Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 1567–1582 | Cite as

The Malthusian Paradox: performance in an alternate reality game

  • Elizabeth Evans
  • Martin FlinthamEmail author
  • Sarah Martindale
Original Article


The Malthusian Paradox is a transmedia alternate reality game (ARG) created by artists Dominic Shaw and Adam Sporne played by 300 participants over 3 months. We explore the design of the game, which cast players as agents of a radical organisation attempting to uncover the truth behind a kidnapping and a sinister biotech corporation and highlight how it redefined performative frames by blurring conventional performer and spectator roles in sometimes discomforting ways. Players participated in the game via a broad spectrum of interaction channels, including performative group spectacles and 1-to-1 engagements with game characters in public settings, making use of low- and high-tech physical and online artefacts including bespoke and third-party websites. Players and game characters communicated via telephony and social media in both a designed and an ad hoc manner. We reflect on the production and orchestration of the game, including the dynamic nature of the strong episodic narrative driven by professionally produced short films that attempted to respond to the actions of players and the difficulty of designing for engagement across hybrid and temporally expansive performance space. We suggest that an ARG whose boundaries are necessarily unclear affords rich and emergent, but potentially unsanctioned and uncontrolled, opportunities for interactive performance, which raises significant challenges for design.


Alternate reality game ARG Pervasive game Hybrid performance spaces Player agency 



Our thanks to Dominic Shaw and Adam Sporne of Urban Angel for providing research access and materials. The Malthusian Paradox was supported using public funding by the National Lottery through Arts Council England. This research was supported by the Mixed Reality Laboratory (EP/F03038X/1) and Horizon Digital Economy Research (EP/G065802/1).


  1. 1.
    Benford S, Crabtree A, Reeves S, Sheridan J, Dix A, Flintham M, Drozd A (2006) The frame of the game: blurring the boundary between fiction and reality in mobile experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 427–436Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishop C (2006) Introduction. In: Bishop C (ed) Participation. MIT Press, London, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boal A (1979) Theatre of the oppressed Charles A. and Maria-Odilia Leal McBride (Trans.). Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cawelti JG, Rosenberg BA (1987) The spy story. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans E (2011) Transmedia television: audiences, new media and daily life. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer-Lichte E (2013) Politics of spatial appropriation, Michael Breslin and Saskya Iris Jain (Trans.). In: Fischer-Lichte E, Wihstutz B (eds) Performance and the politics of space. Routledge, New York, pp 219–238Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gennette G (1997) Paratexts: thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray J (2010) Show sold separately: promos, spoilers and other media paratexts. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansen DL, Bonsignore EM, Ruppel M, Visconti A, Kraus K (2013) Designing reusable alternate reality games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1529–1538Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jenkins H (2006) Convergence culture: when new and old media collide. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juul J (2008) Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lévy P (1997) Collective intelligence: mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Livingstone S (1998 (1990)) Making sense of television: the psychology of audience interpretation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin A, Thompson B, Chatfield T (2006) Alternate reality games white paper. International game developers association alternate reality games SIG. Retrieved May 2013
  16. 16.
    McGonical J (2003) A real little game: the performance of belief in pervasive play. 030303: Collective Play, Research Colloquium, University of California at Berkeley, March 3. Retrieved May 2013
  17. 17.
    McGonigal J (2011) Reality is broken. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGonigal J (2008) Why I love bees: a case study in collective intelligence gaming. In: Salen K (ed) The ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 199–227Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore C (2011) The magic circle and the mobility of play. Converg Int J Res New media Technol 17(4):373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montola M (2005) Exploring the edge of the magic circle: defining pervasive games. In: Proceedings of digital arts and culture, Copenhagen, December 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Hara K, Grian H, Williams J (2008) Participation, collaboration and spectatorship in an alternate reality game. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: designing for habitus and habitat (OZCHI ‘08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 130–139Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter MJ, Larson DL, Harthcock A, Berg Nellis K (2002) (Re)defining narrative events: examining television narrative structure. J Pop Film Telev 30(1):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Project A.P.E. Retrieved May 2013
  24. 24.
    Richardson I (2011) The hybrid ontology of mobile gaming. Converg Int J Res New media Technol 17(4):419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salen K, Zimmerman E (2004) Rules of play: game design fundamentals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Evans
    • 1
  • Martin Flintham
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Martindale
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations