Saving the World. With Games!

I was supposed to write this post last week but turns out I actually had something more important to do. If for some reason you did not guess from the title, this post is about Reality is Broken (Jane McGonigal).

Here's a really brief summary. The youth of today are gamers. Almost everybody plays games at least to some extent. They are becoming extraordinary at something, but what exactly? Putting the emphasis on players of multiplayer games, McGonigal suggests that collaboration is one of their most important superpowers. However, they are presently using their powers almost exclusively in virtual worlds because the real world cannot compete. Reality is not a very well designed game. That is why, she suggests, if we could make reality a better game, we could harness the power of all these gamers and truly save the world. We could also design games to make these gamers happier by guiding them to do what are called happiness activities.

The book is really inspiring and I strongly suggest reading it. It is highly optimistic and you might find yourself not in entire agreement, but nevertheless, it is a compelling vision. Do I subscribe to it? Mostly, yes. I mean it is clear to me that politics has failed to save the world, so we the people must do it ourselves. I also know that it just won't happen if we don't make saving the world interesting. Even if we choose to look past McGonigal's optimism, the baseline she proposes in her book is valid: we need to get epic wins in reality. We need feedback and meaning. World saving is too often an activity that feels meaningless, lacking feedback. Feedback, how strange the way we always seem to get there.

If we return to reality (do we have to?), it would take some really compelling game design to make world changing games that people would truly want to play over the ones about saving virtual worlds. It is easy to get people already interested in world saving to get involved in world saving games. They have the initial drive to save the world. The bigger challenge is to get those people interested who could not care less. This is the part that makes me doubtful. Is it even doable? I'd like to see it happen but I'm a bit too cynical to believe in it just now. I think the same largely applies to any other means of trying to activate people. However, I think this problem goes away if we don't try to think too big.

The second part of McGonigal's book is the most interesting in my opinion. It keeps gamification on a personal level. The goal is to improve lives of people as individuals. Happy people are more likely to take interest in matters beyond their own. Depressed or other wise anxious people (alarmingly huge part of today's youth) are very unlikely to lift a finger. With projects like Quest for Learning I think gamification is an important method to return people to life. The first step in saving the world is to save us from boredom and negative stress. Only then it becomes possible to engage people in more lofty goals. The ironic thing about happiness activities is that people don't feel like doing them when they are not happy.

All in all, I mostly stand in agreement with McGonigal (and indeed, she says much of what I just did, just with different emphasis). My view however is less optimistic. I expect people to be self-centered. It might not be very nice of me, but I think it's an aspect that should always be kept in mind when designing. The bottom line is what counts though, and that's where I think McGonigal is right: games can save the world. They can do so gradually, piece by piece, mending people as individuals. Every small improvement is a victory. After all, we need to see our progress to stay motivated.

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.

Gamification - Motivation and Motivation Schemes

It's been a while since the last entry - I have been busy with stuff and thinking about what direction my research should take. Now I'm back at writing again and it's time to resume the tradition of book summaries. About a month ago I finished reading three books from the list of gamification books on gamification.org wiki. By the time I selected which books to read the list was actually much shorter and I picked every book I had not read yet. These were: Fun Inc. : Why Gaming Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century (Tom Chatfield), Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges and Contests (Gabe Zichermann & Joselin Linder) and Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete (Byron Reeves & J. Leighton Read).

One common point that was made in all the books was this: like it or not, the future belongs to gamers. The youth of today almost live and breathe video games. Scratch that, it's not just the youth that play games these days. Game-Based Marketing has some relatively recent statistics but the web can most likely do better. Nevertheless, gaming has made some serious conquests: first mobile and more recently social networks. Chatfield focuses his entire book on just exploring the growing phenomenon and does a good job of telling people what is gaming all about. His book might not hold any revolutionary ideas of how to gamify things but is suggested reading for people who are skeptical of gaming in general.

