Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A ludological view on the pervasive mixed-reality game research paradigm

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During the last 10 years, numerous mixed-reality game prototypes have been built and studied. This paper is a game studies attempt at understanding the findings of that research. First, this paper will look into the paradigm of pervasive mixed-reality game research, analyzing how these games have been produced and studied. Then, there is an overview of some central, reoccurring findings of that paradigm that is written with the intent of generalizing lessons of individual experiments. Finally, there is a discussion on research methodology, analyzing how this type of research could better validate the findings that have to do with play experiences and game design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the 2004 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

  2. The relatively detailed referencing practice of this paper is used in order to stay away from speculation and rely more on results derived from the various prototype studies.

  3. The etymological origins of the term are in pervasive and ubiquitous computing, where any game using pervasive or ubiquitous technologies can be called “pervasive game” or “ubiquitous game” [see 47].

  4. The event game/service game/product game—thinking was used collectively in IPerG project (http://www.pervasive-gaming.org), but it has not been published in this form before.

  5. Somewhat comparable development can be seen e.g. in movie distribution, from movie screenings (event) to television (service) and video cassette distribution (product).

  6. Apter’s reversal theory can of course be criticized. Its main ambiguity relates to the concepts of “telic” and “paratelic”, and how they relate to, for example, people who genuinely love their work. For such cases, Csíkszentmihályi’s [16] flow theory may be more appropriate. Nevertheless, playful attitude (and lack of it) is a central part of game experience.

  7. Here, I discuss coincidentally emerging play experiences. For player cultures and behaviors emerging in long-term play, see [33, 34].

  8. Inspired by Reid [50] especially, who presents a categorization to natural, social, and feigned coincidences.

  9. This kind of physicality does not correlate with the physical dangers of pervasive mixed-reality games. Instead, the distinguishable physical risk factors include playing in traffic [5, also 11], playing intensively [3], strong motivation to succeed [26], unclear communication between organizers and players [55], staring at the screen while playing [14] and using obstructive AR equipment [25]. One particularly interesting way of lowering the physical risk is designing game mechanics that require players to keep track of physical landmarks [see 3, 14] and other players [see 24].

  10. While the game design and basic technology of BotFighters were global, its reliance on mobile operator services made it glocal in practice—it had to be launched separately everywhere.

  11. This unintuitiveness is partially derived from the fact that these technologies and playing with them are relatively new thing for the laymen, and partially from the fact that due to their relative newness, the wireless technologies are prone to ambiguity, malfunction, and unpredictability. Both of these factors are likely to change in the future.

  12. A.k.a. Bill.

  13. Pervasive game trials running for more than 2 weeks are few. See [56] for a 5-week event-service hybrid, [5] for a month-long service and [29] for a week-long period of a persistent service. In addition to trials, see [11, 33, 34] for studies of player cultures that have evolved over long periods.

  14. These studies discuss or hint at technological problems during evaluations. Many others [such as 43] disregard problems and focus on findings that were likely to be unaffected by glitches. Based on informal discussions with researchers, it should be said that numerous other prototypes could be added to the list. The studies listed here deserve to be commended for pointing out their technological challenges.

References

  1. Apter MJ (1991) A structural-phenomenology of play. In: Kerr JH, Apter MJ (eds) Adult play. A reversal theory approach. Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barkhuus L, Chalmers M, Tennent P, Hall M, Bell M, Sherwood S, Brown B (2005) Picking pockets on the lawn: the development of tactics and strategies in a mobile game. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3660

  3. Ballagas R, Kuntze A, Walz SP (2008) Gaming tourism: lessons from evaluating REXplorer, a pervasive game for tourists. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79576-6_15

  4. Bateson G (1955) A theory of play and fantasy. In: Salen K, Zimmerman E (eds) The game design reader. A rules of play anthology. The MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bell M, Chalmers M, Barkhuus L, Hall M, Sherwood S, Tennent P, Brown B, Rowland D, Benford S, Capra M, Hampshire A (2006) Interweaving mobile games with everyday life. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124835

  6. Benford S, Rowland D, Flintham M, Drozd A, Hull R, Reid J, Morrison J, Facer K (2005) Life on the edge: supporting collaboration in location-based experiences. doi:10.1145/1054972.1055072

  7. Benford S, Crabtree A, Flintham M, Drozd A, Anastasi R, Paxton M, Tandavanitj N, Adams M, Row-Farr J (2006) Can you see me now? In: ACM transactions on computer-human interaction, vol 13, no 1, pp 100–133

