of Console Gaming Partners
Youth
Adults
Mature
Adults
Elders
Youth Participants
P1
P4
P7
P8
P5

9
P6
P21
P2
P3
P24
P30
P31
Adult Participants
P9
P13
P10
P22
P23
P26
P12
P14
P25
P28
P32
P33
P34
P11
P27
Mature Adult Participants
P29
P35
P36
Elder Participants
P15
P17
P18
P19
P20
P16
Youth participants reported, on average, having 2.1 different generations of
gaming partners. As one might expect, youth participants most frequently
reported having others in their peer group as gaming partners. More surprising,
perhaps, is the extent to which youth gamers reported gaming with adult and
mature adult partners: 75% of youth participants reported gaming with adults and
42% of youth participants reported playing with mature adult partners of their
grandparents’ generation.
Adult participants reported, on average, having 2.6 different generations of
gaming partners. Of all participants, the adults reported the widest range of
generational gaming partners, spanning from youth to elders. Two adult
participants reported having gaming partners from four different generations. All
adult participants played with other adult gamers; eighty percent of adult
participants played with youth. The focus group data revealed that while nearly
half of the adult participants in the study did not have children of their own, most

10
of them had still played with youth gamers—either the children of their friends or
extended family members (e.g., nieces and nephews). Sixty-seven percent of adult
participants reported playing games with mature adults of their parents’
generation; thirteen percent, with elders of their grandparents’ generation.
We had fewer participants in our study in the mature adult generation than in any
other generation, so any inferences we might make from this data set should be
taken up with more caution. Nonetheless, the mature adult participants in our
study were the only generation of participants who more frequently reported
playing games with individuals in generations other than their own. All mature
adult participants reported playing games with adult partners (their adult
children). In addition, all three of these participants also reported playing games
either with youth or mature adults. The variation in this data may have to do with
the life stage of their adult children. The mature adult who reported playing games
with her adult children and her mature adult peers (e.g., her husband and her
sister) but not with youth did not have grandchildren. The two mature adults who
reported playing games with youth but not with their mature adult peers did have
grandchildren. While these two mature adults were married and owned the game
console used in the study, they did not report ever playing games together. They
used their game console when their extended family visited for regular Sunday
night dinners, at which time the mature adults took turns playing with their adult
children and their grandchildren.
All but one elder participant reported playing games with just one generation of
gaming partners. The elder participants in our study were all residents of
retirement communities and all had learned to play console games as part of that
community’s weekly or bi-weekly activity schedule. These elder participants,
then, played games with other elders in their community. During the focus group,
one elder gamer reported that when she last visited her extended family, she had
been invited to play games with her adult grandson and had been pleased to
surprise him by already knowing how to play Wii Sports: Bowling. No other elder
participants reported playing games with anyone else in any other context.
In every instance in which a participant reported playing games with individuals
two generations older than him- or her-self, that participant also reported playing

11
games with individuals one generation older. In all but one instance in which a
participant reported playing games with individuals two generations younger than
him- or her-self, that participant also reported playing games with individuals one
generation younger. While much of the intergenerational studies literature focuses
on interactions among individuals two generations apart (e.g., grandparents and
grandchildren), our data suggest that the intermediary generations of parents and
adult children are a particularly key population in understanding practices
surrounding intergenerational gaming.
Generational Roles in Gameplay
Other researchers have observed the playful activities of grandparent–grandchild
pairs in intergenerational preschool playgroups [21, 22]. Their analysis revealed a
number of roles that grandparents and grandchildren played in their interactions.
Grandparents were observed to play roles such as instructor, carer (caregiver),
entertainer, comforter, and organizer, while grandchildren were observed to play
roles such as apprentice, cared-for, audience, comforted, and follower.
In contrast, in a case study of the intergenerational interactions between one elder
YouTube community member and the larger YouTube community, Harley and
Fitzpatrick noted that the elder, in this context, took on the role of a reciprocal
learner and that members of the YouTube community, primarily individuals in
younger generations, took on the role of instructor [6]. Similarly, in a broader
study of the formal and informal mechanisms by which people learn to use
computers, Selwyn found that his respondents frequently relied on extended
family members to mentor them in their learning and that, for his older
respondents, the role of mentor was often taken on by their grandchildren [15].
In our study, we observed the gameplay of four intergenerational gaming groups
including children and their parents (Groups I & J); adult children and their
mother (Group K); and an extended family including children, their parents,
uncle, and grandparents (Group L). Our inductive analysis of the roles played by
the three different generations of gamers present in these four groups (youth,
adults, and mature adults) revealed both a broader repertoire of roles than has