Of course the logical step that should follow is that if everyone's a gamer sooner or later, does it not make sense to transform our daily activities to take advantage of this playful attitude? Indeed, it seems that many people think it does. On top of presenting many good suggestions on how to use virtual worlds and certain principles from them in work, Reeves & Read also present a rather thorough comparison of work and World of Warcraft guild activities. The two are strikingly (but not surprisingly) similar. There is just one major difference: people are paid to work but they pay to play WoW. Clearly, work needs to improve. The answer is gamification of work. I don't think we will see complete virtual worlds to support work anywhere in the future, but that doesn't mean we can't take a lot of good influences from games in general.

The idea is nowhere near new, and has been employed in various forms. The authors of Game-Based Marketing seem to have especially fallen in love with airlines' frequent flyer point systems, and they analyse it heavily. After reading the analysis I actually found it a bit disturbing. In gaming, I think there are good, bad and ugly motivational schemes. Normal, especially single player core games, are mostly on the good side - they are based on learning and problem solving (i.e. the stuff that is emphasized in good game design literature). The bad is grinding (i.e. doing the same thing all over again in hope of (random) prizes), present in massively multiplayer online games in particular. The ugly? Taking advantage of social pressure. The whole "you will look bad at the eyes of your peers if you don't X".

The last one I've labeled ugly because it's kind of in the grey area. Competition also falls there in a way, when you think about the people who are last on various lists. It also has to do with keeping up appearances, which can be an important motivation to some people. However the problem is that it can make some people feel incredibly bad about themselves. This is actually something worth a lot of consideration about gamification: if playing is no longer voluntary (being part of one's job for example), will it have negative consequences on some people? I think it's a problem when games are creating more social pressure. There's enough of that around as is.

Overall, the bad and the ugly are a huge ethic dilemma. The gaming industry is in it for the money, and these motivational schemes are excellent at keeping players playing, and therefore keeping the revenue streams stable. The same goes for other commercial types of gamification such as marketing. Gamification is powerful, I think at this point there's no denying it. In academic research it should be our goal to put some serious consideration to these ethical questions, and strive to create beneficial gamification. I mean, really improve lives. This is what my research will be about.

As a finisher, I seriously recommend reading Fun Inc. and Total Engagement. These are really solid books that summarize why you should consider gamification - of everything.

And That's how I Flow

Guess which book I've been reading lately. I've accumulated some topics for blog posts lately, so I'll try and put them into writing in the near future. Starting with this one obviously. So the book I just finished was, if you didn't guess already, Flow - The Psychology of Optimal Experience (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) which is a book that gets mentioned constantly when discussing game design. There is, of course, a very good reason for that. In Flow, the fundamental guidelines to enjoyable game play are laid out, although it's not a book about games. The book in itself is not particularly lengthy, and if you just want the fundamentals, reading the first three or so chapters should do the trick (the rest is for you who want to know how to enjoy life to the fullest), but I'll go through the fundamentals very quickly.

Flow is the most enjoyable state of the mind, and flow is a very descriptive word for this state of mind as well. You remember those hours you spent solving that really hard problem at work? They did seem to go past awfully quick, right? That's flow, basically. When we are really focusing on a task that is challenging enough for our skills, that's when we reach flow. While in flow, we can forget about everything unrelated to the task at hand and avoid what is called psychic entropy, or disorder in consciousness. The activity and the person become one entity. Flow exists between boredom and frustration; if the activity becomes too easy, it's boring, and if it becomes too difficult, enter frustration. To stay in flow, the challenge of the activity needs to grow along with the person's skills.

Of course, some people can turn any activity into flow by designing their own goals within the activity while some people can't find flow even in the best circumstances. However, if the activity itself is designed with flow in mind, the state should be far easier to reach. This is why the concept of flow is extremely important for game designers. Games provide a continuous series of challenges and associated long (e.g. finish the game) and short term goals (e.g. defeat the boss). I will go over goals and goal forming in a later entry. In the optimal situation, a game can continuously provide interesting challenges to the player as her skills develop. Reality of course typically falls a bit short of the mark because player skills develop at a different pace. To compensate, difficulty regulation strategies are typically present in games.