  8. Benford S, Crabtree A, Reeves S, Flintham M, Drozd A, Sheridan J, Dix A (2006) The frame of the game: blurring the boundary between fiction and reality in mobile experiences. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124836

  9. Bichard J, Brunnberg L, Combetto M, Gustafsson A, Juhlin O (2006) Backseat playgrounds: pervasive storytelling in vast location based games. doi:10.1007/11872320_14

  10. Bichard J, Waern A (2008) Pervasive play, immersion and story: designing interference. doi:10.1145/1413634.1413642

  11. Bjerver M (2006) Player behaviour in pervasive games—using the city as game board in botfighters. Master’s Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

  12. Björk S, Falk J, Hansson R, Ljungstrand P (2001) Pirates! using the physical world as a game board. doi:10.1007/978-3-7643-8415-9_91

  13. Chalmers M, MacColl I (2003) Seamful and seamless design in ubiquitous computing. In: proceedings of workshop at the crossroads: the interaction of HCI and systems issues in UbiComp

  14. Chalmers M, Bell M, Brown B, Hall M, Sherwood S, Tennent P (2005) Gaming on the edge: using seams in pervasive games. doi:10.1145/1178477.1178533

  15. Cheok AD, Fong SW, Goh KH, Yang X, Liu W, Farzbiz F (2003) Human pacman: a sensing-based mobile entertainment system with ubiquitous computing and tangible interaction. doi:10.1145/963900.963911

  16. Csíkszentmihályi M (1975) Beyond boredom and anxiety. The experience of play in work and games. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dansey N (2008) Facilitating apophenia to augment the experience of pervasive games. In: breaking the magic circle seminar. University of Tampere, April 2008

  18. Ericsson M (2003) Enchanting reality: a vision of big experiences on small platforms. In: Copier M, Raessens J (eds) Level up. Digital games research conference 4–6 November 2003 proceedings. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht

  19. Facer K, Joiner R, Stanton D, Reid J, Hull R, Kirk D (2004) Savannah: mobile gaming and learning? In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20. Blackwell

  20. Fischer JE, Lindt I, Stenros J (2006) Final crossmedia report (part 2): epidemic menace II evaluation report. IPerG deliverable D8.8. http://www.pervasive-gaming.org/press1.php

  21. Fischer JE, Lindt I, Stenros J (2007) Evaluation of crossmedia gaming experiences in epidemic menace. In Magerkurth C et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on pervasive gaming applications

  22. Goffman E (1961) Encounters: two studies in the sociology of interaction. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  24. Grüter B, Oks M (2007) Situated play and mobile gaming. In: Baba A (ed) Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 situated play conference

  25. Herbst I, Braun AK, McCall R, Broll W (2008) TimeWarp: interactive time travel with a mobile mixed reality game. doi:10.1145/1409240.1409266

  26. Hielscher J, Heitlager J (2006) Wanderer—location independent GPS game. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on pervasive gaming applications. http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/ambiente/pergames2006/final/PG_Hielscher_Wanderer.pdf, pp 55–60

  27. Huizinga J (1938) Homo Ludens. Versuch einer Bestimmung des Spielelements der Kultur. Ref. English translation (1955) Homo Ludens. A study of play element in culture. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koivisto EMI, Ollila M (2006) How to fail: mobile game design in a research project involving software prototype development. In Game Design & Technology Workshop ‘06

  29. Korhonen H, Saarenpää H (2008) Mythical mobile evaluation report. IPerG Deliverable D13.5. http://www.pervasive-gaming.org/press1.php

  30. Lankoski P, Heliö S, Nummela J, Lahti J, Mäyrä F, Ermi L (2004) A case study in pervasive game design: the songs of north. doi:10.1145/1028014.1028083

  31. Lantz F (2009) PacManhattan. In: Montola M, Stenros J, Waern A (eds) Pervasive games: theory and design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

  32. Lastowka G (2007) Rules of play. Ref. draft dated October 16, 2007

  33. Licoppe C, Inada Y (2005) Emergent uses of a multiplayer location-aware mobile game: the interactional consequences of mediated encounters. In: http://www.parishine.com/FTreport/mobile/ppt/SpeakersPapers.pdf

  34. Licoppe C, Inada Y (2008) Geolocalized technologies, location-aware communities, and personal territories: The Mogi case. doi:10.1080/10630730802677905

  35. Lindt I, Ohlenburg J, Pankoke-Babatz U, Ghellal S (2007) A report on the crossmedia game epidemic menace. ACM Computers in Entertainment, vol 5. No. 1, Article 8

  36. Martin A, Thompson B, Chatfield T (eds) (2006) Alternate reality games white paper. IGDA. http://igda.org/arg/whitepaper

