morel: remotely launchable playthings to facilitate new ... · 3.1. multiple morels morels can...

1/22

Morel: Remotely Launchable Playthings to Facilitate New Forms of Outdoor Play

Kenji IGUCHI

Keio University, Graduate School of Media and Governance,

Media Design Program

Abstract: This paper proposes Morel, physical plaything devices that facilitate the emergence of new forms of real-world outdoor play. Morels are ball-like objects with digitally enabled kinetic behaviors embedded within. They can detect the existence of other Morels in the vicinity, and can remotely make them launch up in the air. Morels encourage the improvisation of new games and play behavior, not by defining game rules on its own, but by adding behavioral possibilities to the environment while keeping the play rules open. Several games using Morels have been devised through playtesting. Through their characteristics, Morels allow players to explore a new realm of casual, flexible play. Keywords: Pervasive games, Mobile games, Physical play, Multiplayer, Ad-hoc rule improvisation, Casual Ludic activity

1. Introduction Research in digitally augmented reality-based

gaming has been on the rise for the past few

years. Most such attempts have taken the

approach of reaching out into the real while

having their feet set in the digital side.

The operational rules in these games are also

based on the kinds of play where the rules are

rather rigid, and do not intend to cover casual

play that is often practiced by children outdoors.

Such acts of play are full of improvised

on-the-spot rules and behaviors.

In this paper, we propose Morel, a physical

plaything device that supports and facilitates

the emergence of new forms of physical play. It

accomplishes this through a novel combination

of familiar physical properties and kinetic

actuation through wireless communications.

2. Motives Since entering the Keio University Inakage

Lab in 2002, I have been involved in several

digital entertainment projects [1][2][3] that aim

to bring computer-based content and the real

world together utilizing Mixed/Augmented

Reality (MR/AR) technology. They include Little

Red MR, a children's pop-up storybook in 3D,

and Veggie Diaries, a PDA game where the

player grew virtual plants on a real diary book.

Some of the elements those MR-based projects

had were the player's physical actions

influencing gameplay, and the adoption of

real-world elements as in-game objects. From

there, my interests extended into what is known

as pervasive gaming.

The goal of this project is to look at the field of

pervasive gaming from the “other side” and

reach out into the digital from the real, focusing

on children’s outdoor play as the basic medium

to use to accomplish that goal.

3. Overview Morels are cylindrical-shaped plaything

objects, approximately the size of soccer balls.

Their soft outer shells are made of urethane,

which allows them to be kicked and thrown like

ordinary balls. The cylindrical shape also allows

players to roll Morels on their sides.

Figure 1. A Pair of Morels.

2/22

Morels operate in identical sets of two or more.

When a Morel senses the existence of another

Morel nearby, it will emit a sound to notify the

player. It will also make a sound when another

Morel has left the vicinity as well.

While other Morels are nearby, a player can

'charge them up' by holding and squeezing her

Morel. This will cause a tone, rising in pitch, to

be emitted from other Morels to show they are

being charged. When the 'charge' reaches its

maximum, the sound will change to a wailing

tone; if the charging player lets go and squeezes

once again on his Morel at this point, the

charged Morels will launch.

3.1. Multiple Morels Morels can operate with a minimum of two

devices in the area of play. However, when there

are three or more Morels in the area, play with

Morels can take on a much more unpredictable

style.

Squeezing one Morel will result in all other

Morels in the vicinity to react. A player can

launch multiple Morels simultaneously. A

launch of one Morel can also trigger chain

reactions, causing other Morels to launch one

after another continuously.

3.2. Activities Using Morels Beyond the above-mentioned characteristics,

there are no gameplay rules built into the

Morels themselves. Morels take a different

approach in design compared to existing

Pervasive Games. They introduce new behaviors

into physical play. However, Morels do not

dictate to players how to play. Much like a

wooden stick or a red rubber ball, players are

encouraged to play using Morels, instead of

playing them themselves. Players may play

games based on known rules, modify the known

games, or think up and improvise their own

ways to play.

Morels can be used for unstructured play such

as games of make-believe, or as devices to

augment existing games such as proximity

sensors to use in a game of hide-and-seek. And,

as has occurred during playtesting, they can

also be used for entirely new physical games in

which their unique functionalities become

integral aspects of gameplay.

Figure 2. Playing with Morels.

4. Related Works In this section, we will go over existing

products, pervasive gaming research projects,

playthings, and play theories having relation

with the concept of Morels.

4.1. Pervasive Games

4.1.1. Pac-Manhattan

Pac-Manhattan [4] is a pervasive game

conceived by the New York University's

Interactive Telecommunications graduate

program. The game is a recreation of the classic

dot-eating game Pac-Man using the streets of

Manhattan as the game field, with half of the

players residing in a control room and the other

half running in the city. Only the control room

players (“Generals”) have access to the view of

the entire map, and each street player is

connected to a corresponding General player by

a cell phone. Using the connection, street

players would act out their roles as Pac-Man

and the ghosts, each receiving advice from their

respective General players.

3/22

Figure 3. Pac-Manhattan.

The technology of the game is kept primitive

on purpose: Wi-Fi and GPS technologies are too

unreliable to use as tracking and data uplink

methods, in an urban setting where players

were constantly running. The game was

successfully held on multiple occasions.

In Pac-Manhattan, computers map the street

players' locations for the generals on screens in

a control room. The computers also track scoring,

and keep the formula of the original game

intact: the more ghosts Pac-Man captured

during his powered-up state, the higher the

score for each individual ghost would be.

4.1.2. Can You See Me Now?

Can You See Me Now? [5] is a pervasive game

developed by media arts group Blast Theory and

the Mixed Reality Laboratory of the University

of Nottingham. The game is a physical/virtual

hybrid game of tag, where the chase takes place

both in a real world city and its digitally

reconstructed counterpart. Two groups of

players participate in the game: one physically

running in the real city, and the other running

in the virtual city using their computers. The

locations of the physical players are tracked

using GPS, and reflected on the virtual city.

In the game, players in the physical city run

after players in the virtual city. The players in

the physical city keep track of the locations of

the virtual players by using a Wi-Fi enabled

PDA. The game ends for the virtual player when

he is caught.

Figure 4. Can You See Me Now?

4.1.3. Seamful Game

Seamful Game [6] is a pervasive game

designed by Matthew Chalmers of the

University of Glasgow. It uses real world space,

GPS, and the spatial coverage (and lack thereof)

of Wi-Fi access points as crucial elements of

gameplay. While most games assume ubiquitous

wireless access and absolute game information,

Seamful Game is designed around the

unreliability of real world connections, and the

'seams' between zones of Wi-Fi coverage.

