Playing together: video games, inclusive design and intergenerational links

Introduction: Cooperative video games as a space for intergenerational encounters

From social isolation to shared connection across ages

Cooperative video games transform a digital activity into a relational practice when they require coordination, conversation, and mutual dependence. In older adults, co-playing with younger relatives is associated with greater perceived informational and instrumental support, although not conclusively with emotional support (Tseng, 2026) . This evidence suggests that connection depends less on mere online presence than on shared activity with understandable goals.

Scope of evidence: families, grandparents, children, and local communities

The literature encompasses dyads between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, geographically separated families, and communities that design games about local history (Collins, 2025; Yuan et al., 2024) . It also includes studies on traditional games, whose intergenerational usefulness does not depend on technology (Rickenbach et al., 2024; Tympa et al., 2024) . Therefore, video games should be analyzed as one modality within a broader field of shared play.

Shared play as a means of relational support and family communication

Co-play, conversation and strengthening of intergenerational bonds

Co-playing creates opportunities for conversation because it distributes attention between a shared task and interpersonal interaction. In a study of older adults, 71 of 433 participants reported playing games with younger relatives; within this subgroup, co-playing was associated with informational and instrumental support, while the association with emotional support did not reach the conventional statistical threshold (Tseng, 2026) . Mediation analysis indicated that co-playing partially transmitted the relationship between online self-disclosure and informational support, and fully transmitted the relationship with instrumental support (Tseng, 2026) . Because this was a cross-sectional study with a small subsample, the results describe perceived associations, not causal effects.

Relational mechanisms also appear in qualitative and design research. In families who played remotely, conversations, gestures, and the organization of space varied between parents and children; participants faced specific difficulties when the activity was simulated using remote technologies (Yuan et al., 2024) . These differences show that communication does not automatically transfer from face-to-face interaction to the screen. The platform must allow for sufficient gestural and verbal cues, as well as a clear distribution of objects and tasks.

Cooperative games can extend conversation beyond the game itself. A study on asymmetric design proposed that interdependent progress and asynchronous play connect the needs of adults and children, generating topics of conversation that continue into the family routine (Pais et al., 2024) . The development of a local cooperative game based on color challenges also linked problem-solving with coordination and situational awareness (Punyanan et al., 2025) . In both cases, communication is framed as a condition of joint action, not as a separate outcome of the design.

Relational experiences, however, can emerge even when the game is not digital. Three generations interviewed about board games described connection, exchange of values, and mutual understanding, along with differentiated benefits depending on the challenges specific to each age group (Cès et al., 2024) . A community project with students and older adults found collaboration, enjoyment, learning, and conversations about grief, loss, and political disagreements; some participants expressed that the activity ended up being more conversation than play (Rickenbach et al., 2024) . These findings help to interpret video games as a mediator of encounters, not as the sole source of their benefits.

Playing remotely: video calls, virtual worlds and continuity of the encounter

Geographical distance introduces a specific function: maintaining the possibility of play when in-person interaction is not possible. In a secondary longitudinal analysis of 47 triads consisting of infants, parents, and grandparents, video calls included diverse forms of play and presented a wider repertoire of activities than the compared face-to-face session (Neely et al., 2026) . The infant’s age was the most consistent predictor of play activity during video calls, and children’s involvement varied between families and sessions (Neely et al., 2026) . Therefore, mediated communication can expand the forms of interaction, but its outcomes depend on child development and the ability to sustain joint attention.

Virtual worlds and videoconferencing platforms create hybrid configurations. Qualitative research with four Australian families identified points of convergence and tension between children’s and caregivers’ perspectives on online play, including the synchronous use of virtual worlds and video calls (Caughey et al., 2026) . Co-design allowed for the examination of divergent lived experiences and the production of cultural resources intended to bridge them (Caughey et al., 2026) . This approach shifts the question from whether technology connects people to what norms, spaces, and forms of participation make that connection sustainable.

Remote continuity also has its limits. In the design study with families, participants showed differences in communication methods, objects, and workspaces, and children faced specific problems in the simulated environment (Yuan et al., 2024) . Consequently, distance is not resolved by simply adding a video call to an in-person game. It requires interfaces that make actions visible, reduce ambiguity, and accommodate unequal participation—a matter that leads to accessibility design.

Designing to play together: accessibility, asymmetry and participation of different abilities

Differences in experience, time, and digital competence in family gaming

Intergenerational participation is limited by differences in availability, experience, and technical proficiency. A family design study identified time and competence as key barriers, because children and adults cannot always coordinate schedules or share the same skills (Pais et al., 2024) . Research on family life and digital gaming adds further constraints related to game selection, the allocation of domestic space, and family rules (Pais et al., 2025) . These conditions explain why the existence of a cooperative game does not guarantee its shared use.

