Ian Bogost
Author of: Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Games
http://www.bogost.com
Working to expand the application of games in the
world…trying to force games to do things we’re not used to them doing – games
outside of traditional uses, outside of entertainment.
We associate games with childrens’ culture – with sloth –
“isn’t there something better you should be doing with your time?”
And so while Bogost has been doing his work, out of nowhere
came these consultants touting “gamification.” A lot of hype out of nowhere
that has accelerated over the past three years.
Using game design in new applications (what Bogost is
looking at) vs. gamification…
“Gamification” as a word is brilliant because it makes the
process sound easy. Makes it sound so
simple: “We can just gamify this…”, “Insert coin to gamify your business.”
-ification makes it sound so very easy…
As a designer…Bogost things gamification doesn’t have much
in common with game design. Save maybe
that it’s taking advantage of the mystery around games.
There is something magical about games; they have power over
us.
Game Design vs.
Gamification
We’re always really learning when we’re playing games…and in
a particular way. It’s not just a skin deep layer, real game design is deep.
Seven different distinctions between game design and
gamification.
Out of these, he’ll try to tease out a design pattern.
Game design vs.
Gamification
Complexity vs. simplicity
Context vs. isolation
Conditions vs. authority
Transformation vs. engagement
Relationship vs. reward
Discourse vs. quantification
Understanding vs. compliance
Complexity vs.
Simplicity
Simplicity: The Fitbit – an example of gamification and
simplicity (“the quantified self movement”). It tracks your progress, catalogs
your achievements and badges. It’s a clever accessory and a way to visualize
your physical activity.
[The idea here is not to decry these things, but to
distinguish them from game design practice.]
Complexity: Fatworld – a game about the politics of
nutrition. An example of Complexity/Game Design. A game about the relationship
between obesity and social class and politics and other predispositions. Your
overall wellness is based on decisions that you make.
Fatworld is an example of a design pattern: “Modeling”. A model offers an abstracted,
simplified model of the world.
Context vs. Isolation
Isolation: He shows an example of a gamified training program
at Ford. It’s got badges and
things. This program is not about the
learning content – it’s removed the content from the experience. The experience
is how to get points and badges in relation to working through the course
itself, and not the experience of the content.
Context: An example of a game he created for Coldstone
Creamery, which provided lots of context for employees. Not just how to pull
the ice cream, but also a model for the employees of how to keep the franchise
afloat (by not serving too much ice cream!)
An example of the design pattern: world-building.
Conditions vs.
Authority
Authority: Gamification usually just looks like a layer
spread on top of another program. He shows an example of a leadership program
with leader boards and badges and so on. And so what gamification does here is
proxy authorities—by sneaking in the incentives of badges, we hope it gets
people to actually do the learning.
Conditions: Plato from the 70’s – a game called Tenure. The
premise of Tenure was: this is your first year as a highschool teacher. Can you
get through it?
Design pattern: emergence.
With simple building blocks and tools you construct something large than the
usual parts. Like Civ or SimCity.
Transformation vs.
Engagement
Gamification hopes to capture more and more attention, while
game design wants to capture a small bit of that attention to reshape the
player’s behavior.
Engagement: Trying to build subscriptions and views to a
small town newspaper through badges and such.
Transformation: Animal Crossing as an example. Learning
about mortgages and earning income…
Design pattern: the importance of role play. We are all constantly
role-playing all the time, especially when we are learning. That’s where we
role-play our future self. Good game design lets us play a version of ourselves
where we know more than we do.
Relationship vs.
Reward
Reward: Bluewolf as an example…extrinsic rewards that
someone asks you to do.
Relationship: Bejewled.
Offers far more reasons to return to it – it’s always going to be there
to give you a consistent and reliable distraction. That’s the promise of
bejeweled. It’s a relationship. Chess—you could devote your life to it. There’s always something new that the game
gives back.
Loyalty programs are not really about relationship.
Design pattern: kinship…good
games are things you have an affinity for, that you want to return to.
Discourse vs.
quantification
Games are more about qualitative experience rather than
quantification.
Quantification: Salesforce has a leaderboard and how much
you’ve brought in for enumerating the experience of working a sales job. Getting a number out of our actions to
measure against ourselves, our coworkers or our competitors.
Discourse: Points of Entry Game. Took the legislation (which was essentially a
points incentive program for immigration) – so in the game, you would pit
immigrants against each other. So you
could experience what it would feel like to be an immigrant. The aim was to
enter into your world-view and give you something to discuss.
Design pattern: deliberation.
Give you something to consider and then decide how you’re going to incorporate
it into your world. That’s how you know
if a game is good—if you want to talk about it.
If you play the game and have a conversation about immigration…games are
not measurement tools, they’re more like creativity and films and novels…to
consider the topics they present in different contexts.
Understanding vs.
Compliance
Compliance: Hygenix – a wrist band in hospitals to get
workers to comply with frequent handwashing. Feedback loops to drive
compliance. Like the Prius dashboard that helps us drive in a more fuel
efficient manner.
Understanding: Killer Flu game – game about the spread of
the flu and how the seasonal flu operates. When you play a game like this, it’s
helping you understand the underlying decisions—why your choices matter
regarding washing your hands frequently.
Design pattern: Process.
Games give us an experience of the depth and not just the surface. Feedback is only useful if you understand
what it really means. The game shows you the operation of the system and how it
really works (e.g., a game on congressional redistricting).
The Design Patterns represent some of the key properties
underlying game design—and what to consider with learning. Something worth pursuing.
Don't sugar coat our work with games….we don’t want to
sweeten the taste of our work, we want to treat them seriously.
The principles/design patterns – give us a way to express
this and pursue different aspects of our jobs. To deepen our understanding of
our work, not sweeten it.
He shares that people from the general public have emailed, wanting to play the Coldstone Training Game. They want to experience it. We are genuinely curious.
No comments:
Post a Comment