Pervasive games - digital game that uses the physical world as a playground - is often a game-play, reminiscent of a treasure hunt combined with orienteering and adventure games. It does certainly not have to be this way. In Germany you will find this new adventure and award winning game:
The game is strategical, uses the possibilities of technology to give a classic game of tag entirely new dimensions. There are ethical or at least security issues associated with the game as I could imagine that when players become engrossed, they would tend to forget about safety in traffic and being considerate of non-players who come in their way. But these are speculations, the fact is that the game offers interesting opportunities for more action packed pervasive gaming.
The game was developed by Fast Food Challenge and you can download the game from their website, where you can also see if your mobile can run the game.
This game will undoubtedly make you break a sweat! Who would lake to join me? Man overboard!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The spaces we inhabit
Art is not about decorating world, but to take responsibility and move the world, says architect Olafur Elisson.
Eliasson has created many works around the world. In one of them - Green River - where he poured green paint in a river in Los Angeles, Stockholm, Moss (Norway), Bremen and Tokyo to give the inhabitants of the town a sense of space, its dimensions and what time and motion means for space. In that way the inhabitants can experience how their body is a part of the given space and that there is a consequence of their presence. According to Eliasson, this give people a sense of the materiality of space and thereby the knowledge that they can actually change space. It makes space available to the public.
If you go to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (with I highly recommend!) You can experience
The Matter of Time , which is a work by Richard Serra. It consists of huge rusty iron plates, which stands on the floor and form corridors that the audience can explore and get lost in. Some of the corridors are shaped like ellipses, some are parallel. The great thing about the installation, is that while walking through it you can fell how the surroundings affect your body. You may actually find that you begin to tilt to one side, with the walls - or that you get the feeling of being crushed when the walls lean inward and closes at the top.
Richard Serra describes his work like this:
"The sculptures are not objects that its separately in the space, actually quite the opposite is true, they engender a spatial continuity with the environment In which they exist."
Serra and Eliasson alike are working with something I am very interested in, namely: How do we experience the spaces we inhabit, how do we influence on space and vice versa; and what does this mean for design of art installations (landscape) architecture, and games (pervasive games) that are set in physical space? The spaces we engage in is created and shaped by the way we use it, and it affects us even more than we sometimes realize.
Monday, June 1, 2009
You Mean It’s Only a Game?
In the article “You Mean It’s Only a Game? Rule Structures, the Magic Circle, and Player Participation in Pervasive Mobile Gaming” (2006) Alison Harvey brings ethics in pervasive games into focus. In game theory there is an implicit agreement that when playing the players find them in a magic circle, which makes out a conceptual and symbolic structure that surrounds the play world. Within this magic circle it is clear who is playing and who is not according to Harvey. In some pervasive games this divide is not fixed, which means that people can be part of the game without their consent.
The concept of the magic circle has to do with the rigidity of boundaries in games. Harvey quotes Huizinga for writing that rules are vital to a game as they create the play world by setting its boundaries and they determine what is acceptable inside the boundaries of the game.
The pervasive games can make the player aware of things in their environment that they normally would not notice. In this way, Harvey writes, pervasive games actually shift the boundaries of the real world for the players. This shift and lack of clearance of boundaries raise ethical questions when for example a non-player is integrated in the game due to the shifting boundaries. Harvey quotes Benford et al 2006 that makes a distinction between the primary user (player) as a performer and the spectators (secondary users). The secondary user is not only a person who watches the game, but also persons who have an indirect influence on the game as they can be asked for directions or even have a defined role in the game according to Benford and his co-authors. They refer to a framework “The frame of the game” that is pushed through mobile gaming. It is this framework that settles the roles of the users – primary and secondary. Within the framework there is a transition between being a primary user and a secondary user. The primary users have an unspoken contract with the secondary users that they confirm continuously through rituals, conventions, and both physical and intellectual structures. In this setting the performer – or primary user – is the frame constructor and the spectator – secondary user – is the frame interpreter.
