by Ryan Wasson
Remember my last post on Pokémon GO (if you haven’t you should check it out)? Well, I’m revisiting the topic again with an emphasis on the unlevel playing field the game poses. And by an unlevel playing field, I mean that quite literally with how certain players face certain restrictions when playing the game for multiple reasons.
I read a brief scholarly article published by Katie Salen Tekinbaş, co-founder and Chief Designer of an online learning platform known as Connected Camps, who describes herself as a “game designer at heart.” Tekinbaş poses questions concerning accessibility, privilege, and race as issues in relation to Pokémon GO as something to consider.
She addresses the concepts of accessibility and privilege issues in regard to the mobile nature of Pokémon GO. As a quick refresher, to play the game, players are required to move around their environment, exploring their surroundings to find and capture Pokémon. In addition, players can train their Pokémon and compete with other online players at designated “Pokestops” and gyms. However, these locations often require players to travel long distances in relation to where someone may live.
Tekinbaş points out that exploring one’s environment helps bring a sense of belonging and ownership, especially for children (Tekinbaş, 2017). However, she says that to play the game with “any real intensity,” players have to venture into territories, specifically neighborhoods, that aren’t their own (Tekinbaş, 2017). This issue is one that can be a problem for anyone, but this is where the concept of race comes into play for Tekinbaş.
African Americans in particular, Tekinbaş notes in her findings, are subject to racism in who is unofficially allowed in certain neighborhoods (Tekinbaş, 2017). According to Tekinbaş, a blog post from Catsuit Monarchy says that should a black person want to play Pokémon GO in a white neighborhood, they need to a follow a list of criteria so as to not seem suspicious (Tekinbaş, 2017). Tekinbaş also touches on the idea of the safety of black folks in dangerous neighborhoods where black people can be at risk of dying (Tekinbaş, 2017). I agree with this analysis, and I believe it highlights the privileges white people, in particular, hold when it comes to who can and can’t play Pokémon GO to its fullest extent.
As a white person myself, I certainly don’t have to worry about being shot when rounding every street corner I turn. I don’t have to worry about being looked at a certain way when I am out and about. The biggest concerns I’d have when playing Pokémon GO would essentially boil down to hoping my phone doesn’t die on me while playing. To say someone like me has it easy would be the understatement of the year. Even though I haven’t played the game a whole lot, the premise still remains, and I believe this is, at least, one of the ideas that Tekinbaş is trying to subliminally get across.
Having said this, I firmly believe that Pokémon GO is an example of a game that isn’t quite entirely mobile. In the realm of mobile technology, it may be mobile for certain groups of people. But looking at the game from a wider lens, it’s safe to say, for me anyways, that the vast majority of people can’t enjoy Pokémon GO to its fullest extent. Players, no matter what their background, face potential racial, societal, or geographic restrictions that will mitigate the player experience to a certain extent.
I certainly believe, however, that Pokémon GO is one of the best examples we have now in the effort to push towards a fully-fledged mobile game that actually lives up to the phrase “mobile game.” But as we move in that direction, we can’t forget the sociological issues that surround the accessibility of these kinds of games. In the end, until we can make a game that is truly mobile and accessible to all, in the words of Tekinbaş, “the game is only fair while it remains unplayed,” (Tekinbaş, 2017).
Comments