Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player

Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

Wenge Xu

1 a

, Ruichen Zheng

2 b

, Diego Monteiro

3 c

Vijayakumar Nanjappan

4 d

, Yihong Wang

2 e

and Hai-Ning Liang

2,∗ f

DMT Lab, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, U.K.

Department of Computing, School of Advanced Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China

LII Lab, ESIEA, Laval, France

Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

ﬁ

Keywords:

Immersion, Social Presence, Head-Mounted Displays, Large Displays, Small Tablet Displays, Co-located

Social Play.

Abstract:

With advances in virtual reality (VR) technology, immersive head-mounted displays (HMDs) have become

widely accessible. These devices have made social games and platforms like VRChat popular. Although the

literature points to several factors that affect immersion and social presence, there has been no study that has

explored the effect of social display setup on immersion and gameplay in multi-player social games. This work

aims to shed light on this issue and investigates the effect of social display setup on gameplay performance

and experience (i.e., immersion and social presence) in a multi-player competitive social game (i.e., Jenga).

We conducted a one-way between-subjects experiment with 24 participants equally distributed in three groups

(4 pairs of 2 participants in each group, who were all strangers to each other) according to three social display

setups (2 small-screen tablets, 1 shared 40-inch large TV, and 2 VR HMDs). Our results indicate that (1)

players gave a lower rating to challenge in the VR-based social setting than in the small-screen tablet display

setting, and (2) gameplay behavior patterns are different among these social display setups.

1 INTRODUCTION

Playing with others (that is, social gameplay) is a

prevalent and essential aspect of games, digital or

otherwise. Many games that originated for single-

player settings now have multiplayer modes (i.e., Call

of Duty series) (Hudson and Cairns, 2014). It has

been found that playing social games is an excel-

lent approach to extend social networks, not only for

young players attending high schools or universities

(Eklund and Roman, 2017; Khanolkar and McLean,

2012) but also for community-dwelling older adults

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7227-7437

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3657-351X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1570-3652

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6081-2826

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3278-6410

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3600-8955

∗

Corresponding author

or older adults who are currently in nursing homes

(Schell et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2022).

Until recently, mobile devices, PCs, and gaming

consoles were the only choices for people to play

social games with other players. With recent ad-

vances in virtual reality (VR) technologies, particu-

larly in the form of affordable head-mounted displays

(HMDs)(Monteiro et al., 2022), VR gaming has be-

come an attractive alternative platform for people to

play social games with others, either collaborating

with or competing against each other (Liang et al.,

2019). An online social platform called VRChat

has

around 42k players playing the game during peak lev-

els

, where players gather in a chosen virtual space to

explore and socialize. Population One

allows players

to enter the battleﬁeld in a group of three (random on-

https://hello.vrchat.com/

Steam data https://steamplayercount.com/app/438100

http://www.populationonevr.com/

Xu, W., Zheng, R., Monteiro, D., Nanjappan, V., Wang, Y. and Liang, H.

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior Patterns.

DOI: 10.5220/0012469000003660

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2024) - Volume 1: GRAPP, HUCAPP

and IVAPP, pages 159-169

ISBN: 978-989-758-679-8; ISSN: 2184-4321

159

line players or friends) to play against other squads. In

addition, VR games such as Beat Saber

, Ragnarock

Fit XR

all allow players to compete with their friends

and strangers. As a result, gamers now have three so-

cial settings for playing social games based on display

types: mobile devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet), large

displays (e.g., monitor, TV), and immersive VR (e.g.,

VR HMDs).

Common co-located social settings for two play-

ers among these displays are two mobile devices, one

shared large display, or two VR HMDs. Because two

players share a large display while mobile devices and

VR HMDs are used by players separately, there can

be signiﬁcant differences and affordances between

these social display settings regarding gameplay, so-

cial presence, and privacy and could bring forth dif-

ferent interaction behaviors (Chen et al., 2021b; Chen

et al., 2021a; Chen et al., 2020). For instance, mobile

devices and VR HMDs show a private user interface

panel (e.g., skills cool-down time in Genshin Impact

)

separately to each player, while a shared display must

display all information to both players. Mobile de-

vices and VR HMDs players could privately change

tactics and player instructions in games like FIFA 23

but this information is visible to both players in a large

shared display setting. Although the above informa-

tion is hidden from the other mobile device users, they

could always attempt to spy on the other player’s dis-

play (Chen et al., 2020). However, this is impossible

for VR players since the VR HMDs block the view

of both players in the co-located setting, leading to a

largely underexplored research area (i.e., social game-

play in VR).

Given the insights from previous research that

physical proximity, communication tools, and gam-

ing environments play a crucial role in shaping so-

cial presence and gameplay experiences (Voida et al.,

2010; Derks et al., 2008; Monteiro et al., 2018), this

study aims to explore further the impact of social dis-

play setups on co-located competitive gameplay. The

following research questions (RQs) are proposed to

guide this study:

(RQ1) How VR HMD setups affect co-located com-

petitive gameplay performance and experience

compared to 2D displays(i.e., immersion and

social presence)?

(RQ2) What are the behavior patterns of each social

display setup when players play a co-located

competitive game?

https://beatsaber.com/

https://www.ragnarock-vr.com/home

https://ﬁtxr.com/

https://genshin.mihoyo.com/en

https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/ﬁfa/ﬁfa-23

To explore these two research questions, we have

developed an in-house multiplayer game and con-

ducted an experiment with the game to investigate

three social display setups, which are two 8-inch

small tablet displays (SD), one 40-inch large TV dis-

play (LD), and two VR HMDs, in a co-located Jenga

game with 24 participants who are all strangers to

each other. Figure 1 shows the three versions of the

game used in the experiment. By examining the ef-

fects of different social display setups on co-located

competitive gameplay, this study aims to contribute to

a better understanding of how to enhance immersion,

social presence, and overall gaming experiences.

Figure 1: Examples of paired users during the experiment:

(a) small display setup: two participants each using one

small tablet display, (b) large display setup: two partici-

pants playing the game via a shared large display, and (c)

VR HMDs setup: two participants playing the game while

wearing the VR HMDs.