The interesting question here is can we use interface or application design to improve the chances of turning tasks into flow activities. I have actually visited this topic earlier in several blog entries, although I didn't use the term flow activity as I hadn't read the book yet. One really simple idea that has been evaluated in at least one research paper* by researchers at Nokia Research and University of Tampere is to add achievements as an additional way to track one's progress. What makes games like Tetris or pinball machines highly addictive is the ability to compare your results to previous achievements of yourself or others. Score keeping is a really powerful feedback machine. When you get more points or break your time record you immediately know that you have improved.

Unsurprisingly, proper feedback is mentioned as one requirement of a flow activity. If we take all the requirements as inputs into a design process of an application and interface, what will come out? Will the outcome make it easier for users to get into flow state when working with that application? I'm thinking these could be among my key research questions. One challenge is to find a way to integrate flow activity requirements into a design process, and another one is to evaluate the results. In this entry I have been merely scratching the surface of things like goal forming, difficulty regulation and achievements. I will delve deeper into these subjects later on and see what interesting things I can dig out. In the meanwhile, I suggest everyone to check out this book. It really is important.

* The paper I'm referring to is "Applying Game Achievement Systems to Enhance User Experience in a Photo Sharing Service" (Markus Montola, Timo Nummenmaa, Andrés Lucero, Marion Boberg, Hannu Korhonen).

The Emotionality of Fuzzy Things

As you might be able to guess from the title, I've also been reading Emotional Design (Don Norman). Like with the other book, this was my second read-through. What I realized while reading this time around, is that this particular book is perhaps the most essential one for my research. Indeed, most of the things I have been writing about can be derived from what Norman presents in these pages.

Playful usability definitely builds upon the emotional side of human thought. It doesn't even pretend to be functionally optimal. Highly functional interfaces are effective. They take the shortest route. Playful interfaces on the other hand are more creative. Or, using the travel metaphor, they take the scenic route. Or maybe the route that is just more entertaining to drive. Really straight, long roads are effective. They are also really boring to drive, which is why I usually don't pick them. So today, I'll take a look at playful interfaces, through the lenses of the three levels of human thought presented in the book.

I guess before that, a really quick recap of the said levels is in order. For a more complete description, read the book. The three levels of human thought are visceral, behavioral and reflective. The first two are sub-conscious while the last one is conscious thought. Visceral level is the most basic input-output system built into us. It excels at giving out immediate responses. The behavioral level is where activity is performed. It handles any activity that doesn't require conscious thought to perform. While I'm writing this, the movements of my hands on the keyboard are controlled by the behavioral level, leaving my consciousness free to think ahead what I'll write next. And of course, that is what I'm doing on the reflective level. Here I am making decisions how to express myself and my ideas through this text.

Playful interfaces are by nature likely to be more novel than highly functional ones. Sure, functional interfaces can be decorated, but the methods of interaction follow convention. Playful or fuzzy interfaces can surprise the user with more than just visual decorations. At this point, we are clearly working on the visceral level. And I think it's really important to be affective here. It's the wow-effect, "hey, I wanna try that", that should be achieved. Applications and services need to advertise themselves, especially in interactive spaces where high personalization is not affordable (i.e. same services are generally offered for everyone). Often one glimpse at the UI is all you're ever going to get from your potential users, so that glimpse better bring them over. This kind of appeal is especially important to make people aware of services they didn't think they'd need.

As stated, playful interfaces are not even trying to compete in raw functionality. The argument goes: effectiveness can be achieved through enjoyable use, even if the actions themselves are slower. People are not machines, we get bored with uninteresting tasks and our minds wander away. This should not be big news to anyone, hopefully. Take a look at games. Games rarely provide the most effective means to reach a high level goal, which does indeed make them enjoyable. So, in the behavioral level, the aim for playful usability is to make high level goals more enjoyable to work towards. The means towards this end is to make individual tasks not necessarily optimized for speed, but optimized for fun instead.