12
been documented in previous research as well as a more generationally flexible
suite of roles.
In the following sections, we explore the five most common pairs of roles present
across gaming groups in our data:
 Decision Maker/Negotiator,
 Configurer/Bystander,
 Instructor/Instructed,
 Discouraged Gamer/Encourager and Strategizer, and
 Performer/Audience.
Decision Maker/Negotiator
In intergenerational gameplay, there were numerous instances in which decisions
about gameplay needed to be made. Gamers in different generations acted as
decision makers and negotiators for different types of decisions. We observed a
hierarchy of decisions that varied in their degree of impact on the gaming
experience:
 Decisions about when gaming activities would begin and end,
 Decisions about who would get a turn to play,
 Decisions about what game would be played,
 Decisions about what character or role would be played by whom, and
 Decisions about specific actions undertaken within the game.
Without exception, every decision about when gaming would begin or end and
every decision about who would get a turn to play were made by adults and/or
mature adults.
P33 [Father]: Okay, whose turn?
P32 [Mother]: Grandma and I were going to play next.
P30 [Son]: No, me and Grandma!
P35 [Grandmother]: No, Mommy and Grandma.
In these instances, youth gamers employed a variety of negotiating strategies—
ranging from silent acquiescence when a parent definitively announced that the
console needed to be turned off to declaring that they would like a turn playing

13
with a particular relative to whining in an attempt to be granted more playing
time.
Youth primarily took on the role of decision makers for other types of decisions
including what games would be played, what role would be played by whom, and
what actions would be undertaken within the game. In a number of cases when
youth gamers were told to give others a chance to play, they maintained
involvement in the gaming activity by leading subsequent decision-making at
lower levels of the hierarchy. Directly following the exchange reported above, in
which the mother and grandmother decided to play together, a youth participant
stayed involved by taking on the role of decision maker regarding what game his
mother and grandmother would play:
P32 [Mother]: What do you want to play, Grandma?
P31 [Son]: Baseball. Baseball….
(Pointing to his Grandmother)
Okay, you’re going to be batting first.
(Pointing to his Mother)
And you’re going to be pitching.
Although there were a few instances in which adults or mature adults took on the
role of decision maker with respect to what game would be played and what role
would be played by whom, the general pattern of interaction suggested that adults
took on the more impactful decision-making activities but stepped aside to give
younger generations opportunities to make some of the other decisions.
P24 [Son]: What next?
P26 [Father]: I want to play the guitar. You sing.
P25 [Mother]: You sing. You can pick the song.
P24 [Son]: Okay.
On occasion, the decision-making opportunities offered to youth gamers seemed
to be somewhat concessionary, but we observed no instances in which youth
gamers complained about the kinds of decisions they were invited to make.

14
Configurer/Bystander
In configurer/bystander interactions, configurers set up the gaming environment
by switching among game consoles, hooking up new input devices, or selecting
character profiles while the other gamers, the bystanders, stood by and waited.
Although most of the configuration tasks were technical in nature, some tasks
were not. For example, the youth in Group L asked the adults and mature adults in
their gaming group to untangle the cords connecting their Wiimotes to the
Nunchuks and to switch the foam accessories on their Wiimotes from golf clubs
to baseball bats.
All generations—youth, adults, and mature adults—took on the role of configurer
in our data, although youth and mature adult gamers solicited the most help with
configuration activities. The underlying tenor of these interactions did vary
depending on the age of the configurer in the gaming group. When adults or
mature adults took on the role of configurer, they typically took on the role
graciously, as if acting as a host or hostess for the gaming group. In the one group
in which the youth gamer took on the role of configurer, the tenor of the
interactions was often imbued with less graciousness or patience:
P24 [Son]: (Selects character profiles for himself and his father)
Dad!
P26 [Father]: What?
(Raises both hands in the air)
P24 [Son]: Don’t press anything. I’ll do it for you.
Configuration activities seemed to be some of the most difficult tasks associated
with gameplay and the role of configurer was frequently taken on by the owner of
the game console or by the more expert gamers in the group, regardless of the age
of those individuals.
For some games, the gaming configuration activities were distributed among the
input devices of various gamers. In these instances, some of the adult and mature
adult gamers in our study began to transition from being bystanders to recipients
of instruction as more expert gamers gave them information about how to take on
the configuration tasks for their own character.

