## 4 Limitations of This Study  
This paper is part of a larger research project, the results of which are still undergoing full analysis and interpretation. As such, the findings presented here focus specifically on the transfer of visual elements from physical to digital versions of the games, without providing in-depth insights into other aspects of the games (such as mechanics or dynamics). The design of the research, as well as the formulation of the questions, were sometimes  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Elements of Design (Physical)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Elements of Design (Digital)**} \\ \hline  & **Mean** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Mean** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Deviation** & \\ \hline Visual impression & 4.27 & 0.832 & 3.98 & 0.886 & Visual impression \\ \hline Text readability & 4.43 & 0.835 & 4.19 & 0.824 & Text readability \\ \hline Colors & 4.59 & 0.634 & 4.51 & 1.203 & Colors \\ \hline Illustrations & 3.98 & 1.027 & 3.98 & 1.165 & Illustrations \\ \hline Card sizes & 4.38 & 0.773 & 3.77 & 1.192 & Card sizes \\ \hline Immersion & 3.53 & 1.238 & 2.92 & 1.017 & Immersion \\ \hline Quality of the material of the play equipment & 3.82 & 0.955 & & & \\ \hline  & & & 3.86 & 1.060 & User interface quality \\ \hline  & & & 4.28 & 0.854 & Animations \\ \hline  & & & 3.63 & 1.047 & Sounds and effects \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Satisfaction with elements of design of UNO.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Paired Differences**} \\ \cline{2-9} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Error Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Error Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **95\% Confidence** \\ **Difference** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(t\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Stg.** \\ **(2-Tailed)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pair 1} & \begin{tabular}{c} Visual impression \\ (physical vs. digital) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.341 & 0.794 & 0.124 & 0.091 & 0.592 & 2.754 & 40 & 0.009 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pair 2} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Colors \\ (physical vs. digital) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.244 & 0.582 & 0.091 & 0.060 & 0.428 & 2.682 & 40 & 0.011 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pair 3} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Card size \\ (physical vs. digital) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.561 & 0.976 & 0.152 & 0.253 & 0.869 & 3.681 & 40 & 0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: Statistically significant results from the paired sample \(t\)-test for UNO.  
intentionally constrained to investigate the subject (e.g., transfer of visual elements in the case of this paper) in as much detail as possible, while avoiding respondent fatigue and non-completion. The study also assessed general familiarity with the games, but did not examine the overall player experience, the learning curve for each version, or the time spent playing the physical versus digital versions separately. The sample was purposive, with respondents voluntarily participating without compensation and completing an online questionnaire. This may raise concerns regarding their motivation or sincerity.  
The results of the visual analysis of both game versions, presented in Tables 4 and 7, provide an understanding of the key differences in the visual aspects of each version. Given that customization allows for countless variations in the game's appearance and depends on how players tailor their versions according to their individual interests and aesthetic preferences, a detailed explanation of each difference would fall beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, the tables highlight the principal differences and facilitate analysis at a conceptual level.