COMPUTER GAMES FOR THE REAL WORLD

Designing a Design Method for Site­Specific Computer Games

ERIK KRISTIANSEN

Ph.D. Thesis

Performance Design

Dept. of Communication, Business, and Information Technologies

Roskilde University

2009 PREFACE

This dissertation on the design of computer games for the real world is meant to show the path I followed during my design work, as well as presenting the field of study. This means that practical design work is interspersed with the necessary presentation of theory and discussions. This puts the material in a strict chronological order, which shows the sequence of the reflections I have made. However this also means that some subjects are spread over the text while others are kept together.

The pictures of the games and other illustrations are all provided by myself, unless otherwise stated. The web addresses are checked as per November 2009.

I would like to thank my colleagues at the visual communication and performance design research group (VISPER, Roskilde University) for many fruitful discussions over the past three years.

Many thanks to the many students who have worked with me, participated in my workshops, and played my games. Special thanks goes to Lise Iwanouv and Anne Bøgh for their effort on the game Klintespillet.

I would also like to thank professor Christoph Schlieder at the University of Bamberg, who kindly invited me to stay at the university during the spring of 2009. And to my German colleagues at the university who every week, in the most enjoyable manner, taught me the art of playing German board games.

My two supervisors Niels Erik Wille and Jan Pries­Heje have supplied lots of enthusiasm, support, critique and ideas for my work, for which I thank.

However, without the enduring support of my family, this thesis would never have seen the light.

The front page shows the Guide Psychogeographique de Paris: Discours Sur Les Passions D'Amour by Guy Debord (1957), published by Permild & Rosengreen, Copenhagen.

Roskilde University, November 2009

Erik Kristiansen

page 2 of 265 Contents 0 ABSTRACT...... 6

1 INTRODUCTION...... 7 1.1 Designing a Game for the Real World...... 7 1.2 Site­specific Games and Performance Design...... 14 1.3 From “GeoCaching” to “Mulighedernes Land”...... 16 1.4 Research Question...... 21 1.5 Conclusion...... 22

2 RESEARCH METHOD...... 24 2.1 Game Design...... 24 2.2 Pervasive Game Design Methods...... 26 2.3 Overview of Research Methods...... 27 2.4 Design Science Research...... 30 2.5 Developing the SSG­process and SSG­product...... 37 2.6 Research Plan...... 39 2.7 Evaluation...... 41 2.8 Conclusion...... 43

3 ITERATION I...... 44 3.1 Gainers N' Drainers...... 44 3.2 Klintespillet...... 50 3.3 Game Workshop...... 54 3.4 Conclusion...... 56

4 DEFINING SITE­SPECIFIC COMPUTER GAMES...... 58 4.1 “Bringing computer entertainment back to the real world”...... 58 4.2 Pervasive Games...... 64 4.3 Site­specific Computer Games ...... 69 4.4 Play and Game...... 71 What is Play?...... 71 The Magic Circle...... 76 Games as Open and Closed Systems...... 82 Pervasive Games and the Magic Circle...... 83 4.5 Conclusion...... 85

5 PLAYFUL PERFORMANCES...... 87 5.1 From Ritual to Performance...... 87 5.2 The Game Performance...... 90 5.3 Site­Specific Performances...... 93 5.4 Designing Site­specific Performances...... 102 5.5 Conclusion...... 106

6 EMBODIED DESIGN...... 108 6.1 Embodiment and HCI...... 108 6.2 Human Geography...... 109

page 3 of 265 6.3 Place­Specific Computing...... 110 6.4 Site­specific game design...... 111 6.5 Pervasive game design methods...... 114 6.6 Conclusion...... 119

7 DESIGNING THE DESIGN METHOD...... 120 7.1 The Game Affordance of Site...... 121 7.2 The Game Affordance of Locomotion...... 122 7.3 Creativity Methods for Game Design...... 124 7.4 Psychogeographie, Heterotopias and Tactics...... 128 7.5 A Manifesto for Site­specific Game Design...... 130 7.6 The Design Method...... 132 7.7 Evaluating the Conceptual Design...... 135 7.8 Conclusion...... 139

8 ITERATION II...... 141 8.1 Evaluating “Klintespillet”...... 141 8.2 Evaluating the Design Method...... 142 8.3 Revising the Design Method...... 143 8.4 Design Sessions...... 145 Method...... 145 Games Designed...... 148 8.5 Comparison Study...... 149 Observations from Play Tests...... 150 8.6 “CitySnake”...... 154 8.7 Conclusion...... 156

9 GAMERS LOVE PERFORMANCE...... 158 9.1 The Game Performance...... 158 9.2 The Site­Specific Game Performance...... 161 9.3 Pervasive Games or not?...... 166 9.4 Understanding The Game Performance...... 169 9.5 Conclusion...... 172

10 ITERATION III...... 174 10.1 Redesigning “Klintespillet”...... 174 10.2 Workshop on Pervasive Game Design...... 178 10.3 Conclusion...... 180

11 THE DESIGN OF SITE­SPECIFIC GAMES...... 182 11.1 Site­Specific Games...... 182 A Performance of Discovery...... 182 The Human Cursor Design...... 183 Heterotopias and Psychogeografie...... 184 11.2 Design Science Research...... 187 11.3 Disruptive Design...... 191

page 4 of 265 12 CONCLUSION...... 194 12.1 The Research Question...... 194 12.2 The Design Work...... 194 Iteration I...... 195 Iteration II...... 195 Iteration III...... 195 12.3 The Theory Behind...... 196 The Magic Circle...... 196 Place and Space...... 197 Creative Methods...... 197 The Site­specific Game Design Method...... 198 The Site­Specific Games...... 198 Disruptive Design...... 199 The Site­specific Game Performance...... 200 12.4 Future Research...... 201

13 REFERENCES...... 202 13.1 Creative Works...... 202 13.2 Bibliography...... 204

14 APPENDICES...... 216 14.1 A. Play test of “Gainers N' Drainers” ...... 216 14.2 B. “Klintespillet” ­ interview with lead writer...... 222 14.3 C. Play test of “Klintespillet” (first version)...... 229 14.4 D. Play test of “Klintespillet” (redesigned version)...... 235 14.5 E. Alternate Reality Game Design Workshop...... 237 14.6 F. Play test of “The Ball”...... 241 14.7 G. Play test of “City Amoeba” ...... 244 14.8 H. The Bamberg Design Sessions...... 247 Game design session 1...... 247 Game design session 2...... 253 Game design session 3...... 257 14.9 I. Site­specific Game Design Workshop...... 260 Games Designed...... 260 Evaluation of The Method...... 262

15 SUMMARY IN DANISH / DANSK RESUMÉ...... 264

page 5 of 265 0 ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on the design of site­specific games. These games are embodied games played in the city using pervasive technology. The field of site­specific games is established as a sub genre of pervasive games, as those games in which the site and the players locomotion play a particularly important role.

The thesis introduces the subject by looking at a failed site­specific game project. The project was conducted without using a design method, but shows that using a formalized design method might have saved the project. This seems particularly true for the early idea generation, and the thesis covers the theoretical background and practical work on designing a design method for the site­specific games.

Looking to other fields for inspiration, I turn to performance studies. It is shown that there is a tight link between the study of play, games, and performances, and that playing a site­ specific game can be understood as a special kind of performance. A branch of performance studies focuses on performances given outside the theatre, called the site­specific performances. On the basis of ideas from site­specific performance design, and situated design, a design method for site­specific games is developed.

The design method is based on a mission­style game with cards, and a creative way of exploring the city, called dérive, originating from the Situationist art movement. One important property of the design method is, that the design sessions take place in­situ. The design method is evaluated using design science research as a framework, through the idea of using both ex ante and ex post evaluations. Using a series of iterations, the design method is evolved through practical design sessions, game design, and game evaluation. The failed project from the introduction is redesigned into a working game using the design method. Evaluation of the design method shows that it supports early idea generation of site­specific games, and that designers found the method inspiring to work with. It also puts focus on the value of in­situ design for situated design problems.

page 6 of 265 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Designing a Game for the Real World

The case of “Klintespillet”

This post mortem is an adaptation of a post mortem (in Danish) written by the lead writer of the project (Lise Ivanouw) together with discussions on the game design with Lise and a number of notes and minutes done by her and Anne Bøgh on the various ideas, meetings and project days. The project held its first meetings (with the steering committee consisting of representatives from the Danish Forest and Nature Agency and the local museum, GeoCentre Møns Klint) in the fall of 2006. The major game design was developed in 2007. Implementation was done by a computer science student in the spring of 2008 in collaboration with me. The first play test was conducted in the summer of 2008.

Initially the different parties met and discussed various ideas and game types. The site is very special. The area is situated on the eastern coast of the island of Møn, 150km south of Copenhagen. The coast is dominated by more than 100m high chalk cliffs from which long winding stairs lead down to a narrow beach. A lot of fossils can be found in the chalk of the cliff. On top of the cliff a wood grows all the way to the edge of the cliff. The wood is very hilly and densely grown with beech. The museum (GeoCentre Møns Klint) tells the tale of the cliff using modern media, communicating aspects of geology, biology and art connected with the site. The museum opened in 2007 and is placed close to the edge of the cliff. The place is visited by many thousand tourists every year. The conclusion of these meetings ended with identifying the location of the game to the wood closing up to the museum. This is an area of approx. 1 km2, with hills, lakes, and dense wood. Part of the area is protected and could not be directly included in the game. The game was not allowed to use physical tags or other alterations of the site. This was a critical restriction. On

page 7 of 265 the technical side, there was no GSM coverage of the wood, when the project started, but a single mast was planned for the museum. This would probably give some GSM coverage and probably make it possible to use a game server. The game should be targeted at 13­15 year old children and be a novel nature experience in a game­like form. The museum wanted it to be part of their educational offers for schools. With these informal requirements and restrictions the project started on the conceptualization phase. This was done by a group of four students from performance design at Roskilde University and me. During the design we had endless discussions:

● Could the game use the stairs to the beach (498 steps each way)?

● Should it appear to be boring edutainment and then suddenly change content?

● Could the differences in the altitudes of the wood be used in the game?

● Should local myth and history be included in the game? This may have led to the idea of a narrative driven game.

We had many brainstorming sessions pointing towards a “sports”­like game requiring lots of physical activity, as the site seemed to invite physical activity.

Visiting the location (in January 2007): cold, snowy, windy, no leaves on the trees, many hills. Steep and slippery. The nature guide from the museum told us about the location: geology, botany, the slowly growing trees, the chalk cliff, the myths, the folklore, and the many strange and sometimes even violent events happening at the place. Sometimes part of the cliff falls into the sea. It has also happened that tourists fall of the cliff and die (more than 100m down).

It was clear that it would be problematic navigating in this terrain and at the same time looking at a screen. Ideas of reduced use of screen was therefore introduced.

Other game projects were inspiring, particularly the “Can You See Me Now”, “Prosopopeia” and the “This Is Not A Game” aesthetics of alternate reality games.

We wanted to engage both players and visitors at the museum. An idea of a screen at the

page 8 of 265 museum was introduced. This screen could show an ongoing play and perhaps let the visitors intervene in the game.

As the place was loaded with different stories in addition to the one we would introduce, an idea of a layered narrative emerged. We wanted an engaging game, that would teach the players about nature, but in a new way. It should not be a game about recognising flowers or other traditional e­learning. The game could start as a boring introduction to the place and then suddenly change into something different.

Taking into consideration the steep terrain with hills, ridges and valleys it was considered if it would be possible to arrange the game in a three layered narrative: one narrative for the upper parts (hills), one narrative for the middle, one narrative for the lower parts (valleys) of the terrain. The myth (connected with the cliff) should be the lowest level. Educational: middle level, myth world: upper level. Together with the idea of a narrative, the idea of the sound scape was introduced. This led to an auditory game concept, where the interface would be sounds and speak: radio­like audio, educational audio, eavesdropping mobile phones, people talking together. The idea was that the player would walk through the wood, hearing voices and sounds which fitted with the location of the player.

This required a manuscript. Further research was undertaken into the myths of the place. As it seemed difficult to know where to start, everybody ended up having a go, which didn't work at all. Eventually Lise took over as lead writer and started to produce a script based on some of the ideas of the group, but she also introduced new ideas. We needed a story that had taken place on different locations in the wood. The player would then have to uncover and understand the story by visiting the specific locations and hear the sound clips.

Anne did research into the target group. She found out that the target group is attracted to slightly scary stories. Also she introduced the idea of a role playing game. No one had any experience of role playing games.

Lise worked with creating different characters, trying not to present them as evil, but as just having different interests and thereby conflicts. The characters she developed had to be faithful

page 9 of 265 to our discussions and interesting for the target group. At the same time it was necessary to introduce new elements to the narrative.

The idea of a narrative based on levels was abandoned, because of the lack of precision from the GPS shown on location trials. Even at this stage the precise use of technology was not decided, but GPS was definitely going to be part of it.

When the idea of the narrative was decided, we wanted to use the idea of the interwoven stories of the levels from earlier. We decided using the stories about the king of the cliff, a mysterious sect who under cover of the museum is working on a serum to extend life, and a ambitious female mayor who wanted the cliff turned into a wellness centre. These stories would meet the design requirements of:

– the target group (research showed that this age group is fond of scary stories)

– human understanding of nature (access, use, preservation)

– a biological subject (genome manipulation)

– non­traditional e­learning

The idea was that through this narrative the children could be engaged in a discussion on various topics, e.g. how to administer nature (or should we just build a hotel?), genome manipulation (though advanced, could be discussed either on a biological or political level) and the history or myths of the place. We had earlier noted that the nature guides of the museum are very concerned about presenting the place, not only as some geological artefact, but as an entity, consisting of nature, people, stories, and the use of the cliff through the ages. With these themes, although still somewhat vague, research on death, life extension serum, myths of the cliff etc. was conducted. When writing the script, Lise used the idea of “don't show it, but tell it.” This we hoped would help the story flow in a more natural way, we hoped. It was important to make the story engaging, all the way through.

One thing we thought engaging was the use of sound. We wanted the player to experience himself as present in the story—as if the cell phone was some magic machine which let the player hear the recorded sounds of a horrible deed. Sometimes the player should feel he was

page 10 of 265 overhearing a discussion, sometimes he heard a radio interview, sometimes just strange sounds.

The problem of making the story site­specific now turned up. We had previously visited the wood and located some places, which were interesting. But we needed more. Several tests were conducted on the site, and some calculations done. If the game should only engage the players through sound, and the game should take 1 or 2 hours to play, we needed a lot of sound, and a lot of places in the wood. It was an important design proposition, that a player should feel that he often heard a sound, for example at least every five minutes. This meant that a player could visit 12 hotspots in an hour and 24 in two hours. We ended up by using 29 hotspots, but it was difficult finding 29 different places in a dense wood. All the places should ideally be interesting, engaging, noteworthy, and connected directly to the story. This posed a problem as the wood more or less looked the same all over. Some hotspots were very good, others indistinct. Maps with the hotspots were made and on each hotspot a short 360 degrees movie was made showing the properties of the place. To overcome the problem with the sequence of the stories, we devised the following system. The narrative was written as small bits, all referring to the basic conspiracy story, which was partly developed before the script was written. The bits all reflected the basic conspiracy in different ways and could almost be enjoyed in any sequence and also without hearing them all. Some of the bits were however designed to be heard earlier than others, and some later. The earlier bits were placed closer to the starting point, while the later ones were placed at the back of the wood. Then the players should have heard at least part of the story before reaching the concluding bits.

At this time, a software mock­up was made. It allowed testing the idea of hearing sounds in the wood and how to find them using the GPS. It was also tested how large the hotspots should be. They should be easy to find, but they should not overlap. The GPS­signal was sometimes weak, which posed a problem. At this point GSM became available in the wood, and we hoped we could make a multi player game.

In the end some of the places turned out to be useless and other places which fitted the story were found as replacements. The videos proved helpful in fitting the story to the place. Even though the wood was special, we needed places that could be identified, for example: monuments, unusual trees, crossroads, special hills, openings in the wood, lakes or similar

page 11 of 265 special places. A few was OK, but this wood, although special did not provide sufficient easily recognisable places on which we could build a story. There are no monuments (only parts of a fortification, which we were not allowed to use) and no special trees which could identify a place. The two lakes were used, but they were situated in an area with bad GPS­signal. The old hotel next to the museum was used, as was two openings in the wood. But the site had difficulties in supporting the story.

Some places had to be abandoned due to bad GPS signal, meaning that the exact place was impossible to find again, this led the script to use a more imprecise language. You could not rely on the players being at the exact spot at all the places, but within a distance of 50m at some of the places.

To make the game flow, we decided that the sound clips should should be quite short, meaning 30­60 secs. We thought that longer sounds would be problematic, because you had to be silent when listening. Tests showed that walking in the wood while suddenly hearing strange tales was working and indeed compelling. It was engaging, sometimes even spooky. But an auditory game posed new problems. The museum would like to use the game for teams (otherwise the children would get lost in the wood). How do you play an auditory game in teams? Either the teams members (3­5) should be fitted with bluetooth headsets (if that is possible at all), or the built­in speakers should be used. The latter was chosen and worked quite well. It also required the team to stay together. A “replay” button was introduced.

During the script design, we also realised that we did only rely on the engaging nature of the narrative, and that we did not have much interaction going on. Where was the game? Also the myths were a problem. The stories were difficult to integrate in the otherwise modern narrative. To make the game more interactive we introduced the idea of “ghosts”. Inspired by the narrative where a woman dies, and a person disappears in the museum, we designed the game so the ghosts would be controlled by players at the museum. They would play the game as a kind of arcade game, with a screen showing the positions of the teams playing in the wood. They were able to control their avatar with cursor keys and approach the players in thee wood. The players in the wood would then hear a ghost­sound when the ghost appeared. We would not like to give away that the ghosts were played by other players, but we needed a way

page 12 of 265 they could interact. We solved this by introducing that the ghosts could “send” pre­recorded sounds which the players in the wood would then hear. This provided a limited way of interaction between ghosts a the players in the wood. To create a sense of presence the ghosts players should be able to listen in on the teams sound, and also to watch photos the team made. This suggested that the team in the wood should document their game using photos. The photos were to be shown on the screen in the museum.

The script was extended with 4 ghosts: the woman of the sect, the nature guide of the museum, a little girl from a myth, and a last ghost, which was later discarded. The task of the ghosts was to guide the players in the wood to a specific place where the players had to do a kind of performance. They would document the performance with a photo, which the ghost eventually would accept.

As we wanted the players to be on the move all the time, and as we needed general communication to be given (welcome message, what to do..., the game is over etc.), we promoted the cliff king (“Klintekongen”) the task of acting as a kind of game master. At the start of the game and during the game, he would encourage the players with hints and information. He would also tell the players if they went outside his kingdom (= the game area), and when the game was over. His sounds were scheduled according to time, so that we knew that players would receive the information spread over the game.

Anne undertook the big task of finding voices (not paid), doing instruction, recording using a “magical” studio hidden in Copenhagen, and eventually mixing the sounds into usable audio that could fit and be played on a mobile. The sounds took up 70Mb in wave format.

We had had a few meetings with the museum staff and representatives of the Department of Forest and Nature Agency. They were clearly expecting a turn­key solution of a game, which we knew would be difficult, if not impossible. We wanted the museum to develop the “frame” into which the game should be used. That is, how should the game be presented to the children? Should the teams be issued with maps? Should the game use some additional props to make it more engaging, for example things that were found at the hotspots, like torches, architect drawings, and car keys? These matters still presented a big question.

page 13 of 265 At this time (spring 2008) the software was completely rewritten (by a computer science student) and redesigned as a multi player game based on a game server with both internet clients and mobile phone clients. The software went through many tests, but suffered from problems with stability. The software was unfortunately designed with the server as the acting part, which meant that if a player lost connection to the server, the game would come to a halt. This was a problem as it turned out that GSM coverage in the wood was bad. Sometimes it was OK, mostly not. A few hotspots had to be moved as they were completely without coverage. The software was changed to include a “reconnect” button, but this was not acceptable, as the players were not warned when they lost connection. Taking and transmitting photos worked fine with some cell phones, but not with other phones where the picture was much bigger taking a long time to transfer over the net. As there were still stability issues, and the software was much too difficult to handle, it was abandoned shortly before the first real play test (August, 2008). A new single player version was implemented for the test. This version had reduced functionality as use of a game server had to be discarded, and thus the internet clients and ghosts were not used.

1.2 Site­specific Games and Performance Design

This dissertation is about the novel type of computer games designed for playing outside in the streets of the city or on a field. Moving the game from the screen at home to the outside world, is not just a matter of technology, but changes the whole concept of computer gaming. The games can not remain a phenomenon on their own or be studied as such— they become related to artefacts, people, and places. What happens if the game itself moves partially – or as a whole – from the virtual world of the computer and into the real world? The game computer changes size and may become a mere tool for playing the game. The usual interface is not the big screen at home and the joystick, but the even larger space of the city and the players body using their actions as a means of controlling the game. With the classical video games, the computer was in control of the game. When the game is designed for the body and mind of the player and the city as a vast game board, the player

page 14 of 265 is liberated. He is no longer tied to the screen. As the video game enters the lives of the players, it must at the same time give away control over the player, creating new kinds of games. But the new heterogeneous games are not conquering a unknown territory of play and games. A whole world of classical children's games, like chase games and sport games is already there, well known, loved and played for centuries. And even more important a whole world of street performances too. Understanding and designing the new games we have two possibilities: are they video games and should be regarded as such ­ but just in a new form, effectively with a new kind of interface (mobile phones and the position of the player)? Or are they some kind of outdoor games augmented with ubiquitous computer equipment? With the former we restrict our understanding of the games essentially to a question of the interface design and interaction of the computer and the player. Maybe more important, the computer as the primary game medium is taken for granted. This rules out games where the computer plays a secondary role, e.g. from video games we are used to rely on the computer as a means of controlling the state of the game and preventing the players from cheating. With outdoor sports and games we are used, either to have some sort of a judge or rely on the players understanding of fair play. If we understand the new games as a kind of augmented outdoor game, the world of Performance Studies lend us a hand. The games can easily be understood as performances, with the players performing in the cities (cf. McGonigal 2006, Kristiansen 2008). In this dissertation I will aim at placing the urban location­oriented computer games or pervasive game as performances of their own kind. To understand and design these games properly, I think it will be proper to introduce a new terminology and call the genre: the site­specific computer games or just site­specific games (SSG). Relating to the well­known field of pervasive games, the site­specific games (in my understanding) are games that focuses on including the site of the game, together with the locomotion of the players. The site­specific games are the spatially extended games of the pervasive games. Note, that I am not the first to introduce this term. Montola et al. (2009) uses it too, but gives it a more narrow understanding, as games dealing with local history or sights.

Performance Studies is a research field concerned with the study of performances. Anything can be studied “as” performances, that is understood as any event, behaviour, action or thing in terms of doing, behaving or showing (cf. Schechner, 2002:32). This also includes

page 15 of 265 understanding artefacts as performing, like the performance of computers or cars. Of course the archetypical performance is a theatrical performance or art performance, that is, enacted by performers in front of an audience. But performances can take many other forms, like happenings, busking, or playing games. Of particular interest in connection with the site­specific games is the site­specific performances.

Site­specific performance theatre allows the performers' ideas and bodies to interact with the place. Sites have physical dimensions, texture and other features to interact with: big, open spaces, confined spaces, places loaded with history, places of particularly cultural significance, traffic corridors etc. Sites have souls: a performer approaches a site, not as an urban planner (Rebelo, 2003, uses the phrase “performer of space” and regards the performer as a user of space), but as something to perform at or with. A performance finds ways to animate a space imaginatively. Sites have habits and rules: people who use the space implicitly agree to a set of acceptable behaviour. A site has history. People have owned it, lost it, died on it, made love on it. It is the freedom of non­theatre—it is not the neutral black space of the stage. As sites can evoke art performances, they can set the scene of games too. A game that is designed for a specific site or just deployed to a specific site, not only adds the game to the site, but the site becomes part of the game. This link is hard to define but will be dealt with, both when establishing site­specific games as site­specific performances, but also when designing the design method for these games. Without the link between the site and the game we are stuck with a computer game, that fails to perform in the real world.

1.3 From “GeoCaching” to “Mulighedernes Land”

On midnight (Coordinated Universal Time) may 2nd, year 2000, the Selective Availability (or SA) on the Global Position System was turned off. This basically meant that the GPS­signal was no longer scrambled offering a much higher precision than before. The GPS­system was originally designed as a navigation­system giving high precision navigation only for the American military (precision was better than 20m), while all other uses were left with a precision only better than 100m. Overnight civil GPS­receivers all over the world suddenly

page 16 of 265 gained a much higher precision for the benefit of car navigation, trekking, civil planning and many other purposes. This heralded a new way of life, where location slowly has become more and more important and where many cars has GPS­navigation fitted, and where the new generation of mobile phones has GPS receivers built in. What it also meant was, that a new kind of gaming was born. Gaming as a combination of mobile computer equipment, positioning data and the streets, fields, and seas of the earth. The first game was GeoCaching and the first documented placement of a GPS­located cache took place two days after the SA was turned of, on May 3, 2000 by Dave Ulmer of Beavercreek, Oregon. The location was posted on the Usenet newsgroup sci.geo.satellite­nav as 45.291° N 122.41333° W. By May 6, 2000, it had been found twice and logged once (by Mike Teague of Vancouver, Washington). According to Dave Ulmer's message, the original cache was a black plastic bucket buried most of the way in the ground and contained software, videos, books, food, money, and a slingshot. Note that a game using the new technology was born already a few days after it was released. This a good example of design driven by new technology. The novelty was not the idea of a cache—treasure hunts and depots for tramps have long been known, but using the GPS­position as means of a game was new. To play the game all you needed was a GPS­receiver and access to the internet. Soon small GPS­devices designed for this activity have emerged. GeoCaching is basically a treasure hunt game. Players visit the website of GeoCaching, retrieve a GPS­coordinate for a treasure (cache), where they would like to go treasure hunting, and then try come as close to the GPS­ coordinate as the precision allows – but from here players have to search in a new manner. The treasure is a hidden box, so the players have to search for clues, broken twigs, footprints or the like. Having found the box, players may take or leave some small tokens and enter the date in a small log. Having successfully found or not­found a treasure, the players turn back to the website and tell their story. The game of GeoCaching is very simple —but the performance of playing GeoCaching can be done in numerous ways. But GeoCaching is not just an electronic enactment of treasure hunt, and GeoCaching is not just a GPS­game, as it takes advantage of web­services and create a world­wide treasure hunt, not just for treasure hunters – but also for treasure hunt designers. GeoCaching— simple as it was and still is—must be regarded as a social game. A community quickly rose around the game, and as any popular game it could be played in many ways. Central to the

page 17 of 265 game play remained the idea of finding something others have left—a family pursuit, a teaching aid, a challenge for young and old. Also central is reporting the experience to the GeoCaching sites and laying out new caches. This was Web 2.0 before anyone had thought of it. Not only did the gamers search for treasures, they also designed treasure hunts for others—often not just as a game, but to show nice places, unknown places or places of personal significance. GeoCaching turned into a game movement and the first to couple the internet service at home with a game outdoors. The first true location­based computer game was born. GeoCaching can be played everywhere and indeed almost has. According to the home page of GeoCaching (www.geocaching.com) there are more than 938380 treasures hidden all over the earth (as per nov. 2009).

At the same time as GeoCaching started, the Swedish firm Its Alive produced the game BotFighters. The user downloads a piece of software to a mobile phone and plays with his/her “robot” against other robots. The game did not use GPS as positioning, but the cell­ id of the connected GSM­mast. This is much less accurate but has the important benefit that you can play it without a GPS­receiver. The mission was to locate and destroy robots—each destroyed robot earned you points which could be used to recharge your robot and to buy new weapons on the BotFighters web page. BotFighters was released in November 2000 in Sweden and later became available in Finland and Russia. While GeoCaching was a location­based version of a childrens outdoor game, BotFighters was a location­based version of a video game of the well­known first person shooter type. Without the GPS­gear the game could reach a much larger audience.

With the work of Can You See Me Now the games took a new turn. Can You See Me Now (CYSMN) is essentially an augmented chase game, but designed as what later have been termed a hybrid reality game. Two kinds of players are chasing each other. The street runners and the internet players. The runners have to chase the internet players, but the internet players are only shown on the PDA's of the runners. So the runners are chasing something they can not see, but only perceive the location of on their map on the PDA. On the other hand the internet players sit at home at their screen showing the same map with icons of all the players. They can move their player accordingly, as in any 2D arcade game and their object is to avoid being caught for as long as possible. For most players this did

page 18 of 265 not last long as the runners are able to communicate over intercom and thereby plan their strategies. This intercom was broadcasted to the internet players as a way of giving them a sense of presence in the real world. With this game the notion of mixed reality was introduced (Benford et al., 2005). The runners had to mix the real world surroundings with the 2D map on the PDA, and try to understand where they should go to catch the internet players—they had to be on the same spot to catch an internet player. The internet players actually only played a common 2D arcade game, only with the important addition of the soundtrack broadcasted from the intercom of the runners. The internet players had to combine the on­site sound with the map to understand the nature of the site, for example hearing the traffic on the roads, the puffing runners etc. The game was played using ubiquitous technology including PDA's, GPS­positioning and a proprietary network. The game has been subjected to a lot of research, and has toured several cities as an event in connection with festivals and the like. An important aspect of the game is how it is staged: runners are always professional players. CYSMN can be staged and played everywhere, but of course the map of area has to be changed. As a gimmick a photo is taken of the spot where the online player is caught.

The event of the removal of Selective Availability not only unleashed the GPS as a means for games. It also gave the birth to the idea of taking traditional board games and classical computer games outside—back to reality.

PacManhattan was a game that took the classical video game “Pac­man” into the streets of Manhattan. The name “Manhattan” and the pattern of the streets evokes the classical game. It should be possible to implement this game as a pure pervasive game, but due to GPS­ problems and Wifi costs another design decision was pursued. The game play closely follows the classical Pac­man, but using additional helpers to perform the game. One player is Pac­man, four players the ghosts, and additionally one player is “Pac­man­general” and four players “ghost­generals.” The “generals” are described as players, although their function actually is to report the position of their respective Pac­man or ghosts. They do that by following them closely and reporting their position at any crossing to the control centre (using mobile phone). The control centre continually updates the positions of the ghosts, Pac­man and records the pellets eaten. Pac­man and the ghosts can inquire their

page 19 of 265 respective general of the other players position except that of Pac­man. To play the game the players run along the streets of Manhattan and at each crossing they can enquire the state of the game. The usual rule of Pac­man applies: Pac­man can eat ghosts (send them home) and has to munch as many pellets as possible. PacManhattan received much coverage by the media. But was it a true urban enactment of Pac­man? Who were the players and what did they play? The original Pac­man was a typical arcade game of the 1980'. A two dimensional board game where the player had to travel all the paths before entering the next level controlled by joystick or keys and presenting the overall state of the game on the screen. PacManhattan did not offer a visual overview of the game to the players—they had to imagine it as they inquired their generals, or they happened to get eye­contact with an other player on the street. In that case the game took another dimension as a street chase game ­ Pac­man or not. The persons in the control room were not named players, but they actually had the benefit of the important visual overview of the game. The striking thing of PacManhattan was the deployment of a classical computer game into a well­known place. PacManhattan was in fact an “enacted” performance of Pac­man using appropriate props and costumes and thus became a spectacular event of Manhattan – and an icon of pervasive games.

Few pervasive games have reached the public on a larger scale. Below are examples of three different kinds of pervasive games which have enjoyed a kind of commercial success.

GPS­mission is a mission­based game. The players are able to complete missions in different locations, or can create missions that are uploaded to a community site. Missions are a combination of following a route (locating checkpoints) and solving challenges (quiz questions related to the site). The players also collect “gold” and trophies visualise the players status in the game. GPS­mission is available for a limited number of mobile phones and relies on GPS. GPS­mission is one of the few commercial pervasive games available.

Triangler is a multiplayer game, where the players play against another team. On their display they can see the Triangler, TNO, 2008.

page 20 of 265 position of all the players. The goal is to form equilateral triangles surrounding one or more of the opponents thereby scoring points. The sides of the triangles have to be at least 150m. The team with the highest score win. Triangler uses mobile phones and GPS.

Mulighedernes Land? introduced april 2007 is a role playing game based on mobile phones and GPS. It is designed for an open­air museum north of Copenhagen. The case is Danish rural life in 1880­1900, where many poor people from the country site emigrated. The game is aimed at school classes (6.­9. grade), where teams each play one of the 8 roles in the game. The roles are 14 year old boys and girls living in the houses of the museum. During the game, the players have to explore the site and meet people to learn more about living in Denmark at that time, and to score points. On the screen the players can see a map of the area Mulighedernes Land? Nationalmuseet, 2007 with persons shown as dots.

This introduction leads to the research question for this thesis. As we have seen there have been a lot of experiments with pervasive games of different kinds. But the games seem to be different from other known game types. How do they take advantage of the site? How do players perform in the city? How can the mechanics of a game be used when a game is deployed over a vast area? How can a site support a game? These questions are difficult to answer, as it is difficult to compare the relatively few site­ specific games. A better way is to devise a design method that can be used to support the design of site­specific games. To design this method we study have game, site, and players interact.

1.4 Research Question The case story on Klintespillet presented above argues for the need of a formalized design method. As the Klintespillet partly relied on using design methods (like brainstorming), it is not the lack of a method, but the lack of a formalized method, I recognise as the problem. A formalized method is a method that is based on theory, appropriate practice and which is

page 21 of 265 consciously applied to a design problem. The limited commercial success of the pervasive games may also depend on the difficulty of generating games that take advantage of the site and the players locomotion Some commercial games that have survived are: Rexplorer (2007, which claims to be the first permanently installed game of its kind), Muligheders Land (continuously available since april 2007) and GPSmission (since may 2008). Klintespillet, as well as many other pervasive games (see 7.3 for a discussion of pervasive game development) use prototyping in the development phase. And this shift between design and evaluation seems to work also for Klintespillet. What did not work, was the early idea generation, where the project somehow got hold of the wrong end of the stick, by focusing too much on the narrative and not on the game at all. This led to a poor game design. To amend this problem, I propose a design method for site­specific games focussing on the early idea generation of game concepts. This should ensure that site­specific game concepts are true examples of site­specific games. When the idea is developed there are lots of methods to further the process of software engineering, prototyping (in several forms) just being one of them.

RQ.: How can we design a design method for the conceptualisation of games of the site­specific game type and what will it look like?

My answer to this question will be based on performance studies (site­specific performances) and game studies (pervasive games) using qualitative methods within the framework of design science research.

1.5 Conclusion Klintespillet was a game which was designed and developed by a team students from Roskilde University headed by myself. The goal was to develop a site­specific game to the new GeoCentre museum at the island of Møn. The project lasted 2 years and more or less failed, largely due to a long and difficult conceptualisation phase. It turned out to be a more difficult task than imagined, to design a game that could fulfil the dreams of the GeoCentre. The game was planned to be a novel form of nature experience aimed at 12­15

page 22 of 265 year old children. The idea was to create a serious game which integrated knowledge of nature, folklore, and orienteering. The nature at the island of Møn is well­known for the steep chalk cliffs and the dense wood that leads up to the cliff. The GeoCentre is build at the very tip of the cliff and has modern exhibitions about the local nature and geology. After field tours, many lengthy discussions, and lots of discarded ideas, the team ended up with a narrative based on a conspirational theory. The story was briefly, that a religious sect had established a research centre in the basement of the GeoCentre. From there they conducted life­prolonging experiments by genome manipulation of a local species of a beetle. At the same time an industrious female mayor planned to build a wellness centre right on the cliff. The third part of the story was a collector, who wanted to preserve the nature. The stories were mixed up, and on the way through the wood the players listened in on the protagonists private talks, meetings, and phone calls. This happened at specific places around the wood. The narrative worked well, but the game did not. This brought about the idea that the absolute lack of a planned use of design method was, if not responsible, then at least part of the failure of the project. The case of the design of Klintespillet will be discussed through the three iterations of the thesis, from the somewhat failed beginning to the mature prototype.

Site­specific games was introduced as a subset of pervasive games, that is concerned with the integration of place and space in the games. My approach to the field of site­specific games, is based on performance studies. This makes sense because the site­specific games have a lot in common with site­specific performances. This is theatre­like performances like street theatre, performance art, promenade theatre, flash­mops, and happenings, to name a few. What they have in common is the use of the site in the performances. The site can be used in many ways, from being a mere backdrop to performances involving the whole city. We may conclude that it is viable to use performance studies it is my hope in order to learn something about site­specific performances that we can use when designing site­specific games.

On basis of the encountered problems, I will devise a site­specific game design method aimed at the early idea generation phase of the game development.

page 23 of 265 2 RESEARCH METHOD

2.1 Game Design The research question established, the problem is to put together a suitable research method for exploring this field. This thesis is a study in game design. But game design is not a well­defined discipline. Quite a lot have been written on game design, but with the understanding of “design” in the broadest possible sense, e.g. everything from methodological issues, graphical design, 3D­design, component design and practical development has been understood as game design—often as practical development while game design methods have been largely overlooked. There are studies of the design and construction of pervasive games (to be discussed briefly below), but only few attempts to generalize on design and even fewer on design method. Notable work on the design of video games in general however, have been conducted by Chris Crawford (The Art of Game

Design, 1984), Doug Church (Formal Abstract Design Tools, 1999), N. Falstein (Better by Design: The 400 Project, 2002), Steffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen (Patterns in Game Design, 2005), and Chris Bateman and Richard Boon (21st Century Game Design, 2005). Turning to pervasive games, Montola, Stenros, and Waern (2009) presents theories, techniques and experiences within this genre.

It is tempting to assume that game design is like any it­design, and a study by Petrillo et al 2009 suggests that many of the pitfalls and problems are the same, notably the general lack of methodology in game development. As games engage the user in another way than other it­products, we may suggest that the it­artefact is of a different nature and that at least the conceptualization phase of games differs from the conceptualization of other it­artefacts. As pervasive games include the physical reality in the game design, we need a method, that cope with game design for the real world. I have limited this study to concentrate on the games that are a subset of the pervasive games, which uses locomotion as a part of the game. These games, as stated previously, I call the site­specific computer games. By this work, I set out to develop a game design model for a this specific type of games ­ and to validate the game design method. This also include a description of the design

page 24 of 265 artefact: the site­specific computer game.

We now face a practical problem: what does a game design method look like? What can we expect from a design method? Inspired by Church (1999) and Kreimeier (2003) I will suggest the following properties:

1. Applicable. The method should deal with site­specific game design. It should be applicable in the early phase of design, for redesign and evaluation.

2. Usable. The method should be operational and specified in detail, so it can actually be used. It should provide a step­by­step guide or procedures and address specific issues in site­specific game design. The method should further the process of design site­specific games.

3. Abstract. It should apply to a number of different games and should therefore be at a certain level of abstraction, not dealing to with issues that are too low­level, but leaving the details to the designers.

4. Formalized. A method needs some kind of formal structure or organized in a specific way.

The four properties of a game design method should ensure a method that can be used for design problems that are not well­defined or well­known in advance. It is important for a new field of games, that the design method itself does not hamper the work of the designers, but rather support their work. This results in a less rigid method, which can not guarantee success, but only act as a tool. It is important that the tool is usable. Therefore instructions should be given on how the design method should be used and it should not be too complicated. The formal structure of the method ensures that the instructions are given in a consistent way, even though the method is not formal in the mathematical understanding. A formal structure may be obtained by using a uniform structure, like instruction sheets or cards (as suggested by Church, 1999).

page 25 of 265 2.2 Pervasive Game Design Methods Turning to the more specific field of pervasive game design—here understood as the methods used for pervasive game development, the research conducted is more sparse.

Björk, Holopainen, Ljungstrand and Åkesson (2002) report from a workshop on ubiquitous computing entertainment. During a workshop lasting 4 days, they produced a number of game concepts and even prototypes. The participants worked in small groups using a scenario session. The games was conceptualized using game miniatures (props) and rapid prototyping. None of the participants suggested using a method based on a game, although the board­like miniatures looked and worked like simple board games.

Ollila et al. (2008) suggest using prototypes in early pervasive game development. They base the use of prototypes on traditional prototyping, of which they consider the physical prototypes, like paper prototyping, the most interesting. Paper prototypes are commonly used in game design as a working method, ending with evaluation done by the team members themselves (cf. Fullerton et al. 2004). Prototypes were developed and used for evaluation rather than developing the design directly, although they acknowledge that prototypes often create new ideas. The prototyping techniques used was: Rapid Game Development where ideas were followed by running prototypes, using ready­made software for prototypes, and using paper prototypes. They conclude that prototypes should be used as early as possible, and that choosing the right method depends on considerations such as: the purpose of the prototype, the game type, the project type, and the phase of the project. They noticed that real­life interactions were easier to understand with software prototypes compared with the use of paper prototypes. The work of Ollila et al. (2008) is important, but they focus on evaluating games, rather than generating ideas for new games. Prototyping is mainly seen as a method of validation than as a creative method. They also conclude that the paper prototype often did not reveal other problems than it was designed to reveal.

Benford et al. (2004) report on the design of Savannah, a lion hunting game, where the players simulate the behaviour of the lion. They briefly describe the design process as mixing prototyping with field­trials (unfortunately no details of the field­trials are given):

page 26 of 265 First, we have followed an iterative process in which the game design has evolved through a series of workshops and also practical field­trials with students in schools. Our aim has been to test new ideas in practice from as early as possible in the design process so as to build a game that successfully integrates entertainment with education and makes novel use of emerging technologies. Benford et al. (2004)

Other design studies with the use of prototyping in various forms have been used, cf. Ballagas, R. and Waltz, S.P. (2007), and Lankosti et al. (2007). Common to all studies above (except Savannah) is the use of miniature prototypes in the form of cardboard boardgames or similar approaches. Other studies uses rapid prototyping with some kind of it­tool (Suomela et al. (2005) uses the MUPE platform).

I conclude that work has been done in this area using traditional prototyping techniques, omitting the fact that these games might benefit other approaches as they are site­specific. Therefore the choice of method for this study should address a design method, that is site­ specific, e.g. which include the physical surroundings where the game is supposed to be played as part of the design process.

2.3 Overview of Research Methods Several approaches are possible, depending on the emphasis and perspective on the problem. As I would like to end up with a design method, based on best practices supported by adequate theory, a pure theoretical study is not possible. Doing research in this field obviously calls for hands­on, and probably (at least) a three­phased research project, for example: first studying the field through a pilot case study, then devising the method, and then evaluating the method through another case study.

Possible strategies for research on pervasive game design methods.

– Theoretical study of pervasive game design: only limited research in this field yet, but a theoretical background study of pervasive games and related fields is

page 27 of 265 necessary to argue the case of site­specific computer games.

– Quantitative study of pervasive game design. A quantitative study requires in depth understanding of the field in question to single out the important data. As little (see above) is known on the problems of pervasive game design, a quantitative study will not be feasible.

– Qualitative study of professional game designers at work: few professionals work in the field of pervasive games. Most pervasive games are research prototypes or spin­offs from research (e.g. the REXplorer game).

– Qualitative study of the design of research prototypes. This would not be feasible as the design method has not been the central issue for most projects, and very few have commented on any design methodological issues in relation with their prototypes. Most research prototypes in this field have been made with the intention of experimenting with new technology or specific game design issues.

– Qualitative study using case studies of pervasive game design. This requires the design and implementation of one or more pervasive games, and the documentation of design issues.

As this is a design study and the contribution primarily is a design method, this calls for a qualitative study, where I (as researcher) participate in game design or undertake game design myself, or preferably both. According to Creswell (2009) a number of properties are typical of the qualitative study:

– Natural setting . Data are typically collected in the field. In this study data will be collected during game design, conducted observations and through case studies.

– Researcher as key instrument . Data will primarily be collected by myself during work on game design, as I will participate in the design work.

– Multiple sources of data . Data comes from various sources. I will use observations, game designs, interviews and documents.

– Inductive data analysis . Information will be organized into abstract units in a bottom­up fashion. From the knowledge gathered from observations and case studies I will suggest a design method.

– Participants' meanings . I will try to learn as much as possible from the participants

page 28 of 265 I work together with in some of the cases.

– Emergent design . The research has an emergent nature, meaning that I do not know how it will end, and that it may change under way.

– Theoretical lens . A study covering the theoretical aspects should support the practices of game design. The theoretical background is mainly pervasive game studies, performance theory and design studies.

– Interpretive . A qualitative study is a form of inquiry, where the researcher make interpretations on what they experience and understand. As I participate directly in most of the design work, the interpretations made are based on a combination of personal experiences and theory.

– Holistic account . A qualitative study try to develop a complex picture of the problem under study, leading to the report of multiple perspectives. As my research is based on several fields of theory, different perspectives will automatically show up. To ease the understanding of the problem I will accompany the text with figures.

As shown above the amount of research on pervasive game design is limited. This either calls for the use of action research or a similar method, or studying a related field and using the conclusions of this field as a basis for understanding the pervasive games. Obvious related fields are the design of video games and the design of outdoor games (sports, children's games and role­playing games). Notable work has been done in the field of video game design. Indeed Björk and Holopainen (2005) and their later work on game design patterns is interesting, but using this as a basis would require an effort to show that the design methods that work for video game design in general, also works for site­specific game design. Even though their work include patterns for other types of games, the focus is on the patterns and not on designing specific games.

Taken all issues into consideration it seems that the best strategy is to design and implement games myself and gain insight in the design issues using case studies. Yin (1994) recommends case studies for “how” or “why” questions (like the research question for this thesis), fields where the researcher has little or no control over behavioural elements and where the study concerns contemporary phenomenon in real­life context. As

page 29 of 265 it does not seem feasible to make case studies using game designers due to the lack of material, the cases must be conducted by myself, or in collaboration with others or preferably both.

Van Aken (2004:221) proposes a distinction between description­driven and prescription­ driven research programs. Descriptive research aims at understanding and explaining problems while prescriptive research aims at designing solutions to solve problems. This study is of a problem solving nature, e.g. designing a solution (a new design method) to improve the design of site­specific games, and therefore calls for a prescriptive study. Van Aken calls these research programs: design science research. Prescriptive studies are based on heuristics and acknowledge that problems are always context related. Although problems and solutions may seem similar, it is difficult (or impossible) to prove that because a solution works for one problem, it will also work for other problems. Therefore research is justified by pragmatic validity. This is very much in line with collaborative inquiry (Reason and Bradbury, 2007), understood as driven by the researcher's agenda as research on my own action, or on the group I participate in. Indeed some researchers question the difference between action research and design science research (cf. Järvinen 2007). I choose understand action research as a research method and design science research as a research framework.

2.4 Design Science Research As van Aken studies management research, I need inspiration from other researchers who have done design science research in a related field, like information systems research. I have chosen to use design science research, as proposed by March and Smith (1995), Hevner et al. (2004), Walls et al. (2004), Baskerville and Pries­Heje (forthcoming) among others. Design science research has its roots in Herbert Simon in what he termed “the sciences of the artificial.” Alan Hevner and Salvatore March defines its current purpose as ”Design science seeks to create innovations, or artifacts, that embody the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products required to efficiently accomplish the analysis, design, implementation, and use of information systems.” (Hevner and March, 2003). According to

page 30 of 265 the work of Bethke 2003 and Gershenfeld et al. 2003, computer games can be regarded as information systems, at least in the way they are developed as software systems.

Design Science Research has particularly attracted the attention of information systems research. Two paradigms characterize much of the research in the Information Systems discipline: behavioural science and design science (cf. Hevner and March, 2003).

– The behavioural­science paradigm seeks to develop and verify theories that explain or predict human or organizational behaviour. This is Problem Understanding.

– The design­science paradigm seeks to extend the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artefacts. This is Problem Solving.

Both paradigms are foundations to the IS discipline, positioned as it is at the confluence of people, organizations, and technology. Likewise descriptive research aims at understanding the nature of IT. Descriptive research can b understood as a knowledge­producing activity corresponding to natural science, whereas prescriptive research aims at improving IT­ performance. It is a knowledge­using activity corresponding to design science (cf. March and Smith, 1995). We have to be careful to separate design work from design research. One way of doing it, is by looking at the nature of the problems and solutions:

­ Routine design is the application of existing knowledge to organizational problems, such as constructing a financial or marketing information system using best practice artefacts (constructs, models, methods, and instantiations) existing in the knowledge base.

­ Design Science Research addresses important unsolved problems in unique or innovative ways or solve problems in more effective or efficient ways. cf. Hevner & March (2003).

As design is both a noun and a verb, design science research must be concerned with both

page 31 of 265 aspects of design: the design process and the design product. To overcome this Walls et al. (2004) propose the following model of design science research (DSR):

Model of design science research. Walls et al., 2004.

Walls et al. 2004 suggests DSR as a meta­level of design theory. We are no longer dealing with a design process, but with a class of design processes. The process of developing a Design Science Artefact must be a process of collecting design theories within a specific domain, and then suggesting a meta­theory covering that domain. Taking this to the realm of pervasive game design seems possible, although the kernel theories need to come from performance theory and pervasive game theory. Hevner et al. (2004) derive a model for design science research based on the classical build­and­evaluate­loop of design. Focusing on the improvement of the evaluation part of the iteration adds to the design artefact. As Hevner et al. 2004 puts it: “During this creative process, the design­science researcher must be cognizant of evolving both the design process and the design artifact as part of the research.” It is considered design research and not design work, because we are dealing with the improvement of the design process, as well as the design artefact.

page 32 of 265 Hevner et al. (2004).