This setup challenges the concept of the magic circle according to Harvey. The players are running around in the streets without a clear demarcation of what is inside the game world and what is not. In addition non-players or spectators can be part of the game without their consent. Benford et al do distinguish between audience members that are aware that the actions they are observing are within a performance frame, and bystanders who has not got clue of what is going on. However Harvey notes that it is pure chance who belongs to which group as there is nothing in the framework that supports the difference. Harvey criticises both Benford et al and Montola and Waern for not having serious concerns for the secondary users. Montola and Waern write that a “very engaging experience” can be obtained through the use of “social expansion” which is expanding the game socially and including non-players in the game. Harvey notes that they neglect to mention who is experiencing is for. Benford et al do realize that there is a risk when including non-players in the game. They purpose designing a “safety harness” that protects the players – not the non-players according to Harvey.
Harvey concludes that there is a lack of discussion on the ethical questions that come out of playing with frames and boundaries in public spaces. Her opinion is that play is something that the participants have to enter explicitly. She acknowledges that when games are been played in public they will draw attention and players can interact with non-players. But this should not be scripted into the design as a part of the game according to her. Harvey states that the boundary between players and non-players must remain intact for ethical reasons. She points out that this might change later, when conventions on the area develop, as they can give the non-players a clue about what is going on.
Reference:
Harvey, A.: You Mean It’s Only a Game? Rule Structures, the Magic Circle, and Player Participation in Pervasive Mobile Gaming
; Proceedings of CGSA 2006 Symposium (2006)
The concept of the magic circle has to do with the rigidity of boundaries in games. Harvey quotes Huizinga for writing that rules are vital to a game as they create the play world by setting its boundaries and they determine what is acceptable inside the boundaries of the game.
The pervasive games can make the player aware of things in their environment that they normally would not notice. In this way, Harvey writes, pervasive games actually shift the boundaries of the real world for the players. This shift and lack of clearance of boundaries raise ethical questions when for example a non-player is integrated in the game due to the shifting boundaries. Harvey quotes Benford et al 2006 that makes a distinction between the primary user (player) as a performer and the spectators (secondary users). The secondary user is not only a person who watches the game, but also persons who have an indirect influence on the game as they can be asked for directions or even have a defined role in the game according to Benford and his co-authors. They refer to a framework “The frame of the game” that is pushed through mobile gaming. It is this framework that settles the roles of the users – primary and secondary. Within the framework there is a transition between being a primary user and a secondary user. The primary users have an unspoken contract with the secondary users that they confirm continuously through rituals, conventions, and both physical and intellectual structures. In this setting the performer – or primary user – is the frame constructor and the spectator – secondary user – is the frame interpreter.
This setup challenges the concept of the magic circle according to Harvey. The players are running around in the streets without a clear demarcation of what is inside the game world and what is not. In addition non-players or spectators can be part of the game without their consent. Benford et al do distinguish between audience members that are aware that the actions they are observing are within a performance frame, and bystanders who has not got clue of what is going on. However Harvey notes that it is pure chance who belongs to which group as there is nothing in the framework that supports the difference. Harvey criticises both Benford et al and Montola and Waern for not having serious concerns for the secondary users. Montola and Waern write that a “very engaging experience” can be obtained through the use of “social expansion” which is expanding the game socially and including non-players in the game. Harvey notes that they neglect to mention who is experiencing is for. Benford et al do realize that there is a risk when including non-players in the game. They purpose designing a “safety harness” that protects the players – not the non-players according to Harvey.
Harvey concludes that there is a lack of discussion on the ethical questions that come out of playing with frames and boundaries in public spaces. Her opinion is that play is something that the participants have to enter explicitly. She acknowledges that when games are been played in public they will draw attention and players can interact with non-players. But this should not be scripted into the design as a part of the game according to her. Harvey states that the boundary between players and non-players must remain intact for ethical reasons. She points out that this might change later, when conventions on the area develop, as they can give the non-players a clue about what is going on.
Reference:
Harvey, A.: You Mean It’s Only a Game? Rule Structures, the Magic Circle, and Player Participation in Pervasive Mobile Gaming
; Proceedings of CGSA 2006 Symposium (2006)
Friday, May 29, 2009
Visions of Sara (Danish title: Saras Syner)
I would like to introduce Sara. She is the mere shadow of her own self. She is haunted by voices and foul sights. On a lot of locations in her home town Odense, she is experiencing strange things. This unnerving condition has evolved over some time, but now Sara has had it. Her last chance is H.U.B (This is Danish and short for: the Special Unit for handling the Haunted, Exorcism and Obsession), a sort of Ghostbusters team, that can solve the mystery and thereby set Sara free.
