INTRODUCTION | GAME THEORY | DESIGN THEORY | GAMES { 1 2 3 4 5 6 }
	{Game 5} Superpower prototypes excerpts from the inspection kit for the "second sense" prototype 'expert' inspection of the prototype   groupwork in the city, 'treasure-hunt' format testing the prototypes in new contexts combining prototype 'powers' to enable 'problem' situations collaborative enactment of new scenarios   Game 5 proposes a set of interaction props for behaving and misbehaving in public space. As prototype superpowers, the objects (accompanied by an ‘inspection kit’) engage players in a product fiction about how mechanical, aesthetic and electronic properties could support new social engagement, self and community expression in the city. The game was enacted with 7 people (‘prototype inspectors’) in February 2003 in the streets of Göteborg. The seven interaction props vary in size and shape and suggest powers and modes of use. Endowing participants with the fictional role of 'prototype inspectors' set the stage for suspension of disbelief by combining an immersive narrative with game play and giving each player a different set of concerns and expertise. The props were first explored in a workshop context, where each participant performs tasks and ‘inspection tests’ on their objects, each of which has a particular formal affordance (such as sound projection through a physical form), mechanical or natural property (such as magnetism or sound absorption), or low-fidelity electronic behavior (such as modes of light projection). “Second Sense: prototype model no. Y19 size L : Durable & practical for Invisible forces and yes or no answers…” Once participants are sufficiently invested and experts on their superpower prototype, the second half of the workshop involves participants in roving around the city in a team 'treasure hunt' for solving problems collaboratively using the combined properties of the props to solve problems. Coordinating individual invention, imagination props, and a group treasure hunt format, Game 5 applied enactment to structure free improvisational ‘prob solving.’ This resulted in new and unimagined behaviors, total group identity, personal investment in the story, and advocacy of individual ‘functions’.