2 RELATED WORK

2.1 Immersion and Gameplay

Immersion is an experience that is commonly men-

tioned by gamers, designers, and game researchers

(Brown and Cairns, 2004). It involves a lack of aware-

ness of time, a loss of awareness of the real world, and

a feeling of being absorbed in playing a game. Most

importantly, immersion results from a good, positive

gaming experience (Jennett et al., 2008). It is worth

noting that while various deﬁnitions of immersion ex-

ist, such as that of Slater (Slater, 2003), which focuses

on the technical attributes of VR systems, our discus-

sion centers around immersion as a subjective expe-

rience resulting from engaging gameplay rather than

delving into the nuances of system-driven immersion.

Several studies have been conducted to investigate

possible factors that could affect players’ immersion

during gameplay, such as display size, resolution, and

frame rate (Hou et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2022; Wang

et al., 2023) or controller type (Monteiro et al., 2020).

The screen size of the gaming devices is a notable fac-

tor (Nakano et al., 2021). Thompson et al. (Thomp-

son et al., 2012) conducted a study to compare the

immersion level of playing the ‘Fruit Ninja’ game on

the iPad 1, which in their study was the large dis-

play, and the iPod Touch 4, which was the small dis-

GRAPP 2024 - 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

160

play. They found that playing ‘Fruit Ninja’ on the

iPad could lead to a signiﬁcantly higher immersion

than on the iPod. Later studies have further conﬁrmed

that screens with larger sizes could provide a more

involved, immersive gaming experience than smaller

ones (Hou et al., 2012; van den et al., 2009; Beyer

et al., 2014). Schild et al. (Schild et al., 2012) found

that the type of 3D graphics could also affect the im-

mersion level. Their experiment results showed that a

stereoscopic display resulted in increased immersion

than a monoscopic display. Similar ﬁndings were re-

ported for VR displays in (Luo et al., 2021), which

also reported that stereoscopic views in VR improved

user experience. Cairns et al. (Cairns et al., 2014)

found that the naturalness of the game controls in-

ﬂuences players’ immersion experience while playing

mobile games. In line with Cairns et al. (Cairns et al.,

2014), Pietschmann et al. (Pietschmann et al., 2012)

found that motion-based input such as the Nintendo

Wii Remote could result in a higher degree of immer-

sion than a classic gamepad controller in a motion-

based exergame. Similar results are also found in

(Lindley et al., 2008; McEwan et al., 2012). In addi-

tion to the controller type, knowing how to control the

game can also contribute to immersion (Brown and

Cairns, 2004; Monteiro et al., 2020). Because these

factors (i.e., content and controller input) could af-

fect the perceived immersion in games, we have care-

fully controlled them in our experiment (more details

in Section 3.1.2).

The level of challenge is also a positive predictor

of the immersion level during gameplay. To increase

players’ immersion level, game designers could either

increase the difﬁculty of the content (Qin et al., 2009;

Cox et al., 2012) or put a leaderboard with the play-

ers’ friends on it to a game (Park et al., 2017). Re-

garding the social aspect, Cairns et al. (Cairns et al.,

2013) found that social play enhances the sense of be-

ing in the game where interaction is through the game.

Likewise, social entities could also enhance immer-

sion (Liszio et al., 2017). In short, playing against

other players inherently makes the level of challenge

dynamic and unpredictable, and having a social com-

ponent in the game can inﬂuence immersion levels.

Although research reported that players could be

more immersed in VR HMDs than a large display

(e.g., monitor or TV) when playing a ﬁrst-person

shooter game (Amin et al., 2016) and exergame (Xu

et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021), the results might vary

due to the type of game used in the experiment or

the length of gameplay. For example, Fairclough and

Burns (Fairclough and Burns, 2013) found that VR

HMDs could not increase the level of immersion in a

racing game compared to a 5-inch LCD monitor and

a 40-inch LCD TV. Results from Walch et al. (Walch

et al., 2017) showed similar ﬁndings in a different

racing game, where they tested a VR HMD against

a setup with multi-ﬂat screens. Furthermore, Xu et al.

(Xu et al., 2019) also found that VR could not lead to

higher immersion than a 50-inch 4K TV for 3-minute

gameplays with an exergame. Similar ﬁndings have

been observed in our types of applications, like those

focused on learning (e.g., see (Lu et al., 2023)).

To our knowledge, no study has been conducted

to examine the effect of social display setup on im-

mersion in a co-located social game setup. Therefore,

our study aimed to shed light on this largely underex-

plored area.

2.2 Social Presence and Gameplay

One of the deﬁnitions of social presence that is gen-

erally well-accepted is that it is the “sense of be-

ing together with another” person (Biocca et al.,

2003). Some existing literature suggests that social

play could have a negative role in immersion. For

instance, Sweetser and Wyeth (Sweetser and Wyeth,

2005) noted that social interaction can often interrupt

immersion in games, which is understandable because

immersion is about being in the game while playing

socially requires one to be aware of what is happening

outside the game—–in the case of social presence, to

be aware of the other player(s). However, a later study

by Cairns et al. (Cairns et al., 2013) showed that play-

ers were more immersed when playing against an-

other person rather than playing against the computer,

regardless of whether the other player was online or

in the same room, as long as the other player was part

of the game.

There is limited research on exploring the factors

that could affect social presence. The location where

a game is played might be one factor. Studies (Ga-

jadhar et al., 2008; Cairns et al., 2013; De Kort et al.,

2007) found that playing social games in a co-located

setup could result in a higher social presence than

a remote setup (i.e., playing a social game online).

However, while it was suggested that location does

not guarantee behavioral engagement between play-

ers (Magerkurth et al., 2004), the seating and view-

ing arrangements (Sommer, 1967) were the key to

increase behavioral engagements (e.g., eye contact).

Therefore, the location may contribute to social pres-

ence between players during gameplay (De Kort et al.,

2007) and, as such, needs to be controlled in our

experiment. The input type (Wolbert et al., 2014;

Abeele et al., 2013) has also been found to have an

effect on social presence. For instance, Abeele et al.