15
Instructor/Instructed
Instructor/instructed interactions centered around information exchange related to
the mechanics of the game: how to configure the game, what different features of
the game do, what actions were expected of players at different points in the
game, and what the anticipated outcomes of various actions would be. Both youth
and adult gamers took on the role of the instructor in the intergenerational gaming
groups; in our data, all three generations took on the role of the instructed.
P26 [Father]: Do I do these, too?
P24 [Son]: No! Don’t do the stars. They take away points from you.
P26 [Father]: Really?
P24 [Son]: Yeah, that’s why you are in danger.
P25 [Mother]: I thought you got extra points.
P26 [Father]: I thought so, too. That’s why I was stepping on them.
P24 [Son]: They say ‘watch out for stars.’
Most instances of instructor/instructed interactions were initiated by the
instructed, who asked explicit questions of other group members. Most instances
of these interactions also involved more than two individuals. In the previous
excerpt, for example, while one individual initiated the exchange by asking the
question, multiple gamers ended up taking on the role of instructed. In the
following excerpt, the adult daughter and adult son-in-law shared the role of
instructor while the mother took on the role of instructed.
P28 [Adult Son-in-Law]: Guitar should be in overdrive.
P27 [Adult Daughter]: If you tip it, it overdrives it… Not yet!
P29 [Mother]: Oh…
P27 [Adult Daughter]: Save it! Save it! Okay. You’re done. But… when
your music comes back, tip it, so you can get your
overdrive up right away.
P28 [Adult Son-in-Law]: As soon as you get your notes, ‘cuz right now it will
just waste it.
Most of the instructor/instructed interactions we observed were carried out
through verbal explanations as opposed to physical demonstrations. This may
have been the case because these interactions largely took place during the course
of gameplay and most of the people who took on the role of instructor in those

16
contexts were actively playing, themselves. In one such occasion, a youth gamer
was not actively playing and was able to instruct by pointing to salient pieces of
information on the screen so that the instructed gamers—his parents—would
know where to look.
Discouraged Gamer/Encourager and Strategizer
Some gamers routinely demonstrated or articulated that they were discouraged
with their game performance. Most frequently, these gamers were youth or mature
adults. Sometimes, these gamers appeared dismayed; sometimes, they were
explicitly self-deprecating; at other times, they made utterances expressing
frustration. In response to these discouraged gamers, another gamer, typically an
adult or mature adult gamer, took on the role of an encourager and strategizer.
Often, these interactions occurred during the pauses in gameplay when the scores
for the previous round were displayed.
P29 [Mother]: Ninety-two? What the heck?
P27 [Adult Daughter]: Hey, ninety-two is good…
The more frustrated the gamer appeared, the more likely it seemed that the
encouragement would be couched as a strategic suggestion presented in an
encouraging tone of voice:
P21 [Son]: Ah, come on! That should have toppled it.… Oh no! It’s not
falling! It’s not falling! It’s not…
P22 [Mother]: You gotta slow down…
We observed the most encouragement in gaming groups in which adults were the
relative gaming experts. In gaming groups in which youth were the gaming
experts, we observed few instances of participants serving as encouragers and
strategizers.
Performer/Audience
The role pair of performer/audience appeared repeatedly throughout our data.
While the genre of performance may have varied—from celebratory dance to re-
enactment of a particularly successful sports play to dramatic reading or play-by-

