Thoughts about the theory of
Pervasive Gaming
Bo Kampmann Walther
Center for Media Studies
University of Southern Denmark
[email protected]
www.sdu.dk/hum/bkw/
Agenda
 1. A short ambition/topography of PG
research
 2. Portable, mobile, pervasive, and
intelligent
 3. Time, space, and presence
 4. Four axes
 5. Rules, entities, and mechanics
 6. Is something new also something big?
Ambition
 To create a framework and provide categories and concepts for a
LUDOLOGY OF PERVASIVE GAMING
 To understand and reflect on the ’basics’ of pervasive gaming as an underlying source of design, method, and analysis
 To locate and discuss the philosophical consequences of mixing
virtual and physical space
 To specify and reflect on the relation between ficticious game
world and the situated, physical setting of the PG game world
 To identify and reflect on potential new rule structures in
expanded game universes
 To identify and speculate about the components of PG
mechanics
 To discuss constraints and potentials within the PG space
paradigm
1. Clouds of stuff to do ... PG
topography
design
Wifi-technology
PG applications
technology
ludology
Game studies
PG
methodology
theory
From simple to complex ...
 Traditional computer games - hardware fixated in
space
 Portability
 Mobility
 Pervasivity
2. From simple to complex ...

Portable
 Bring the game with you (Sony, cell-phones, GameBoy, etc.)

Mobile
 Use cell-phones as gadgets within a physical gameworld

Pervasive
 Surroundings + personal interfaces = extended gaming
space (calibration, GPS + PDA’s = PG)

Pervasive Intelligence
 Gaming environment, gameworld may change configuration
as part of player interaction: gameworld and game
mechanics as complex adaptive system
3. Time, space, and presence
 ’Pervasiveness’ - what does it relate to?
 Time
 Omni-temporality: the game is always on (e.g.
MMORPG’s)
 Space
 Mix of physical and virtual space/interface (from the
extended use of game ’props’ to the deliberate mix
of two ontologies)
 Immersion
 The psychological factor: the game always has a
’totalitarian’ impact
4. Four PG Axes
 Distribution
 Play everywhere
 Mobility
 Equip all players
 Persistence
 And play all the time
 Transmediality
 Across a variety of media
The PG Possibility Space
 Combining the four PG axes results in the
PG possibility space - of technological
development and cultural significance - that
embraces
 Networking (the connected world)
 Freedom of device (the world of gadgets)
 Non-closure (the world of open narratives and
game worlds)
 And circular storytelling (the world of media
convergence)
5. Rules, entities, and mechanics
 Traditional computer game: absolute rules
 Pervasive gaming rules
 absolute rules + dynamic rules,
 i.e. rules that change relative to the variable relation
between fixed game rules parameters and open
physical encounters within the game world
 The PG rule set-up: fixed rules + contingent rules
 However, distinguish between
 The algorithmic strsucture of a game (fixed)
 The I/O engine (handling of interaction during gameplay)
5. PG Entities
 The triadic object structure
 An object within a pervasive game can be:
 Game object
 Human agent
 Physical object
5. PG Mechanics
 Any part of the rule system of a game that covers
one, and only one, possible kind of interaction
that takes place during the game
 Physically embedded game mechanics
 In screen based computer games virtual physics
simulation represents real physics
 In PG virtual simulation is physics
 Input-output engine with a dual purpose
 Maintaining the contingency of interaction with real-life
objects;
 And controlling the set of actions embedded in the state
rules
6. New and big?
 Next generation PG?
 Wifi + mobile technology + adaptronics =
mobile-context location-intelligentadaptive games
6. Well, perhaps not so big ...
 Players still want the ’limited experience’?
 Gamers have an instinct for simulations,
not real-life features?
 Physics is physics because it is not physics
...
 Why carry around clumsy equipment (look
ma, no headset ...!)
 The social scene of tomorrow’s gaming?
... and what about rules ...? Or, are
we rule breakers ?
 They limit and restrict player action. Thus they tell what
can be done with the objects associated with the game
(and the gameplay)
 hey are unambiguous and explicit (which is why they
are easily incorporated in computer algorithms)
 All players of a game must share them
 Rules are fixed, i.e. unchangeable (if they do change,
we refer rather to ‘local’ or ‘house’ rules)
 They are binding, i.e. non-negotiable
 They can be repeated, that is, they are portable and
work independent of e.g. technology platform or
fictional representation.