Skill differences also do not form a uniform gap. A study of 80 participants aged 6 to 90, assessing six control skills, found that the gaps between children and older adults were specific to each skill (Wen et al., 2026) . This finding challenges the broad categories of expert and novice player. A person may understand the strategy but struggle with the speed, accuracy, or motor coordination required by a controller.

Unequal competition alters family dynamics. In observations of 20 mother-child dyads, the interaction went through three phases: the child assumed control and the mother observed; tensions arose; finally, cooperation was achieved with different forms of participation (Alon-Tirosh & Ben Chitrit, 2025) . The mother could not always provide technical scaffolding because she perceived herself as less competent than the child (Alon-Tirosh & Ben Chitrit, 2025) . The adult can retain educational authority while simultaneously lacking authority within the digital task.

The time dimension presents an additional challenge. Asynchronous design allows family members to contribute at different times, while asymmetry distributes responsibilities according to varying abilities (Pais et al., 2024) . This solution prevents participation from depending on a long, simultaneous session. It can also reduce competitive pressure, although it does not eliminate the need to negotiate rules, turns, and expectations.

Asymmetrical design, accessibility supports, and community co-design

Asymmetric design assigns distinct but interdependent roles to participants. In remote testing of a family game with six adult-child pairs, this strategy combined asymmetric tasks, asynchronous gameplay, and interdependent progress to connect digital activity with out-of-game conversations (Pais et al., 2024) . The result should not be interpreted as general proof of effectiveness, because the sample size was small and the study focused on a single design experience. However, it does offer an operational principle: equal participation does not require everyone to perform the same actions.

Technical supports must address specific abilities and preserve the player’s dignity. PartyAssist, evaluated with 16 dyads of mixed abilities, detected the screen state and introduced minimal assistance to controller input without modifying the game code; the assistance improved children’s survival time and success rate, while older adults detected it and expressed mixed opinions (Wen et al., 2026) . Acceptance, therefore, depended on who received the assistance and how it was presented. Inclusive support can facilitate access while simultaneously altering perceptions of autonomy.

Co-design broadens the definition of accessibility by including community knowledge, memories, and norms. The Gaming Generations project proposes that older and younger people produce local history, jointly design a video game, and present it at a community exhibition (Collins, 2025) . Their proposal connects digital inclusion, historical empathy, and intergenerational socialization, although the abstract describes a research program in development and does not allow for final results to be stated. Qualitative co-design with families also shows that intergenerational tensions can be transformed into information for creating more appropriate cultural resources (Caughey et al., 2026) .

Accessibility must also include non-digital modalities. In a Greek preschool setting, 83 grandparents participated in play with 100 grandchildren, learning and teaching traditional games and building low-cost toys from recycled materials (Tympa et al., 2024) . The grandparents described the activity as useful and fostering a sense of connection, while teachers observed creativity and a conception of play without age limits (Tympa et al., 2024) . These findings suggest that intergenerational design should be based on shared capabilities rather than a presumed technological inferiority of older adults.

Parental mediation and the educational potential of co-play

Scaffolding, participatory learning and socio-emotional development

Family co-play acquires educational value when adults interpret, regulate, and comment on the activity rather than simply controlling the time. A mixed-methods study, through a survey of 178 families and interviews with 12 dyads, identified that parents used play to connect with children’s interests; cooperative and competitive games offered opportunities for communication, emotional understanding, and behavioral regulation (Mališa & Matijašević, 2025) . Negotiating time limits also constituted an educational practice, not just an external constraint (Mališa & Matijašević, 2025) .

Mediation is not a one-way process. In 14 Korean families, with a survey of 76 participants and interviews with 30 people, co-play was associated with negotiation, persuasion, time management, mood monitoring, and social-emotional learning (Kim & Hwang, 2025) . The study describes more interactive communication than that associated with other family leisure routines, although its design does not allow for separating the effect of play from the characteristics of the participating families (Kim & Hwang, 2025) . Furthermore, when the child masters the technical task, the adult must shift from instructor to collaborator, observer, or interlocutor (Alon-Tirosh & Ben Chitrit, 2025) .

The Happy 8–12 intervention provides preliminary comparative evidence. In a sample of 137 schoolchildren and 42 parents, the groups that used the video game showed improvement compared to the control group in emotional awareness, life skills, and well-being; improvements in emotional regulation, emotional autonomy, and social competence appeared only when children played with their parents (Priego-Ojeda et al., 2024) . No differences were observed in anxiety or academic performance compared to the control group, and parental stress did not decrease (Priego-Ojeda et al., 2024) . Adult participation appears to modify some socio-emotional outcomes, but it does not warrant generalizing academic or clinical benefits.

