In my previous posting I tried to make explicit my position on the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to require that PG have some kind of impact on how people perceive, navigate through and relate to their spatial and social surroundings. I suggested that a worthwhile PG (worthwhile, that is, from the perspective of locative media practices) is one that makes us think critically about the city in a topographic, historical, social or political sense or, even better, in a way that brings together all or some of these dimensions. Admittedly, I didn’t offer much argument in support of my suggestion (I was merely trying to disentangle it from some of the other things that have been written lately on the blog about this subject). I believe, however, that the argument can be found in the overall theorization on locative media and, more specifically, in the claim (subscribed, it seems, by several practitioners) that locative media “can reconfigure our everyday life … by renewing our sense of place in the world” (Tuters and Varnelis). Once we subscribe to the aim of “renewing our sense of place”, however, it seems to me that the commitment to a critical rethinking of the space we inhabit becomes unavoidable. Therefore, insofar as PG purports to be a locative media practice, it must at the very least provoke critical rethinking of our environments.
Before turning to the question of whether or not Uncle Roy succeeds in provoking such a critical rethinking, let me try to refine the “criticality requirement” that I’m proposing. The first point I must clarify is WHOSE experience of the city a pervasive game should impact. Who should be the subject of the “critical rethinking” provoked by the game? I would be content if the game had an impact on either the players, or some external observers (the audience at large who may read or hear about the game), or ideally both. This may sound trivial, but I don’t think it is. Basically, I’m conceding that even if the players’ own experience of the city did not change in a critical direction as a result of the game (let’s say they “just” had fun), the game would still be worthwhile if its overall design and structure (including the acritical participation of the players) was able to stimulate critical reflection in external observers. At the same time, I’m conceding that the game would be worthwhile even if the players were the only parties critically affected (so to speak) by the game. Let me add, moreover, that I’m willing not to take efficacy as a necessary condition: provided that the aim of stimulating a critical rethinking of the city was part of the game’s design, I would be content even if the game failed in actually achieving its aim. At the same time, I’m inclined to take efficacy as a sufficient condition: even if the game was not explicitly designed to stimulate a critical rethinking of space and social relations, I would still consider it relevant (from the point of view of locative media) if it consistently happened to have a critical impact (so to speak) on the players and/or on external observers. Overall, in sum, I believe that the “criticality requirement” I’m proposing is as generous as it can be. What the requirement does NOT condone, however, are pervasive games whose claim to relevance from the perspective of locative media is solely based on the fact that they are designed to be played in cities.
