• No results found

Designing for smartphone AR games

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Designing for smartphone AR games"

Copied!
66
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Examensarbete

15 högskolepoäng, grundnivå

Designa för mobila AR spel

Designing for smartphone AR games

Veronika Mossum

Examen: Kandidatexamen 180 hp Examinator: Dipak Surie

Huvudområde: Medieteknik Handledare: Maria Engberg

(2)

Sammanfattning

Designa för mobila AR spel

Efter en tillfällig intresseminskning åren efter 2012, har AR nu nått en stadig takt av ökat intresse. Med smartphones som en ny plattform för AR applikationer, förflyttas forskningen till ett bredare fält och når en större användargrupp. Syftet med denna undersökningen är att bidra med kunskap i detta snabbväxande område, med fokus på interaktionsdesign för AR

applikationer. Hur ser design strategierna ut i AR spel och om det finns några riktlinjer, hur används dem? En tvådelad innehållsanalys har genomförts som en del av denna uppsats. Första delen använder sig av ett kodsystem för att undersöka vilka av 16 utvalda designkategorier som finns i de testade spelen. 80 spel har analyserats, både på Android och iPhone. Den andra delen av innehållsanalysen är en djupanalys av tre spel med syfte att nå djupare kunskap. Pokemon GO, Stack it och Stack testades i denna delen och analyserades utifrån interaktionsdesignteorier. Denna uppsats har kommit till slutsatserna att likheter mellan de valda designstrategierna går att finna bland de testade spelen, småskaliga spel som använder SLAM har funnits vara det

vanligaste och pekskärmen är det huvudsakliga interaktionssättet. De använda

interaktionsdesignsteorierna som använts i andra testdelen har funnits vara användbara för att analysera mobila AR spel.

Nyckelord

(3)

Abstract

Designing for Smartphone AR-games

After a decline short after 2012, AR applications have now reached a steady pace of increasing interest. With smartphones as the new main platform for AR, the research moves in to a broader field and reaches a bigger user group. The aim for this thesis is to contribute knowledge in this fast-developing field. The focus is on the interaction design for AR applications. How does the design strategies look in AR games and if there are any guidelines, how are they used? Two parts of a content analysis has been performed in this thesis. The first part uses a code scheme to test which of 16 selected design categories are present in the tested games. 80 games were analyzed. The second part of the content analysis was a in depth content analysis of three games to get a deeper knowledge. Pokémon GO, Stack it and Stack were tested in this part and

analyzed with the help of interaction design theories.

The conclusion is that similarities can be seen in the design strategies, small scale games using SLAM are the most common and the touchscreen are the main interaction. The used interaction design theories are useful for analyzing AR games.

Keywords

(4)

Table of contents

1 Introduction ... 1

1.1 Background... 2

1.2 Aim and Research question ... 3

1.3 Target group ... 4

1.4 Limitations ... 4

2 Method ... 5

2.1 The content analysis ... 6

2.1.1 Study design ... 6

2.1.2 App selection process... 7

2.1.3 Evaluation criteria ... 8

2.2 Methodological discussion ... 9

3 Theory ... 11

3.1 Definitions ... 11

3.2 Smartphone AR games ... 13

3.3 Smartphone technologies and sensors ... 15

3.4 IxD or HCI? ... 16

3.4.1 Human computer interaction ... 16

3.4.2 Interaction design... 17

3.4.3 Löwgren’s esthetic interaction qualities ... 19

3.4.4 User interaction in smartphone AR games ... 21

4 Results ... 23

4.1 Content analysis android ... 23

4.2 Content analysis Iphone ... 29

4.3 Content analysis ... 37

4.3.1 Pokémon GO ... 37

4.3.2 Stack it and stack AR ... 44

5 Discussion ... 49

5.1 Content analysis Android and iPhone ... 49

5.2 Pokémon GO ... 51

5.3 Stack it AR and Stack AR ... 52

6 Conclusion ... 54

6.1 Future works ... 54

(5)

Attachment 1 – Content analysis on android ... 59 Attachment 2 – Content analysis on iPhone ... 60

(6)

Keywords

HCI – abbreviation for human computer interaction.

AR – abbreviation for augmented reality. According to Azuma (1997) AR is a system that combines real and virtual environment, is interactive in real time and registered in 3D. MR – abbreviation for mixed reality. Mixed reality is an umbrella term covering the different ways virtual and real environment can be combined.

VR – abbreviation for virtual reality. Virtual reality is a system were the real environment is totally substituted with a virtual environment.

UX – abbreviation for user experience. IxD – abbreviation for interaction design.

(7)

1

1

Introduction

According to Wallop (2011), the first mobile call in Britain occurred in 1985, even though the use of mobile phones did not spread until the 1990s. Already in 2011, the number of calls made on mobile phones overtook landline calls (Wallop, 2011), and in 2019 it is estimated that as many as 5.07 billion people globally use a mobile phone (Number of mobile phone users worldwide 2013-2019, n.d.).

This drastic change in mobile phone use has affected other industries than the telephone industry. The game industry, for instance, has changed drastically and made way for a radical increase of the amount of independent game developers. Not only has the amount of developers and the number of games that are available increased, this change in the industry has also led to a user base much bigger than before (Rayna and Striukova, 2014).

With the smartphone platform as a main platform for the biggest part of gaming industry (McDonald, 2017) it is not surprising that the augmented reality (From here forth the abbreviation AR will be used) games also use smart phones as gaming platform. Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012) argues that the age of the smartphone is a function of not only technology but also of user need and expectations.

There is on-going development in the smartphone industry and the area of smartphone AR, new technologies that are combined and new software development kits are available for both android and iPhone. Hill (2018). And with Pokémon GO’s big breakthrough and hype in 2016 (Paavilainen, Korhonen, Alha, Stenros, Koskinen, & Mayra, 2017; "80 Amazing Pokémon Go Statistics", 2018) I, as the author, are eager to see what the future beholds for smartphone AR gaming. With this new area of research, using AR technology on a smartphone platform, also presents us not only with many possibilities but also with a set of limitations.

The intention of this research is to analyze the smartphone AR games available on the market today against a set of guidelines of interaction design which will be defined and explained in chapter 3.4.2. Which way of interaction do most developers choose to use and do some modes of interaction strategies work better than others? Through a content analysis the thesis maps out the most prevalent modes of interaction, and analyzes benefits and drawbacks of these design choices.

(8)

2

1.1

Background

AR and similar technologies have gained more and more attention in the last years, even though it is not really a new invention. The first person to create an AR prototype system was Ivan Sutherland, together with Bob Sproull, at Harvard University already in 1968. Billinghurst, Clark and Lee (2015) describes the prototype as: “[combining] a CRT-based optical see-through head mounted display, with a ceiling mounted mechanical tracking system connected to a PDP-11 computer and custom graphics hardware” (p. 85).

This prototype was the first step towards Sutherland’s vision of the ultimate display. A vision that consisted of creating a computer that could control the existence of matter and to be able to create a virtual world that is as real as the non-virtual environment, thus erasing the line

between virtual and non-virtual (Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee, 2015, p. 86).

