**5.3 If you go away**

*'We wanted to know if you can move people emotionally through an augmented digital experience. It turns out you can, but only a some of them!' [57]*

The final example offered here is *If You Go Away,* created by UK-based arts organisation Invisible Flock (2015). This interactive, site-specific game sought to explore ideas of loneliness and isolation in urban settings, using GPS and augmented reality to offer a reimagination of the cities in which it was hosted including Leeds, Nottingham and Manchester (UK). The game offered an '*augmented reality journey through the streets made strange and new'* [58]*.* The game used a point-click model of gaming, inspired by titles such as Monkey Island™ and combined this with augmented reality to provide a games mechanic that required players to interact simultaneously with both physical and digital features in order to solve puzzles and progress. Players were required to, for example, place a digital (on-screen) beer can in a physical (real world) bin.

An interview with the creative director of Invisible Flock, Ben Eaton [57], found a number of relevant concepts that both relate to, and were to some extent the inspiration for, the measures of pleasure explored in this chapter. With reference to completion, for example, 240 participants began engaging with the game, which took about 2 hours and culminated with a digitally mediated dance on a bridge at sunset.

*Right Game, Wrong Place? A Case Study: Using a Gamified AR Application in a Heritage… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107535*

Of those 240, only around 10 reached this culmination, which *'from a publicly funded piece of art perspective, you could argue is slightly problematic in terms of access. But as a game with a certain amount of win or fail state built into it, it is less problematic, it's actually part of the medium'* [57].

To turn to the second pleasure concept, the pleasure of challenge, Eaton says of the puzzle element of the point and clicks mechanic in his game: *'..it was hard, and for people who understood what they were doing, they enjoyed it and it was fun*', but '*a lot of people didn't.* It is reasonable to assume an interrelationship here; the level of challenge was either greater than expected and implied by the context of the offering, or those participating did not recognise the puzzle mechanism and thus found it difficult to progress. This will be considered in more detail in the context of the main project.

What of course the eagle-eyed reader will have realised is that the pleasure of creativity as defined above is not found in any of the above examples. A search for examples of gamified applications, situated in cultural spaces, seeking to, or capable of eliciting, the pleasure of creativity as defined here has been unsuccessful to date, despite all the models, both from within game design and more broadly, emphasising its efficacy. Indeed, there are only limited examples to be found in the wider literature (see Refs. [59–61]) primary motivation for exploring this form of pleasure and in seeking to employ it in the TNAR project described below.