(Abeele et al., 2013) found that players experienced

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

161

more social presence (in involvement-empathy) when

playing with a steering wheel than a classic controller

in a racing game. In short, based on this review, we

needed to control the seating arrangement in our ex-

periment so that it would not affect the perceived so-

cial presence during gameplay.

The effect of social display setup on social pres-

ence in a co-located social game setup was previously

studied in (Kauko and H

akkil

a, 2010). Their results

suggested that social presence was not signiﬁcantly

different when playing in LD condition (using two

21-inch LCD monitors as one single large display)

and SD condition (using two smartphones). Never-

theless, to our knowledge, no study has explored the

difference between VR HMDs and traditional display

setups (SD and LD) regarding social presence. Our

research aims to ﬁll this gap.

3 EXPERIMENT

3.1 Task

3.1.1 Jenga

A digital version of the classical social game Jenga

was developed using the Unity3D game engine (see

Fig. 2 for the game prototype for the three plat-

forms). Jenga is selected as the testbed with the fol-

lowing criteria: (1) for the players: rules are simple

and possible novelty bias is low; (2) for the exper-

iment: factors such as game content (model, audio,

graphics) and control mechanism can be easily con-

trolled across the platforms, in addition, because it is

a turn-based game, the potential impact due to net-

work latency can be minimized (although it is already

at a very low level; see below); (3) for the displays

types: Jenga can be comfortably played in all displays

where many other types of games could suffer issues

such as simulator sickness (especially in VR HMDs).

Further, Jenga is a good representative of a compet-

itive social game since (1) it presents a head-to-head

challenge in real time, (2) players can observe oppo-

nents’ movements while thinking about and planning

their next move, and (3) it affords opportunities for

players to distract each other or socialize.

We used the Photon Unity Networking unit

to en-

able multiplayer functions for our game. By selecting

a local server, we were able to control the latency to

less than 50 milliseconds—the actual range was be-

tween 20 to 50 for the SD and VR groups which, ac-

cording to previous research, is an acceptable level

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/network/

photon-unity-networking-classic-free-1786

for online games (Pantel and Wolf, 2002; Claypool

and Claypool, 2006; Jarschel et al., 2011).

3.1.2 Control Mechanism

All versions used the same controller mechanism to

interact with the game.

At the beginning of a player’s turn, a block would

be highlighted in yellow, indicating that this block can

be selected by the player who is currently playing.

Players could turn the left joystick up/down/left/right

to highlight another block for later selection. Press-

ing “A” on the controller selects the highlighted block

and turns its color to red (from yellow), indicat-

ing that this block has been selected. Once se-

lected, players can move the red block vertically left-

ward/rightward/forward/backward with the left joy-

stick (i.e., left/right/up/down).

To move the block up or down, players need

to press the “Y” button and move the left joystick

up/down. To rotate the block, players need to press

the “Y” button and move the left joystick left/right;

the block can be rotated clockwise/counterclockwise

around its center axis.

The right joystick is used to allow the camera’s

rotation to change viewing perspectives. When it

is moved left/right, the viewing perspective changes

horizontally, and when it is moved up/down, the per-

spective changes vertically. The left/right trigger but-

tons allow zooming in and out. When a block is se-

lected, the player can press button A again to deselect

the block, which will now follow the physics laws and

fall down. If no blocks fall to the ground, the other

player takes the turn.

3.1.3 Rules

We followed the rule of the Jenga game

to ensure

the game is intuitive and easy to understand. At each

turn, the player needs to use the controller to select

one block from the tower and then place it on the top

of the tower to complete its turn. If any block falls

from the tower or the tower collapses, the player who

made the block or the tower fall would lose the game;

otherwise, the next player starts their turn. For each

turn, users have 99 seconds to decide which block to

move and where in the tower to place it.

3.2 Experiment Design

We followed a one-way between-subjects experimen-

tal design with a social display setup as the indepen-

dent variable with three groups; that is, two small

https://jenga.com/about.php

GRAPP 2024 - 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

162

Figure 2: Interface of the game for the tablet and HMD versions: (a) from Player 1’s perspective and (b) from Player 2’s

perspective when it is Player 1’s turn. (c) The interface for the shared large display when it is Player 1’s turn. We ensured that

all three social display setups shared the same game content (i.e., models, materials, textures) and control.

tablet displays (SD), a large shared TV display (LD),

and two VR HMDs (VR). For each group, partici-

pants were asked to play the game three times. The

advantage of applying this design for the study was

that participants would have enough gameplay expe-

rience before completing the questionnaire, and the

length of the experiment could be controlled within

an hour.

Utilizing a one-way between-subjects experimen-

tal design with three distinct social display setups

(small tablet displays, a large shared TV display, and

VR HMDs) as the independent variable allows for a

direct comparison of the impact of each setup on co-

located competitive gameplay experiences. By having

participants play the game three times, they are given

the opportunity to become familiar with the gameplay

and controls, thus minimizing the inﬂuence of learn-

ing effects on the outcomes and allowing for a more

accurate assessment of the social display setups’ ef-

fects.

The game was played in pairs of 2 participants

who were randomly assigned to each group (i.e., SD,

LD, VR). The participants assigned to each pair did

not know each other before the experiment (we en-

sured this prior to the study by asking if they knew

each other).

3.3 Apparatus and Setup

In the SD setup, players were asked to sit next to each

other and play the game on two NVidia Shield tablets

via attached IPEGA controllers (see Fig. 1a). The

tablets had a 1920 x 1200 resolution screen, 2Gb of

memory, 2.2 GHz NVidia k1 processor. For the LD

setup, players were asked to sit next to each other

and play the game in front of a 40-inch 4K TV us-

ing an Xbox wireless controller each (see Fig. 1b).