Sutherland’s prototype did influence future research in AR technologies. Although the next decades’ research was mostly performed in research labs belonging to the government or military facilities, the Ultimate Display was created in an academic setting. An example of a prototype that was developed during the same time as Sutherland’s Ultimate display by researchers at the Wright pattern Air Force base in the US was part of a program that was supposed to present complex information to pilots in an easily accessible way. The idea was to let the pilot wear a head mounted display that could augment the real world in good weather conditions but during the night or in bad weather conditions, the experience could instead be one of virtual reality (the abbreviation VR will be used from now on), since it would fully substitute the view of the real world (Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee, 2015, p. 86).

Both these research projects influenced and inspired further research in several fields in the coming years. The academic research continued to develop and both AR and VR were studied. Research were conducted on different see-through displays, medical applications, tracking techniques and usages in an industrial setting (Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee, 2015. P88). Despite several future visions about the future of VR and AR technologies, none of them did come to pass, according to Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012, p. 931). The theories that we would wear advanced equipment, and through that experience a vast VR experience, were not realized but instead the VR experience were transformed in to smartphones with a range of sensors to aid these VR experiences.

(9)

3

According to Parker and Tomitsch (2014), who have looked at Google Trends graph displaying the number of searches using the phrase “augmented reality apps”, augmented reality

applications had its peak in 2012 and, after a decline, has now reached a steadier pace of increasing interest. Other search phrases also suggest an interest in using augmented reality on smartphones, a device that Parker and Tomitsch (2014) and Zhou, F., Duh, H. B. L., and Billinghurst (2008) argue is a promising platform for AR technology. Zhou, Duh and Billinghurst explain that this is because smartphones already have a big user group, which makes AR appealing for both users and developers.

With the increasingly powerful smartphones, new software developing kits and the possibility to use AR in new innovative ways makes smartphone AR one of the expected trends for 2018 according to Hill (2018). This leads us to expect some interesting development in the

smartphone AR and MR (MR is the abbreviation for mixed reality, the definition is explained further in chapter 3.1) area in near future.

1.2

Aim and Research question

The smartphone era creates new platforms, smartphones, for AR to develop against and therefor moving the research out from the academic sphere and in to a broader field, reaching a bigger user group. In a population where everybody owns a smartphone and with this technology progress in motion it is interesting to focus the research on the designing of AR based smartphone applications. Therefor the research question for this thesis is as follows: What strategies for interaction design exist for augmented reality games on smartphones? What, if any, guidelines for good interaction design already exists and how are they used in this context?

This thesis will focus on smartphone game applications using AR and MR (Mixed Reality) technologies.

The aim for this thesis is to gain knowledge and contribute to more research in a field that is a fast-developing field of both research and media development. It is an area that is highly active in that applications and techniques are created and implemented in innovative ways in several areas. As an example of these innovative developments, Cohen, Ha, Mendenhall, Tillery, & Xu mentions handheld augmented reality (HAR) interfaces and consoles which supports HAR, for example Sony PSP and Nintendo’s 3DS, and of course Cohens own game Nerdherder, a table top AR game (2012). Another example is how AR is used in not only games but also in location

(10)

4

based information application, such as yelp’s monocle function, and in location based experiences such as geocaching (Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt, 2012).

1.3

Target group

Since the aim for this thesis is to contribute to relevant knowledge in the field of AR research and smartphone gaming, the key target group for this thesis are the students and researchers that can have a benefit from the thesis’ outcome. This could be for example researchers in the field of interaction design and human-computer interaction who are interested in developing the thesis’ results in further research. It could also be possible that the thesis outcome can have a benefit for developers in the smartphone gaming area, mainly AR gaming.

The thesis also targets those who have a general interest in the area.

1.4

Limitations

This thesis focuses on interaction design, and its practices in mobile AR applications. This thesis will not perform any analysis that is focused on HCI.

This thesis will not perform tests on any games that is not AR and that is not available on the chosen test platforms, iPhone SE and Android Nexus 4. The analysis will not contain any bigger game reviews, instead the reviews mentioned is the user reviews that users have the possibility to write about a game on App store and Google play. This decision is made because the reviews are mainly included to add to an overview of the games.

(11)

5

2

Method

This thesis is grounded in qualitative research that focuses on selecting relevant AR smartphone game applications, mapping their main features and modes of interaction in order to analyze them. The method of analysis used for this thesis is called content analysis. There are several ways to approach a content analysis and it could be either qualitative and quantitative or both depending on what research techniques are used (Drisko & Maschi 2015).

Content analyses are often based on communication data, such as interviews or observations and could be based both on recently collected data and already existing data (Drisko & Maschi 2015). Even though content analysis is mostly described in the use of interviews and text analyses, (Drisko & Maschi 2015) it can also be used to analyze other forms of data.

Krippendorff (2003) remarks that text in content analysis is not restricted to written material, but that also works of art, images, sounds, symbols etcetera can be considered as text, if they “speak to someone about phenomena outside of what can be sensed or observed” (Krippendorff, 2003, p.19). An example of a content analysis of data that is not necessarily written material is Kim, Moon, Fife and Lee’s (2011) content analysis of smartphone applications. In their thesis they led a content analysis on 100 smartphone applications provided by global brands to analyze the trend of smartphone applications across different industries and examine their content and presentation (Kim, Moon, Fife and Lee, 2011).

The content analysis done for this thesis have been performed on smartphone game applications to study their use of interaction design and whether they correlate with the design

recommendations and principles that have been found in earlier researches. The content analysis has been limited to smartphone game applications that use AR or MR. In this thesis smartphone applications refer to games that are played on smartphones. The analysis is performed in several steps, firstly the different categories are set and presented in the thesis, thereafter the

applications were downloaded and tested, getting points for each of the codes that apply to the application. Lastly, after the tests were performed, the collected results were concluded and presented in chapter 4, results.

As a way of connecting this research to established knowledge and earlier studies, a thoroughly performed literature review has also been part of the thesis.

(12)

6

2.1

The content analysis

This content analysis is a descriptive content analysis, performed in two parts, of the available AR games found in Google play store and the iTunes Apple store during March 2018. In the following sections this performed study will be described.

2.1.1

Study design

The content analysis will be performed on AR gaming applications available for IOS and android smartphones, specifically the iPhone SE and Nexus 4. Since this is what will be used, the applications will be found through, and downloaded from, App store and Google play. The choice of smartphone used is made through what is available during the research, but also because together Android and IOS smartphones cover as much as 99,7% of the worldwide smartphone market ("IDC: Smartphone OS Market Share", 2018).