In other words Sara is the protagonist of the pervasive game “Visions of Sara”, that I created in 2009 as a part of my dissertation using a platform developed by and in cooperation with DJEEO. The project was supported by Udviklingsforum Odense (Forum for Development in Odense) and Odense Kommune (Municipal of Odense). Finally the development of the game is part of the research project Serious Games on a Global Market and of my Ph.D.project on pervasive games.
Here is video from the opening of the game (just ignore the bit of spoken Danish):
You can now play it in Odense, everything you need to do is to bring one, three or more friends at the central library and lend equipment from them.
Odense is the third largest town of Denmark. Situated in the centre of Denmark, the old town was grounded before 988 it has a lot of historical buildings and stories lying under the surface. The town was once the seat of religion with lots of monasteries, convents and churches. In old times it was even the town of the kings and queens. It was here the King Knud was killed by the mobs – in one of the churches.
Odense developed in to an industrial town, with a functional harbor and highways leading through the town. Nowadays the harbour is in a development phase from hub of transportation to hub of culture. This change is on the sketchbook and slowly seen in the harbour as well. But according to the municipal of Odense the citizens have not yet seen the full potential of the harbour. But how do they communicate and demonstrate that the harbour is no longer a place for trucks and containers, but a scene for Sunday walks and sports?
Sara would not exist if it was not for Odense. She is created to guide the citizens through the layers of the town. At first she was supposed to roam the harbour. But she decided to start in the centre of town – just to be sure to have company. The idea is to create a pervasive game that invites the players to experience the town, while playing the game.
When the players enter the streets, they follow the goal, rules and story of the game. The players perceive their surroundings through game optics. This brings about interesting possibilities, not only for game enthusiasts, but also for tourists, newcomers or for those interested in architecture and history for example. To be able to make use of this possibility, we need to gain knowledge and experience of how the rules of a game, its goals and stories influences the perception of the physical surroundings.
It is challenging to find the level of how close the game must be connected to the physical surroundings. Players have stated that a game becomes pointless if there is “no reason why they are out in the streets”. This speaks in favour of establishing a close connection to the gamers’ surroundings.
On the other hand, games that are based on one location, e.g. in the monastery garden behind the church of St. Knud in Odense, cannot immediately be moved to a new location without a game producer changing the game. The game loses its mobility, which can be one of the reasons why pervasive games have not hit the civil market yet.
The players’ experience is central to my research, because it is really the experience that is sold when a digital game is handed over the counter or is downloaded.
The project casts light upon the role of the physical surroundings and the players, together, in a number of pervasive games. That is, how the games are perceived by the players, and what it takes to add meaning to the players’ encounter with the physical surroundings. As a part of the project, the game “Sara’s visions” has been developed in cooperation with the company DJEEO (www.djeeo.dk). It is now possible to play the game at Odense Central Library – and, of course, in the streets of Odense.
In other words Sara is the protagonist of the pervasive game “Visions of Sara”, that I created in 2009 as a part of my dissertation using a platform developed by and in cooperation with DJEEO. The project was supported by Udviklingsforum Odense (Forum for Development in Odense) and Odense Kommune (Municipal of Odense). Finally the development of the game is part of the research project Serious Games on a Global Market and of my Ph.D.project on pervasive games.
Here is video from the opening of the game (just ignore the bit of spoken Danish):
You can now play it in Odense, everything you need to do is to bring one, three or more friends at the central library and lend equipment from them.
Odense is the third largest town of Denmark. Situated in the centre of Denmark, the old town was grounded before 988 it has a lot of historical buildings and stories lying under the surface. The town was once the seat of religion with lots of monasteries, convents and churches. In old times it was even the town of the kings and queens. It was here the King Knud was killed by the mobs – in one of the churches.
Odense developed in to an industrial town, with a functional harbor and highways leading through the town. Nowadays the harbour is in a development phase from hub of transportation to hub of culture. This change is on the sketchbook and slowly seen in the harbour as well. But according to the municipal of Odense the citizens have not yet seen the full potential of the harbour. But how do they communicate and demonstrate that the harbour is no longer a place for trucks and containers, but a scene for Sunday walks and sports?