Players walk around in a designated game

area, trying to collect virtual coins that are

scattered around. The coins may be anywhere,

however players can only claim them for scores

while they are within the Wi-Fi coverage range.

If the player attempts to claim them from

outside the range, she will lose all of her coins.

The game requires players to understand the

areas in which Wi-Fi is and is not available in

the game area in order for them to win.

4/22

Figure 5. Seamful Game.

4.1.4. Veggie Diaries

Veggie Diaries is a project we developed in

collaboration with Olympus Corporation in 2004.

In this game of virtual gardening, players plant

and grow animated vegetables on a physical

diary book by using a camera mounted PDA.

The game uses mixed reality technology to

superimpose a 3D image of the plant on top of

the diary book. Players are able to use several

real-world objects, not originally intended for

the game, as elements of gameplay.

The game, which consists of the diary book

and the PDA, is made so that it is “always on”

and can be carried around regularly, much like

Bandai Co. Ltd.’s Tamagotchi [7] virtual pet toy

series.

Upon beginning play, the player must first

find a soil bed to plant a seed. Paper pieces in

real space represent soil in the virtual space.

Players must obtain soil from pieces of paper, for

instance magazine cutouts. The player then

inserts them into the pages, using the pockets

attached to each page. The combination of colors

in the pieces of paper determines what the

planted seed will grow into. The seed can

become any of around a dozen possible

vegetables.

Players will need to periodically give water

and sun to their plants. Nutrients are hidden in

common road signs; Players capture them from

the signs using the camera mounted on the PDA.

To do this, players switch the system into

capture mode. When the player takes a picture

of a road sign, the system 'captures' the nutrient

trapped within the sign into the PDA. The

player then releases the captured nutrients by

aiming at their vegetables and pushing the

button again.

Over time, the plant would grow or wither

depending on how well the player cared for it.

Figure 6. Veggie Diaries.

4.1.5. OTOTONARI

OTOTONARI [8] is another one of our projects,

developed in collaboration with the Keio

University Murai Lab, and KDDI Inc. in 2005.

The game consists of a large number of players

(around 20-30) searching for and sharing

fragments of music by walking around in a

physical space and entering the vicinity of each

other.

Players carry a Wi-Fi enabled Windows

Mobile PDA, each starting off carrying a

different fragment of a somewhat complex

musical sequence. During play, they can

exchange copies of their fragments by moving

5/22

into close proximity with each other. The goal

for each player is to collect as many fragments of

music as possible, in order to construct a rich

sequence the player can listen to at the end.

The rules of OTOTONARI are designed to

encourage players to move around a field,

mingling and cooperating with nearby players.

Figure 7. OTOTONARI Gameplay.

4.2. Playthings

4.2.1. Bilibo

Bilibo [9] is a toy designed by the Swiss

designer Alex Hochstrasser. It has the

characteristic of having no predefined way to

play. It is a colorful shell made of durable

polyethylene, with a wavy rim and two holes

opened near the edge. It contains no electronics

or machinery. How the user plays with Bilibo is

up to him or her, although its shape provides

affordances to many actions. Some actions

possible with Bilibo include spinning the shell

on its bottom, peeking through the holes, sitting

on it, donning it like a hat, scooping sand or

water with it, combining two Bilibos to form a

sphere, and so on.

Figure 8. Bilibo.

4.2.2. LEGO® blocks

The LEGO brand of toys [10] is a longstanding

line of plastic building block toys manufactured

by the Denmark toy manufacturer, The LEGO

Group.

LEGO sets generally come with instructions

to guide the user to build a certain LEGO

construction. The user is not limited to the plan

shown in the instructions, however, and is free

to combine bricks to build whatever they

imagine.

4.3. Theories

4.3.1. Huizinga’s Definitions

Play was first defined as a field of formal

study by Johann Huizinga in his book Homo

Ludens, [11] published in 1938. In the book,

Huizinga framed play as acts that stood on their

own, instead of as forms of practice or education

for the players to ready themselves for life.

Huizinga defined acts of play as acts that are

“executed in a limited frame of time and place,”

“arising from the player’s own intent,” “following

determined rules,” “having play itself as the

objective,” “not serious,” “accompanied by

tension and joy,” and “considered dissimilar

from ordinary life.”

4.3.2. Caillois’ Classifications

In his book Man, Play and Games, [12] Roger

Caillois classified play into four categories.

Agôn is a kind of play where the focus is on

competition, which includes games like Chess

and Baseball.

Alea is a kind of play that is based on chance

and probability, such as Poker.

Mimicry is based on behaving in accordance

to one’s imaginations, such as role-playing

games or make-believe play.

Il inx, which translates to “vertigo”, is play

that relies on physical sensations, such as

dancing or skiing.

In addition to these four classifications,

Caillois also provided a second criterion, an axis

6/22

that began from LLudus, formally regulated play,

to PPaidia, improvisational free-form play.

4.3.3. Salen & Zimmerman’s classifications

Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, in their

book Rules of Play, [13] defines three categories

of play, each one a subcategory of the next.

Games are activities of play that play in

accordance to a formalized set of rules.

Ludic Activities are activities of play that

include games, but also include less formal

kinds of play where the rules are more vague

and often not codifiable, such as playing

make-believe, cops and robbers, or catch. Play as

defined by Caillois covers this category of

breadth.

Being Playful is the broadest of the three

categories, containing both the above two, but

also including playful states of minds in general,

such as accomplishing a non-play task in a

playful manner.

Salen and Zimmerman also discussed several

schemas to view games from, two of which are of

special mention here.

Emergence is a characteristic of systems in

which complex patterns emerge from a simple,

limited set of rules. While not really being a

game, one of the most famous examples of this

principle is John Conway’s cellular automaton

Game of Life, in which amazingly complex

behavior can be observed from a group of cells

that only follow three rules. Similar complexity

can emerge in interactive games as well, such as

the advanced techniques and maneuvers that

can be seen in simple games like Tetris or Go.

Transformative Play is a kind of play that,

in addition to being framed by its structure, can

modify the structure itself. This can apply to

various forms of play, such as rule changes in

the middle of a children’s game, user

modifications to a video game, and trends in

athlete behavior leading to a sports organization

updating the official rulebook.

5. The Device In this section, we will explore the specifics of

the Morels’ device design in further detail. We

will first discuss the backgrounds and the

problems that we intend to solve with Morels,

and then will explain the operational specifics of

the device implementation.

5.1. Background

5.1.1. The Sources of Regulations

One thing the definitions of play given by

Huizinga, Caillois, and Salen/Zimmerman all

agree on is that play comes into existence in the

presence of certain rigid structures, or

structures of regulation.