Hevner et al. 2004 includes the environment and the knowledge base in his model. The environment is the stakeholders, those who with their requirements and organization represents the problem, to which the design should deliver a solution. The knowledge base is the academic grounding. An important part of the model is the feed­back from the IS research to the environment (through the application) and to the knowledge base (through contribution to research). Without these feed­back lines, the model would only show design work, and not design science research. Using this model as a model of game design science research requires a clear understanding of the environment. As games are not deployed in known organizations, knowledge about the environment is much less concrete and often unknown. Some business models are in use, but they are not very advanced and a clear definition of why some people play some games and not other games is not known (cf. Bateman and Boon 2005). Most commercial game design is the result of knowledge from earlier successes or of an experimental nature (cf. Bateman and Boon, 2005). The need for a more rigorous design method therefore seems obvious.

Baskerville, Pries­Heje and Venable (forthcoming) focuses on the evaluation part of the design iteration introducing the notion of ex ante and ex post evaluation.

page 33 of 265 “This distinction [between ex ante and ex post evaluation] assumes that the ultimate goal of DSR is an IT artifact that is an operating technology. For design research, the anchor moves from a constructed piece of technology (the anchor for most DSR) to the design itself (the anchor for design research). In design research being evaluated independent of construction of an operating IT artifact, ex post becomes the evaluation of the design (design being itself an artifact for design research), and ex ante would become the evaluation of the search process.” Baskerville, Pries­Heje and Venable, (forthcoming).

Introducing the ex ante and ex post evaluation separates “The Design” from “The Artifact”. This will have impact on design methods where the design and the artefact are the same or has some elements in common, e.g. design using prototypes or games, where part of the design, for example the rules will be part of the artefact too. For many traditional video games, it makes sense to evaluate ex ante, that is either using a technique like paper­ prototypes, game­sketching (Agustin 2007), or when several games are conceptualized, as a mean of choosing the best concept. Ex ante evaluation is also used for evaluation using paper prototypes. But we need to understand “The IT­artifact” (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001) and “The Design” (from March and Smith, 1995). While some – possibly most – video games can be equalled with the IT­artefact, the site­specific game (SSG) of this work is more complex as an artefact. The SSG­artefact must (at least) include:

page 34 of 265 – the IT (hardware and software)

– the rules of the game (not all rules can/should be expected to be part of the IT­ artefact when dealing with site­specific games)

– the object(s) of the game

– the game culture (how to perform in a mixed environment)

– the site (specific or generic), with its physical properties, borrowed codes, and implicit/explicit culture

– props and any additions to the site

– players? (the players are not just users, as they at the same time are active on the site).

The Design artefact from March and Smith 1995 includes:

● Constructs constitute a conceptualization used to describe problems.

● Model is a set of propositions or statements expressing relationships among constructs.

● Method is a set of steps (an algorithm or guideline) used to perform a task.

● Instantiation is the realization of an artifact in its environment.

If we apply their model on the site­specific games, we end with something like:

The Site­Specific Game Design Artefact

● Constructs: game tokens (players and props, for example particular places) and board (e.g. the site)

● Model: rules of the game

● Method: instructions how to play the game: the object, how to start etc.

● Instantiation: the game played on­site

This model does not catch the complex nature of the relationship between IT­artefact, game and site, but it may serve as a basis.

page 35 of 265 Evaluation Baskerville et al. (forthcoming) suggest the model below for understanding evaluation of design science research. Game design (as product) is usually evaluated upon elegance (aesthetics) and efficacy, while game design (as process) should be evaluated upon effectiveness, e.g. does this design method perform better than other design methods, e.g. does it deliver better designs—this can only be measured ex post, if at all.

Evaluation methods, Baskerville et al. (forthcoming)

Design science research should consider the following methods of evaluation. With game design, Ex Ante evaluation could either use action research for comparing various design proposals (design as product) or a focus group actually playing the game as a paper prototype. Ex Post could be any of the below mentioned methods.

Evaluation methods. Baskerville et. al. (forthcoming).

Design science research suggests a framework that can be used for my purpose, e.g.

page 36 of 265 developing the Site­Specific Game as a design product and as a design process. However Baskerville et al. suggests evaluation methods, but not what to evaluate upon. We have no guidelines as how to come up with a design, that can enter the evaluate­and­refine­iteration of Hevner et al. (2003), and no design product or process, where from we can derive the meta­design and meta­process (Walls et al. 2004). The environment of the site­specific games is very limited as there are practically no games which are developed commercially, and the knowledge base mostly consists of studies concentrating on presenting research on completed designs, rather than on how to design.

2.5 Developing the SSG­process and SSG­product The method I propose to overcome this problem is as follows. The initial design product and design process should be conducted as action research. The results from this research is used as a basis for deriving the meta­level (Walls et al. 2004), e.g. the design product artefact and the design process artefact. This design is validated using Baskerville et al. (forthcoming), by using the design process to design several game concepts. These concepts are evaluated ex ante, and one concept is implemented and evaluated ex post. The ex ante evaluation will validate the design process and the ex post evaluation will validate the design product. The task of the “Meta­process” is to derive the meta­product and meta­ process from the specific design products and design processes. Originally, “The Search” (Simon (1996) was meant to be the process of searching for a suitable method for solving the problem in question. In this case a suitable method is not available and “the search” is therefore used as a creative process where a new method is designed and evaluated (the ex ante evaluation). The derived model for conducting this study is as follows.

page 37 of 265 ”The Search” / EK 2009 Game Prod. Game Prod. SSG design ”Gainers n' Drainers” Meta­process

Game Proc. SSG design Game Proc. ”Klintespillet”

SSG­process (prototype)

Ex ante eval.: Game Design ”The Search” Search process

Ex post eval.: SSG Game Game Constr. Game Design

The meta­process is a design process that extracts design knowledge from the game design, game process, and the ex ante evaluation. The method for SSG­design has been conducted using action research in two different game development projects. The first was designed and constructed partly alone (the game Gainers N' Drainers), the second was designed and constructed using a larger project organisation with several participants (the game Klintespillet). From the experiences with these two projects and relevant theory, the process for conceptualizing SSG was developed together with a description of the SSG­product. This formed the basic method for the evaluation, starting with “The Search” using the method. This produced several games, which were subjected to the ex ante evaluation, validating the design method. One game was chosen for construction and the subsequent ex post evaluation, validating the game design. For the ex ante evaluation the chosen criteria was efficacy and effectiveness, e.g. that the design process delivered several designs that were good examples of SSGs. For the ex

page 38 of 265 post evaluation the criteria was efficacy and elegance, e.g. that the designed game lived up to expectations and that the design is aesthetically pleasing. That efficacy was chosen as a criteria for both evaluations is probably due to the performance­aspect of games. McKenzie (2001) argues that art performances can only be reviewed on the basis of their efficacy— that is what they have to live up to. Organisations are measured on their efficiency and machines on their effectiveness (for a complete discussion of effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of different performances, see McKenzie 2001).

Turning back to the problem of evaluation, how can the ex ante evaluation prove anything? It depends on how it is used. I have chosen to evaluate using efficacy as a criteria. But this in turn demands a definition of the class of site­specific games. Or to put it another way: to evaluate a site­specific game, we need a model explaining the properties of the site­specific game. This model is developed on the basis of the two initial design studies conducted.

2.6 Research Plan A study of this kind is a reflective process carried out either over several phases or as iterations. To reflect this, the thesis mirrors this process of design and research. As a typical qualitative study, a number of different sources and different inquiries are used. This ranges from observations over various design documents to interviews.

The foundation of any iterative it­design work is often presented as a cycle, like the figure below (for IS development: cf. Markus et al., 2002, for game development: cf. Zimmerman, 2004).

Analysis Evaluate

Design

The design cycle.

page 39 of 265 This study is composed of three iterations, each consisting of three phases: game design, evaluation of the game and method, and method design. I will change the model above to three phases of game design, evaluation, and method design.

Game Method design design

Evaluation

Design method cycle

The “Game Design” phase is either the design or redesign of two or more games. “Evaluation” is the evaluation of the games and the method. “Method design” is further design work on enhancing the method. Each iteration will also cover the “lessons learnt.” In between the iterations necessary theory and discussions are presented.

Iteration I Iteration II Iteration III

Revised 2. Revised Design Method Design Method Design Method

The three iterations and their output.

Iteration I. The first iteration is a pilot study. Two games are designed without using a formalized design method or indeed any design method at all. Observations and evaluations of this case together with theoretical studies form the basis for the design of the design method.

page 40 of 265 The two games are a proximity type of game, called Gainers n' Drainers, and a narrative­ based site­specific game, called Klintespillet. From the lessons learnt by the the two games, a prototype of the design method was conceived. It was used during a workshop on alternate reality games and subsequent evaluated through a questionnaire.

Iteration II.

Using the model of the site­specific game, the game Klintespillet is evaluated. The design method is used designing a number of games through three sessions. The designs are evaluated and compared with redesigns of boardgames. Evaluations of the games and the method further the design of the method. The revised version is used during several design sessions at the University of Bamberg. The effect of the method is compared in a study comparing a game design using the method (the game called: The Ball) with a game where the design is derived from a flash­game (the game is called: CityAmoeba).

Iteration III.

The design method is used for redesigning Klintespillet of the games of the first iteration. The redesign is evaluated and the design method corrected. The redesigned game is evaluated after a further test.

One of the earlier games CitySnake which was designed using the design method is discussed.

The design method is evaluated during a workshop on designing site­specific games.

2.7 Evaluation A significant part of the design process is to evaluate the artefact. This can be undertaken as an informal evaluation or as a formal evaluation, based on scientific methods. Applying scientific methods to the evaluation is seen as necessary to recognise the design process as design science research (cf. Baskerville, Pries­Heje and Venable, forthcoming). Evaluation is in itself a complex area. We have to clarify why, how, and to what measure when we evaluate. Proper evaluation requires a complete understanding of the problem—something

page 41 of 265 that may not be available when the design process begins. Another way of evaluating site­specific games is presented by Nova and Girardin (2004). They suggest gathering position data during the game session and combining this with qualitative data gathered before the game. Benford et al. (2002) suggest using an ethnographic method and enrich this view with data from the system logs. Usually game design studies are evaluated as a test of the game at issue. Qualitative methods, like questionnaires and interviews, are often used within the sphere of pervasive games, as quantitative methods require a larger set­up with many game sessions and many players. This is usually not possible, as it requires a finished product, lots of equipment, time and organization to conduct the tests. Also the nature of pervasive games as dependent of the particular situation they are played within, make evaluations difficult to compare. Another problem is what we can learn from the results of the evaluation. Games and particularly pervasive games are difficult to test, as most players will find it exciting to play a new game, they have never played before. But even if they do not like the game, it is difficult to state why, because game playing is highly personal and people prefer and dislike different kinds of games (this has been shown in a study by Bateman and Boon, 2005). A qualitative study of games is thus difficult to rely on, although it may provide valuable insight.

When it comes to prove that a design is correct, the qualitative study must include more than just the game. It has to place the game performance in the players context (what other games does the player like? how much time does the player spend on games? etc.). This becomes an extensive study, and may conclude something about the game. But when it comes to the game development method, a study of the game can hardly prove anything about the design method. Successful games should then be the result of a successful design process—this is in contrast to the study by Petrillo et al. 2009, where it is shown that game projects suffer from many of the same problems as other it­projects. On the other hand successful methods should deliver successful products. Even so we still have to define what “successful” is for a game. In this study I will not consider whether a game is “successful” or not, but whether the method designed delivers what can be expected, which in this case is a site­specific game. By defining the site­specific game, I will be able to evaluate to which

page 42 of 265 extend games designed using the methods, fulfil the definition. This form of evaluation is more directly linked to the artefact and thus the method, and may therefore have a greater say on the method, than basing the evaluation on a user study.

2.8 Conclusion I have shown how design science research can be used as a framework for deriving a design method for site­specific games. Design science research is regarded as a science that is concerned about the meta­level of design—that is generalising on design methods is important to design science research. The research method for this study is derived from pilot case studies in site­specific games. An important issue is the question of validating the method. Ex ante and ex post evaluation are suggested. Ex ante evaluation evaluates the artefact according to a model, while ex post evaluation evaluates according to a test (a play test). This calls for a model of the site­specific game. The problem with the ex post evaluation is that it may measure the quality of the product, but it only indirectly measures the quality of the process. This means that the ex ante evaluation becomes more important, and that it is necessary to design the site­specific game artefact in a way that can be evaluated by the ex ante evaluation. It is also stressed that defining a successful game is difficult, and that the link between a successful game and a successful process in itself is difficult to ascertain.

page 43 of 265 3 ITERATION I

Iteration I Iteration II Iteration III

Revised 2. Revised Design Method Design Method Design Method

3.1 Gainers N' Drainers

Research Plan This is the first case study, and was conducted in order to get hands on with the design and development of site­specific games. The plan was to design and implement a simple site­ specific game, exploring the use of Bluetooth­technology on mobile phones. In this way it was a “classical” study in line with much research on pervasive games, conducted as case studies in different aspects of design features of pervasive games (see among many other studies: Ballagas et al. (2007), Lankosti et al. (2007), Lindt et al. (2005), Niemi (2005), Nova et al. (2004), Schlieder et al. (2005), Suomela et al. (2005)). Furthermore a prototype of the design method was used and evaluated at a workshop on alternate reality games.

Post Mortem of Gainers n' Drainers This game was the indirect result of a design workshop conducted at computer science in the fall of 2006 at CEUS (business college, Denmark). The informal workshops took place several afternoons once a week over the fall. Among other things, we discussed the possibility of using Bluetooth in a mobile game. This idea led to various informal design concepts, which were not mature enough to be taken further. The technique of using Bluetooth to explore other Bluetooth devices was explored and displayed some limitations –

page 44 of 265 at least with J2ME, which was the chosen development platform. We also talked about social games and of playing in public, and how the public sphere could be used in a game setting. The ideas lay dormant until I shortly before Christmas put the ideas together and developed a concept for an unethical game, where the player would have to follow some people and avoid others. The game play is based on the sad fact, that some people are tiresome to be with, while others are fun. In this game, the game decides who are the “gainers” and who are the “drainers.” The player earns points, that is “stay alive” by finding and staying close to the “gainers”, while avoiding the “drainers”. The player may even have to ask people if they are part of his/her game. One of the crucial design problems was how to represent other people on the screen of the mobile phone. The design space with Bluetooth turned out to be limited. It is possible to search for other Bluetooth devices without the other devices telling their users that this is taking place, but it is only possible to obtain a unique Bluetooth address (in hex) and a “friendly” name (which is not necessarily unique) – the name that people assign their Bluetooth device. In practice this name could range from the pre­set name (usually the maker and model) to something more personal, like the pet name of the mobile or the real name of the owner. This can be combined with the time of day the device was found, or the location if combined with position technology. The latter was turned down, as it would have required extra hardware, which again would limit the game design (for example does GPS not work indoor). Obviously exploring new devices or maintaining a collection of devices seemed most interesting. A possible requirement was that the player should find the same Bluetooth devices every day of week. Then the player would either have to visit the same locations or be in an area with the same group of mobiles present every day. This presented a challenge to the game design. If the player get points by discovering a device, the player could just score points, move away, come back and score more points for the same device. This was solved by only awarding points for devices that have not been detected within a reasonable period. Another design challenge was to present the Bluetooth names in an entertaining way connected with the idea of searching or playing with other people. The solution turned out to be a presentation of this as a radar screen, with the dial slowly revealing the names of the nearby Bluetooth devices. Using a radar as a metaphor is a fake, as the Bluetooth service does not reveal the distance to other devices, and does not have a clue of the direction anyway. But sometimes a fake is a good metaphor as it happened with the radar

page 45 of 265 image. The game was implemented during the Christmas holidays 2006, play tested in January 2007, subsequently revised, and entered for the Game Developers Conference 2007, where it was nominated for the “Mobile Game Innovation Hunt Finals” and presented on the conference in San Francisco, march 5th. 2007.

Evaluation The game was evaluated with the help of 3 computer science students and a teacher as test persons. They were introduced to the game, and invited to “think aloud”. A voice recorder was fixed to their shirt. After the game session, they were invited to comment on the game. The following transcription and adaptation was done by me. One of the sessions is shown here, while the other three can be found in the appendix A.

“This is a social game played alone! An old fashioned green radar screen shows up on my screen. The dial moves round and scans the area. [...] I start walking searching for people. On the way from my office, the phone suddenly starts to play a signal. I have detected somebody. “Peter.” His name is shown on the screen: “Peter.” OK, Peter must be close, he is coloured yellow, so I have to find him to earn points. He is a gainer, I am told. While looking for Peter – he may be in a closed office or one of the other rooms nearby, I get a second signal. A new name shows up on my screen, “Nokia.” Obviously somebody, with a Nokia­mobile. I try to get a sneak view of the bystanders. Is anyone looking at their mobile? I don't know who it may be, and it vanishes again. Since I am not moving, the person must have Gainers N' Drainers. Erik Kristiansen 2007 walked away. [...] Now, I have found Peter, he was surprised, how I found him. I put my game in my pocket, says “see you”, [...] and continue. As I approach the secretaries offices more names show up on my mobile. [...] Now the game becomes difficult. The names in grey colour, I will have to avoid, while I should try and find the yellow names. Some are obviously just passing by, as they come and go on my radar, but 3 or 4 names persist. [...] I have to take a decision. If I stay here I will loose points, but in which direction should I move? There is a classroom at the end of the building [...] I enter the secretary's office, asking Lone, if her phone is a “Sony Ericsson”. [She reaches for her phone, and answers] “how do you know?” “That's all

page 46 of 265 right, I reply, you are a “gainer””, [...] I leave her before I loose points. Becoming more daring, I walk to the canteen. [...] Well, lots of people here, queueing up, walking to and from the tables. My phone starts playing one tone after the other, as names crop up on my radar. I adopt a different strategy. I don't know any of the 15 names on my phone, so I simply start asking people, “Sorry, are you in my game?” If they turn out to be gainers, I stay with them until I have earned my points. If they are drainers, I turn away. [...] This is really the most offensive game, ever – and people start looking at me. [...] I don't mind, I am just playing a game [...]” Player JKP.

Discussion Gainers N' Drainers is a research prototype as a social pervasive game. The interface is a radar­like screen with the names of the peoples cell phones listed, when they are within the distance of Bluetooth coverage (about 20m). When playing the game it is up to the player, which kind of performance he or she would like to do. Do they sneak round the corners, or do they approach strangers asking them if they are called “smiley?” As the cell phone searches for all Bluetooth devices, they may also encounter PC's, headsets and so on.

The design objective was to design a game that was played on the border of normal ethics. Exploring the technical abilities of a Bluetooth “explore” on a Sony Ericsson W800i, showed that this was feasible. The Bluetooth search takes 12 secs. before it starts to recognise devices. The radar screen was designed so that each turn took the same time, giving the impression of a radar scanning the surroundings. The Bluetooth search is continuous and shows the devices when found. From the technical possibilities the game was derived as a partly social and anti­social game. It was left to the player how he would like to perform. The game was also designed to be a comment on how we socialise.

Play test Several informal play tests were performed. Four players played the game in early 2007, an unknown number in connection with the Game Developers Conference 2007, but some comments were received. The overall comments were that the game was “fun to play a few times”, “provocative”, “great fun”, “radar is awesome”, and even “very usable as a means of finding friends at a conference.” The game did not, as far as I know, spread to many

page 47 of 265 players, possibly because it could only run on a (very) limited number of mobile phones and possibly because it was not an engaging game. Observations at play test showed that the game could be played anywhere, but the best places turned out to be either places with many people moving about (it has been played at a college, in shopping streets and in shops), or places where there many people were confined to their workspaces, like office buildings (cf. appendix A). The players adopted different strategies according to the venue. It was difficult to get an overview with too many people moving at the same time, instead it was better to single out gainers (that continuously moved) and follow them (players FK and JCP), as it kept other players from being detected if the player kept moving. In office buildings it was possible to search for individuals and single them out either by moving into nearby offices or by questioning them (players RP and JCP). It has been played as a kind of multi player game by children (13­14 years old), where they turned it into a chase game. As it turned out that Bluetooth devices cannot both search and be searchable at the same time (at least not on the cell phone used), the children teamed up in groups and searched for other groups or individuals, who were not searching. After a period they swapped roles. This way the game became social in a new way. The children eagerly compared their screens, discussing who was on who's screen and who was not.

Design observations The primary driving force of this game was to explore technological possibilities with Bluetooth on mobile phones. The game design process was limited by the technical possibilities and the game was designed to fit with technology rather than the other way round. This meant that the basic idea of using other peoples mobiles to play with stopped there, because this idea basically fulfilled its purpose, e.g. showed that a game could indeed explore Bluetooth devices. In this respect the game was obviously a success. In the end however, we must conclude that the game design suffered from this, although the radar metaphor immediately caught on with people (appendix A, all four test players), and was easily understandable (also all test players). Other game designs in this genre (Bluetooth games) have been more innovative, like Insectopia, where the Bluetooth names are represented as insects, the player has to catch and maintain in a collection. The game design story has been described as “offensive” and “rude” by some players (appendix A: JCP and JKP), and it was indeed a design goal to make a game on the border

page 48 of 265 of what would understood as ethically correct. Niemi (2005) describes several ways of involving non­players in Bluetooth games. She conducted a study using game concepts, showing that in general people would accept such games if the game did not affect the non­ player or their mobile phone. On the other hand it was unacceptable for adults if their hardware ID or other information was recorded, while this was acceptable for the adolescents in the study. The game coming closest to Gainers n' Drainers is their concept Spy Bob, where the player has to stalk people for a period of time (observe in appendix A, the players JCP and JKP adopted a similar stalking technique). Also note that players RP and JCP considered it a “spy game.” The Spy Bob concept was considered unethical by adults in their study. On this basis it seems to be conclusive that the Gainers N' Drainers game would also be considered unethical by many adults.

Comparing the game design process with the creativity process of Csikszentmihalyi (1997), we may note that the creative idea came along following his idea of “incubation” as:

“[...] during this time unusual connections are likely to be made.” Csikszentmihalyi (1997:79).

The game fulfilled the design goal: to design a pervasive game using Bluetooth technology. It was a site­specific game, because the player had to move to play the game and the physical venue influenced how the game was played. It acted as a social game, either by letting the player confront other people or avoiding them. As a game however, it was not a success, as few wanted to play it again. What went wrong was probably the design process, which focussed on the use of technology, rather than on making an entertaining game. A site­specific game should be designed to engage the player by means of technology and site, not the other way round. We need a design method that will help putting equal focus on game, technology, and site.

page 49 of 265 3.2 Klintespillet

The Case This game (Klintespillet) was a much larger undertaking, which was as a collaboration between the Danish Forest and Nature Agency of Denmark (“Skov­ og Naturstyrelsen” who administers the part of nature in question), the planned (now completed) museum “GeoCenter Møns Klint,” a number of students from the Performance Design programme at Roskilde University, and myself as a project leader. The research plan was to gather practical design experience from working on a larger site­specific game project in collaboration with different people. Another goal was to study the game design process of a large and “wicked” problem, which was on the lines of “making an entertaining computer game using a site consisting of a steep cliff and the wood leading to it, for an undefined group of people using technology, that was unknown to the participants of the development group.” The goal of the museum was to develop a game for their educational services. With this description of the task and somewhat different goals we started a game design project, which turned out to be more challenging, problematic and time­consuming, that we had foreseen. In this respect it unfortunately seemed to be a typical game development project (cf. Petrillo et al. 2009).

Ex Post Evaluation Some preliminary tests had been conducted through the development phase, but this was the first test with “real” players and the software as well. The players were 22 nature guides in the age of approx. 25 to 50 years, with an equal number of males and females. They received a brief introduction—they were not told anything about the story or even presented to the characters in the game. They were divided into 6 groups, issued with a map with the hotspots marked, and the game started. One person went as an observer round the wood, trying to observe how the game went on and to solve any problems (one phone had a technical problem, which was solved). After Playtesting "Klintespillet"

page 50 of 265 approx. 1 ½ hours the game ended and the participants returned to the museum for a discussion. In each group one person took notes while they played. Each group revised their notes and mailed them after the discussion (see appendix C for the complete evaluations). The evaluation was conducted as an informal discussion taking 1 hour. Summarised the reactions were: They were generally very interested and happy about the game concept. All of them found the story intriguing and engaging. Some had covered only a few hotspots others more than 10 (out of 27 hotspots). Almost all of the groups had trouble finding the hotspots. Some were even disappointed. All teams wanted to find the next hotspot and hear more of the story. Some had experienced the Cliff King annoying as they had heard him say the same thing several times. They had found it an advantage to play in teams, as they could discuss the story. They had had no problems in uncovering the plot and what was going on and found this way of telling a story very promising. They commented it would probably fit the target group. Over the lunch after the evaluation it was observed that they inadvertently discussed genome technology which was part of the narrative—so this part of the game idea seemed to work too.

Play test of Klintespillet (Group 6) We were given a brief introduction to the game, telling us that with the cell phone, we would be able to listen to audio clips in the wood. These audio clips were part of a complicated drama which took place in different parts of the wood. We were supposed to be agents, trying to discover what actually happened. We were four persons in our group. One was carrying the cell phone with the attached gps. Another person carried the map with places marked. We started the game in front of the museum, and soon after heard a greeting from the king of the cliffs himself. This seemed were convincing and we set out to find other pieces of the story. At the parking lot we heard about Hans­Henrik and his interest in collecting insects, especially a species only known to this wood. Going north we heard about a mysterious ceremony taking place at night. The third audio clip took us some time to locate. It was about the mayor, Ylse who discovered a lot of strangely coloured insects. The story was absorbing, and we felt that it could appeal to children from 12 or 13 and up. It was an advantage to work in groups, as we could discuss the many details and what to do next. In between the king of cliff gave away small hints. When we went to far north, he also kindly warned us that we left his kingdom. After we had collected eight audio clips time ran out, and we sadly had to return to the

page 51 of 265 museum (GeoCenter Møns Klint). The game was certainly different from other games, and we thought the story was very good. It was, however, a problem how to find the places and we would have liked to have found more than we did in the time available.

Design observations Klintespillet was clearly a much larger and more complicated project than we had planned or even imagined. Beside the “normal” problems of conducting a large project with many people participating in the project with various levels of commitment, we were dealing with a game problem, we did not know how to approach. In reality this was done by lengthy discussions, several revisions, and much on site research and evaluation (see the Introduction, where a summary of the design process is given and appendix C, where there is an interview with the lead writer). There is no doubt that the early visit to the site was important to the project (cf. appendix B, where Lise (the lead writer) describes the site: “It was autumn/winter at that time and cold, wet and bare. The trees were without leaves, the wind was strong. The wood was very hilly/layered, which was a starting point for us in the early phase” (translated by EK)). A more detailed study of the site at that time would probably have furthered the understanding of the possibilities the site offered. When the idea of the narrative was incubated, and started to grow, it suddenly also started to demand something of the site, that was not there. We observed that the site was inadequate in some respects. It is difficult to tell a convincing site­specific story for a place that is not a “place” This suggests that a more detailed study of a site is necessary. The idea of telling a story as a site­specific narrative worked (cf. the play test appendix C, where all participants agree that the narrative worked). One of the problems with this type of ergodic writing is that the narrative is chunked and have to be possible to experience in random order. This problem was solved, by not writing a story but a set of small stories all referring to the same basic story. About the decision of writing such a narrative, Lise (appendix B) says:

“We decided not to write a linear narrative, because of the limitations of a site­specific experience and technical limitations too, but also because the game would not be interactive if it was linear. The experience of each player would be individual if the story was experienced as fragments. However it was difficult to predict if this kind of narrative would be convincing for the player.”

page 52 of 265 Lise (lead writer, appendix B, trans. EK)

The method of writing was endless revisions (cf. interview, appendix B). So how was the fit between the site and the narrative designed? In the interview, Lise remarked the following on the writing of the narrative:

“I tried to let go to enable the more or less random voices/thoughts to come to me, and let my fantasy loose in the first phase of the writing of the manuscript. I trusted my recollections of our meetings and that it was necessary to let my subconsciousness rule in the first phase of the writing.” Lise (appendix B, translation by EK)

Lise was clearly absorbed with the characters and the narrative, more than the site and how it could fit the site directly. She wrote the narrative on the basis of research of the area, and then hoped to “fit” it to the site afterwards. This can more generally be formulated as a question: Should the game be designed to the site, or should the game be designed and then revised to fit the site? Alternatively the site could also be fitted to the game, if this is possible. For Klintespillet the game play was designed based loosely on the site, and then revised to fit the site. Summarising we can say that the case showed:

– need for a methodological way of designing a concept for a site­specific game.

– need for a way of evaluating early in the process if the game concept will work with the site.

– need for a way of evaluating if the concept work as a site­specific game.

Some guidelines or a method would certainly have resulted in a better game concept, and eventually in a better game than the present result. Hopefully the production time would have been much shorter too. The work on Klintespillet started in the autumn 2006, and the first play test was in august 2008, although work on the game was suspended several times. On the other hand much was learned from the failures. The project also showed the need for detailed requirements, closer collaboration with the

page 53 of 265 stakeholders, a common goal, better management of the software development and more, but this is beyond the scope of this work, and quite normal for any software project, game or not as Petrillo et al. (2009) shows in a study of problems in game development.

3.3 Game Workshop The first prototype version of the method was used in a workshop on alternate reality game design, I gave at Roskilde University, 2008. The object of the workshop was to teach the students about alternate reality games and how they could be designed. The workshop showed examples of ARGs (alternate reality games), while the students undertook the task of designing a game of the ARG genre themselves. The requirements of the game was that Documenting the results of the design session. it should be designed for the university campus, and that the players should visit as many different parts of the campus as possible when playing the game. The students therefore had to design a story that would make use of the various rooms and gardens of the campus. The students were presented with a method for the use of exploring the university campus. Six students participated in the workshop and used the method for the conceptualization of the game. This version of the method was based on some of the experiences with Klintespillet. One of the successful approaches was that we studied the site (the wood) several times during the design work. These observations were a valuable tool when discussing the design. The change between work on­site and off­site was also beneficial, because many ideas which came from discussions had to be tried in practice. In the workshop these observations were included in the method used. The students were directed to explore different parts of the campus on their own, using a camera to document what they experienced, and how the site could be used. Half an hour later they reassembled, and using a map of the campus they attached the photos and ideas to the a large map (see illustration), as a part of the game conceptualization phase. This simple method was used several times to further idea generation. Discussions showed that the

page 54 of 265 approach was interesting, and a questionnaire (appendix E) was provided after the workshop. Observations showed that the map on the wall became an artefact, around which many discussions took place. The idea of making snapshots gave the designers artefacts to grab, exchange, and discuss. Of the six students, the two who responded showed that they used the method during the game design process. The students described the method as:

We went around RUC [the campus] with camera and map, so that we could write notes about the places we had discovered. Then we sat down and discussed the different places. Respondent A (appendix E)

Some days we went around [the campus] with cameras and made snapshots of the places which seemed useful. In the beginning we shot from the hip—later we would cut stuff out. Respondent B (appendix E)

The game design and the map showed that they had explored many of the less known (and unknown) places on the campus and included them in the game in an innovative way.

We had borrowed some small, dark rooms in the basement, which made us invent the scientists, who as part of our story should have their offices on different places at RUC [the campus]. Respondent B (appendix E)

The main story of the ARG, called “The Deluge,” was that an experiment in a laboratory on the campus had failed, spreading an infectious disease. The rabbit hole was 50 syringes filled with a green fluid placed in the toilets of the university. On each syringe an accompanying tag showed the address of a profile on Facebook. The goal of the workshop was just to design the ARG, and not to stage it, but the students pursued the idea of staging the ARG, although they failed in the eleventh hour.

page 55 of 265 This first evaluation of the a method to further idea generation when designing site­specific games (as this ARG was an example of) was viable. It also showed that a more formalized method probably would further the idea generation. Also the idea of working alone when exploring seemed interesting. Observations showed that it made the discussions more lively, because everyone had their own experiences to share with the others.

3.4 Conclusion

The two game studies show that designing a site­specific game is not an easy task. Or to be more precise: designing a game that makes a meaningful use of a site is difficult—this is the question of the “fit” between the game and the site. In the end the question whether a game is a “good” game invariably crops up. This discussion is not relevant here, as we are talking concept design, but it is highly relevant to speak of a “good” design. The question here is, if the game design can said to be of the site­specific game type, and if we can develop a method for furthering the concept design of site­specific games. In the end my hypothesis is, that good games (i.e. popular games) are well designed. This implies that a formalized design method, should aid the creative process and thus result in better games.

Why is it difficult to design a site­specific game? On the basis of the conclusions of the above case stories, I will present five fundamental questions:

– how can the site­specific game make use of a site?

– which parts of a site can be used in a site­specific game?

– how is a site­specific game dependent on the site? (the “fit”)

– how can the players locomotion support a site­specific game?

– how does the site support the players locomotion?

I will also suggest that part of game design is design for failure, that is parts of a game should deliberately be designed to explore the field of site­specific games including the edges. As such Klintespillet was partly designed for failure. Later at evaluation and play tests, new or unexpected idea may arise from the introduced failures. The above case

page 56 of 265 studies shows that a lot was learnt from failures.

A prototype of a design method was used in a workshop on alternate reality games. The evaluation showed that site­specific exploration fostered many ideas, and that working alone provided everyone with valuable ideas in the discussions afterwards. The prototype also showed that a more formalized method was desirable in order to guide the participants on how to use a site in a game.

page 57 of 265 4 DEFINING SITE­SPECIFIC COMPUTER GAMES

This chapter will deal with the of definition of the genre called site­specific games. It will be shown that the it is closely related to pervasive games, which in turn is related to pervasive and ubiquitous computing. A motivation for the study of pervasive games is also given, showing that it often is motivated by studying the application of new technology within games. Some of the important sub­genres of pervasive games are also discussed. The site­specific games are placed within the discussion of the magic circle. The idea of the magic circle and its consequences for the understanding of pervasive games are discussed.

4.1 “Bringing computer entertainment back to the real world”

Why contemplate pervasive games, ubicomp games and other game types, that take the player away from his safe computer at home, and send him out with a mobile phone to a vast and cold world? Is it just a whim of researchers—trying to find a subject to study? Is it really possible to conceive new game types, after thousands of years during which all along man has played games? The title “Bringing computer entertainment back to the real world,” derives from a paper by Magerkurth (Magerkurth et al, 2005). Magerkurth states that pervasive games simply is a game form that recognises its roots in games before the computer, and also recognises that true games are best played outside. There is some kind of nostalgic longing for the real world in the title. Looking at it this way will also enable the figuring out of the differences in the vocabulary used. What is pervasive games, ubiquitous games, ubicomp games, location­based games and hybrid reality games? Or as Montola et al. (2009) puts it (after giving 25 names of potential pervasive genres): “The plethora of similar yet not identical labels illustrates not only that pervasive games are part of the zeitgeitst, but the difficulty of grasping this new field.” I have – as we have already seen – added the site­specific games to the list, and below I will try to argue the case of doing so.

Ubiquitous computing has its roots in the late 1980' where Mark Weiser coined the phrase. He also wrote some of the early papers on the subject (Weiser 1991), mostly defining the phrase and being concerned with the future of man and technology.

page 58 of 265 “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” Weiser (1991)

“The goal is to achieve the most effective kind of technology, that which is essentially invisible to the user. To bring computers to this point while retaining their power will require radically new kinds of computers of all sizes and shapes to be available to each person. I call this future world ‘Ubiquitous Computing’.” Weiser (1993).

Weiser recognized early the importance of the PC, and how the microcomputer would change the world, as it became widespread. Ubiquitous computing soon established itself as being the study of the integration of computers in everyday things (cf. Gold 1993). Sometimes it is even simply called “everyware” (cf. Greenfield 2006), showing in an apt way, that computing may be found everywhere. Sociological aspects of everywhere, in line with the technological advances has since proved to be an important field of study.

“Pervasive computing” is said to be IBM's rephrasing of “ubiquitous computing” (Hansmann & al. 2001 , Kampmann­Walther 2007). The term “pervasive” means “totally penetrating” ­ something that is spread throughout our physical environment. Unfortunately IBM never did define pervasive computing in a single way, but originally it was the idea of “any time” and “everywhere” access to business information (cf. Hansmann et al. 2001). Later it has also been used in the same way as ubiquitous computing.

“Convenient access, through a new class of appliances, to relevant information with the ability to easily take action on it when and where you need to. “ Hansmann & al. (2001).

In his book “The Rise of the Network Society,” (1996) Manuel Castells suggests that there is an ongoing shift from already­decentralised, stand­alone microcomputers and mainframes towards entirely pervasive computing. In this manner Castells sees the Internet as at least a

page 59 of 265 start of a pervasive system. Castells envisages a networked system of billions of ubiquitous computers linked to one another in a network.

When introducing the field of ubiquitous and pervasive computing, it is not surprising that the technology could be used for games also, as the truly ubiquitous games have shown. This fostered a new interest in studying the phenomenon of ubiquitous game playing and ubiquitous game design. The “we believe”­style shows the pioneering spirit.

”We believe that this merger [ubiquitous computing and games] can not only create new forms of traditional games (card games, board games, role­playing games) but can also make the act of playing computer games more social.” Björk et al. (2002)

Björk et al. saw the possibility of creating more social games than was typical at the time. Interestingly they connected traditional board games with the new games—the merger was new versions of classic games that would be more social rather than comparable video games.

”We believe Human Pacman is pioneering a new form of gaming that anchors on physicality, mobility, social interaction, and ubiquitous computing.” Cheok et al. (2003).

Cheok et al. sees the herald of a new age of new types of computer games. These have the properties of being physical (as opposed to traditional video games), mobile (meaning that they could be played everywhere), social (also as opposed to traditional video games) and make use of ubiquitous computing. It is interesting to notice that the games considered are a new kind of games, because they have the said properties, none of them having anything to do with the definition of games. So it seems that these properties should be regarded as something extra on top of the normal properties of a game, i.e. the rules and game pieces. But in that case it can hardly be considered as a new form of gaming, rather it can be seen as a new way of playing old games. The “new” was neither being physical, mobile or social or using new technology, but games that would be based on this merger.

page 60 of 265 “IPerG will produce entirely new game experiences, that are tightly interwoven with our everyday lives through the items, devices and people that surround us and the places we inhabit.” IPerG Vision (2004).

The IPerG project is more careful. It is perhaps not a new kind of game, we are creating, but new game experiences. Not only driven by new technology, but driven by the ubiquitous movement of everywhere. The new experiences should be part of everyday life and everywhere and at any time. This is a consequence of true ubiquitous thinking. Greenfield 2006) puts it this way:

“Everyware isn't so much a particular kind of hardware or software as it is a situation” Greenfield (2006:31).

The situation of being part of ubiquitous computing, the situation of being part of a game any time and anywhere. When “everyware” becomes true, it is when it is not recognized any more, or as Greenfield puts it:

“Everyware can be engaged inadvertently, unknowingly, or even unwillingly.” Greenfield (2006).

The new pervasive games will enter everyday life and we may not even have the chance of refusing to participate. This is actually true with some game types, and research has been conducted in this field (cf. Montola et al., 2005, Szulborski, 2005, this is also true for Gainers N' Drainers – see iteration I). Everywhere is not just the game coming to us, it is also us becoming part of the game.

“However, the development of computer games has often decreased the users’ physical activities and social interactions. [...] To address this problem, there is a growing trend in today’s games to bring more physical movement and social interaction into games while still utilizing the benefits of computing and graphical systems.”

page 61 of 265 Magerkurth et al. (2005).

Magerkurth et al. is aware of the dire consequences of video gaming, and sees before him the archetypical gamer sitting 10 hours a day in a dark room playing a shooter game. The new games should be based on an ideology of good health, lots of exercise and social interaction. The idea of more social interaction in pervasive games seems strange. Just because games are played outside they do not need to be social, just as indoor video games do not need to be anti­social. Physical movement and social interaction are clearly seen as positive properties of games, where you could have mentioned fun, education or creativity. Or have brought in the factors of player enjoyment from the Game Flow model: Concentration, Challenge, Skills, Control, Clear goal(s), Feedback, Immersion, and Socializing (Sweetser and Wyeth, 2005) and its extension The Pervasive Game Flow Model (Jegers, 2007).

“[The Big Urban Game is] a surreal spectacle that shifted players' perspective on their urban environment” Lantz, Big Urban Game (2005)

Frank Lantz, who was a designer on the Big Urban Game in Minnesota/St Paul, explained the player experienced as a shift of perspective while participating in the B.U.G. The important thing was not the game it self, but being part of something bigger. This is also recognized by players of Alternate Reality Games (cf. I Love Bees, McGonigal, 2006). Being part of something bigger can either be achieved by scaling the game visually (as B.U.G.) or virtually (as I Love Bees), where thousands of people worked on the same puzzles. The game becomes a spectacle. Something theatrical, it is staged to include as many people as possible, not just the few players (or actors), but the onlookers as participants too. This is the understanding of pervasive games played as part of a movement, providing people with a new look on their surroundings.

“The genre of ubiquitous gaming asks the question: What are the secret gaming affordances of everyday objects and spaces?” McGonigal (2006).

page 62 of 265 This last bit of pro et con is the ludic approach to everywhere. We should explore everywhere to see if it can be used for games. This is opposite to the previous quotations which has as its starting point how we can design games for reality, not how reality can be used for games. This inquisitive outlook is beneficial for ubiquitous games, as there is no ideology—there is just a quest for play in this playful approach: Everyday objects and spaces are challenges, we are the players, and our mission is to design games using these objects and spaces.

So we have established the “why?” Pervasive games have to be researched and developed in attempt to: (in random order)

Six factors of pervasive/ubiquitous gaming Technology: games as promoters of new pervasive/ubiquitous technology Experience: games as live public events Explore: games as a means of exploring artefacts (things and places) Socialize: games as socialization Physical: games as means of making people physically active Everywhere: games as part of everyday life

Who said “more entertaining?” It seems that nobody have considered the possibility that pervasive games could be more fun (for at discussion of fun and entertainment in games, see among others Koster, 2004), compared to non­pervasive games. We will return to this discussion later when we have established the pervasive game genre (if it is a genre at all) and its relation to performance theory.

The six factors are all crucial to describe the site­specific computer games. Included are pervasive and ubiquitous games that in some ways make use of the physical surroundings as an important part of the game. It may seem odd to introduce a new term in an already crowded field, but it underlines the importance of the genre as a game genre, where focus is placed on the players interaction with the site, or artefacts placed in the site. Together with the physical aspect the site­specific games become an embodied performance.

page 63 of 265 4.2 Pervasive Games

As there are a number of different types of outdoor computer games and the taxonomy used varies, I will present an overview followed by a tentative definition of the game types involved. As site­specific in the performance art tradition usually concerns performances in outdoor places (squares etc.), I will focus on outdoor­games which also are the most prominent part (as opposed to pervasive board games).

As outdoor games are usually dependent on locomotion or at least body movements, I will consider this an important factor when dealing with pervasive games. On the other hand, as we are concerned with games using wearable computers and other devices connected to the computer, the type and amount of technology used is the other important factor.

In search of the elusive Pervasive Game

“The game player becomes unchained from the console and experiences a game that is interwoven with the real world and is potentially available at any place and any time.” Benford et al. (2005).

This is ubiquitous computing in a game version. So this is calling for games that are an alternate reality to us—a parallel life that interacts with our lives. But not an alternate reality kind of game that is invisible. A game that we can play where ever we are and what ever the time is. Benford calls for freedom for the “chained” player of video games, although it seems strange because as a ubiquitous gamer he can be “chained” everywhere and all the time.

“Pervasive gaming implies the construction and enacting of augmented and/or embedded game worlds that reside on the threshold between tangible and immaterial space, which may further include adaptronics, wearable, mobile, or embedded software/hardware in order to facilitate a 'natural' environment for gameplay that ensures the explicitness of computational procedures in a post­screen setting.” Kampmann­Walther (2006).

page 64 of 265 Kampmann­Walther places the pervasive game as a game between reality and virtuality. This pinpoints accurately the main feature of pervasive gaming: the game is somehow configured and played in both the tangible space and the immaterial space at the same time —or at least in the same game. Whether it is “post­screen” or not, we still have to communicate with the computer in the game, and the interface can take many forms, the video screen (albeit in a smaller size) still being the central interface in almost all pervasive games (there are only few examples of audio­only or audio­mostly pervasive games, see Kristiansen, forthcoming).

“Pervasive games focus on a game play that is embedded in our physical world. Elements of the physical world are inherent parts of the game. Their characteristics and states are sensed and influence the course of the game. Additionally, pervasive games allow for a game that can be potentially accessed at any time and from any location.” Lindt et al. (2005).

Lindt has more focus on the physical world. The properties of the location should be part of game and the game should be part of the physical world. This is more in the spirit of the word “pervasive”, as something that is found everywhere. I take it by “sensed” that some kind of technology adapts the game to the surroundings. This is very important. The pervasive game is not only played in a location, but has to react to this location, for example by including elements of the physical world in the game, as she suggests.

“The game genre behind the pervasive buzzword seems to be an extension of earlier gaming phenomena, using traditional elements in a new, extreme fashion. Whether pervasive games then constitute a genuinely new form of games is up to debate, but one thing is certain: the pervasive games use these elements to successfully produce genuinely different experiences.” Montola (2005).

“[...] pervasive games are seen both as a subcategory of games and as an expansion of what games are.” Montola et al. (2009)

page 65 of 265 Montola is more realistic and modest. It is difficult to define the pervasive games as a genre on its own, but it is still a fact that they are able to produce other kinds of experiences, than ordinary video games. Montola turns from the design perspective to the player perspective. If players experiences another kind of sensation, then this may be a viable way to define the games, if the experience can be described more precisely. This—I will argue is the perspective where we can bring in some help from the world of Performance Studies.

“[...] we may notice three major characteristics that in various extents are present in Pervasive games. The characteristics are: mobile/place independent game play, social interaction between players and integration of the physical and the virtual world.” Jegers (2007).

By “independent,” Jegers means that the pervasive game is not isolated to the specific location of the computer. Pervasive games can once again be played everywhere and at any time. This is in accordance with the understanding of the word “pervasive”, also with “ubiquitous” in the sense of pervasive games being part of “everyday life,” although he addresses this as “allowing the player to access the game in virtually all everyday contexts and environments, at all times,” which I take to mean that the player is in control of the game and only plays when he wants to play, but not that the game may require his participation at specific time and in specific places. Is play part of everyday life? Or is anywhere, any time a challenge to play? In the understanding of “pervasive” as “penetrating,” games everywhere may also confront us at places and times, where we would like to avoid them. Jegers also considers social interaction an important factor, though many ordinary video games are highly social, he sees pervasive games letting the players socialize in the physical world. It seems that many of the pervasive games are multi player games and as a consequence seen as highly social. In the first place multi player games need not be highly social—it must depend on the kind and degree of interaction between players. On the other hand even single player pervasive games can be social as they can require players to interact in different ways with bystanders (deLahunta (2002) suggests that there are two kinds of participants in a immersive performance: the audience and the immersant—in pervasive games it would be the bystander(s) and the player(s)). In pervasive games the

page 66 of 265 space of socialization is therefore much bigger, and as a consequence it can either be left open (as Jegers 2007, points out), just providing an overall goal, and leaving the socialization to the players. This is in fact the strategy GeoCaching pursues. There are no rules concerning how you find the cache, just the goal. Even though GeoCaching technically must be considered a single­player game, it has fostered many groups of people playing together, for example families. On the other hand there exists the possibility of games which are much more carefully planned. Pervasive games that are more theatre­like.

“Pervasive Games are a ludic form of mixed­reality entertainment with goals, rules, competition, and attacks, based on the utilization of Mobile Computing and/or Pervasive Computing Technologies.” Hinske et al. (2007).

Many researchers focus on the pervasive games ability to make use of both the physical world and a virtual world as a combined or mixed game space. Physical objects can be represented as objects in the virtual world, and information presented in the virtual world can augment the physical world. This has been termed mixed reality, originating from the concept of “Virtuality Continuum” (Milgram and Kishino, 1994). They defined mixed reality as "...anywhere between the extrema of the virtuality continuum,” where the extremes are virtual environment and real environment. Mixed reality is used in a number of ways from head­up displays in air planes to simulation and art. Mixed reality covers both augmented reality, that is real objects with some virtual information attached to it, and augmented virtuality, likewise virtual worlds connected with some real objects. Pervasive games can benefit from mixed reality in a number of ways, as shown by Hinske et al. (2007), the typical being as an extra virtual layer on the physical world, by means of representing virtual game tokens on a map on computer, where the map of course represents the physical surroundings.

“Pervasive game is a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play socially, spatially or temporally.” Montola (2005), Montola et al. (2009)

page 67 of 265 Montola uses the notion of the magic circle as the primary basis of defining the pervasive game. The magic circle (introduced by Huizinga, 1938), is a way of describing play as worlds within the world, where other rules apply and another time exists. The magic circle itself will be dealt with in more detail later—here we are just concerned with a possible definition of pervasive games. What Montola says is that pervasive games can be defined on the basis that they have features not found in other games: they have socially different structures, they use space in another way, and can stretch over long periods of time. For now it will suffice to challenge the temporal aspect. Lots of video games (the MMORPG's) are played over long stretches of time (indeed several years) and as part of the players everyday life. In that case some video games are exhibiting pervasive features. Other games of the tamagotchi­style requires the player to play at all times no matter where they are and they invite social interaction too, as players meet and play together. In a sense they are pervasive too. Although the magic circle argument is strong, it may not be conclusive.