Sara would not exist if it was not for Odense. She is created to guide the citizens through the layers of the town. At first she was supposed to roam the harbour. But she decided to start in the centre of town – just to be sure to have company. The idea is to create a pervasive game that invites the players to experience the town, while playing the game.
When the players enter the streets, they follow the goal, rules and story of the game. The players perceive their surroundings through game optics. This brings about interesting possibilities, not only for game enthusiasts, but also for tourists, newcomers or for those interested in architecture and history for example. To be able to make use of this possibility, we need to gain knowledge and experience of how the rules of a game, its goals and stories influences the perception of the physical surroundings.
It is challenging to find the level of how close the game must be connected to the physical surroundings. Players have stated that a game becomes pointless if there is “no reason why they are out in the streets”. This speaks in favour of establishing a close connection to the gamers’ surroundings.
On the other hand, games that are based on one location, e.g. in the monastery garden behind the church of St. Knud in Odense, cannot immediately be moved to a new location without a game producer changing the game. The game loses its mobility, which can be one of the reasons why pervasive games have not hit the civil market yet.
The players’ experience is central to my research, because it is really the experience that is sold when a digital game is handed over the counter or is downloaded.
The project casts light upon the role of the physical surroundings and the players, together, in a number of pervasive games. That is, how the games are perceived by the players, and what it takes to add meaning to the players’ encounter with the physical surroundings. As a part of the project, the game “Sara’s visions” has been developed in cooperation with the company DJEEO (www.djeeo.dk). It is now possible to play the game at Odense Central Library – and, of course, in the streets of Odense.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Playful spaces - take a swing!
Bruno Taylor is master in industrial design, and he had a question: What has happened to playing in the streets? Fewer and fewer children are playing outside in the public areas. Taylor has shaped his question as a swing in a bus stop and recorded the reaction towards the installation:
This is not a game (which is what I am studying) but it is still relevant as it deals with the restrictions and possibilities there when inviting for play in public space.
A few people actually take a swing, some pose on the swing to take a photo - which in my perception is also a form of play. Some just look puzzled and distrustful towards the alien swing in the bus stop.
A bus stop is a context for waiting, often together with a bunch of strangers. People waiting there are together even though they are not. For me at least it is a dull time, where a bit of excitement would be much welcomed. But is it acceptable for adults to play in the streets? Does the design of modern cities invite for play?
This is not a game (which is what I am studying) but it is still relevant as it deals with the restrictions and possibilities there when inviting for play in public space.
A few people actually take a swing, some pose on the swing to take a photo - which in my perception is also a form of play. Some just look puzzled and distrustful towards the alien swing in the bus stop.
A bus stop is a context for waiting, often together with a bunch of strangers. People waiting there are together even though they are not. For me at least it is a dull time, where a bit of excitement would be much welcomed. But is it acceptable for adults to play in the streets? Does the design of modern cities invite for play?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Ubiquitous computing - where it all started
In 1991 Mark Weiser wrote the article: "The Computer for the 21st Century" presenting the visions for future computing that he and his colleagues at Xerox PARC worked at.
Weiser states that the greatest technologies are the ones that are not noticed anymore. They are constantly present in the background, but do not call for attention. They are ready with the information we need when we need it.
Weiser advocates for a different approach to thinking about computing, one that takes natural human environment into account. The focus should be the task at hand - not the technology.
When people are very familar with a technology then they do not notice it anymore according to Weiser. He makes references to Georg Gadamer and Martin Heideggers notion of "horisont" as an equivalence to concept that the person ceases to be aware of his knowledge when something is learned sufficiently well.
Weiser also labels ubiquitous computing "embodied virtuality" - which is the process of "unleashing" computers in physical space. This is opposite to "virtual reality" that aims at re-creating the world within the virtual world.
In embodied virtuality it is very important that the ubiquitous computers know where they are and that the right scale is chosen.
The location awareness ensures that the technology can fairly easily adapt to the environment. The scale gives different possibilities. In the 90ties they worked with Tads, Pads and Yards (the former is smallest, the latter biggest). The strength of the concept is not the devices in themselves but what emerges from the interaction between them.