Communication games, historical empathy, and review of life experiences

Games can also structure conversations about personal experiences. In 24 family pairs of older adults and adolescents, a metaphorical life review game led the younger participants to inquire about memories related to the game; thematic analysis identified the creation of a communicative climate, symmetrical intergenerational interaction, and the elaboration of metaphorical expressions (Sun et al., 2025) . The metaphor provided sufficient distance to address memories and allowed both generations to participate as interlocutors. This finding comes from an exploratory study, thus demonstrating a pathway for interaction, not a lasting effect on the relationship.

Community-based historical design pursues a similar operation through the shared production of local content. By reconstructing childhood experiences and transforming them into elements of play, young and old can compare interpretations without reducing older people to mere sources of information (Collins, 2025) . Historical empathy is presented here as a possible outcome of co-design and co-play, still awaiting full evaluation. Thus, educational mediation shifts from teaching how to play to creating conditions for generations to learn from one another.

Critical synthesis: relational benefits versus tensions and barriers of digital gaming

Convergences between qualitative, mixed, design and intervention studies

The studies converge on four conditions: shared activity, explicit communication, task adaptation, and recognition of each generation’s experience. Qualitative studies describe conversation, cooperation, and negotiation in families, communities, and three-generation groups (Cès et al., 2024; Pais et al., 2025; Rickenbach et al., 2024) . Design studies translate these observations into concrete mechanisms, such as interdependent progress, asynchrony, and controller assistance (Pais et al., 2024; Wen et al., 2026) . Mixed and intervention studies associate co-play with social support or socio-emotional competencies, although with small samples, non-experimental designs, or results limited to certain domains (Priego-Ojeda et al., 2024; Tseng, 2026) .

Convergence does not equate to uniformity. The association with emotional support was weaker than with informational and instrumental support in older adults (Tseng, 2026) . Emotional intervention did not improve anxiety or academic performance, despite changes in emotional competencies (Priego-Ojeda et al., 2024) . Video calls expanded children’s repertoire of play, but demanded socio-cognitive skills that varied with age (Neely et al., 2026) . These results suggest specifying which relational dimension changes, for whom, and in what format.

The debate on inclusion, family conflicts, and the conditions of the benefit

The benefit depends on the activity not reproducing technical exclusion, rigid hierarchies, or conflicts over time. Families describe tensions related to game choice, shared spaces, and parental mediation (Pais et al., 2025) . Older adults who play online report meaningful relationships and autonomy, but also encounter toxicity and age stereotypes (Pontus & Pooja, 2025) . Inclusion, therefore, requires attention to both the design of the interaction and the social norms of the community.

Current evidence supports a limited claim: shared gaming can create conditions for conversation, mutual learning, and perceived support. It does not demonstrate that gaming itself produces stronger bonds, nor that any video game is suitable. The outcome depends on availability, competence, accessibility, mediation, and a willingness to converse (Pais et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2024) . These conditions define the questions that future research must address.

Gaps in research on video games and intergenerational relationships

Scarcity of longitudinal studies and comparative measurement of outcomes

The empirical base remains dominated by cross-sectional, exploratory, qualitative, or brief intervention studies. The study with 433 older adults measures associations at a single point in time and restricts mediation analyses to 71 participants (Tseng, 2026) . Family design studies work with six pairs or 15 family groups, and parental interaction studies observe 20 dyads (Alon-Tirosh & Ben Chitrit, 2025; Pais et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2024) . Follow-up studies are lacking to indicate whether the conversation and perceived support persist outside of the sessions.

There is also a lack of consistent comparisons between face-to-face, remote, digital, and traditional gaming. Results from video call, video games, and board games do not use common measures of closeness, communication, or loneliness (Cès et al., 2024; Neely et al., 2026) . Future studies should combine observation, self-report, and repeated relational measures, with comparable groups and specification of co-play intensity.

Need to incorporate more voices of older people, people with diverse abilities and cultural backgrounds

Older adults frequently appear as recipients of digital literacy training or as participants in small samples. Although some studies focus on their experiences as gamers, their ages, trajectories, and contexts remain limited (Pontus & Pooja, 2025) . Functional diversity also requires larger samples because ability differences are specific and cannot be explained by age alone (Wen et al., 2026) . Research integrating disability, gender, economic inequality, and diverse family cultures is lacking.