The data that is being analyzed is focusing on the interaction design, which is the relevant context of the analysis. The analysis will look at perceived affordances, conventions and interaction design of the apps. When using the term perceived affordances and conventions in this thesis, it is referred to Norman’s (1999) definition of the terms. Real affordances refer to what is possible to do with an object, but these are mostly of little interest when it comes to designing an application. Norman writes that, as a designer, one cares more about the affordances that the user perceives as possible than what actually is possible, thus perceived affordances. Norman (1999) defines affordances in the following way: “The computer system already comes with built-in physical affordances. The computer, with its keyboard, display screen, pointing device, and selection buttons (e.g., mouse buttons) affords pointing, touching, looking, and clicking on every pixel of the screen.” (p.39)

Norman (1999) also argues that affordances play a very different role in physical products compared to screen-based products. What is important in screen-based products are conventions and constraints. Physical constraints that restricts some actions that are not meaningful such as locking the mouse button when clicking is not desired. There are also logical constraints, which use reasoning to determine alternatives. This is valuable for guiding the user’s behavior. Finally, there are cultural constraints, that is, learned conventions shared by a group and create a shared knowledge on how to interpret some things. An example could be the scrollbar on websites, a convention that let the user know that there is more information outside the screen. (Norman, 1999)

(13)

7

As a way to create more depth in the analysis, a couple of applications will be selected for a more in depth and qualitative analysis where Norman’s (1999) theory about perceived affordances and constraints will be taken in to account as well as Löwgren’s (2009) theory about esthetic interaction qualities.

2.1.2

App selection process

App selection and the review was performed in March and April 2018 and the apps were found through App store and Google Play. Without any way to get all the AR games available on App store listed, without also getting many irrelevant apps in the results, the app selection process was performed mainly using App store’s category called AR games. 36 games were found in this category, whereas 15 were excluded due to the cost. The 21 games left, which were free, were downloaded. Thereafter the category amazing AR games were used in the search and 40 games were found. 16 games were free and downloaded.

In Google Play the app selection process consisted of using the searching function to find relevant apps. By using the searching term “AR games” resulted in 250 games found. In the selection process some of the results were sorted out, such as games that were not AR games or games in other languages than Swedish or English. Games that did not enable AR mode for the smartphones available in this test were also excluded, even if AR were possible with newer phones. Pay apps were also excluded since the number of applications available for free was enough for this research.

Two games were selected for the in-depth qualitative analysis, the apps that were selected was available on both Android and iPhone, to enable comparison between the two platforms. The games selected were Pokémon GO and Stack AR/stack it. Stack it and Stack AR are two versions of the same game, from different developers. The choice to use these were made because even though Stack AR were available on both platforms, the game on android lacked AR function. Since the game Stack it AR is the same game, which did include AR function for android, the games will be analyzed as one. Stack AR will be tested on iPhone and Stack it AR will be tested on android. The games selected for this part of the analysis were selected on several criteria. They needed to be in different categories, some that were played in small scale and some in big scale.

(14)

8

2.1.3

Evaluation criteria

Each game was played and tested, during which relevant data were noted. Firstly, some standard categories were noted, such as the price of the game, age group targeted and the game genre. This was done in order to group the games together in a later stage and therefor see connections in the analysis process. As a way of connecting this analysis to user experience, it was also noted if the game had any ratings, and what rating that was.

Secondly, the interaction affordances were analyzed. In which way does the app allow the user to interact with the phone and the game? Keywords and short descriptions were written down to describe the interaction. As a part of describing the interaction with the game, the use of sensors and object detection were also described.

A coding scheme was developed to measure the affordances that were found in the applications. 16 categories were constructed and divided into two groups: app specific user interaction and device generated properties. In the group app specific user interactions, the focus was on the ways in which the user can interact with the app.

The categories in the coding were chosen with interaction and scale in mind, and then by what device generated properties that was needed for these interaction features to be possible. The aim was to be exhaustive in the coding scheme and be able to collect relevant data in the field. It was interesting to see if the ways of interaction and different technologies that had been

mentioned in the theory would be present in the games available on the market. The 16 categories in both groups is presented in the figure below (figure 1).

App specific user interaction Device generated properties

Interacting with the touchscreen using objects in the camera view hand gestures in the camera view moving around inside

walking outside 360 degrees panning

Moving around one single object Voice interaction

Phone gestures such as tilting the phone

Gyroscope Accelerometer GPS Plane detection Object detection Face detection Gestures detection

(15)

9

The analysis according to this coding scheme was performed on all downloaded apps to

evaluate the presence of different interaction affordances. For every category present in the app, a value of “1” was assigned, and if the category was not present a “0” was assigned. By

calculating the apps’ average (mean) scores, a comparison between the apps were possible. Later, the scores of the apps were also compared with their reviews on App store and Google play. These reviews are ones that users of the games have written and posted on Appstore or Google play, often mentioning if they liked the game or not, giving the game a rating between 0 and 5 stars, with 5 being the best rating available. Comparing the results of this analyze to the user reviews available on google Play and App store is interesting to see if some ways of interacting are preferred by the users and therefor creating a more positive user experience. Furthermore, this can be compared to the available design recommendations found. If one app was available on both platforms, the one that was downloaded first will be part of the testing.

2.2

Methodological discussion

In this thesis two different parts of an analysis have been performed, one content analysis based on a coding scheme and one more in-depth and descriptive analysis. These are two different methods which together cover up a broad spectrum of data and results. The content analysis with its coding scheme gives you a set of data which are more of a quantitative sort, and according to Macnamara (2005) a quantitative content analysis can, in some areas, fail to capture the context in which the analyzed data becomes meaningful. Such areas can be for example media texts which have a major bearing on audience interpretation and likely effects (Macnamara, 2005). Instead Macnamara concludes that a combination of both quantitative and a qualitative approach of content analysis is preferred since a quantitative content analysis

conform to the scientific method and can produce reliable findings although to be able to understand the deeper meaning of the content a qualitative approach is necessary. Macnamara (2005) also mentions that a qualitative approach is more difficult and time consuming than the quantitative approach, which often leads to a smaller sample of analyzed content.

Because a quantitative approach of a content analysis has its disadvantages of missing some deeper meaning in the collected data, it is reasoned to add a in depth, more qualitative approach to the content analysis as an additional method. Although as Macnamara (2005) mentions, qualitative methods are more time consuming and therefor the number of analyzed games were restricted to three.

(16)

10

A core point in content analysis, as well as other research methods, is to explicate and describe the process, so that the results are replicable and therefor the results accepted (krippendorff, 2003). Even though krippendorff (2003) also notes that for content analysts there can be some implicitness in the instructions. In this thesis an exertion has been made to create a detailed design process description in order to establish reliability for the performed content analysis.

(17)

11

3

Theory

In this section of the thesis, the relevant research in AR and interaction design is presented. First, the key concepts will be defined and some of the definitions used in the text defined as a way of creating a base of understanding between the reader and the writer. Thereafter

smartphone AR games are described and explained, presenting what they are and why they are relevant as study subject. Later, central features of current smartphone technologies and the sensors used in our ordinary smartphones will be explained. How is the technology enabling the high-performance craving games which are AR games? And what challenges does the platform present? Finally, there is a section about interaction design, involving research from the fields of interaction design and human-computer interaction.