The game was run on a Windows PC, which had an

i7 6700k CPU, 16 GB of memory, and a GTX 1070

dedicated graphics card. We used Oculus Rift CV1

as our VR HMDs for the VR setup, where the two

VR HMDs were connected to 2 Windows PCs, which

had the same speciﬁcations as the LD setup. Play-

ers were asked to stand in a zone next to each other

and play the game using the same Xbox controllers

as the LD group (see Fig. 1c). To avoid confounding

factors, we controlled the game content, control in-

put, and seating arrangement (i.e., next to each other),

because as stated earlier they could have an impact

on both immersion and social presence (Cairns et al.,

2014; Pietschmann et al., 2012; Lindley et al., 2008;

Sommer, 1967).

The SD and LD setups in our study followed the

setup used in a previous study (Kauko and H

akkil

2010), except the players are sitting next to each other

in our SD setup. During the experiment, the devices

in SD and VR settings were connected and synchro-

nized over a network connection (see Section 3.1.1).

We also adjusted all versions based on display refresh

rate to achieve a comparable and smooth gaming ex-

perience (VR = 90 Hz, PC = 60Hz, Tablet = 60Hz).

3.4 Measurement

3.4.1 Performance Data

We collected the number of turns players took during

the game as a performance measure.

3.4.2 Questionnaire Data

We used (1) Immersive Experience Questionnaire

(IEQ) (Jennett et al., 2008) for measuring immer-

sion and (2) Social Presence in Game Questionnaire

(SPGQ) (De Kort et al., 2007) for measuring social

presence. Both IEQ and SPGQ questionnaires use 5-

point Likert scale.

The IEQ comprises ﬁve subscales representing in-

dependent clusters of variables: Cognitive Involve-

ment (CI), Emotional Involvement (EI), Real World

Dissociation (RWD), Challenge, and Control. To tai-

lor the IEQ for our study and obtain more precise and

relevant measurements, we adapted and expanded the

questionnaire. For instance, instead of directly in-

quiring about the game’s overall challenge, partici-

pants were asked to assess the challenge of selecting

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

163

a block, moving it out, and placing it on top of the

tower separately. The adapted IEQ includes 45 ques-

tions, with 12 questions for CI, 11 questions for EI, 8

questions for RWD, 8 questions for Challenge, and 6

questions for Control. We used both negative and pos-

itive wording in the questions to control for potential

effects caused by question phrasing.

Similarly, we adapted and expanded the SPGQ to

better suit our study. For example, rather than ask-

ing whether players paid close attention to each other,

participants were asked whether they paid attention to

their opponent’s gameplay speciﬁcally. The adapted

SPGQ consists of 17 questions, with 6 questions for

Empathy, 5 questions for Negative Feelings, and 6

questions for Behavioral Engagement.

The rationale behind adapting and expanding the

IEQ and SPGQ is to increase the sensitivity and speci-

ﬁcity of the measures to the unique characteristics of

our study. By customizing the questionnaires to bet-

ter align with the gaming context and speciﬁc aspects

of the gameplay experience under investigation, we

can collect more accurate and relevant data. This, in

turn, will enable us to understand better the impact of

social display setups on immersion and social pres-

ence in co-located competitive gameplay, providing

a stronger basis for drawing conclusions and making

recommendations.

In total, the questionnaire utilized in our study

comprises 53 questions, with 45 sourced from the

adapted IEQ and 17 from the adapted SPGQ. Among

these questions, nine were shared by both IEQ and

SPGQ (see Appendix for details).

3.4.3 Qualitative data and Behaviour

Observation

During the gameplay, an onsite experimenter acted as

an observer, responsible for observing participants’

behaviour and taking notes. We used an unstructured

observation study focusing on users’ behaviour: (1)

Do they collaborate or compete, (2) What are players’

feelings, (3) How is their physical behaviour when it

is their turn and the opponent’s turn? In addition, the

experimenter also took notes on the verbal communi-

cation participants had.

After the gameplay, we also asked participants to

provide feedback on the game, their opinions on the

social game settings, and their overall gameplay ex-

perience.

3.5 Procedure

Before the experiment, participants were briefed on

the purpose of the experiment and asked to sign the

consent form and complete a pre-experiment ques-

tionnaire. Participants were told to be competitive

and try to win the game. After, all pairs were

given training sessions to get them familiar with the

game and especially how to select and manipulate the

blocks, because a previous study suggested that con-

trol mechanisms could also affect immersion (Brown

and Cairns, 2004). They then entered the experiment

stage, where they had to play in the assigned setting

for three rounds. Between each round, they could rest

as much as they wanted. Then, they were asked to

complete the 53-question questionnaire mentioned in

the Measurement section. The experiment was con-

ducted in a research lab where no participants could

be seen by others. The experiment lasted at least 30

minutes for each pair of participants.

3.6 Participants

Twenty-four participants (16 males and 8 females)

aged between 20 to 25 (M = 21.95) years old were

recruited from a local university campus and were re-

warded with snacks and refreshments at the end of the

experiment. Twelve of them played digital games on

a weekly basis. 50% of our participants had previous

experience interacting with VR HMDs before the ex-

periment, but none of them were regular VR users.

Fourteen of them had played Jenga before, mostly

with their friends.

Based on participants’ own ratings from the pre-

experiment questionnaire, the three groups had no sta-

tistically signiﬁcant difference in participants’ back-

ground information, game experience, and device fa-

miliarity.

4 RESULTS

We analyzed the data using the one-way ANOVA with

social display setup (SD, LD, VR) as the between-

subjects variable. Tukey’s HSD was used for pair-

wise comparisons. All the statistical analyses were

performed using IBM SPSS 24.

IEQ. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the

IEQ and its subscales. There was no signiﬁcant ef-

fect of social display setup on the overall Immer-

sion scores (F

2,21

= 0.267, p = 0.77). Regarding the

IEQ subscales, ANOVA tests yielded a signiﬁcant dif-

ference between social display setups on the feeling

of Challenge (F

2,21

= 4.946, p = 0.017), while post-

hoc analyses indicated that playing the game in SD

could result in a signiﬁcantly higher challenge than

in VR (p < .05). In addition, there was a trend to-

ward signiﬁcance regarding Emotional Involvement

GRAPP 2024 - 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

164

Table 1: Means (standard deviation) of IEQ overall score

and its subscales.

