PokemanGO: What is it? Game, Gamification, Exergame, AR …?

Uncategorized

Is it an augmented reality (AR) experience, no it is a game; it is an exergame, persuasive game or even a computer-mediated reality game, are some of the classifications presented on the internet-stratosphere for a taxonomic naming of this game

  • Only the known can be named
  • Only the named can be communicated
  • Only the communicated can be proved and improved

—Jochen Gros, Germany

The need to satisfy our innate desires to put a label on people, objects and experiences allow us to use existing terminologies or define new ones.

I played PokemanGO and the experience was interesting while being exciting. On a basic level, the game forces you to move around, walk around your neighbourhood to collect these pesky endearing creatures, called Pokémon. In this process, the game mechanics presents the player with new quests, gain points, receive new challenges, check out your collectibles and standings on a leaderboard.

What is exciting, is the exciting layering of a computer-mediated environment onto one’s own physical environment. This forces one’s curiosity in discovering these creatures while forgetting your kids or pets in the background. The motivation or drive to discover these monsters has also resulted in players throwing caution to the wind endangering their safety and of the people around them.

Contextual standpoint.

What came first, the game or the context?

This is a question of relevance because each vantage point presents a possibility of classifying PokemonGo as a game or a behavior change application that affords physical activity.  From a contextual point of view, the concept is to move/walk around to collect these pocket monsters. In the process, the game facilitates a physical movement of the player which in turns helps to overcome sedentary lifestyle.  So does this mean that this application uses gamification as a strategy? Gamification by definition is using game design elements in non-game contexts[5] or as a behaviour change influence [7]. Did the designers present themselves with the objective to encourage/facility physical activity among people and then frame the application?    Or, was the perspective to make a game that affords movement and social interaction?

Behaviour Change standpoint

Use of behavior change theory or constructs in basing intervention strategies to encourage physical activity has often resulted in greater effectiveness with many age groups [14][4]. Perceived behavior change (PBC)  towards physical activity, a behavioral psychological mediator, resulted in increased physical activity participation [2] supporting the efficacy of theory-based motivational PA interventions [17]. Fish’ n’ Steps [10], an interactive computer game investigated the transtheoretical model (TTM) model in overcoming sedentary lifestyle by encouraging participants to initiate PA where their daily step count led to the  growth and activity of an animated character of a fish in a fish tank.

Physical standpoint.

Oh et al (2010), presents a tabulation of terminologies’ used by health-related researchers and non-health related researchers to describe a combination of physical activity and flexibility activities [15]. Additionally, researchers have used the following few terminologies’ to classify the combination of physical activity and gaming active-play video games [9], game-based exercising [16], exer-gaming [11], exertion games [13], active gaming [12], health games [8], active video games [1], embodied interactive video games [6], interactive computer games [3].

Play safe!

 

  1. Reem Altamimi and Geoff Skinner. 2012. A Survey of Active Video Game Literature. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology 01, 01: 20–35.
  2. Iina E Antikainen. 2011. Investigating the Effectiveness of Physical Activity Interventions for Older Adults.
  3. Chris M Bleakley, Darryl Charles, Alison Porter-Armstrong, Michael D J McNeill, Suzanne M McDonough, and Brendan McCormack. 2015. Gaming for health: a systematic review of the physical and cognitive effects of interactive computer games in older adults. Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society 34, 3: NP166–89. http://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812470747
  4. Philipp Brauner, André Calero Valdez, Ulrik Schroeder, and Martina Ziefle. 2013. Increase Physical Fitness and Create Health Awareness through Exergames and Gamification. The Role of Individual Factors, Motivation and Acceptance. Proceedings of the SouthCHI 2013, LNCS 7946, March 2016: 349–362. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39062-3_22
  5. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness : Defining “ Gamification .” MindTrek’11, September 28-30, 2011, Tampere, Finland., 9–15.
  6. Ming-yueh Hwang, Jon-chao Hong, Jyh-tsorng Jong, and Chia-kun Lee. 2009. From Fingers to Embodiment : A Study on the Relations of the Usability , Dependability of the Embodied Interactive Video Games and the Elders ’ Flow Experience. Neurobiology LNCS 5670: 464–472.
  7. Dennis L Kappen and Lennart E Nacke. 2013. The Kaleidoscope of Effective Gamification : Deconstructing Gamification in Business Applications. Gamification 2013, 119–122.
  8. Hadi Kharrazi, Amy Shirong Lu, Fardad Gharghabi, and Whitney Coleman. 2012. A Scoping Review of Health Game Research: Past, Present, and Future. Games for health journal 1, 2: 153–164. http://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2012.0011
  9. Debra A Lieberman, Barbara Chamberlin, Ernie Medina, Barry A Franklin, Brigid McHugh Sanner, and Dorothea K Vafiadis. 2011. The Power of Play: Innovations in Getting Active Summit 2011: A Science Panel Proceedings Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 123, 21: 2507–16. http://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318219661d
  10. James J Lin, Lena Mamykina, Silvia Lindtner, Gregory Delajoux, and Henry B Strub. 2006. Fish ’ n ’ Steps : Encouraging Physical Activity with an Interactive Computer Game. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubi- Comp’06), 261 – 278.
  11. Iain Mackenzie. 2006. Gaming gets in shape. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5274960.stm
  12. Derrick Mears and Lisa Hansen. 2009. Technology in Physical Education Article #5 in a 6-Part Series: Active Gaming: Definitions, Options and Implementation. Strategies 23, 2: 26–29. http://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2009.10590864
  13. Florian Floyd Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis, Frank Vetere, and Martin R Gibbs. 2009. A Framework for Exertion Interactions over a Distance. Proc . of Sandbox 2009, 143–150.
  14. Andre Müller and Selina Khoo. 2014. Non-face-to-face physical activity interventions in older adults: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 11, 1: 35. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-11-35
  15. Yoonsin Oh and Stephen Yang. 2010. Defining Exergames & Exergaming. Proceedings of Meaningful Play 2010, 1–17.
  16. Juan M. Silva and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2011. An adaptive game-based exercising framework. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems Proceedings: 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1109/VECIMS.2011.6053847
  17. Amy S. Weber and Manoj Sharma. 2011. Enhancing Effectiveness of Physical Activity Internventions Among Older Adults. American Journal of Health Studies 26, 1: 25–36.