Hello… The Smithsonian American Art Museum shares a building with the National Portrait Gallery in downtown DC. The museum is home to a large collection of American art, representing more than seven thousand artists from the colonial period to today.

1

Background - GOAC In 2008, we ran an Alternate Reality Game called Ghosts of a Chance. An ARG is an interactive story that demands players’ active participation – the story does not continue unless players do something. It takes place in real time and using real world elements (phones, web, email, physical spaces, etc.). We did not have any defined goals at the beginning of this project, nor did we have a clear idea of exactly what it would look like, but we determined the project to be a success because: It attracted a new audience of ARG-players to our online collections, it got teenagers and young adults excited about interacting with museum collections, and it promoted the museum through press and online activity.

2

Overview of Pheon In 2010, we launched a new game, Pheon. This was intended to build upon the success of Ghosts of a Chance, and apply everything we learned from running the first game. It ran from October 2010 through October 2011 and took place both online and on site. We did define our goals before developing Pheon, though they were still fairly broad. Our goals were to: Increase familiarity with our collections. Players should leave the game with new knowledge about the types of work we have in our collection. Inspire creativity. Players should physically do something that has a tangible and documented result in order to progress through the game. Connect art with people’s lives: Players should discover connections between the artworks and artists in our collection and their own lives. Promote the American Art Museum: As with “Ghosts of a Chance,” we wanted the game to attract new audiences, primarily on-line, but also in the real world. There were two versions of the game. One version could be played online through a Facebook application. The other was an adaptation of the Facebook game for use in the Museum as a multimedia scavenger hunt. It’s worth noting here that the game was designed for multiple institutions. Different museums would be able to work with the game designers to create content specific to their goals.

3

About the Game - Narrative There was a detailed narrative behind Pheon. The game was set in Terra Tectus, a secret world in which two peoples, Staves and Knaves, were at war. Some of the characters were based on real figures from history. The idea was that Terra Tectus needed humans, i.e. players, to help end the war, which they did by completing missions.

4

Evaluation We worked with UXR Consulting to do a exploratory summative evaluations of both versions of the game last summer. The online game was evaluated through a web-based survey that went to people who had played the game online, as well as non-players, since we hoped that their responses would provide some insight into why we struggled to attract people to the game. The on site game was evaluated through observations, interviews, and open-ended survey questions.

5

First, the Online Game This was the main focus of the game. The online game ran through a Facebook app. Players could sign up, accept different missions, complete them in the real world, then upload photographs or videos to show that they completed the mission and progress through the game. We were very proud of Pheon. We felt that it boasted more sophisticated game design than Ghosts of a Chance. We were happy with our decision to run the online game through Facebook, since we thought that this represented a huge audience of people who wanted to play games. We even received money from a Smithsonian innovation fund…

6

Unfortunately, no one played. In 12 months, only 68 people played, and even those people only completed a small part of the game. The evaluation showed us that there were three main reasons why the game failed…

7

#1 Narrative PHEON’s story was designed for use across multiple Museum institutions, but unfortunately it was only ever deployed at the American Art Museum. Because of this, the narrative did not connect directly to the Museum. Blurring the lines between reality and fiction is a critical component of an ARG, so we should have created a storyline that connected directly to the real world of the Museum in some way. The Facebook interface detracted from players’ total immersion into the world of Terra Tectus, and the casual, drop-in nature of Facebook use also limited the extent to which players could immerse themselves in the fiction of the game. The narrative was also far too complex, and did not have any obvious connection to player activity – it continued in the same direction regardless of what players did.

8

What went wrong? #2 Facebook We found that Facebook was a huge barrier to participation. The overarching sentiment by non-players was that Facebook was not an ideal platform for a game like PHEON due to: they had strong perceptions of what types of games are or should be played on Facebook; they did not use Facebook very often; or they had a general dislike for Facebook. Many people also cited privacy or spam concerns as a reason for not engaging with ANY apps on Facebook. Even for Facebook users that did engage with games, we found that Pheon demanded far too much of them. Casual games like Farmville or Mafia Wars are successful on Facebook because they require only quick bursts of player effort and take only a little time to understand. Pheon asked players to engage with and understand a complex narrative, accept missions, do things in the real world, and then follow up by uploading photographs.

