Contextually-Ambiguous Pervasive Games: An Exploratory Study

This exploratory study examines "contextually-ambiguous" pervasive games, a category in which game rules are externally defined by the game system but internally validated by the player, meaning players interpret the rules according to their own everyday circumstances. Drawing on Salen and Zimmerman's formal systemic view of games, the authors propose a two-dimensional framework that plots games along axes of rule definition (internal versus external) and rule validation, placing free play, performance, ambient games, and contextually-ambiguous games at its extremities. The paper argues that contextual ambiguity could serve as a complementary dimension to Montola's temporal, spatial, and social definition of pervasiveness, and notes that examples in which this ambiguity forms the core gameplay mechanic remain rare.

To investigate this, the researchers designed four simple cognitive games modeled loosely on The Game and SF0, varying complexity, reward structure, and thematic valence (conflict versus expression). The study was conducted entirely by email with a small group of University of Portsmouth staff and students, each playing the four games in randomised order over 48-hour periods. Only three of the ten volunteers completed the task, so the authors describe their findings as highly tentative.

Among the limited responses, the more complex game rewarding players for interpretive activity, Game D, was the most favoured, while a simpler game that rewarded players merely for participating received neutral or negative reactions. Participants also reported that losing points without control felt irritating, and one participant indicated that role-playing game players might constitute a suitable target audience for internally-validated designs. The authors conclude that the low participation rate suggests a need for more naturalistic studies involving people who already play comparable games.