17
play announcing—the performative nature of the interaction remained constant. In
nearly all cases, the role of performer in our data was taken on by the younger of
the generations of gamers (whether youth or adult) and the role of the audience
member was taken on by the older generation or generations of gamers (whether
adult, mature adult, or both). In rare cases, the performative act seemed to exhibit
a veneer of bragging and received no visible response from other group members
(in which case, the lack of a visible response may have been a very intentional
response by a disapproving audience). In most cases, the performances elicited
visible or audible responses, for example:
P21 [Son]: I still win, ‘cuz I got the 50!
(Dancing from foot to foot, waving his arms in the air)
P22 [Mother]: Is that your happy dance?
(Laughing)
P21 [Son]: (Laughing)
Yeah!
Dramatic reading was one genre of performance that transcended generation,
enacted by both youth and adults. As the game presented instructions or conveyed
narrative material textually on the screen, one gamer frequently read that text out
loud to the rest of the gaming group:
P27 [Adult Daughter]: (Reading)
You’ve won a PR firm…
P29 [Mother]: Cool!
P27 [Adult Daughter]: (Reading the material presented on the screen, but
adjusting the point-of-view from second- to first-
person)
We have $600 to start. We’ll be recognized by the
hall of fame committee, but we need more fans.
P29 [Mother]: Ah…
Some adults particularly valued the role of reading in gameplay. The parents in
Group I, for example, attributed their son’s initial motivation for and eventual
ability to read to his experiences playing games that required reading: “For me, I
don't mind [my son] playing it because he's actually learning something from it…
because it did force him to have to learn how to read” (P22).

18
Youth and adult gamers both enacted performances as play-by-play announcers,
chronicling players’ activities as the game unfolded (e.g., calling “Foul Ball” in
Wii Sports: Baseball or “Ace” in Wii Sports: Tennis). Sometimes the announcers
were simultaneously playing the game, themselves, and at other times, being an
announcer enabled them to participate more actively in the gameplay while not
currently participating as a player.
The sound design of some games already included a play-by-play announcer and
gamers frequently mimicked the digital voice of the game’s announcer when
calling the game on their own. Play-by-play announcers also frequently repeated
the specific word choice of the game’s built-in announcer, which often included
predictable commentary on the gameplay (e.g., “Nice spare” in Wii Sports:
Bowling). The interaction between the commentary from the game, itself, and the
commentary of the group’s play-by-play announcer sometimes became a subject
of amusement and elicited comments by other players:
Game Audio: Nice spare!
P24 [Son]: (Mimicking the game audio)
Nice spare!
P25 [Mother]: Thank you. Thank you for noticing.
The public display of scores at the end of each round sometimes presented
interpretive challenges for gamers. If someone read the scores out loud, there
were a number of plausible purposes for doing so—to provide a summative play-
by-play announcement or a commentary on the improvement or worsening of
someone’s scores. When an adult played the role of play-by-play announcer, it
was more likely that the reading of scores was coupled with encouraging remarks
or said in a celebratory tone. When youth took on the role of play-by-play
announcer, they more frequently provided information without commentary.
Because play-by-play information could be bound up with commentary in a
variety of ways, there were instances in which the intention of the announcer
seemed to have been ambiguous. In one case, the youth play-by-play announcer
wanted to be certain that his calling of scores was not misconstrued as being too
demeaning:
P24 [Son]: (Referring to their final Wii Sports: Bowling scores)

19
Ooo… I only went down five. Dad, you went down sixty and
Mom went down twenty-three.
P26 [Father]: Sixty!?
P24 [Son]: I don’t know; it just said that.
Previous research has emphasized the performative nature of group gaming (e.g.,
[5, 14]) and has argued that in collaborative computing, one should design more
intentionally for audience members—the spectator experience [12]. The role pair
of performer/audience was pervasive in our data, supporting the findings of much
previous research in the area. In contrast to the specific findings of Vetere et al.
[21], however, the role of performer in our data was most commonly taken up by
the younger generations of gaming groups. This may be a function of the
computer-mediated nature of the interaction. In grandparent–grandchild
playgroups, the grandparents may have taken on the role of entertainer as part of
an effort to construct a shared activity. In our data, the presence of the game may
have served as that shared activity, providing entertainment for the youth gamers
and creating a stage for them to perform within the constraints of the gaming
activity.
Designing Gaming Experiences for
Intergenerational Interactions
Our data suggest that the game design of some existing console games already
supports the activities of intergenerational gaming groups. Our analysis highlights
several attributes of gaming experiences that make them more accessible to
intergenerational groups. Here we discuss a number of these design
recommendations in more detail.
Designing to Support a Breadth of Generational Involvement in
Gameplay
In our study, we observed a number of interactions in which it was apparent that
older generations of gamers gave gaming priority (i.e., more opportunities to play)
to gamers in younger generations. In one instance, in fact, two married mature
adults did not report playing with each other; they took turns playing with their