IEQ Components SD (N=8) LD (N=8) VR (N=8)

Immersion 103.88 (6.20) 106.41 (9.47) 104.07 (7.03)

Cognitive Involvement 32.72 (4.78) 31.78 (2.16) 30.56 (2.46)

Emotional Involvement 19.77 (1.51) 23.05 (3.99) 22.09 (2.16)

Real World Dissociation 25.27 (2.40) 24.94 (3.14) 25.38 (4.02)

Challenge 11.44 (1.35)* 11.13 (1.69) 9.38 (1.16)*

Control 14.69 (1.99) 15.52 (2.09) 16.67 (2.44)

Table 2: Means (standard deviation) of SPGQ overall score

and its subscales.

SPGQ Components SD (N=8) LD (N=8) VR (N=8)

Overall SPGQ 6.63 (1.06) 6.25 (0.84) 6.26 (0.69)

Empathy 2.63 (0.40) 2.56 (0.37) 2.40 (0.72)

Negative Feeling 1.63 (0.75) 1.40 (0.37) 1.68 (0.47)

Behavior Engagement 2.38 (0.62) 2.29 (0.65) 2.19 (0.48)

2,21

= 2.967, p = 0.07). No other signiﬁcant ef-

fects were found between social display setups on

Cognitive Involvement (F

2,21

= 0.837, p = 0.45), Real

World Dissociation (F

2,21

= 0.039, p = 0.96), and

Control (F

2,21

= 1.662, p = 0.21).

SPGQ. The results of SPGQ components can be

found in Table 2. There was no signiﬁcant effect of

social display setup on SPGQ overall score (F

2,21

0.473, p = 0.63). We could not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant

effect of social display setup on all SPGQ subscales:

Empathy (F

2,21

= 0.414, p = 0.67), Negative Feeling

2,21

= 0.561, p = 0.58), and Behavior Engagement

2,21

= 0.205, p = 0.82).

Gameplay. On average, the number of turns in SD,

LD, and VR is 6.42 (std = 2.78), 10.42 (std = 6.40),

7.75 (std = 3.77), respectively. There was no sig-

niﬁcant effect of social display setup on the num-

ber of turns played during the experiment (F

2,33

2.374, p = 0.11).

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 RQ1: Would Social Display Setups

Affect Co-Located Competitive

Gameplay Performance and

Experience

We found that statistically, social display setup did

not have an inﬂuence on overall immersion and so-

cial presence. Although there was no signiﬁcant ef-

fect of display type on overall immersion, we did ob-

serve that players felt less challenged (i.e., challenge

subscale from IEQ) when playing the Jenga game in

VR than in the SD (despite the VR setup was the con-

dition where their opponents often intentionally ver-

bally distracted the players). One possible explana-

tion might be that VR provided a better spatial view

for players to observe which block to select, how to

move it without moving the other blocks, and where

on the top of the tower to place it. But this is chal-

lenging in small tablet displays.

5.2 RQ2: What Are the Behavior

Patterns of Each Social Display

Setup when Players Play the

Co-Located Competitive Game?

The behavior patterns were discussed based on our

observations (e.g., players’ social behavior patterns

and their comments) during the gameplay sessions

and the qualitative feedback that was collected in the

post-experiment questionnaire.

SD (Two Separate Tablet Displays). Although it was

clearly stated to be a competitive game, participants

mentioned that it was fun to spy on and try to guess

how the other player interacted with the game by

watching their devices to ﬁnd out their thoughts and

learn from their strategies. Also, the pair of partici-

pants enjoyed seeing the facial and body expressions

of the other player. Moreover, they were also ob-

served to have communicated and talked quite a lot

with each other.

LD (A Large Shared TV Display). We observed par-

ticipants have a higher willingness to participate in

the other player’s turns in this setup because this

shared display allows players to observe how the other

player interacted with the game in a direct way. Over-

all, we found participants laughing the most and that

they showed more signs of trying to play the game

in a cooperative way than the other two setups, even

though we have clearly stated to the players that they

should try to be as competitive as they could and try

to win the game). In many instances, they shared

their observations (e.g., “You should not select that

block”) and even encouraged their opponents (“Come

on, you can do this,” or “You shouldn’t try that”) to

do better. They were less focused on selecting the

block from the tower on their own and often discussed

with their opponents what would be the best block to

move. They mentioned that instead of trying to make

the tower collapse during their opponent’s turn, they

would rather be exploring how high they could stack

the blocks without making the tower fall. This could

have been the reason why the number of turns appears

to be the highest in the LD setup. Like the SD setup,

the pairs were seen talking and gesturing to each other

quite often.

VR (Immersive Head-Mounted Displays). In general,

we observed a very different interaction pattern in VR

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

165

compared to the other two setups. Players’ attitude

and behaviour is more competitive in the VR setting

and more focused on the game than the co-located op-

ponent. Communication between players is relatively

limited. When it came to the player’s turn, the player

was very focused on (1) observing the best block to

be selected, (2) moving out the block extremely care-

fully, and (3) placing the selected block on the top of

the tower. In contrast, when it was their opponent’s

turn, they tried to distract their opponents by verbally

making statements like “The tower is going to col-

lapse” and “Don’t waste your time, you are going to

lose.” This could be because this is the only condi-

tion that players cannot see the physical appearance

of the co-located opponent. In contrast, players in the

SD and LD groups can easily observe how the other

player played the game and their facial and body re-

actions. VR group is the only group that participants

(N=8) mentioned being very competitive, while par-

ticipants in SD and LD felt that they were playing the

game more for pleasure and enjoyment than for com-

petition, trying to win the game.