Conclusion: From shared entertainment to an everyday connection infrastructure

Cooperative video games can foster intergenerational encounters when they organize a shared task, distribute participation, and allow space for conversation. Evidence links co-playing with informational and instrumental support, socio-emotional skills, and experiences of mutual understanding, but its outcomes depend on design, accessibility, and mediation (Priego-Ojeda et al., 2024; Tseng, 2026) . Asynchronicity, control supports, and co-design offer concrete solutions to differences in time and competence (Pais et al., 2024; Wen et al., 2026) . Transforming these possibilities into everyday practice requires longitudinal studies, the active participation of older adults, and comparative evaluation of different game formats.

References

• Alon-Tirosh, M., & Ben Chitrit, D. (2025). Child-player and mother-spectator: mother–child interactions and maternal scaffolding during computer games. Frontiers in Communication , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1469168
• Caughey, J., Mills, K.A., & Edwards, S. (2026). Using qualitative research co-design for intergenerational perspectives of online play. Qualitative Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941261425143
• Cès, P., Duflos, M., & Giraudeau, C. (2024). “I can’t wait to play with you again!”: Intergenerational board games within families. Family Relations , 74 (1), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13117
• Collins, R. (2025). Gaming generations: Video game co-design with local communities to foster player experiences of historical empathy and intergenerational socialization. In Electronic workshops in computing . https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/bcshci2025.36
• Kim, J., & Hwang, J. (2025). Can video gaming as a family improve communication skills and promote social-emotional growth in preteens?: Lessons from “co-play” in Korean parent-child relationships [Preprint]. In Preprints.org . https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202505.2366.v1
• Mališa, S., & Matijašević, B. (2025). Pedagogical implications of parent-child co-playing video games. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems , 23 (4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.23.4.4
• Neely, LI, Piper, DJ, Myers, LJ, Zosh, JM, Strouse, GA, Troseth, GL, & Barr, R. (2026). In the living room and across the screen: Intergenerational play between infants and grandparents. Childhood , 31 (1), e70065. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.70065
• Pais, P., Gonçalves, D., Gerling, K., Romão, T., Guerreiro, T., & Rodrigues, A. (2024). Promoting family play through asymmetric game design. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 8 (CSCW1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637392
• Pais, P., Gonçalves, D., Guerreiro, J., & Rodrigues, A. (2025). The interplay of family life and digital gaming. Games Research and Practice . https://doi.org/10.1145/3760426
• Pontus, P., & Pooja, B. (2025). GG (Gaming Grandparents) : Understanding the experiences of older players in multiplayer online environments. Jönköping University Publications (Jönköping University) . https://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1962040/FULLTEXT01
• Priego-Ojeda, M., Ros-Morente, A., & Guiu, GF (2024). Better together: involving parents to improve the impact of a video game program to promote primary school students’ emotional competencies. Journal of Computers in Education , 12 (3), 1027–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00337-8
• Punyanan, J.M., Rubyantono, D.I.A., & Fajar, M. (2025). Development of couch cooperative video game to enhance communication and social awareness among players through asymmetric gameplay. In International Conference on Computer Engineering, Network, and Intelligent Multimedia (CENIM) (pp. 65–70). https://doi.org/10.1109/cenim67940.2025.11326158
• Rickenbach, E.H., Brady, LLC, Clifford, A., & Gamache, S. (2024). GAMES ARE FOR EVERYONE: A PILOT PROJECT TO FACILITATE INTERGENERATIONAL ENGAGEMENT THROUGH GAMES. In Innovation in Aging (Vol. 8, Issue Supplement_1, p. 217). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.0702
• Sun, M.-X., Zhao, Z.-F., & Liu, H. (2025). Fostering intergenerational communication through games: an exploratory study on metaphorical life games in family settings. Frontiers in Public Health , 13 , 1532603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1532603
• Tseng, J. T. (2026). Online communication attitudes and video game co-play in older adults: Cross-Sectional mediation study. JMIR Aging , 9 , e80541. https://doi.org/10.2196/80541
• Tympa, E., Karavida, V., Kanellopoulou, E., & Nousia, A. (2024). Perspectives on intergenerational playing: viewpoints of grandparents and teachers in a Greek preschool context. International Journal of Play , 13 (1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2023.2278241
• Wen, C.-Y., Hong, SS-K., Liao, J.-J., Lai, R.C., Lai, Z.-Y., Liu, S.-C., Tang, H.-H., & Chen, M.Y. (2026). Keeping everyone in the game: Bringing ability-inclusive family co-play to unmodified console games. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–21). https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791958
• Yuan, Y., Jin, Q., Mills, C., Yarosh, S., & Neustaedter, C. (2024). Designing collaborative technology for intergenerational social play over distance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 8 (CSCW2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687031