Lawrence Lessig, in his book Code, [14] cited

Architecture, Law, Norms and Markets as

regulators of human behavior upon discussing

digital rights and freedoms. In the current

context, Law and Architecture are particularly

significant: Law refers to rules set by humans

that discourages one from breaking them by

imposing penalties and other unfavorable

consequences, but can be broken if one is so

inclined. Architecture is the rules that manifest

themselves within the world itself and cannot be

broken, such as the laws of gravity or

thermodynamics.

While we are so used to the regulations of our

environment that we tend to forget their

existence, the environment (architecture) in

which an act of play takes place imposes a great

number of restrictions in shaping the rules (law)

of the game. We do not design physical games

where jumping ten stories high is a necessity;

nor do we design games where the game board

uses more than three dimensional axes. The

architecture of the environment and our bodies

prohibits such game rules from being playable.

The rise of computers and digitally created

virtual worlds now allow designers to instate

regulations much more freely than in the real

world. The designer is handed the task of

constructing the architecture of the game world

as much as the operational game rules

7/22

themselves. Gravity can be as weak as that of

the moon, and objects can both pop out of and

disappear into thin air. Rules set by digital code

can also be enforced much more strictly than

non-digital rules, as all rules set by code are

unbreakable rules of architecture by default.

We can classify the restrictions that regulate

what we can and cannot do during play into a

two-dimensional matrix. The vertical axis

represents the level and degree of regulation,

with the elements below regulating the above.

The horizontal axis represents the realm (real or

digital) from which the regulations originate.

Player Actions Action

Rules (Law)

Real World Environment

Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 9. Classification Diagram for the Regulations of Play.

In the chart, Player Actions and Real World

Environment span across both the real and

digital realms, since even computers themselves

exist as machines made out of physical objects in

the real world environment. Hence, player

interaction with machines can only occur in the

real world. [15]

We will now examine the different kinds of

play using this diagram.

5.1.1.1. Sports / Physical Games

Real-world Sports and Physical Games such

as board or card games are different kinds of

play, but they share a common trait in that the

game rules are never more than agreements

made between players, and they are only

enforced at the real world level. While some

technology may be used to allow finer precision

in the application of the rules, e.g. stopwatches

or high-speed cameras, the final judgments are

done by human arbiters.


Agreements Rules (Law)


Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 10. Diagram for Sports / Physical Games.

While transformative “house rules” can be

created for local play sessions, the rules for

sports and board games are usually kept rather

tightly. They are often codified in an official

document, managed by entities such as player

associations or game publishers. Changes to the

official rules occur rarely, and when they do

happen, they are regarded as major events

among player communities.

5.1.1.2. Computer Games

In computer games, almost all of the

regulations, be it based on the environment or

the operational game rules, are defined through

digital code. While digital code itself is indeed

restricted by the real world environment and

the computing hardware it runs on, the power

granted to the designer is much stronger than

those of traditional games.


Rules (Law)

Digital Code


Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 11. Diagram for Computer Games.

On the other hand, from the viewpoint of

transformative play, this can be a downside.

Since digital code regulates both the operational

rules and the characteristics of the environment,

they are enforced in the same rigid manners as

the environment (architecture) of the world.

Deviations from the rules can only be done as

much as the designer of the game allowed them

to be possible. Although some computer games

such as Valve Corporation’s Half-Life 2 [16] or

8/22

Linden Lab’s Second Life [17] have been built

with an open-ended structure to encourage the

development of modifications and user-created

content, many games are still closed boxes, only

allowing minimal amounts of transformative

play.

5.1.1.3. Pervasive Games / Pervasive Sports


Agreements Rules (Law)

Digital Code


Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 12. Diagram for Pervasive Games / Pervasive Sports.

Pervasive games bring parts of the regulating

powers granted by digital code to physical

games. This allows physical games to utilize

rules that used to be practical only to computer

games, allowing the designer to offload complex

calculation and memorization tasks (scoring and

storytelling, for instance) to computers. [18]

Like computer games, the digital element of

pervasive games and sports also brings its

regulative rigidness along. Again, this can be

seen as both a blessing and a curse. From one

point of view, it can free the players from having

to understand and follow potentially complex

rulesets. However, it also limits casual deviation

and experimentation with the rules of the game,

at least for the parts that are enforced by the

computer.

5.1.1.4. Physical Informal Ludic Activities

Physical informal ludic activities are the kinds

of play that can be exemplified by casual

children’s games such as Tag, Hide and Seek,

Kick the Can and Make-Believe Play. They

differ from formal games in that the agreements

between players are much more relaxed, vague

and malleable. We have divided the

environment and rule layers in the diagram to

make this distinction more clear.


Informal,

Amorphous

Agreements

Rules (Law)


Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 13. Diagram for Physical Informal Ludic Activities.

During informal ludic activities, kids often

propose a time-out to recommend a change to

the rules, whether it may be to increase the

number of the people who are "it", or to prolong

the time a person who was shot stays "dead."

(Outrageous proposals are rejected by other

participants, obviously.) This can happen

between rounds or, occasionally, even during the

game, merely because "It's more fun that way."

This is obviously out of the question in a formal

game of sports. Such changes can only work out

because of the implicit understanding between

participants that the goal of their activities is

having fun, rather than outrunning the

opponents and winning the competition.

Some informal ludic activities may not even

have coherently organized sets of rules. In the

case of make-believe play, the only bind on

player behavior is the principle of acting out

their roles.

5.1.1.5. Pervasive Informal Ludic Activities

The activities mentioned in the previous

section have so far been confined to physical

play. Little attempts have been made so far to

mingle them with digital technology, as has

been explored with pervasive games and sports.

It should be noted that simply trying to carry

over the digital code of such games to coexist

with the amorphous and whimsical agreements

of informal ludic activities do not work. This is

because the digital code in those games does not

make distinctions between regulative elements

9/22

that reside in the operational rules, and those

that do in the play environment.

As digital code governs its regulations in a

strict, forceful manner, the act of regulating

operational rules through code conflicts with the

relaxed nature of the agreements of informal

ludic activities.

Therefore, in order to introduce and utilize

digital code into this field of play, it is necessary

to make clear distinctions with the regulations

at design time. Regulations that can be

interpreted by the player as an extension of the

behavior of the real world environment may be

featured. However, regulations that can be seen

as operational rules for a specific game should

be avoided, or at least kept to a minimum.

In the diagram below, the box representing

Digital Code has been reduced in size, to act

only as extensions of the real world environment.

It makes room for the Informal, Amorphous

Agreements to cover over both the Real and the

Digital fields.


Informal, Amorphous

Agreements

Rules (Law)

Digital Code


Environment

(Architecture)

Real Digital

Figure 14. Diagram for Pervasive Informal Ludic Activities.