9

What went wrong? #3 Marketing In contrast to the people who did not like the idea of an ARG on Facebook, there were several others who found the idea intriguing, but had simply never heard of the game. This points to a potential marketing issue. These are people who were in the target audience - gamers with a Facebook account that they used regularly - but who the advertising channels never reached. We also found that the title, game description, or other components of the game’s branding did not sufficiently convey what the game was about to make people want to play it.

10

In contrast, the on-site game was quite successful. Visitors to the Museum competed as either Staves or Knaves. Players then followed clues and completed tasks around the entire museum. The activities were designed to engage people with the artworks and take them around the museum in unconventional ways. Tasks included: finding objects, solving codes, making things, performing, and answering questions.

11

We had relatively good participation in this part of the game and the evaluation showed us that players demonstrated 21st century and museum literacy skills as well as overall satisfaction and enjoyment. I’m going to highlight a few examples of the skills demonstrated by players – for full details see the reports.

12

Technology literacy: The museum has computer kiosks that provide access to a digital catalogue of artworks. Pheon required players to find and use these early on, which meant that they often returned to them unprompted to search for answers at other parts of the game. Players also showed comfort using cell phones and text messaging in a museum setting, since many parts of the game required them to respond to text messages or make phone calls.

13

21st century skills: Trial and Error Trial and error was the most common form of problem solving engaged in by players, and was most often seen with use of the different technologies in the game. If an initial response returned an error, players would continually think up variations to try until they got it right.

14

21st century skills: Re-reading and re-considering If trial and error did not work, groups would re-read or re-consider the clue, and would often re-trace their steps to the last part of the game. 21st century skills: Team work (division of labor) Pheon was designed to be played in a group, so team work was a common strategy. When they had to find an artwork in a particular gallery, they would often split up in order to search more efficiently. Pheon also involved many different skills – from solving complex codes to creating sculptures from foil, so members of a team would apply their strengths depending on the task at hand.

15

21st century skills: Talking to strangers Talking to strangers in art museums is a rare event. Pheon players were often seen talking to other groups, seeking help on particularly difficult tasks. Players were easy to identify because of their Pheon buttons or disguises. 21st century skills: Group and intergenerational learning PHEON was deliberately designed in a way that working as a group would be more beneficial than working alone. Older individuals would often take a leadership role, but younger members of a group were relied upon to help with the text messages and kiosk use.

16

Museum Literacy: Engaging with staff Players talked to anyone that they thought might help when they were stuck! In addition to talking to the museum staff that were running the game, they also engaged with security officers and information desk attendants. The silliness of many of the game tasks helped to remove any intimidation that visitors might feel in asking staff a question.

17

Museum Literacy: Connecting with art Connecting with art was a huge part of the game. Players noticed new artworks, engaged with pieces deliberately through the game, connected art to other life experiences, described learning something new, recalled objects and galleries after the fact, and from time to time, let the art overshadow the game play. Many parts of the game required players to study or interact with an artwork. (foil sculpture and sheet music) Everyone we surveyed in the evaluation was able to recall at least one artwork in detail, even several months after they played the game.

18

Museum Literacy: Label reading & Terminology This was an easy one. Players often had to read a label in order to answer a question in the game. In many instances, when they didn’t know exactly which artwork they were looking for, they would read every label in the gallery to try and find the answer. The game also taught them elements of museum terminology, including accession numbers, computer kiosks, and gallery names.

19

Museum Literacy: Connecting with museum as space & assessing creature comforts Players connected with the museum spaces as well as the artwork. Many people reported that they saw parts of the museum they had not seen before, or they experienced the art museum in a new way. The game involved a great deal of walking and moving between floors, and took around 2 hours to complete. As a result, players learned quickly the location of elevators and benches throughout the museum!

20

Spatial Navigation & Orientation Our museum map did not work very well for the game! The map is designed for a regular museum visitor, accessing the museum in a conventional way. Pheon is a vertical game, and players found it very difficult to navigate between the floors. However, many players reported that they enjoyed getting lost during the game, using the experience to see new things which occasionally helped them at future points in the game.

21

In Summary… Lessons Learned We should have kept the game simple and focused on the museum and its collection. Not tried to incorporate a complicated narrative We should have been strategic about defining an audience and marketing to them. (Online) we should have researched Facebook as a platform! (On site) we should have created a map that was customized for the game What we know Games can encourage 21st century skills and museum literacy Games can help people be less intimidated about art and museums Games can inspire memorable connections with art But, the platform matters!

22