3.1

Definitions

According to Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.) the definition of augmented reality is “A technology that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus providing a composite view.” Although there are several different definitions of what defines augmented reality. For example, Azuma (1997) defines AR as a system that fulfil the following three characteristics:

1. Combines real and virtual 2. Interactive in real time 3. Registered in 3D

This definition avoids limiting AR to specific technologies and according to Billinghurst this is the most commonly used definition today (Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee, 2015, p. 77).

Another famous way of describing AR technologies is through the Milgram’s continuum, (see figure 2) which describes augmented reality but also mixed reality and virtual reality, in the context of each other.

(18)

12

Figure 2. Milgram’s continuum (Milgram & Kishino 1994) as illustrated in Billinghurst, Clark, &

Lee (2015, p.81)

Milgram uses the concept of mixed reality to describe the way in which virtual and real

environment can merge together. The mixed reality continuum is a one-dimensional array where the two ends of the spectrum represent the real environment on the one hand, and the virtual environment on the other. Between these two there can be various ways to combine the real and virtual to create augmented reality and augmented virtuality. All these different ways of

combining the real and virtual reality are gathered under the umbrella term mixed reality (Milgram & kishino 1994; Billinghurst, Clark, & Lee 2015. P81).

Another definition in this area is Rouse, Engberg, JafariNaimi and Bolter’s (2015, p.222) definition of MR. This definition adds another dimension which separate MR from MRx (Mixed Reality Experience). In their two-dimensional diagram (see figure 3) they place different examples of MR experiences depending on the example’s focus on experience or information transfer and if the examples are locative or site-specific. This definition and the placement in the diagram are more of a qualitative and interpretative form than based on quantitative data.

(19)

13

Figure 3. Two-dimensional diagram of MR and MRx. (Rouse, Engberg, JafariNaimi & Bolter, 2015,

p.222)

3.2

Smartphone AR games

According to Rayna and Striukova (2014) the smartphone paradigm affected and changed the whole game industry. With the introduction of smartphones and smartphone games the industry shifted from a few to few business model paradigm and became a many-to-many paradigm. Rayna and Striukova (2014) describe it as a radical difference between the two, the amount of independent developers increased a lot. Today, there are 707,634 active publishers in the US app store (App Store Metrics, Pocket Gamer.biz, 2018). The distribution channels also expanded, and the prices were lowered significantly. Consequently, with these changes, the number of users has also grown, Rayna and Striukova (2014) write.

As mentioned earlier in this thesis the AR technology did not develop in the direction that most people expected it to according to Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012). Instead, with the era of

(20)

14

mobile technologies, the focus for AR technology has shifted its focus to smartphones instead, with the limitations, opportunities and the user group that relates to it. Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012) argue that this could be because of the high expectations that many people had in the beginning. When these technologies did not evolve as quick and as well as it was originally expected to, people were disappointed. Another reason or contributing factor, according to Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012), could be that most people did not have any real use of these technologies. Although it is difficult to truly say why these scenarios did not come to be, instead Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt (2012) reasons that these explanations instead point to why the smartphones became the main platform for AR technology.

When we talk about smartphone AR games, there are several different ways these games can be made and played. Of course, there are different kinds of games in the meaning of genres and what target group the games are aiming for. Although there are also different ways of

interacting with the game itself. Even though AR games per se require a way of interacting that differs from other smartphone games, there are differences of interaction between the AR games too (Hürst & Vriens, 2016; Kato, Billinghurst, Poupyrey, Imamoto & Tachibana, 2000). A presentation of ways of interacting with AR games will be presented further along in this thesis. Lastly, there are different scales in which the games are played, from table top surfaces to covering geographical areas (Barba, Macintyre and Mynatt, 2012). One example of a table top augmented reality game is NerdHerder which is a puzzle game in AR environment that integrates the game world with player interactions in the physical world (Cohen, Ha,

Mendenhall, Tillery, & Xu, 2012). The scale of the game effects how the user interacts with the game, for example if the user moves around in a small space, for example inside a room, or if they are covering large ground in order to play the game. A large-scale game can be hard or impossible to play inside.

As Jain (n.d.) explain it, there is three AR technologies that are used today. These are

simultaneous localization and mapping (from here forth the abbreviation SLAM will be used), recognition based and location based. Jain (n.d.) writes that SLAM is the most effective way to render virtual images over real-world objects, since SLAM simultaneously localize sensors in the environment, calculate them to their surroundings and at the same time maps the structure of the environment. SLAM is a set of algorithms to solve the challenge of simultaneously

localizing and mapping the environment, and can be done in different ways.

Recognition based AR uses some kind of tracker in the camera view to overlay a virtual image when this tracker is in view. The tracker can be some kind of QR code or natural feature

(21)

15

tracking (NFT) markers and require the camera to distinguish the marker from the surrounding environment. With this marker the position and orientation is calculated which enable the user to see the virtual object in 3D and in different angles (Jain, n.d.).

The third AR technology used today are location based, which use GPS, digital compass, velocity meter or accelerometer to calculate the location, which then activate the augmented reality features. With the well-developed location detection technology in smartphones makes it a good technology for smartphone augmented reality, it is used in both mapping directions, finding nearby services and in some AR games. This technology is also called marker-less augmented reality (Jain, n.d.).

As described earlier the interest in AR games has fluctuated a bit between the years, with a peak during the year of 2012 and a dip shortly after (Parker and Tomitsch, 2014). According to Parker and Tomitsch (2014), the interest was expected to steadily rise again after the dip. One remarkable example of this is the hype for the AR game Pokémon GO when it was released in 2016 (Paavilainen, Korhonen, Alha, Stenros, Koskinen, & Mayra, 2017). According to Paavilainen, Korhonen, Alha, Stenros, Koskinen, & Mayra (2017) Pokémon GO quickly became the most successful and popular smartphone game at the time of its release. To this date Pokémon GO has been downloaded 752 million times and has a total revenue of $1.2billion ("80 Amazing Pokémon Go Statistics", 2018). Pokémon GO is also an example of a location based game, which uses treasure hunt elements and requires the player to walk around in order to play and level up in the game. Pokémon go uses a global positioning system (GPS) to track the player and align the player’s real-world location with the virtual world (Paavilainen, Korhonen, Alha, Stenros, Koskinen, & Mayra, 2017).

3.3

Smartphone technologies and sensors

There are several different sensors located in today’s everyday smartphones. (Cheng, Lin, Kuo, & Hsu, 2010). These sensors enhance the user experience of the smartphones and make the smartphones ideal for AR experiences (Santos, Chen, Taketomi, Yamamoto, Miyazaki & Kato, 2014). A couple of examples of common sensors that can be found in ordinary smartphones are large touchscreens, accelerometers, gyroscopes and GPS (Dadafshar, n.d.; Santos, Chen, Taketomi, Yamamoto, Miyazaki & Kato, 2014).

An accelerometer measures acceleration, which is the motion experienced by an object. Since the accelerometer can calculate how fast the object is moving and in which way it is pointing,

(22)

16

the accelerometer is important for several features in our smartphones. These features can be counting steps, switching the app from landscape to portrait mode, showing speed of movement or driving and knowing the handset’s pointing direction which is important in AR applications (Dadafshar, n.d.; Accelerometer, n.d.).