It is this little-explored category of play that

we intend to target with Morel. They are neither

games nor play; instead, they are devices to

facilitate and enable new acts of play.

5.1.2. Rule Design Patterns

Game rules for both sports and video games

can be said to exist through a combination of

rule design patterns – snippets of rules that, by

themselves, do not make a game, but can be

combined together to form a functioning game.

Some patterns can become popular and find

themselves reused for different games. The

concept of balls as key gameplay tokens, for

instance, has proven to be very popular in

physical games and sports.

Many patterns rely on the regulations of the

environment in which they operate. Balls can

only work due to the Earth's gravity and

abundance of flat surfaces, and the rule pattern

"You cannot touch the ball with your hands"

works out only because humans possess varying

amounts of dexterity in their hands and feet.

The same can be said for rule design patterns in

video games as well. For instance, the concept of

charging owes a lot to the behavior of

pushbuttons, which maintains a particular state

while depressed.

It is possible to duplicate the rule design

patterns of physical play activities by

simulating the real world environment in digital

code, to the extent it is possible. On the other

hand, bringing patterns of computer games into

physical play is harder and often more costly,

since less freedom is granted to the designer in

the real world in regard to manipulating the

environment.

5.1.2.1. Rule Design Patterns in Morels

Pervasive Play provides an opportunity to

bring design patterns formerly confined to

computer games into physical play. Morels

implement a number of common rule design

patterns seen in computer games, but we

selected patterns with origins in real world

phenomena. This was done to make the

“porting” easy and to keep the technical

complexity to a minimum.

Charging, or keeping a button held down to

accumulate energy, has been used in various

video games. One early example of note is

R-TYPE, [19] a shoot-em-up game by Irem inc,

where the player's spaceship had the ability to

boost the power of its laser by holding the fire

button down until the on-screen charge meter

became full. Charging tempts the player with

10/22

strong attack at the cost of a temporary state of

vulnerability.

Radars, or the ability to detect nearby

entities that may not be necessarily visible from

line of sight, have increased in popularity since

the introduction of 3D graphics. Notable games

which feature them include Defender [20] by

Williams, the first game to feature a view of

off-screen objects, and the Metal Gear Solid [21]

stealth action game series by Konami Inc, as

well as many games in the flight simulation and

real-time strategy genres.

Chain Reactions, or one action by the

player becoming the catalyst to a series of

further happenings, can be seen in the

Bomberman [22] action game series by Hudson

inc., or the falling blocks game Puyo Puyo [23]

by Compile inc. and later Sega inc. (Known in

western markets as Puyo Pop.) Both games

differentiated themselves from other similar

games by emphasizing the excitement of

head-to-head battles, where both players aim to

build large chains, setting off huge attacks

against their opponent.

Power proportional to Distance, or

attacks dealing more damage when the player is

in close proximity to the target, has been

implemented in various shoot-em-up games. The

element invites players to take risks in return

for greater damage.

5.1.3. Miscellaneous Notes

In addition to the aforementioned traits of

Pervasive Informal Ludic Activities and Digital

Rule Design Patterns, we focused on the

following aspects in the design of Morel.

Playable Anywhere. A common problem

with pervasive games is that they cannot be

played in random locations without advance

arrangements, due to their steep requirements

of data about the play area and/or special

hardware equipments. We aimed to minimize

this problem in designing Morel. By making

them portable, and having them communicate

with other units of the same type, we were able

to avoid making assumptions and increased

reliance on the environment.

Physical First. It follows from the above

focus of being able to play anywhere that Morels

would be played outside in open spaces. We took

care in having the device accommodate large

kinetic actions by the player, such as throwing

or kicking.

The core behavior of Morels were determined

by first designing a hypothetical prototype game

(explained in section 6.1.1,) designing a device

for use with that game, then generalizing its

features to encourage transformative play and

emergent behavior.

5.2. Implementation

5.2.1. Mechanics

The functions of Morel are embedded within

the Morel Core, a small box located in the center

of Morel's soft outer shell. It contains an acrylic

tube with a short spring-loaded wooden rod

inside, locked into place by a metallic lever. The

lever is connected by wire to a motor, which can

roll the wire up to pull the lever. When the lever

is sufficiently pulled, it lets go of the

spring-loaded rod, letting the rod launch out of

the casing. The launching mechanism takes

inspiration from the mechanism used Kurohige

Kiki Ippatsu, [24] a classic party game common

in Japan released from Tomy, Co. Ltd. in 1975.

Figure 15. The Morel Core, Closed.

11/22

Figure 16. The Morel Core, Opened.

The lid of the core is kept slightly open with a

smaller set of springs. The lid closes only when

the Morel is squeezed. Closing the lid will

trigger a built-in switch, notifying the module to

send a query signal instead of a vicinity signal.

Spring

Rod

Acrylic Tube

Release Lever

Microcontroller,

Wireless moduleBatteries

Outer Shell(Urethane)

Motor

gearbox

Figure 17. Morel Core and Shell Diagram.

To prevent the core casing from slipping out of

the outer shell, a band of rubber is wrapped

around the Morel’s shell. The band is attached

to the bottom of the core case, and has a hole

punched open so that the wooden rod can extend

through. The band also serves as a flexible

handle for the player to hold the Morel.

5.2.2. Electronics

In the current iteration, the motor, wireless

communications and several other devices are

controlled through the PROTO1BOARD, a

circuit board that contains an AVR

ATmega128L microcontroller and a CC2420

ZigBee wireless communications chip with an

embedded antenna. The program is written in C.

The Morel program utilizes the MOXA library, a

software library that provides simplified access

to specific features on the PROTO1BOARD such

as serial and wireless communications.

Figure 18. The PROTO1BOARD.

In addition to the PROTO1BOARD, the Morel

core also houses a secondary circuit board to

augment features that the PROTO1BOARD

does not provide. This board contains a

TA7267P motor driver IC, a 7806 regulator IC

and a set of I/O connections to other devices

contained within the core, such as the power

switch, battery, motor, and speaker. The circuit

and the motor are powered by a single 9V 006P

battery.

5.3. Behavior Morels operate in five modes: Out of range,

Within range, Charging, Fully charged, and

Launching. We will cover each of the modes in

detail.

Figure 19. Behavioral Diagram of a Morel’s

Internal Modes.

12/22

5.3.1. Out of range

When first turned on, the Morel enters the

Out of range mode. In this mode, the Morel

constantly emits "vicinity" radio signals to find

other Morels in its vicinity. When the Morel

receives such a signal from another Morel, it

returns an "acknowledgment" message, and

upon receiving the acknowledge signal the

Morel switches into Within range mode.