20
adult children and grandchildren, instead. To encourage a larger breadth (i.e.,
more generational permutations) of intergenerational gameplay, one might design
games that support a larger number of players. In this way, the grandchildren get
to play, a parent or two can play, and there are still characters left over for a
grandparent or two to play, as well.
Limitations on the number of gamers playing at any given time may also have to
do with the physical constraints of the space in which gaming takes place. Many
of the games we observed groups play in intergenerational contexts required large
amounts of space—either necessitating space to accommodate physical movement
(e.g., Wii Sports: Tennis) or space to accommodate large physical input devices
(e.g., the floor mats in Dance Dance Revolution or the drum set in Rock Band).
Designing for a greater number of gamers and a larger breadth of generational
involvement may also necessitate further innovation in input devices and
interaction techniques that take up less space so that more players can physically
fit in the domestic spaces typically used for gaming.
In our previous work, we noted that traditional input devices that had too many
buttons were generally rejected by our participants as having too steep of a
learning curve and demanding too much “button mashing” [23]. While traditional,
button-based input devices certainly necessitate less space than the more recent
physical and motion-based input devices, our recommendation to explore input
devices that require a smaller spatial footprint should not be interpreted as an
argument for returning to traditional, button-based controllers. Instead, we believe
a new class of input devices that can be used in more space-constrained ways
would be valuable.
Designing to Include Intermediary Generations
Data from the questionnaire suggested that nearly all gamers who played with
gaming partners two generations older or younger than themselves also had
gaming partners one generation older or younger than themselves. These
intermediary generations, then—the parents or adult children—may be key both
to predicting and to fostering intergenerational gaming that spans two or more
generations.

21
Designing to include intermediary generations may mean designing games that
children (youth or adult) would enjoy playing with their parents and vice versa.
Once practices of intergenerational gameplay across these two generations
become commonplace, it becomes a much smaller generational stretch to include
grandparents in gaming experiences, as well.
Designing to include intermediary generations may also mean designing for three
or more generations of gamers to play together. In this case, designing for a larger
number of gamers would become increasingly important. Beyond designing for a
larger number of gamers, we observed that intermediary generations served a
particularly important role in intergenerational gaming, being expert enough
gamers to keep gameplay going and mature enough models of pro-social
behaviors to keep people interested in playing together. This pair of
characteristics seemed to be critical for engendering positive and healthy gaming
experiences. When an individual was an expert gamer but not yet mature enough
to model pro-social behaviors, the tenor of gameplay was less encouraging and
sometimes more condescending. When an individual was able to model pro-social
behaviors but was a novice gamer, they tended to be more passive participants in
the social interactions surrounding the gaming activity. Individuals in the
intermediary generations seemed most able to help individuals of both younger
and older generations—modeling pro-social behaviors for individuals of younger
generations while providing positive gaming instruction for individuals of older
generations. Designing for intermediary generations, then, may also mean
designing to support parents and adult children in their important niche as both
role model and more expert gamer.
Designing to Support Transitions Between Roles
The computer-mediated intergenerational context for interaction seems to be a
particularly fruitful site for supporting the flexible uptake of roles among
individuals. Consistent with previous research in the area (e.g., [6, 15]), our
research found that interactions around computational technologies inverted some
of the traditional roles taken on in intergenerational interactions (see [21]). The
range of ages of individuals participating in intergenerational interactions can be