The gyroscope adds to the information about the orientation of the phone, which adds another level of precision in 360-degree videos and other situations when you tilt and steer with your phone. Dadafshar, M. (n.d.). As the gyroscope senses the orientation of the phone and the accelerometer measures acceleration and the way the smartphone device is pointing, GPS is useful for information about the location. Information which is useful in location aware AR-games, such as Pokémon GO (Shea, Sun, Fu and Liu, 2017), ARQuake and Geocaching (Blum, Wetzel, Mccall, Oppermann & Broll, 2012).

Shea, Sun, Fu and Liu (2017) describe that although the smartphones with their accurate and powerful sensors and processing capabilities are a platform that has enabled a wave of new games and experiences, the platform itself also present us with some challenges. Since an AR-scene requires a great amount of power from our smartphone devices, and smartphones have a limited energy source because of their battery use, an AR-scene can easily drain even the best batteries. For example, Shea, Sun, Fu and Liu (2017) mention that the popular AR-game Pokémon GO uses nearly three times more battery than if the user had been browsing social media.

3.4

IxD or HCI?

Researchers that are interested in design for augmented reality often conduct their research in two main fields: Human computer interaction (HCI) and Interaction design (IxD). Both fields are overlapping with each other and other, similar fields. HCI focuses mainly on the way humans interact with computers, while IxD studies the visual look of thing and how that can affect the user experience or the interaction between the user and the object. The two fields will be further described in the sections below. Beyond HCI and IxD there are other fields in which this research can occur, such as computer graphics and computer science in general.

3.4.1

Human computer interaction

The human computer interaction field focuses on the design of computer technology and the interaction between the computers and the users. It covers several disciplines such as computer

(23)

17

science, human-factors engineering and cognitive science. (What is Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)? n.d.).

According to Carroll (n.d.) the need for HCI did not emerge until the late 1970’s since the only ones interacting with computers up until then were information technology professionals and devoted hobbyists. When personal computers did emerge, this changed and the need for good usability of the computers became more important.

When HCI emerged in the 1980’s the focus was to implement the idea that the interaction between humans and computers should resemble the interaction between humans. By using both cognitive and computer science the aim was to increase the computer usability. With the emerge of many new technologies, such as the smartphones and the internet, the field has grown to include several more fields than just cognitive and computer science (What is Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)? n.d.).

Although there are some differences between them, HCI was according to (What is Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)? n.d.) the forerunner to what we today call user experience (UX) design. One difference between the two are the focus, in the meaning that UX designers tend to be more industry-focused while HCI are often more academically focused.

3.4.2

Interaction design

Interaction design is a component within the umbrella term user experience (UX) design

(Cooper, Reimann, & Cronin, 2007;

Siang, 2018

).

Cooper, Reimann, & Cronin, (2007)

describes interaction design as “focused on the design of behavior, but is also concerned

with how behavior relates to form and content.”

According to

Siang, (2018) interaction design is aiming for products that enable their users to accomplish their objectives as easy as possible. The products tend to be software such as websites and applications. Siang (2018) also presents in his article five dimensions of

interaction design which was originally created by Gillian Crampton Smith in the foreword of the book Designing Interactions (Moggridge, 2007) and later Kevin Silver added the fifth dimension (Silver, 2007). The five dimensions are the following:

1. Words. Words should be easy to understand, give information to the user without being overwhelming.

(24)

18

2. Visual representations, this dimension is about visual content, icons, pictures and symbols, that complement the words in the user interaction.

3. Physical objects or space is about the physical object that enable the user to interact with the product. This could be an app on a smartphone or maybe a website used on a computer. This dimension also covers the physical space in which the product is used, is it used at home, standing still or walking around? With people around you or alone?

4. Time, refers mainly two things: media content that changes in time such as animations and sounds, or it can be the time that the user spends using the product. Here it is important to think about enable the user to track their progress, and coming back later.

5. Behavior, the last dimension, covers what Siang (2018) describes as the mechanisms of the product. How does the user interact with the product? How are actions performed? This dimension also includes reactions, the reactions from the user but also feedback coming from the product. The five dimensions model are good for understanding interaction design and what it involves (Siang, 2018).

One way to work with these five dimensions is according to Siang to ask questions to create meaningful interactions for the users. Siang (2018) phrases the questions (based on interaction design basics, 2014) as following:

• What can a user do with their mouse, finger or stylus to directly interact with the

interface?

• What about the appearance (color, shape, size etc.) gives the user a clue about how it

may function?

• Do error messages provide a way for the user to correct the problem or explain why the

error occurred?

What feedback does the user get once an action is performed?

• Are the interface elements a reasonable size to interact with?

(25)

19

Siang explains that by using these questions the designer can get information about how the system handles user feedback, which formats that are being used and information about how the user experience the system. (2018)

Figure 4. Author’s illustration based on Carroll, J. M. (n.d.).

As can be seen in the visualization above (Figure 4), many of the fields in this area of research are similar and are overlapping, such as user experience, interaction design and information architecture. The same goes for HCI and interaction design, they are similar in some ways, and

overlapping, but different fields with different main focuses

(Cooper, Reimann, & Cronin,

2007;

Siang, 2018

).

3.4.3

Löwgren’s esthetic interaction qualities

In 2009, Löwgren introduces four concepts to characterize the esthetic qualities of interaction. This was because he thought that many objects and designers focused too much on the visual esthetics, which created objects that were nice to look at but worthless to use. Löwgren (2009)

(26)

20

argues that we need to focus more on the esthetics of interaction, to create good and beautiful interaction experiences.

Löwgren’s esthetic qualities has been chosen as a part of this thesis since it is a useful point of view when looking at different interaction design strategies. The coding scheme developed in this thesis are mainly focusing in the way interactions are performed, which has similarities to Löwgren’s argument that designers should not only focus on the visual esthetics but more on the quality of the interaction. Löwgren’s four concepts, which he calls esthetic interaction qualities, are pliability, rhythm, dramaturgical structure and fluency (2009).

Löwgren (2009) describes a high pliability as a feeling when the interaction “feels tightly coupled and highly responsive, almost to the point of shaping a malleable material with your hands.” When designing screen-based interfaces for pliability, it is common to use real-world physics inspired strategies, for examples stylus interaction which reduce the divide between the hand on the mouse and the action on the screen.

When talking about rhythm in the context of interaction design, it can of course be actual musical rhythm, as Löwgren (2009) describes the smartphone application Bloom as an example of a very musical and rhythmical interaction. Although it can also be non-musical rhythm, such as a repetitive task, which give the user a feeling of satisfaction. Löwgren explains that it has been known in HCI since the 1980’s that consistent response times are preferable to variable response times, even though the average time is shorter in the latter. Which can be explained through humans’ tendency to like rhythmical patterns and predictability.

Dramaturgical structure can according to Löwgren (2009) be used to analyze an interaction experience and that it holds a certain value to understanding interaction design. Even the most mundane interaction experiences have some dramaturgical structure and by acknowledging this structure, one enables the possibility to modify it (Löwgren, 2009).