Finally ubiquitous computing aim at focus at the task and the "people in the other end" more than on the tool.
Relevance:
Weiser is mainly dealing with computing for workspace whereas I am interested in using the technology in an entertainment setting.
As Weisers' - and his colleagues' - ideas are the beginning of ubiquitous computing and thereby pervasive computing it makes out the basic idea behind pervasive gaming.
Reference:
WEISER, Mark "The Computer for the 20st Century", 1991, Scientific American, pp. 933-940
Weiser states that the greatest technologies are the ones that are not noticed anymore. They are constantly present in the background, but do not call for attention. They are ready with the information we need when we need it.
Weiser advocates for a different approach to thinking about computing, one that takes natural human environment into account. The focus should be the task at hand - not the technology.
When people are very familar with a technology then they do not notice it anymore according to Weiser. He makes references to Georg Gadamer and Martin Heideggers notion of "horisont" as an equivalence to concept that the person ceases to be aware of his knowledge when something is learned sufficiently well.
Weiser also labels ubiquitous computing "embodied virtuality" - which is the process of "unleashing" computers in physical space. This is opposite to "virtual reality" that aims at re-creating the world within the virtual world.
In embodied virtuality it is very important that the ubiquitous computers know where they are and that the right scale is chosen.
The location awareness ensures that the technology can fairly easily adapt to the environment. The scale gives different possibilities. In the 90ties they worked with Tads, Pads and Yards (the former is smallest, the latter biggest). The strength of the concept is not the devices in themselves but what emerges from the interaction between them.
Finally ubiquitous computing aim at focus at the task and the "people in the other end" more than on the tool.
Relevance:
Weiser is mainly dealing with computing for workspace whereas I am interested in using the technology in an entertainment setting.
As Weisers' - and his colleagues' - ideas are the beginning of ubiquitous computing and thereby pervasive computing it makes out the basic idea behind pervasive gaming.
Reference:
WEISER, Mark "The Computer for the 20st Century", 1991, Scientific American, pp. 933-940
Monday, October 13, 2008
Pervasive Games in Ludic Society
In the paper Pervasive Games in Ludic Society (Stenros et al., 2007) Stenros, Montola and Mäyra show how pervasive games emerge from three different cultural trends:
Traditional games are normally played by certain people, at a certain time, and in a set place. Pervasive games break with at least one of these three certainties.
The authors take Huizinga’s understanding of play as the opposite to ordinary as a starting point.
This contradiction is blurring nowadays in media, when we conceive truth and story, fictive and real as related to game and ordinary: This is seen in popular movies as The Game (1997), The Truman Show (1998), The Matrix (1999) and in the marketing for The Blair Witch Project (1999). In all of these pieces fact and fiction are mixed so that it is not clear what is real and fictive, and what is truth and story.
The authors make a point out of explaining how users on the Internet are playing with facts and fabricated reality. They uses identity and gender play as examples, but also ARGs that are based on fake websites and scam baiting which is playing with email spammers in order to see how far the spammer will go. These are examples of how we are using reflectivity, self-awareness and performativity as tools in order to play with meaning, speculation, fabrication and fluid identities. The authors claim that these tools become ubiquitous parts of everyday activities and that they makes the terms “truth” and “real” relative.
The second trend that pervasive games emerge from according to the article is the public and urban space movements. These are movements for reclaiming or questioning the conventions around public space. These are theatre groups; the graffiti movement; people planning events in the public space like creating a small park on a parking lot or athletic individuals that travel through the city in alternative ways such as skaters or people performing Le Parkour.
All of these street movements negotiate or comment upon the accepted use of public space and they do it in a playful way which is in line with another trend and the third that influences pervasive games, namely the rise of ludus in society.
The authors claim that the Western world has turned into a culture of gamers with the rise of digital games. They quote game researcher Jesper Juul’s definition of a classic:
What is the denominator of these different examples? Stenros et al are using Michael Apter’s distinction between playful mindset (paratelic) and serious mindset (telic). According to Apter both mindsets can result in pleasure. In order to understand what kind of activities that take place Stenros et al add further two categories: Playful context and serious context. Games are traditionally perceived as activities carried out in a playful mindset and in a playful context. But as we have seen activities carried out in a playful mindset but in an ordinary context are emerging. This situation can be even more complex as a context can be playful to some and serious to others like in Candid camera, in this case the context is fabricated.