Of course, making work-related tasks fun while retaining their original purpose is a hard one to tackle. If it was easy, we would most likely have it already. It requires a lot of lateral thinking. Especially in the domain of desktop applications, user interfaces are inside that same old ugly box. I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: that box needs to be tucked away for good. Thinking outside that box is not enough. We must find a new box altogether and then think outside that box. Or, preferably, a lot of boxes solely for the purpose of thinking outside them. Or, well, you get the idea. Just to put things in context, I have picked up the box labeled "game interfaces" and I'm trying to think outside that box.

I'm actually a bit of an optimist in the sense that I firmly believe that for playful interfaces, visceral appeal might be achieved as a side product of good behavioral appeal. At least I'd like to think that most things that are fun to do, also look so. Sure, I can come up with counter examples. However, at least in the beginning novelty is the other factor. Interfaces that are fun to use will most likely look very different from what people are used to, leading into curiosity. There lies a risk though. Control by gestures or speech for example can feel weird to some people. Especially if they have to do it in public. Talking on the phone is easy to accept. Talking to the phone is not.

Finally, we have the reflective level. I'd consider this to be even more important than the other two, but also harder to write about. Certainly, a good user experience is already achieved with enjoyable execution of tasks. On the reflective level, we want users to look back at the experience with positive feelings. Also, we need the user to feel good while using the interface. If we jump back to games, it simply doesn't matter how good playability a game has if it doesn't match the style or theme of the game. Therefore, it is important that a playful interface contributes to the overall experience of performing a higher level goal. And of course, how using the interface sits with the user's self-image.

Taking emotions into the equation raises a whole lot of things to consider when designing playful interaction. User experience is not a simple matter. Even in pure entertainment applications such as games, no one can tell exactly what needs to be done to ensure that ultimate playing experience. Sure, reading a book or ten about game design helps. Reading books on related topics helps more. But in the end, it all comes down to understanding your audience. Even then, sometimes you just have to break the rules, shake people up and bewilder them completely.

Making an experimental interface is easy. Making a successful experimental interface is not. That's what keeps researches like myself ticking.

The Design of Fuzzy Things

Another book-related post. This time I'm going to approach the topic of playful usability via The Design of Everyday Things (Don Norman). I don't think I this book needs any more recommendations, so let's just go ahead with some thoughts of my own*.

I'd like to start with the three models. There's designer's model, which is how the interface is designed to work. On the other end, the user's model, is how the user thinks the interface works. And in the middle is the system image, responsible for communicating how the interface works. In other words, the user's model is dependent on the system model. In fuzzy usability, the system image is intentionally non-obvious. The idea is not to directly communicate the workings of the system but rather present an interface that raises curiosity and allows the user to discover the workings. By obscuring knowledge we make it more desirable to attain.

My hypothesis for the benefits is that interfaces constructed this way are easier to learn. In a typical desktop interface such as the Firefox web browser I'm currently looking at, the user is immediately presented with a lot of actions. Wizards are often used to guide beginners. The downside is that wizards are separate interfaces for doing specific tasks and do not teach the user to use the program's interface. In a purposefully obscured interface, it is easy to start by presenting the most basic of tasks and reveal advanced features when the user "levels up". The application can reveal the presence of features when they become relevant.

We can think of interfaces separated into zones. Anything the user is already familiar with is in the safe zone, and the message is clear "you know these things, it is safe to work with them". On the borders of the safe zone, there is the uncertain zone. The user has an idea of what is there, and it's kind of saying "you might feel uncomfortable here, but these things can make you more powerful". Finally, there is the great unknown, beyond the uncertain zone. When the application realizes that the user is doing something that could be done better with an advanced feature, it can assign quests, sending the user to explore a particular uncertain zone or even an unknown zone. If the user wishes to find a particular feature, the help system can provide directions of how to get to that feature.