From the various quotes it should be clear that trying to find a suitable definition of the term pervasive gaming that covers previous research is difficult. We also must remember that it relies on the somewhat nebulous definition of pervasive computing. Nieuwdorp (2007) has shown that the concepts are mixed and that they are used in many different ways, for example some researches even include some toys as pervasive games (see among others Magerkurth et al. 2005). For a further discussion of how the concepts of pervasive and ubiquitous gaming and computing are intertwined, see Nieuwdorp 2007. There are two main views which are important: the technological view and the cultural view:

– a technological one that focuses on the computing technology as a tool to enable the game to come into being.

– a cultural one that focuses on the game itself and, subsequently, on the way the game world can be related to the everyday world Nieuwdorp (2007), original emphasis.

For the purpose of game design I think the cultural approach is the most appropriate and I will pursue this line of thought. In this connection it seems appropriate to quote the first

page 68 of 265 paper (as far as I know), where the term pervasive game was used:

“We define a Pervasive Game as a LARP game that is augmented with computing and communication technology in a way that combines the physical and digital space together. In a Pervasive Game, the technology is not the focus of the game but rather the technology supports the game. Although technology is ubiquitous in a Pervasive Game, its role is a supporting one and thus the technology is kept as unobtrusive as possible.” Schneider and Kortuem (2001).

Schneider and Kortuem have their background in live­action role­playing where ubiquitous computing (in the form of a mobile phone) is often used by the game masters to control and supervise the LARP. In this paper they are using PDA's to augment a LARP called Pervasive Clue. Coming from a LARP tradition where the role­playing game is the main focus, it is not surprising that they place technology as a supporting factor. As LARP is of a theatrical nature (street theatre, improv. theatre) the primary focus lies on the performance of the players (i.e. their ability to play a role and to fight), secondary how it is staged and which props should be used.

There are a few examples of games that has been termed “Pervasive LARP”. Most prominent is the game Prosopopeia. The game is based on role­playing, but also requires the extensive use of ubiquitous computing. Prosopopeia used rebuilt tape recorders that could be controlled remotely as an essential part of the game, where the players acted as mediums controlled by ghosts. As in a LARP the type often requires semi­professional performers as game masters and as setting the scenes of the different situations the players encounter in the LARP.

4.3 Site­specific Computer Games

Introducing the term “site­specific” to describe the game genre above, moves the discussion away from the discussion of pervasive computing and ubiquitous computing. Technology is still an important part of any site­specific computer game (or just site­specific game for short), but the game should no longer be driven by technology alone and the genre should

page 69 of 265 no alone be defined on the use of a particular technology Describing the genre we will focus on a game where the physical site is part of the game design. It is not just the question of taking a game outside, but the site itself should be an intrinsic part of the way the game is designed and played. The term site­specific originates in performance art, where site­specific was part of the early 1960s and '70 minimalism: “which recognized the physical conditions of a particular location as integral to the production, presentation, and reception of art” (cf. Irwin, 2008). The keyword is integral. Moving the performance out of the theatre is not enough to make it site­specific in this understanding. Games like PacManhattan, Prosopopeia and Big Urban Games are examples of games where the site is integrated in the game, while other pervasive games have a more loose connection to the site, like Can You See Me Now, even though designed specifically for Nottingham, it has later successfully toured several towns. Another example is GPSmission, where the game only can be played starting at a certain location, and where the players progress in the game can be linked with the physical surroundings. Navball and Triangler are games that are designed to be played anywhere—almost, although the nature of the terrain still is important to the performance of the game, but of course the actual game performance, will depend on the site. All of the games above are thus played as site­specific, while some of them were designed as site­relative and others as site­specific. Examples of games that are designed and played as site­relative, are games that are designed for special kinds of sites, which can be found anywhere, for example a grass field (the educational game Savannah is site­relative. Other examples are Navball and Triangler. See also Gainers N' Drainers from Iteration I).

We have now established the site­specific games that includes locomotion of the player(s), as a basic way of interacting with the game. But site­specific could also mean games that are designed in a unique way to be played at a special location, where locomotion is not an issue. This is not a widely recognised subgroup. A good example is playing the classical video game of Space Invaders on a five storey building (Come Out And Play, 2007), or the many places where light decorations on big office buildings are used for playing other classic video games, like Snake and Tetris (the most well known project is properly Mikontalo lights, 2007). This movement is connected to the urban movement of turning the city into a playground. That is, site­specific art is given a playful interactive form, but seldom evolving into real games. The distinction here is that site­specific games involve

page 70 of 265 locomotion, while Mikontalo lights and others are site­specific art.

Def.: A site­specific computer game (site­specific game) is a game genre where the game is supported by appropriate use of technology, and the site in the form of place and space is part of the players embodied performance of the game.

Focus by this definition is on the design of the players performance in the game. Any game could be played on the North Pole, but that does not make it a site­specific game, although the conditions of the site may have influence on the players experience of the game. A site­ specific game is a game designed to make the players perform in a manner which is related to the site where the game is performed. As a performance the game must include locomotion, dancing, climbing, mimics—somehow positioning the players body in relation with the physical surroundings as a means of progressing in the game. This can be supplemented by other activities such as exploring, solving, discussing etc. How the game design space is configured will be explored when we describe the site­specific performances in more detail.

4.4 Play and Game

What is Play?

Although there have been many attempts at defining, what it is to play, it somewhat escapes a simple definition, playing is something we all have a feeling of, but the term is used to cover a wide scope of activities. Richard Schechner (1988) suggest that animals play too—a dog that bites when playing, does not only bite but at the same time signals that it is not a bite, but merely playing that it is biting. A playful nip is not only not a bite, but also a not not a bite. The play mode is somewhat signalled. Play is an activity that is a paradox, as suggested by Geoffrey Bateson (1955). It is what it appears to be and not what it appears to be at the same time. Typical definitions of play include what it is not. It is not work, it does not have an outcome, it is not commenced with a purpose, it is not required. In his book, The Ambiguity of Play, Brian Sutton­Smith suggests a list of different play styles:

page 71 of 265 – Mind or subjective play

– Solitary play

– Playful behaviours

– Informal social play

– Vicarious audience play

– Performance play

– Celebrations and festivals

– Contests (games and sports)

– Risky or deep play Sutton­Smith (1997)

He stresses that the boundaries are not as clear as the list suggests, and that they are listed starting with the more private activity and ending with the more public activity. By this ordering he inadvertently suggests that the private/public feature of play is important in some way. We will return to this when discussing the performance element of play. This great diversity of play together with the obvious ambiguity, is described by Sutton­Smith using seven rhetorics of play:

The rhetoric of:

– play as progress

– play as fate

– play as power

– play as identity

– play as the imaginary

– the self

– play as frivolous Sutton­Smith (1997)

Play as progress is based on the idea, that children and animals adapt and develop through play. Play as fate includes the chance element of play. Play as power applies to sports and contests, play as identity to celebrations and festivals, whereas play as the imaginary

page 72 of 265 concerns with play as creativity and innovation. The rhetoric of the self is applied to play as experiences of fun and relaxation—the aesthetic satisfaction of play performances. The last group, play as frivolous is applied to the foolish or idle, the grotesque, the clown, as a comment on the other rhetorics. The element of fate or chance in play is interesting and much discussed by Roger Caillois in his book Man, Play, and Games (1961). On chance games he writes:

“The player is entirely passive: he does not deploy his resources, skill, muscles, intelligence. All he need do is await, in hope and trembling, the cast of the die. [...] It seems an insolent and sovereign insult to merit.” Caillois (1961).

As Sutton­Smith points out, there is a touch of sadness in Caillois' dealing with the subject. But the chance or fate is a part of any playing or gaming, either as an intrinsic part of the particular activity, like lottery, or because playing is associated with taking a risk or daring something. This brings luck in as an element of chance. Even when we consider play activities, like chess, where there is no intrinsic element of chance, there is still a recognized element of luck, and it is common to hear the phrase: “you were lucky.” Fate, luck and chance have the appeal, that it places everyone at the same level, even participants who have never played before, have an element of chance to perform well when playing. Sutton­Smith points out that fate is a much larger part of playing and gaming than we are likely to recognise: “The massive amounts of money spent on games of chance make them arguably the most important form of play on the modern world.” (Sutton­ Smith, 1997). The rational rhetoric of progress is in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of fate. As opposed to other kinds of performances playing and gaming is never deterministic, its inner logic is always based on the participants love of the unforeseen, and the space where you are allowed to take a risk when at the same time not taking a risk. Play as power is a rhetoric of ancient hue. Power in this context has to do with sports and athletics. Play is representing conflict and those who control the play and the heroes. As Sutton­Smith says, “they are an anathema, to modern progress­ and leisure­oriented play­ theorists” but to me, much closer to modern theory of performance, like Schechner's functions of performance (Schechner 2002). Play as power is found in the new computer

page 73 of 265 game genre serious games. On the other hand, play as the imaginary applies to improvisation, imagination and the creative. This is linked with art, as Herbert Spencer puts it: (quoted by Sutton­Smith, 1997)

“play and art are the same activity because neither subserves, in any direct way, the processes conducive to life and neither refers to ulterior benefits, the proximate ends are the only ends” Spencer (1896:694)

“A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.” Costikyan (1994).

We also find the imaginative as part of Schechner's dark play. Sutton­Smith terms play as self, as peak experience or microperformance. The peak experience we find described in the work on flow by Csikzentmihalyi (1997), while microperformance is the feature of playing as a dialectical relationship between enactment and everyday references (Sutton­Smith 1997:195).

Comparing the rhetorics of Sutton­Smith with the classical theory of play by Roger Caillois in Man, Play, and Games (Caillois 1961), we find some similarities. Caillois suggests four fundamental categories. Agôn is competitive playing, Alea, games of chance, Mimicry, make­ believe playing, and Ilinx, playing giving the physical sensation of vertigo. Caillois' gives examples of play and games belonging to each category. It is interesting to note though, that it is not really categories of games or play, but rather features, as many games belong to more than one category, eg. all games have an element of chance, and even lottery have an element of competition. Caillois extends his categories with the notions of paida and ludus, where paida represents a free­form unregulated activity and ludus represents regulated, well­formed and rule­bound activity. This is called the paida­ludus continuum and forms an axis from the free and creative to the bound and regulated. Coupled with the categories we get eight different types of play­activities.

page 74 of 265 Paida Ludus Agôn (Competition) Unregulated athletics (foot Boxing, Billiards, Fencing, racing, wrestling) Checkers, Football, Chess Alea (Chance) Counting­out rhymes Betting, Roulette, Lotteries Mimicry (Simulation) Children's initiations, masks, Theatre, spectacles in general disguises Ilinx (Vertigo) Children ”whirling,” Skiing, Mountain climbing, Horseback riding, Waltzing Tightrope walking Caillois (1961)

The trouble with the system is that it becomes very general. It seems that any performance can be fitted in these categories. On the other hand the system is very limited, placing boxing and chess in the same category. It is also remarkable that Caillois writes “Such a primary power of improvisation and joy, which I call paida, is allied to the taste for gratuitous difficulty that I propose to call ludus, in order to encompass the various games to which, without exaggeration, a civilizing quality can be attributed.” (p. 27). It seems that there is a balance towards paida being easier and primitive, while ludus being more difficult and civilized—this is in line with the examples given, where the paida examples are activities for children, and ludus activities for adults. This is in line with Sutton­Smith's play as progress. A new reading of the paidia­ludus continuum is suggested by Frasca, 2001. The term ludus is reserved for competition, that is games where contestants compete with the aim of winning the game. Rules that govern such behaviour are called ludus rules, while rules that restrict or define playing are called paidea rules (Frasca, 2001). The interesting point is that paidea rules can be supplied with ludus rules, turning playing into gaming and vice versa. Turning back to a definition of play, Caillois, offers the following features as prominent of game as an activity:

– fun: people play for fun.

– separate: it is delimited in time and space.

– uncertain: the outcome of a game is unknown.

– non­productive: the activity does not lead to a product or anything of meaning

page 75 of 265 (other than play).

– governed by rules: special rules that are not everyday applies to the activity.

– fictitious: it takes place in a different reality. Caillois (1961)

The Magic Circle

The Dutch cultural researcher Johan Huizinga has inadvertently become a major reference point in modern play and game research through his book Homo Ludens (1938). Inadvertently, because he was trying to understand the play element of culture, not to analyse it in its own way. He was the first to recognise play as a fundamental human function and that play has permeated all human cultures from the beginning. “Primitive society performs its sacred rites and sacrifices, consecrations and mysteries, all of which serve to guarantee the well­being of the world in a spirit of pure play, truly understood” (Huizinga 1938). Play is considered to be outside of ordinary life, it is non­utilitarian, childlike, non­profane, rule­bound, voluntary, spatially and temporally separate. Although Huizinga acknowledges play can be nasty and brutal, he idealizes and sacralises play (cf. Sutton­Smith, 1997:203). What has become an important inspiration for many game scholars and particularly those concerned with pervasive games of any kind, is the idea of play being something separate. Separate from ordinary time and space and norms of the society. This definition of play is what since has been known as the “magic circle” of play. Huizinga argues that even though play is distinct from ordinary life, both as to location and time, it is still an important part of life, and as such, a shaper of civilization. Play presents itself as “an intermezzo, an interlude in our daily lives. As a recurring relaxation, however it becomes the accompaniment, the compliment, in fact an integral part of life in general” (Huizinga 1938). Though shown by Rodriguez, that Huizinga emphasizes, that the concept of play often cannot be defined as taking place within precise boundaries, Rodriguez remarks: “His entire study can be seen as an effort to speak as precisely as possible about categories and distinctions that cannot be neatly demarcated” (Rodriguez 2006).

“All play moves and has its being within a play­ground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, deliberately or as a matter of course. Just as there is

page 76 of 265 no formal difference between play and ritual, so the ‘consecrated spot’ cannot be formally distinguished from the play­ground. The arena, the card­table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the tennis court, the court of justice, etc, are all in form and function play­grounds, i.e. forbidden spots, isolated, hedged round, hallowed, within which special rules obtain. All are temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart.” Huizinga (1938).

Huizinga suggests that dedicated performances take place in special dedicated spaces, or the other way round, that dedicated spaces dictates special performances of play or ritual. Ritualized spaces can not be distinguished from spaces dedicated to play. In this sense there is no formal difference between what goes on in the tennis court and in the law court. Both spaces require some ritualized performance. Huizinga deliberately suggests that play is associated with specific spaces, which in turn are reserved for that purpose. Some spaces are small and possibly moveable: the card­table, whereas others are large and permanent: the arena, the tennis court. But all spaces are distinct and marked likewise – often forbidden places to enter. This is clearly an example of Huizinga sacralizing play. The term “magic circle” is just put in between and is translated from the Dutch “toovercirkel,” which probably means the circle where rituals of witchcraft are performed within. The name is also the name of a Dutch traditional dance.

”Formally speaking, there is no distinction whatever between marking out a space for a sacred purpose and marking it out for purposes of sheer play. The turf, the tennis­court, the chess­board and pavement­hopscotch cannot formally be distinguished from the temple or the magic circle.” Huizinga (1938)

In this quotation, it is clear that the temple and the magic circle are both of some sacred importance as opposed to the tennis­court, the chess­board and the pavement­hopscotch. It is also clear that it was not the meaning of Huizinga to single out the “magic circle” as a notion on its own.

page 77 of 265 The modern understanding of the “magic circle” as a concept in game studies originates in Salen and Zimmerman's reading of Huizinga in their book “Rules of Play” (2004:95).

“As a player steps in and out of a game, he or she is crossing that boundary—or frame —that defines the game in time and space. As noted above, we call the boundary of a game the magic circle”

They build on Huizinga's idea of play as a temporary world within the real world, but extend it:

“Compare, for example, the informal play of a toy with the more formal play of a game. A child approaching a doll, for example, can slowly or gradually enter into a play relationship with the doll. The child might look at the doll from across the room and shoot it a playful glance. Later, the child might pick it up and hold it, then put it down and leave it for a time. The child might carelessly drag the doll around the room, sometimes talking to it and acknowledging it, at other times forgetting it is there.” Salen and Zimmerman (2004:94).

From this example, they conclude: “The boundary between the act of playing with the doll and not playing with the doll is fuzzy and permeable” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004:94). They compare this activity with that of playing Tic­Tac­Toe:

“In order to play, the children must gather the proper materials, draw the four lines that make up the grid of the board, and follow the proper rules each turn they progress through the game. [...] The game takes place in a precisely defined physical and temporal space of play. Either the children are playing Tic­Tac­Toe or they are not.” Salen and Zimmerman (2004:95).

So what is actually the difference between these two examples? In the first a single person is creative, in the second two or more persons are following the rules given by a third party. You can not tell the absence or presence of the “magic circle” by these examples. To us, the first example may seem disorganized or informal, but we really do not know if there

page 78 of 265 happen to be an inner formal structure. Some research verify a that even toddler's play is a careful performance (cf. Gerstmyer, 1991). The central thing is that “Play is novelty, but it also is typically at the beginning an incongruity [...] But as play proceeds, one is impressed less with the initial incongruity and more with the enjoyable establishment of the internal incongruities of this separate kingdom” (Sutton­Smith, 1997:195). Both the examples of Salen and Zimmerman establishes that playing and gaming are activities that take place in a “separate kingdom” as Sutton­Smith puts it. The difference is why and how this “kingdom” is created and preserved. Salen and Zimmerman's example of Tic­Tac­Toe is taken from an idealized world, absent of all the fuzzy details that were included with the first example. A real game of Tic­Tac­Toe may seem just as informal and confusing as any doll­ playing. How can you define whether they are playing Tic­Tac­Toe or not? If they have misunderstood some of the rules or use dolls as game pieces, are they still playing Tic­Tac­ Toe or are they just playing dolls?

The important difference is not whether the activity is formal or not. The difference is the purpose. Playing does not have a purpose (cf. Caillois 1961, Huizinga, 1938), but gaming has a purpose: it is not to win as would seem obvious (as some scholars define gaming, e.g. Juul, 2003) ­ winning is reserved for competition. Gaming is to follow some kind of instructions, rules—a predefined behaviour. Gaming is participating in an activity with the right kind of spirit, as it were. Gaming is about understanding the social construct and adapting to it. Gaming is to adapt to a social situation, whereas playing is mainly to be creative. Sometimes the situation may be regulated by a written set of rules, at other times the suggested behaviour is explained or simply known in advance. Most games of course, need some kind of props—a board, game pieces and so on, but this is not the essence of the game as a performance. This will be dealt with in more detail in connection with the theory of performance, where I introduce the game performance. The magic circle is a powerful metaphor, and Salen and Zimmerman developed the original idea of Huizinga into a new reality:

“Within the magic circle, special meanings accrue and cluster around objects and behaviours. In effect, a new reality is created defined by the rules of the game and inhabited by its players.”

page 79 of 265 Salen and Zimmerman (2004:96).

The magic circle becomes a new temporary world with special meanings, rules, players, game­board, game­pieces etc. by Salen and Zimmerman's definition. The concept of the magic circle, as formulated by Salen and Zimmerman have been discussed and contested by other scholars as well (Copier: Challenging the Magic Circle: How Online Role­Playing Games are negotiated by Everyday Life 2009, Castranova: Synthetic worlds 2005, Consalvo: Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles 2005, Juul: The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece 2009, Lammes: Spatial Regimes of the Digital Playground 2006, Montola: Exploring the edge of the magic circle 2005, Nieuwdorp: The pervasive interface: Tracing the magic circle 2005, Rodriguez: The playful and the serious 2006, Taylor: Play between worlds 2006, Pargman and Jakobsson: The magic is gone 2006).

Marinka Copier outlines some of the main issues with the magic circle as metaphor:

“The visualization and metaphorical way of speaking of the magic circle as a chalk, or even, rusty circle is misleading. It suggests we can easily separate play and non­play, in which the play space becomes a magical wonderland. However, I argue that the space of play is not a given space but is being constructed in negotiation between player(s) and the producer(s) of the game but also among players themselves Copier (2005).

Interestingly Juul (2008) simply suggests a proof of the existence of the magic circle by showing that a situation that is not acceptable during dinner can be acceptable during a game. This view only understands the social aspect of the magic circle and can be explained by understanding gaming as a social situation, just like other social situations with its own culture. Nieuwdorp 2005 prefers Goffman's notion screen, as presented in his essay on fun in games: “[...] the screen not only selects, but also transforms what is passed through it” (Goffman 1961:33). Castranova uses the term “porous membrane”: which “can be considered a shield of sorts, protecting the fantasy world from the outside world.” (Castranova 2005:147). “[...] people are crossing it all the time in both directions, carrying their behavioural assumptions

page 80 of 265 and attitudes with them. As a result, the valuation of things in cyberspace becomes enmeshed in the valuation of things outside cyberspace” (Castranova 2005:150). Castranova clearly points out that the MMORPG's, although trying to “shield” themselves from the world are still heavily influenced by it. Taylor (2006:17) writes on EverQuest: “Playing EQ is about playing between worlds – playing back, and forth, across the boundaries of the game and the game world, and the 'real' or nonliteral game space.” Pargman and Jakobsson introduced a more flexible idea of the magic circle. They suggest the use of Goffman's concept of frames and frames­within­frames. This describes a game as a subframe with roles that redefine the situation. As they point out: “There is nothing magical about switching between roles. It is something we do all the time and can literally be done at the blink of an eye” (Pargman and Jakobsson, 2006). Copier (2009) argues that the concept and metaphor of the magic circle is problematic, because it introduces the game space as an “isolated magical wonderland, which seems almost impossible to grasp rationally.” To be able to discuss the relation between fantasy and reality, scholars have suggested the possible “extension”, “breaking”, “blurring”, or “exploration” of the edge of the magic circle (cf. Magerkurth, 2005 and Montola, 2005). It still leaves us with the question of this separateness. How much is separate? Lauteren (2007) argues that the classical separation of work and play has vanished and that the magic circle is subjected to transformations linked to shifts in cultural values. Salen and Zimmerman argues that games can be open or closed systems. They suggest three perspectives: rules (systemic perspective), play (experiental perspective) and culture (cultural perspective). The systemic perspective requires the game to be a closed system, whereas the game as experience can be both open and closed, and the game as culture is highly open. In line with pervasive games research, Salen and Zimmerman suggests that innovative games may stem from researching the edge of the magic circle, e.g. the games that cross the border may provide new insight into other kinds of gaming. This discussion leads to the question: Is the magic circle the best metaphor for understanding the nature of games? Consalvo (2005:10) observes that “For many players, playing games is, in some measure, a playing with rules and boundaries.” Casual observation of children playing football also suggests that a game performance is constantly uphold, by negotiating what seems important for the situation: the rules, the players, the time, the ball, and the space etc. Games are played by negotiating these factors and possibly many more. This is

page 81 of 265 supported by Woods (2009), who suggests that the negotiating is a social strategy.

[...] within the game it becomes apparent that players in a social game are constantly negotiating the perceived demands of the strategic game as defined by the rules and the social contract as determined by the context of the encounter. The combination of these two influences constitute the fluctuating rule boundaries of the magic circle as perceived by the individual player. Woods (2009)

Even when playing meta games like Nomic, the players end up discussing the interpretation of the game, even though Nomic has no rules (Nomic is a famous and highly social game, where the game is to invent the rules, that eventually let you win). Copier (2009) suggests a network approach instead of the concept of the magic circle. Earlier I defined gaming, as adapting to a situation. To play a game you adapt by negotiating the rules, the goal, the players, the game board, the game culture—anything that will help you perform in the game situation. With Copier's network approach, we can discuss how games are designed differently and played differently with respect to how the game performance is negotiated.

Games as Open and Closed Systems

Salen and Zimmerman suggest that games as rules are closed systems—that is rules can not be changed as a result of the context. Most games are definitely designed with fixed rules, but certainly played differently according to the context they happen to be performed in. This could be children playing football on a field. Although the design is closed, the way it is played is open, as the lack of lines will prompt the players to negotiate whether the ball is in or out of the football pitch, and the rules of off­side will possibly be suspended. Both the interpretation and the rules themselves will be subject to negotiation. Again in a perfect world the games (as rules) seems to be closed systems, but in reality, they are not, and the players probably do not want them to be closed, as this would cut off a substantial bit of the negotiation and inhibit the adaptive process. It seems we have to discuss games on two levels: games as they are designed and games as they are played or performed. As Taylor puts it:

page 82 of 265 “From Monopoly to Final Fantasy, commercial games in particular are often seen as structures conceived by a designer and then used by players in accordance with given rules and guidelines. Players, however, have a history of pushing against these boundaries” Taylor (2007).

Pervasive Games and the Magic Circle

The notion of the magic circle has provided a particular contribution to the research and understanding of pervasive games. As the salient features of pervasive games seem to cross or extend the magic circle, this has been used for the definition of the pervasive games and thus the site­specific games as well. Montola et al. offers (2009) the following description (the definition by Montola (2005) and Montola et al. (2009) was shown above):

In pervasive games the magic circle is expanded in one or more ways: The game no longer takes place in certain times or certain places, and the participants are no longer certain. Pervasive games pervade, bend, and blur the traditional boundaries of game, bleeding from the domain of the game to the domain of the ordinary. Montola et al. (2009)

Montola, admits though, that many ordinary games exhibit these features too. An example is Dance, Dance Revolution, where spectators may influence the player by cheering, and tamagotchis, which are played over a long stretch of time. Both these games extend the magic circle, and thus could be termed pervasive games, but usually they are not. But they certainly motivate a theatre­like performance, unlike traditional video games. Again we have to stress the difference of the designed game versus the played game. Dance Dance Revolution may not have been designed with the view that spectators should cheer— it can be played as a single­player game, whereas tamagotchi definitely was designed to be played over a long stretch of time and thus interfere with your daily life. But if many other games, or even all games, cross or extend the magic circle, where does the definition of

page 83 of 265 pervasive games leave us? All games seem to show some pervasive features, because they are played as part of our lives, but not all games are designed as pervasive games. Note that Montola suggests in his definition that pervasive games expands the magic circle. If this is taken literally the magic circle has no boundary if it can be expanded, and then the concept of the magic circle is problematic. This will also be the case, if all games break it in some way. Montola is particularly concerned with the spatial, temporal, and social “expansions.” The spatial expansion is clearly in line with Huizinga's understanding of the delimited game space found in many game designs. But as none has defined the magic circle in more than vague terms as a temporary world or a new reality (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004:95­96), how do we know what expands or breaks it? When Salen and Zimmerman designates a game as an open system from a cultural point of view, then it is surely expanding the new reality of the game. When Montola “expands” the magic circle temporally, spatially or socially, he at the same time defines the magic circle as being bounded by space, time and participants. What about rules, game pieces, etc.? This is in strong contrast to the closed rule system by Salen and Zimmerman—also because rules are definitely the most important feature of the design of a game, even when they are very simple. We could also challenge the definition of pervasive games by looking at the game GeoTicTacToe (Kiefer et al. 2007). This is the classic game of TicTacToe but played using the city as a game board with fixed positions for the nine squares. The players place a game piece by moving to the position and interacting with their mobile phone. Then they have to wait some time, and then they will see the opponent has placed a game token too. This is termed a pervasive game, but in fact the game space is well­defined, as is the participants and the time too. The magic circle is thus not expanded—it is true that the traffic etc. act as obstacles in the game, but a coffee cup placed on the game board in Monopoly could have the same influence. Is GeoTicTacToe a pervasive game at all?

To overcome the problematic metaphor of magic circle, we must admit that some games are more typical than other games. Some games use the same features as other games, and yet some games are deliberately designed to be different. To understand this chaos I suggest a system of radial categories as known from linguistics, just as Copier suggests a network approach. A “prototype” is the most typical instance of a category and “radial categories”

page 84 of 265 are extensions of the prototype. They are less “typical” and may differ from the prototype in one or more features. Pervasive games must then be categorised as a radial category away from the prototype, as at least some of them are designed deliberately to be different from the prototypical games. We may then be allowed to categorize games, feature by feature, by using this approach. Pervasive games would then show the difference by being far­of radial categories for many features. This would exhibit their special qualities. Yet another way, which I will pursue is to look at their qualities with respect to the game performance, that is special way they are designed to be played, and the equally special way they are played.

4.5 Conclusion In this chapter we have tried to understand pervasive games from different perspectives. Discussing the literature shows that technology, experience, exploring, socializing, being physical, being everywhere are the core areas in research in this area, and at the same time the areas point to an understanding of the games in question. We started out with “bringing computer entertainment back to the real world” (Magerkurth et al., 2005), and realised that the pervasive games can not be easily defined as a genre. This is in turn the result of game design using an emergent technology as the driving force. As we recognise the most salient feature of the pervasive games being the players' interaction in the real world, it seems better to define the games in terms of the real world. The pervasive games have been defined on the basis of the notion of the magic circle, originally devised by Huizinga (1938). This idea has been contested notably by Copier (2009) as the game thus appears to belong in an isolated and idealised world. This is also supported by the fact that many games (all games?) exhibit pervasive features—that is, they question the magic circle. The magic circle is a powerful and despite its defects, it is quite easy to understand the nature of games by describing them as worlds within the world, where other rules etc. applies. Why do we then need this border called the magic circle? It seem adequate because many games have precise concepts that delineate them. Concepts like rules, space, culture etc. It is thus very apt to describe this as a magic circle, where something magical happens within but not outside. At the same time as we have this precise magic circle, all games take place within the world. The magic circle is not a description of a game, but a description of the players' need to delineate the game, to better understand and manage it. The magic circle should not be coupled with the game design, but rather related to the game every single time it is played. Novice players will constantly

page 85 of 265 ask to understand what is part of the game and what is not, to be able to grasp the essential game culture.

Experienced players may try to extend the rules or change the culture to get some advantage. The magic circle is a way of describing the game performance, by means of the concepts that are important to understand for a particular kind of game. Montola (2005) suggests that the magic circle is described by space, time, and players. I will say that the magic circle is different from game performance to game performance and may include any concept that delineate the particular game performance. Typical concepts are space, time, and players. Others are rules, game pieces, and game culture.

I understand site­specific games as a genre of games, where the game design is based on embodied play which takes advantage of the site it is played in. The site may be a specific site or a general site. Compared to Montola's definition of pervasive games, the site­specific games are those which exhibit spatial expansion of the magic circle. In my understanding of the magic circle, it will not be expanded as the magic circle of site­specific games simply includes a larger (or undefined) use of space.

page 86 of 265 5 PLAYFUL PERFORMANCES

5.1 From Ritual to Performance Richard Schechner, known as the founder of performance studies has developed the concepts of play and ritual into a concept of performance:

“Playing—doing something that is “not for real”—is, like ritual, at the heart of performance.” Schechner (2002:79)

Performance can, according to Schechner, be defined as: (this is just one way of defining performance)

“ritualized behavior conditioned/permeated by play” Schechner (2002:79)

Ritual is the serious activity, which can be reproduced in the same way again and again. Play is looser, a more permissive activity, open for flexibility and creativeness. Together they form an understanding of performance, as a regulated activity, where people at the same time both relies on earlier performances and may create something new. To perform is thus to do some activity you have done before, but possibly in a slightly changed or in a completely new way. It is what Schechner calls restored behaviour. Any theatrical performance is a good example. What happens at the scene is a behaviour that is not entirely real – it is restored. Even though it will never be exactly the same performance every night, the show runs again and again at the theatre.

“Performances are marked, framed, or heightened behavior separated out from just 'living life'­­restored restored behavior, if you will.” Schechner (2002:28)

page 87 of 265 I think one of the key definitions of performance is that it is marked, as opposed to the unmarked just living. It can be marked in many ways, just as living life, can be done in many ways. What is a performance for some, may not be a performance for others, but any activity can always be described as a performance, for example by analysing what makes it marked.

“restored behavior has a quality of not being entirely “real” or “serious”” Schechner (2002:79)

Another way of defining performances is that of Barbara Kirshenblatt­Gimblett. For her to perform is to do, to behave, and to show (the quotation is taken from her study on food as a performance, but it could just as well be of playing as a performance):

“to perform is to do, to execute, to carry out to completion, to discharge a duty [...]”

“to perform is to behave. This is what Erving Goffman calls the performance in everyday life. Whether a matter of habit, custom, or law, the divine etiquette of ritual codifications of social grace, the laws governing cabarets and liquor licenses [...]”

“to perform is to show. When doing and behaving are displayed, when they are shown, when participants are invited to exercise discernment, evaluation, and appreciation, food events move towards the theatrical and, more specifically towards the spectacular.” Kirshenblatt­Gimblett (1999)

There is something “unworldly” about performances. It is marked behaviour. It is symbolic and reflexive. Its meanings need to be decoded by those in the know, to be fully understandable. We are indeed getting closer to playing a game or the game performance, as I would like to call it.

Schechner (2002) differs between two types of performances: “make­believe” and “make­ belief”. Make­Believe performances has a clearly marked boundary between world of the performance and everyday reality. An example could be a game of tennis. It takes place in a

page 88 of 265 specially prepared space, the participants are known and they are dressed properly, the game is regulated by rules and a judge may be present. Make­Belief performances intentionally blur that boundary.

An example could be a recognised performer doing “cold­reading” and a religious performer making “contact” between persons of the live audience and their dead relatives. If we assume that what we see on the scene is actually the same: the performer and his guest, talking together, the guest telling about his or her dead husband and the performer supplying this information with more information. If this performance is perceived as an entertaining show, we know that it is a trick (a technique called cold­reading), we wonder how the performer does it and would like to unveil it. This is a performance of “make­ believe,” as the boundaries between performance and reality are very clear. If the performance is perceived as a religious event, the audience want to believe that it is not a trick (a question of “willing suspense of disbelief”). If they believe it is a trick, it would be embarrassing for them to stay. In this reading the boundary between performance and reality becomes blurred. What is performance and what is reality? This is an example of a “make­belief” performance. This is in fact close to the idea of the magic circle (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004) and the “extension” or “blurring” of the magic circle by Montola (Montola 2005, Montola et al. 2009). Can we then talk of a “make­believe” game, and a “make­belief” game? The games could be the same, but as in the previous example how we perceive the game performance might be different. Placing the game in different physical surroundings might change the way the game is perceived. The best example of games deliberately working at keeping the players in an unsafe environment, is the alternate reality games, where the players often do not really know what is part of the game and what is not. We also find this concept in the “Invisible Theatre” (Augusto Boal), which is a performance technique where staged events are played in public places for an audience, who does not know they are part of a theatrical performance. Of course this technique is in line with any game taking place in a public space, unless it is somehow clearly published as a game event. But this may not be desired, and there may still be bystanders who are not in the know. One of the main differences between the perspectives on performance that I have shown, and the performance of a computer game, is the focus on the performer. Performance studies has a tendency to put

page 89 of 265 focus only on the performer, as if the persons involved are the only thing that performs. Another broader view is taken by Hannah and Harsløf:

Performance is a complex socio­political phenomenon, which could be summed up as any public demonstration of actions, tasks and skills—consciously enacted and received —that encompasses dramatic expressivity, culturally codified behaviour and operational competency. However, this expanded notion of performance has tended to put focus on human agency and expression, excluding the dynamic role played by seemingly inanimate places and things. [...] Yet design artefacts—whether objects, materials, occasions, environments, or still and moving images—are inextricably bound to performance through notions of embodiment, action and event. Hannah and Harsløf (2008)

Hannah and Harsløf almost place themselves in line with the other researchers of performance studies, but then they hesitate, acknowledging that a performance is little or nothing without the setting: the costumes, the inanimate objects on which embodiment is performed. The consequence of this is that potentially anything can perform, and that a performance is constituted by microperformances. This supports the idea of game playing being a performance. It is not only the player who performs, but also the inanimate part of the game. When speaking of site­specific games, it is also the place that performs. Indeed many pervasive games requires extensive work with fitting the site as shown in Waern et al. (2009).

5.2 The Game Performance Like performing in the theatre playing a game is restored, restored behaviour. The game design itself, is restored behaviour in the form of social conventions for the game—rules, participants, how to progress etc. This specification, be it written or told is the restored behaviour of the designers intentions of the game, whether they actually played it or not, it was meant to be restored as the game performance. Like a theatre performance the rule book of the game performance is only the guidelines of the performance, that the players have to adhere, to call it a performance of this piece or game. We have the same distance

page 90 of 265 from the original proto­performance, when speaking of games and art performances. What was originally conceived we may never know, and what is actually performed may unintentionally or intentionally be something completely different. Schechner has suggested a model for the theatrical performance, which may come in handy: (Schechner 1988)

Drama

Script Theatre Performance

Schechner's model shows the relation between performance and the underlying script. At the centre we have the original drama (or what I would term the proto­performance)—the idea that the writer would like to emerge in his/her performance. The next layer of abstraction is the script. This catches the main idea or narrative, usually in text form. The next layer is the theatre, as the abstract concept of putting on a specific performance. It is the generic performance staging the proto­performance. The outermost layer is the actual performance, of which there may be several to each staged performance. Again there may be several staged performances to each script, and several scripts which realizes the proto­ performance in different ways. In a similar way we can envisage the game performance:

● Proto­game

● Gameplay design

● Published game Proto­game ● Performed game Gameplay design Published Game Performed game

page 91 of 265 The proto­game is the basic idea of the game, sometimes a narrative. The “Gameplay design” consists of the general concept, the basic rules, the object of the game, the game culture etc., and particularly what limits the game. The published game is the realised or implemented game, which can be played. The played game is each actual play session of the game: the game performance. There are some notable differences of the model of theatrical performances and that of game performances. For theatrical performances the script is usually a written text. For games, it may be written, drawn, modelled or a software prototype or a combination of different kinds of documentation. In theatrical performances there is a big step from Script to Theatre, requiring many processes, such as casting, costumes, lightning, directing etc. From Gameplay design to Published game, the step may be rather small, like making visual design for a game board and the package, or it may be several years work to implement an advanced 3D computer game, and the documentation may be several thousand pages. In the world of theatre performances there is a wish for every performance to resemble the produced version of the theatre. A certain similarity of the performances is thereby desired. This is possible because the actors are professional and know the Script. In games the published game can be taken anywhere and played in many ways. Sometimes unexpected ways may eventually lead to better games. The game performers do not know the proto­ game and do not know the intentions of the game designer. So depending on the character of the game, each played game will be very different from the last game, and no two game sessions will be completely similar. A feature of a good game is that you can play it again and again, and it will be a different game performance each time. Just opposite the view of the professional theatre.

The social behaviourist George H. Mead studied how the child develops while playing and gaming in connection with the development of self, in “Play, the game, and the Generalized Other” (1934). Mead suggests that playing games requires a more developed self, than merely playing, because they require a more elaborate set of responses. Both activities requires that the child is able to assume different roles. When playing, you only assume one role at a time, while when gaming you may assume several roles at the same time. A player in a game has to be able to assume any of the other players role together with their various

page 92 of 265 positions available in the game. According to Mead, the development of self requires that you are capable of assuming the position of the “generalised other,” from the perspective of which he becomes aware of himself as an object. Mead's theory connects the development of the child and the playing of games, the connection being that the simultaneous assumption of different roles, requires the same kind of positioning.

“Any thing—any object or set of objects, whether toward which he acts, or to which he responds, socially, is an element in what for him is the generalised other; by taking the attitudes of which toward himself he becomes conscious of himself as an object or individual, and thus develops a self or personality.” Mead (1934:154)

The interesting point is the requirement of overview of the game. To be able to play a game, you have to be able to perceive the state of the game and how the other players can change it. This has implications on the game performance. Earlier, I defined games, among other features, as being a question of progression. Some games are even a question of winning. To be able to progress, you have to know in which direction you should go. But progression in a game is not just how you progress, it is also how you progress within the game. This requires the player to monitor how everybody else are performing. For this, we need the overview of the game, e.g. the ability to assume the other players role, and view their positions and available moves. Performing the game performance requires overview. At the end of the day, we will be able to define the game performance in detail.

5.3 Site­Specific Performances

For a performance to be site­specific it has to be enacted in a specific site – usually outdoors, and it has to be designed or adapted for that site. Site­specific performances can take many forms, from site­specific theatre (or environmental theatre as it is also called) to various kinds of art performances, like happenings. It is important that there is some kind of relationship between the performance and the site. The performance should be integrated in some way with the properties of the site, using them as a basis of the performance. This can be done in several ways. Schechner views the environmental theatre

page 93 of 265 as a kind of precursor to the modern theatre.

“the first theatres were not merely ‘natural spaces’ [...] but were also, and fundamentally, ‘cultural places’. The transformation of space into place means to construct a theatre; this transformation is accomplished by ‘writing on the space’, as the cave art of the Paleolithic period demonstrates so well. This writing need not be visual, it can be oral, as with the Aborigines.” Schechner (1988:156)

“writing on the space is the same as creating a repertoire or script” Wilkie (2002b)

“To be “specific” to such a 'site', in turn, is to decode and/or recode the institutional conventions so as to expose their hidden yet motivated operations—to reveal the ways in which institutions mold art's meaning to modulate its cultural and economic value, and to undercut the fallacy of art and its institutions “autonomy” by making apparent their imbricated relationship to the broader socioeconomic and political processes of the day.” Kwon (1997).

Kwon suggests that site­specific work should expose the operations of the institutional conventions of the site.

“generally speaking, the populist directors who have utilized the streets and other non­traditional urban locations during the past twenty years have not wished to repeat performances in a specific space, but have on the contrary sought new spaces for each production, Who is the best performer? spaces whose already existing semiotics would provide an important element of the performance.” Carlson (1989:34).

page 94 of 265 The site­specific theatre was a movement of the 1960's and 70's to meet the audience in a new way, along with site­specific art, and the somewhat similar variants of land art, environmental art, and its opposite plop art, where sculptures are deliberately misplaced. Fiona Wilkie (2002a), in her ph.d. thesis, study the practices of the site­specific theatres in Great Britain. Using a questionnaire she collects information about current­day practices. She shows that it is difficult to define site­specific theatre from the actual performance work done.

“The only generalization that can be drawn from the attempts within the questionnaire to define site­specific performance is that it is concerned with issues of place and the real spaces of performance.” Wilkie (2002a)

“Brighton­based performance and installation company Red Earth manage to encapsulate the essence of the majority of the definitions when they suggest that site­ specific performance is ‘inspired by and designed to integrate with the physical and non­ physical aspects of a specific location’.” Wilkie (2002a)

Richard Schechner has suggested that ‘theatre places are maps of the cultures where they exist’ (Schechner, 1988, p. 161). This means that searching for other places for a performance than the theatre is like either encountering or creating new maps of the cultural space. Mason (1992), suggests that the reason for doing site­specific performances is linked with the interest of reaching people who otherwise do not attend theatre. But note, that he is discussing street theatre in general. Street theatre need not be site­specific, it only needs to be out of the theatre, preferably in a public place.

“Discussing street theatre, Bim Mason has argued that ‘the purpose of doing theatre on the streets is to reach people who are unfamiliar with theatre’; he goes on to note that ‘the vast majority of outdoor theatre is intended to be attractive and accessible to an audience far wider than those who visit indoor theatres’

page 95 of 265 Mason (1992:13)

Deby (quoted by Wilkie 2002) shows that there is an inherent challenge in doing site­ specific work. Not only do you attract another type of audience, but you can perform in other ways, for example among the audience or doing interactive theatre—that is providing the audience with the possibility of influence on the performance. Also working outside the theatre in unconventional situations leaves you without the help of the theatre (the light, the acoustics, the conventions of the theatre and the building, etc.)

“Deby also reminds us that the challenge in site­specific work is not only to attract a wider audience but to enable this audience to have a ‘radically different relationship’ to the performance. Potential new relationships might be explored through ‘degrees of scale, intimacy, proximity [...] the possibility of the audience member moving through or past the performance [...] the lack of usual theatrical conventions [...] the challenge to focus the viewer’s eye without the usual tricks [...].” quoted by Wilkie (2002:154)

Site­specific theatre can take its form from moving a classic Shakespeare performance out of the theatre and perform it it a suitable frame, e.g. performing Hamlet at Kronborg Castle in Elsinore, to performances directly designed for the place, and only performed at the chosen place. The “Unexpected Performance” by the marketing company RubberRepublic, shows an example of a short musical designed for a performance at Stansted Airport, London. It shows several features of site­specific performances. The musical is designed to keep people in the dark as long as possible. The unexpected is the keyword. The passengers are in an “in­between” situation, on travel, but not travelling, just waiting for their plane. They can neither move forward or go back. The performers are revealed one­by­one in different parts of the Unexpected Performance. Rubber Repoublic 2008 room. The performers move around performing

page 96 of 265 amongst the audience, until they are disrupted by the police, or so it seems, as they take part in the performance too. What is a waiting room? It is a space that everybody knows, nothing is there, all the stories in the waiting room are stories by the people, who passes through, just as their stories do. In fact the waiting room can be considered a heterotopia (cf. Foucault, 1967 ­ this concept will be explained later). The waiting­room is a non­place, but it has one feature: the wending machine. We all know it, and we may have been shafted by it. The drama of the musical is how this wending machine have cheated everybody from the floor cleaner to the passengers. In a way it is a non­story for a non­ place, just as it is nonsense to make a musical out of it, but it is in tune with the place and the situation: What else is there to do, besides buying crisps at the wending machine. By the end the whole ensemble moves to the same space, showing that this is indeed a theatrical performance. After the end the audience ­ as it now is ­ is drawn out of the dark and can show their appreciation. Part of the video, is of course to show the amused and surprised passengers—some acknowledging the fact that they are witnessing a performance, while others are refusing to participate. The video cleverly ends by zooming in on the signs on the luggage carts: “When was the last time you went to the theatre?”, showing that this was in fact not a theatre performance, but a commercial performance. The features of the site­specific theatre used here are: the integration of the place with the drama (the wending machine and the quest for peanuts), the use of the space (performing in several places among the spectators (in sequence – like promenade theatre – or at the same time) and the unexpected (when performing in a public space, the unexpected is a feasible performance technique).

An interesting way of explaining the complex relationship between the site (I prefer to call it a site, as it may not yet be a place.), is the notion of ghost and host:

“Site may allow the construction of a new architecture, the ‘ghost’ within the ‘host’. Host and ghost, of different origins, are co­existent but, crucially, are not congruent. The performance remains transparent. [...] Site­specific performances rely upon the complex superimposition and co­existence of a number of narratives and architectures, historical and contemporary. These fall into two groups: those that pre­exist the work – of the host – and those which are of the work – of the ghost.”

page 97 of 265 Pearson (1997).

The site is the host of a performance, the ghost. The ghost is transparent, like the performance it overlays the site, but you can still see through it and view the site. In the non­literal understanding the performance creates a layer or a new space, that is added or placed within the the site. It becomes a heterotopia (Foucault, 1967), spaces with different stories at the same place. The ghost and the host can never be congruent, and even if you cover the host in some way, it is still there, and its story will co­exist with that of the performance.

“I began to use the term ‘the host and the ghost’ to describe the relationship between place and event. The host site is haunted for a time by a ghost that the theatre­makers create. Like all ghosts it is transparent and the host can be seen through the ghost. Add into this a third term – the witness, i.e., the audience – and we have a kind of trinity that constitutes the work.” McLucas (2000).

The host is haunted for a time by the ghost. An apt description. The transparent, ephemeral nature of the performance, bounded by time presents itself at the host, and then vanishes, and like all ghosts, leave a trail—the story of the performance, maybe even a blood stain on the floor.

The Site

From Wilkie's questionnaire we also get an idea of how site­specific performances are designed in practice. As the site is crucial, you would either have to find a site and then design the drama, or have a drama and then look for a suitable site.

Wilkie shows that the preferred sites (by British theatre companies for site­specifc performances are the following:

● parks/playgrounds (homo ludens spaces (Wilkie 2002a)) public spaces: to attract

page 98 of 265 passers­by

● work buildings/sites (context of the everyday)

● churches (heightened emotions, evocative architecture)

● galleries/theatre building environs (intervention into cultural spaces)

● museums and grounds (as galleries)

● beaches (as parks)

● tunnels, shopping centres, hospitals, and castles are also popular. Results of survey by Wilkie (2002a).

The site and the drama are combined in the following ways:

­ Use of non­theatre locations (for example ‘found spaces’). ­ Influence of site in the creation of the performance. ­ Notion of ‘fit’ – that the performance ‘fit’ the site and vice versa. It is important to note, however, that the ‘fit’ may not be a comfortable merging with the resonances of the site but might be a reaction against them. Results of survey, Wilkie (2002a)

As Wilkie suggests, the “fit” or relationship between performance and site may be complex. Some site­specific performances are deliberately designed with an opposition between site and drama in mind.

When one design a site­specific performance, how specific will it actually be? Can site­ specific performances go on tour? The answer is that some performances are made specific to one place and cannot be moved, while others are made to generic places, for example a cemetery, a hospital or a traffic junction. These sites can be found many places, and the performance can be redesigned slightly to accommodate the new surroundings. We must differentiate between site­specific and site­generic performances, or we could use the continuum introduced by Stephan Hodges:

page 99 of 265 Site performance continuum by Hodges (2000).