5.3 Strength of the Study

The strengths of our research include: (1) our experi-

ment examined the effect of social display setup with

three different devices (SD, LD, VR) on gameplay

performance, immersion, and social presence in co-

located competitive games–—to our knowledge, we

are the ﬁrst ones to conduct this research; (2) factors

(e.g., content, controller mechanics, seating arrange-

ment) that could affect the experiment are well con-

trolled since previous research (Schild et al., 2012;

Cairns et al., 2014; Pietschmann et al., 2012; Lindley

et al., 2008; Sommer, 1967) suggested that these fac-

tors could affect immersion or social presence during

gameplay; and (3) the experiment setup followed the

previous study (Kauko and H

akkil

a, 2010).

5.4 Recommendation, Limitation, and

Future Work

We identiﬁed a potential risk in that, when players

were standing and wearing VR HMDs next to each

other, it may lead to collisions between players in co-

located play because players cannot see each other.

In our experiment, the experimenter would inform the

players if there might be any potential collisions when

necessary, but it is not practical in real life if such a

game is provided to users. We recommend that game

developers add an avatar (which can be customized

by players) into the game so that players can see each

other’s virtual avatars. This could not only enhance

immersion (Hooi and Cho, 2012) but could also make

the user become aware of the other players’ location

to avoid collisions.

We also identiﬁed some limitations of this re-

search. We only involved participants who were

strangers to each other—that is, each pair of partic-

ipants did not know each other before the experiment.

Future work could explore the effect of social display

setups on friends or those who are at least acquainted

with each other because psychological involvement

has been reported to be higher when friends interact

with each other than when strangers do the same (Ga-

jadhar et al., 2008). Nevertheless, our study allowed

us to ensure that the observed effects are more likely

to be attributed to the differences in display setups

rather than the nature of the relationship between the

participants.

Our research, which focused on the ”Jenga” game

in VR settings, aimed to delve into the complexities

of player interactions in co-located social spaces. The

purpose of using such setups, particularly with VR

headsets, was to establish a baseline by comparing the

impact of VR to traditional co-located gaming expe-

riences. We created the framework for understand-

ing VR HMDs’ function in boosting social presence

and immersion in gaming by doing so. Given that

the Jenga game requires strategic thinking, coordina-

tion, and precision, our ﬁndings can be interpreted as

insights into multiplayer engagement in comparable

games. However, it is helpful to understand the re-

sults within their individual context. Our emphasis on

co-located settings provides a distinct advantage, lay-

ing the groundwork for future study on VR’s potential

to upgrade or modify these gaming experiences and

increase player social interactions. Future research

could look into how social display arrangements af-

fect games that are more focused on collaboration.

According to prior research (Mayer et al., 2018; Em-

merich and Masuch, 2013), player perceptions of so-

cial presence might vary between collaborative and

competitive game modes.

Some might consider our sample size small; how-

ever, in the context of an exploratory study, a smaller

sample size can be considered acceptable as the pri-

mary goal is to investigate initial trends and generate

hypotheses for further research rather than to make

deﬁnitive conclusions or predictions (Rosenthal and

Rosnow, 1995). The sample size of twenty-four par-

ticipants in this study, while relatively small, can pro-

vide valuable preliminary insights into the effects of

social display setups on co-located competitive game-

play experiences.

GRAPP 2024 - 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

166

6 CONCLUSION

This paper has investigated the effect of social dis-

play setup (two small-screen tablet displays, a 40-

inch shared TV, and two VR HMDs) on two important

determinants of user experience (i.e., immersion and

social presence) when playing a multi-player com-

petitive game in a co-located setting. Our experi-

ment with three groups of 8 pairs of participants each

(that is, 24 participants in total) indicates: (1) play-

ing Jenga in VR is less challenging than in the small-

screen tablet displays, and (2) gameplay behavior pat-

terns are different among these social display setups.

With the emergence and integration of newer plat-

forms into people’s daily activities, there is a need

for further research and attention from researchers

and developers to make social games more enjoyable

by leveraging the social and technical affordances of

each platform type. Platforms such as VR and AR

will play a transformative role, and with a better un-

derstanding of their inherent affordances, it is possible

to use them to improve people’s experiences interact-

ing with digital information and with each other.

The data gleaned from our experiment can pro-

vide a comprehensive look at how social display se-

tups affect players’ immersion and social presence.

Given our ﬁndings, it becomes increasingly evident

that the choice of social display setup has nuanced ef-

fects on user experience, as VR might make a game

like Jenga less challenging. This reiterates the impor-

tance of understanding platform-speciﬁc affordances

and nuances, ensuring that games retain their core ex-

perience. As newer technological platforms continue

to be integrated into our daily lives, there is a chance

to improve the quality of social gaming.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank all the participants for their time

and the reviewers for the insightful comments, which

helped improve our paper. This work is sup-

ported in part by Suzhou Municipal Key Laboratory

for Intelligent Virtual Engineering (#SZS2022004),

the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(#62272396), and Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool Univer-

sity (#RDF-17-01-54).

REFERENCES

Abeele, V. V., Schutter, B. D., Gajadhar, B. J., and Johnson,

D. M. (2013). More naturalness, less control: The

effect of natural mapping on the co-located player ex-

perience. In FDG, page 9.

Amin, A., Gromala, D., Tong, X., and Shaw, C. (2016).

Immersion in cardboard vr compared to a traditional

head-mounted display. In Lackey, S. and Shumaker,

R., editors, Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality,

pages 269–276, Cham. Springer International Pub-

lishing.

Beyer, J., Miruchna, V., and M

oller, S. (2014). Assessing

the impact of display size, game type, and usage con-

text on mobile gaming qoe. In 2014 Sixth Interna-

tional Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience

(QoMEX), page 2.

Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward

a more robust theory and measure of social presence:

Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoper.

Virtual Environ., 12(5):456–480.

Brown, E. and Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation

of game immersion. In CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’04,

page 1297–1300, New York, NY, USA. Association

for Computing Machinery.

Cairns, P., Cox, A. L., Day, M., Martin, H., and Perryman,

T. (2013). Who but not where: The effect of social

play on immersion in digital games. International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(11):1069–

1077.

Cairns, P., Li, J., Wang, W., and Nordin, A. I. (2014).