If the Morel is squeezed in order to charge

other Morels during this mode, it will emit a

short "error" sound to remind the player that no

Morel nearby can be found. If it is squeezed in

any other mode, it will either send a “query”

signal (or a “launch” signal, if there is a fully

charged Morel nearby) to all other Morels in the

vicinity.

5.3.2. Within range

When the Morel is receiving a “vicinity” signal

from another Morel, but nothing beyond that is

happening, the Morel stays in this mode. It will

stay in this mode as long as it keeps receiving

"acknowledgment" signals in response to its

"vicinity" signals. If it fails to receive the

"acknowledge" signal for a set number of times,

it will fall back to Out of range mode; on the

other hand, if it receives a "query" signal from a

nearby squeezed Morel, it will switch to

Charging mode.

The Morel will emit a short distinguishable

melody every time it switches into the Within

range mode, or drops back to Out of range mode.

These sounds can be used by the player to figure

out the radio range of the Morel, which is

otherwise not perceivable.

5.3.3. Charging

When the Morel is receiving a “query” signal

from another Morel, the Morel enters Charging

mode. For each query signal received, the Morel

increments its internal charge value variable by

a set amount. The amount is proportional to the

radio strength of the received signal. Therefore,

the closer the sending Morel, and stronger the

signal is, the faster the receiving Morel charges.

The processing of query signals stack up, so

having two Morels nearby both sending query

signals will result in a faster charge.

During this mode, the Morel will emit a

continuous noise that rises in pitch as its charge

value rises. Players can have a grasp of the

current charge level and speed by listening to

the pitch of the sound and the rate in which its

pitch rises.

5.3.4. Fully Charged

When the charge value variable of the Morel

exceeds a set amount, it enters Fully Charged

mode. The sound will change to a repeating

wailing siren tone, which can be clearly

discerned from the charging noise. The tone

repeats until the Morel either leaves the radio

range of other Morels, or is launched.

5.3.5. Launching

Finally, when the Morel in the Fully Charged

mode receives a launch signal, it will enter

Launching mode and will immediately start the

launch sequence. The sound changes to a single

high-pitched tone, and the internal motor is

activated to set off the spring-loaded rod. The

actual launch occurs several seconds after the

high-pitched tone starts to play. The tone serves

as a warning for the player to remove her face or

other vulnerable body parts away from the

“muzzle.”

6. Evaluation and Play In the following section, we will discuss the

methods of evaluation we used in the

development of Morel, and the feedback results

of each evaluation. The results range from

questionnaire feedback to the emergence of new

game rules for use with Morels.

6.1. Test 1: Flash Prototype On December 20, 2005, before we developed

the actual Morel hardware devices, we carried

out a preliminary playtest of its concepts using a

mock-up implementation of Morel’s behavior.

The mock-up was built with a laptop computer

running an application built in Flash, and a

13/22

Bluetooth wireless mouse. The mock-up

application implemented the basic behavior of

Morel by playing sounds when it detected mouse

movement, which consequently was when the

wireless mouse was within the laptop’s radio

range. It began charging and making sounds

when the mouse button is held down, and

displayed a large “Popped!” message onscreen

when the mouse button was let go after the

program reached full charge.

The behavior of launching differed slightly

from the current revision in this first prototype.

Figure 20. Prototype Flash Application.

The playtest was carried out by having

players place the laptop on the ground, and

moving around in real space while holding the

wireless mouse. The laptop served as the

placeholder for the receiver Morel, while the

wireless mouse was for the sender Morel. While

this setup did not allow mutual launches or

kinetic actuation, it successfully served as a

rough approximation of the actual hardware

that was yet to be built at the time.

In the playtest, participants played a game

named Cops & Bomber, a game we designed to

play using Morels.

6.1.1. The Prototype Game: Cops & Bomber

Cops & Bomber (originally dubbed Infiltrator)

is the “default” game that we designed the

functions of Morel for players to use. It combines

elements from outdoor games such as Kick the

Can or Cops & Robbers with Morel's

functionality of range detection and remote

launching.

Figure 21. Morel Prototype Cops & Bomber

Playtest.

6.1.1.1. Basic Rules

Players divide into two sides. The cops side

holds many players, while the bomber side

consists of a single player. Each side owns a

single Morel. The bomber carries his Morel with

him, and the Cops team keeps their Morel in a

fixed, stationary location.

The bomber’s objective is to get within the

radio range of the cops’ Morel and launch it. The

cops’ objective is to prevent this by physically

tagging the bomber. The twist is the additional

rule that states where the players can tag or be

tagged. The bomber can only be tagged by the

cops while he is inside the radio vicinity of the

cops’ Morel, while the bomber can tag the cops

while he is out of the cop Morel’s range. The

game ends if the bomber successfully launches

the cops’ Morel, the bomber is captured, or the

bomber tags all the cop players.

6.1.1.2. Dilemmas

The bomber has an incentive to approach the

cops’ Morel, however he also bears the risk of

capture if he does so in a blatant manner. The

cops, while having strength in numbers, are

vulnerable in all but one location in the play

field (the vicinity of the cops’ Morel.) Players in

both teams must be aware of which area they

are currently in, and take mental notes of the

14/22

signal strengths of the cops’ Morel to figure out

their “safe zones” or “danger zones.”

6.1.1.3. Strategy

At the beginning of the game, the cops can

either elect to place their Morel in a hidden

location where the bomber will have a hard time

finding, or in an obviously clear place, which will

act as a bait to lure the bomber into open space.

The bomber has two strategic options as well.

He can either take the stealth approach, trying

to launch the cops’ Morel from an undetected

but within-range location, or take a blitz

approach and quickly launch the Morel before

the cops can react.

6.1.2. Findings

Contrary to expectations before the playtest

that players would engage in stealth tactics,

players tended to frequently confront each other

and teeter at the invisible edge of the radio

range, where the roles of the capturer and the

captured were to be reversed. After some time of

facing off each other, one side would break the

equilibrium by making a dash, which the other

team then followed. We learned that some

additional rules may be required to balance the

game some more, as the game in its current

state allows for the cop players to form a human

wall around their Morel and bring the game to a

stalemate.

Aside from the Cops & Bomber game, it was

interesting to see that emergent behavior could

already be observed at this early stage. Between

games, players were passing the wireless mouse

around each other while keeping the mouse

button held, to see who would end up holding

the mouse when the charge went full.

We received a suggestion from one of the test

participants to require an additional click before

the launch would occur. Through consideration,

we decided that this model would contain better

potential in the improvisation of rules. By

separating the charging with the launch signal,

it becomes possible to charge a Morel first and

then carry it to another location while it is still

fully charged, but not yet launching. This

behavior was later built into the hardware

version of Morel. It allowed games like

Quickdraw and Fugitives, which we will explain

in sections 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 respectively, to

develop.