This continuum shows that there is a line from performances in the theatre to performances outside the theatre, but I think there is a big difference between performances that are designed to work with the implications of the place and performances that just happen to be performed in another venue than the ordinary theatre (it does not have to be outdoor as in the figure). So there are two groups of performances in this respect, the first group containing: performances in the theatre, outdoor, and other venues, and the second group: the site­sympathetic, site­generic and site­specific performances. Wilkie explains the difference in this way:

“Place has tended to exert a different kind of influence on the development of performance content, an influence more often abstract and imaginative than purely literal. A site brings its own historical, cultural, or political implications, which are then interwoven with other concerns and aesthetics into the final piece.” Wilkie (2002b:155)

Other distinguishable features we should be aware of are:

– moveability

– fit

– contribution

“Moveable” is the question of whether the performances is fixed to a site or can be move to

page 100 of 265 another place, which fits the performance. This can be done in several ways. Performances can be designed to be site­specific and moveable, in the sense that they are designed to make use of any place—the design not being site­specific, but the performance will be. The performance can be designed for a generic set of places, like hospitals, and will thus fit any hospital with little or no redesign. Or it can be designed for a specific place, and then redesigned to another place for a later performance.

The fit is the question of how the site and the drama are integrated. As it is possible to design the performance either starting with the site or with the drama, different levels of integration will also be possible. The integration can at least take place on these levels:

– physical level (space, visual, auditive)

– content level

– social level

The physical level is how the performance fits into the physical properties of the site. The use of light and sound of the place and the use of space. The content level is how the historical, political, and cultural histories of the site are used. The social level is how the people of the site are integrated into the performance.

“So site­specific performance may create an audience that doesn’t know it is one, that ‘has no idea there is going to be art there and come[s] across it by accident’ ” Miriam Keye

At any of these levels, the drama can extend or conceal some of the features of the site. By using props, or partly covering buildings the site changes. A narrative can work with the history of the place adding new layers or temporary transforming the story. At the social level people can be integrated into the performance or deliberately kept out. The fit can as mentioned before also be a case of designed misfit.

“John Troyer, director of The Praxis Group, argues that ‘by entering into these locations for unsanctioned performances, the Praxis Group rearranges the topography of the

page 101 of 265 space by creating previously unknown landmarks, images, and arguments’ (1998).” Wilkie (2002b)

The performance can employ physical changes to a place—this may not only be a trace but more a continuation of the performance. People who attended the performance will know how to interpret the remnants, people who did not attend, may still grasp parts of the drama. An example of this is the performance “Skovens Nat” (The Night of The Wood, “Kunstnergruppen 7∙9∙13” and ”Cantabile 2”), performed at night in a wood on Falster, Denmark in 2001. Props made out of trees were placed around the wood. After the performance the props were just left to disintegrate. But 8 years after, the story of the night of the wood still persists.

5.4 Designing Site­specific Performances

The Danish sculptor Bjørn Nørgaard was interviewed on the prospect of making a new sculpture for the cathedral square in Aarhus.

“And initially, that may seem quite disturbing when you are used to walking there and live there. You get a bit worried that it will ruin the square. But what it really does is to strengthen the spatial function that is already there in the square. It adjoins the church, the equestrian statue, and the theatre and it spans the space in a whole new way. [...] No matter what you do to a certain space, the work of art has to relate to the monumental, decorative and ornamental basic principle of the space. “ Nygaard, B., ‘About Art in Public Places: an Interview with Bjørn Nørgaard’, Art Crash Journal, No. 2 (June 1998).

The last phrase is the most striking. The work of art introduced has to comply with the basic principle of the space which is a visual configuration of the place. Assuming this is correct, we have to look for a definition of the basic principle, and figure out if it will work for performances as well as for visual art.

page 102 of 265 To get into the spirit of a place is to enter into what makes that place such a special spot, into what is concentrated there like a fully saturated colour. But the spirit of a place is also expansive. Casey (1993:314)

Wilkie (2002b) explores this notion of basic principle of space. It is clearly a part of an architectural realm, the configuration of space, and the alignment of geometrical shapes. It could also mean connections, patterns, overlapping structures and rhythmic forms. The something special of the space—the spirit—as Casey calls it, adds “a dimension of feeling, legitimating the intangible, the irrational, the intuitive response” (Wilkie 2002b) to the architectural understanding of basic principle.

Wilkie continues to combine this basic principle with the punctum of Roland Barthes, described in his Camera Lucida (1993). Barthes’s when examining photos, was sometimes distracted by a little detail of the photo: the punctum, which was the spot that subconsciously attracted his attention. “Applying Barthes’s theory to the experience of places rather than photographs, the punctum is that which attracts me to a place and which returns to me after I have physically left the space” (Wilkie 2002b:253). Adding this to the basic principle this leads to the inner rule of a place: “Together these form the starting point of mapping (and perhaps performatively marking) a route through a place. This route articulates the inner rule” (Wilkie 2002b:253). The inner rule is thus some point of subconscious interest or disruption combined with the “spirit” and the geometrical properties of the place. Wilkie advises to look for the inner rule when designing a site­ specific performance as one possible strategy.

Another is the concept of repertoire. The repertoire of a place is:

The repertoire – a set of choices (culturally, traditionally, personally, or physically defined) available to people in a particular place – is created in part by what has gone before in that place. When an event or series of events has famously occurred in a particular place, it forms part of the repertoire of behaviour available in that place Wilkie (2002b:250)

page 103 of 265 The repertoire is the performance the place itself offers to us. Not just as events or culture, but also in the means of physical movement—which routes are possible and what do they convey? These are performances of the spatial properties of the place. Michel de Certeau defines place and space as: (Certeau 1984:117)

A place (lieu) is the order (of whatever kind) in accord with which elements are distributed in relationships of coexistence. It thus excludes the possibility of two things being in the same location (place).

A (space) exists when one takes into consideration vectors of direction, velocities, and time variables. Thus space is composed of intersections of mobile elements.

Space is dynamical while place is static. Certeau even says that “space is practised place”. Space is created by the ways in which the the place is moved through (cf. Turner 2004).

The possible dynamics of the design with the rules exists in breaking the rules. Putting things together in an unexpected way. Keeping the audience in the dark. Revealing the space inch by inch.

“In interview with Baz Kershaw and Tony Coult, John Fox, the artistic director of Welfare State International, describes the factors which feed into his site­specific work: So you’ve got your own traditions, you’ve got the country’s traditions, you’ve got the specific preoccupations of the place; . . . you’ve also got the pattern of the season and the specific geography of the place you’re in. They all start to go together in a sort of cauldron – a cauldron in my head, and hopefully in company members’ heads, and then it starts to simmer and distil, and you start to conjure a few key images in the stream.” Wilkie (2002b:256)

Wilkie ends by pointing out the place of the site­specific meaning as where the rules of the place (many layers) intersect with the rules of the spectators, and the rules of the performance.

page 104 of 265 Understanding the site­specific performance. Wilkie (2002b).

We may end up with suggesting that site­specific performances seem to offer endless ways of design, due to the complex coordination of three complex factors: the place, the performance, and the spectators. We have not covered the role of the spectators, as they in the connection with games, are less interesting. Games are not produced to be experienced by the spectators, but to be enjoyed by the players. If a game was produced with the aim of entertaining the audience, then it is a question if it is a game any longer (some sports performances may belong to this category).

If we analyse the Unexpected Performance, which was presented earlier, using Wilkie's model, we get the following:

Waiting room, Stansted Airport, London Repertoire airport waiting room spacious room rows of seats people coming, people leaving most people are sitting quietly wending machine

Inner rule punctum: wending machine

page 105 of 265 basic principle: rows of seats, tall ceiling, wending machines spirit: tense atmosphere, background noise, official calls, people discussing silently

Inner rule: the waiting room is a place where no people like to be. They can neither leave, nor move forward. There is nothing to do, they have to pass the time: some sleep, some read. They have to be silent. Their space is limited. They have to be alert, to listen for official calls.

The site­specific design becomes the intersection between the performance (how to get crisps out of the wending machine), the place (waiting room, airport), and the spectators (can't leave and have to sit quiet, some hoping for something unexpected to happen). The Unexpected Performance fulfils in a successful way the intersection.

5.5 Conclusion

A performance can be understood as a combination of play and ritual. Play is creative. Ritual is repetition. Understanding the act of playing a game as a performance, defines playing a game as a creative yet ritualised behaviour. Ritualised because rules must be followed, creative because the player may choose to apply them in a surprising way. The repetition element in ritual is well­known in games, where the player may perform many acts again and again and thus become better at the game. Establishing the Game Performance as a special kind of performance is thus viable, the important property being that this performance type is driven by the players progression towards some goal. Schechner (2002) defines two forms of performances: make­believe and make­belief. The former draws a clear boundary between what is part of the world and what is the performance, while the latter effectively blurs that boundary. This is very close to the understanding of the magic circle, which was covered in chapter 4.4. Mead (1934) shows that playing a game requires an understanding of what the other players may do. Playing a game requires overview. For a site­specific game this is interesting, as overview is difficult to obtain if the game is taking place in the whole city. This is the reason why almost all site­specific games use the ubiquitous computer (usually a cell phone) to provide overview of the game, often in the form of a map showing the

page 106 of 265 positions of players and hotspots.

Hannah and Harsløf (2008) reminds us that not only the performers perform, but also the scenery performs. In the site­specific games we can talk of how the site performs and how the game performs. In the world of performances, we find the site­specific performances, which are performances designed to be performed at special venues or locations. I have covered the work of Fiona Wilkie on site­specific performances. Interesting is the description of the relationship between the site, the performance, and the spectators, as the host, the ghost, and the spectators. The ghost (the performance) is a transparent overlay on the site, letting the spectators both “view” the site and the performances at the same time. Wilkie shows design techniques used by contemporary British performers for designing site­ specific performances and suggests a number of strategies herself. This includes

● the punctum (what subconsciously affects us at a site)

● the spirit of the site

● the basic principle (geometrical properties of the site)

● the repertoire (what the site offers, which can be used in a performance)

Another important concept is the notion of “fit” between the performance and the site. The fit describes how the performance uses the site, and how the site supports the performance. A site may be configured specially to support a performance, just as we would expect a performance to be designed to a particular site.

page 107 of 265 6 EMBODIED DESIGN

As a foundation for understanding site­specific computing and thus site­specific games, we have to look at the foundation for understanding what happens when computers are used in a specific site by a user. Furthermore, how does this site­specific use affect our understanding of the site? First we will look briefly at the theory of embodiment. This relies mostly on the work of the phenomenological tradition and Paul Dourish' work on embodied interaction.

6.1 Embodiment and HCI The psycologist J.J. Gibson was concerned principally with visual perception, but had problems with the division of seeing from acting. For Gibson visual perception was a point of contact between the mind and the environment in which the body was placed. The contact was not just a result of neural activity, but understood as a mobile head sitting on a mobile body (cf. Gibson, 1979). Of particularly interest is his concept affordance, being a relationship between environment, body and activity, or as Paul Dourish calls it, examining the embodied interaction as “being in the world” (cf. Dourish, 2004). The concept has since spread to HCI, and to this work, where I use it, as a concept denoting the possible usage of an artefact in a game setting, simply known as game affordance. Embodiment as a way of understanding the world was also explored by Michael Polyani (Polyani 1966). Lots of things we know, are tacit knowledge—knowledge that is performed unconsciously. One kind of tacit knowledge could be described as skills, performed by the body. This is skills like cutting a slice of bread or riding a bicycle. Polyani observed that in cases of tacit skills, our focus is on the distal phenomena, while we experience them locally through our hands or eyes. An example of Dourish (Dourish 2004:121) is when finding our way in the dark with a stick, we focus on what is at the end of the stick, but sense it through our hands holding the stick: meaning tends to be displaced away from us. The above work done by different theorists, point to that embodiment, is not just a question of placing a body in a position in the physical world. Embodiment means that the mind is grounded in everyday experience. Of this follows that embodiment is not a static property,

page 108 of 265 but a dynamic one. The world is a setting we continuously act in, and are acted upon. How we act in the world shapes how we find it meaningful. Embodiment is a connection between the action of our body and the environment we perform in. Or as Paul Dourish puts it:

”Embodied interaction is the creation, manipulation, and sharing of meaning through engaged interaction with artifacts.” Dourish (2004:126).

It is interesting to note, that Dourish argues that embodied interaction is founded around context awareness and systems supporting social computing. For him embodiment is establishing meaning by engaging with technology. This puts focus on embodiment as engaging with technology in a certain “place” rather than “space,” since “place” is considered meaningful in a social aspect. As Harrison and Dourish puts it: “space is the opportunity; place is the understood reality” (Harrison and Dourish, 1996:67). Space is understood as physical and mechanical artefacts that are devoid of meaning. But how does “space” become “place” through locomotion? In line with Dourish we find the architect McCullough, saying: “Place begins with embodiment. Body is place, and it shapes your perceptions. Embodiment is not just a state of being but an emergent quality of interactions.” (McCullough, 2004), and David Seamon (1980) who describes place, as being performed as a series of “body ballets”, that is, continuously performing the same movements at a specific site provides a strong sense of place. If we couple McCullough with Dourish, we may say that embodied interaction on site may create or enrich places through embodied performance.

6.2 Human Geography As a branch of geography, human geography studies the patterns and actions that shape human interaction with the designed environment. Material structures as buildings, squares etc. are regarded as embodying structuring conditions that emanate from the practices of the usage of the people. Human geography regards place as a way of understanding the world that puts focus on the “rich and complicated interplay between people and the environment” (Cresswell, 2004). From this follows that places never are completed entities,

page 109 of 265 but always in the process of change. A classic understanding of the properties of place is Tuan's four dimensions of place as being physical, personal, social and cultural (Tuan, 1977). But the focus on place both seen in phenomenology and human geography is rejecting the understanding of location as seen in ubiquitous computing. Space and place adopt a geometrical and spatial perspective, necessary for the understanding and design of site­ specific games, that use space and places directly in the game.

6.3 Place­Specific Computing Jörn Messeter (Messeter 2009) argues the need of a place­centric perspective for digital design. He describes a new genre of interactive design, called Place­Specific Computing (PSC). Ubiquitous computing is usually designed with a user­centric perspective in mind. According to Messeter this limits the focus to systems, that match place­specific information to user groups (e.g. map information), rather than “tapping into the social and cultural practices of particular places in order to inform the functionality of a design.” (Messeter, 2009:40). Messeter proposes two central issues for place­specific computing:

(1)to develop an understanding of practised place as developed under the specific structuring conditions of a (particular) place; (2)to understand what roles applications of place­specific computing can play as part of such practices, and consequently as part of a larger social process of place construction. Messeter (2009). (orig. emphasis.)

A site­specific game can be understood as a place­specific application, because it through social practices (the game) continuously reconstruct places. Place­specific computing is not designing for place, but rather designing in place (Messeter, 2009:40). It becomes necessary to understand the identity of a place and how it is formed, through social practice.

As a method for creating applications of place­specific applications, the key may be to look at methods which may include the place as a property of the design method. Situated Design is a design method that acknowledges the importance of the context in the design

page 110 of 265 process (cf. Le Dantec 2009). Among the different properties of context, we find the place where the design work is conducted. Le Dantec (2009) puts it: The key to looking at design [...] is to acknowledge that design is not something that is done in the abstract, but rather an activity that is necessarily connected to its real­world expression. Le Dantec is most interested in how the cognitive, social, and cultural work in design sessions affect the design. But he also acknowledges the physical setting: “The physical setting for the design meeting is the most basic manifestation of the situated nature of the collaboration.” Le Dantec (2009). In his study he observes how architects work together and how the physical surroundings (for example the meeting room) affect their design session. Coupling the place­specific computing with situated design, we realize that the concept of place binds them together: place­specific computing should be designed using situated design. Or for this study: site­ specific games should be designed on­site, in order to let the site directly affect the game design.

6.4 Site­specific game design This brief overview of current relevant theory shows the predicament which presents itself when it comes to understanding site­specific game design. Traditional understanding of place is coupled with meaning and thus to the concept of place as a practised space. But the ubiquitous computing (of which the pervasive games have their roots) is not place­oriented but position­oriented. It also seems that all (or most) pervasive games in some sense use space (cf. Montola et al. 2009:21 where all the cases shown exhibit spatial expansion), while in many games using known places or creating new places is dominant. Reaching back to Huizinga (1938) we must remember that play and games work in a kind of separate world, where other rules apply. In this separate world of a pervasive game, we inherit the physical space provided by the real world, but not necessarily the places. This is consistent with the notion from site­specific performances of the host and the ghost, as the transparent overlay (cf. chapter 5.3). It is important to understand, that the pervasive game has to establish or re­establish the places as places in the game world. This link is actually the link between “Game” and “Site” in the site­specific game model above in chapter 5. Similarly the physical space inherited in the game as game space, must be re­established in

page 111 of 265 the game. For places the player has to establish what part of reality is assigned the property of being a game element in the game world. For the space, the player has to establish how space guards his movements in the game world. When moving in the real space the player may monitor a change in the state of the game. This is the link between “Locomotion” and “Game” in the site­specific game model.

We need an understanding of embodiment with regarding to both space and place, and in connection with this a model a focus on establishing new places within pervasive games. Embodiment should not only focusing on attaching meaning to places, but also on attaching meaning to mobility. Space can be considered geometrical patterns that lets you move in different directions, connect up to places, or create new places. Place can not exist without space. There must be something separating places and connecting places.

To understand how space and place are used in pervasive games we will look at the three main groups: games based on places, games based on space, and games based on a mixture of places and space. Places seem to be used in different ways. A game can adopt different strategies when incorporating places in the game world:

1) known places of the real world used as game elements, 2) new game properties assigned to well­known places, 3) game properties assigned to a specific site, effectively turning the site into a place, 4) the player establishes new places in the game (this turns a given site into a place)

Examples of the types (taken from the game design sessions in appendix H) are:

1) “drawing” a symbol using only the church buildings as vertices 2) statues of the city that “talks” in the game 3) a crossing is assigned the property of a “hole” in the game 4) placing a new battleship in the game, by moving to the required site

The physical space can be used in a pervasive game the following ways:

page 112 of 265 1) the geometrical properties of the space are adopted by the game as a game board limiting or facilitating certain game actions, 2) physical space can be adopted as “travel time” between hotspots, 3) the way the space is conquered can be attached to the game with a special meaning, 4) as a means of exploring the area, eventually performing a game action, that makes a site into a place in the game.

Examples (taken from the game design sessions in appendix H)

1) the streets acts as connections and the buildings as obstacles in the game 2) movement between predefined hotspots in several games 3) the player makes a trail that has to be similar to a symbol in the game 4) photographing a colour on a house in a game, makes the house a place in the game.

These strategies can be seen as a detailed view of the game model presented in chapter 5.

The identity of place In site­specific games places with a special meaning in the game may be employed. This meaning can (as described above) take several different directions. When establishing new places, the approach “body ballet” (Seamon 1980) is interesting. Body ballet may fuse with time­space routines (routines of daily life) in terms of place into what he calls place ballet. This means that we establish places simply by visiting them often and performing tasks related to the place. If a new place has to established both virtually and in reality, the player will possibly understand the consequence better, if he moves to the place, one or more times. Or put in another way, the player has to visit the place several times both in reality and in virtuality, which may happen at the same time, if the place is to have or gain some meaning attached in the game. In a game it is possible to create new places by placing a game element on a physical location. As this can only be done by moving to the place, the player may attach a new meaning to the site. The new meaning will be the game element and its function in the game.

page 113 of 265 Design We have extended the notion of embodiment to also encompass mobility as connected with meaning. This lets us understand how a game can be based on moving around in a city. In a simple site­specific game “hotspots” are physical places to which the games have attached a meaning, and which the players may have to search for. Moving from hotspot to hotspot necessarily includes travel time, but is also a competition parameter, where the quickest runner has an advantage over the other players (cf. Kiefer et al., 2007). Many site­specific games in one way or another are subject to this competition parameter, as movement equals time, and as it is difficult to imagine a game where time has no importance.

6.5 Pervasive game design methods There has been designed a number of research games and some commercial games that include locomotion as a main part of controlling the game. Papers are published on the design of these games, (see among others Cheok et al. 2003, Benford et al. 2004, Benford et al. 2005, Chalmers et al. 2005, Hielscher 2005, and Kiefer 2007) but very few discuss how the game concept was designed—almost all papers understand design as a matter of explaining a completed game design, usually in the form of an evaluated prototype. There are lengthy discussions on how the design ideas are carried out, but very few on why or how the design ideas themselves emerged. Most of the studies present the design concept as a finished concept designed to explore possible use of either new technology (for example the use of RFID) or a specific game design pattern in pervasive games (for example engaging with bystanders). In this way there has been little focus on actual design methods. However there are studies which reveal, at least in part, their design process to the readers. Among those I will present studies by Schlieder et al. (2005), Chang and Goodman (2005), Haesen et al. (2008), Lankoski (2007), Niemi (2005) and Björk et al. (2002).

Schlieder et al. (2005) adopt a method of choosing a well­known board game of the strategic type and making it into a site­specific game resulting in a game where the competition will rely on the players speed. This is a result of transferring the mapping of the game board to certain places in the city, or where ever the game is played. Unless the game is based on pure turn­taking the quicker player will have an advantage over the

page 114 of 265 slower player, and thereby an element that is foreign to the idea of the strategic board game is introduced. As pure turn­taking seems alien to site­specific games (no known examples), and turn­taking at the same time is crucial to board games, it seems impossible to adopt a board game as a site­specific game without significant alteration of the game play. To preserve the strategic thinking of the board game, while altering the system of turn­ taking, Schlieder et al. introduce a synchronisation model, where the quicker player will have to wait a certain amount of time at crucial points in the game. This balances speed and strategy retaining part of the strategic property of the turn­taking game in the site­ specific game. One should also note that they describe the games as Geogames, which is a subset of site­ specific games, as they only consider games where the game tokens are placed on fixed positions (like in many board games). Schlieder et al. show the design strategy of identifying a problem and proposing a solution. Their solution is evaluated through design prototypes, for example the GeoTicTacToe game, which is a site­specific version of the well­ known Tic Tac Toe game.

Chang and Goodman (2005) describe their process developing the FIASCO game as:

Inspired by Situationist methods, our design process traced a virtual dérive through the Internet, art practice, and gaming communities. Using the Google search engine, we assembled large collections of images and phrases associated with urban games and the built environment. To juxtapose unexpected concepts, we borrowed a strategy from the painter Mark Tansey, who begins his artistic process by spinning a set of interlocking wooden wheels engraved with lists of words, then responds to the resulting combinations. We also adopted the approach of artist and architect Vito Acconci, whose “Following Project” documents a conceptual street game. After choosing a stranger at random from a crowd, Acconci trailed the target until s/he entered a privately­owned space. Both Acconci and Tansey use the logic of games (“spin the wheel” or “ follow a stranger” ) to generate unexpected, creatively energizing outcomes. Chang and Goodman (2005).

Chang and Goodman adopt a design strategy based on three artistic practices: a virtual

page 115 of 265 form of the dérive (Guy Debord, 1967 ­ the original “dérive” will be discussed later), juxtaposing artefacts by chance (Mark Tansey), and following strangers in the city (Vito Acconci). Their creative process is more or less based on chance combined with virtual and on­site research. The inclusion of the creative practices of artists from another field, opens the design space to other game designs, compared to the method used by Schlieder et al. (2005). FIASCO is, however, not a locomotion­based game, but a game that incorporates site as the place where the recorded performances (“stunts”) take place. After the performance other players can vote for the best performance over the internet.

Other studies show the use of brainstorming with different specialists present (Haesen et al., 2008). They performed brainstorming sessions setting up a multi­disciplinarian project consisting of computer scientists, social scientists, graphic designer, and delegates from a mine museum and a nature resort. This was also the case of Klintespillet (see chapter 3), where representatives from the Danish Nature and Forest Agency and from the GeoCentre museum took part in meetings of a brainstorming character. In the case of Klintespillet it did not seem to further the early design process to work with other professionals, as they did not possess the necessary knowledge of pervasive games or technology. This meant that the game ideas they came up with, were not games of the pervasive type.

The research project on the game The Songs of North (Lankoski et al. 2007), used an interesting approach where the future players of the game to be designed were included in the design process. Although this may frequently happen in traditional software development (participatory design etc.), this is not a wide­spread technique among game developers.

Traditionally, the choices made during a game design process are often based on intuition, the models set by successful earlier games and on designers’ experience. In contrast, in this game research project the aim was to get players involved in the game design at as an early stage as possible. Our first solution was to use a player study to gather information on people’s attitudes and expectations towards possible mobile game solutions. The results were then formulated as requirements for design. One of the key observations has been that systematic utilization of these kind of requirements in actual

page 116 of 265 design is a challenging process which also requires much creativity. Our second step was iterative game design process involving real players as informants during the evaluation phase. Lankosti et al. (2007)

This process made it possible to target the game on the basis of the players expectations and ability to use mobile devices. This process resulted in a list of requirements, that was supplemented with technical requirements and research requirements. Niemi (2005) also conducted a player study to test which games would suit two groups of people best. The result pointed out that two of the four proposed game concepts should not be developed further, as players properly would not like to play them. A player study like this might have helped the design behind the game Gainers N' Drainers (see chapter 3), as the idea was closely related to the study Niemi conducted.

In connection with a workshop on ubiquitous games, Björk et al. (2002), used a scenario­ based approach, where 13 participants over 3­4 days in smaller groups produced 3 game concepts.

Briefly summarized, the method consists of the following points: . Identify a focal issue and determination of valid time frame. ( ‘‘What will you do to entertain yourself after work/school/day­care in 2010?’’) . Identify key factors. . Search for the ‘unknown’ driving forces behind the key factors. . Organise driving forces in scale of importance and uncertainty. . Pick important and uncertain forces and create a scenario matrix or a few scenarios by combining driving forces. . Design phase Björk et al. (2002)

They combined the method with a number of techniques including scenarios, structural modelling of game mechanics, body storming, paper prototyping and rapid prototyping, but noted that a common game­language would have improved the design method. This

page 117 of 265 eventually lead to the work on game patterns (Björk and Holopainen, 2005).

Brynskov and Ludvigsen (2006), take another approach. After studying the theoretical literature on children's play and gaming, they looked for what they thought was missing in research and came up with a new genre of games, called the Mock Games. These are games based on some fiction but with changing rules. As noted in chapter 4.4, I consider changing rules as a property connected with the magic circle. Games with dynamic rules should be considered pervasive, as they expand the magic circle.

This literature study is by no means exhaustive, but show different design process approaches for pervasive games. Summarizing we find the following methodological strategies:

– using a similar design from a close field as a basis and then solve arising problems (Schlieder et al.)

– using creativity methods from another field (Chang and Goodman)

– brainstorming with different specialists (Haesen et al.)

– player study (Lankoski et al., Niemi)

– identify forces and make scenarios (Björk et al.)

– theoretical study to identify what is missing in research (Brynskov et al.)

Among the methods suggested I find the use of creativity methods from other fields most promising. I will particularly look at the creative methods of Guy Debord from the Situationist movement. It is interesting to note that another art movement, the surrealists, also used games extensively to inspire the creative process (cf. Gooding and Brotchie, 1991). Inspiration from these venues may be combined with the situated design approach, moving the design process from the abstract game design studio to the urban landscape where the game is supposed to be played. If the above assumptions are correct then this would provide an interesting contribution to the field of game design methods.

page 118 of 265 6.6 Conclusion This chapter started by looking at the term affordance known from HCI. It is defined as a relationship between environment, body and activity. In this connection the notion game affordance has been explained as what a particular site or artefact in the site offers to a game. A discussion of embodied interaction and embodiment leads me to conclude that embodied interaction on site may create or enrich places through embodied performance. “Place” and “space” are concepts we are faced with often, without thinking of the exact difference or the implications of using these words. Place is here defined as space to which a meaning, through physical, personal, social and cultural properties, has been attached. Places can be “created” through visiting the same site many times performing tasks related to the site. This is called place ballet. Space can be understood as connecting places, and an opportunity for creating new places. For site­specific games this means that a game can establish new places through the game performance, or attach new in­game meanings to already known places. When playing site­specific games we thus have the opportunity to visit (or reconstruct) places, which can both exist in virtuality and reality or both places at the same time.

We can also establish new places either by attaching a game component or meaning to a position or to an already established place in reality. This is the link between game and site. The connection between space and game is the embodied movement in reality (the locomotion).

Messeter (2009) proposes place­specific computing, as a design where ubiquitous computing is turned into applications that become part of the continuous construction and reconstruction of place. Site­specific games are examples of place­specific computing. Looking for a design method that supports place­specific design, the design method situated design is presented. Situated design acknowledges the importance of context in the design work, and as such, also the physical setting. Coupling situated design with site­specific games suggests that site­specific games should be designed on­site (that is in­situ), in order to let the site affect the game design directly.

page 119 of 265 7 DESIGNING THE DESIGN METHOD

From the presentation of the case studies (Iteration I, chapter 3), it suggests itself that a specific method for developing site­specific games would be an advantage. The many problems connected with Klintespillet and also with the game play of Gainers N' Drainers are both connected to the early design phase. That is, a better conceptualization and early evaluation would be beneficial for the quality of the game. It is important to stress that a better quality does not mean that it will ensure a more popular game, or that it will be more fun to play the game, but it can ensure that the basis for creativity are the best possible within this domain of games. It does so by guiding the conceptualization by means of a set of techniques ensured by a set of evaluation techniques that focus on the critical points of site­specific game design. I consider the early design (the idea generation), the most critical phase and thus the one that deserves most attention in game design. Part of the early design, is also an evaluation of the game concept.

Site­specific games differ from ordinary computer games by using the real world as a part of the game as well as the players locomotion in the real world. The design method must focus on these two points. The conclusion of the case studies also showed that the integration of site in a game was a big challenge and posed many problems for Klintespillet. Gainers N' Drainers differed in the way it employed locomotion: at Klintespillet, the players had to visit certain places “hotspots,” whereas in Gainers N' Drainers, locomotion was relative to other people in a combination with the chosen route of the player, e.g. the spaces the player decided to explore. This shows two forms of locomotion in a game setting and that different patterns of locomotion are crucial to the game performance of site­specific games.

The central points that the design method should address are:

● conceptualization

○ the game affordances of site

page 120 of 265 ○ the game affordances of locomotion (and time)

○ the game affordances of locomotion in connection with site

● early evaluation (ex ante evaluation)

○ the site­specific game model

Early evaluation is what has been termed “ex ante evaluation” in design science research (cf. chapter 2.7). In this study it is used to evaluate the game before a prototype is made. The evaluation should enforce that the game is a site­specific game, or at least that the game designer knows where the problems may arise later in the process (sometimes breaking the rules make the best products).

7.1 The Game Affordance of Site

Earlier in this thesis we covered the theory of an aspect of performance design as designing site­specific performances, in the way Wilkie (2002b) suggests it (cf. chapter 5.4). She introduced the repertoire of a site which corresponds to a set of possible game affordances (cf. chapter 6.1) for site­specific games. The inner rule of a place consists of the punctum together with the basic principle, e.g. the spirit of the place and the geometry of the place.

The punctum, in a game understanding, may be the nexus of the game together with locomotion. The experience of the place, that the game centres around. Something which arrests the game designers nose for a good game. Something which may be visually stunning, something which carries a story—something which beckons to be played with.

The game affordances of Seehof When I visited the summer residence Seehof outside Bamberg (Germany), I walked in the baroque garden following paths surrounded by 4­5m high hedges. Sometimes there was a statue in between the hedges, sometimes the path ended in a large open square or providing a nice view of the palace. The punctum could be the statues. The overall story was that of Hercules, and the statues fitted within this story and suggested a narrative, that could be developed into a site­specific game.

page 121 of 265 The basic principle of the space is the geometrical and architectural properties of the place. If we turn to the example of Seehof again, the long paths with hedges are striking in a geometrical sense. And many paths seems similar, just to reveal different details. Sometimes the hedges hide an orchard, even a Heckentheater. The geometrical pattern calls for a game which responds to layout. Hedges are barriers that hide something and obscure the overview. Long paths lead to something or lets you control something.

The spirit of the place is the feeling, the intangible, the irrational you experience when visiting a place. The gardens at Seehof provided a feeling of freedom and control, offering you an overview over terraces and cascades, but sometimes the paths turned into tunnels, the hedges coming together forming a vault. The world closed around you, the space was confined, but still with the light at the end of the tunnel. The many sensations at Seehof could easily be turned into a game, where the players would be subjected to different feelings through the game performance. What is the game affordance of this? Seehof, Bamberg

Using the punctum, the spirit, and the basic principle of game affordance, we may explore a site in a guided way collecting material that form the basis of a site­specific game.

7.2 The Game Affordance of Locomotion

On one level locomotion is simply the mechanics of moving the body in a two dimensional universe. But in a game—for example a geogame (cf. Schlieder et al. 2005), which is a subclass of site­specific games, the player does not just move, when he moves. He is also performing with his body, he is present in space and is under influence of the space, as well as he influences the space he is situated in. We must realise that the potential of these games, is recognizing that they should be much more, than a question of enforcing rules by ubiquitous technology. The game should encourage the players to perform—to do or experience something out of the ordinary when playing the game. If not, we reduce the site­specific games to merely a question of moving hardware around the city in accordance

page 122 of 265 with some rules. What I term the “human cursor design.” Locomotion lets the player experience the site, and play with it and against it. The player is performing the game in the site. His or her locomotion is a result of the performance and is done in accordance with the culture and the rules of the game. Locomotion can be the result of fulfilling some task, for example searching for a specific artefact in the streets. Locomotion can also be a direct consequence of the game, for example when the player has to perform pacman or snake. The game can direct the player to choose between moving in different directions, like in Gainers N' Drainers. Locomotion can also be the result of following a trail or creating a route. In many site­specific games locomotion is the result of picking the way around obstacles. The player wants to move to point A, but he has to find a route, as no path leads directly to A. This problem, which I would term, the site as obstacles problem, is found in many site­specific games, like Can You See Me Now, CityPoker, Battleships etc. It shows that the site is mainly used as providing obstacles in connection with the players locomotion. If the game is realized with a hand held computer showing a map with the players, the game is of the human cursor design type—the player acts as a cursor in the game and the site is only included in the game as a configuration of space.

According to the work of (Kiefer et al., 2007), we can analyse the pervasive games according to whether they are spatially and temporally discrete or continuous. As any game type can be temporally discrete or continuous, this is not interesting for this work. Spatially discrete site­specific games operate with hotspots as their primary use of the site. That is, the game only relates to hotspots in the site, not what happens in between. This has the consequence, that the game not relies on locomotion, but in fact only on the players position. In the game performance, the players would still experience something in between the hotspots, but this would not be considered a direct part of the game, only a kind of “transport.” We also find this property in promenade theatre, where the audience has to move from one scene to another. The opposite is the spatially continuous games, where locomotion is the primary use of the site. As we have seen above this can be used in several ways. As Laurie Beth Clark (Performance Studies, University of Wisconsin) puts it for site­specific performances:

page 123 of 265 “What we might call "space­specific" performances engage with formal parameters, while what we might call "place­specific" performances engage with cultural and social meanings; many or even most site­specific works engage with both space and place.”

With games, we can state the same: proximity games are space­specific and operate within the domain of locomotion, while games based on the places engage with the cultural and social meanings of the place. In Can You See Me Now, the runners have to catch the virtual internet players. This kind of movement is not “transport,” as every position during the transport has a consequence for the game. GeoTicTacToe has a strong element of transport, as much of the game is running from hotspot to hotspot. Only when you close up on a hotspot, the transport changes into a search performance.

7.3 Creativity Methods for Game Design

In pervasive game design prototypes are widely used. Ollila et al. (2008) presents a detailed study of using prototypes in early pervasive game development. Even though they use the term early, they place prototyping as a tool after the conceptualisation. They suggest various prototyping methods based on paper­prototyping and physical prototyping. By the latter, they mean playing the game constructed with paper, miniatures or actors. For location­based games they advise a technique of simulating locations and playing the game in a higher tempo. Ballagas and Walz (2007) also uses several prototypes in the development of REXplorer, typical in the form of board game versions of the real game. Agustin et al. (2007) also advises using prototypes in a form called game sketches, but as they do not work with site­specific games they do not have to take the location in consideration.

Kultima et al. (2008) report from a study in the use of games as a means of enhancing creativity for game development. Creativity understood as a a combination of insight and special thinking skills is a critical part of innovation and therefore crucial for developing new game ideas. They underline the fact that the rule governing of games when using

page 124 of 265 games as part of idea generation puts creativity into a structured method. The rules let the players pursue the goal (to create new games) in an orderly fashion, providing necessary space for all players. The mood of the participants and atmosphere of the creative process is also central to the success of creativity. Huizinga (1938) also points out that playing contributes to well­being which is important for the creative process. The goal of Kultima et al. is, by using idea generation games, to “free the thoughts of the designer from conventional thinking to the temporary world of the magic circle created by a game.” They pursued their idea by designing three “game” games: VNA, GameSeekers, and GameBoard. VNA is based on three decks of cards with verbs, nouns, and adjectives. By drawing cards and associating the words with game mechanics, new game ideas may evolve. GameSeekers uses four different types of cards with photos, abstract themes, casual game genres, social features and idea actions. The game is played in using rules similar to the card game, UNO. Ideas are generated by building associations by connecting cards on­hand with the cards played. GameBoard is a board game with two kinds of cards: “game mechanics” and “gameplay” cards. The game is played by placing mechanics cards on the game board followed by discussions of the initial idea. When players place gameplay cards they must explain how the card affect the initial idea. The three games range from the simple to the more complicated and also by generating quick ideas (VNA) to more complete ideas (GameBoard). Their conclusions are interesting: “The more complicated idea generation games become, the more difficult it becomes to polish the gameplay in them.” The magic circle formed by the game acts as the initiator often necessary when using techniques as Brainstorming. By initiating the game, the idea generation process immediately start to make the ideas flow. They also conclude that game techniques were more popular among their participants than other techniques. They conclude by pointing out that the idea games fulfil a serious need which is to provide other kinds of ideas to designers within specific domains. Kultima et al. (2008) ends by realizing the serious problem of documenting the ideas without disrupting the games.

Dansey and Stevens (2008) propose a game idea game without using cards or boards. The participants are required during three iterations to think of as many games as possible. Each iteration consists of an idea generation phase, a discussion phase, and a rest phase. Each idea is written down as 3­5 key points or rules. After the last iteration the players vote

page 125 of 265 for the best idea. To winners are named: the one producing most ideas, and the one receiving most votes. They concluded that producing good ideas (ideas that received at least 50% votes) also required producing a lot of bad ideas. Only a few good ideas were produced when around 30 ideas were reviewed according to their study. They also concluded that the participants were tired and not motivated, and that lack of motivation is a real risk when conducting idea generation in general. Their study is base on the idea of a Neo­Darwinian and a Neo­Lamarckian model of creativity, where the former is characterised by unrestricted combination of ideas to produce new ideas, and the latter by imposing constraints to generate only viable ideas. Where Kultima et al. (2008) adapted a restrained game­type, they went for an unrestricted game­type, more in the style of Brainstorming. To me, their results show that their game has the same pitfalls as Brainstorming is reported to have: production blocking, social loafing, and fear of evaluation (cf. Furnham and Yazdanpanahi, 1995). The unrestricted model of creativity can lead to lack of creativity, whereas some guidance (or restrictions) may help the participants focus on the task in hand.

The problems with Brainstorming have been dealt with in several papers in psychology (among others by Diehl and Stroebe, 1991). Here I will only consider social loafing and production blocking. The phenomenon describing participants working in groups making less effort to achieve a goal than they would have done working alone is called social loafing. The main reason is given to be fear of not delivering a contribution that meets the requirements of the group. Production blocking is when one participant of a group tends to block other people during group discussion. Both problems are seen as serious drawbacks of the Brainstorming method.

Other idea generating methods are body storming (originally coined by Burns et al. 1994), and the work by Brandt et. al (2004) on the usage of games in design methods:

“Framing collaborative design activities in a game format, arguably improves idea generation and communication between stakeholders. By shifting focus to the game, power relations and other factors that might hamper idea generation, are downplayed.” Brandt et al. (2004).

page 126 of 265 It is interesting that they conclude that a design game shifts focus away from the factors that hamper idea generation.

Anderson and McGonigal (2004), suggests a method called place storming for conceptualizing new ubiquitous devices on site. In their study they combined a mission­ styled game with props (simulated ubiquitous devices) and invited the designers to perform with the devices on site as part of the idea generation. Their study concludes:

“By employing play in­situ, the contexts themselves (the “where”) can provide productive triggers for innovation.” Anderson and McGonigal (2004).

They advise that the facilitator choose appropriate sites and tools for the design session. As the competition element of gaming is downplayed to the advantage of idea generation, the game type is what Brandt (2006) terms “explorative games”:

“Participants in exploratory design games often have different interests and preferences but instead of utilizing this by competing the aim is to take advantage of the various skills and expertise’s represented and jointly explore various design possibilities within a game setting.” Brandt (2006).

She lists four different types of design games used for idea exploration:

● Games to Conceptualize Designing

● The Exchange Perspective Games

● Negotiation and Work­flow Oriented Design Games

● Scenario Oriented Design Games Brandt (2006)

The “Exchange Perspectives Games” are games of the surrealist movement, e.g. games that

page 127 of 265 “explore imagination and intensify collaborative experience by subverting methods borrowed from for instance sociology, anthropology, and psychology” (Gooding and Brotchie, 1991).

Other interesting research is particularly conducted in Helsinki by Kuutti, Iacucci, and Iacucci (2002). They have focused on design methods using performance techniques, for example role­playing and by using props. They suggest ethnographically oriented observations combined with active user participation as a means of innovating new mobile services.

7.4 Psychogeographie, Heterotopias and Tactics Locomotion also be explained by the psychogeographie of Guy Debord (Debord, 1967). His famous psychogeographical map of Paris is a game in itself—the playful attitude towards the city. In psychogeographie the world is turned upside down. There is focus on other ways of experiencing the city, often by a distorted view of the city, as Debord's map of love in Paris, or the urban mashup style by providing tourists a map of London while visiting Berlin. A true site­specific game is in a way a perfect example of psychogeographical art. The normal understanding of the city is suspended, and a new set of instructions—a new map—the game, directs us to experience the site in a new way. "Guide Pschycogeographie de Paris" (Debord 1957). Locomotion can also be the result of a seemingly Bauhaus Imaginiste (ed.). Publ. Permild & Rosengreen, Copenhagen. arbitrary strategy: the dérive (cf. Debord, 1967), or following after an a random person (Acconci, 1969).

Debord describes the dérive as:

“one or more persons during a certain period drop their usual motives for movement and action, their relations, their work and leisure activities, and let themselves be

page 128 of 265 drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there.”

Debord (1967)

The détournement (Debord 1967) is a upside down view of the artefacts of urban life and architecture. Practising this view on the city reveals the architecture, the streets, the geometrical forms, the inner rule, in a new playful way as a strategy which may be used for the design method. Chang and Goodman (2005) mentions the use of the dérive when designing the FIASCO game. The dérive tells us to flow with streams of the city in order to experience it. This is the locomotive version of the punctum. By “flowing” the person subconsciously register things in the city that attracts the attention.

The site­specific game set in the city may be a heterotopia (Foucault, 1967). A place that is juxtaposed to the other understandings of place in the city. A place where persons only are allowed to enter under special conditions—in this case, as a player. The heterotopia is from a seminal essay by Michel Foucault, where he illustrates specific places as places overloaded with meaning. In contrast utopias are places which are perfected spaces with no real jurisdiction (cf. Irwin 2008). On heterotopias Foucault tells us:

“There also exist, and this is probably true for all cultures and all civilizations, real and effective spaces [...] which constitute a sort of counter­arrangement, of effectively realized utopia, in which [...] all the real arrangements that can be found within society [...] are at once and the same time represented, challenged and overturned: a sort of place that lies outside all place and yet is actually localizable. In contrast to the utopias, these places [...] might be described as heterotopias.” Foucault (1967)

Foucault describes different kinds of heterotopias, for example a botanical garden is a microcosm of the other environments, a prison is a heterotopia of deviation for people outside the norm. Heterotopias are places which are localizable, but at the same time imagined spaces. Whether site­specific games are true examples of heterotopias will be discussed later.

page 129 of 265 The French philosopher De Certeau (1984) advices us that “[walking is] an elementary experience of the city”. For De Certeau the city is controlled and governed by rules and arrangements made by the state or some other controlling power. This is their strategy. We, as citizens or pedestrians, have our tactics, the tactics of subverting this power, simply by walking in the city or even stealing from it—that is subverting the rules of the city. We – the pedestrians ­ choose our own way of doing it, what and how we experience, how we make short cuts and so on. This is our tactics of experiencing the city.

From Debord we learn that cities can be explored by using the dérive or the detournement. Foucault tells us that several “places” can exist at the same site. De Certeau tellss us that the best way of discovering is city is by foot. This tells us, that a design method could be based on experiencing the city by using these methods in a creative way.

7.5 A Manifesto for Site­specific Game Design

I present a design manifesto—a set of basic principles regarding the background of how the method should be put to work. I choose to present it as a manifesto, because it signals a holistic view on game design. Game design is not just the rules of the game—it is the design of the players performance when playing the game. I am not the first game designer to use a manifesto (see for example area/code's manifesto on big games: http://playareacode.com/manifesto.html), and the manifesto presented should not be a collection of weird ideas, but sound principles based on research presented in this thesis.

Following the tradition of brainstorming, body storming, and place storming, it seems that this method should be named the site­specific game design method or just: site storming.

Design manifesto for the site storming method (or the site­specific game design method)

– Site­specific games should be designed on­site (Oulasvirta et al. 2003)

– If games should be fun to play—they should be fun to design (because design method is playful—participants are both the designers and the

page 130 of 265 players at the same time, cf. Anderson and McGonigal 2004, Beck 1999).

– Games are good for communicating ideas. (Brandt and Messeter 2004).

– Exploring the site in a guided way require designers to look at things differently (even if they know the domain already, cf. Wilkie 2002b)

– Working on­site spurs creativity (Oulasvirta et al. 2003, Anderson & McGonigal, 2004)

– Working in short sessions followed by evaluation is easier to manage (Beck 1999)

– Performing game ideas on­site helps designers recognise the core design (Anderson and McGonigal, 2004)

– Use a combination of individual and group work (to avoid issues with group work, cf. Furnham and Yazdanpanahi, 1995)

The basic idea generation is done individually, allowing each participant to develop their own ideas. Creating ideas is thought of as a personal process, which should have the chance to be matured alone, before putting them forward in a group evaluation. The group evaluation is used as a forum primarily for listening to ideas, while longer discussions should be kept at a minimum, otherwise the evaluation phase will be to long (cf. Dansey and Stevens, who used sessions of 2+ hours, which probably lead to fatigue). Each game design session consists of a briefing, the idea generation, and the evaluation. Later the ideas are documented in a more formal form, again as individual work leaving the participants to work on their idea alone, but with the added content and comments from the evaluation.

Central to the manifesto is that site­specificity calls for working on site in the early conceptualisation, that game conceptualisation essentially is a communicative process, and that the design process should be entertaining in itself, to keep the participants focussed and helping them not to loose motivation. The problem is to devise a game that is not unrestricted (cf. Dansey and Stevens, 2008) which may lead to lack of motivation and blocking, or to restricted, which may lead to put too much focus on the design game and not on the design task (cf. Kultima, 2008).

page 131 of 265 7.6 The Design Method

Preparation To ensure a certain structure of the method, it is designed using decks of specially prepared cards (cf. chapter 2.1). The method is based on mission­based gaming, and a deck of mission cards is prepared. The cards are designed as oversized ordinary playing cards, so that they can easily be brought along. A map of the site for each participant as well as notebook and pencil is recommended.

The mission cards each describes a suggested name of the game, a one­liner for inspiration, what the designer has to explore, some questions the designer should think about, and finally an instruction to communicate the designers experiences into a game.

A second deck of cards is the game type cards. These are cards, each with the name of a game type, together with a short explanation. Game­types may be: puzzle game, chase game, pick and delivery games etc.

A third deck of cards is the props cards. These cards describe additional props, the designer may want to use. It may be artefacts associated with the performance like theatrical props or costumes, or it can be supporting technology, like beamers, RFID­tags, network etc. The idea of the props card is to provide the designer with assisting artefacts or technology that will support the creativity. It is only advisable to use this deck of cards, if the project is known to have restrictions on the technology to be used. Otherwise it is generally encouraged to leave out the discussions on technology, so as to let the game be driven by the site and the locomotion of the players rather than by technology. Waern et al. (2009) argues for the 360° illusion for alternate reality games. This is achieved by staging the reality to fit the game.

A fourth deck of site cards may be used. Before the game can be used, the site has to be chosen (see above). The site cards may be used to further the guidance of the players, so that there missions are carried out in specific places. If the participants are issued with maps, the site should be shown on the map to avoid any misunderstandings.

page 132 of 265 On­site When the designers are on­site, they are instructed to choose a mission card of their choice. The cards are spread among the participants, and they are encouraged to look through the cards picking the one, that most appeals to them. Two persons should not share the same card.

The game type cards are chosen at random.

The props cards and site cards may be brought into use. Players should be offered one chosen and one random props card. If the site cards are used they should be chosen randomly.

“Impossible Links” “Forbidden Spaces” Your mission is to explore the Explore places your are not Item hunt game game affordance of the paths supposed to visit. and roads of the city How can the place be used in Explore how the paths, roads a game? and bridges connect. How can you avoid them? - if some paths or roads are Who decides which places blocked. What happens? Some things are better not - if some paths or roads are are public? collected... Is something secret going on? one way? - what if your map does not fit How do you know which all the time? Examples: items to collect? - private parking Explore an idea for a game to make use of the paths and - yards What do you have to do - gardens roads of the city before you can collect Describe the game them? Describe the game experience experience. mission card mission card

game-type card

Samples of two mission cards and one game­type card (early version).

page 133 of 265 Samples of a Mission card and a Game card (finished version).

With each player now equipped with a suitable set of cards and a pen and paper for notes the designers are ready for the briefing.

The design game The players are briefly instructed how to perform the dérive, and to carry out the missions alone. Each have to combine the cards on hand with the site­specific experiences into a game concept. The game concept should be described in a scenario­like way. Ideas should be written using as many observations as possible. The players should be told to reassemble after an agreed amount of time. Test­runs have used half an hour for the sessions, which seemed to be appropriate. The object of the design game is of course to produce a compelling site­specific game concept.

page 134 of 265 When the designers reassemble they should be taken to a quiet place to evaluate. It is important that this evaluation follows immediately after the design session, because not all details will have been written down. The evaluation can be conducted as a presentation of each game idea with room for additional ideas and discussion. In practice we have used 1­ 1½ hour for evaluation. At this point the players may change their concepts and put in any details they like.

The designers are told to put their concepts into writing. A wiki might be helpful for this. This process will further ripen the concepts. The concepts should be documented using a scenario­based approach. Other details (technology etc.) should be provided too.

7.7 Evaluating the Conceptual Design

To further the design we need a method of evaluation, that will generate new ideas, and lead to a possible refinement of the game design. It is very difficult to evaluate whether the game concepts will lead to games that are fun to play or not. At first we need a lengthy discussion of what we mean by fun, and for whom it will be fun to play. Research (Bateman and Boon, 2005) shows that different people may prefer to play different kinds of games. This makes it hard, if not impossible to evaluate if a game is a good game. For the quality of the game at this stage, I would rather prefer to rely on the game designers ability to judge for themselves, plus the evaluating discussion following the design sessions. An interesting possibility is to conduct a player study like Niemi (2005) did. But even the best player study would not help if the designers do not know how to design the games that the target group wish to play. This early evaluation should rather evaluate the ideas according to a model of site­specific games, showing to what extent the game concepts are able to include the typical properties of site­specific games. The evaluation may then act as a critical examination of the concept pinpointing where the design could be refined. The developed model of a site­specific game relies on site, locomotion, and game as the three main properties. These can be tied in a triangle, showing the tension between the axis.

page 135 of 265 How is the site How does used as game Game locomotion elements? make the player progress in the game?

Site Locomotion

How do parts of the site influence locomotion?

The Site­Specific Game Performance Model

The Site­Specific Game Performance Model shows the balance between the properties that are the main constituents in a site­specific game performance: the game rules and game elements, the site used and the locomotion of the players. A design that meets the requirements of this model is a game where three design factors have been considered: the game­site axis, the site­locomotion axis, and the locomotion­game axis.

The Game­Site axis This evaluates how the site is used in the game. This can be done in several distinct ways. It is based on what McGonigal (2006) called the “game affordance of everyday things.” In reality a site comprises of more than everyday things, as many sites are places which are recognized as places, because they are not out of the ordinary or everyday, but has a special meaning attached to them. The game affordance of a site is a complex set of possibilities for games on different levels, both in turn of factors like shape, size, colour and geometrical properties of the site, and the meaning of the site, in terms of stories, experiences etc. The combination of game and site also determines which strategies the player would employ to deal with the site. This depends on the players knowledge of the site and determines his/her choice of locomotion and other matters concerning the game, for example game­ related strategies (when playing a site­specific version of Tic Tac Toe (Kiefer et al., 2007), the player both has to deal with the strategies of Tic Tac Toe and the strategies of moving in

page 136 of 265 the site). Reid (2008) considers three fundamental aspects in location­based game design:

1. the size and duration of the game 2. the infrastructure available in the game location 3. the role that place has within the game play Reid (2008)

Size and duration concerns the players locomotion, e.g. a larger space may require longer time to play. The infrastructure is a question of chosen technology for the game, e.g. network and devices. Reid considers seamful design (Chalmers et al. 2005) as a technique that exposes the infrastructure in the gameplay rather than hides it. As for the role of place, Reid suggests three forms (Reid 2008).

1. User placed at run time: where the user selects and marks out the game area as part of the game, 2. Seamful design: where the games have been designed to use the system infrastructure to determine game play. 3. Designer placed: games where the designers choose specific locations because of the properties of the actual place. Reid (2008)

She presents a view with the focus on design for coincidence and presents three types of coincidence:

1. Natural coincidence: where a natural event happens which relates to the game play in some way. For example a gull lands in front of you just at the moment when you are hearing about gulls in the story line. 2. Social coincidence: when you encounter another player or person who shares a game event with you. 3. Feigned coincidence: where actors or props are used within a game environment to appear natural. Reid (2008)

page 137 of 265 Reid (2008) concludes that using the design strategies increases the likelihood of predictable events coinciding with the designed events opting for “magic moments” to occur within the game. What Reid misses is the important aspect of players locomotion, which in one away or another is the driving force in location­based games.

The Site­Locomotion axis This evaluates how the player is moving on the site. What kind of locomotion does the site offer or afford the player? Maze­like cities with narrow streets limits the players locomotive performance, whereas open sites makes all kinds of movements possible. The site can be easy or difficult to navigate. The site can have dynamic properties that changes the possible locomotion, for example traffic. The properties of the site that limit the performance seems to be important for the design of the site­specific games. Many examples of games rely primarily on the site as obstacles in the game (an example is Can You See Me Now, Magerkurth et al., 2005). Playing Can You See Me Now in different sites may therefore influence the locomotive performance, leading to different game experiences.

The Locomotion­Game axis This evaluates how the player progresses in the game using locomotion. Does he have to move to catch something, or to avoid being caught?

On the locomotion­game axis we identify the possible affordances that locomotion offers in a game. By locomotion in a game a player is able to:

– catch other players

– collect artefacts

– avoid other players or avoid being hit by artefacts

– search for artefacts

– follow other players

– place artefact in a specific place or in a position relative to another player or artefact

Most site­specific games will probably employ a selection of these techniques. Depending

page 138 of 265 on the task, players may cover long distances by running, or searching for something by circling an area. Locomotion can also be time­related, e.g. the player can move slow or quick. In most site­ specific games (for example the geogames (cf. Sclieder et al., 2005) and Can You See Me Now), the speed of locomotion is crucial to win the game. The problem of speed vs. strategy was recognised by Kiefer et al. 2007, and solved by developing a synchronisation strategy that would balanced the players, so that speed alone would not automatically favour a fast­ moving player in a geogame.

7.8 Conclusion

In this chapter we have finally arrived at the design of the design method. The method is based on a mission­style game with different types of game cards. The most important is the mission cards which state different kinds of site­specific missions. The design sessions consist of a briefing, on site design work, evaluation, and later documentation. The briefing tells the participants how to use the dérive (Debord 1967) for exploration of the site, while applying the concepts of the punctum, the spirit, and the basic principle on the site. This should lead to understanding possible game affordances of the site, which combined with the game type cards should aid idea generation. The design work is carried out alone and on­site. Immediately afterwards the evaluation takes place, where each game is evaluated in a joint process. Later each participant should put his/her game ideas in a more formal structure using a common wiki for the purpose.

The principles of the design method are all based on research in different areas. Using a design game (known as an exploration game) is shown to shift focus away from power relations and other factors to the idea generation. Using the design game should “free the thoughts of the designer from conventional thinking to the temporary world of the magic circle created by a game.” (Kultima 2008). It is shown that the game should not be too simple or unrestricted as this can lead to lack of motivation, and that it should neither be too complicated as this puts focus on the design game rather than the design task. The game should support creative thought rather than restrict it. The value of in­situ design is also shown as being a productive trigger for

page 139 of 265 innovation. When evaluating the design concepts ex ante, a model of the site­specific game is needed. This is provided as a triangle with the properties Game, Site, and Locomotion. A site­specific game should lie within this triangle—that is, balance between the game properties (rules, culture etc.), the site (punctum, spirit, etc.), and locomotion (catching, collecting, etc.). The site­specific game should exhibit a tight coupling between the three properties. This is evaluated by looking at how the game concept incorporates the threes axes of the triangle.

page 140 of 265 8 ITERATION II

Iteration I Iteration II Iteration III

Revised 2. Revised Design Method Design Method Design Method

8.1 Evaluating “Klintespillet”

With the site­specific game model from the previous chapter, we can evaluate the design of Klintespillet. The play test from iteration I showed problems with how the players located the hotspots in the wood. An ex ante evaluation may show the same problems and where the design can be improved. The evaluation model show the relations between the three properties: game, site and locomotion.

The Game­Site axis:

– The game uses places in the wood as a basis for the story, but the direct connection between story and the experienced place is often weak. Many of the places chosen are not sufficiently distinct, and as a consequence it has been difficult to tell a story for some of the hotspots, that could not just as well have been told for another hotspot.

– The player does not know how to find the hotspots, and how many there are.

– The player does not know when he/she progresses in the game.

The Site­Locomotion axis:

– The player has to search for the hotspots to put the story together.

– The player can go anywhere, but some places of the wood are difficult terrain.

– When meeting ghosts, the player has to follow the directions given by the ghost.

page 141 of 265 The Locomotion­Game axis:

– The player progresses in the game by finding a hotspot.

– The player progresses in the game by following the directions given by a ghost.

The evaluation suggests that the Game­Site axes is weaker than the other axis, and that the design will benefit by working on the use of the site in the game. If the chosen hotspots are not sufficiently distinct either other hotspots may be chosen, or the existing hotspots may be supported by additional use of the site. This could be site­specific support for the search process. Looking at the Locomotion­Site axis, it is not clear how the player finds a hotspot, e.g. how do locomotion and game fit together in the understanding of the hotspots as game elements.

8.2 Evaluating the Design Method

Using the design science approach (chapter 2.4), the design method has been subjected to early evaluation (the ex­ante evaluation) and late evaluation (the ex­post evaluation).

Evaluating a design method is not an easy task, because what is a good game design method? Is it a method that deliver games of some standard? Or a method that the designers think is profitable to work with? Both may be true. We know from an earlier discussion that evaluating a game is in it self difficult. In this case I have suggested a model of site­specific games, which can be used for evaluation as well. This evaluation only suggest that the game in question is of the site­specific genre. This enables us to evaluate if the method delivers games of the site­specific type. To complicate matters further the game evaluation can be either ex ante or ex post, where the ex ante evaluation should evaluate the process while ex post evaluates the product. Another ex ante evaluation will be to evaluate the method directly by observing or interviewing the designers at work. This assumes that the designers have a feeling for the work and that their work will influence the outcome, which seems reasonable. Accordingly a mixed methods approach to evaluation of the method seems preferable. The design method is evaluated by:

page 142 of 265 Iteration II

– Design sessions where a number of games were designed over three sessions (ex ante evaluation).

– Designing a new game using the method and evaluating this game, ex ante. This game is called CitySnake.

– Comparison study of the design of two somewhat similar site­specific games, where one was conceptualized using the design method, while the other was an adaptation of an arcade game. (evaluated by ex ante evaluation).

Iteration III

– Redesigning the game Klintespillet using the method and evaluating this with players. This is done both as an ex ante and ex post evaluation evaluating both the design and development process.

– Game Design Workshop , where the students worked with pervasive game design (ex ante evaluation).

8.3 Revising the Design Method

The first version of the method (see Iteration I) proved that designers could collect material for a site­specific game by exploring the site by means of photographs and notes. It also showed that working alone brought ideas forth as everyone had an experience to discuss in the following evaluation. However I wanted a more focused and direct game design. This was introduced by using inspiration from situated design as described in chapter 6. The design session should move out of the discussion room and into the streets. The idea is that designing and exploring should be the same, that is when designing the game the designer more or less plays it at the same time.

page 143 of 265 This lead to a revision of the method. The idea of missions were introduced. The method now being based on missions combined with game types. Each mission has a title and some guidelines, and each game type is described. The idea was that the designers could combine missions with game types and then explore the site. The prototype missions and game types were made as slips of paper (“cards”) partly inspired by cards for idea generation (IDEO Method cards):

The IDEO Method Cards is a collection of 51 cards representing diverse ways that design teams can understand the people they are designing for. They are used to make a number of different methods accessible to all members of a design team, to explain how and when the methods are best used, and to demonstrate how they have been applied to real design projects. www.ideo.com/work/item/method­cards

The IDEO cards have four “colours”: ask, watch, try, and learn. They are provided as inspiration for the creative process, and are not accompanied by a rule set, that defines the exact use. It was shown earlier by Dansey and Stevens (2008), that unrestricted methods may lead to lack of motivation. However the idea of having an artefact which in the form of a card, aids in understanding the method as a game and gives the designer something to hold on to, which I consider important, as the participants are guided in how to generate ideas.

Exploring the site is done using the ideas by Guy Débord. I have used the method or strategy of the dérive (Débord, 1967) as discussed in chapter 7, and chosen it because of its ability to explore a site in a creative way, that supports the idea that all things have a game affordance attached to them.

From chapter 5 we have the site­specific performance design methods suggested by Wilkie. These are the punctum (something that arrests the attention) and the basic rule (the spirit and the geometry) of the place. This is combined with the dérive to form a creative method where the designer “flow” through the city while looking for the basic game idea, based on

page 144 of 265 the punctum, the spirit, and the basic principle of the site.

This form of dérive was introduced to the designers as a method to work, when exploring the site. The idea of multiple short sessions were kept, but to aid documentation, the idea of using a wiki for this purpose was introduced. The documentation should be used to put the ideas in a more structured form and to include possible feedback from the evaluation. Also the idea of partly working alone is kept. This motivates everyone to work with design, and may limit the damages made by social loafing and production blocking, as seen with Brainstorming.

8.4 Design Sessions

The extended and revised method was evaluated through a series of three game design sessions with 5 participants in Bamberg. The participants were persons with an experience in game playing (particular board games) and having some experience as game designers, but none of them had worked as professional game designers. Three (males) had a degree in computer science and one (female) had a degree in pedagogics and art. In addition I also participated. The games that were conceptualized could be expected to be of a different nature with other participants. The same 5 participants were present at all the game design sessions. The participants were not paid.

Method The evaluation of the method was undertaken by conducting three game design sessions as follows (this part of the study was conducted in Bamberg, Germany):

Game design session 1 (march 20., 2009). The participants met in the centre of Bamberg (at a quiet restaurant). The instructions were given after the meal and took ½ hour. The participants chose a mission (out of 12 missions) to their liking, but a The design session starts

page 145 of 265 random game type card. Each participant was issued with pen and paper for notes. The design mission was carried out (approx. ½ hour) followed by the evaluation at a bar immediately afterwards. The evaluation lasted 2 hours. The result was 11 game concepts + ideas. Later the designers put their concepts into writing using a wiki prepared for this purpose. Observations: The session was greeted with enthusiasm. Even though the design part of it only lasted 30 minutes, it was experienced as very intensive work. The designers liked the idea of the missions and the cards. Some of the participants comments were:

Interesting take on designing location­based games, especially if you do not know the site it can be really helpful to wander through the streets when looking for an game idea. The critical part is the composition of the mission and game pattern cards, cause the hints on the cards influence the game design in a major way. Sebastian (appendix H)

Good idea of recombining topics and genres which are well known, but not instantiated yet. As towns are universal playing fields, there should be no problem of developing game ideas within 30 minutes. It was much fun! Feedback: The descriptions of topic/genre serve as a hint paper ­ it should be stated, that own ideas of how to combine topic and genre have priority. Not only topic, genre should be picked up voluntarily, too. Dominik (appendix H)

It is interesting to note that Dominik suggests that priority should be given to the designers own ideas rather than what the design game suggests. This is a creative conflict. Either the game is played as a game, or the cards should be understood as a creative aid. As the goal behind the method is to further the design of games, the method should support idea generation and not competition (as a game does). After the first session it was also clear that the second session should be different, because the participant designers had already by the first session got an overview of all the missions. Either new missions should be added, or the method should be changed, or a new site should be chosen. As a consequence the method was changed to observe if this would help.

page 146 of 265 Game design session 2 (april 20., 2009). The participants met at the “Gabelmoo” (monument) in Bamberg. The game design session was carried out as the previous one (with the same missions), except that the designers randomly chose the mission, but a game type to their liking. The evaluation lasted 1 ½ hour at a quiet café. 10 game concepts were produced + ideas. Later the participants put their concepts into writing using the wiki.

Observations: The designers clearly felt that they Playing "The Ball." had exhausted many of the missions after the second session. It took also longer time for the participants to put their ideas on to the wiki. This can perhaps be explained as they felt the work completed at the design sessions, as they were not going to take any of the ideas further. One of the participants felt that the slight change of rules made it more restricted, but also noted that restrictions makes it easier to fulfil a mission. If this generally is true, the idea of “guided creativity” ­ which is the basis of the method, may also be true.

More restricted this time (choosing the game type instead of the mission) but therefore even easier to fill. Dominik (appendix H)

The observations showed that new missions were needed for the third design session.

Game design session 3 (may 18., 2009): The participants met at the same place in Bamberg. The game design session was carried out as the previous ones (but with a completely new set of 15 missions). The players chose the mission and game type card to their liking. The evaluation took place at a café and Evaluating the games

page 147 of 265 lasted for 1 ½ hour. 5 game concepts were produced + some ideas. Later the designers put their concepts into writing using the wiki. Observations: The smaller output shows that you can expect a possible fatigue when designers work at the same problem in the same site over several sessions. Again it seems important that the method shows some kind of progression. The idea of a strict iterative approach (that is, that the iterations are identical) does not seem to work.

Games Designed

During the design sessions a total of 26 games were conceptualised and described. In addition some ideas not formulated as games were described too. The game concepts are only described as ideas, that is they are not expected to be complete, but rather a concept that has enough promise to be taken further. Subsequent work on a design may therefore change the idea or (hopefully) evolve it into a game, that can be played. To get an idea of how the design method performed the games are evaluated according to the site­specific game model. This will show if the method produces games of the site­ specific genre.

For this I will use the site­specific game model of chapter 7 in an extended form.

Game Locomotion Site has less has less importance importance GS LG SGL

Site Locomotion

SL

Game features are less important

The evaluation model shows four game types: SGL (Site­Game­Location): the site­specific

page 148 of 265 games, SL (Site­Location): site­specific performances that lack the game element, GS (Game­Site): site­specific games that lack the locomotive element, and LG (Locomotion­ Game): Games that are based on locomotion, but which are not site­specific. The 26 game concepts can now be distributed into the four categories (see the categorization of each game in appendix H).

Game category Count SGL 24 SL 0 GS 2 LG 0

The result is that most of the designed games incorporated elements relating to site, game, and locomotion. In that respect they were site­specific games and it shows that the participants clearly understood what a site­specific game was, and that the method apparently supported their work with site­specific games.

It was decided to study two game concepts closer, as I wanted to study a game concept in detail, and I wanted to take a game concept further and develop it into a working prototype. The Ball (from design session 2) was chosen to develop and implement in a comparison study with a site­specific game derived without using a site­specific design method. Another concept, CitySnake (from design session 3) was chosen to study in detail and to develop into a working game.

8.5 Comparison Study

To compare the effects of the method on the design of a game, one of the concepts from the game design sessions was chosen for further development. The concept The Ball was chosen, because it was a typical example of a site­specific game, and straight forward to develop and implement. The game was designed to be played in Bamberg, but could be adopted to any city­like site with streets. To match for the comparison study of The Ball, a

page 149 of 265 2D ball­catching game was chosen. This is a flash game called Switch and was chosen because of the similarity to The Ball. Switch was adapted as a site­specific game, closely following most of the original ideas of the 2D­game. Both games are a catch­type of game.

“The Ball” A ball is rolling in the city, following the streets. The players object is to guide the ball into a hole. For this task the player may use barricades and other power­ups which can be found around the city. The ball moves continuously and bounces of the sides and corners of the streets. Scattered around the city are cards, which the player may collect, by moving to the place and pick up the card. Most cards are placed on the streets, while a few are placed randomly, and may be difficult to collect. The cards are power­ups which the player may use when he feels the need. There are three kinds of power­ups: “barricades”, “stop­the­ ball,” and “hero mode.” Barricades can be placed anywhere, and the ball will bounce off a barricade. An already placed barricade may be picked up, and used at another place. “Stop­ the­ball” stops the movement of the ball for five minutes, making it possible for the player to catch up with the ball, or change the arrangement of the barricades. The “hero mode”, when played, allows the player's avatar to bounce the ball for five minutes. On screen is a map of the area (with street names) as background. Superimposed are the ball, cards, barricades, the hole, and the player's avatar.

Observations from Play Tests Three students from the University of Bamberg tested the game. Observations from the test is given in appendix F. The area used was around the university campus at Feldkirchenstrasse in Bamberg. This consisted of mostly straight streets and buildings which did not allow for many short cuts. In the middle, however, there was a large park which made other locomotion patterns possible. Players all started collecting some cards. This took a while, because the players had to cover a long distance (the playing area may be close to ½ km2). As the ball moved a little faster than walking speed, the player had to run to catch up with the ball, and place a barricade in front of the ball. Some players followed the ball and guided it with barricades, while

page 150 of 265 other players studied the on­screen map and tried to place the barricades in strategic positions. Most players ran for considerable distances, because the ball bounced at unforeseen corners. The players used the feature of picking up the barricades where they had placed them earlier, and then dropped them closer to the hole. In most play tests the ball fell into the hole quite unexpectedly after approx. 1 hour, when the player was resting being exhausted after running. The players used the possibility of making short­cuts through a nearby park, because they knew that the ball would follow the streets surrounding the area. Using short­cuts was frequently employed to catch up with the ball, and placing a barricade in front of it. Blocking a street with a barricade was often tricky, because the ball would easily slip around the barricade.

“CityAmoeba” In the original arcade game, the flash game Switch, the player controls a ball with the mouse. With the ball he has to catch a number of balls, which are either black or white. All the balls move and bounce of the borders. The player can switch the colour of his ball between black and white. Only balls of the same colour may be catched. Each time the player catches a ball, it “glues” to his/her ball or balls. If the player hits a ball of the other colour, all the balls caught will disperse immediately. On successive levels the The original “Switch” balls become smaller, and the borders move inwards, giving (screenshot), ActionSprite. a smaller game space. For the site­specific variant, only the entry level was implemented. The ball is controlled by the players locomotion. Switching between black and white is done by pressing a button. On screen is shown a map of the area (with street names). Superimposed are the black and white balls, and the players ball (marked with a red circle). To catch a ball, the player moves to the ball, or waits for a ball to hit Playing "CityAmoeba." EK. him/her.

page 151 of 265 The game performance of the CityAmoeba (as the site­specific variant was called) differed because the movement of the ball in “Switch” was only restricted by the speed of the mouse and the players ability, while moving in the city was considerable slower, and the city player was not able to do quick jerk­like movements. The movements of the player in CityAmoeba was also limited by the streets, traffic and buildings etc. on the site.

Observations from play tests The same three students from the University of Bamberg tested this game. Observations are given in appendix G. The same game area was used as in The Ball. The players soon found out that the game could be played in several ways. One player ran after the bouncing balls collecting them when possible, while the other two players preferred to wait for a ball approaching, and then position themselves catching it by a quick dash. Sometimes they made a quick dash to avoid two different coloured balls coming together (if the player is hit by different coloured balls, he/she would loose the already collected balls). One player remarked “that the game could be played at leisure, while talking together and walking through the city, as we do now” (appendix G, player N). Some balls moved very slowly or not at all. If they were within houses, they could only be caught by building up the players avatar, so that the balls could be grabbed by the “tentacles” (hence the name CityAmoeba). Each caught ball earned the player points, and more points were awarded the further the ball was from the players ball. This stimulated the players to build large amoeba­like creatures, which at the same time made it easier to catch other balls, but also easier being hit by balls of the other colour. It took ½ hour­ 1 hour to catch most of the 24 balls. The students commented that the underlying map helped them playing, particularly when playing The Ball. About CityAmoeba a player said: “Without the map, the game would be boring and more abstract to play, because “you would not know what was up and down.” (appendix G, player H).

Comparison of the games Both games are casual­types of site­specific games. They can be played at leisure and within reasonable time (approx. 1 hour). The Ball is a strategic game where the player additionally has to collect items (the cards), while CityAmoeba is a catch­and­avoid­being­caught game with a creative touch when “building” the avatar. Both games took place in the exact same

page 152 of 265 surroundings. If we evaluate them (ex ante) according to the site­specific game model, we get the following.

Game­Site axis The Ball: The ball is following the streets. Most cards are placed on the streets. Barriers can be placed anywhere and picked up later the same place. The ball bounces at the borders of the game area. CityAmoeba: Balls can go anywhere and bounce the imaginary borders of the game area.

Site­Locomotion axis The Ball: Buildings etc. acts as obstacles. The player can short­cut through the park. CityAmoeba: Buildings etc. acts as obstacles. The player can short­cut through the park.

Locomotion­game axis The Ball: Collect cards, place barriers, pick up barriers, chase the ball. CityAmoeba: Actively catch the balls, or wait for their passing by and adjust the position accordingly.

The interesting difference is how the game is incorporating the site as game elements. In CityAmoeba the site is not incorporated at all, while in The Ball, we know that the ball will follow the streets letting the player imagine the ball rolling down the street. Moreover the player can also place the barricades in a random position on a street, and by that make the space into a place—a place the player may well remember, because this is where he/she later may pick up the barricade. This observation shows how the two games differ. The obvious and interesting difference is how the site is used. Both games employ a straight forward “obstacle­design,” when it comes to use locomotion on the site. The apparently small detail, that the ball follows the streets makes all the difference. This connection between the screen and the city offers a sense of presence for the player: “When asked if he could do without the background map, he replies that he finds it easier to play the game with a street map, and that he also sometimes imagines the ball going past him in the street” (player S, appendix G), while another player noted “that the street map helped to understand the distances.” (player N, appendix G). It is

page 153 of 265 easier to imagine the ball rolling through the street in The Ball, than imagining 24 balls somewhat moving (flying?) over the city. Also the barricade is a metaphor that has a clear link to a wooden artefact that can be placed in the street. When placing it on the street the player may memorise the position in the street rather than on the map. In CityAmoeba, the game can only be experienced at the cell phone. Therefore it is subject to the “human cursor design,” which states that the site only acts as obstacles for the movement of the player, and not otherwise incorporated in the game. The comparison study suggests that the design method had a clear impact on the game design, and that it secured a balanced site­specific game, where both site and locomotion are directly incorporated in the game. As a final observation, both games were redesigned to be played in another city. Observation showed that it radically changed the gameplay, although it was thought that the games were site­adaptable (that is, easily be moved to another site), it turned out that even the seemingly arbitrary structure of the site, may play a bigger role than imagined.

8.6 “CitySnake” This game was designed during one of the game design sessions using the method (see appendix H, design session 3, where the results of the design session is given). This game was chosen for evaluating the design details. The game was inspired by the city of Bamberg, which features a maze­like organisation of streets (in the old part) and lots of different coloured houses.

CitySnake is a game which in some ways mimic the classic snake­style video games. The “snake” is controlled by the player and moves when he or she moves. The snake has to navigate through the town of Bamberg, while eating “colours” to become longer. The game is a single­ player casual style of site­specific game designed to be played in one hour or less. The game is played on time, and making the longest snake in the time allotted is the goal. The snake is not allowed to move into itself. When the snake is CitySnake: The snake is hungry for the green hungry it shows on the screen which colour it colour. University of Bamberg.

page 154 of 265 likes. The player has to find a sample of this colour in the street and make a photograph of it within the allotted time period. If the colour on the photo is sufficiently close to the required colour, the snake becomes one part longer, otherwise it looses part of its length. To make navigation more difficult, the snake is not allowed to enter one­way streets in the wrong direction.

To successfully play the game, the player has to examine the street closely to find a matching colour. The player also has to plan his movement in the city carefully, as to avoid running into himself. The game is controlled by the rhythm of the snake's eating habits. As it can only eat when hungry, a fast running player will have no significant advantage over a slow moving player. The player has to balance the movement with colour matching. The screen on the device is used as a communication of the overview over the state of the game, and also to signal which colour to find. The eating rhythm is signalled by audible signs.

Evaluation Ex ante evaluation according to the model shows the following properties:

The game­site axis. The colours of artefacts in the streets are elements in the game as the player is searching for the right colour. The street map is part of the game, as the snake moves through it. The configuration of the streets will influence how difficult it is to navigate the snake. To avoid going against the traffic in one way­streets requires the players attention to street signs as well. The one way­streets are not shown on the map on the game device.

The site­locomotion axis. The player has to follow the streets. Depending on how the streets are connected the player may choose different routes, as the snake gets longer. Searching for the right colour may force the player to alternately both run and walk in different directions. As the game does not allow the player to go back (the snake will hit itself), the player has to pursue a locomotion strategy which is moving him/her forward all the time.

The locomotion­game axis.

page 155 of 265 The player has to plan his locomotion, to avoid the snake running into itself and to avoid one­way streets. Locomotion is necessary because the player has to move to make the snake hungry. While moving, the player has to examine the surroundings to find food for the snake. Eating is the only way to progress in the game.

The evaluation shows that the game is a true site­specific game, but of the type that can be adapted to different sites. The game performance relies on the mobile device as a tool (for taking photos) and as an overview of the game (the map showing the game state, i.e. the snake in the street pattern). All three axes describe how the player behaves in the game. Together they form the outline of the site­specific game performance.

The game concept has during the summer of 2009 been developed into a working prototype by students at the University of Bamberg under the supervision of Sebastian Matyas (University of Bamberg). The game concept has been used as a basis and the game has (as per november 2009) been play tested the first time, leaving the impression that game design worked.

8.7 Conclusion

Iteration II started by evaluating Klintespillet according to the model of site­specific games. This showed a flawed design as to how and why the hotspots in the game should be found.

The revised method used mission based gaming cards in a game­like setup. The method was carried out practising the dérive and the site­specific strategies like the punctum. The revised method was evaluated during a series of design sessions and a comparison study. The design sessions showed that the method worked, as the game concepts designed mostly were of the site­specific type. The evaluation of the design method also showed that it is demanding to use several design sessions, as the participants demanded progression, in the form of new mission cards or a new site for each session.

The comparison study compared design and play tests of two games, where the one was designed during the design sessions using the method, while the other was a site­specific

page 156 of 265 version of a 2D flash game. The study pinpointed the difference between how the games employed the use of site and the way the players noted that the background map provided a sense of presence. Evaluation showed that the game designed using the design method was a more balanced site­specific game (when evaluated according to the model), than was the case for the other game.

The different studies show that the developed method has an impact on game design and on the use of site in the game. The consequence for game design shows that the site­specific game design method focuses on the different game affordances of the site, and how they together with locomotion can be integrated in a game. The manifest of the method is important to convey the basic idea behind the method to the players. This foundation is based upon theories of site­specific performance design and design methods for ubiquitous technology. Comparing the early designs of Gainers N' Drainers and Klintespillet with the designs using the method, suggests that the more formalized approach to design, leads to a more mature design and certainly a more productive idea generation phase. The site­ specific game model was a valuable tool for evaluating the game designs, and moreover suggests places in which where further design work may improve the games in question.

page 157 of 265 9 GAMERS LOVE PERFORMANCE

9.1 The Game Performance

As this study presents a design method partly based on performance studies, the key questions must centre around the understanding of the performance by the players in these specific games. We have already covered different understandings of “performance” and how players perform when playing games. But the site­specific games are in their embodied performance much more obvious theatrical, than typical video gaming.

McGonigal (2005b) suggests five types of gameplay performance:

1. Talent­based performance (art) 2. Master performance (interaction) 3. Expressive performance (identity) 4. Spectacular performance (attention) 5. Theatrical performance (“as if”) McGonigal (2005a)

As McGonigal works within the framework of ubiquitous games, the model is easily adapted to site­specific games, as they are part of the ubiquitous genre, although the model does not include performance styles specific to ubiquitous computing, e.g. connecting the personal performance with the place or situation in which the player finds himself. Performance is often understood in the sphere of the theatre, and thus as a means of expressing feelings, experiences, statements etc. This model only catches game performance in the theatrical understanding—that, is in front of an audience. Performing gameplay is not a much discussed field, this particularly goes for the field of conventional video games (see Westecott 2008).

Using McGonigal's five types of gameplay performance, we may develop a site­specific

page 158 of 265 version.

1. Talent­based: Aesthetic performance like dancing in the street 2. Master: Show how to master running through the streets and controlling the game at the same time. 3. Expressive: Perform your identity by shouting how you play the game. 4. Spectacular: Perform with large gestures and big game pieces, so that everyone can follow the game. 5. Theatrical: Play the game as a drama, even though it is not a role­playing game. Site­specific interpretation of McGonigal's performances

However, the model fails to recognise the many players who primarily play for social reasons, and who performs in a special manner to uphold a social game (cf. Woods 2009). Recognising that site­specific games are very performative by nature, as they are embodied performances, often performed in public places, I will use this model as a basis for a SSG­ model of game performance.

“Playing is performing, performing is playing” Schechner (2002) has established that “play is at the heart of all performance” and McGonigal (2005a) has turned this over by saying that “performance is at the heart of all play.” What Schechner tells us, is that the creative and experimenting soul together with the repetitive nature of ritual equals the performance. A playful attitude makes performance alive while ritual sets the scene, and makes it possible to practice. The ongoing battle between creativity and ritual ensures that a performance is never dull, even though it has been rehearsed for months. “Performances is at the heart of all play,” tells us that all playing and gaming is a performance. That the very essence of gaming is to perform. This is certainly true for embodied games, where the embodied action in public places leaves no way of not performing. McGonigal takes the step to consider all gameplay as performances. Here I am only concerned on how the site­specific game play can be understood as a performance.

page 159 of 265 “All gameplay is theatrical” (McGonigal 2005a) This depends on the understanding of “theatrical.” Normally it is taken to be performances enacted on the theatre stage or as part of the theatrical culture. It can be argued that site­ specific games are enacted with the city as a stage. In her book “Computers as Theatre,” Brenda Laurel (1993) proposes an understanding of the theatre as an interface metaphor. The stage is the screen, the user the audience. She mentions two reasons for using theatre as a metaphor in the design of human­computer interaction:

First, there is significant overlap in the fundamental objective of the two domains—that is, representing action with multiple agents. Second, theatre suggests the basis for a model of human­computer which is both familiar, comprehensible, and evocative. Laurel (1993:16)

She suggests the theatre as an easier way of understanding the complex relationship between representation and agents. Saying that gameplay is theatrical, is however to take it one step further. Laurel (1993) can not imagine interactive theatre, e.g. that the audience step onto the stage and directly influences the performance. This is, however used in well­ known performance types (among others: Theatre of the Oppressed / Augusto Boal), and show that theatrical performances can be truly interactive, just as human­computer interaction is, and just as games are. In Theatre of the Oppressed, the audience may stop a performance and suggest a different outcome of the drama, often by playing the (short) parts themselves. The line to the site­specific games are thus not very long. Any performance can be interactive, and game performances are good examples of interactive performances. Site­specific games include many typical features from the stage: the city (or other surroundings) acts as a stage. The players are actors, interactive—but still performing within the possibilities of the script—that is the rules of the game. The players even perform using their bodies, as in other performance art. Playing a game can be understood as a theatrical performance, and site­specific computer games are thus good examples of games as theatrical performances.

“Performance is improved by gameplay’s theatrical magic “as if” ” (McGonigal 2005a) The theatrical magic “as if,” is both a question of role playing and immersive play. Even

page 160 of 265 though a game is not a role playing game, we still have the “as if.” Any game requires the player to accept the rules and the game culture. If a player does not accept, he/she is not playing or he/she is trying to change to the rules. Playing a game is accepting the “magic circle” as it is presented by the game, but still with the possibility of arguing the exact limits and shape of the circle or rejecting it altogether. Immersive gaming is when the player is absorbed in the game (Brown and Cairns, 2004, defines it as engagement, engrossment, and presence). The player is in a state of “flow” (cf. Csikzentmihalyi, 1997), and he/she may play as if stakes are real. The game becomes a question of life and death. The “as if” both supports performance by role playing and by being immersive. Another point is that immersive and site­specific are unlikely bedfellows at first sight. Bock (2008) explains immersive, in the classical sense of the virtual reality industry, as to become absorbed in the interface, while site­specificity is an art term about pealing of the layers of a place to expose the workings of a particular site. She argues that they may well integrate in art works, that are site­specific and requires interaction. A site­specific game may thus be understood as immersive when site and interaction unite in the game.

“Performance is scary, games are safe” (McGonigal 2005a) To perform in a public context is scary, but to play in a public context is safe. Children play in the street, but few adults sing in the street. Under the cover of the magic circle, the players feel safe and able to perform. For the site­specific games, this is crucial, as the players are not professional theatrical performers, but playing allows them to interact with each other and even with innocent bystanders, as have been tried in several games. Without the protection of the magic circle, the site­specific games would not be possible, as very few can be played in non­public spaces, and as what makes pervasive games “cool” is to play in public, and in public places.

9.2 The Site­Specific Game Performance

This study has defined the genre site­specific computer games as a genre of computer games where the physical space is a direct part of the game and where the game is supported by technology. This definition leaves the difficult usage of the magic circle behind and focuses on the real problem: how can games make use of a site in the real world?

page 161 of 265 The answer is a model of the artefact, showing that site­specific games are game performances based on gameplay, site, and locomotion of the players. The model presents the site­specific game as an artefact which makes equal use of the three properties. A design method is presented (called site­storming). This method is based on the idea, that games played on site, should be design on­site as well. The idea of situated design is not novel, but probably not applied to games before. Although it works in this context (a number of games have been conceptualized and some produced), it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Among others:

– How is site­storming best practised?

– Is it possible to conceptualise all site­specific games on site?

– Can all sites be used?

Using the site­storming method provoked new ways of experiencing the site and new game ideas, because the designer walked the city while working on the design. It was chosen to do this individually as it is often awkward for many persons to discuss outside, and because the session would have been prolonged by discussions. It seemed better to postpone the discussions to a meeting room. Games that depend on complicated resources may use the site less, and not benefit from site­storming at all. Otherwise playing out the idea, should help focusing on the main issues in the game. This was what the evaluations (presented in the appendix) of the method showed. As presented there are some studies suggesting situated design for ubiquitous computing among other uses. Game design is different as it does not necessarily concentrate on the physical device and on doing one thing, but rather on the complicated situation of which the player is an integral part of. The portable hardware may either be the driving force in the game (for exampel The Ball and CityAmoeba), or provide the overview that makes the game possible (In GeoTicTacToe the hardware provides the overview of the game, that makes competition possible).

McGonigal provides examples showing a performance attitude to gameplay performance— that is, gameplay performance is embodied performance in some form. This goes well with body­centric site­specific computer games, and I propose a model of game performance

page 162 of 265 specific to this genre, based on the observations in the previous chapters. Adapting the SSG­ model into a model of game performance, we get the following:

Gameplay performance

Site performance Locomotive performance

The site­specific game performance

Together they form the site­specific game performance. The model shows that playing a site­specific game, the player performs a mix of performance types, related to the three areas shown in the model. The special property of site­specific games, presents itself through the specific performance style of the game type. I suggest that any game performance, can be understood as a combination of several performance types. For site­ specific games, the game performance is a combination of gameplay, place, and locomotive performance. When playing, the game performance can always be described as the player performing one or more performances styles from each of the three types. An example could be: while the player is playing as if the stakes were real she is running through the city looking for a tag. This game performance sums up a typical situation from a site­ specific game. The player is immersed, she is moving, and she is scanning the place for game­relevant information.

Gameplay performance is the performance related to how the player manages to progress in the game. This progression is guarded by rules and game culture and guides the player through the game. The gameplay performance will mirror the way the player has chosen to play the game, which in turn is how he/she progresses in the game.

Place performance is how the player manages places in the game. As places are salient properties of site­specific games, the players choice of relating to the place is an important

page 163 of 265 performance. Observations from earlier chapters show that players often scan places for game relevant items, or examine part of places, or interact with places in some way. The most important place performances are:

1. Scanning 2. Examining 3. Searching 4. Orientating Site performance

During observations I discovered that different game actions promoted different kinds of locomotion (see The Ball and CityAmoeba in Iteration II). The player chooses different ways of performing his movements to progress in the game. Obviously running is important, but often only as a means to perform the task of transportation. In many site­specific games the player at some time or other knows where he is going and then has to use some time to get there, often by running. Some games allow the use of transportation such as a bicycle (cf. Schlieder et al. 2005). Transportation can be also be short moves, as walking to a barricade to pick it up in The Ball, or running away after having placed a bomb in CityBomberman. Often transportation is moving to a place, and then adjusting the position to the exact location, with the aid of visuals on the interface. Another characteristic performance is to search for a game item. In CitySnake this is done by looking for an artefact with the correct colour, somewhere in the streets. Other typical locomotive performances are avoiding (avoiding game items, as in CityAmoeba, where you have to avoid balls of the contrasting colour), and catching (in CityAmoeba, you have to catch or grasp balls of the same colour). As time often plays a more central role in site­specific games than in video games, because the game may be spread over a large area, waiting becomes surprisingly an important performance. Players wait for something to happen, they wait for other team members, they wait to synchronise with other teams etc. In Klintespillet, the players have to wait, while they listen to a message. In GeoTicTacToe (Schlieder et al. 2005), waiting is introduced to limit the advantage for quicker players over the slower players. Without this synchronisation speed seems always to win over strategy, which may not be desirable. In CitySnake the player have to move otherwise the snake does not become hungry, and if it

page 164 of 265 does not eat the player does not progress. The interesting observation is that the rhythm of the game is controlled by the snake's eating habits thus limiting the advantage of speed. This is also the case with Wanderer, where the rhytm is controlled by the game. The locomotive performances I have presented are:

1. Transportation (moving to a specific position) 2. Searching (for an unknown position) 3. Avoiding 4. Catching 5. Waiting 6. Matching Locomotive performances for site­specific games

The final locomotive performance is matching. The players have to match their movements with the game interface. As this is often a visual representation of the area as a map with game elements marked on, the player has to position himself according to the interface. This performance type is also employed directly in many site­specific games, where you have to match your position with a figure on the interface. In Mysterious Signs (Game concept 2.10, appendix H) the player has to trace the outline of a figure by the his/her movements. The matching performance is also used in games where the players have to keep a certain distance to a game element, or certain speed, or where they have to match their movements to a rhythm, e.g. running slowly to slow­paced music. In the game Wanderer, the player has to obey auditory commands by their movements (“turn right”, “go faster” etc.).

I have presented a model of gameplay performance for site­specific games. The model shows that a player performs a complex game performance, when playing a site­specific game. The model also makes it possible to design games that promote specific types of performances.

As presented in the introduction, the motivation for research and design of pervasive games was the interest for more physically active games. Although some of the games designed in

page 165 of 265 this study (like CityAmoeba; in CitySnake the tempo is set by the game) could be played at leisure in a slow tempo, most site­specific games seem to rely on players ability to run. It seems that in all the games of this type, the players would benefit from running, either simply by outdoing their competitors by speed, or because it would leave more time for time­consuming parts of the games, like puzzle­solving, searching etc. Even in the GeoGames (Schlieder et al., 2005), where a synchronization mechanism was introduced to avoid unfair competition, it is impossible to prevent players from running and get some advantage over the others. We are waiting to see more examples of slow­paced games (like The Dance of the Figurines). In Klintespillet there is no focus on speed, but as you hear more of the narrative by covering more of the hotspots, an element of speed creeps in anyway. As all games are designed to be completed, time is a significant factor in all game playing. Unless using a turn­based game it seems impossible to design a site­specific game, where speed carries no importance. The only strategy is to place control of the rhythm in the game —this, as has been pointed out earlier, will limit the advantage of speed over strategy CitySnake is an example of a game, where the snake's eating habit is controlled by the game.

9.3 Pervasive Games or not? Through this work I have to chosen to introduce the term site­specific computer games or just site­specific games, not using the more or less standard term: pervasive games. As stated earlier depending on the understanding of pervasive games, site­specific games may not be exactly the same. Additionally I have shown that there is a familiarity in the performance style design of site­specific performances and site­specific games. Montola 2005 and Montola et al. 2009 define pervasive games as an expansion of the magic circle. Pervasive games either extends or blur the border of the magic circle with respect to space, players, or time. That is, they are either spatially, temporally, or socially expanded games. If we look at some examples of pervasive games, they may not be as expanded, as they seem. Montola et al. (2009) does in fact introduce the term site­specific game in line with site­adaptable game. They understand the subgenre as tightly coupled to the history of the place, like games of sightseeing or local history. I have shown here that the terms should be used with any games that are designed to incorporate space and place, that is the spatially expanded

page 166 of 265 games (as Montola et al. 2009 calls them). In most pervasive games the players are well­known—they have to be, as they usually are equipped with special hardware or somehow needs to be known by the game system. It is possible to include innocent bystanders in the games, but the principal players must always be coordinated and instructed in the game. It was showed earlier that in order to play a game some kind of an overview showing the state of the other players is necessary, for the player to progress over the other players in the game.

In most pervasive games the game space is well known too, as it in practice is limited a town centre (for example REXplorer, GeoTicTacToe, Can You See Me Now) or another well­ defined venue, as a part of the wood in Klintespillet—some have even been confined to closed non­public areas (Savannah, Epidemic Menace). Others publish clearly where the hotspots of the game are to be found (GeoTicTacToe). It would be difficult to design a game, where the space is completely unknown, so that the players would have to travel around the earth to find the traces of the game. In the alternate reality game, I Love Bees, the game space was vast, as it covered the bigger part of the US. But they adopted the strategy to present the game space by presenting the hotspots as 110 GPS­coordinates. This allowed the game space to be distributed over an area so large, that it forced the players to cooperate. But the location of the game space was still given.

Gamers love to play, but they expect the game performance to be “safe.” This implies that enough details are known of the game, to make the players feel comfortable—probably like the flow model (Csikzentmihalyi, 1997). It does not make sense to travel a long way for a game experience, you could enjoy at home. The pervasive game space somehow mimics the board in a board game. The game does not necessarily become better, because the board is bigger or half missing. In pervasive games, the players may not know the exact size of the game area, but they need to have an idea to be able to play the game, either by being told or because they figure it out themselves. All successful games need a way to communicate an overview of the game, so the players know how to progress in the game. A typical feature of the pervasive games, is that part of the game may be to obtain the overview of the game. This is the case of Klintespillet, where the player does not know what is going to happen, before he/she starts playing.

page 167 of 265 In most pervasive games the game time is limited, as the cell­phone and the GPS run out of power, and because the players can not roam the city forever. It is difficult to avoid any use of game time. Even if a game stretches over days, it has started at some fixed time. Likewise it has to end at a fixed time. It would be possible to design a game without start or finish, but it may not be practical, and it may not make the game more interesting.

Apart from the three ways of extending the magic circle by Montola (2005), I will add three other observations.

'The magic circle can additionally be extended by having a flexible rule system, by having a flexible game culture, and by using partly unknown game elements. There may well be other ways to expand the magic circle.

In a normal non­pervasive game, the rules are fixed and known to all the participants. In this understanding rules are regulations, that limit and support the players progress towards the end of the game. The rules also make it possible to cheat and to discuss rule issues. But there are some games where not all rules are known, or where issues about details of the rules crop up. A good example of this category is the famous “Nomic” game, which is a social game where the players have to invent the rules and the goal and vote for them. It is also true for the Alternate Reality Games, where the game rules may be largely unknown. A third example is “GeoCaching,” where there are no rules, only a goal (find the treasure). How to find it, what equipment to use etc., is up to the players.

Games with few or no rules can be played in different ways, and have to create a game culture on their own. This is true with “GeoCaching,” which started to be a simple treasure hunt style game, but has since developed into a host of different games and into a family sport. The same game can be played in several ways, if playing is not restricted by the game culture.

Montola's model opens for several ways a game can be pervasive, but in practice few games are true pervasive games, as practical design limits the possible pervasiveness. On the other

page 168 of 265 hand any game can be understood as a pervasive game. Any game of chess can be played in public (even with oversized pieces), and any chess player playing in private is still aware of his surroundings, and how they may influence his game. Chess can also be played per correspondence, that is over long time and as part of ones daily life. When people play video games at an internet café, and talk together while playing, they are expanding the magic circle too. So when defining pervasive games, at least we have to distinguish between designed pervasiveness and performed pervasiveness. It follows from the discussion of performance and play that as all games are performances, and all performances must have a pervasive element, then all games are examples of performed pervasiveness. On the other hand designed pervasiveness is a characteristic of pervasive games in Montola's (2005), Montola et al. (2009) understanding. What is truly unique of pervasive games is not that they may show pervasive properties, but that they take place in the big world, typically in urban surroundings. Therefore it seems meaningful to term them site­specific games. The overall interesting property is how the games are designed to interact with the site they are designed for, and how they may interact in a meaningful way with the site. Site­specific games can be understood as mediating a site into a game.

To understand the site­specific games I will argue for a new understanding of the magic circle. There is no game without a magic circle. The concept of the magic circle defines the game performance, as it defines the scope of the game performance. The controversy of the magic circle is thus a question of understanding the different kinds of game performances. The magic circle has a purpose: the purpose of presenting the space (both in time, physical space, game elements, rules, and players) that delimits the game. This is necessary to secure that the performed game (the game performance) equals the designed game. Another purpose of the magic circle is to produce a performance space—a space where the player is allowed to do things he or she would otherwise never do.

9.4 Understanding The Game Performance

A Game Performance is delimited by the magic circle. The magic circle thus defines the scope of the game performance. In a wider understanding, a performance can be

page 169 of 265 characterized as marked behaviour. The performance in connection with games is the marked behaviour performed by the player when playing the game. The game performance describes how players act, work, play, understand, progress, deal with the other players etc. through the game.