The concept fluency is described by Löwgren (2009) as following: “As we move between interaction surfaces, into and out of media streams, in the course of our daily lives, we may sometimes experience a sense of dealing gracefully with multiple demands for our attention and our action. On those occasions, there is a high degree of fluency in our interaction experience.” (p.140)

Löwgren (2009) explains that there are two main fields when it comes to fluency in interaction design, one is the peripheral interaction and the other is the importance of the interaction fitting

(27)

21

in to our lives and social norms. Peripheral interaction is interaction which can be noticed in the corner of our eyes, information and data fused into visualizations that provide enough

information to call to our attention although minimizing the demand of our conscious attention and actions. The other part of the fluency concept, interaction that blend with social norms, means that when an interaction fits with the social context, the interaction becomes for effective and flows more naturally (Löwgren, 2009).

3.4.4

User interaction in smartphone AR games

The user interaction with smartphone AR games mainly focuses on using the touch screen. With different gestures on the touchscreen you can interact with the virtual objects on the other side of the screen, the scene which you see through your camera. As Hürst and Vriens (2016) argue, this interaction can feel inept for several reasons, for instance because the touch screen is often small which makes your finger cover a quite big part of the screen, and the interactions can only be in 2D (Hürst & Vriens, 2016).

Because this way of interacting with smartphone AR-games feels insufficient, some researchers have started experimenting with different ways of tracking finger gestures in front of the camera instead of touching the smartphone screen, also called tangible user interface (Hürst & Vriens, 2016; Kato, Billinghurst, Poupyrey, Imamoto & Tachibana, 2000).

A tangible user interface is an interface that enables the user to interact with and change digital information through the physical world. The idea of using tangible user interface in AR is not that innovative, since Kato, Billinghurst, Poupyrey, Imamoto and Tachibana (2000) started experimenting with it already in 2000, when they created a city planning system in AR where you could see, move and delete virtual objects using a see-through cup and black squares. Objects which were then tracked by the system (Kato, Billinghurst, Poupyrey, Imamoto & Tachibana, 2000). This experiment still needed special objects that could be tracked by the system, something that Hürst and Vriens (2016) wanted to take a step further away from. In their research, Hürst and Vriens examine the possibilities of tracking the user’s hand and finger gestures and mainly investigating how different haptic feedback could be beneficial in a handheld smartphone AR scenario. They analyzed and compared visual feedback via the phone display, audio feedback from the speakers and haptics through vibrations (Hürst and Vriens, 2016).

(28)

22

Hürst and Vriens’s (2016) result show us that multimodal feedback has the potential to improve interaction speed and is preferred by the users. They found that visual feedback could benefit from adding haptic feedback, especially in the beginning and end of an action. Hürst and Vriens further note that this result is particularly interesting since it was a remote haptic feedback, coming from the hand holding the phone instead of the one performing the action.

(29)

23

4

Results

In this chapter the results of the performed content analysis will be presented. The findings of the analysis will both be shown in diagrams and described in text to make it clear. The chapter are divided with subheadings, with the content analysis performed on android first, then the content analysis on iPhone and last the more in-depth analysis of a couple of games.

4.1

Content analysis android

Out of 250 games found, 110 games were downloaded, during this part of the process some games were rejected because they were not free or because they were not a game. Of the downloaded games, 15 games were sorted out because of several reasons. Reasons were that the game required an additional object to be bought, such as a recognition plane or a toy car. In cases where a required recognition plane was free and easy accessible, the game was added to the analysis. The games could also be excluded because the AR function needed a newer smartphone or that the game turned out not to have any AR function. Out of 95 games downloaded, 45 games were not tested at all because of time constraints but also because the data collected felt exhaustive and that further data collection would not give the analysis more useful data.

As seen in figure 5, 40 games have been tested in several categories, age groups and with varying amount of reviews. The amount of user reviews found on the game page on Google play ranged from 21770 (Gun Kamera 3D simulator) to 3 (Renegades AR). And the ratings that these reviews gave ranged between the highest possible, 5, (Snowgroover AR and Renegades AR) to 2,4 (AR gun shooting – augmented reality weapons camera).

Game title Price Age group Amount of reviews Rating Genre

Renegades AR free 3 3 5 Sports

Snowgroover AR free 3 4 5 Arcade

AR gunner free 3 4 4,8 Miscellaneous

Ar paper toss free 3 9 2,9 Miscellaneous

AR dominus free 3 10 4,6 Action

AR gun shooting - augmented reality

weapons camera free 7 15 2,4 Action

AR clay shooting free 3 17 4,4 Sports

(30)

24

Real combat AR free 3 18 3,7 Arcade

Balloon Popper AR Free 3 19 4 Miscellaneous

Pistol AR Free 3 23 3,7 Simulator

Realworld-AR (augmented reality) Free 12 28 2,9 Adventure

AR space war free 3 30 4,8 Action

AR sport car simulator free 3 30 3,9 Simulator

AR apple shooter - AR games Free 18 32 3,7 Arcade

Basket skott ring 3D augmented reality free 3 36 3,7 Sports

Heligons - VR/AR Free 3 48 3,8 Action

Ar combat Free 3 75 3,4 Action

AR tank battle Free 3 116 3,5 Action

AR animals book free 3 118 3,7 Education

Augmented reality dinosaur zoo free 3 158 3,7 Education

Hatchimals AR free 3 171 3,1 Simulator

Dinosaur 4D Free AR (Låg Polystyle) Free 3 179 4,2 Simulator

AR sport cars Free 3 180 3,6 Simulator

Kiloflight AR Free 3 234 4,2 Action

Kazooloo DMX AR free 7 289 4,3 Action

A.R. warriors free 3 320 3,7 Arcade

AR car drive: camera version Free 3 379 3,9 Racing

Arcraft - AR sandbox Free 3 442 3,8 Adventure

Ar- Shooting game Free 3 534 3,9 Action

Ghost snap AR horror Survival free 12 748 3,8 Adventure

Stack it AR Free 3 1034 3,9 Arcade

AR remote car Free 3 1085 3,1 Simulator

AR hologram flying dragon free 3 1338 3,2 Simulator

Park AR augmented reality game Free 3 1668 3,9 Racing

Vapen Kamera 3D AR sim Free 7 2056 4,2 Simulator

Table zombies augmented reality free 12 3446 3,7 Simulator

Kick ball (AR soccer) Free 3 3996 3,4 Sports

Father.IO AR PFS Free 12 6522 4 Action

Gun Kamera 3D simulator free 12 21770 4,1 Simulator

(31)

25

Figure 6. User Interaction – Android

Figure 6 illustrates a summary of the analysis results of the user interaction features found in the games. The horizontal axis of the graph shows the interaction properties and the vertical axis indicates the amount of applications in which these interaction properties were found. Using the touch screen were required in all applications, while none used voice interaction, walking outside or tracking gestures in front of the camera.