The inﬂuence of controllers on immersion in mobile

games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14, page

371–380, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-

puting Machinery.

Chen, L., Liang, H.-N., Lu, F., Papangelis, K., Man, K. L.,

and Yue, Y. (2020). ollaborative behavior, perfor-

mance and engagement with visual analytics tasks us-

ing mobile devices. Human-centric Computing and

Information Sciences, 10(47).

Chen, L., Liang, H.-N., Lu, F., Wang, J., Chen, W., and Yue,

Y. (2021a). Effect of collaboration mode and position

arrangement on immersive analytics tasks in virtual

reality: A pilot study. Applied Sciences, 11(21).

Chen, L., Liang, H.-N., Wang, J., Qu, Y., and Yue, Y.

(2021b). On the use of large interactive displays

to support collaborative engagement and visual ex-

ploratory tasks. Sensors, 21(24).

Claypool, M. and Claypool, K. (2006). Latency and

player actions in online games. Commun. ACM,

49(11):40–45.

Cox, A., Cairns, P., Shah, P., and Carroll, M. (2012). Not

doing but thinking: The role of challenge in the gam-

ing experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer-

ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI

’12, page 79–88, New York, NY, USA. Association

for Computing Machinery.

De Kort, Y., Ijsselsteijn, W., and Poels, K. (2007). Digital

games as social presence technology: Development of

the social presence in gaming questionnaire (spgq).

Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., and Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role

of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

167

review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3):766–

785.

Eklund, L. and Roman, S. (2017). Do adolescent gamers

make friends ofﬂine? identity and friendship for-

mation in school. Computers in Human Behavior,

73:284–289.

Emmerich, K. and Masuch, M. (2013). Helping friends or

ﬁghting foes: The inﬂuence of collaboration and com-

petition on player experience. In Proceedings of the

Eighth International Conference on the Foundations

of Digital Games, pages 150–157. Society for the Ad-

vancement of the Science of Digital Games.

Fairclough, S. H. and Burns, C. G. (2013). Decomposing

immersion: Effects of game demand and display type

on auditory evoked potentials. In CHI ’13 Extended

Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

CHI EA ’13, page 1095–1100, New York, NY, USA.

Association for Computing Machinery.

Gajadhar, B. J., de Kort, Y. A. W., and IJsselsteijn, W. A.

(2008). Shared fun is doubled fun: Player enjoyment

as a function of social setting. In Markopoulos, P.,

de Ruyter, B., IJsselsteijn, W., and Rowland, D., edi-

tors, Fun and Games, pages 106–117, Berlin, Heidel-

berg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Hooi, R. and Cho, H. (2012). Being immersed: Avatar sim-

ilarity and self-awareness. In Proceedings of the 24th

Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference,

OzCHI ’12, page 232–240, New York, NY, USA. As-

sociation for Computing Machinery.

Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., and Lee, K. M. (2012). Effects

of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion

tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(2):617–623.

Hudson, M. and Cairns, P. (2014). Interrogating social pres-

ence in games with experiential vignettes. Entertain-

ment Computing, 5(2):101–114.

Jarschel, M., Schlosser, D., Scheuring, S., and Hoßfeld, T.

(2011). An evaluation of qoe in cloud gaming based

on subjective tests. In 2011 Fifth International Con-

ference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in

Ubiquitous Computing, pages 330–335.

Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps,

A., Tijs, T., and Walton, A. (2008). Measuring

and deﬁning the experience of immersion in games.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

66(9):641–661.

Kauko, J. and H

akkil

a, J. (2010). Shared-screen social gam-

ing with portable devices. In Proceedings of the 12th

International Conference on Human Computer Inter-

action with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI

’10, page 317–326, New York, NY, USA. Association

for Computing Machinery.

Khanolkar, P. R. and McLean, P. D. (2012). 100-percenting

it: Videogame play through the eyes of devoted

gamers. Sociological Forum, 27(4):961–985.

Liang, H.-N., Lu, F., Shi, Y., Nanjappan, V., and Papangelis,

K. (2019). Evaluating the effects of collaboration and

competition in navigation tasks and spatial knowledge

acquisition within virtual reality environments. Future

Generation Computer Systems, 95:855–866.

Lindley, S. E., Le Couteur, J., and Berthouze, N. L. (2008).

Stirring up experience through movement in game

play: Effects on engagement and social behaviour.

In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Hu-

man Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’08, page

511–514, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-

puting Machinery.

Liszio, S., Emmerich, K., and Masuch, M. (2017). The in-

ﬂuence of social entities in virtual reality games on

player experience and immersion. In Proceedings of

the 12th International Conference on the Foundations

of Digital Games, FDG ’17, New York, NY, USA. As-

sociation for Computing Machinery.

Lu, F., Nanjappan, V., Parsons, P., Yu, L., and Liang, H.-N.

(2023). Effect of display platforms on spatial knowl-

edge acquisition and engagement: An evaluation with

3d geometry visualizations. Journal of Visualization,

26:667–686.

Luo, Y., Wang, J., Liang, H.-N., Luo, S., and Lim, E. G.

(2021). Monoscopic vs. stereoscopic views and dis-

play types in the teleoperation of unmanned ground

vehicles for object avoidance. In 2021 30th IEEE In-

ternational Conference on Robot & Human Interac-

tive Communication (RO-MAN), pages 418–425.

Magerkurth, C., Engelke, T., and Memisoglu, M. (2004).

Augmenting the virtual domain with physical and

social elements: Towards a paradigm shift in com-

puter entertainment technology. Comput. Entertain.,

2(4):12.

Mayer, S., Lischke, L., Grønbæk, J. E., Sarsenbayeva, Z.,

Vogelsang, J., Wo

zniak, P. W., Henze, N., and Jacucci,

G. (2018). Pac-many: Movement behavior when play-

ing collaborative and competitive games on large dis-

plays. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18,

page 10, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-

puting Machinery.

McEwan, M., Johnson, D., Wyeth, P., and Blackler, A.

