What Gamification is not

This is (kind of) a reply to this article. The author accuses gamification of misleading people and being childish. The point being that it's wrong to hide real problems underneath a gamified reality. I myself am now two thirds into McGonigal's book Reality is Broken, and unless I ignore most of what I've read, there is just no way I can agree with Chaplin. In less friendly terms, I think the article is a load of bull.

Like I said before, gamification is powerful, and we need to be responsible about it. However, I seriously do not think it is compelling enough to make people do just about anything. The rule of thumb here is: if there is zero incentive to do something, gamification does not magically create it. This is openly admitted by gamification advocates. Another thing to keep in mind is Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. The theory goes: unless the lower level needs are met, people do not feel any strong desire for higher level needs. It's that simple. Can you figure out where games fit in that hierarchy? Yeah, you guessed it: we don't give a shit about playing a game when our safety is compromised. So sorry, I can't see how "Instead, they are trafficking in fantasies that ignore the realities of day-to-day life. This isn't fun and games—it's a tactic most commonly employed by repressive, authoritarian regimes." You see, unlike authoritarian regimes, games we partake voluntarily do not command any actual authority over us.

Let's move on to: "Chore Wars is a benign example—if pretending you're being rewarded helps you do your chores, fine. But it reveals that McGonigal is not advocating any kind of real change, as she purports, but rather a change in perception: She wants to add a gamelike layer to the world to simulate these feelings of satisfaction, which indeed people want." If there actually was the option to magically make chores disappear, most people would take it, no? However, there isn't. Not now, not in the near future. So how exactly is it fair to blame gamification for not solving problems that are not solvable with our current technology at all? Yeah, I thought so too. The point of Chore Wars is to enable players to get better feedback on doing their chores, set short term goals and add unnecessary obstacles. I typed enable in bold because I think it's the definite keyword here.

Chores are not optional. We do not gamify them to get people to do them, we gamify them to make them more fun and motivating. See, the incentive is already there: someone has to do it, and that someone is most likely yourself. Gamification is not some black magic that compels people to do their chores. So really, what exactly is bad about providing virtual feeling of satisfaction for an activity that in itself has little to no satisfaction? Once basic needs have been met, enjoying life is about perception. If we can create the tools that allow people to improve their experience of life, I don't see a reason why we should not create them. I can see why Chaplin can think we shouldn't when she writes "Do adults really need to pretend they're superheroes on secret missions to have meaning in their lives?". This is representative of the world view that has been impended upon gamers many times. My answer: if it improves their experience of life, why the hell not?

So how gamification does help? Not everyone has the mental strength to just start doing all the things that are supposed to be good for us, like exercise, healthier eating and being more motivated about our jobs. It needs practice. Being happy is not easy. Gamification has the power to make it easier for people to overcome themselves, as it provides clearer goals and better feedback. Even though it is artificial, it allows us to measure progress in many activities where results are not immediately visible. It allows us to set goals that can be met and obstacles that make activities more interesting, even if they are harder. It changes the way we think about things we either have to do or should do or are doing. Finally, it allows us to play together and connect.

I do think frequent flyer points are evil. Skinnerboxed games, likewise. We already talked about this. More importantly, the concerns and limitations of gamification have been notified by advocates already. I think Chaplin simply does not like that we are having fun doing stuff that should not be fun. This is sadly a world view that is even this day shared by many many people, including those in places of power. But we gamers are growing in numbers and we will gamify our future if it pleases us. It's 'opt in' baby, so feel free to be left out if you don't want to share the fun.

Digging into References

For those among my readers (assuming I have any) who are interested enough in this field to read scientific articles, I'm throwing you a bone. Several bones actually. I've been recently digging into research related to my own as I'm preparing to write my first article and an initial literature review for my thesis.

Aesthetic interaction - a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems (Marianne Graves Petersen, Ole Sejer Iversen, Peter Gall Krogh; 2004). This paper discusses different approaches to aesthetics in the design of interactive systems, analytic aesthetics and pragmatist aesthetics. Furthermore, the authors discuss aesthetic interaction, which is in many ways similar to what I call playful interaction. The authors introduce aesthetics as the fifth element of interaction design (the four others being system, tool, dialogue and media). Artistic interaction goes beyond so called added value.

Ambiguity as a Resource for Design (William Gaver, Jacob Beaver, Steve Benford; 2003). The authors of this article question the HCI convention of designing for one correct interpretation of a system. Instead, they suggest, ambiguity can be used in various ways to enhance user experience. The article points out that if users are left to figure out a system for themselves, they will be more affectionate towards it, and are more likely to accept it as is, and find surprising uses for it. They present three example systems that use ambiguity and three types of ambiguity: of information, of context and of relationship.

Designing Interaction, not Interfaces (Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, 2004). In this article, the author suggests a paradigm shift from designing interfaces to designing interaction. Interaction paradigms and interactions models are introduced. The article delves into the computer-as-tool paradigm. Interaction models are frameworks for guiding designers. Interaction design, in contrast to interface design, means considering the how of interaction more deeply than simply constructing interfaces that are easy to understand and efficient. For example, considering how is tool selection done instead of designing an efficient toolbar.

Heuristics for Designing Enjoyable User Interfaces: Lessons from Computer Games (Thomas W Malone, 1981). The first paper I was able to find that suggests taking influences from computer games in designing user interfaces. It suggests heuristics in three categories: challenge, fantasy and curiosity. These same heuristics have been presented first for instructional activities (also by Malone). Heuristics included under challenge are goal and uncertain outcome. Under fantasy there are emotional appeal and metaphors. Finally under curiosity there are the concepts of optimal level of information complexity and "well-formed" knowledge structures. Overall this paper is a good starting point.

Making by Making Strange: Defamiliarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies (Genevieve Bell, Mark Blythe, Phoebe Sengers; 2005). The authors of this article criticize how we can only improve upon current design unless we defamiliarize ourselves from the subject. To stress their point, the authors present examples of three studies that look at homes and domestic life outside our (western) field of familiarity. They present twelve statements to defamiliarize certain standard HCI design goals. I couldn't agree more - compare this article to some of my earlier blog posts and you'll see what I mean.

Staying Open to Interpretation: Engaging Multiple Meanings in Design and Evaluation (Phoebe Sengers, Bill Gaver; 2006). This article questions one of the core HCI principles: single authoritative interpretation. Already stated in The Design of Everyday Things (Don Norman), the goal is to make the designer's model understandable to the user. The authors here present six different strategies to make designs that are open to interpretation. Examples for each strategy are provided. This paper continues along the same lines as the ambiguity paper above.

So there, some of the papers that will most likely influence my research.