6.1.2.1. The “Sense of Radio”

We have found that after being exposed to

Morel and playing for a while, players develop

what can be described as a virtual “sixth sense”

which piggybacks on the sense of sound, that is,

the sense of radio.

The connection between radio and aural cues

that Morels make seems arbitrary and random

at first, but as the player learns the relation

between the sounds and the radio situation of

the Morels, the sounds eventually become

second nature as to what is currently

happening.

6.2. Test 2: Two players We held the first playtest with actual Morel

hardware on October 17, 2006. There were five

participants, however due to time constraints

only two were present together at a time.

Participants had advance knowledge of the basic

behavior of Morels. We handed the Morels to

them, and observed the actions they took.

At the time of this playtest, Morels charged at

a fixed speed, regardless of the signal strength

of the squeezed Morel’s query messages.

Through this playtest, a group of participants

came up with a simple two-player game called

Quickdraw.

6.2.1. Developed Game: Quickdraw

Quickdraw is a game for two players using

two Morels. It is a variant of the game of

Chicken, with an additional twist at the end.


Two players each hold their own Morels. On

the calling of the start of the game, both players

immediately squeeze on their Morel, trying to

charge up and launch each other's Morel first.

15/22

Eventually, one will reach full charge status

faster than the other, and will begin the launch

sequence once it is triggered. When this happens,

the player carrying the soon-to-launch Morel

attempts to pin her Morel against the other

player, while the other player tries to run from

it.

The game ends when the Morel goes off and

releases its spring-loaded rod. The player with

the launched Morel wins if she manages to have

her Morel pushed against the other player in the

moment it went off, poking him with the rod.

The other player wins if he successfully evades

the launching player and the rod hits nothing

but air.

Figure 22. Quickdraw Gameplay.

6.2.1.2. Dilemmas

Both players need to be aware of the states of

both Morels, which can be hard since both are

close together and making sounds at the same

time. When a Morel reaches full charge state,

the players must immediately recognize which

is the one that did, whether it is the opponent’s

or not, and start the squeeze/escape or pursuit

accordingly, all in a split second.

6.2.1.3. Strategy

For the escaping player, it can be

advantageous to start running first and squeeze

afterwards instead of the other way around.

This way, she can get a head start in her escape

if the chasing player was waiting for the launch

sound as his cue to decide his actions.

6.2.2. Findings

With the actual hardware in play, the largest

difference from the previous test was the fact

that both of the two Morels could be picked up,

moved, charged and launched, instead of being

one-way. We frequently observed scenes where

participants were running after one another,

both persons carrying Morels, and with one

trying to launch the other.

During the playtest, there were times when

the Morel Core slipped out of the soft outer shell.

We also received feedback from a participant

saying that he could not hear the target Morel’s

charging sound when he was standing far from

it but still within its range.

Drawing upon the feedback and the game

structure of Quickdraw, we subsequently made

the following modifications to the behavior of

Morels:

• We made the squeezed Morels

themselves to make sounds in addition to

the nearby charging Morels. This sound

was made to be distinguishable from the

charging sound.

• We changed the charging speed to be

inversely proportional to the signal

strength of the squeezed Morel.

• We added a rubber belt to the Morel Core

encircling the soft outer shell, to prevent

people from inadvertently having the

Morel Core drop out.

6.3. Test 3: Four players We held a playtest with four participants and

two Morels in November 9, 2006. Participants

had advance knowledge of the basic behavior of

Morels. We handed the Morels to them, and

observed the actions they took. A team-based

game called Fugitives emerged out of the test.

6.3.1. Developed Game: Fugitives

Fugitives is a game for two teams of players

using two Morels. Its rules are more complicated

than that of the two-player Quickdraw, with

elements of ball-based sports and chasing games

16/22

both existing within the rules. The rules share

some commonalities with the earlier Cops &

Bomber, however in Fugitives the game is a

conflict of many versus many. A notable

characteristic that the game shares with Cops &

Bomber is that the two teams have different

goals, making the conflict asymmetric.

Figure 23. Fugitives Gameplay.


Players divide into two teams, the fugitives

and the pursuers. Each team carries a single

Morel. The carriers of the Morels are not fixed.

The fugitives team tries to avoid having their

Morel carrier ("fugitive carrier") physically

tagged, while trying to charge and launch the

pursuer team's Morel. The pursuer team tries to

have their Morel carrier ("pursuer carrier") tag

the fugitive carrier, while trying to avoid having

their Morel charged up and launched. The game

ends when either team's objective has been met.

6.3.1.2. Dilemmas

The fugitive carrier has an incentive to avoid

being close to the purser carrier, since her team

will lose if she is tagged by the pursuer carrier.

However, going too far away from the pursuer

carrier has negative effects as well. While doing

so will keep the fugitive carrier safe from defeat,

it will also deny her victory, since the fugitive

team's goal is to launch the pursuer Morel –

which is not possible if the fugitive carrier

moves out of the pursuer Morel's radio range.

The pursuer carrier, on the other hand, has an

incentive to approach the fugitive carrier, since

his goal is to physically tag her. This has to be

done swiftly though, as the closer the pursuer

carrier gets to the fugitive Morel, the faster the

rate of charging becomes.

6.3.1.3. Strategy

Passing plays an important role in Fugitives,

both for the fugitive and pursuer teams. Since

defeat for the fugitive team happens only if the

person who got tagged was carrying the Morel at

the time, the fugitive carrier can avoid losing by

throwing his/her Morel to another team member

and becoming a non-carrier. This can only be

used for defense, though, as the Morel cannot be

kept squeezed while being thrown.

For the pursuer team, an important strategy

is resetting the Morel's charge to zero to avoid

launch. A Morel resets its charge value

whenever it goes out of the ranges of others.

Temporarily throwing the pursuer Morel to a

team member out of range, and immediately

having it thrown back, becomes a vital move.

6.3.2. Findings

Fugitives was a Morel game with by far the

most depth and strategic possibilities. We

recognized that an increase in the number of

players could boost the complexity of gameplay

significantly. Passing Morels between players,

in particular, added a new dimension to the

gameplay.

On the other hand, participants also noted

what may happen if all players carried Morels of

their own. The situation would enable

large-scale free-for-all style games in addition to

the current team-based ones. The possibility of

such games remains to be explored.

Again drawing from the feedback, we built two

additional Morel devices after the test. The total

number was brought up to four.

6.4. Test 4: Many Children On January 6 and 7, 2007, we carried out a

test to evaluate various children’s reactions to

Morels, at the Shonandai Culture Center

Children’s Museum. We used four Morels for

17/22

this test, all out in the play area at the same

time.

Figure 24. Instructional Panel Used at

January 2007 Playtest.