Rules Players Start Finish Elements

Gameplay Culture

Performance Session

Locomotion Site

The site­specific game performance

The Site­Specific Game Performance is a special kind of performance, set by the rules of the particular game and delimited by the magic circle of the game, which in turn is defined by the seven properties in the model above. Performance is in the middle, as a game always evolves around the performance of the player. The properties can be used differently and can be more or less specified. The lesser defined the more “pervasive” the game will be, e.g. the less defined the magic circle will be. That the magic circle is less defined or more or less absent in the game design, does not mean that it is not present in the game performance. The game performance is a model of how a game is actually played or performed. If the properties are less detailed, the players would have to create them on there own, when they play the game. Absence of rules can be part of the game design, as in Nomic. When starting to play Klintespillet, it may omit to present the game space. When the players have tracked some sounds, they will quickly see the pattern of hotspots and build a mental model of the game space. The player will in this way complete the necessary details left out in the design

page 170 of 265 and presentation of the game. Note that this also opens for the players to form their own experience of the game, which may differ from the designed experience. The eight properties of the site­specific game performance are:

Rules The rules define how the player is supposed to navigate from start to finish. Elements The elements are game pieces, buildings, tags etc. used in the game. They may be abstract or virtual or both. Culture The culture is knowledge of how the game is actually played—like tactics. The game culture is difficult to design, but established games may have a strong culture, which is adapted by new players. Part of the culture may be that the players have to discover elements of the game. Players The players are the performers who know they are playing a game. Start The start is where the players have to be positioned before the game starts. Finish Either the goal, or some way of loosing. Session The game session is the temporal dimension of the game performance. Games are usual played in one session, but games like alternate reality games may spread over a long time. Site The site is the physical and virtual space where the game takes place. Locomotion The players locomotion on the site of the game.

The properties, as stated above, need not be fully designed. The design space of the properties are:

– complete. The design aims to be complete, for example the rule book of golf.

– hyper­complete. The design is not only complete, but includes redundancy.

– partially complete. The design aims to be complete, but fails. Disagreements are solved by an authority, like a judge or by discussions among the players.

– disruptive. The design separates properties of the performance. A game played

page 171 of 265 only on Wednesdays exhibits disruptive design.

– incomplete. The design is left incomplete. The players will invent the necessary guidelines or even rules to be able to play the game. Other authorities may also place limits on the game.

– absent. The design for the property is absent. The players will invent necessary guidelines. Cheating is (at least at first) not possible. Other authorities may also place limits on the game.

A property of many games that are termed pervasive games, is that the specifications are deliberately, partially, or completely omitted. This opens for the players to define what they need, either alone or in communities, and they would often have to do so, to be able to progress in the game performance. This may be tactics, guidelines, good advice and in some cases even rules that regulate the game under certain circumstances. If twelve players are needed for a game, and only ten show up, the players may agree to suspend a rule. What is interesting is that when specifications are left out, other authorities may also impose on the game. When playing site­specific games, local authorities may limit the way the players travel through the city. If it is not specified who are the players, other people may join the game and even change it.

Combining the properties with the possibilities of the design space leaves a host of combinations and a huge design space for games, of which most will belong to the pervasive genre. Also the properties may change through the game performance. Players may join, rules may change, the game space may be extended etc. The site­specific games can be defined by their designed use of the site property, that is the design makes the game performance include the site.

9.5 Conclusion

In this chapter I have established that there are different game performances. In the case of the site­specific games we find the gameplay, site, and the locomotion performance. The place performance describes how the player deals with places in the game. The locomotion performance describes how the player deals with space in the game, that is how he may

page 172 of 265 move in the game. The gameplay is described as different kinds of embodied expression. Special to the site­specific games are the interaction with the site, either as locomotion or in other forms, for example by examining a place. The gameplay performance is inspired by McGonigal's five properties of performance in games, but regulated by properties of games, that is rules, game culture, players etc.

The understanding of the magic circle as a question of spatial, temporal, and social expansion (Montola 2005 and Montola et al. 2009), is extended by the possible expansion in the rules, the game culture, and he game elements. Three areas that are important to the site­specific games. This is the case because they employ a site in the game, which often leads to a more concealed kind of game. Pervasive Games are understood as games deliberately designed as incomplete games. They may omit parts of the structure to make the magic circle less definite, and thus make room for the players to invent the missing parts, when they play the game.

The magic circle is not only a property of game study, it also has the purpose of ensuring that the performed game (the game performance) equals the designed game.

The game performance is shown to have several properties, where the site is the nexus for the site­specific games. The other properties are locomotion, site and the gameplay performance. Locomotion and site performance each have a number of properties.

page 173 of 265 10 ITERATION III

Iteration I Iteration II Iteration III

Revised 2. Revised Design Method Design Method Design Method

10.1 Redesigning “Klintespillet”

The evaluation of Klintespillet (chapter 8.1) according to the site­specific game model showed that the game was weak on the game­site axis. The game did not integrate the site in the game. This suggests that part of the game could benefit from a redesign according to the model. The game was designed to make use of hotspots, but the hotspots were not sufficiently distinct to fit the storyline. The problem is either to redesign the hotspots and/or the story which will change the game completely, or introduce a parallel use of the site. As it has never have been clear how the players were supposed to locate the hotspots, and it turned out to be a problem at the play test (at the play test the players had to be issued with paper maps), the method was used to see if it could help remedy this problem.

Redesign session A redesign session using the site­storming method was conducted in May 2009 at the island of Møn. Walking the forest suggested a searching mechanism of some kind. As the game is relying on audio, the search mechanism could be an audio signal that increased in frequency when the player moved closer towards the hotspot. This would make it meaningful for the player to search the forest as he would get some feedback in his game. Progression was a problem in the game, as the game did not provide any overview of the game state. Walking the forest suggested that a visualization of the area together with the route

page 174 of 265 covered and the hotspots found would provide such an overview of the game state, and also show when progression was made. Although overview is particularly necessary for a multiplayer game, it will also help players in a single­player game to make them progress in the game. In this case the players would be able to view where they had found hotspots, the size of the game area, and their current position. As the wood is very dense and it continually has been a problem whether players could get lost, visualizing the position solves this problem too. Visualization could not be done using a map, as such a map of the paths in the forest does not exist. A satellite photo was used instead. The new version of the game included this new functionality plus the ghosts, which was left out in the previous version due to the lack of access to the GSM net. Originally the game should have been a multiplayer game, but as the GSM coverage was bad or non­existent in most of the wood the ghosts were not implemented. In the new version the ghosts are implemented as robots.

Ex ante evaluation of redesigned game concept The Game­Site axis:

– The game uses places in the wood, as a basis for the story, but the direct connection between story and the experienced place is often weak. Many of the places chosen are not sufficiently distinct, and as a consequence it has been difficult to tell a story for some of the hotspots, that could not just as well have been told for another hotspot.

– The player searches the hotspots using the handheld device.

– The player can view where he is and which hotspots he has covered.

The Site­Locomotion axis:

– the player has to search (aided by sounds) for the hotspots to put the story together.

– the player can go anywhere (the screen shows the boundaries), but some places in the wood are difficult terrain.

– When meeting ghosts, the player has to follow the directions given by the ghost.

The Locomotion­Game axis:

– the player progresses in the game by finding a hotspot.

– the player progresses in the game by following the directions given by a ghost.

page 175 of 265 The ex ante evaluation of the redesigned game shows that the Game­Site axis, which was particular weak, now is balanced against the other axes. An interesting change of the concept is also that the handheld device which previously controlled the game, now more acts as a supporting technology of the game. The handheld device now works as a kind of Geiger counter, which makes sense when the players are searching for hotspots.

Ex post evaluation of redesigned game “We are going to try out a new game, called “Klintespillet,” which is supposed to take us through nature in a new way. In the museum's [GeoCenter Møns klint] educational facilities we meet Erik, who is one of the developers, and who is going to introduce us to the game. The educational facilities are placed in an old hotel near the new museum building. We are on the east coast of Møn. We have driven through a dense forest to lands end, the eastern most point of Denmark (except Bornholm). Here the forest suddenly ends in a surprisingly dramatic landscape with steep chalk cliffs. There are 498 steps down to the beach (and up again), we are told. The game however is not taking us down to the sea, but takes place in the forest on the top. We are teamed up, 4 persons per group and issued with a cell phone and a bluetooth enabled gps­receiver. Erik briefly explains the game. None of us have ever tried a game like this, and although we professionally work in nature almost all day, we are excited. Erik tells us that something dreadfully has happened in this forest, and that we are going to track the events the lead up to it. With our mobiles we can track sounds “recorded” by the places, where the story took place. Eager to set out, we wait for our turn to start. Erik checks the equipment, apparently the gps­signal has to be good, before it works. We start in front of the old hotel. Erik hands us the mobile, tells us to be aware of the ghosts, and waves good luck. We set out on our strange adventure. At first nothing happens. Erik has advised us to turn up the sound, which we have done, and now we can hear the mobile slowly clicking. On the screen there is a satellite photo of the area. It more or less just shows green patches of forest with water on the side. OK, so we are close to the see. We decide to walk westwards, when suddenly we hear the voice of the King of the Cliff. He tells us that we should help him and that we have to hurry. As we walks on the clicking becomes faster and faster. At the edge of the parking space, it stops, and there is a new message. We clump together and hear a man who tells us about a species of beetles. He has found a new specimen for his collection. The clicking starts again slowly, and a yellow star marks the spot on the satellite photo on the mobile. We cross the small road and

page 176 of 265 climbs the hill, as the clicking again becomes quicker, then suddenly it slows down. We most have passed the spot. As we turn around we run back and forth to track the sound. It seems we went almost over the spot the very first time. The next message was a woman, called Agnes. She was in distressed having taken some medicine which apparently should prolong her life. Further south closer to the cliff an architect and a woman (a mayor?) discuss the future plans for a wellness­centre directly on the cliff. Some of the places are difficult to locate. We have developed a strategy, as we approach a point and the clicking steadily becomes quicker. We try to listen at several places nearby, and then guess where to find the sound. The King of the Cliff have several times come up with additional information. We are advised to not be afraid of ghosts, if we should encounter one. Nice to know. The story is quite interesting and every time we hear a new sound, we gather to get the next piece of the story. We have learnt that “GEO” is a conspicuous society, that works to prolong life. They have established a research centre in the basement of museum and hide their activities behind the harmless museum. We witnessed a scary funeral procession of the woman, Agnes, we met earlier on. Each time we locate a new sound, a yellow star is mapped on the photo on the mobile, and the search goes for the next sound clip. After one hour we suddenly heard a new kind of sound. The ghost of Agnes approached us, and wanted us to help her. We have to find a special place and meet her there. As we are sure of the place we tried to follow the path, but Agnes told us, that this was the wrong way. So Agnes was trying to help us. We decided to follow Agnes and see if this would bring us further in the game. When we reached the place between two hills, she told us that we had to make a wreath of flowers and take a picture of i t with the mobile. Looking at the mobile, there was indeed an item on the menu called “Take Photo”. After having make a small wreath for Agnes, and taken a photo of it, Agnes told us after a while, that she had been the first victim of the secret sect GEO (we had already guessed that). She also told us that Lautenbacher was the brain behind it all. We want to find more pieces of the story. The forest is very hilly and dense. As a group we have to stay together to hear the story. When we leave the paths we almost immediately loose our orientation. When we are close to a sound, the one with the mobile locates the exact spot, and then we quickly cluster about. We have just overheard how Lautenbacher invited Gregers for a meeting at the museum, and then a news reporter telling us that a guest mysteriously disappeared at the GeoCenter. While the secret society is working on the life prolonging medicine by gene manipulating a beetle special to the site, the mayor Ylse is planning to build a wellness centre to attract tourists. How do this fit

page 177 of 265 together? Time is running out, we are told by a polite Cliff King, who admonishes us to go back to the GeoCentre. In two hours we have located 16 sounds and have a good idea of the story. When we return we are looking forward to hear how the other groups performed.” Lars

Conclusion The redesigned version of “Klintespillet” was play tested during the summer of 2009. Three groups of two or three persons (all adults) each played the game. After playing they were told to tell about their experience with the game (see appendix D). Their reactions showed that the redesign changed the game significantly. It was more fun and rewarding to locate the hotspots by the clicking sounds, than using a map. The players also sensed the progress in the game stronger as each hotspot was marked on the screen when found. This also helped to distinguish hotspots from the Cliff King and the ghosts. The redesign changed Klintespillet from hearing a narrative to a more game­like activity with overview of the progress.

10.2 Workshop on Pervasive Game Design

Games A workshop on pervasive game design was offered for first semester students at Roskilde University (the Humanistic­Technological programme). This made it possible to evaluate the design method with participants who did not have any experience in game design. At the workshop the the participant used the design method, but as they had to produce a prototype they were limited to designing games that were based on standard technology with no programming allowed. This limited the design space. They did however produce a lot of games of some which are included in appendix I. A single game concept is presented here:

Espen (game 4, appendix I) presents a game concept, where two teams compete about which team commands most tiles in their own colour (either black or white). The teams may turn tiles changing them from black to white and vice versa. The teams have a screen showing an overview of the game. The winner is the team which commands most tiles in

page 178 of 265 their colour when the time runs out. This is an interesting game as the turn based concept which is usual in games of this type (like in memory) have been omitted effectively turning the game into an action game. This game also has social aspects as it requires collaboration.

Evaluation The game design session was evaluated and the observations are shown in appendix I. The evaluation was fairly positive even though they did not produce many game ideas that could be developed further. Several remarked that moving around while working with design was beneficial for the idea generation: (only some of the comments are shown here)

“It was a good idea to walk while getting ideas”

Others focused on the fact that the method guided them to work in a specific way:

“It is good that the method is guided. It makes one more focused”

A lot remarked that they the found it exciting to explore places they had never been before:

“I saw the buildings in a new way. It was good that it was guided. That you had to do something specific. It made it easier to get ideas”

Some remarked on idea generation:

“When I already have a good idea, then it may be a waste of time” “It is a good method, if you are locked on an idea. You can think of new ideas, when you escape the normal routine”

Some remarked on working alone:

“I often need to think alone, and then I liked the evaluation together after the session” “I liked being alone. I think best when alone. Afterwards I got many ideas, by hearing the other participants ideas”

page 179 of 265 Some remarked on evaluation:

“My idea was not that good, but it turned out better, when I presented it at the evaluation” “We usually talk together when we get ideas, but it was better to walk alone and the evaluate afterwards”

The conclusion is that the participants were generally happy doing creative thinking using the method. They found working alone surprisingly effective, as they avoided social loafing, and everyone were able to come forth and present their ideas. Compared with the design sessions from Iteration II, the quality of the games were better in Iteration II. This is fair to assume that it is because the participants in Iteration II had a lot of experience with board games and some experience in game design, while none of the participants in this workshop had any game design experience.

10.3 Conclusion

The redesign session of Klintespillet, showed that if the method had been used early when the first design session was conducted, we would probably had had a much clearer idea of what a site­specific game was and how it could have been designed for that particular site. Compared with the extremely long and tedious idea generation phase of the first version of the game, it seems that there can be no doubt design sessions using the method would significantly have shortened the process, and in addition also provided a better concept. The focus on the narrative took away the focus on the overall game. The model of the site­ specific game calls for a balanced view of the three axes, and should secure that a game concept can be evaluated ex ante, and that the further design work could be enhanced by this evaluation. The use of the method at the workshop showed that even non­experienced designers can benefit from using the method. Having a method that is not just meant to be inspirational (like the IDEO cards), but which provides some guidance in how design work should

page 180 of 265 proceed, was accepted as an advantage by the students, who used the method. Also the shifting between working alone and together seems to further design ideas and was appreciated by the students.

page 181 of 265 11 THE DESIGN OF SITE­SPECIFIC GAMES

11.1 Site­Specific Games

A Performance of Discovery Montola, Stenros, and Waern (2009) write in their book on pervasive games that: “Spatially expanded games are inherently about discovery and changing perception” (orig. emphasis.). Discovery, because the spatially expanded game is not limited to a physical region and therefore offers infinite game affordances made up by the complicated urban landscape the player is immersed in. Changing perspectives, because the game may feature a narrative that puts a new perspective on the site the game is played within. It seems straight forward that the main task for a player is searching for the elusive game:

“One of the most important tasks for the player is to figure out what places, objects, and piece of information are relevant [for the game].” Montola, Stenros, and Waern (2009).

This could theoretically be the case for any game. When starting to play a new game, the player has to acquire knowledge of the game elements (the game board, pieces etc.), how to manipulate the game elements, and some game culture. This must be the same for all kinds of games, but some games may try to hide more or less of the game mechanics. Indeed, this is not reserved for the pervasive games, but also for a game like Nomic, where very little is known when you start a game, because there is no predefined game elements and no predefined rules—often only a game culture, that states that you may propose a rule and vote for it. Like a spatially expanded game you may have to search the some game elements and the rules to progress in the game. Spatially expanded games or site­specific games is a group of different types of games, which only have one thing in common: the use of a physical site as part of the game. This, like any site­specific performance, can be done in infinite ways, also the more controlled ones. The purpose of the game performance

page 182 of 265 is to make the players progress motivated by play. Performance theory tells us that performance is play and ritual. Progression is possible by ritualized behaviour and creative problem solving. In a game performance the players progress, because they take advantage of a system of rules and game elements. Part of the culture for a particular game may be, that the players have to discover part of the game themselves. This is certainly true for many site­specific games, because they take advantage of the complicated affordances of the site, but even a typical board game may have a complicated game board with lots of decorations that may or may not be used in the game. The point is: if a game should be successful it has to be designed in a way that makes the elements of the game performance balance (cf. chapter 9.3). The case of Klintespillet started out as an infinite space. No spatial or temporal boundary was given. Playing the game this way did not work, as the expectations of our players were different. Our players somehow expected a game that was confined within place and time. A game that provided them with a nice experience. To balance the game performance with the players expectations the players were provided with a map and told that it lasted 2 hours. This tells us that the object of game design is to design the game in such a way, that it balances the expectations of the player with the actual game. This shows that the object of game design is to limit the possibilities of game affordance. If the players are going to progress or even excel, they have to be guided. In chapter 7.3, I covered idea exploration games and showed that unrestricted games left participants without motivation, and very restricted games moved the focus from the design task to the game mechanics. In between are games that fit the expectations of the players.

For site­specific games, the endless possibilities of a site should not drown the player in tedious discovery, but in a game culture that makes the player learn the mechanics of the game and thus progress. Some of the site­specific games I have presented require different levels of discovery. Klintespillet in the first version was open­ended, in the second version rather closed. Gainers n' Drainers was open ended, while The Ball and CityAmoeba were closed.

The Human Cursor Design The fit (the relation between site and performance) can be designed in several ways in site­ specific games. If the fit is very open, the player may use more effort to discover how the game fits the site. If the fit is more closed, the player may use more time in excelling in the

page 183 of 265 game. This could be as running to a specific location in the game. The closest fit is where the game could be played with paper prototypes or with a computer simulation—that is the experiencing the actual is not necessary to play the game. The site only works as obstacles for the player locomotion. This is what I have termed the human cursor design. If the game can be played without being in situ and having to experience the place, then discovery is totally absent. This is for example the case with CityAmoeba. The game can easily be simulated on a pc. But the game performance, will of course be experienced completely different. He is still immersed in reality and has to perform accordingly. And the site may still surprise him—a street can be blocked or there can be heavy traffic. Games that do not rely on the human cursor design, like CitySnake, where the colours of the site is part of the game, requires the player to explore or interact with the site. The true site­specific game becomes a mediation of the site in the form of a game.

Heterotopias and Psychogeografie

“Spatially expanded games can never by fully play tested with paper prototypes.” Montola, Stenros, and Waern (2009).

I have taken this one step further by stating: “Site­specific games should be designed on site.” The basic idea generation should be moved from the meeting room to the site in question. This design method focuses on the nexus in site­specific game, which must be the site. The design method could have been put together in may ways, but I based it on the ideas of the Situationist Art movement. This was chosen because I wanted a creative, non systematic, open way of exploring the site. It could have been done using systematic approaches like ethnographic methods, but I wanted to preserve the creative focus, because of the strong link between site­specific games and site­specific performances. To aid the method I have designed a set of missions given on cards. The missions are combined with game­type cards, enabling the designer to focus on a combination between what he experiences through the dérive. Evaluations showed that the test designers felt it easier to generate game ideas, when they had some guidance.

page 184 of 265 If we turn to site­specific performances, Hannah (2008) describes her experiences with a performance called “Her Topia.” It was designed and staged in Athens.

“Over a two­week period in autumn 2005, designer and choreographer utilized embodied research to explore the building, its adjoining site and the surrounding neighbourhood. Combining ancient and contemporary images, stitched into a fluctuating temporal continuum, they wove the audience through interior and exterior spaces in which bodies were fragmented, multiplied and dematerialised in an orchestration of sound, light, video, mirrors and movement that eventually projected the performance out into the cityscape of Athens.” Hannah (2008).

Their method, “embodied research,” seems to have some of the elements of the method I propose. The difference lies in the formalized way that both Wilkie (2002b), and I suggest.

If site­specific art performances and site­specific games have something in common the way they are designed, it suggests that the two art forms may not be that different. What binds them together could be explained by the notion of heterotopias. Irwin (2008) describes heterotopias as “spaces of excessive meaning that are located in identifiable places.” Site­ specific art performances are often described as kinds of heterotopias as Irwin does it. Site­ specific games may take advantage of several properties of a site. As described, one of them is the street­layout, others use the cultural meaning already attached to the site or creates a new cultural meaning (for example Klintespillet). These site­specific games create heterotopias, they create the places as “another place.” A place where there is an excess of meaning.

Foucault describes six principles of heterotopias or spaces that are overloaded with meaning:

1. [...] there is probably not a single culture in the world that fails to constitute heterotopias.

2. [...] a society, as its history unfolds, can make an existing heterotopia function in a very

page 185 of 265 different fashion.

3. The heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible.

4. Heterotopias are most often linked to slices in time.

5. Heterotopias always presuppose a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and makes them penetrable.

6. The last trait of heterotopias is that they have a function in relation to all the space that remains.

Foucault (1967).

Heterotopias are special places or institutions which are featured in all cultures, like religious institutions. Heterotopias can change function as society changes, for example a cemetery may change into a museum. Heterotopias can be microcosms of other environments, as botanical gardens, or amusement parks. Heterotopias are linked to time, either existing in time as libraries or only active for a short span like festivals. Heterotopias require admission and are only available for people in a special situation, like theatres, prisons and waiting rooms in airports. Heterotopias are defined in relation to all other places. They only have a value compared to other heterotopias or places. Heterotopias create an illusion of being something that they are not—they are other places than they are, hence the title of Foucault's talk: Of other places. The theatre and the shopping mall are heterotopias as are the site­specific performances.

The site­specific games may exhibit all these qualities too. Site­specific games may be termed games of heterotopias. They place a new meaning on a site or place, are only active for a short span and only for special persons—the players. They can juxtapose other spaces that are incompatible through a narrative, or as an urban mash­up. They exist in their own space where the culture of the heterotopia dominates.

Site­specific games are heterotopias, designed to entertain the players by changing part of a city into another place using the magic circle to give new meaning to the place or to create new places on the site.

page 186 of 265 Another way of looking at site­specific games is as examples of psychogeografie, which were devised by Guy Debord. The psychogeographie is kind of upside down understanding of the urban landscape. A subversive way to understand the city. Debord writes:

“When freedom is practised in a closed circle, it fades into a dream, becomes a mere image of itself. The ambiance of play is by nature unstable. At any moment, "ordinary life" may prevail once again. The geographical limitation of play is even more striking than its temporal limitation. Every game takes place within the boundaries of its own spatial domain.” Debord (1967)

Modern psychogeography study the cities by devising rules in a game­like manner for city exploration. For example: take every second street to the right, then the next street to the left. This makes the walk in the city feel arbitrary and is used as a creative input in art movements (see for example the group Urban Squares, (http://urbansquares.com/), which uses psychogeography as a technique when analysing urban space).

11.2 Design Science Research

Looking at the chapter on the research method used in this work, the usage of the research method has some implications on design science research. Understanding design artefacts and design processes are difficult. The various presented theories still only cast a glimpse of the complex and presumably elusive nature of design. From my work with design I will present an updated perspective on design science research. One of the problem describing design and design processes seems to be, that they are complex and difficult to repeat. This seems to be the nature of design as a process: it is a creative process that may be employed to solve a new problem. That the process is creative means that part of the process is done in a new way, or that the exact goal is only partly defined. The process may be highly explorable, meaning that design may not respond to an

page 187 of 265 identified problem. The design of Klintespillet clearly showed that the exact nature and size of the problem was unknown, and as a consequence work proceeded slowly and in different directions. Design work is typically not the result of a process in “flow” (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), but rather a problem solving process where different methods are employed. The essence of design work seems to be the creation of an artefact, that is evaluated, and used as a basis for refining the design—the iterative process. What makes the process complicated is that work on several levels is accomplished at the same time. I will try to make this clear. The simplest form of design work, is that of routine work (or routine design, cf. March and Smith, 1995). This is not archetypical design, as the designer can be in a state of “flow,” when designing. Being in a state of “flow” means that the designer knows his trade: the problem, the solution, the tools, the building blocks, the process etc. Designing means that one or more factors are unknown. If we look at design as a game, design is a pervasive game—that is, design steps out of the known “magic circle” of tools, solutions, and processes. Design casts its net wider and requests the designer to combine things in a new way. Design is also a learning process, not just a production process. Following routine design we have several levels of processes and artefacts. Navigating and working in one or more of the levels is design work. Understanding the consequence of the levels and developing the model of design is design science research.

Meta design levels Walls et al. introduce the understanding of design science as a meta­process. In the model I present below the understanding of meta levels is crucial. The idea of design science as a question of “rigor” and “relevance” (Hevner et al. 2004) fits well into this model as it can be seen as a question of meta­levels: from level 2 onwards, some kind of diffusion of the knowledge learnt by the design work would be required. This diffusion could be in any format from recipes, plans, discussions, “lessons learned,” “best practices” to books or published research papers. One thing, I find frustrating working with design, is the division between the “design process” and the “design artefact.” In theory the division seems sensible, but in practice it is often difficult to separate the two, and they should be developed in parallel, and not one after the other. The design process and the evaluation will naturally influence the understanding of the artefact and vice versa, as long as we talk of genuine design work—

page 188 of 265 that is, where neither is completely understood or mastered. A design process (or just a design) should be understood as a combination of both the design process and the design artefact.

Within a specific domain 0. Reproduction work (design routine work) 1. Design work based on experience 2. Design work developing new processes within a domain 3. Design work generalizing processes within a domain Common to several domains 4. Generalizing design processes to several domains 5. General design models 6. Design Theory

A meta­level theory of design

The seven levels describe a hierarchical organization of design, but each with its own focus. Level 0 is design work within a mastered domain and known problem. Level 1 describes design as a process working within a known domain, but trying to solve a new type of problem. Level 2 describes design work as resulting in a new understanding of the domain. Level 3 describes design as a processes having consequences for future work within the domain. This requires the designer to master the specific domain. Level 4 describes design as mastering several domains and being able to generalize processes from more then one domain. Lee and Baskerville (2003) points out that generalizing to another field requires an empirical testing in that field before the generalization is valid. They also show how different kinds of generalizations may take place. Level 5 and 6 are design science. The design work is within the design theory domains and the design artefact are new models of design. This model is not only an ideal model, but also an impossible model if taken literally. The design process is both complex and subject to different understandings depending on the domain. This model suggests that the design process, not only consists of a mixture of different approaches and techniques, but also that the design process in itself is a mixture of work done on different levels of design. When design is carried out the design process

page 189 of 265 will alternately or simultaneously use techniques, perspectives, approaches etc. from different levels. That design is a technique of working more or less simultaneously using several approaches can also be observed at the design work of Klintespillet: general game issues are discussed and applied, while specific story writing takes place. Going through the vast pile of bits of documents, notes, minutes, tests, etc. also suggest that we have constantly changed perspective during the design of Klintespillet. This is also the case in the design of the alternate reality game “Pick Me Up” (Held­Hansen, Høj, Jacobsen, Komarov, Steffensen and Zak, 2009).

“The disadvantage with the iterative design approach, is that every time an iteration of work enhances the design, new possibilities for further enhancement appears.” (p.35, translation by EK)

I suggest that the design process can be characterized by the application of different approaches and perspectives:

Design is the process of exploring a domain and/or a problem with the purpose of creating an artefact, by using a variety of different approaches and perspectives. Some approaches may be well­known techniques, others are approaches and techniques adapted from other domains.

The design process.

This explains why design is both difficult, different from other processes and elusive. It also explains why it is difficult to pinpoint design science. All levels of design (except level 0) have an element of design science, meaning that all proper design work has an aspect of design science. But the higher the level, the more scientific—that is, the process can be assumed to be more reflective. Level 5 and 6 can be described as design science research, as they involve diffusion by publication within the domains of design science itself (cf. Hevner, 2004, who defines diffusion as an important part of design science research).

page 190 of 265 11.3 Disruptive Design

Based on my work, which recognises that the design process is a complex process, it is possible to propose a new meta­design method called disruptive design. This method consciously acknowledges that design work has to shift between work at different meta­ levels of design. Disruptive design is a general method, which is derived from the site­ specific design method presented above. Disruptive design continues in the tradition of the iterative methods, but with a change of focus in each iteration—the disruptions being the continuous change of focus or strategy and to acknowledge what happens in the intervals between the design sessions. The method also sums up some of the experiences acquired and presented above. The term Disruptive Innovation or Discontinuous Innovation is known from the realm of business innovation. Michael Tushman and Charles O'Reilly (1997) suggest that discontinuous innovation involves breaking with the past to create new technologies, processes, and organizational "S­curves" that result in significant leaps in the value delivered to customers. Similarly, Clayton Christensen (1997), Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad (1994), and James Utterback (1996) describe discontinuous innovation as involving “disruptive technologies,” “discontinuities,” or “radical innovations” that permit entire industries and markets to emerge, transform, or disappear. Möller (2006), back in the field of mobile gaming, recognizes discontinuous innovation as:

“Discontinuous innovations imply a challenge to integrate users in the innovation process. Users must have the right state of knowledge in order to be able to contribute to the innovation process in a reliable and valid way. Two methods of dealing with that problem where proposed. Companies can reduce the perceived level of innovativeness for the user in an integration process or adapt the state knowledge at the side of the user to the discontinuous innovation through learning by doing.” Möller (2006).

The study showed that users can be brought into higher states of knowledge and that learning by doing is more effective to raise the knowledge state then just plain information. In the sphere of site­specific game design, the intervals between design sessions are periods where the designers due to other work may acquire new insight, which may be applicable

page 191 of 265 in the next design session.

– iterative method

– short iterations (design sessions)

– each iteration with a change of design level

– design for failure

– situated design

– progressive iterations

Disruptive Design principles

The design work should probably start at a fairly high level of abstraction. The next iteration can then use a low level of abstraction, and so forth. This ensures a varied approach, where the perspective on the artefact will change frequently, but in a controlled fashion. The observations from the site­specific game design method also showed that practising design work alone followed by joint evaluation and individual documentation seems to be worthwhile pursuing as practice. The disruptive design method recommends that innovative parts of the design work is individual, while evaluation is done in groups. The evaluation of the site storming method showed that it was necessary to change the content of the sessions in order to maximize the interest for conceptualization. The progressive iterations are a progressive change of content from iteration to iteration.

– individual design session

– joint evaluation session

– individual documentation session

– focus on the learning during intervals between sessions

Disruptive practices

One focus of disruptive design is to look at the intervals between sessions and iterations. In the intervals the participants may acquire new knowledge while working with other projects, or just by slowly digesting the result of the last disruptive session. Future research should deal with disruptive design, and try to validate if the change of

page 192 of 265 perspective and the change between individual and joint sessions are beneficial for the design work.

page 193 of 265 12 CONCLUSION

12.1 The Research Question

This dissertation started with presenting a somewhat failed game design project. Many of the known failures in any it­project could be found in the project of Klintespillet. The game is of the type I have termed the site­specific games, as the site is the driving force of the game. The game design failed because the project did not use a game design method. The research question was formed on the basis of the problems experienced when designing the concept of Klintespillet.

RQ.: How can we design a design method for the conceptualisation of games of the site­ specific game type and what will it look like?

The study has been carried out through a prescriptive design study, where I have participated in the design work on a number of games, of which some are presented here. Using the framework of design science research, I have through the use of ex ante and ex post evaluations, suggested that the design method, called site­storming, actually furthers the design process. This has also been supported by the model of site­specific games, which made ex ante evaluation possible. The conclusion falls in two parts: a description of the insights gained by the practical design work, and a description of the theoretical findings that supported the design of the site­ storming method.

12.2 The Design Work The three design iterations interspersed between theory and discussions, show how the design method evolved through design and evaluation of games and of the design method itself.

page 194 of 265 Iteration I As a pilot study the games Klintespillet and Gainers N' Drainers were designed, developed, and play tested. Ex post evaluation showed that the games, although having potential did not attract much interest. As a pilot study of the design method, a simple method was introduced for the use in a workshop on alternate reality games. Evaluation showed that individual on­site exploration and joint evaluation were methods that furthered the idea generation. Together with a theoretical grounding, these insights was used for a new version of the design method, as well as a model of the site­specific games for ex ante evaluation.

Iteration II Using the model of the site­specific game, Klintespillet was evaluated ex ante showing that the design did not communicate how the players should progress in the game—in this case how they should find the hotspots in the forest. The design method was evaluated through three design sessions where participants using the design method devised several game designs. The game designs showed that the designers acquired a thorough understanding of the site­specific games and that the design method furthered the idea generation. The participants found that the method guided their creativity and that it helped them focus on the design task. Additionally a game (The Ball) from one of the design sessions was developed into a working game and compared to a site­specific version (called CityAmoeba) of a 2D­flash game (that is a comparable game, but which was not designed using the design method). The comparison showed that the game (The Ball) designed with the design method showed a tighter coupling to the site, than the game (the CityAmoeba) designed without using the method. Finally a game design (CitySnake) from one of the design sessions was evaluated ex ante and showed that it integrated the site according to the site­specific game model. This game has since been developed into a working game that demonstrates that the design concept could be turned into a site­specific game.

Iteration III A new design session was conducted in order to redesign Klintespillet. The revised design was evaluated ex ante, and found to comply with the site­specific game model. The game

page 195 of 265 software was revised, and the new game was evaluated ex post. The play test showed that the revised game could be played satisfactorily. The design method was used at a design workshop. The participants were interviewed after the design sessions. Their comments showed that they found the method stimulating for their creativity. They liked the idea designing in­situ and commented that they had experienced the surroundings in a new way. Individual design work provided everyone with experiences and ideas when the joint evaluation was conducted.

The evaluations of the designed games and the design method suggest that the design method further the creativity. Although several different approaches for evaluating the design method has been used, it is difficult to tell if the method actually delivers better results than not using a method—it can only be suggested. There are many uncontrolled factors in the evaluations, as the background of the participants, the different sites where the sessions were carried out and so forth. Also the question remains: What is a “good” design method: A method that produces “good” designs? Or a method that the designers find is “good” to work with? The evaluations I have carried out on the side­storming method suggest that both questions are answered satisfactorily.

12.3 The Theory Behind The design work is founded on theory and as site­specific game design is a multi­ disciplinary field, and theories from several fields have been presented, discussed, and applied.

The Magic Circle The site­specific games or the games using the world as their playground are the most widespread game type of the pervasive games. I have chosen the term site­specific games, not only because it signals the use of the site as the game board, or the affiliation with site­ specific performances, but because most games or probably all games have some pervasive properties. The exciting thing about site­specific games, is of course that the site is absolutely out of control, and that anything may happen when the game is performed, especially when the site is a public venue as is often the case. Pervasive games rely on the concept of the magic circle. Critiques say that the connection between playing a game and

page 196 of 265 the context is so close that the magic circle is too “porous,” to be of any use. Others say that it is a concept that explains the separateness of games and therefore can cast a light on the study of pervasive games. I have showed that the concept of the magic circle should not be divided into a discussion of the designed magic circle and the performed magic circle. The magic circle sets the limits of the game performance thus letting the players progress in the game. Game design may deliberately omit to explain parts of the magic circle, letting the players make up the limits themselves. For the site­specific games this is often done by not revealing exactly what artefacts in the city are part of the game. The players have to discover them themselves.

Place and Space As the site­specific games focus on site, theories of place and space have been discussed. Place is understood as practised space. Through “place ballet” a person may create new places by visiting them often and perform the same place related tasks. Place­specific computing is a new field where the applications are not user­centred but place­centred. A site­specific game is a place ballet augmented by place specific computing. It is shown that site­specific games can engage with the site in different ways, either by using established places and re­establish them in the game, or by creating new places both in the game and in reality. It is also shown that space, can be employed in the game as corridors of locomotion between places, or can be used as geometrical properties, as a part of the game. It is shown that game playing is a performance, driven by the players progression. Progress in the site­specific game performance is obtained by a close relation between game, site, and locomotion.

Creative Methods Studying various approaches of design methods used in pervasive game design, it seems that the most fruitful line to pursue was to study creativity methods from other fields of research. The design methods Brainstorming, Body­storming, and Place­storming was discussed showing that a design method should not be too non­restrictive, as participants would loose their motivation, or too restrictive as focus would shift from the design task to the method. Games, called explorative games, have been used in design methods with success, because they improve idea generation and shift focus from power relations and other factors that hamper idea generation, to the design task. The method Place­storming

page 197 of 265 showed that in­situ design triggers innovation.

The Site-specific Game Design Method These theoretical considerations led to a formulation of a set of principles governing the design method. Design manifesto for the site storming method (or the site­specific game design method)

– Site­specific games should be designed on­site.

– If games should be fun to play—they should be fun to design.

– Games are good for communicating ideas.

– Exploring the site in a guided way requires the designer to look at things differently.

– Working on­site spurs creativity.

– Short sessions followed by evaluation.

– Performing game ideas on­site helps recognising the core design.

The principles, together with the insights gained from the practical design work, is realised as the site­storming method. The design method is created as a game consisting of cards: the mission cards and the game­type cards. Optionally the props cards and the site cards may be taken into use. The game is a mission­style game, where the designers have to fulfil a game design mission aided by the game­type card. The design session is carried out as an individual session followed by a joint session evaluating the game concepts. Later the participants should put their evaluated ideas on a common wiki, to document and structure their creative work. The missions require the designers to explore the site in a guided manner using a creative method from the Situationists movement, called the dérive. This is combined with methods used by site­specific performance design: the notion of the punctum, the spirit, and geometric properties of the site.

The Site­Specific Games The triangular model of the site­specific games spanned by the three properties: the game, the site, and the locomotion. In the middle we find the balanced site­specific games. Towards the points we find games that focus more on one or two properties.

page 198 of 265 Game

”CityAmoeba”

“CitySnake”

Site­specific ”Klintespillet” v2. Game ”Gainers n' Drainers” ”Klintespillet” v1.

Site Locomotion “The Ball”

The Site-Specific Games Triangle with examples of games

The figure shows the genre of site­specific games. In the middle we find the “balanced” games. The site­specific games can be mapped to the figure according to the three properties at the points. The games designed in this study are shown on the model. The first version of Klintespillet incorporated site and locomotion, but few game elements. The redesigned version introduced new game elements. CityAmoeba did not make much use of the site or locomotion. Gainers N' Drainers involved locomotion but did not incorporate the site. The games designed with the site­storming method were The Ball, CitySnake, and the redesigned version of Klintespillet. These games exhibit a balanced use of the three properties and are shown in the middle.

Disruptive Design Using design science research as a framework for the thesis, provided the idea of design on different levels. I used a meta­design strategy to develop the first prototype of the design method. I have suggested that design work can take place on several levels, and that designers probably change between the levels all the time. The insights gained with the design method ultimately led to the idea of disruptive design. Design is a complex process, and this work suggests that the reason why, is because the designers constantly change perspective and approach during the design process. Disruptive design recognises the value of disruptions in the design process and puts focus on how design can benefit from them.

page 199 of 265 The Site­specific Game Performance I have shown that playing a game can be understood as a performance. Playing site­specific games is a performance that puts focus on three performance areas: the performance of gameplay, the performance of site, and the performance of locomotion. The performance of site and locomotion are described as the possible actions a player may perform in relation to place and in relation to space. Describing the games this way also show that it is reasonable to understand the site­specific games as a genre of their own.

I will conclude by answering three questions that cropped up during the thesis.

– How is site­storming best practised?

– Is it possible to conceptualise all site­specific games on site?

– Can all sites be used?

Site­storming is best practised individually, because creativity is personal and each person will experience different properties of a site. However the research also shows that it is important to conduct a joint evaluation session. In this study we used a series of three design sessions, which provided a lot of game ideas. Each session provided a lot of games to document, showing that there should at least be some days between the sessions. The method is only suggested as a way of generating ideas and as such it should further the idea generation phase of any site­specific game project. Some sites are more interesting than others. A good site seems to offer a lot of different game affordances. If the site is not good for design work, it is not a good place to play either.

page 200 of 265 12.4 Future Research

As the thesis has shown that site­specific art performances and site­specific games have a lot in common, it would be interesting to study if insights from the design of site­specific games could be used in the design of site­specific art performances. Understanding site and locomotion and how these concepts can be employed in performances is a vast area, where this work only scratches the surface. A closer study of site­specific performance practice may help to reach further into this area. Further study in urban movements and their methods of exploring the cities would also provide new inspiration. Studying the practices of site­specific performances one is able to take advantage of the fact, that there is a lot of theatres and performance groups, who design site­specific performances, thus leaving anyone interested with a lot of research material.

Among the different design approaches shown, I find the idea of making site­specific variants of classical board games or video games interesting. Maybe some future video games will adopt techniques from the site­specific games. It would further the understanding of site­specific games if this idea is pursued.

The site­storming method provided new insight into explorative games. This field is worth studying closer, also for general game design. Which games can be used as part of a design method? And the question that has already cropped up in this thesis: How can we prove that the design process actually benefits from using the design game? Further studies within design science research may also help answer this question.

The site­storming method proved useful in these research projects, but was not tested in a real setting. It would be interesting to put the method to work in a larger professional context, where games were designed for commercial purposes. It would undoubtedly provide new insight and help to improve the site­storming method.

