Thoughts about the theory of Pervasive Gaming Bo Kampmann Walther Center for Media Studies University of Southern Denmark

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 Wifi-technology PG methodology technology ludology Game studies PG applications design 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-intelligent- adaptive 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.