(2012). Videogame control device impact on the play

experience. In Proceedings of The 8th Australasian

Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Playing the

System, IE ’12, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Monteiro, D., Liang, H.-N., Wang, J., Chen, H., and

Baghaei, N. (2020). An in-depth exploration of the ef-

fect of 2d/3d views and controller types on ﬁrst person

shooter games in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE Inter-

national Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality

(ISMAR), pages 713–724.

Monteiro, D., Liang, H.-N., Zhao, Y., and Abel, A. (2018).

Comparing event related arousal-valence and focus

among different viewing perspectives in vr gaming.

In Ren, J., Hussain, A., Zheng, J., Liu, C.-L., Luo, B.,

Zhao, H., and Zhao, X., editors, Advances in Brain

Inspired Cognitive Systems, pages 770–779, Cham.

Springer International Publishing.

Monteiro, D., Ma, T., Li, Y., Pan, Z., and Liang, H.-N.

(2022). Cross-cultural factors inﬂuencing the adop-

tion of virtual reality for practical learning. Universal

Access in the Information Society.

GRAPP 2024 - 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

168

Nakano, K., Isoyama, N., Monteiro, D., Sakata, N.,

Kiyokawa, K., and Narumi, T. (2021). Head-mounted

display with increased downward ﬁeld of view im-

proves presence and sense of self-location. IEEE

Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph-

ics, 27(11):4204–4214.

Pantel, L. and Wolf, L. C. (2002). On the impact of de-

lay on real-time multiplayer games. In Proceedings of

the 12th International Workshop on Network and Op-

erating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video,

NOSSDAV ’02, page 23–29, New York, NY, USA.

Association for Computing Machinery.

Park, J., Kim, S., and Oh, A. (2017). Analysis of the effect

of competition on player immersion and engagement

in a mobile game. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI

Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in

Computing Systems, CHI EA ’17, page 2833–2838,

New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Ma-

chinery.

Pietschmann, D., Valtin, G., and Ohler, P. (2012). The Effect

of Authentic Input Devices on Computer Game Im-

mersion, pages 279–292. Springer Netherlands, Dor-

drecht.

Qin, H., Rau, P.-L. P., and Salvendy, G. (2009). Effects

of different scenarios of game difﬁculty on player im-

mersion. Interacting with Computers, 22(3):230–239.

Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L. (1995). Beginning behav-

ioral research: A conceptual primer. Prentice Hall.

Schell, R., Hausknecht, S., Zhang, F., and Kaufman, D.

(2016). Social Beneﬁts of Playing Wii Bowling for

Older Adults. Games and Culture, 11(1-2):81–103.

Publisher: SAGE Publications.

Schild, J., LaViola, J., and Masuch, M. (2012). Under-

standing user experience in stereoscopic 3d games.

In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12, page 89–98,

New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Ma-

chinery.

Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology. Pres-

ence connect, 3(3):1–5.

Sommer, R. (1967). Small group ecology. Psychological

Bulletin, 67:145–152. Place: US Publisher: American

Psychological Association.

Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. (2005). Gameﬂow: A model

for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput.

Entertain., 3(3):3.

Thompson, M., Nordin, A. I., and Cairns, P. (2012). Ef-

fect of touch-screen size on game immersion. In Pro-

ceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Special-

ist Group Conference on People and Computers, BCS-

HCI ’12, page 280–285, Swindon, GBR. BCS Learn-

ing & Development Ltd.

van den, H. W. M., A., I. W., and de, K. Y. A. (2009).

Effects of sensory immersion on behavioural indica-

tors of player experience: Movement synchrony and

controller pressure. In DiGRA &#3909 - Proceedings

of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Break-

ing New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice

and Theory. Brunel University.

Voida, A., Carpendale, S., and Greenberg, S. (2010). The

individual and the group in console gaming. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, pages 371–380. ACM.

Walch, M., Frommel, J., Rogers, K., Sch

ussel, F., Hock, P.,

Dobbelstein, D., and Weber, M. (2017). Evaluating

vr driving simulation from a player experience per-

spective. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference

Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing

Systems, CHI EA ’17, page 2982–2989, New York,

NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Wang, J., Shi, R., Xiao, Z., Qin, X., and Liang, H.-N.

(2022). Effect of render resolution on gameplay expe-

rience, performance, and simulator sickness in virtual

reality games. Proc. ACM Comput. Graph. Interact.

Tech., 5(1).

Wang, J., Shi, R., Zheng, W., Xie, W., Kao, D., and Liang,

H.-N. (2023). Effect of frame rate on user experience,

performance, and simulator sickness in virtual real-

ity. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer

Graphics, 29(5):2478–2488.

Wolbert, M., Ali, A. E., and Nack, F. (2014). Countmein:

Evaluating social presence in a collaborative pervasive

mobile game using nfc and touchscreen interaction. In

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in

Computer Entertainment Technology, ACE ’14, New

York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machin-

ery.

Xu, W., Liang, H.-N., Yu, K., and Baghaei, N. (2021). Ef-

fect of gameplay uncertainty, display type, and age on

virtual reality exergames. In Proceedings of the 2021

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-

tems, CHI ’21, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Xu, W., Liang, H.-N., Yu, K., Wen, S., Baghaei, N., and Tu,

H. (2022). Acceptance of virtual reality exergames

among chinese older adults. International Journal of

Human–Computer Interaction, page 15.

Xu, W., Liang, H.-N., Yu, Y., Monteiro, D., Hasan, K., and

Fleming, C. (2019). Assessing the effects of a full-

body motion-based exergame in virtual reality. In Pro-

ceedings of the Seventh International Symposium of

Chinese CHI, Chinese CHI ’19, page 1–6, New York,

NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Xu, W., Liang, H.-N., Zhang, Z., and Baghaei, N. (2020).

Studying the Effect of Display Type and Viewing Per-

spective on User Experience in Virtual Reality Ex-

ergames. Games for Health Journal, 9(6):405–414.

Place: United States.

Exploring the Effect of Display Type on Co-Located Multiple Player Gameplay Performance, Immersion, Social Presence, and Behavior

Patterns

169