“All space is occupied by the enemy. We are living under a permanent curfew. Not just the cops – the geometry.” Raoul Vaneigem

page 201 of 265 13 REFERENCES

13.1 Creative Works

Big Urban Game “B.U.G.” (2003). Nick Fortugno, Frank Lantz, and Katie Salen. University of Minnesota Design Institute. BotFighters (2001). It's Alive. Can You See Me Now (2001­2005). Blast Theory and University of Nottingham Mixed Reality Lab. Capture The Flag (?). Rules by Newmindspace, http://www.newmindspace.com CityAmoeba (2009). Erik Kristiansen, Roskilde University. CityPoker (2007). see Kiefer et al., 2007 CitySnake (2009). design: Erik Kristiansen, developed by University of Bamberg. Epidemic Menace (2005). Fraunhofer FIT and Sony Network Services. Gainers n' Drainers (2006). Erik Kristiansen, Roskilde University. GeoCaching (2000­). Proposed by Dave Ulmer. GeoTicTacToe (?). University of Bamberg. GPS­mission (2008). Orbster Entertainment. http://gpsmission.com I Love Bees (2004), 4orty 2wo Entertainment, Micosoft. Insectopia (2006). Johan Peitz, The Interactive Institute. Klintespillet (2006­2009). Lise Ivanouw, Anne Bøgh og Erik Kristiansen, Roskilde University. Mikontalo lights (2007). http://www.mikontalolights.fi Mulighedernes Land (2007). Nationalmuseet and TripleDesign. http://mulighedernesland.natmus.dk/ Navball (2007). http://navball.com Nomic (1982). Peter Suber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic Pac­man (1980). Namco Ltd. PacManhattan (2004). Project supervised by Frank Lantz. http://www.pacmanhattan.com Perplex City (2005­2007). Mind Candy. REXplorer (2007). S.P. Walz and R. Ballagas, RWTH Aachen. Savannah (2004). Collaboration between NESTA Futurelab, the BBC Natural History Unit,

page 202 of 265 Mobile Bristol (Hewlett Packard and the University of Bristol) and the Mixed Reality Lab at Nottingham University. See Benford et al. (2004). Sharkrunners Season 2 Game (2008). area/code and Discovery, http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/sharkweek/shark­runners/shark­ runners.html Switch (?). Actionsprite/Playkin, http://www.freearcade.com/Switch.flash/Switch.html Tetris (1985­). The Ball (2009). Erik Kristiansen, Roskilde University. Tourality (2004). tourality.com Triangler (2008). TNO, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o­J2Ad9X3M Unexpected Performance (2008). Rubber Republic, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgZuHlDuulk Wanderer (2005). See Hielscher and Heitlager (2005?). World Without Oil (2007). Ken Eklund and others.

page 203 of 265 13.2 Bibliography

Acconci, V. (1969). “Following Piece.” http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/following­piece/ Agustin, M., Chuang, G., Delgado, A., Ortega, A., Seaver, J., and Buchanan, J.W. (2007). Game Sketching. DIMEA '07 Perth, Western Australia, ACM. Anderson, and McGonigal, J. (2004). Place Storming: performing new technologies in context, Nordic Conference on Human­Computer Interaction; Vol. 82, Tampere. Ballagas, R. and Walz, S.P. (2007). REXplorer: Using player­centered iterative design techniques for pervasive games. In Pervasive Games: Applications, C. Magerkurth and C. Röcker (eds.), Aachen: Shaker. Baskerville, R., Pries­Heje, J., and Venable, J. (forthcoming). Design Science Research Evaluation. Bateman, C. and Boon, R. (2005). 21st Century Game Design. Charles River Media. Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained. Reading, MA: Addison­Wesley. Benford, S., Magerkurth, C., and Ljungstrand, P. (2005). Bridging the physical and digital in pervasive gaming. Communications of the ACM, Volume 48, Issue 3, March 2005. Benford, S., Rowland, D., Flintham, M., Hull, R., Reid, J., Morrison, J., Facer, K., and Clayton, B. (2004). “Savannah”: Designing a Location­Based Game ­ Simulating Lion Behaviour. Mobile Bristol 2004, www.mobilebristol.com/PDF/MobileBristol­2004­ 03.pdf Bethke, E. (2003). Game Development and Production. Wordware Publishing, Plano. Björk, S. and Holopainen, J. (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media. Björk, S., Holopainen, J., Ljungstrand, P., and Åkesson, K.­P. (2002). Designing Ubiquitous Computing Games – A Report from a Workshop Exploring Ubiquitous Computing Entertainment. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6:443­458. London:Springer­ Verlag. Björk, S. and Peitz, J. (2007). Understanding Pervasive Games through Gameplay Design Patterns. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference.

page 204 of 265 Bock, Anja (2008). The Crossover of Site­Specificity and New Media Immersion: Interactivity, “Spatial Experience,” and Subjectivity in Olafur Eliasson’s Notion motion and Philip Beesley’s Hylozoic Soil. WRECK: graduate journal of art history, visual art, and theory. Volume 2, number 2. Brandt, Eva. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? Proceedings Participatory Design Conference, Aug. 2006, Trento, Italy. Brandt, E. and Messeter, J. (2004). Facilitating Collaboration through Design Games. PDC 04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design, Volume 1. Brown, Emily and Cairns, Paul (2004). A Grounded Investigation of Game Immersion. CHI 2004, Late Breaking Results Paper, 24­29 April, Vienna, Austria Brynskov, M., and Ludvigsen, M. (2006), Mock Games: A New Genre of Pervasive Play. Designing Interactive Systems, Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, University Park, PA, p. 169­178. Burns, C., Dishman, E., Verplank, B., and Lassiter, B. (1994) Actors, hair­dos and videotape: informance design; using performance techniques in multi­disciplinary, observation based design. CHI’94 Conference Companion 4/94, Boston, MA. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, Play, and Games. translated from French “Les Juex et les hommes”, 1958. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Carlson, Marvin. (1989). Places of Performance: the Semiotics of Theatre Architecture, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Castranova, E. (2005). Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games, IL, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chalmers, M., Bell, M., Brown, B., Hall, M., Sherwood, S., and Tennent, P. (2005). Gaming on the edge: using seams in ubicomp games. In Anonymous ACE '05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology. (Valencia, Spain). New York: ACM, p. 306­309. Chang, M. and Goodman, E. (2005). Fiasco: Location­based, physical gameplay with a digital interface. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Portland, OR: ACM. Cheok, A.D., Wan, F.S., Goh, K.H., Yang, X., Liu, W., Farbiz, F., Li, Y. (2003). Human Pacman: A Mobile Entertainment System with Ubiquitous Computing and Tangible

page 205 of 265 Interaction over a Wide Outdoor Area. In Chittaro (ed.) Human­Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 5th International Symposium, Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, Italy, September 8­11, 2003, Proceedings. Christensen, Clayton M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When Disruptive Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Church, D. (1999). Formal Abstract Design Tools. Gamasutra.com. Originally Game Developer magazine, Vol 3, Issue 28, July 1999. Consalvo, M. (2005). Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles. International Review of Information Ethics, 2005 – oak.cats.ohiou.edu Copier, Marinka (2005). Connecting Worlds. Fantasy Role­Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic Circle, Changing Views – Worlds in Play. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference, http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06278.50594.pdf Copier, Marinka (2009): Challenging the Magic Circle: How Online Role­Playing Games are negotiated by Everyday Life. In Digital Material ­ Tracing New Media in Everyday Life and Technology, Marianne van den Boomen, Sybille Lammes, Ann­Sophie Lehmann, Joost Raessens, and Mirko Tobias Schäfer (eds.). Amsterdam University Press. Costykian, G. (1994). “I Have No Words & I Must Design.” In Interactive Fantasy #2. http://www.costik.com/nowords.html Crawford, Chris (1984). The Art of Game Design. McGraw­Hill/Osborne Media. Cresswell, Tim. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Wiley Blackwell. Creswell, John W. (2009). Research Design—Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Csíkszentmihályi, Mihályi (1997). Creativity. New York: Harper Perennial. Dansey, N. and Stevens, B. (2008). Facilitating Creativity without Restrictions: A Pilot Implementation of an Idea Generation Game. MindTrek’08 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Entertainment and media in the ubiquitous era, October 7­ 9, Tampere, Finland: ACM. Debord, G. (1967). Society of the Spectacle. English translation by Black & Red, 1977. London: Rebel Press, new edition Jan 1992. De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. deLahunta, Scott (2002). Virtual Reality and Performance. Performing Arts Journal, Inc. PAJ

page 206 of 265 70, pp. 105–114. Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea­generating groups: tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392­403. Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Drab, S., Grün, C., Kroesche, J., and Jaki, A. (2009). In Multimedia and E­Content Trends, p.59­72, Vieweg+Teubner. Falstein, N. (2002). Better by Design: The 400 Project. http://www.theinspiracy.com/400_project.htm Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case­Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, Volume 12, Number 2, April 2006. Sage Publications. Foucault, M. (1967). Of Other Spaces. Ms. translated from French “Des Espace Autres,” by Jay Miskowiec. http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html Frasca, G. (2001). Videogames of the Oppressed: Videogames as a Means for Critical Thinking and Debate. Master's thesis, Atlanta: Georgia Institue of Technology. Fraser, M., Reynard, G., Koleva, B. and Drozd, A. (2002). Staging and Evaluating Public Performances as an Approach to CVE Research. In Greenhalgh & Broll, (ed.), Collaborative Virtual Environments. ACM. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., and Hoffman, S. (2004). Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping and Playtesting Games. CMP Books: San Francisco, CA. Furnham, A., and Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality Differences and Group versus Individual Brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 19, Issue 1, July 1995, Pages 73­80, Elsevier Science Ltd. Geertz, C. (1972). Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, Daedalus, vol.101,pp.1­37. Gennep, Arnold van (1908). Rites de Passage. University of Chicago Press, 1960. Gershenfeld, A., Loparco, M., and Barajas, C. (2003). Game Plan: The Insider’s Guide to Breaking in and Succeeding in the Computer and Video Game Business. New York: St. Martin’ s Griffin Press. Gerstmyer, J. S. (1991). Towards a Theory of Play as Performance: An Analysis of Videotaped Episodes of a Toddler's Play Performance. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor.

page 207 of 265 Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception, New York: Houghton­ Miffilin. Gold, Rich. (1993). “This Is Not a Pipe”, Communications of the ACM, July 1993/Vol.36, No.7 Gooding, M. and A. Brootchie (1991). Surrealist Games. London: Redstone Press. Greenfield, Adam (2006). Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. New Riders Publishing. Haesen, M., Raymaekers, C., and Coninx, K. (2008). Evaluating a location­based mobile game in early stages of the development. Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2008. Maastricht, The Netherlands, August 26­29. Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad (1994). Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hannah, D. (2008). Her Topia A Dance­Architecture Event­Athens, October 2005 In Hannah, D. and Harsløf, O., Performance Design, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Hannah, D. and Harsløf, O. (2008). Introduction—Performative expressions across disciplines. In Hannah, D. and Harsløf, O., Performance Design, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Hansmann, U., Merk, L., Nicklous, M.S., and Stober, Th. (2001). Pervasive Computing. Springer. Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996). Re­place­ing Space: The roles of space and place in collaborative systems. Proc. ACM Conf. Computer­Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW'96 (Boston), 67­76. New York: ACM. Hevner, A. and March, S.T. (2003). The Information Systems Research Cycle. IEEE Computer 36(11): 111­113. Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75­105/March 2004. Hielscher, J. and Heitlager, J. (2005?). Wanderer – Location­Independent GPS­Game. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15690095/Wanderer­­­Location­Independent­GPS­Game Hinske, S., Lampe, M., Magerkurth, C., and Röcker, C. (2007). Classifying Pervasive Games: On Pervasive Computing and Mixed Reality. In: Magerkurth, C. and Röcker, C. (eds.): Concepts and technologies for Pervasive Games ­ A Reader for Pervasive Gaming

page 208 of 265 Research. Vol. 1. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Hodges, S. (2000). ‘Site­Specific: The Quay Thing Documented’, Studies in Theatre and Performance, Supplement 5, August 2000. Huizinga, J. (1938/1971). Homo Ludens – A Study of the Play Element in Culture. The Beacon Press. IPerG Vision (2004). IPerG: http://www.sics.se/iperg/ Irwin, K. (2008). The Ambit of Performativity, In Hannah, D. and Harsløf, O., Performance Design, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Järvinen, P. (2007). Action Research is Similar to Design Science. Quality & Quantity, 2007, 41:37–54. Springer. Jegers, Kalle (2007). Pervasive Gameflow. A Validated Model of Player Enjoyment in Pervasive Gaming. In Concepts and Technologies for Pervasive Games, vol 1., Magerkurth, C. ad Röcker (eds.), Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Juul, J. (2002). The Open and the Closed: Game of emergence and games of progression. In Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings, edited by Frans Mäyrä, 323­329. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Juul, J. (2003). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Keynote presented at the Level Up conference in Utrecht, November 4th­6th, 2003. http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld Juul, J. (2008). The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece. Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008, ed. by Stephan Günzel, Michael Liebe and Dieter Mersch, Potsdam: University Press 2008, 056­067. Kampmann­Walther, B. (2006) Pervasive Game­Play: Theoretical Reflections and Classifications. In Concepts and Technologies for Pervasive Games, vol. 1., Magerkurth, C. ad Röcker (eds.), Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Kiefer, P., Matyas, S., and Schlieder, C. (2007). Geogames – Integrating Edutainment Content in Location­based Games. In Concepts and Technologies for Pervasive Games, vol 1., Magerkurth, C. ad Röcker (eds.), Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Kirshenblatt­Gimblett, B. (1999). “Playing to the Senses: Food as a Performance Medium” Performance Research 4, 1: 1­30. Koster, Raph. (2004). Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paperback ed., Paraglyph Press, 2005. Kreimeier, B. (2003). Game Design Methods: A 2003 Survey. Gamasutra ­ Features, CMP

page 209 of 265 Media LLC. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030303/kreimeier_01.shtml Kristiansen, E. (2008). Designing innovative video games. In Creating Experiences in The Experience Economy. Sundbo, J. and Darmer, P. (eds.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kristiansen, E. (forthcoming). Designing a City­wide Audio Game. MS. Kultima, A., Niemelä, J., Paavilainen, J., Saarenpää, H. (2008). Designing Game Idea Generation Games. FuturePlay’08, November 3–5, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Kuutti, K., Iacucci, G, and Iacucci, C. (2002). Acting to Know: Improving Creativity in the Design of Mobile Services by Using Performances. C&C'02, October 14­16, 2002. Loughborough, Leic, UK: ACM. Kwon, Miwon. (1997) One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity, October, Vol. 80. Spring, 1997, pp. 85­110. Lammes, Sybille (2008). Spatial Regimes of the Digital Playground. Space and Culture, Vol. 11, No. 3, 260­272. Lankosti, P., Heliö, S., Nummela, J., Lahti, J., Mäyrä, F., and Ermi, L. (2007). A case study in pervasive game design: The Songs of the North. In Proceedings of the NordiCHI Conference, Tampere, Finland. Laurel, Brenda (1993). Computers as Theatre. Addison­Wesley. Laurel, Brenda (ed.) (2003). Design Research. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lauteren, Georg (2007). “No Work, all Play? Social Values and the ‘Magic Circle’”, In Action conference 2007. http://www.digra.org/Members/gl03/index_html Le Dantec, Christopher A. (2009). Situated Design: Toward an Understanding of Design Through Social Creation and Cultural Cognition. C&C’09, October 26–30, 2009, Berkeley, California, USA: ACM. Lee, A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, Sep. 2003, 14, 3, pp. 221­243. INFORMS. Lindt, I., Ohlenburg, J., Pankoke­Babatz, U., Opperman, L., Ghellal, S., and Adams, M. (2005). Designing Cross Media Games. Pervasive’05, May 8–13, 2005, Munich: ACM. Magerkurth, C., Cheok, A. D., Mandryk, R.L., and Nilsen, T. (2005). Pervasive Games: Bringing Computer Entertainment Back to the Real World. ACM Computers in Entertainment, Vol. 3, No. 3, July 2005. Article 4A. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes, MIS Quarterly (26:3), September, 2002, pp.

page 210 of 265 179­212. Mason, B. (1992). Street Theatre and Other Outdoor Performance, London: Routledge. McCullough, M. (2004). Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing and Environmental Knowing. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. McGonigal, Jane. (2005a). “The High Performance Gameplay Inventory.” Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) "Changing Worlds" Conference. June 2005 McGonigal, Jane (2005b). Gamers Performance, Workshop on extroverted gameplay. Digital Games Association, Vancouver. McGonigal, Jane. (2006). This Might Be a Game: Ubiquitous Play and Performance at the Turn of the Twenty­First Century. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. McKenzie, Jon (2001). Perform – or else: From Discipline to Performance. London: Routledge. McLucas, C. (2000). Ten Feet and Three Quarters of an Inch of Theatre. In Kaye, N. (ed.), Site­Specific Art. Routledge: London. Mead, George S. (1934). Play, the Game, and the Generalized Other. Section 20 in Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Charles W. Morris (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago, 152­164, http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_20.html Messeter, J. (2009). Place­specific computing: A place­centric perspective for digital designs. International Journal of Design, 3(1), 29­41. Milgram, P. and Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77­D(12), pp. 1321­1329. Montola, M. (2005). Exploring the edge of the magic circle: Defining pervasive games. Proceedings of DAC 2005 Conference. Montola, M., Stenros, J., and Waern, A. (2009). Pervasive Games – Theory and Design. Amsterdam Morgan Kaufman publ. Montola, M. and Waern, A. (2006): Participant Roles in Socially Expanded Games. In Strang, T., Cahill, V. & Quigley, A. (eds.) (2006): Pervasive 2006 Workshop Proceedings 165­173. PerGames 2006 workshop of Pervasive 2006 conference, May 7.­10. University College Dublin. Möller, Matthias. (2006). Integrating Users in Discontinuous Innovation Processes: Findings from a Study of Mobile Download Games. In Managing Development and Application of Digital Technologies. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

page 211 of 265 Niemi, J. (2005). Involving non­players in pervasive games. Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility. Aarhus, Denmark. Nieuwdorp, E. (2005). The pervasive interface: Tracing the magic circle. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play. Nieuwdorp, E. (2007). The Pervasive Discourse: An Analysis. ACM Computers in Entertainment (CIE), Volume 5, Issue 2 (April/June 2007). Nitsche, Michael (2008). Video Game Spaces: Image, Play, and Structure in 3D worlds, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things, Basic Book 1988, reprint 2002 Nova, N. and Girardin, F. (2004). Analysis of a Location­Based Multi­Player Game, “Games and Social Networks: A Workshop on Multiplayer Games.” Ollila, E.M.I, Suomela, E., and Holopainen, J. (2008). Using Prototypes in Early Pervasive Game Development. ACM Computers in Entertainment, Vol. 6, No. 2, July 2008. Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(2), 125­ 134. Pargman, D. and Jakobsson, P. (2006). The magic is gone: a critical examination of the gaming situation. Proceedings of Mediaterra: Gaming Realities. Pearson, M. (1997). Special Worlds, Secret Maps: a Poetics of Performance. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anna Marie Taylor, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Petrillo, F., Pimenta, M., Trindade, F., and Dietrich, C. (2009). What went wrong? A survey of problems in game development. Computer Entertainment 7, 1 (Feb. 2009), 1­22 Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2007). Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage. Rebelo, Pedro (2003). Performing Space. Organised Sound, Vol. 8, no. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 181­186. Reid, Josphine (2008). Design for coincidence: Incorporating real world artifacts in location based games. DIMEA’08, September 10–12, 2008, Athens, Greece. ACM. Rodriguez, H. (2006). The playful and the serious: An approximation to Huizinga's homo

page 212 of 265 ludens. Game Studies. http://gamestudies.org Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Schechner, R. (1988). Performance Theory, revised edition, New York: Methuen. Schechner, R. (2002). Performance Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Schlieder, C. et al. (2005). Geogames: A Conceptual Framework and Tool for the Design of Location­Based Games from Classic Board Games. In Maybury et al. (eds.), INTETAIN 2005, LNAI 3814, 164­173. Heidelberg and Berlin: Springer. Schneider, J. and Kortuem, G. (2001). How to host a pervasive game. Supporting face­to­face interactions in live­action role­playing. http://wearables.cs.uoregon.edu/Papers/how2host.pdf Seamon, David (1980). Body­Subject, Time­Space Routines, and Place­Ballets. In Buttimer, A., and Seamon, D. (eds.). Human Experience of Space and Place. Croom Helm publ. Simon, Herbert (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., Cambridge MA: The MIT Press 1996. Souza e Silva, A. de (2009). Merging Digital and Urban Playspaces: An Introduction to the Field. In Digital Cityscapes, Souza e Silva, A. and Sutko, D. M. (eds.), New York: Peter Lang. Suomela, R., Koskinen, K, and Heikkinen, K. (2005). Rapid prototyping of location­based games with the multi­user publishing environment application platform. In Proceedings of the IEE International Workshop on Intelligent Environments. University of Essex, Colchester, June 28­29. Sutton­Smith, Brian. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge MA: First Harvard University Press, paperback edition, 2001. Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. (2005). “GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games,” ACM Computers in Entertainment, vol. 3. Szulborski, D. (2005). This Is Not A Game—A Guide to Alternate Reality Gaming. New­ Fiction Publishing. Taylor, T.L. (2006). Play between worlds. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Taylor, T.L. (2007). Pushing the Borders: Player Participation and Game Culture. In Structures of Participation in Digital Culture, ed. by J. Karaganis, New York: SSRC, pp. 112­130. Tuan, Y.F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of

page 213 of 265 Minnesota Press. Turner, C. (2004). Palimpsest or Potential Space? Finding a Vocabulary for Site­Specific Performance. New Theatre Quarterly, 20:4:373­390. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Turner, Victor (1974). Drama, Fields, and Metaphors. Cornell University Press 1975 (paperback edition). Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A. O'Reilly. (1997). III. Winning Through Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Utterback, James M. (1996). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Van Aken, J.E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field­tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2). Waern, A., Montola, M., and Stenros, J. (2009). The Three­Sixty Illusion: Designing For Immersion in Pervasive Games. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems. Boston, MA: ACM. Weiser, Mark (1991) “Computer for the 21th Century”, Scientific American, September, 1991. Weiser, Mark (1993). Some Computer Science Problems in Ubiquitous Computing, Communications of the ACM, July 1993. Westecott, Emma (2008). The Performance of Digital Play, Proceedings, Play Conference, University of Edinburgh, May 2008. http://forum.llc.ed.ac.uk/si2/westecott.html Wilkie, Fiona (2002a). Mapping the Terrain: a Survey of Site­Specific Performance in Britain New Theatre Quarterly, 18, issue 02, 140­160. Cambridge University Press. Wilkie, Fiona (2002b). Kinds of Place at Bore Place: Site­Specific Performance and the Rules of Spatial Behaviour. New Theatre Quarterly, 18, issue 03, 243­260, Cambridge University Press. Woods, Stewart (2009). (Play)Ground Rules: The social contract and the magic circle, Observatorio Journal, 8, 2009. http://obs.obercom.pt Yin, Robert K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Second edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Zimmerman, Eric (2004). Game Development. In Design Research, Brenda Laurel (ed.)

page 214 of 265 page 215 of 265 14 APPENDICES

14.1 A. Play test of “Gainers N' Drainers”

“Gainers N' Drainers” by Erik Kristiansen, 2007

Test Method. The game was played while the player recorded his comments (thinking aloud) using a voice recorder fixed to his/her shirt. After the session the player was invited to comment on the game. Place: CEUS, a college.

Gainers N' Drainers Evaluation Feb. 15., 2007 Transcript from game session by FK, male, 20 years old. “I have borrowed a mobile phone with Gainers and Drainers installed on it. It is a new type of game, I am told. I am going to try it. I press start. I can see something looking like a radar screen. Its green with that spinning dial or whatever. Nothing happens, the dial moves. OK, now the radar shows some persons with tags. Its “julie” and “Nokia”. I presumed that “julie” is a girl that must be nearby. “Nokia” must mean that the there is a Nokia phone quite near too. I don't know what to do, so I will just wait and see what happens. Oh, I have been told that I have to stay near the yellow ones and leave the grey ones. Well, both are yellow, so I will just stay and see what happens. The dial keep turning. They are getting closer to the centre. Looking around me, I can actually see the one called “julia,” if I am right. No other person is nearby, so it must be her. I don't know where “Nokia” is. “Julia” is close to the centre and “Nokia” is not on the screen any more. When I stay with “julia”, I will eventually get a point. [...] OK, I move on on, looking for other people. Several show up on the radar. Now its fun. Some of them are green. I don't know them, “misty”, another “Nokia”, “Helle”, and “bn”. “Helle” could be the one sitting in this office. It says so on the door. I wait here and hope to collect a point. I am lucky if it I get

page 216 of 265 another point. It seems that I have to move on and get away from “bn”. Down the corridor “bn” is not on the radar any more, but I received a point for “Helle” and another for I­don't­ know­who. [...] The game is fun when I am forced to move. Here where many people are close together eating, I have 12 or more names on my radar. This makes it difficult. I will try and single out someone. This person is leaving, so I will follow him, and hope he is on screen, and not a drainer. [...] He seems to be called “Nokia” ­ many Nokias around in this building. Yes, I got another point.

After the game session The game was fun to play, because you have to guess who is who. Also sometimes it helps you to run. Its difficult if there is a crowd, but then it helped to pick out a smaller group. I wonder how it would be, if several played together. I would like to try that.

page 217 of 265 Gainers N' Drainers Evaluation march 6., 2007 Transcript from game session by RP, female, 21 years old. Well, I press “start”, and it shows a kind of green image, a screen. A radar, like in the movies. The white line scans for phones. There is a yellow one, called “louise”. She is with me, Louise go away so you don't spoil my game. [...] Now I can't see Louise on the screen, but there is one person called “Lars H” and “pc111”. I am alone in the corridor, so it must be in one of the rooms. I can't remember who is yellow and who is grey. [...] I got a point for “Lars H”, but lost one to “pc111”, so now I gather that I have to find the yellow names. Now I have two yellow names and one grey, and I know the grey one, so I have just told him to go away. So I got one point more, the other person left, with the grey one. [...] The radar does not show any persons here, so I will move along the corridor. Sometimes I stop and wait. Its like being a spy in a movie. You don't want people to know you are sneeking around. You just want to be invisible. I am spying on where people are in the building. Its a spy game. [...] Now I have 6 persons or maybe 7 on the screen. What am I going to do? I will ask one of the persons over there. Is your name Malene? or Lise? No, oh you are Malene. Who is Lise? Thank you. So they are both grey, so I will move quietly away. To the group over there. [...] Oh, now I have lost my points.

After the game session I think it was fun, when you got used to it. I would like to play for a longer time. It was social. I had to ask a lot of strangers their names. Some of them wanted to know why. Why is it a radar? Its a great way to meet new friends, because you have something to talk about. Maybe it should be called “friend finder”, and then it could show you a question, you had to ask. I would like to play it again.

page 218 of 265 Gainers N' Drainers Evaluation Transcript from game session by JCP, male, 27 years old. Feb. 16., 2007. I have been asked to try this game. The screen is showing a picture, I press “start”. What I see is a classic radar image with a rotating dial. Its nice. As I have been told it is a bluetooth game, I have placed myself near to my computer. And there it is. It shows my laptop's bluetooth name in grey. Oh no, so I have to leave my laptop. [...] Now three name are closing in at the radar, two of them “Helle” and “JoJo892” are yellow, while “winner” is grey. I move further down the corridor and wait to see if it changes. Now “winner” is gone, so I should be able to collect the two points. [...] Oh no, only one point. “Helle” is gone missing. So I follow her down the stairs, catching her on the radar again. I got one point more. There is another person coming this way “Nokia”, so I turn around and follow her. It seems to be a good tactic following people until you have got your point. Oh this one was a grey one. [...] Lots of people here and several bluetooth names—10 or more. I approach a group queueing up for lunch. While I wait and hope some of the grey name disappear. They talk, one is called Tanja, maybe “tanja13” is her? I wait and loose two point while getting one. I have to move quickly before loosing another point. Running.

After the game session. Cool and rude. I like the running bit. It was actually fun being there and knowing something the others didn't know that I know. Like overhearing a conversation. The game could be improved with a better point system or some missions, like “you have to find ten accomplishes within 10 minutes.” Maybe you could persuade others to work with you, like two persons catching agents or something.

page 219 of 265 Gainers N' Drainers Evaluation Transcript from game session by JKP, male, 38 years old. Feb. 16., 2007.

This is a social game played alone! An old fashioned green radar screen shows up on my screen. The dial moves round and scans the area. [...] I start walking searching for people. On the way from my office, the phone suddenly starts to play a signal. I have detected somebody. “Peter”. His name is shown on the screen: “Peter”. OK, Peter must be close, he is coloured yellow, so I have to find him to earn points. He is a gainer, I am told. While looking for Peter – he may be in a closed office or one of the other rooms nearby, I get a second signal. A new name shows up on my screen, “Nokia”. Obviously somebody, with a Nokia­mobile. I try to get a sneak view of the bystanders. Is anyone looking at their mobile? I don't know who it may be, and it vanishes again. Since I am not moving, the person must have walked away. [...] Now, I have found Peter, he was surprised, how I found him. I put my game in my pocket, says “see you”, [...] and continue. As I approach the secretaries offices more names show up on my mobile. [...] Now the game becomes difficult. The names in grey colour, I will have to avoid, while I should try and find the yellow names. Some are obviously just passing by, as they come and go on my radar, but 3 or 4 names persist. [...] I have to take a decision. If I stay here I will loose points, but in which direction should I move? There is a classroom at the end of the building [...] I enter the secretary's office, asking Lone, if her phone is a “Sony Ericsson”. [She reaches for her phone, and answers] “how do you know?” “That's all right, I reply, you are a “gainer””, [...] I leave her before I loose points. Becoming more daring, I walk to the canteen. [...] Well, lots of people here, queueing up, walking to and from the tables. My phone starts playing one tone after the other, as names crop up on my radar. I adopt a different strategy. I don't know any of the 15 names on my phone, so I simply start asking people, “Sorry, are you in my game?” If they turn out to be gainers, I stay with them until I have earned my points. If they are drainers, I turn away. [...] This is really the most offensive game, ever – and people start looking at me. [...] I don't mind, I am just playing a game [...] Player JKP

After the game session.

page 220 of 265 This is a rude game. Not everyone would like it. It was fun to spy on people. It must be a good tool when you try to find someone in the building, with all the doors closed. No one would be able to hide any longer. The gameplay could be more interesting, maybe a history or something.

page 221 of 265 14.2 B. “Klintespillet” ­ interview with lead writer

Klintespillet Interview med Lise Ivanouw (EK 17.5.2009) Interviewerens spørgsmål er markeret med rød skrift.

Hvilke designmål havde Klintespillet? ­ en anderledes naturoplevelse i form af et LBCG ­ sted: klinteskoven ­ målrettet mod børn i udskolingsalderen ­ ønske om gameplay med performative elementer ­ oplevelse vigtigere end læring ­ appellere til forskellige spiller­typer (det blev i hvert fald drøftet)

Hvordan greb vi det an? Koncept: Brainstorming i gruppen, research (fakta, andre spil, spilteori, inspicering af området) Udarbejdelse: Skrivning, temmelig åben proces ­ Erik retter tekster til (redaktion), teknologiske begrænsninger og muligheder inspirerer processen. Erik kommer med inspirerende inputs, instruktioner og ideer i løbet af processen, som vi prøver at inkorporere i designet (spøgelses­idéen for eksempel). Begrænsninger: Spillet måtte ikke efterlade spor i skoven. Spillet kunne ikke være baseret på visuelle indtryk, dels fordi spillerne har brug for deres synssans til at navigere i skoven, dels fordi spillet skulle tage udgangspunkt i en oplevelse af stedet (Møns smukke omgivelser), men også fordi området kræver at man tager sikkerhedshensyn (skrænter, som ikke må overses). Tekniske begrænsninger (GPS og andet).

Hvilke diskusioner havde vi i starten (fx overvejede vi motionsspil (op og ned af trapper)? Der var mange diskussioner i gruppen – en lang proces. Jeg var ikke med ved de allerførste møder, hvor motionsspillet sandsynligvis var på bordet.

Hvordan kom vi frem til at det skulle være et narrativ? Jeg kan huske at jeg var fortaler for et narrativ/rollespilslignende spil. Ingen af medlemmerne af gruppen var ”spillere” i traditionel forstand (desuden var vi alle piger ­ atypisk?). Måske var dette også én af grundene til at vi ikke udarbejdede et mere traditionelt spil. Efter en længere konceptfase havde vi stadig ikke noget ”visuelt”/konkret på bordet – for eksempel et ”kort” /”brætspils­bræt”/”spilregler” eller lignende. Måske var det derfor vi valgte at skrive et manuskript. Måske var det også vores auditive fokus, der fra starten gjorde os mindre ”visualiserende” og mere ”tematiserende” i processen.

Kan du huske at vi på et tidspunkt også havde en ide med at lagene i historien skulle opleves som fysiske lag? (oppe/mellem/nede) Vi opererede længe med idéen om at historien skulle være delt op i forskellige lag, som svarede til de lag der er i terrænet i klinteskoven (bakker og dale). Vi opererede med et koncept, der havde tre lag: Mytelaget, et real­lag (med radiospots – alternate reality?) og et

page 222 of 265 tredje lag (hvad var det? Læringslag?) . Anne havde den idé at soundscapes´ene skulle være forskellige, således at hvert lag havde hver deres særlige stemning. Vi gik bort fra lag­ konceptet relativt sent i processen, fordi GPS”punkterne” ikke passede til vores koncept ­ flere GPS”punkter” havde både bakke og dal indenfor deres radius.

Hvordan skrev vi denne form for narrativ som både er stedsspecifik og skulle kunne opleves brudvis i tilfældig rækkefølge?

Jeg startede med at udarbejde teksten i manuskriptet ud fra nogle historier, som vi havde udarbejdet på et møde. Forskellige scenarier var skitseret. I den første udgave af manuskriptet skrev jeg replikker til forskellige scener/situationer, som allerede var skitseret. Måske tilføjede jeg et par ekstra scener, som forslag. Inden manuskriptskrivningsfasen havde vi haft mange diskussioner og ideer, men havde endnu ingen tekst/konkret materiale på bordet. Så vidt jeg husker fik vi alle mulighed for at gå hjem og skrive på manuskriptet. Anne og jeg prøvede først at skrive sammen, men det fungerede ikke optimalt – man har forskellige måder at arbejde på og skriveprocesser kan være ret personlige. Derfor valgte vi at dele arbejdet op og begynde at skrive på hvert vores ”lag”. Jeg begyndte at skrive tekster til ”realitetslaget” og endte med senere at skrive videre på tekster til de andre lag også. Jeg er ikke helt sikker på hvilke kriterier, instruktioner og inspirationer jeg havde da jeg begyndte at skrive. Jeg husker at jeg prøvede at holde mig temmelig præcist til de retningslinjer du havde givet os, men at jeg også brød med dem. Jeg prøvede at åbne op for de mere eller mindre tilfældige stemmer/indslag der kom til mig og give fantasien frit løb i den første fase af manuskriptskrivningen. Jeg stolede på at diskussionerne fra vores møder lå i mit baghovede og at det var nødvendigt at give min underbevidsthed frit spil i den første fase af skrivningen. Karaktererne, som jeg udarbejdede var designet med det formål at eksponere spilleren for forskellige temaer, som grænsede op til folkeskolens læringsmål for naturvidenskab og naturforståelse for vores målgruppe (udskolingsklasser). Samtidig skulle spillet være dramatisk og ikke for ”artigt”/”sødt”, da jeg forestillede mig at dette ville bryde med eventuelle forventninger om at naturvidenskab er ”kedeligt” og ”fornuftigt”. Dermed håbede jeg at spilet ville appellere til vores målgruppe (anti­autoritære teenagere). Min idé var at udstille interessekonflikter mellem hørespillets karakterer – interessekonflikter som skulle udstille dilemmaer i forhold til temaet ”naturforvaltning” (dog arbejdede jeg her med ekstreme positioner – af dramatiske grunde, men måske ville dette også tydeliggør dilemmaerne) – samtidig skulle de give spilleren mulighed for at identificere sig med og tage afstand fra karaktererne. Dette gjorde jeg for at spilleren skulle blive involveret i spillets temaer (læring uden sugar coating?), samtidig forsøgte jeg derved at skabe et nuanceret billede, som ikke bygger på dikotomier, men som viser et mere pragmatisk/realistisk billede af virkeligheden. I manuskriptet skulle der ikke være onde/gode karakterer, men kun interessekonflikter, som kommer til udtryk via de forskellige karakterer. De fleste karakterer er dog egoistiske og vist også temmelig indskrænkede. Dette syntes jeg var sjovt. Spilleren føler (måske?) at han/hun derved kan gennemskue karaktererne (ved mere end dem), dog er det ikke muligt for spilleren at gribe ind (irriterende, frustrerende, morsomt ­ engagerende?). I anden fase af manuskriptskrivningen brugte jeg lang tid på at researche på forskellige miljømæssige og naturvidenskabelige temaer for at kunne bruge det som inspiration og for trods alt at gøre historien – med alle dens magiske elementer – plausibel. Temaerne som jeg researchede på var blandt andet udødelighed, kloning, geologi og global opvarmning.

page 223 of 265 ( Selvkritik : Jeg brugte meget energi på udødelighedstemaet og der var mange af ideerne i manuskriptet, som måske var lidt fortænkte. Dette gjorde måske manuskriptet unødvendigt kringlet. Mange af tekstbidderne er muligvis blevet for lange.) Vi skrev historien om mange gange. Dette var en del af revisionen. Det var uden tvivl nødvendigt. Der var flere udfordringer i processen. Det var første gang jeg skrev en dramatisk tekst, så naturligvis var jeg usikker på om den ville fungere. Vi besluttede os for ikke at skrive et lineært narrativ af flere grunde, dels på grund af de stedsspecifikke og tekniske begrænsninger, men også fordi spillet ville blive meget lidt interaktivt hvis fortællingen var lineær. Oplevelsen for den enkelte spiller ville ved den fragmenterede historie blive individuel. Det var dog ikke nemt at forudse om et sådant narrativ ville virke overbevisende for spilleren. Et af mine kriterier for teksten var ”don´t tell it – show it”. Vi havde set et spileksempel fra frilandsmuseet (hvad hed dette spil, Erik?), som jeg ikke syntes fungerede. Grunden var at dialogerne ikke var overbevisende. Ordene var fakta, lagt i munden på en karakter, og ikke realistiske replikker. Mit mål var at forsøge at skabe replikker i et hverdagssprog, som virkede troværdige og mundrette. Jeg ved ikke om det lykkedes, men det var intentionen. Min fornemmelse er at replikker i spil­sammenhænge ofte kommer til at fungere som en slags ”informations­objekter”/ordrer. For eksempel: ”Tag kniven!”, (”find nøglen, og bring den til mig” o.lign.). Måske virker dette godt i spilsammenhæng ­ det er kort og præcist – men jeg kender ingen mennesker, der taler på denne måde. I virkeligheden ville man sige, : ”Vil du ikke være sød lige at række mig kniven” / ”hov! Se der ligger en kniv! Må jeg lige se den en gang?” (osv.). Man kan diskutere dette designvalg – for eksempel kan man diskutere om den form for sprog/realisme, som jeg forsøgte at skabe, bliver for tungt i en spildramaturgisk sammenhæng. Den ”indirekte” stil jeg valgte at skrive i medvirkede nok også til yderligere at tilsløre/mudre en historie, som i forvejen var rimelig kompliceret. Jeg ved ikke om historien derved blev for svær at relatere til. Det var en balancegang. Hvor meget skal en replik afdække og hvor tydeligt skal den gøre det. Hvordan kan teksten klart ”udføre sin funktion”, uden at den bliver for konstrueret, plat eller uplausibel? Dette er nok et klassisk dramaturgisk spørgsmål, som måske tilføjes en ekstra dimension i en interaktiv spilsammenhæng, hvor narrativet ikke er lineært eller (kun) skal fungere som en spændende (færdig/afsluttet) historie. Idet projektet baserede sig på lyd og legede med grænserne mellem realitet og fiktion var det interessant at bruge forskellige lydformater og ”sproglige genrer/situationer” – for eksempel: lyd i skoven, radio (jingler og interviews), telefonsamtaler, telefonsvarere – diskussion, sang, monolog, festtale. I den endelige model sorteredes en del af dette materiale fra. På et tidspunkt overvejede vi også at bruge sms´er i spillet, men dette var rent teknisk for kompliceret. Alle teksterne relaterer til bestemte steder i skoven. Erik havde lavet små videoklip fra hver position, samt et kort over GPS­punkternes placering. Det var vigtigt at teksten passede til stedet. Eksempler på dette var et lig, der bliver fundet på stranden (GPS­placering ved vandet) og en bil, der kører væk (GPS­placering ved vejen). Nogle tekster blev skabt ud fra stedet, mens andre senere blev tilpasset et specifikt sted.

Hvad var vores/dit mål for en god historie? I mit arbejde med manuskriptet nedtonede jeg nok myterne i skoven, herunder myten om klintekongen. Jeg synes det var svært at skabe en tidsvarende historie med udgangspunkt i disse myter, som samtidig passede til vores målgruppe. Dog leverede myterne inspiration til historien i overført betydning.

page 224 of 265 Her første udkast til en personlig procesbeskrivelse: KLINTESPILLET Tilfældige erindringer – part 1 (kronologisk gennemgang)

Jeg kom ind i projektet efter de første par møder havde fundet sted. På det tidspunkt bestod gruppen, udover Erik Kristiansen, af tre andre studerende fra performance­design på RUC. Gruppen bestod udelukkende af piger, hvilket jeg mener muligvis spillede en rolle i udviklingen af spillet, hvilket jeg senere vil komme ind på. Ved det første korte møde med Erik og resten af holdet, som jeg deltog i, fik vi udleveret et par tekster om LARP, pervasive gaming, Alternate reality games mv. til inspiration. Blandt andet fik vi udleveret en tekst om eventen/spillet Prosopopeia, som netop var et forsøg på at realisere THIS IS NOT A GAME tankegangen. Jeg fandt Proposopeia­projektet utrolig spændende. Disse tekster udgjorde en fælles referenceramme for det første møde. I startfasen var jeg lidt i tvivl om hvad projektet gik ud på, jeg skulle lige se det lidt an for at finde ud af om det var noget jeg havde lyst til at bruge tid på. Efter at have læst teksterne som Erik udleverede var jeg overbevist om at jeg gerne ville engagere mig i projektet. Eriks undervisning på performance­design var meget inspirerende. Derfor havde jeg også tillid til at det ville blive et interessant projekt. Det næste møde med gruppen var en workshop, som fandt sted i Eriks hus på sydsjælland og varede to dage. Her havde vi en lang brainstorm­fase. Vi var ude at kigge på lokaliteten – skoven på Møn klint. Der blev vi vist rundt af … fra … Det var efterår/vinter på det tidspunkt, og dermed koldt, vådt og bart. Træerne stod uden blade, vinden var kraftig. Terrænet var meget bakket/niveaudelt, hvilket var et udgangspunkt for os i første konceptfase. Her arbejdede vi med området som opdelt i forskellige niveaer/riger. Dette gik vi dog senere væk fra idet det viste sig at gps­områderne ikke kunne opdeles på denne måde/ ville krydse/gå på tværs af niveauerne.

Jeg har selv spillet liverollespil i skovscenarier som teenager. Jeg har dog kun perifært beskæftiget mig med det og mest for sjov. Tekst – grupper i rollespil. Jeg er helt sikkert selv en immersiv spiller. Det er netop dette træk ved live­rollespil, som jeg synes var interessant at arbejde med THIS IS NOT A GAME.

Soundtrack: Murcof ­ Martes

Manuskripskrivning: Kriterier og dilemmaer. – (Show it don ´t tell it – i et hørespil?!) I forhold til manuskriptet var det vigtigt for mig at skrive realistisk. Replikkerne skulle virke troværdige, som hvis man skulle skrive til en film. Mit skrækeksempel , som stod meget klart for mig under udarbejdelsen af klintespillet, var et hørespil, som var blevet udarbejdet for frilandsmuseet. Replikker såsom: Goddag jeg er en meget fattig kone, min mand er ude i marken. Han arbejder for en ussel løn mens jeg har meget at se til i køkkenet. – Jeg ville prøve at skrive det ud på en mere dramatisk og hverdagsagtig måde, som ville få spillerne til at føle at de var tilstede i situationen. I eksemplet ovenfor ville jeg have skrevet, noget i denne stil. Nej, Trygve, det har heller ikke regnet i dag, så Mogens er stadig i marken. Men

page 225 of 265 vi kan vist godt sætte byggrøden over nu. Vær nu sød at spare på byggrynene, så vi ikke løber tør igen, ikke. Jeg bryder mig ikke om havregrød hver eneste dag. Og Marta, kan du ikke lige løbe ned til brønden og hente vand. Måske kan du spørge Fru Maren på vejen om hun har noget gær vi kan låne med denne kam som pant. For mig handlede det om at udlevere oplysninger, og samtidig skrive realistisk og dramatisk. Set i bakspejlet synes jeg en del af replikkerne er blevet for lange, samtidig er en del af indholdet måske lidt for teknisk og nørdet til at det rigtig bliver interessant. Jeg havde forestillet mig at teksterne ville gennemgå endnu en kraftig redigeringsfase under indspilningerne, eftersom det først er når teksten bliver talt at man får en rigtig fornemmelse af den som dramatisk tekst. Da dette har været et pilotprojekt og der ikke var penge til at hyre rigtige skuespillere osv. er det naturligt at denne sidste redigering ikke fandt sted. Dette synes jeg dog helt klart man skulle overveje næste gang, især når man ikke arbejder med professionelle dramatikere til at skrive spilteksten. Jeg synes faktisk tit at tekster som skrives til spil er for plakative/urrafinerede. Teksten kan nemt komme til at fungere som et informations­item, som bare skal samles op af spilleren, på samme måde som en pose penge, et våben, en nøgle el. lignende. Men her glemmer man ofte at det ikke kun er tekstens indhold, men også tekstens æstetik/form, som spiller en rolle for spilleroplevelsen. Med andre ord synes jeg tit tekster i spil kan være platte, netop fordi replikkerne bliver direkte på en måde, som virker kunstig og klodset. Velkommen til min borg. Find prinsessens blå ring og bring mig tre træstykker. Sådan er der ikke nogle mennesker der taler i virkeligheden. Med samtidig er det måske en balancegang – idet teksterne skrives mere dramatisk, og dermed indirekte, er der måske en risiko for at tempoet og spændingen daler.

UDATEREDE NOTER

NOTER FRA MØDE: Holde en zone/base – højene er oplagt, forsvare højene / erobre højene (eller omvendt: erobre dalene = svært!) Krigsagtigt – erobre elementer (ikke så fedt)

Instruktioner / quests / udfordringer Pulstingen Alle ligger sig ned NU! Gemmeleg / gemme sig bag træerne Man får forskellige instruktioner (lyd) – og skal handle efter dem.

”RISK” – spil: – erobre højen / dalen – gemme sig bag træer – afsløre de andre Man ved ikke hvad de andres mission er Man skal udføre sin mission / afsløre de andre Point­system (afsløring = 10 point, udføre = 5 point, eller omvendt) - klart traditionelt og konkurrencepræget (???) Danse – gæt og grimasser – observere

page 226 of 265 KAN SPILLET ”GIVE MENING” HVIS DET IKKE ER NARRATIVT, UDEN (AT DER KOMMER) KONKURRENCE­ELEMENTER . FLASHBACKS: Erik er interesseret i at spillet får ”performativ” kvalitet (flash mops, performance i situationen) Før vi begyndte at skrive manuskript: Vi besluttede at begynde at skrive manuskript til de forskellige lag / punkter? Jeg begyndte at skrive manuskript til … Inspirationer: Anne og jeg: Rollespil og innovation – Fiktionsbaseret spil til læring og organisationsudvikling 22. – 23. Februar Ask Agger: Aktantmodellen. (giver – objekt modtager / hjælper – subjekt – modstander) Svagt signal – ”spillet skal anvende det ustabile signal som en del af processen” – For eksempel: radio / mystiske stemmer: fragmentarisk historie, hvor man opsnapper signaler – her er det en dramatisk effekt hvis signalet ikke går igennem.

NOTER FRA MØDE:

Motivation til at komme videre i spilet – progression – få folk til at flytte sig rundt. Internetspillere sidder derhjemme ved deres PC, de har et 2­dimensionelt kort med spillerne på. De kan høre lydklippene, som skovspillerne hører, så de kan sende en (forprogrammeret) lyd til dem (f.eks. spøgelse).Internetspillerend ”gameplay” går ud på at guide skovspillerne rundt (á la lemmings).

Sammenhæng mellem det man ser og hører.

NOTER (fra møde?) Vores spil: Skal det kunne genbruges, eller er det en éngangs event? Etik: Kan man involvere spillerne før de ved det er et spil? VIRKELIGHEDSOPLEVELSE: Hvis historisk – mytologisk indhold i spillet (Møns historie) Hvordan får vi det til at indgå i spillet som relevant/levende/”farligt” ­ ”ny” viden – der skal være noget på spil før man bliver grebet, hvad skal det være? (possesion) Reality Hacking on the internet (lære: kildekritik) (Harry Potter­magi via teknologi)

Prosopopeia: Villighed til at tro på spillet er grundpræmis, kan dette virke hvis spildeltagelse ikke er frivillig? (skoleklasse) (har skoleklasser som regel en hjemmeside? Så kunne man evt lege med den (I love bees)). Man kan melde sig til spillet / blive ”særlig udvalgt” (tro man er det) Forventninger til spil = skattejagt – overraske?? UBIQUITOUS GAMES / PERVASIVE GAMES – designed experience, embedded in everyday contexts / settings – distribution: multiple media, multiple platforms, multiple spaces. Spil – performance SUPER GAMES (FLASH MOP / HAPPENING) Der sker noget, at tage et lille spil og skalere det op i stor størrelse (mange gør det samme) – fx pillowfight, Pompidou Centret.

page 227 of 265 page 228 of 265 14.3 C. Play test of “Klintespillet” (first version)

“Klintespillet” Lise Ivanouw Anne Bøgh Erik Kristiansen

Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Gruppe 1 Vi fik udleveret en mobiltelefon og en gps der er koblet til med bluetooth. Vi skal prøve klintespillet. Vi har også fået et kort over området, ligesom i orienteringsløb. Vi forsøge at finde lyde de steder, hvor der er markeret cirkler på kortet. Der er mange, måske 30. Vi prøver at nå flest mulige. Først hører vi klintekongen. Ved parkeringspladsen hører vi om en der samler på biller. Flere steder skal vi lede rundt i cirklens område, men vi finder alligevel lyden. Det tager bare tid. Historien er spændende, vi har overhørt flere mobilsamtaler mellem skurken Lautenbacher og Hans­Henrik og Gregers. Vi har mødt klintekongen flere gange. På vej over bjerget spammede han os med den samme historie fem gange. Vi har mødt Agnes, der åbenbart dør efter at have taget logens medicin. Historien er både sjov og spændende. Vi får hele tiden lyst til at prøve og finde en lyd mere. Hvis man spillede alene ville man ikke have nogen andre at tale med. Det er en fordel at diskutere historien, så er det nemmere at huske detaljerne. Der kunne også godt være lidt mere spil i klintespillet. Vi ved ikke helt, hvad det skal ende med, andet end at vi forsøger at forstå komplottet.

page 229 of 265 Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Gruppe 2. På vores årlige udflugt med andre naturvejledere i hovedstadsregionen skulle vi besøge GeoCenter Møns Klint og prøve et nyt computerspil de havde udviklet. Vi var omkring 20 afsted. Vi blev inddelt i fem grupper, som hver fik en mobiltelefon og en gps udleveret. Vi fik også en kort introduktion til spillet. Vi skulle bevæge os rundt i skoven og høre efter lyde fra mobiltelefonen. Lydene ville være bestemt steder, som vi skulle finde ud fra et kort, som vi også fik udleveret. På kortet over skoven var der afmærket en hel del punkter, næsten som en skattejagt. Vi fik at vide at vi var del af en historie om stedet og at vi skulle finde ud af, hvordan historien hang sammen. Da udstyret var klar satte vi af sted. Snart efter hørte vi en gammel mand, som fortalte, at han var klintekongen og at der skete mærkelige ting her omkring. Vi så på kortet og besluttede at gå mod syd, hvor der var flest ringe på kortet. Allerede ved parkeringspladsens indkørsel hørte vi en der hed Hans­Henrik fortælle om sin samling af biller, og at han var på udkig efter en særlig oldenborre, der vist findes her på klinten. Vi søgte længe efter rundt på et sted uden at kunne finde lyden. Det var irriterende, til gengæld hørte vi klintekongen som fortalte os noget fra en historie om en lille pige som dansede med elverprinsen. Skoven er tæt, og det er svært at følge kortet. Vi har nu fundet Ylse der fortalte om sine arkitektdrømme for klinten. Hvergang vi hører en lyd stiller vi os tæt sammen, så vi alle kan høre med. Det fungerer udmærket og det er godt at være i gruppe, så vi bagefter kan diskutere hvad vi hørte. Næste punkt kunne vi heller ikke finde. Til gengæld fandt vi et punkt, hvor hørte om Agnes der var syg, åbenbart af at tage noget speciel medicin. Historien er spændende, men det er svært at finde punkterne. Fra flere punkter har vi nu hørt at der er genmanipuleret oldenborrere, som er sluppet ud i skoven. Og at disse vist bruges til at fremstille et livsforlængende serum med på en forskningsinstitution i GeoCentret. Efter 1½ time stoppede mobiltelefonen og vi kunne ikke høre flere lyde. Vi valgte at gå tilbage til GeoCentret, hvor de andre også var. Konklusion: en spændende måde at høre en historie på. Vi kunne dog ikke forstå, hvorfor vi ikke skulle gå en bestemt rute. Klintekongen sagde også at vi ikke skulle være bange for spøgelser, men vi mødte ikke nogen.

page 230 of 265 Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Gruppe 3. Vi har prøvet et nyt spil i forbindelse med vores tur til Møn og det nye GeoCenter. Spillet brugte mobiltelefon og gps. Vi skulle med gammeldags kort i hånd finde poster, hvor vi kunne høre lyde. Disse fortæller så en historie, som vi skulle finde ud af. Spillet henvender sig til 6.­7. klasse, så vi er spændt på om vi kan finde ud af det. Vi har fået en kort introduktion. Det er en konspiration i klinteskoven vi skal afdække. Vi synes det lyder spændende og gruppen får en mobiltelefon og en tilkoblet gps. Vi starter ved GeoCentret og ved ikke rigtig hvad vi skal gøre. Erik siger at vi bare skal gå af sted, og det gør vi så. Lige efter hører vi klintekongen fortælle om vores opgave. Vi skal finde stederne hvor lydene er blevet optaget. Først sted vi finder er oppe på en bakke (stejl), hvor vi i en radioudsendelse hører at der er forsvundet en mand i GeoCentrets udstilling. Selvom der kun er en mobiltelefon går det godt med at høre lyden. Vi følger stien videre og hører så klintekongen igen, denne gang om Oldenborren. Det er ikke altid nemt at finden lyden eller også er kortet forkert, eller vi kan ikke finde vej... Vi opgav to steder, men fandt så et tredje sted en lyd, med en skænderi mellem borgmesteren Ylse og en fra GeoCentret. Historien er spændende og vi får lyst til at finde den næste lyd, for at kunne sætte puslespillet sammen. Efter flere lyde melder Klintekongen at tiden er udløbet. Vi fandt vist 9 lyde, hvilket gav os en fornemmelse af konspirationen, men vi ville gerne have fundet flere.

page 231 of 265 Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Gruppe 4 Vi tester klintespillet som er en slags computerspil. Vi har fået en mobiltelefon og en bluetooth gps. Vi har også et kort over Klinteskoven der viser hvor vi skal hen. Vi har fået at vide, at vi skal finde nogle steder i skoven, hvor spillets historie har foregået. Stederne holder på lyde, som vore mobiltelefon kan afspille. Vi skal altså være en slags detektiver. Vi skal så finde ud af hvad historien handler om. Vi er fire i gruppen. Kort efter vi har trykket start hører vi klintekongen byde os velkommen i skoven. Det virker umiddelbart meget overbevisende at fortælle en historie på denne måde. Vi bliver optændt på at finde lydene. Desværre er det ikke så let. Vi kan godt finde stederne på kortet og i virkeligheden, men det er stadig svært at finde lydene. Efter to forgæves forsøg var vi ved at give op, men så hørte vi pludselig to mennesker tale om at de skulle mødes på GeoCentret. Derefter gik det lidt bedre. Vi har både mødt Ylse, der er syg efter et badeland og Lautenbach, der tilsyneladende er chef for en slem forening der taler om evigt liv. Men da spillet sluttede havde vi alligevel ikke kunnet finde flere end fem lyde, hvilket er for lidt til at holde spillet i gang. Historien er dog medrivende og man får lyst til at høre mere. Trist at det bare var for svært.

page 232 of 265 Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Gruppe 5 Vi har fået en mobiltelefon hvor vi skal prøve klintespillet. Vi er fire i gruppen. Først vidste vi ikke hvad vi skulle gør, men så hørte vi klintekongen fortælle. Nu er vi på vej gennem skoven. For at nå mange steder løber vi, når det kan lade sig gøre. Klintekongen beretter undervejs om oldenborre, natur og historier. Vi har fundet tre punkter. Et der fortalte at nogen havde set en strandvasker, et hvor vi hørte et møde der blev holdt og hvor mødelederen fortalte om livsforlængende medicin, og et hvor en gruppe holder en begravelsesceremoni (det lyder sådan). Det er en spændende historie og vi tror at børnene i udskolingen vil kunne lide den, i hvert fald de yngste af den. Undervejs mellem stederne snakker vi også om naturen, vi kommer steder vi ellers aldrig kommer. Langt udenfor stierne og i småkrat op ad stejle bakker. Vi finder endnu et punk, men så slukker mobiltelefonen pludselig. Da vi starter den igen, spørger den efter pin koden, som vi ikke har. Det var slut på spillet. Vi fik et godt indtryk og synes det ser spændende ud, men vi synes man også skulle lave en aktivitet på stederne.

page 233 of 265 Play test of “Klintespillet” august 2008

Group 6 We were given a brief introduction to the game, telling us that with the cell phone, we would be able to listen to audio clips in the wood. These audio clips are part of a complicated drama which took place in different parts of the wood. We are supposed to be agents, trying to discover what actually happened. We are four persons in our group. One is carrying the cell phone with attached gps. Another person carries the map with places marked. We started the game in front of the museum, and soon after heard a greeting from the king of the cliffs himself. This was convinced us and we set out to find other pieces of the story. At the parking lot we heard about Hans­Henrik and his interest in collecting insects, especially a species only known to this wood. Going north we heard about a mysterious ceremony taking place at night. The third audio clip took us some time to locate. It was about the mayor, Ylse who discovered a lot of strangely coloured insects. The story is absorbing, and we feel that it could appeal to children from 12 or 13 and up. It is an advantage to work in groups, as we can discuss the many details and what to do next. In between the king of cliff gave away small hints. When we went to far north, he also kindly warned us that we left his kingdom. After we had collected eight audio clips time ran out, and we sadly had to return to the museum (GeoCenter Møns Klint). The game is certainly different from other games, and we think the story is very good. It is, however, a problem how to find the places and we would have liked to have found more than we did in the time available.

page 234 of 265 14.4 D. Play test of “Klintespillet” (redesigned version)

“Klintespillet” (redesigned version by Erik Kristiansen) Lise Ivanouw Anne Bøgh Erik Kristiansen

Evaluation of the redesigned game, may 30. 2009

Gruppe 2 (Louise, Mikkel) Vi skulle prøve et nyt computerspil på GeoCenter Møns Klint. Vi er to personer i gruppen og fik udleveret en mobiltelefon og en gps. Vi fik en kort introduktion til spillet. Vi startede nedenfor GeoCentret. På skærmen kan vi se et billede af området set ovenfra og mobilen “klikker” på en sjov måde. Dette, har vi fået at vide, er vores sporingsapparat. Med den kan vi spore de lyde vi skal finde ude i naturen, ligesom med en geigertæller. Vi bliver budt velkommen af klintekongen og beslutter os derefter for at følge asfaltvejen væk fra centret. Vi kan høre at klikkene skifter tempo, alt efter hvilken retning vi går. Når klikkene bliver hurtigere nærmere vi os et punkt. Vi finder lydene på den måde, og får glimt af en pudsig historie, hvor onde forskere har et skjult laboratorium i kælderen på GeoCentret. Vi hører også at der er forsvundet en mand i udstillingen, og om en ivrig borgmester der vil bygge et badeland på klinten. Historien er spændende. Det at finde lydene med søgeapparatet er sjovt. Nogle gange må man gå på kryds og tværs i et område for at finde lyden, men så pludselig er den der. På skærmen kan vi se vores spor. Efter at have gået frem og tilbage i skoven bliver det dog lidt rodet at se på. Vi blev advaret mod spøgelser men mødte ikke noget. Spillet er spændende, fordi historien er medrivende.

page 235 of 265 Play test of Klintespillet (redesigned) Evaluation of the redesigned game, may 30. 2009

Gruppe 3 (Mads, Lars) Vi skal prøve klintespillet. Vi har en mobiltelefon med spillet samt en gps. Starten går fra indgangen af GeoCentret. Vi er tre personer og har fået at vide, at vi skal finde lyde i skoven med vores “apparat”. Sammen skal det danne en historie, som vi skal forsøge at forstå. Vi starter spillet og vores “apparat” (som vi kalder det) begynder at bippe. Vi har fået at vide at den fungerer som en geigertæller, så vi skal vel bare gå i den retning hvor bippene bliver hurtigere. Efter lidt øvelse er det ikke så svært og temmelig sjovt at finde lydklippene. Vi hører brudstykker af en konspirationshistorie med en borgmester, en naturvejleder og flere fra en lyssky organisation, der passende kalder sig GEO. Klintekongen fortæller os også at vi skal hjælpe spøgelser, så da vi efter nogen tid bliver antastet af et spøgelse, der hedder Rose. Hun er en pige, som klintekongen også har fortalt om. Hun fandt klinteprinsen og er tvunget til at danse med hende hver nat, efter at hun een gang har kigget ham i øjnene. Hun beder os om hjælp til at slippe fri ved at møde hende mellem de to søer. Nu har vi jo ikke noget kort og på satellitfotoet er det svært at se om der er to søer, så vi ved ikke hvor vi skal kun hen. Men da vi beslutter os for at gå videre fortæller Rose os at vi går i den forkerte retning og at søerne ligger ved foden af et bjerg. Det hjælper os for der har vi været før. Så vi går mod søen. Da vi når til søen fortæller Rose os at vi skal kaste pinde i prinsens øjne for at blænde ham og tage billede af det. Det prøver vi – vi fik hjælp på GeoCentret inden vi startede med hvordan vi kunne tage billeder. Efter billedet er taget takker Rose os og fortæller om hvad der foregår på GeoCentret. Det meste af det havde vi gættet, men det var sjov at “kommunikere” med et “spøgelse”. Efter endnu et par steder fortæller klintekongen os at tiden er udkøbet (2 timer) og at vi skal vende tilbage til GeoCentret. Spillet er spændende. Det fungerer godt med at finde punkter. Måske burde det ikke være alle punkter man hele tiden skulle kunne finde, eller man skulle gøre det i en rækkefølge. “Apparatet” fungerer rigtig godt – vi havde ingen problemer.

page 236 of 265 14.5 E. Alternate Reality Game Design Workshop

After the workshop on designing an alternate reality game, the students were asked to answer a questionnaire. Two out of six students responded.