When play is taken out of its spatial, temporal and social context: the magic circle has expanded. Play pervades the ordinary world. This is what pervasive games are all about according to the authors:
Relevance:
The link to "Claiming back the streets" is highly relevant to my project. My focus is on pervasive games that pervades real space. Also the distinction between spatial, temporal and social context is interesting.
Keeping in mind that Michael Apter did not write about context but merely the internal mindset of a person. According to Apter the mindset and motivation of a person can not be affected intentionally and directly. Despite of this the context must play a role in the experience.
Reference:
"Pervasive Games in Ludic Society" (Stenros et al., 2007) Stenros, Montola and Mäyra
- The first, is the increasing blurring of facts and fiction in media culture
- The second, is the struggle over public space
- The third, is the rise of ludus in society
Traditional games are normally played by certain people, at a certain time, and in a set place. Pervasive games break with at least one of these three certainties.
The authors take Huizinga’s understanding of play as the opposite to ordinary as a starting point.
This contradiction is blurring nowadays in media, when we conceive truth and story, fictive and real as related to game and ordinary: This is seen in popular movies as The Game (1997), The Truman Show (1998), The Matrix (1999) and in the marketing for The Blair Witch Project (1999). In all of these pieces fact and fiction are mixed so that it is not clear what is real and fictive, and what is truth and story.
The authors make a point out of explaining how users on the Internet are playing with facts and fabricated reality. They uses identity and gender play as examples, but also ARGs that are based on fake websites and scam baiting which is playing with email spammers in order to see how far the spammer will go. These are examples of how we are using reflectivity, self-awareness and performativity as tools in order to play with meaning, speculation, fabrication and fluid identities. The authors claim that these tools become ubiquitous parts of everyday activities and that they makes the terms “truth” and “real” relative.
The second trend that pervasive games emerge from according to the article is the public and urban space movements. These are movements for reclaiming or questioning the conventions around public space. These are theatre groups; the graffiti movement; people planning events in the public space like creating a small park on a parking lot or athletic individuals that travel through the city in alternative ways such as skaters or people performing Le Parkour.
All of these street movements negotiate or comment upon the accepted use of public space and they do it in a playful way which is in line with another trend and the third that influences pervasive games, namely the rise of ludus in society.
The authors claim that the Western world has turned into a culture of gamers with the rise of digital games. They quote game researcher Jesper Juul’s definition of a classic:
“[...] game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.”This definition fits the type of formal play that Roger Caillois dubbed ludus (formal play) as opposed to paidia (free play). Stenros et al claim that the tendency is that we see more and more paidiec activities as ludic. In addition more and more games have an increased amount of paidiec elements, like storytelling in war games or combining dancing and singing with digital games like in Singstar.
What is the denominator of these different examples? Stenros et al are using Michael Apter’s distinction between playful mindset (paratelic) and serious mindset (telic). According to Apter both mindsets can result in pleasure. In order to understand what kind of activities that take place Stenros et al add further two categories: Playful context and serious context. Games are traditionally perceived as activities carried out in a playful mindset and in a playful context. But as we have seen activities carried out in a playful mindset but in an ordinary context are emerging. This situation can be even more complex as a context can be playful to some and serious to others like in Candid camera, in this case the context is fabricated.
When play is taken out of its spatial, temporal and social context: the magic circle has expanded. Play pervades the ordinary world. This is what pervasive games are all about according to the authors:
“Pervasive games have a tendency to play wildly with the different contexts and mindsets, leading into various different activities.”Pervasive games are in other word encouraging people to interact in both playful and serious contexts.
Relevance:
The link to "Claiming back the streets" is highly relevant to my project. My focus is on pervasive games that pervades real space. Also the distinction between spatial, temporal and social context is interesting.
Keeping in mind that Michael Apter did not write about context but merely the internal mindset of a person. According to Apter the mindset and motivation of a person can not be affected intentionally and directly. Despite of this the context must play a role in the experience.
Reference:
"Pervasive Games in Ludic Society" (Stenros et al., 2007) Stenros, Montola and Mäyra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)