The category object interaction, refers to interaction with the digital environment by use of a physical object. This interaction feature was present in nine games, and these cases was all cases of using a tracker (see figure 7) to activate the AR mode and place the virtual environment by the tracker. By turning and moving this tracker it is possible to turn and move the virtual environment, hence making the interaction an object interaction.

40 4 0 24 0 18,5 27 0 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Touch

screen interactionObject Gestures w.hand in

front of camera

Moving in

room Walkingoutside 360 panning One object voice gesturesPhone

(32)

26

Figure 7. An example of a tracker,

here from the game Renegades AR.

Depending on how the game is built, the interaction takes different forms. The second most common user interaction category, after touch screen, was one object interaction. This means that the virtual environment consisted of one single object that was placed in the camera view of the real environment (see figure 8 for example). When the game is built like this, it enables a different kind of movement and interaction from the user in contrast to when there are several virtual objects or when the virtual environment is created like a 360-degree view.

(33)

27

.

Figure 9. Device Generated Properties - Android

Figure 9 illustrates a summary of the analysis results of the device generated properties used in the games. The horizontal axis of the graph shows the properties and the vertical axis indicates the amount of applications in which these properties were used. Almost all applications, 35 out of 40, used the gyroscope to detect the tilting of the smartphone. None of the tested application used the GPS, face detection or gesture detection. Gestures detection refers to the smartphone detecting and recognizing gestures done in the camera view, for example hand or finger gestures. Some of the games used vibrations as a kind of haptic feedback (see attachment 1). As can be seen in the chart, the use of gyroscope was present in 35 out of 40 games. This was most common used for tracking the motion of the smartphone, enabling the user to see the virtual environment in different angles just by tilting or turning the phone. The game that were not using the gyroscope, the user needed to use the touchscreen by tapping or swiping to view the virtual environment in different angles.

Plane recognition were also common in the tested games and were quite similar used. Some differences were found though. Plane detection were often used in the beginning of a game, or right after the AR mode had been turned on, to enable placing the virtual environment in the real. Some instructions to detect a suitable plane were often used, with text and illustrations. In some cases, there was a square in which the user was supposed to fit a suitable plane, sometimes

35 2 0 19 9 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Gyroscope Accelerometer Gps Plane detection Object

detection Face detection detectiongestures

(34)

28

the whole screen was used as the square (see figure 10 and 11). In some other cases there were dots instead of the square. The dots appeared during the scanning process, indicating where the game found spots that could be part of a plane. The requirements for a suitable plane differed between the games, sometimes a plane was detected right away, other had higher need of patterns in the area and good lightning.

Figure 10. Example of plane detection process from the game AR sport car simulator.

(35)

29

As can be seen in figure 12, there is no obvious relationship between the amount of reviews a game has and the rating. What can be seen though, is that the 7 games with highest rating, has very few reviews, meaning that a low amount of user have given them high score in rating. Another noticeable thing in this chart is that the amount of reviews one game has is far more than any of the other games. Most of the games has an amount of reviews below 5000, with one a little above. While the game gun kamera 3D simulator has over 20000 reviews.

Figure 12. Chart illustrating the relationship between reviews and ratings on android.

4.2

Content analysis Iphone

In the category AR games on App store 36 games were found and all the free games were downloaded which resulted in 20 downloaded games. Thereafter the category amazing AR games were used in the search and 40 games were found. 16 games were free and downloaded which resulted in a total 36 games that were part of the analysis. As seen in figure 6 the

recommended user age ranged from 4 or older to 17 or older and the games were in genres such as simulation, arcade, puzzle, sports, adventure, strategy, action or simply games. The amount of reviews ranged from none to 8695 reviews.

Game title Price Age group Amount of reviews Rating Genre

DA! Minigolf free 4 0 0 sports

Arcade plane free 4 0 0 arcade

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Ra tin g Rev iews

Relationship reviews and ratings on android

(36)

30

twilight pioneers free 9 0 0 arcade

Mazelith free 4 0 0 puzzle

Pigeon panic AR free 4 0 0 arcade

dragon putt free 4 0 0 arcade

putt putt world free 4 0 0 simulation

out here archery free 9 0 0 action

AR sports basketball free 4 0 0 arcade

hologrid: monster Battle

AR free 12 0 0 strategy

SquishyHoops free 4 6 1,3 arcade

siegebreakers free 9 6 3,1 puzzle

AR runner free 4 6 4,5 adventure

My country free 4 6 4,7 strategy

RC club free 4 8 3,6 simulation

DARk free 12 13 3,7 simulation

shadows remain free 12 13 4,5 adventure

Ghost AR free 9 13 4,7 arcade

Yume free 4 14 2,1 adventure

miniguns free 12 14 3,6 strategy

ninja attack free 9 24 4,1 action

AR angry zombies free 4 27 4,2 action

Arrrrrgh free 4 28 4,9 family

olympus rising free 12 33 4,8 action

stack AR free 4 47 2,4 arcade

gladiator heroes free 12 59 4,2 role-playing

sky whale - a game shakers free 4 62 4,3 entertainment

AR dragon free 4 80 4,4 simulation

flat pack free 9 117 4,5 action

kings of pool free 12 169 4,4 sports

Freeblade free 12 239 4,5 action

ZG: revenant free 17 261 4,4 arcade

Craft away free 4 509 4,5 adventure

egg inc. free 4 730 4,6 strategy

Pokemon go free 9 2271 4,1 games

sniper 3D free 17 8695 4,8 action

Figure 13. Games tested on iPhone ordered by amount of reviews.

In the results of the user interaction one can see that the three most common ways of interaction were the touch screen, moving around in the room and using one object (see figure 14).

This gives us a pattern of how the interaction is expressed in these games. It is more common to move around in a smaller area, such as inside a room, than outside. And it is more common with one virtual object around which the user moves around (the category “one object”) than having

(37)

31

the user being surrounded with virtual objects or view in 360 degrees panning view. Although half of the tested games did use 360 degree panning view. There were also three categories that didn’t get any scores at all, object interaction, gestures with hands in front of camera and voice interaction (see attachment 2 for all test results).

Figure 14. User interaction - iPhone.

The two categories that were present but not that common was walking outside and phone gestures. 7 out of 36 tested games used walking outside, which is referring to a user movement covering a bigger scale, which is not possible inside due to the constraints of a room. The last category, phone gestures, was present in 9 cases. An example of a game that used phone

gestures as an interaction was DA! minigolf. A game where you play mini golf and by swinging your phone, almost as you would with a golf club, you make a shot at the golf ball (See figure 15). 36 0 0 34 7 19 29 0 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Touch screen Object

interaction hand in frontGestures w.

of camera

Moving in

room Walkingoutside 360 panning One object voice gesturesPhone

(38)

32

Figure 15. Screenshot from the game DA! Mini golf.

Figure 16. Device generated properties - iPhone.

The device generated properties most used by the tested iPhone games were the gyroscope and plane detection (see figure 16). Accelerometer and GPS was also present but not as common. None of the games used face detection, object detection or gestures detection. None of the games used trackers to place the virtual environment.

