MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384636198 · doi:10.2196/42878

Dimensions of Interactive Pervasive Game Design: Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4384636198 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCategorizationEntertainmentScopusGame designSystematic reviewGame DeveloperService (business)Game mechanicsSelection (genetic algorithm)MultimediaData scienceArtificial intelligenceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the gaming industry grows around the world, playing pervasive games is becoming an important mode of entertainment. A pervasive game is one in which the game experience extends into the actual world or where the fictive world of the game merges with the physical world. How pervasive games can adapt to the ever-changing nature of technology and design in current society requires a comprehensive review. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we aimed to measure and analyze 4 dimensions of pervasive games through development, technology, experience, and evaluation. Moreover, we also aimed to discover and interpret their relationship with game, interaction, experience, and service design. METHODS: We first chose 3 well-known databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO, and searched from 2013 to April 2022. A strictly thorough Boolean search for research keywords such as "pervasive game," "design," and "interactive" resulted in 394 relevant articles. These articles were identified, screened, and checked for eligibility to find valid and useful articles, which were then categorized and analyzed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method. RESULTS: The systematic selection was finally left with 40 valid and valuable articles. After categorization and analysis, all articles were classified according to 4 main themes, which were design and development (11/40, 28%), interaction and technology (15/40, 38%), users and experience (9/40, 23%), and evaluation and service (5/40, 13%). These 4 main areas can be subdivided into several smaller areas. CONCLUSIONS: In the 4 areas of game design, interaction design, experience design, and service design, many scholars have studied pervasive games and made contributions. Although the development and technology of pervasive games have evolved with the times, there is still a need to strengthen emerging design concepts within pervasive games.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it