22
quite large. With that age range comes a diversity of developmental abilities and
degrees of social maturity. We uncovered instances in our data in which gamers
from younger generations were able to take on more active leadership roles in
interactions. We also identified instances in which the way a role was carried out
by youth, in particular, was different in tenor from the way in which that same
role was carried out by adults and mature adults. Intergenerational console
gaming contexts, then, can provide an opportunity for individuals in older
generations to mentor individuals in younger generations, to help them transition
into these new roles and carry them out in more socially mature ways (e.g., with
more graciousness and patience).
The data from this study highlight one critical transition, in particular, and give
focus to the complexity of configuring games in group settings. We observed
instances in which gamers were passive bystanders, waiting for someone who was
more expert to set up the game and their characters as well as instances in which
gamers began to take on the role of the instructed and did some of the work to
configure their own characters. The prevalence of these pairs of roles and the
relationship between them suggests that designing for this particular transition
could be of particular importance in empowering novice users, particularly youth
and mature adults. That these two generations solicited the most assistance with
configuration tasks should be of interest to those who wish to design gaming
technologies for grandchild–grandparent interactions, in particular. Gamers in the
youth and mature adult generations will need to be empowered to take over
configuration activities from the intermediary adult generation.
When one input device was the sole vehicle for configuring a gaming experience,
there was little opportunity for others to learn about and take on some of their own
configuration activities. One adult gamer found the hand gestures in Dance Dance
Revolution to be too challenging and the youth configurer was able to assist in this
transition, making his configuration activities more visible by verbally articulating
each of the steps involved in turning the hand gestures off. As he moved through
the menu, he read each prompt out loud as he selected it: “Options. Markers. Off”
(P24).

23
Game design that would make the configuration activities of one individual more
visible to the group—taking advantage of the large, shared display or providing
audio feedback so the configurer could more publicly model configuration
skills—would be of value. This design recommendation resonates with
recommendations made in the public and situated displays literature, as well [7].
When configuration was required to be distributed over multiple input devices and
configurer/bystander roles were adopted, there were a number of very awkward
interactions in which the configurer struggled to press buttons on devices that
were either underfoot of bystanders (e.g., on the dance mats in Dance Dance
Revolution) or that bystanders were wearing (e.g., on the guitars in Rock Band). If
designers wish to better support the role of configurer, enabling gamers to play
before they have learned how to configure their own games, then supporting
configuration from one input device, at least as an option, would be of value, as
well.
Designing for the transitional space between configurer/bystander and
instructor/instructed may necessitate that configuration activities be allowed from
a variety of input devices, so that gamers can watch visible accounts of the
interaction carried out by configurers on a single input device and then begin to
take on their own configuration activities across distributed input devices with the
support of an instructor. In the design of intergenerational gaming experiences,
the game configuration process should be approached with particular care.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have presented results from a study of the collocated multi-
generational use of group console games, exploring, more specifically, the scope
and nature of computer-mediated intergenerational interactions.
Our data suggest that the console game design of several existing games is already
amenable to interaction within collocated intergenerational groups. Our
participants reported playing with an average of two generations of gamers; some
participants reported playing with up to four different generations of gamers. Our
observations suggest that intergenerational interactions surrounding console

24
gaming can provide some of the developmental benefits crucial to individual well-
being: gamers in younger generations were exposed to gamers in older
generations who served as models of pro-social behaviors, and gamers in older
generations had opportunities to share their knowledge and experiences with
gamers in younger generations. Further, in this computer-mediated context, we
observed that gamers in different generations took on roles more flexibly than had
been previously observed in more traditional play settings. Gamers in younger
generations took on more leadership roles in gameplay and, under the watchful
eye of the older generations, had opportunities to practice being more gracious
experts, more patient teachers, and more thoughtful hosts and hostesses.
Beyond the benefits that group console gaming can provide across generations,
this leisure technology may also help provide an entrée into computer and media
literacy for a broader demographic. Research has found that peer-to-peer
mentoring and informal social contexts, particularly those in the home
environment, were key elements for many, especially elders, in learning to use
computers [15]. In fact, leisure pursuits, such as games, were highlighted as a key
example of the purposes for which individuals initially learn to use computers and
have been found to be a viable platform for informal learning [18].
Intergenerational group console gaming, then, may provide a path toward more
universal access of media and technology.
Our study of intergenerational console gaming suggests that the intersection of
collocated intergenerational interactions and computer-supported cooperative play
may be a promising focus for researchers who wish to design new technologies in
support of intergenerational interactions and for proponents of community-based
intergenerational programming. Our research offers motivation for exploring the
design space for collocated intergenerational console gaming and suggests a
number of affordances and limitations of current console game design that can be
considered when designing collocated intergenerational gaming experiences.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our participants for sharing their time and gaming
experiences with us. This research was supported in part by the