  37. McGonigal J (2003) A real little game: the pinocchio effect in pervasive play. In DiGRA 2003 conference. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05097.11067.pdf

  38. McGonigal J (2006) This might be a game: ubiquitous play and performance at the turn of the 21st century. Dissertation, University of California

  39. Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. In IEICE transactions on information systems, vol E77-D, No. 12 (Dec 1994). http://vered.rose.utoronto.ca/people/paul_dir/IEICE94/ieice.html

  40. Montola M (2005) Exploring the edge of the magic circle. Defining pervasive games. DAC 2005 conference, December 1–3. IT University of Copenhagen

  41. Montola M (2007) Tangible pleasures of pervasive role-playing. In: Baba A (ed) Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 situated play conference. September 24–28. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, pp 178–185

  42. Montola M (2009) Games and pervasive games. In: Montola M, Stenros J, Waern A (eds) Pervasive games: theory and design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

  43. Montola M, Jonsson S (2006) Playing on the edge of reality. In: Frizon T, Wrigstad, T (eds) Role, play, art. Collected experiences of role-playing. Föreningen Knutpunkt, Stockholm. http://jeepen.org/kpbook, pp 85–99

  44. Montola M, Stenros J, Waern A (2009) Pervasive games: theory and design. Morgan Kaufmann

  45. Montola M, Waern A (2005) Prosopopeia evaluation report. IPerG Deliverable D11.4 (unpublished)

  46. Mäyrä F (2008) An Introduction to Game Studies. Games in Culture, Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nieuwdorp E (2007) The pervasive discourse: an analysis. In ACM computers in entertainment, vol 5, no. 2

  48. Peitz J, Björk S, Saarenpää H (2007) Insectopia: exploring pervasive games through technology already pervasively available. doi:10.1145/1255047.1255069

  49. Poremba C (2007) Critical potential on the brink of the magic circle. In: Baba A (ed) Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 situated play conference. September 24–28. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, pp 772–778

  50. Reid J (2008) Designing for coincidence. Incorporating real world artifacts in location-based games. doi:10.1145/1413634.1413643

  51. Reid J, Clayton B, Melamed T, Hull R, Stenton P, Peirce A, Gidlow C, Holmes S (2008) The design of prisoner escape from the tower: An Interactive location aware historical game. In Tate’s 2008 Handheld Conference. http://tatehandheldconference.pbwiki.com/Escape+from+the+Tower

  52. Salen K, Zimmerman E (2004) The rules of play. Game design fundamentals. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schneider J, Kortuem G (2001) How to host a pervasive game: supporting face-to-face interactions in live-action roleplaying. Ubicomp 2001, Atlanta

  54. Stenros J, Montola M, Waern A (2007) Post mortem interaction. social play modes in momentum. In: Donnis J, Gade M, Thorup L (eds) Lifelike. Knudepunkt 2007, Copenhagen, pp 131–145

  55. Stenros J, Montola M, Waern A, Jonsson S (2007) Momentum Evaluation Report. IPerG Deliverable D11.8C. http://www.pervasive-gaming.org/press1.php

  56. Stenros J, Montola M, Waern A, Jonsson S (2007) Play it for real. Sustained seamless life/game merger in momentum. In: Baba A (ed) Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 situated play conference. September 24–28. The University of Tokyo, pp 121–129

  57. Suits B (1990) Construction of a definition. In: Salen K, Zimmerman E (eds) The game design reader. A rules of play anthology. The MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  58. Waern A (2009) Information technology in pervasive games. In: Montola M, Stenros J, Waern A (eds) Pervasive games: theory and design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

  59. Walz SP (2007) Pervasive Persuasive Play: Rhetorical Game Design for the Ubicomp World. In: Fogg BJ, Eckles D (eds) Mobile persuasion: 20 Perspectives on the future of behavior change. Stanford Captology Press, Palo Alto, pp 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wetzel R, Lindt I, Waern A, Jonsson S (2008) The magic lens box: simplifying the development of mixed reality games. doi:10.1145/1413634.1413719

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was written at Nokia Research Center. I want to thank the entire User Experience and Design team for their help—especially Hannu Korhonen, Juha Arrasvuori and Jussi Holopainen. Further thanks to Barbara Grüter, Johanna Koljonen, Annakaisa Kultima, Frans Mäyrä, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern for comments and discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nokia Research, Tampere, Finland

    Markus Montola

Authors
  1. Markus Montola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Montola.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montola, M. A ludological view on the pervasive mixed-reality game research paradigm. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15, 3–12 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0307-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0307-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation