i-dentity: innominate movement representation as engaging game element

Movement-based digital games typically make it clear whose movement representation belongs to which player. In contrast, we argue that selectively concealing whose movement controls which representation can facilitate engaging play experiences. We call this "innominate movement representation" and explore this opportunity through our game "i-dentity", where players have to guess who makes everyone's controller light up based on his/her movements. Our work reveals five dimensions for the design of innominate movement representation: concealing the association between movement and representation; number of represented movements; number of players with representations; location of representation in relation to the body and technical attributes of representation. We also present five strategies for how innominate representation can be embedded into a play experience. With our work we hope to expand the range of digital movement games.

[1]  Jennifer G. Sheridan,et al.  Designing sports: a framework for exertion games , 2011, CHI.

[2]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[3]  C. Crawford.  Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling , 2004 .

[4]  Marek Hatala,et al.  An ambient intelligence platform for physical play , 2005, MULTIMEDIA '05.

[5]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Projected realities: conceptual design for cultural effect , 1999, CHI '99.

[6]  Chris Crawford.  Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling (New Riders Games) , 2004 .

[7]  Florian Mueller,et al.  Combining moving bodies with digital elements: design space between players and screens , 2013, IE.

[8]  David England,et al.  Whole body interaction , 2009, Human-Computer Interaction Series.

[9]  E. Hall,et al.  The Hidden Dimension , 1970 .

[10]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Informing the Design of Proxemic Interactions , 2012, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[11]  Joe Marshall,et al.  Uncomfortable interactions , 2012, CHI.

[12]  Silvia Lindtner,et al.  Fish'n'Steps: Encouraging Physical Activity with an Interactive Computer Game , 2006, UbiComp.

[13]  Steve Benford,et al.  Designing the spectator experience , 2005, CHI.

[14]  Greg Corness,et al.  Springboard: Designing Image Schema Based Embodied Interaction for an Abstract Domain , 2011, Whole Body Interaction.

[15]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation , 2006, DIS '06.

[16]  Bernard De Koven,et al.  The Well-Played Game: A Player's Philosophy , 1978 .

[17]  Connor Graham,et al.  Mobile evaluation: what the data and the metadata told us , 2003 .

[18]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Things aren't what they seem to be: innovation through technology inspiration , 2002, DIS '02.

[19]  Joe Marshall,et al.  Using fast interaction to create intense experiences , 2011, CHI.

[20]  Elena Márquez Segura,et al.  The design space of body games: technological, physical, and social design , 2013, CHI.

[21]  Florian Mueller,et al.  Musical embrace: facilitating engaging play experiences through social awkwardness , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[23]  Steve Benford,et al.  Orchestrating a mixed reality performance , 2001, CHI.

[24]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[25]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Brute force interactions: leveraging intense physical actions in gaming , 2009, OZCHI '09.

[26]  Katherine Isbister,et al.  Enabling Social Play: A Framework for Design and Evaluation , 2010, Evaluating User Experience in Games.

[27]  Katie Salen,et al.  Rules of play: game design fundamentals , 2003 .