25
NSERC/iCORE/Smart Technologies Chair in Interactive Technologies and by
NSERC’s NECTAR Strategic Networks Grants Program.
References
1. Aarsand, P.A. (2007). Computer and video games in family life: The digital divide as a
resource in intergenerational interactions. Childhood, 14(2), 235–256.
2. Crites, M.S. (1989). Child development and intergenerational programming. In S. Newman &
S.W. Brummel (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Imperatives, strategies, impacts, trends
(pp. 33–43). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
3. Davis, H., Vetere, F., Francis, P., Gibbs, M. & Howard, S. (2008). “I wish we could get
together”: Exploring intergenerational play across a distance via a ‘magic box.’ Journal of
intergenerational relationships, 6(2), 191–210.
4. Dovey, J. & Kennedy, H.W. (2006). Game cultures: Computer games as new media. New
York, NY: Open University Press.
5. Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E. & Moore, R.J. (2006). “Alone together?” Exploring the
social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 407–
416.
6. Harley, D. & Fitzpatrick, G. (2009). YouTube and intergenerational communication: The case
of Geriatric1927. Universal access in the information society, 8, 5–20.
7. Huang, E.M., Mynatt, E.D., Russell, D.M. & Sue, A.E. (2006). Secrets to success and fatal
flaws: The design of large-display groupware. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
26(1), 37–45.
8. Kern, D., Stringer, M., Fitzpatrick, G. & Schmidt, A. (2006). Curball—A prototype tangible
game for inter-generational play. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Enabling Technologies:
Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press, pp. 412–418.
9. Khoo, E.T., Lee, S.P., Cheok, A.D., Kodagoda, S., Zhou, Y. & Toh, G.S. (2006). Age
invaders: Social and physical inter-generational family entertainment. In Extended Abstracts
of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press,
pp. 243–246.
10. Mynatt, E.D., Adler, A., Ito, M., Linde, C. & O’Day, V.L. (1999). The network communities
of SeniorNet. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 219–238.
11. Mynatt, E.D., Rowan, J., Craighill, S. & Jacobs, A. (2001). Digital family portraits: Providing
peace of mind for extended family members. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 333–340.
12. Reeves, S., Benford, S., O’Malley, C., Fraser, M. (2005). Designing the spectator experience.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New
York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 741–750.

26
13. ReVille, S. (1989). Young adulthood to old age: Looking at intergenerational possibilities
from a human development perspective. In S. Newman & S.W. Brummel (Eds.),
Intergenerational programs: Imperatives, strategies, impacts, trends (pp. 45–53). New York,
NY: Haworth Press.
14. Sall, A. & Grinter, R.E. (2007). Let’s get physical! In, out, and around the gaming circle of
physical gaming at home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(1–2), 199–229.
15. Selwyn, N. (2005). The social processes of learning to use computers. Social Science
Computer Review, 23(1), 122–135.
16. Siio, I., Rowan, J., & Mynatt. E. (2002). Peek-a-Drawer: Communication by furniture. In
Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New
York: ACM Press, pp. 582–583.
17. Stearns, P.N. (1989). Historical trends in intergenerational contacts. In S. Newman & S.W.
Brummel (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Imperatives, strategies, impacts, trends (pp.
21–32). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
18. Stevens, R., Satwicz, T. & McCarthy, L. (2008). In-game, in-room, in-world: Reconnecting
video gameplay to the rest of kids’ lives. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting
youth, games, and learning (pp. 41–66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Thompson, M.G. & Heller, K. (1990). Facets of support related to well-being: Quantitative
social isolation and perceived family support in a sample of elderly women. Psychology and
Aging, 5(4), 535–544.
20. Ventura-Merkel, C., Liederman, D.S. & Ossofsky, J. (1989). Exemplary intergenerational
programs. In S. Newman & S.W. Brummel (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Imperatives,
strategies, impacts, trends (pp. 173–180). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
21. Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M. & Howard, S. (2009). The magic box and collage:
Responding to the challenge of distributed intergenerational play. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 165–178.
22. Vetere, F., Nolan, M. & Ramaan, R.A. (2006). Distributed hide and seek. In Proceedings of
the Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and
Environments. New York: ACM Press, pp. 325–328.
23. Voida, A. & Greenberg, S. (2009). Wii all play: The console game as a computational
meeting place. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1559–1568.