At this test, in addition to observing the

participants’ behaviors, we also requested

participants to fill in a questionnaire form. The

criteria for the form are as follows:

• Entertainment. Were the acts of play

using Morels fun and entertaining?

• Creativity. Did playing with Morels

inspire the participant to make use of

them in new ways? Does it have the

potential to be used in new ways?

• Cooperation. Did playing with Morels

with multiple people cause the

participant to notice things that she

would not have otherwise?

• Operation. Were Morels were easy to

use?

• Reliabilit y. Did the Morels work

reliably?

• Overall. How satisfied was the

participant overall?

We designed the questionnaire sheet with

icons, drawing upon the design used in Yutaro

Ohashi’s research in interactive learning toys,

[25] so that participants of varying age and

literacy shall be able to comprehend the

questions being asked. The answer fields used

icons of faces instead of words or numbers, in

order to reduce the possibility of error for young

children.

Figure 25. Questionnaire Sheet.

6.4.1. Participants

Due to time constraints and safety concerns,

the test was held inside the Children’s Museum

building. The evaluations were made mainly by

children visiting the children’s museum. The

playtest booth was located near the museum

lobby, where visitors usually gathered to rest or

have lunch breaks. Participants who caught

notice of Morels in the area were invited to play

with them, and fill in a questionnaire form

18/22

afterwards. The time of experiencing Morels for

each participant ranged from 10 to 30 minutes.

Across the two-day course of the playtest, we

were able to obtain questionnaire feedback from

35 individuals in total.

The details of the participants’ demographics

are as follows:

Figure 26. Participant Gender Graph.

Gender Samples

(Percentage)

Male 15 (42.8%)

Female 20 (57.1%)

Total 35 (100%)

Figure 27. Participant Gender Table.

Figure 28. Participant Age Graph.

Age Samples

(Percentage)

3 1 (2.9%)

4 3 (8.6%)

5 1 (2.9%)

6 9 (25.7%)

7 8 (22.9%)

8 5 (14.3%)

9 3 (8.6%)

10 4 (11.4%)

11 1 (2.9%)

Total 35 (100%)

Figure 29. Participant Age Table.

6.4.2. Observed Behavior

Figure 30. Playtesting by Children.

Development of organized rules were not

observed, presumably mainly due to the nature

of the playtest in that only a few participants

were present at any given time. However,

participants adapted quickly to Morels’

behaviors once they were shown what the

devices did.

Emergent Behavior: After comprehending

the behavior of Morels, children initially played

by picking up a Morel and trying to launch the

others with it. When multiple children were

handling multiple Morels, however, some of

them could be seen exhibiting behavior not seen

alone:

19/22

• Getting surprised when the Morel they

are holding begins to charge, when they

thought they were the ones who were

sending the charge

• Moving their heads close to individual

Morels to discern which Morel the sound

they are hearing is coming from

Transformative Play: Several ways of

using Morels emerged during playtesting, some

that we anticipated in advance and some that

we did not. The former occurred when a child

placed a Morel on the ground upside down, then

attempted to stack another Morel on top of it,

right side up.

The latter occurred when a pair of children, a

brother and a sister, began holding Morels in a

horizontal manner by using the stabilizing belt

as a handle. They were pretending to use them

like a gun, having the other child charge and

launch them.

Figure 31. Shotgun Make-Believe Play.

6.4.3. Questionnaire Results

The questionnaire received generally good

feedback in entertainment value, ease of

operation, reliability and overall satisfaction.

Negative feedbacks were seen in the creativity

and cooperation criteria, however. This partly

owes to the large number of individuals who

visited the museum without their friends, and

experienced Morel alone. Participants who

answered negatively for creativity (creative

usage potential) also had generally answered

the questionnaire after a relatively short time

with the device; Most participants who played

longer, generally more than 10 minutes, began

developing at least one way to use Morels.

Figure 32. Questionnaire Evaluation

Results.

Some comments include:

• “I couldn’t figure out how they worked,

but it was fun.” (7 years old, male)

• “I wanted to play by putting it in front of

a door.” (6 years old, male)

• “Playing with wireless communications

was fun. It was very curious. I want to do

it again.” (8 years old, female)

• “It was like a robot, very fun.” (10 years

old, female)

• “The ‘beep’ sound and the jumping were

fun.” (8 years old, male)

• “I want them to have faces. It would be

nice if the sounds they made were

talking voices.” (11 years old, female)

We were able to find indications of enjoyment

in virtually every comment made by

participants.

6.4.3.1. Questionnaire Analysis

In writing the questionnaire questions, we

had a hypothesis regarding the general

tendency of participants: “Morels are social by

design, due to its characteristic of requiring

more than one entity to function at all.

Therefore, overall satisfaction should be reliant

on the number of players involved in the play.”

20/22

We performed a regression analysis between

the questionnaire answers for the Cooperation

and Overall Satisfaction factors.

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.623956303

R2 0.389321468

Adjusted R2 0.370816058

Standard Error 0.553769881

Observations 35

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 6.4516 6.4516 21.0383 6.2002E-05

Residual 33 10.1198 0.3067

Total 34 16.5714

Coefficients

Coefficients

Standard

Error t Stat

Intercept 3.6037 0.2308 15.6127

Cooperation 0.3226 0.0703 4.5867

P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 8.43725E-17 3.1341 4.0733

Cooperation 6.2002E-05 0.1795 0.4657

Figure 33. Regression Analysis for Cooperation and Overall Satisfaction.

Through the analysis, we found a moderate fit

of 0.39 for R2. We then attempted to reject the

null hypothesis at a significance level of 1%. We

learned that the P-value is less than 0.01, and

the t stat for Cooperation is 4.5867, larger than

the t boundary of 2.733 at with 1% significance.

The null hypothesis could therefore be rejected.

We were able to confirm that Cooperation

affected Overall Satisfaction.

7. Conclusion and Future Work 7.1. Future Work

7.1.1. Hardware

In the future, we will develop a new version of

the Morel hardware to address limitations

existing in the current revision. Some of the

targets include a better aesthetic appearance for

the shell, a smaller form factor for the core,

better reliability by simplifying the internal

structure, and allowing the core to operate on a

set of standard AA batteries instead of the

current setup with the less common 9V battery.

7.1.2. Software

The software is currently written in C,

specifically for the AVR microcontroller. We will

port the code over to the Talktic virtual machine

programming environment, [26] developed by

Yoshimasa Niwa of Keio University. We expect

moving to Talktic, which is based on

ECMAScript, will make the code more easily

portable to other hardware platforms. Another

possibility we are looking into is a web-based

online Flash demonstration of Morel, reusing

ECMAScript code from the Talktic version.