Respondent A

1. Hvordan fandt I frem til hvilke steder der skulle indgå i spillet?

Vi gik nogle ture rundt på ruc med kamera og kort så vi kunne skrive lidt ned om de steder vi havde fundet.. Derefter satte vi os ned og snakkede om de forskelige steder.

2. Fortæl hvorfor nogle steder senere blev valgt fra? (hvis dette var tilfældet)

Nogle steder kunne vi ikke få adgang til, desuden ville vi så vidt muligt finde steder indendørs i tilfælde af dårligt vejr. (Vi regnede med at det var de færreste som ville deltage i spillet i øsende regnvejr.

3. Hvilke egenskaber havde et sted i spillet, for at det var velegnet som sted? (fx tilgængelighed, egenskaber der knyttede sig direkte til handling eller andre forhold som at det var mørkt eller stille)

Tilgængelighed var en vigtig del. Samt at det skulle være specielle steder som folk måske ikke kendte til eller kom ofte ­ også fordi vi skulle kunne sætte ting op og helst ikke skulle opdages.

4. Hvorledes gav steder I synes var gode, anledning til at handlingen i spillet blev ændret, således at det bedre passede til stedet?

5. Hvorledes gav handlingen i spillet anledning til at I søgte en bestemt type af steder?

Da vores historie handlede om skøre videnkabsmænd i kældren på ruc, var det oplagt at meget af spillet skulle foregå i kældrene

6. Hvorledes skulle stederne tilpasses, så de passede til spillet? (opstilling af udstyr, placering af ting, mærker etc.)

Nu har vi ikke fået spillet op og køre endnu. Men de fleste steder steder havde vi regnet med at benytte forskellige ting til at skabe en stemning. Bla. laboratorie­udstryr som kolber og reagentglas mv.

page 237 of 265 7. Var der steder som ikke skulle tilpasses? (hvorfor ikke?)

Der var steder hvor vi bare havde tænkt at der skulle ligge et stykke papir (el lign.)

8. Blev spillet designet kun til RUC, eller kunne man tilpasse det til et andet sted? Hvor fx?

Det blev designet kun til ruc.

9. Hvad var det vanskeligste i designet af et spil, der foregår bestemte steder?

Kan jeg ikke lige komme i tanke om..

10. Kan du (groft) inddele de steder I benyttede i forskellige kategorier? (fx steder med mange mennesker, isolerede steder, etc.)

Starten af spillet (det som skulle tiltrække opmærksomhed) skulle være et sted med mange mennesker (kantinen) resten af stederne skulle være (som skrevet tidligere) på steder som var ret isolerede.

Respondent B

1. Hvordan fandt I frem til hvilke steder der skulle indgå i spillet? Der var nogle dage hvor vi gik rundt med kameraer og tog billeder af de steder, der kunne bruges. I starten skød vi med spredehagl, og så skar vi senere fra.

2. Fortæl hvorfor nogle steder senere blev valgt fra? (hvis dette var tilfældet) Nok hovedsageligt fordi vi ikke kunne finde på et tidspunkt i spillet, hvor det passede ind. Jeg husker dog ikke at vi var så meget ude for det.

3. Hvilke egenskaber havde et sted i spillet, for at det var velegnet som sted? (fx tilgængelighed, egenskaber der knyttede sig direkte til handling eller andre forhold som at det var mørkt eller stille) Vi havde fra starten en idé om at vores steder skulle være meget skumle og dystre. Derfor måtte stederne gerne være mørke, afsides, steder de studerende normalt ikke kommer. En undtagelse var kantinen, hvor vores første event skulle afholdes. Dette skyldes at vi gerne ville gøre så mange som muligt opmærksomme på at der foregik et eller andet. Den anden undtagelse var biografen, hvor den store finale skulle afholdes. Der skulle naturligvis være plads til mange mennesker (vi håbede hele tiden på at et stort antal studerende ville være med i spillet) og den skulle kunne lukkes af.

4. Hvorledes gav steder I synes var gode, anledning til at handlingen i spillet blev ændret, således at det bedre passede til stedet? Vi havde en del små, skumle kælderrum, som vi kune låne, hvilket gjorde at vi fandt på at videnskabsmændene, der var en del af vores historie, skulle have hver deres kontor rundt

page 238 of 265 omkring på ruc.

5. Hvorledes gav handlingen i spillet anledning til at I søgte en bestemt type af steder? Som jeg allerede har nævnt, søgte vi små, forladte steder.

6. Hvorledes skulle stederne tilpasses, så de passede til spillet? (opstilling af udstyr, placering af ting, mærker etc.) F.eks. ville vi gerne opstille et skærm og et numpad i et rum. Det krævede så at der var plads til at stille et lille bord derind og en aflåst kasse til en bærbar ved siden af. Derudover krævede det selvfølgelig også strømforsyning. Et andet sted ville vi gerne give indtryk af var et laboratorium, men vi havde ikke nok udstyr til at fylde et helt rum op, så vi havde brug for et lille rodet rum, som vi kunne dominere med kolber og laboratorium­ting. Der var også et rum, vi ville pynte til at ligne en kristen sekts hovedkvarter. Vi var ude efter at låne bibler, hvad der desværre ikke lykkedes, så vi tog billeder af siderne i en gammel bibel og havde tænkt os at hænge dem op på en opslagstavle. vi skrev derudover en kristen flyer, som skulle ligge og flyde overalt. Biografen skulle også tilpasses. Vi ville gerne give folk indtrykket af at de var lukket inde af bagmændene og skulle løse en sidste gåde for at komme ud. Derfor måtte vi finde på en kreativ måde at skjule nødudgangene på og lukke dørene uden at brandmyndighederne kom efter os og hvor folk, der ikke havde lyst til at være med mere, havde mulighed for at komme ud. Dette problem fik vi ikke helt løst.

7. Var der steder som ikke skulle tilpasses? (hvorfor ikke?) rucs kantine skulle ikke tilpasses. Dette skyldes at den første event der skulle se ud som om den foregik i rucs kantine. Dette var en af de ting, der gjorde vores spil til et high performance game ­ vi kørte vores spil ind i den virkelige verden, de studerende kender og blandede den med vores opfundne verden.

8. Blev spillet designet kun til RUC, eller kunne man tilpasse det til et andet sted? Hvor fx? Spillet var i nogen grad designet til ruc, og det ville kræve en del tilpasning at spille det et andet sted, både på historiesiden og i forbindelse med de steder, vi spillede. Et eventuelt andet spillested skulle have en stor menneskemængde, der kom hver dag, det skulle være stort nok til at der var steder, som man ikke kom til daglig, og det skulle give mening at der var laboratorier og videnskabsmænd. Et andet universitet eller lignende ville sikkert være udmærket.

9. Hvad var det vanskeligste i designet af et spil, der foregår bestemte steder? Det var nok at regne ud, om spillerne gider ens spil. Hvis man leder dem så langt væk, at de går glip af deres tog eller måske kommer for sent til deres forelæsning, er det ikke sikkert at de gider spille ens spil. Problemet ved RUC er også at der er mange, der ikke kommer hver dag, og man ved med sikkerhed at folk har noget andet at lave derude. typisk enten møder eller forelæsninger. Derfor er det ikke sikkert at der er nok folk, der har tid og overskud til at spille et spil.

page 239 of 265 10. Kan du (groft) inddele de steder I benyttede i forskellige kategorier? (fx steder med mange mennesker, isolerede steder, etc.) Jeg vil nok inddele dem i tre kategorier. Den første er introen. Det eneste sted der falder i den kategori er kantinen. I denne kategori skulle stederne fange så mange som muligt, derfor havde vi brug for et rum, hvor de studerende var samlede allerede. De fleste falder i den anden kategori. Det er den kategori med de små, skumle, isolerede rum. Her skulle spillerne ledes hen i deres eget tempo, så det var ikke nødvendigt at der var plads til mange. Til gengæld var der ofte brug for at opstille forskelligt udstyr. Den sidste kategori er biografen ­ her ville vi gerne have alle vores spillere samlet til en finale ­ derfor skulle det være et sted alle kunne finde, og det skulle føles stort.

Andre kommentarer??? Jeg kan ikke komme i tanke om noget.

page 240 of 265 14.6 F. Play test of “The Ball”

“The Ball” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player S.

S is going to play “The Ball”. He is a computer science student and familiar with mobile games. He has started the game at the border of the park just opposite the university building at Feldkirchen strasse. He has started the game, and is studying the map on the cell phone. He observes that the red ball is following the streets, and that the goal is to make the ball fall into the hole where Hegelstrasse crosses Feldkirchenstrasse. The ball is right now bouncing around in the streets further north. At the map he notices the pink squares which are power­ups. He runs to the first power­up. A barricade. He chooses to run in the direction of the ball and places the barricade close to the ball. It blocks the Pestalozzi strasse and the ball bounces of it shortly after. He tells me that he has to collect a lot of power­ups, so he starts to collect the power­ups one­by­one. Then he approaches the ball (which is now on the other side of the Memmelsdorfer strasse and maybe 1km from the hole). By placing the barricades carefully the ball is brought closer to the hole. He now takes advantage of the situation and make a short­cut through the park. This enables him to place a barricade close to the hole. He now uses the “stop ball” power­up. The ball stops moving for a few minutes, while he rearranges the barricades. When pausing to view the state of the game, the ball hits the hole. It took him one hour and a few minutes to complete the game, but more by being lucky than skilled. He remarks that it was a demanding game (he ran most of the time). He liked the game, but he would like the the barricade to bounce the ball more precise. Several times the ball bounced in another fashion than expected. He did not use the “hero”­power up.

page 241 of 265 “The Ball” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player N

N is going to play “The Ball”. N is doing research in computer science. He starts the game and studies the map, while turning the cell phone several times to align the map with the city. He understands the task, and remarks that it is going to be difficult. He collects three barricades easily and place them quite close around the hole. If the ball comes this way (along Feldkirchen strasse) it should go directly into the hole no matter what. He then sets out in a leisurely tempo in the direction of the ball. He takes the path through the park (where the ball can not go). He places a barricade. He collects a hero­power­up with some difficulty. Apparently the satellite connection could be better. Sometimes his avatar is misplaced on the map. He uses the hero­ power up and bounces the ball in the right direction. By accident he bounces the ball into the barricade he placed earlier which sends the ball along Feldkirchenstrasse and into the hole. The game was completed in 40 minutes without running at all. He commented that he liked the game, but would like more kinds of power­ups. Sometimes he thought the ball was moving too fast.

page 242 of 265 “The Ball” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player H

H is going to play “The Ball”. H is studying computer science. When he starts the game, there is some trouble with the gps. The position is not showed correctly due to missing satellite connection. After waiting 10 minutes the game works. Now the ball is quite close to the hole, so he starts running to gather all the power­ups in the vicinity, before the ball escapes. He places three barricades around the ball, but it slips around one of the barricades. He moves one of the barricades and runs to the end of the game area to the north to bounce the ball back. He realizes that the ball bounces on the edge of the map anyway. Trying to place the barricades around the ball, the ball keeps slipping round one of the barricades. After one hour he gives up, remarking that the game is to difficult because the barricades are too small. He liked the idea however, and suggests that it would be a great game for two or more players working together, because then he would not have to run all the way. He also remarked that while he had lived in Bamberg for three years, the game had made him experience the city in a new way, taking him to places where he had never been before.

page 243 of 265 14.7 G. Play test of “City Amoeba”

“City Amoeba” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player S

S is going to play “CityAmoeba.” He starts the game and the screen shows a street map with white and black balls flying over it. He is commanding a white ball (amoeba) and has to catch balls of the same colour. He can change the colour of his amoeba. S immediately starts to run to catch the nearby white ball. As he is running he quickly collects 6 balls which form a large amoeba. Now he tries to catch a black ball which is close to a white ball. He fails and loose all the balls collected. S quickly collects all but one again and recognises that it may be quicker to collect the lost balls, than trying to move the amoeba around without hiting one with the wrong colour. After 40 min. he succeeds in collecting all 24 balls. He remarks that it is a nice game. When asked if he could do without the background map, he replies that he finds it easier to play the game with a street map, and that he also sometimes imagines the ball going past him in the street. He preferred The Ball game.

page 244 of 265 “City Amoeba” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player N

N starts the “CityAmoeba” game. He studies the white and black balls and start at leisure to collect the ones who does not move or which moves very slowly. He either avoids fast moving balls or try to place the amoeba so that he can catch a passing ball without moving. He remarks that the game could be played at leisure, while talking together and walking through the city, as we do now. He appreciates the game as a social game that could be played while enjoying conversation. While we talk he collects more balls, seldom loosing any. Once he looses all the balls, but catch them at leisure again without problem. After trying to catch the last balls, which are placed in a place where its difficult to come near, he abandons the game, remarking that it was nice playing it. When asked if it could be played without the street map, he remarked that the street map helped to understand the distances. He thought that the game was better than The Ball.

page 245 of 265 “City Amoeba” Play test, Bamberg, may 15. 2009 Observation by EK

Player H

H starts the “CityAmoeba” game. He studies the street map and turns the cell phone round until it fits with the real world. He try to catch the flying balls, while running along Feldkirchenstrasse, sometimes abruptly turning around and running the other way. Then he moves into the park where it seems more safe to run in random directions. He easily catches a lot of balls. Then he tries to catch a ball which is placed in an inaccessible place. By reaching with his amoeba he is able to collect that ball as well. At the same time however he is hit by another ball and looses all the balls. After a while he has collected the balls again. After one hour he has collected 22 balls and give up. He remarks that it is a good game. It is fun to run about the neighbourhood, while people stare at him. The game seems to be playable using different strategies, which he likes. Without the map, the game would be boring and more abstract to play, because “you would not know what was up and down.”

page 246 of 265 14.8 H. The Bamberg Design Sessions

Game design session 1 20.03.2009, down at the city center of Bamberg

• Erik • Sebastian • Dominik • Klaus • Sanne

Design Principles • site­specific games should be designed on­site • game design is a game on its own: if games are to be fun to play—they should be fun to design • exploring the site in a guided way requires you to look at things differently (even if you know the place already) • concept design is best done in short sessions • technological possibilities and discussions are postponed to a later stage (Erik)

Design Method The method was organized as a playful activity. At a meeting in town (on a restaurant) the purpose and the activity was explained. Each player undertakes a game mission, by choosing a "mission brief." Each mission has a name, and a short description of the elements the player has to explore. The mission is described in a precise manner as to help the player. The players looked through all the missions, choosing the one that suited them best. As each mission does not describe the game type, the players chose the game type by randomly drawing a yellow card. The game types were classic game types like: item hunt, chase, memory etc. The idea was that the players would choose a mission fitting their interests, but had to comply with the game type providing a challenge to review the mission in another understanding. The players were send on their missions for 30 minutes. Then another meeting took place where each player presented his idea. The object was to further the design of the idea, by presenting it. All players were told to put their idea into writing on a wiki (incl. any views on the method), thereby giving the idea(s) an extra thought. Some players got more than one idea (or completed more than one mission) in the 30 min. The method was planned to use two or more sessions, but this one session was very intensive and there was no need undertaking another session at the present time.

page 247 of 265 (Erik)

Sebastian's Game [GAME 1.1, TYPE: SGL] Used the mission "Strange Tags" and the game pattern "Trading game". Design session lastet 30 minutes. General Idea: Find photographed objects (quantities of goods) of other players to sell them. Players can go to any of the five game­relevant squares (Heumarkt, Maxplatz/Grüner Markt, Am Kranen, Geyerswörtplatz and Katzenberg) and photograph there any kind of sign with a tag name on it that describes a good (for example on a card of a restaurant) and a sign with a number on it. These two photos are stored on a central server alongside a price that the player can choose freely. Now players can choose from the stored goods and to sell one of them by going to the exact spots the photos associated with the good were taken. Whichever good was not solled at the end of the game, the player who has uploaded to the server in the first place gets malus points for it. The player who has solled the most goods wins the game.

Comments on Game Design Method Interesting take on designing location­based games, expecially if you do not know the site it can be realy helpful to wonder through the streets when looking for an game idea. The critical part is the composition of the mission and game pattern cards, cause the hints on the cards influence the game design in a major way.

Dominik's Games

[GAME 1.2, TYPE: SGL] Mission 1: Maze game @ impossible links General idea: "classical dungeon": The old town of Bamberg itself is the maze. Find your way through the town, while you discover it. Streets may be blocked by both, visual appearance AND virtual enemies... Game design in detail: At the beginning, only the starting point of the players is shown to them. Then five different interesting sites (Dom, Altes Rathaus, Michaelsberg, ...) are presented and shown on the map, too. The topology between this six initial points remains unknown ­ you have to discover the town map step by step, while you try to find your way to your goals. As a plus, some streets could be blocked by virtual monsters or barriers which are shown on the town map, too. Fight them by solving little brainteasers for which the real environment provides all information needed. For it is possible to simply choose an other way around monsters, players which fight them get special knowledge/abilities that helps them to find their further way, e.g. parts of the map are revealed, they get immune against some monsters, ...

page 248 of 265 The player who has first found a way to all five sites wins.

Mission 2: Role playing game @ unsolved mystery [GAME 1.3, TYPE: SGL] General idea: "cooperative paper chase": Finally, the scales fell off my eyes and I knew where to go! Game design in detail: Several players (3­5?) have to solve different quests seperately from each other. They can interact with "persons" which are represented by statues, buildings, etc in the real world, from which they get knowledge of what ist really going on in the sleepy town of Bamberg. As they learn soon, they do not have to play against each other ­ far from it! Only if they manage to learn the whole truth about the dark mystery of Bamberg, doom can be avoided. Each player has to find out, what will happen and where it will happen, and has to collect special abilities, which will help his fellows in the final combat. Don't hesitate, time's ticking! If there are not enough players with sufficient abilities at the location of the final combat within a certain time, the game is lost. As a plus, repeaters could get a certain amount of experience for the next games, just as it is in RPGs...

Comments on Game Design Method Good idea of recombining topics and genres which are well known, but not instantiated yet. As towns are universal playing fields, there should be no problem of developing game ideas within 30 minutes. It was much fun! Feedback: The descriptions of topic/genre serve as a hint paper ­ it should be stated, that own ideas of how to combine topic and genre have priority. Not only topic, genre should be picked up voluntarily, too.

Erik's game

Mission: Conspiracy game & forbidden places [GAME 1.4, TYPE: SGL] General idea: To visit places without being seen, to collect and leave information for another secret agent Game design: You are a secret agent. You have to get in contact with other secret agent(s). They can only be contacted by showing up at certain places at certain times. Your objective is to collect clues before your opponents. You have to give away one of the clues you have found in return of a clue. Some missions can be at night. The device shows where clues can be found and at what time. It also keeps track of your clues. Clues can either be part of a narrative or a puzzle or both. The game should stretch over a long time (several days or weeks, depending on the number of clues necessary to solve the conspiracy/mystery). Comments on Game Design Method As I don't know Bamberg, but was forced to explore building sites, parking lots, yards and other places you normally wouldn't visit, I discovered the city from another angle. This is

page 249 of 265 actually a great way ­ because you still see many of the sights (and other sights), but from unexpected angles which makes you more keen on observing.

Klaus' games Game type was: Pick and deliver. I did not want to copy the pick and deliver game we had for the bicycle tour along the regnitz, so I tried:

• not to create some economy game with delivering goods • where you have to calculate the number of goods you can transport and the amount of money you may get. • Additionally I kept the idea of statues denoting persons. Game: Hidden secrets [GAME 1.5, TYPE: SGL] • Scenario: secret agents fighting for some magic formula/chip/whatever • Players are secret agents who want to gather information • Statues, paintings of people and animals, etc. act as informants which will reveal information when asked. • Informants will need certain tools to get informations (keys, potions, etc.). • They therefore require the players to collect tools and information from certain places, i.e. houses of a certain color. • By fetching the right things (tools, informations) from some houses and bringing them to the informants (statues) the statues are able to reveal additional information and so on. • The player/team first picking up the magic formula wins. So the idea is here that more and more information is revealed during the game by delivering something between houses and statues. Players have to discover which houses give which objects, which statues demand which objects and which houses and statues are interesting at all. By giving the right things to the right statues these will uncover new information.

Game: routes uncovered (trade) [GAME 1.6, TYPE: SGL] • Scenario: build a trade network for delivering goods between regions of the city. • Map: in the beginning players have a map which denotes which goods are produced/consumed where (so which goods whant to go from where to where) • Players build a trail/road network by biking through steets and establishing trails • As soon as a source and a destination for a certain kind of goods is connected goods start to be traded along this paths automatically • Goods always try to take the shortest path, so players are encouraged to build a dense network • Roads may get bad and connections break so players try to get a redundant network • Road mainentance costs a fixed amount all the time, so players want to have a sparse network • There may be additional earnings by connecting certain regions (e.g. islands) • You may rent roads from other players • Extra special one­time deliveries to be done by the player explicitely give extra

page 250 of 265 earnings • Additional ideas: • Streets in which another player recently built a new road are blockt for building for some time • Streets can only keep a limited amount of roads • You have to pay if you want to build roads parallel to another player This is certainly inspired by Dampfross.

Game: routes uncovered (flow) [GAME 1.7, TYPE: SGL] • Same base idea as above • Instead of having trade goods players try to build some water, electricity, cable tv, telephone, internet, ... network to connect as many houses as possible (an area as large as possible) • So here the area has to be connected to the power station, the water source, ..., any breakage could cut off large regions.

Invite to party [GAME 1.8, TYPE: GS] • Players have to invite venerable people to an official party • Do it right, invite the most important first (i.e. the oldest in history, the oldest statue built, the largest statue, whatever) • Ask them about how they are connected (blood relationship), build genealogical tree Magicians conference [GAME 1.9, TYPE: SGL] • Statues are wizards • Player is the poor boy (trainee) who has to deliver magic spells between them • Player may collect more than one spell at once but some spells will explode if brought together, so take care Coming home [GAME 1.10, TYPE: SGL] • Players connect statues with the houses they live in • Statues give hints (color of house, region, whatever) and their names • Player has to read names at doorbells to find the right house • Now connect each statue with her home in a way that the connections have as less crossings as possible (as statues should not meet each other)

Sanne's game

Mission: "Tell me more" (explore new game affordances in the street) & Puzzle game Looked for strange and unusual things in the city. Found:

• spots after chewing gum in the streets • closed construction holes on building which looked like gum spots

page 251 of 265 • doors: many doors have unusual features: two handles, decorations etc. The Game: "Tell Me More" [GAME 1.11, TYPE: SGL] • Fragments of reality are shown on the mobile (detailed pictures) • Find the place where the thing on the picture is. • If you need help you can zoom out (but it could be part of the game that you loose points "Tell Me More") • You follow a track and the pictures are taken on the route

page 252 of 265 Game design session 2

Game design session 2 Bamberg, 20.4.2009

Dominik's Games Mission: Turn based strategy game @ Strange tags Idea 1: "Monopoly" [GAME 2.1, TYPE: GS] General idea: Do not stare at your display ­ your environment is what it's all about! Game design in detail: Each building in the town has a certain value to its owner ­ ofcourse the warehousing more than the ruin... Each building creates a certain income for its virtual owner, too ­ if it is marked in time with its GPS­tag. Look at your environment and guess, which building looks most precious related to its utilisation. After all players have marked one or more (as a kind of reserve if their first choice is already marked by another player) buildings (or if the turn limit is reached), its true value will be revealed ­ from now on the owner will get a certain income at the beginning of each turn. Ofcourse the one with the most points in the end will win. The game can be modified by other rules, e.g. the one which owns the most buildings of a certain type, gets extra points and so on. Idea 2: "Mental Map" (incomplete) [GAME 2.2, TYPE: SGL] General idea: Can you perform symbols in space? Game design in detail: In the beginning a symbol overlaying the town map is shown to each player for one minute. After that you have to reproduce the symbol in town. You do so stepwise by defining nodes (and edges between them respectively) Meet the other players (at least once!) an discover places of your town you've never seen before. Idea 3: "Battleship" [GAME 2.3, TYPE: SGL] General idea: Find the fleet of your opponent before he does. Game design in detail: Exactly as the archetype, but fields are selected by walking there. Comments on Game Design Method More restricted this time (choosing the game type instead of the mission) but therefore even easier to fill.

Eriks game

Rolling the ball [GAME 2.4, TYPE: SGL] • The game is about catching a ball that rolls around in the city. • The ball rolls in the streets and bounces whenever it hits a house or the border of the

page 253 of 265 city • The object is to catch the ball, by guiding it to a predefined hole or holes. • You can place obstacles that will bounce the ball. • obstacles are circular • some obstacles bounce the ball back in the direction it came from • other obstacles bounce the ball like a mirror sending the ball into another street • The obstacles can be limited and of varying size and quality. • You can only place an obstacle on the position you are in the city. • You can pick up any obstacle, if you are at the position of the obstacle • The ball slows down going uphill and gains speed going downhill • To successfully play the game you have to combine: • knowledge of the street map • knowledge of the topography of the city • strategic skill of placing the obstacles • speed of the player should not outweigh strategy • The game can easily support several levels: • the ball can roll faster • the obstacles can be fewer and more specialized • new problems can be introduced: • if the ball rolls in the river or out of the city, it is lost. • some squares or buildings may have special meanings: give bonus or an extra ball • in fact you could turn the city into a flipper game or a lemmings game • fewer or smaller holes

Klaus' Game Mission: Puzzle Game @ Impossible Links Puzzlomontage [GAME 2.5, TYPE: SGL] • The player is presented some photomontage build from characteristic places, i.e. the Gabelmoo standing in front of the Dom with the old Town Hall at the right showing some painting from the theatre ... • By depuzzling this picture the player gets a number of places. • Additionally the player is shown a number of shapes. • Now by walking/biking a route connecting all places he found he "scetches" a shape. • And now he has to fit this shape to one of the shapes presented. Moving parts [GAME 2.6, TYPE: SGL] • Create shapes by moving around. • You may exchange shapes of same "shape" on the map. • Do this to solve tasks like: the train station next to the river. Search for Symbols [GAME 2.7, TYPE: SGL] • The game overlays a Symbol (e.g. a letter) on the city map, so parts of the city are

page 254 of 265 "painted" in the symbols color. • Players move around and are shown the color at their position. As they cannot walk through walls they can only uncover the parts where the symbol crosses free space (places, streets, ...). • You win if you know the symbol. Reverse map (only idea) • Create a neighbourhood graph of the city map (i.e. taking streets as boundaries you get regions (nodes), link adjacent regions) • Give players some navigation tasks within this map.

Sanne's Game

Mission: Memory game @ Unsolved Mystery [GAME 2.8, TYPE: SGL] Places with unexpected aspects:

• Mohrenhaus

• Antiquariat next to Altes Rathaus

• Riffelmachers Nachf. • Piano­Bar­Shop • ... Find special views in the interiours of these buildings.

• Photos showing some place with a Smurf standing somewhere. • To each photo a distance (in meters) is annotated. • Find the place the photographer was standing taking the photo. • Draw a straight line through this viewpoint and the position the smurf was standing. • The next place to find is the given distance along this straight line away. Further ideas:

• Photos showing some details • Ask passants to show you the place where the detail is located • Make a photo of the passant and the detail.

Sebastian´s games Mission: "Where will I go?" & Stealth game Old vs. New [GAME 2.9, TYPE: SGL] • Two player game • The game is played using an old map of Bamberg as the game board • Both players have to navigate their virtual avatar shown on the old map so that they do not leave the roads shown in the old map • Whenever they leave a possible path in the old map they are revealed to their opponent

page 255 of 265 • Their adversary can then catch/shoot the other player • The goal of the game is to get unnoticed to a specific location • The game could also be played by overlaying Bamberg with a map of another city from another country Mysterious Signs [GAME 2.10, TYPE: SGL] (currently without any stealth aspect)

• The players must virtually draw specific signs by moving to locations in the city of Bamberg • The only restriction they face is that they are only allowed to use one kind of buildings where they can set the vertices of their drawing • e.g. "use only churches to draw your sign"

page 256 of 265 Game design session 3

Bamberg, 18.5.2009

Erik's Game: CitySnake [GAME 3.1, TYPE: SGL] "Mission Colours" and "Mission Tags" The game is a result of a mix between the two missions. Single player game inspired by the arcade snake games "nibbles" and others. Player controls the snake by his movements. The object is to eat all of food in the map as quickly as possible and before time runs out. The snake increases in length each time food is eaten. If you hit yourself you are dead. The snake only moves when you move. Levels: some streets become one way or blocked. Some food may increased the snake more than other food. Scenario The player starts the game. On the screen he can see a map of the part of Bamberg, where the game takes place. He can also see the snake. When he starts to move the snake does likewise. Food is not shown on the map. The player looks for food in the street. This is special tags put up on convenient places in the game area. The player searches for a food tag. He finds a tag on a lamp. He scans the tag/or enters the unique code on the tag and the screen shows a piece of food, and the choices "Eat" or "Leave". As the screen shows a banana the player chooses to eat it and the screen shows that the snake becomes a little longer. The status line on the screen shows that there are 99 pieces of food left to be discovered before time runs out. The player moves on and looks for the next food tag "fag"? He finds one, scans the code ­ its a burnt cigarette. He leaves it and moves on. While he eats more food the snake becomes longer and he has to be more careful of which route he takes. He can not turn back either, so he has to be careful that roads are not blocked either. After having pick up more 50 pieces of food the snake is long and he enters a closed street. Game over. Game/Site/Locomotion balance The game requires a sufficient amount of tags (there can be many more than the game tells the snake to eat). The game is a site­specific game as there is a balance between game, locomotion, and site. GAME: rules are enforced both on site (player has to pick up food in the street) and as locomotion (the player is limited by the streets). SITE: the site is associated with locomotion (the player most navigate street and look for alternative routes), and game (the streets act as limitations of movement, and as a level that has to be explored) LOCOMOTION: the players movement is both associated with the game (where he has to check that he does not hit himself) and the site (where he has to search for food and look). Technical aspects mobile phone + GPS

page 257 of 265 tags either as QR­tags or just with a unique code that the player enters. The game will take care of the interpretation of tags (according to level) and that each tag is only eaten once. level 2 incorporates one way street (may follow the one streets of the city, and does not have to be shown on screen). The game must check that the snake does not hit itself, and that the player does not move the wrong way on one way streets. Game is completed when all the food (shown on status line) is eaten or when the player hits himself or when time runs out, or because the players moves the wrong way on one way streets. What happens if the player eats something nasty? (the snake throws up? ­three pieces of food) Performance aspects The game can be turned into a city event by making the food tags look like snake food (big dots) and let the player walk in a snake costume. The Site The site has to be a maze like city where you cannot easily make short cuts.

Sebastian's Games Mission 3: "Subverting Cartography" Pick and Deliver game Paving the Way [GAME 3.2, TYPE: SGL] The game is played in teams of two players. One player acts as a sort of guide for the other player who has to closely follow the path the guide took. The object of the game is to deliver some secret good to some hidden place within the city. The job of the guide is to create a map of the way to the hidden place for the deliverer. As a consequence the deliverers map only consists of the path the guide has taken. To make it more readable and to help the deliverer to adjust the map to the real world, the guide can place a virtual marker near the way that should functions as a reference point for the deliverer. This way it will be easier for him to align the map to the real world.

[GAME 3.3, TYPE: SGL] 1.) Find the 10 most non­interesting POI in Bamberg 2.) The player gets a disordered map of Bamberg and has to reorder it, by going to a object shown on the map, pick it up and then drop it at its correct location. 3.) The player gets to see/read 10 pictures/textual descriptions about 10 places in Bamberg and has to find them as quickly as possible Technology All game ideas can be realized using GPS localization and mobile phones.

Klaus' Game

page 258 of 265 Move your meeble [GAME 3.4, TYPE: SGL] Mission: "There is No ... Escape" The inspiring sentence was: "All the streets are suddenly one way." Main Game Idea • The player should not be restricted to go whereever he physically can. • How could this be combined with oneway streets? • On the virtual map the player has a meeble (token, avatar, ball, ...) following him wherever he goes. • The meeble will be stopped by virtual borders, oneways, etc. • The meeble may go where the player cannot (e.g. walls) using secret passages • All this restrictions are not shown on the map but uncovered by try and error. Power­Ups • There are some objects lying around which give all kinds of power­ups to the meebvle, e.g. • immediately jump to the player • go wrong way once • disconnect for a certain time/until reconnection • ... • Some of the power ups have to be picked by the player, others by the meeble • Power ups are not shown on the map from the beginning but uncovered by the player by looking in certain places (at statues, paintings etc.). Use game ideas from the last sessions for this. Team playing • Players and meebles are disconnected in the beginning, players of one team can connect to any meeble of their color • By two players connecting to the same meeble at the same time they can lead it to weird places. • So players can move/position meebles of their team on the field • Play catch the flag or be the first team to get some meeble to a certain place etc. Meeble properties • Gained by power­ups or given to certain meebles from start • So you have meebles which can cross water, etc. Player interaction • If you catch another player you can freeze his meeble for some time

Height and Depth We should think about using the third dimension of space in Geogames. E.g. we could allow meebles to go under bridges or fly over buildings etc. Drag the map [GAME 3.5, TYPE: SGL] • Present a topologically correct but metrically distorted map • Provide some handles • Player can attach to some handle and drag it by walking around • Try to restore the metrically correct map

page 259 of 265 14.9 I. Site­specific Game Design Workshop

Games Designed

Nicolais spil [GAME 1] Impossible tracks Strategi spil

Mit forslag går ud på at lave "Human Snake" på RUC. Der skal være to eller flere hold. Hvert hold skal symbolisere en slange ligesom det originale Snake spil vi kender. De skal så ved hjælp af en GPS gå rundt på RUCs gangarealer. Det kan laves ude og indenfor, eller kombineres. Ligesom normalt skal slangen kunne blive længere. Det kunne gøres ved endten at have en masse medspillere der spiller de her ekstra stykker som slange spiser. De skal så koble sig til slangen så den bliver længere og længere. Man kunne også gøre det ved at involvere tilfældige studerende på RUC og få dem til at blive en del af legen. Man kunne også udvide spillet rent teknologisk, ved at have en "snakemaster" per slange der ved hjælp af GPS kan følge med i hvor hver slange er henne. De kunne så hjælpe med at guide slangen rundt ved hjælp af en mobil og fange den anden slange på den ene eller anden måde. Evt. ved at omringe den anden slange.

Jannicks spil [GAME 2] Game: "Routes Uncovered". ­ Det skal foregå på vejene og stierne på RUC. Memory Game. ­ Det skal være et huskespil

Spillet minder meget om "Simon" her beskrevet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(game). For at prøve spillet: http://www.freegames.ws/games/kidsgames/simon/mysimon.htm

Spillet har 4 felter i hver sin farve og i første omgang bliver et felt oplyst, derefter skal man trykke på dette felt. Herefter bliver feltet oplyst igen, efterfulgt af et nyt felt og igen skal man trykke på det første og så det andet og sådan fortsætter spiller med 3, 4, 5 felter og så mange man kan huske derefter. Man taber når man ikke kan huske rækkefølgen af de oplyste felter.

Mit spilforslag er dette spil blot med lyd. Nede ved brosystemet ved Trekronersøen slutter broerne brat. Ved hver broene skal der så stå en med et anlæg, som spiller et kort sang/lyd. Spilleren skal så have et anlæg med hver af de fire sange/lyde og så spille dem i den rækkefølge han/hun hører dem. Man skal så spille indtil man husker forkert og så kan man

page 260 of 265 eventuelt bytte med folkene på broenerne.

Spillet kan selvfølgelig overføres til mange andre situationer.

Anders Spil [GAME 3] Assassination Game

Game: "Keep Away" og "Item hunt game" Teknologi: Facebook og kamera på mobiltelefon. I dette spil skal man jagte andre studerende. Man modtager et kort med et billed og et navn. Nu er missionen at jagte personen og skaffe et billed af deres ryg. Dette billede oploades på facebook som bevis. Den person der skaffer flest billeder, modtager en gevinst.

Esbens Spil [GAME 4] Sort/Hvid GPS løbe spil Tankerne omkring: To hold med x antal deltagere starter hvert sit sted og skal løbe rund til de placerede gpsfelter og vende en brik så den er enten sort eller hvid, det andet hold kan se hvor modstanderne løber og vender brikker og skal igennem taktik få flest brikker til at vende med deres farve opad. Spillet kører på tid, evt er der kun en der har en modtager og kan se de andre og ske igennem walkie takie eller mobil. det ville give spillet en ekstra dimension. Ideen er at man kan lave banen om fra gang til gang og efter antal spillere. spillet kræver at man er udstyret med små individuelle gpser eller telefoner med gpser.

Lins spil [GAME 5] STRANGES TAGS // MEMORY GAME Forstil jer hvis man forstørrede Memory spillet op i kæmpe format, så man kunne gå rundt på brikkerne, som på en meget smart og elektronisk måde var projekteret ned på den store græsplane (kramme græsplænen). For at vende brikkerne skulle man så hoppe to gange, både når man skulle vende dem om og tilbage igen, igen bruges der noget smart elektrisk udstyr. Billederne/symbolerne, på brikkerne, har jeg endnu ikke besluttet mig for hvordan skal se ud. Måske kunne det være sjovt fx. at se et billede af Niels og så den der passer på ham, skulle være et billede af hans kontor. På den måde kunne man blive mere kendt med RUC. ­ lidt søgt, her kunne man sagtens finde på noget mere spralsk!

Theis' spil [GAME 6] 1. Spil ­­> Trag'n Trade

Mit spil går ud på at vi har et antal personer som får tildelt et billede hver af en location. De

page 261 of 265 skal nu ud og finde stedet og når de har taget et billed med mobilen af stedet får de tilsendt reglerne. Der ligger en konvolut på stedet hvor der er nogle billeder af andre steder. Det gælder nu om at samle fem billeder af ens eget location ved at bytte med de andre deltagere og om man vil gøre det ved at blive sidende og vente på at de andre kommer eller ved at løbe ud lede efter de andre som man skal bytte billeder med. Man vinder spillet når man har taget et billed af de fem billeder med sin mobil og sendt dem til det nummer man modtog instruktioner fra i starten.

Evaluation of The Method Observations by EK

Brug af metoden 2 gange Workshop HumTek 19 deltagere

Evaluering af metode.

”Det er nemmere at bruge metoden anden gang”

”Det er godt at det er en guidet metode. Det gør at man er mere fokuseret”

”Man går rundt på RUC, steder hvor man aldrig har været. Det er spændende”

”Når man allerede har en god idé er det måske overflødigt”

”Selvom man har idé, giver det ideer til andre når man evaluerer bagefter. Det er noget man kan samle op på”

”Det er en god metode, hvis er låst fast på en ide. Man kan få helt nye ideer, når man kommer ud af de faste rammer”

”Det at høre andres ideer er meget væsentligt”

”Man tænker anderledes, når man går rundt. Det var sjovt”

”Det var godt at gå mens man fik ideer”

”Jeg så steder på RUC jeg ikke havde set før. Hvor jeg aldrig havde været”

”Man så bygningerne på en helt anden måde. Det var godt at det var guidet. At man skulle noget bestemt. Det gjorde det nemmere at få ideer”

page 262 of 265 ”Det er godt at man tvinges til at se noget man ikke ser på RUC”

”Godt at metoden er guidet. Det er nemmere at få ideer når man løser opgaver”

”Sjov måde at få ideer på”

”Man har tit brug for at tænke alene og så var det godt med evaluering samme bagefter”

”Det at bevæge sig var fantastisk sjovt. Jeg fik mange ideer”

”Det var vigtigt at evaluere bagefter. Det var besværligt med wiki, men godt at man fik tænkt det igennem igen”

”Vi plejer altid at snakke sammen når vi får ideer, men det var bedre at gå alene og så evaluere”

”Min ide blev først færdig da jeg skrev den på wiki om aftenen”

”Det var godt at være alene. Jeg tænker bedst alene. Bagefter fik jeg mange ideer ved at høre på de andre”

”Det var sjovt at gå rundt på RUC og se stedet på en anden måde. Det var meget inspirerende”

”Min ide var ikke så god, men den blev bedre da jeg præsenterede den ved evalueringen”

”Det var godt at være alene, når man skulle arbejde med at få ideer”

”Jeg tror det var nemmere at få ideer, når man havde missionen at gå efter”

”Missionerne var gode, selvom de var lidt svære”

”Nr 2 gang var nemmere, fordi vi kendte metoden”

”Det var spændende bare at gå og se på bygninger og stier uden at skulle til et bestemt sted”

page 263 of 265 15 SUMMARY IN DANISH / DANSK RESUMÉ

Denne afhandling omhandler design af stedsforankrede computerspil (site­specific games). Det er spil som spilles i hele byrummet og som baseres på bærbar teknologi. Området site­ specific games defineres som en genre af pervasive games, som de spil hvor stedet og spillernes bevægelser er særlig i fokus.

Afhandlingen introducerer området ved at se på et spilprojekt der ikke lykkedes. Projektet blev gennemført uden anvendelse af en designmetode, men viser at anvendelse af en designmetode kunne have reddet projektet. Dette synes i særdeleshed at være tilfældet for den tidlige del af designarbejdet. Afhandlingen omhandler den teoretiske baggrund og det praktiske designarbejde med at udvikle en designmetode til site­specific games.

Som inspiration ses på performance studies. Det vises, at der er en tæt kobling mellem studiet af leg, spil og performances og at det at spille et site­specific game kan forståes som en speciel slags performance. Et område af performance studies omhandler studiet af performances, der opføres udenfor teatret, kaldet site­specific performances. På basis af ideer fra design af site­specific performances og situeret design udvikles en metode til design af site­specific games.

Designmetoden baserer sig på missionsorienterede spil med spillekort og en pudsig måde at udforske byer på, kaldet dérive fra den Situationistiske bevægelse. En vigtig egenskab ved designmetoden er at designarbejdet foregår på stedet.

Designmetoden evalueres ved anvendelse af design science research, gennem ideen at bruge både ex ante og ex post evaluering. Gennem en serie af iterationer udvikles designmetoden ved praktisk arbejde med designsessioner, spildesign og evalueringer af spil. Det mislykkede projekt fra introduktionen redesignes ved hjælp af designmetoden til et fungerende spil.

Evaluering af designmetoden viser, at den støtter tidlig idegenerering for site­specific games

page 264 of 265 og at designere fandt metoden inspirerende at arbejde med.

References

page 265 of 265