36 10 2 33 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Gyroscope Accelerometer Gps Plane detection Object detection Face detection gestures

detection

(39)

33

Which games used gps, and how did the others outside games do?

Figure 17. Chart showing the relationship between reviews and ratings on iPhone.

Figure 17 illustrates the relationship between reviews and ratings in the tested games. Most of the games has fewer reviews than 1000, only Pokémon GO with more than 2000 reviews and sniper 3D with more than 8000 reviews break the pattern.

4.3

Relationships between game genre and

interaction techniques

When studying the relationships found between game genres and the interaction techniques used one can see that although some similarities can be seen, some differences are also found. The use of touchscreen and gyroscope are both among the most common used interaction technique in all genres. The results found are visualized in charts and presented below, divided between the game genres action, adventure, arcade, simulation, sport, strategy and

miscellaneous. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Ra tin g Rev iews

Relationship between reviews and rating on iPhone

(40)

34

Figure 18. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in action games.

As can be seen in figure 18, the use of touchscreen and gyroscope are the most common used interaction techniques in the tested action games. Thence are the most common moving in room and 360 panning. Plane detection and the use of one object are also quite commonly used in these games.

Figure 19. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in adventure games. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Action - interaction relationship

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(41)

35

In adventure games the interaction techniques are quite the same as action games, with touchscreen mostly used, although moving in room, using one object and gyroscope are all equally common and thereafter plane detection (figure 19).

Figure 20. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in arcade games.

In arcade games touch screen and gyroscope are both the most used interaction technique with moving in room and plane detection coming second. One object is also commonly used here, while object interaction is not found at all (figure 20).

Figure 21. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in simulation games. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Arcade - interaction relationship

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

(42)

36

In the fourteen simulation games that were found and tested, one can see that all used the touchscreen. Thereafter the following techniques that were commonly found were (presented in order of most often found): one object, gyroscope, moving in room and plane detection (figure 21).

Figure 22. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in sport games.

Six sport games were found and tested. The five most commonly used interaction techniques were the same as the earlier genres, in the following order: touchscreen and gyroscope equally common, one object, plane detection and then moving in room. Moving in room were present in three games (figure 22).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sport - interaction relationship

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

(43)

37

Figure 24. Chart of the most used interaction techniques in miscellaneous games.

In the group miscellaneous, seen in figure 24, all genres with four or less games found are included.

4.4

Content analysis

As mentioned previously in this thesis, two games have been selected for a more in-depth qualitative analysis of their content, the selected games are Pokémon GO and Stack it AR/Stack AR. These games are available on both android and iPhone, which enables a comparative study between the two platforms. The games content will be described, as well as their results on the earlier content analysis and the play experience will be described and exemplified with illustrations.

4.4.1

Pokémon GO

Pokémon go, which are available on both iPhone and android, is a large-scale, location based, AR game. In the game you play as a Pokémon trainer who walk around in the real world and catch Pokémons which you later can use to train and compete against other trainers.

Pokémon GO is a free game, recommended from age 9 and up. 2271 reviews and a rating of 4,1 of 5. The user interaction found in pokémon GO was use of the touch screen, moving around in room, walking outside, 360 degrees panning, one object and use of phone gestures. Pokémon GO did not use object interaction, gestures in front of camera or voice interaction. The device generated properties that Pokémon GO used was gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS and plane detection, it did not use object, face or gestures detection.

The game requires an account to play, which was created using the testers facebook account. The default screen is an illustrated map over the area that the player is situated in at the moment (see figure 18). The avatar is standing in the middle and she turns different ways depending on which way the player turns the smartphone. On the map there is streets and different colors indicating where there are buildings, otherwise it is not many details. On the map one can see pokestops, where it is possible to collect pokeballs, which are then used to catch pokémons. When a pokémon appears, the smartphone vibrates. When the user clicks on a pokémon the game enters a mode where the player can catch the pokémon, here one can choose if one shall see the pokémon in AR mode or not.

(44)

38

Figure 18. Map view in Pokémon GO.

To interact with the game the user uses the touchscreen, to tap and swipe on the map to look around. By looking around in the real world with the smartphone, the user can change the direction of its avatar. Likewise, the avatar walks in the game when the user walks in the real environment.

The game does not give the user any instructions in the beginning of the game, although since the map is so empty, it encourage the user to try and explore the things that are marked on the map by tapping them. This can be pokémons, pokestops and gyms, which gives the user a clue about what to do. If the user is too far away from a pokestop, the game gives a notice about that by saying “walk closer to interact with this pokestop”. As can be seen in figure 19 a purple pokestop indicates that the pokestop is already used. The different shape from the blue pokestop further back, shows that the purple one is close enough to interact with while the blue is not. The pokestops change appearance when you are close enough to interact with them, and change color when you have already used them.

(45)

39

Figure 19. Map view with pokestops, the avatar and a pokémon.

The same use of few options and hints of the next move is used when a pokémon appears. Depending on if you choose to see the pokémon is AR mode (See figure 20) or not (see figure 21), the background is different. The rest of the screen and the options available are the same either way. The poke ball, that can be seen in the lower middle in figure 20 and 21, is moving and almost appears to jump or try to throw itself in the direction of the pokémon. This gives the user a hint that the next move is to throw the poke ball.

(46)

40

(47)

41

Figure 21. Pokémon GO without AR.

If a user is in AR mode and direct the smartphone away from the pokémon, arrows indicate in which direction the Pokémon are and helps the user to find its way back (see figure 22). This way the game provides a way for the user to resolve an error that occurred.

Figure

Figure 1. Coding scheme table.
Figure 2. Milgram’s continuum (Milgram & Kishino 1994) as illustrated in Billinghurst, Clark, &
Figure 3. Two-dimensional diagram of MR and MRx. (Rouse, Engberg, JafariNaimi & Bolter, 2015,  p.222)
Figure 4. Author’s illustration based on Carroll, J. M. (n.d.).
+7

References

Related documents

The overview of the literature studies provide an overview and explanation of learning games as a field of research and practice and its position within the bigger field of

in this research, researchers will code the data into four groups, the questions of Screen placement were coded as Screen 1-3, and the script placement were to be coded as

I base this on the theory of 8 kinds of fun in which fun is defined on the mechanics of what the player does and in Metroidvania, linear games such as Super Mario the player

Detta kan sedan ligga till grund för ett underlag som skall kunna hjälpa andra förstå Eurokoderna enklare.. Avgränsningarna motiveras av att dimensioneringsberäkningar idag

A block diagram of the open-loop controller is shown in Figure 3.5. The imple- mentation process is described in detail in Publication II, along with simulation and

I inledningen av 1999 gav Högkvarteret det då relativt nybildade Flygvapencentrum33 , med stöd av Swedint 34 , i uppdrag att samordna och leda utvecklingen av

Det visade sig att resultatet från enkäten gällande elevers inställning till om de är bra på bollekar samt om bollekar är ett bra innehåll i ämnet idrott och hälsa i

with CHD were more often born preterm or small-for-gestational age (SGA) than women without CHD, more likely to have been born with a cesarean section, to have given birth during