7.1.3. Gameplay

We wish to hold playtests in higher numbers

and frequencies, in order to obtain more

information on player behavior and how they

will play with Morels, along with rulesets for

more new games. In particular, we still lack

observational information on the behavior of

children in situations of play with

non-fluctuating members, longer durations, and

outdoor environments.

The eventual goal is to compile a book of game

rules and play ideas to distribute along with the

21/22

Morels themselves. Much like the instructions

that come with a LEGO set, the rulebook shall

serve as a guide to kick-start play with “default”

suggestions on how to play. However, like the

LEGO instructions, the book should also

encourage players to twist, modify and subvert

the rules, and devise their own ways to play.

7.2. Conclusion Morel proposes a new kind of physical, casual

gameplay, where digital devices are fused with

old-style physical play in an intuitive way. With

no screens to read off of and no buttons to push,

it allows for players to focus on their physical

reality, yet do so in extended ways that were

impossible with playthings of the past.

Through playtesting and evaluation, we were

able to confirm the emergence of many new

kinds of play behaviors. We hope for Morel to

become one of the first of many playthings of its

kind.

8. Achievements • Exhibited Morel in the demo session of

ACM SIGCHI ACE 2006 International

Conference on Advances in Computer

Entertainment, Hollywood, USA, June

14-16, 2006

• Adopted for the 2006 Taikichiro Mori

Research Advancement Fund with the Research Project “Real World

Entertainment Contents for Children’s

Outdoor Play”

9. Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to my

supervisors, Professors Masa Inakage, Yasuto

Nakanishi and Kenji Kohiyama for their advice

and guidance.

I would like to thank the Shonandai Culture

Center Children’s Museum, for their cooperation

in providing playtest spaces and times. I would

also like to thank Hiroki Aramaki, Hiroki

Azuma, Yuichiro Katsumoto, Yoshiyuki Kubo,

Kengo Morooka, Yoshimasa Niwa, Yutaro

Ohashi, Takeshi Osawa, Midori Shibutani, Aya

Shigefuji, Yoshiro Sugano, Eric Taylor, Atsuro

Ueki, Eri Watanabe, Shohei Yamada, Shingo

Yoshida and everyone in the Keio University

Inakage Lab for their cooperation, feedback and

ideas in writing this paper.

This project has been granted by the CREST

project of the Japan Science and Technology

Agency (JST).

10. Supplemental Materials The supplemental CD-ROM contains:

• Video footage from Playtest 1 (December

20, 2005)

• Demonstration Video for submission to

ACM SIGCHI ACE 2006 conference

• Video footage from Playtest 2 (October 17,

2006)

• Photographs and Videos from Playtest 4

(January 6-7, 2007)

• The PDF data of this paper

11. References [1] Kenji Iguchi, Tomoki Saso, and Masa

Inakage, Little Red MR: Storytelling in

Mixed Reality, SIGGRAPH 2003 Conference

Abstracts and Applications, 2003.

[2] Kenji Iguchi, Tomoki Saso, and Masa

Inakage, Veggie Diaries: Urban Mobile MR

Entertainment, SIGGRAPH 2004 Conference


[3] Saaya Itabashi, Kenji Iguchi, and Masa

Inakage, Hako-ne: An Augmented Musical

Dollhouse, SIGGRAPH 2005 Conference


[4] New York University Interactive

Telecommunications graduate program.

Pac-Manhattan, Retrieved December 29,

2006 from http://www.pacmanhattan.com/

[5] Steve Benford, Andy Crabtree, Martin

Flintham, Adam Drozd, Rob Anastasi, Mark

Paxton, Nick Tandavanitj, Matt Adams, Ju

Row-Farr, Can You See Me Now?, ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human

22/22

Interaction (TOCHI), Volume 13 Issue 1,

March 2006.

[6] Mathew Chalmers, Marek Bell, Malcolm

Hall., Scott Sherwood, Paul Tennent,

Seamful Games, Adjunct Proceedings of the

Fourth International Conference on

Ubiquitous Computing (UBICOMP 02),

Göteborg, Sweden, September 29 - October 1,

2002.

[7] Bandai, Co. Ltd., Tamagotchi, Retrieved

January 11, 2007, from

http://www.tamagotchi.com/

[8] Satoru Tokuhisa, Yoshimasa Niwa, Kenji

Iguchi, Sosuke Okubo, Tomoyuki Nezu, Masa

Inakage, OTOTONARI: A Pervasive Game of

Sound Composition based on Users’

Collaboration, Future Play 2006, London,

Canada, 10-12 October, 2006.

[9] Active People International, Bilibo, Retrieved

January 1, 2007 from http://www.bilibo.com/

[10] The LEGO Group, LEGO products, Retrieved

January 13, 2007 from http://www.lego.com/

[11] Johann Huizinga, Homo Ludens, trans.

Motoichiro Satomi, Kawade Shobo, 1974.

[12] Roger Caillois, Les Jeux et Les Hommes,

trans. Michitaro Tada and Mikio Tsukasaki,

Kodansha, 1990.

[13] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, Rules of

Play, The MIT Press, 2004.

[14] Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of

Cyberspace, pp.86-95, Basic Books, 2000.

[15] Paul Dourish, Where The Action Is: The

Foundations Of Embodied Interaction,

Bradford Books, 2004.

[16] Valve Corporation, Half-Life 2, Retrieved

January 12, 2007 from

http://www.half-life2.com/

[17] Linden Lab, Second Life, Retrieved January

12, 2007 from http://secondlife.com/

[18] Janet Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck, New

York: The Free Press, 1997.

[19] Irem Software Engineering Inc., R-TYPE,

Retrieved January 11, 2007 from

http://www.irem.co.jp/official/r/index.html

[20] Williams Electronics, Inc., Defender,


http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=

D&game_id=7547

[21] Konami Digital Entertainment, Co. Ltd.,

Metal Gear Solid, Retrieved January 11,

2007 from http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/

[22] Hudsonsoft, Inc., Bomberman, Retrieved

January 11, 2007 from

http://www.hudsonentertainment.com/

[23] Sega, Inc., Puyo Puyo, Retrieved January 11,

2007 from http://puyo.sega.jp/

[24] Tomy Company, Ltd., Kurohige Kiki Ippatsu,


http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/kurohi

ge/

[25] Yutaro Ohashi, The Research of Learning

Environment Design in Real World Using

Information Technology and Durable

Learning Flow, Masters Paper, Keio

University Graduate School of Media and

Governance, 2006.

[26] Yoshimasa Niwa, Talktic: The Contents

Development Environment for Pervasive

Computing, Masters Paper, Keio University

Graduate School of Media and Governance,

2007.

morel: remotely launchable playthings to facilitate new ... · 3.1. multiple morels morels can...

Documents