Unsurprisingly, this bears high similarity with playing openworld or sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto. The player can explore quite freely, discovering new areas progressively while learning new skills. But when the player wishes to get on with the story, there are certain things that are required, and hence the game sends the player on quests to meet these requirements. Add rewards for mastering new skills. One further way to think of this comparison is that of task. In a game, the task is to complete the story. In an application, the task is to complete some external goal. Typically the difference between these two tasks is their definer: in a game, the task is defined by its designer while in an application the task is defined by the user. The point remains the same though: why shouldn't the user/player have fun while learning the skills required to complete the task?

In terms of affordances, safe zones afford safe using of features with predictable outcomes; uncertain zones afford experimentation with features; unknown zones afford exploration. Restrictions can also be used by requiring certain features to be in the safe zone before the user is allowed to use particular advanced features. This will ensure that the user has grasped some important basic concept before trying to use a feature that heavily builds upon that concept. The restriction also comes quite naturally - the user needs to traverse through the prerequired features on his way towards the advanced feature.

Implementing an interface that conforms to this model should be an interesting task. Some key considerations in functionality are to ensure that 1) the safe zone really is safe and 2) the uncertain zone clearly supports experimentation. Predictability is key in the first consideration, while proper undo support is key in the second. Another implementation question is analysing user actions in a way that the application can decide when it is appropriate to advertise a feature.

* Similar thoughts can be encountered in several HCI articles, and I'll return to them later. Difficulty regulation is a good key word if you're looking for one.

The Future of Computing

Lately I've been traveling quite a bit, so I've had time to read some books. This time around, I'll discuss three of them: The Design of Future Things (Don Norman), Leonardo's Laptop (Ben Schneiderman) and Everyware (Adam Greenfield). I've chosen these three for discussion because in many ways they are about the same thing: the future of computing. Norman's book of course touches a whole lot of other matters about future things, whereas Greenfield's book is about ubiquitous computing specifically, but all three books send the same message. It's time for users to step up.

The machines are about to take over. Not like in the movies of course, but subtly. We are about to become servants to our machines. Clearly, it should be the other way around but without enough thought given to human-centered design, we might end up with machines that think they know us and what's best for us, restricting our actions when they see fit. Machines, that demand our attention and maintenance. Networks that share everything about us without our consent. When computing will be everywhere, using it is no longer a matter of choice. And if the interfaces suck? We are screwed, and we have to learn them. These are some of the scenarios discussed in these books.

If, for some reason, this does not scare you, then think about what user-centered design for future computing could give us. A lot of possible scenarios for the future are presented in Leonardo's Laptop and they all share one central theme: computing should support, not replace or automate, human tasks. Technology should be making our lives easier, not harder. Computing should be available, not integrated. And, contrary to some beliefs, it should never be entirely seamless or invisible. Which computing do you want?

Jumping to another topic, the idea behind the concept of interactive spaces is in many ways similar to ideas described in these books - especially The Design of Future Things. Humans and machines do not talk to each other - not today, probably not in the future - they signal. When communication is limited to signaling, it is better for one participant be completely predictable. In this case of course, it should be the machine. The user knows what he wants to do - there's no need for the machine to try and guess, because no matter how much sensor information and whatnot it has, it cannot read our thoughts (hopefully).

Norman presents a good example from human-to-human communication where this also holds true. Here's another one: sometimes when walking, you find yourself walking on a collision course with another walker and when you avoid - yup, the other guy avoids to the same direction, and probably then the both of you avoid again to the same direction. This is a scenario where neither participant is predictable. Indeed, if you had just kept walking straight, the other guy would've avoided you. This scenario becomes a lot more dangerous when bicycles or cars are involved. It's happened to me with bicycles, and if I hadn't landed on my butt, I might not be writing this.

To wrap up, here are some of the principles of interactive spaces:
- Interfaces are available to the user - not seamless but gracefully seamful.
- Interaction is initiated by the human.
- Interfaces are precitable - they don't make decisions on their own.

Out of these books, I would highly recommend Everyware for anyone even remotely interested in the future of computing, and especially defending human rights in the coming* age. The other two books are good reading for designers, and especially Norman's book is once again really easy to read and even fun. All of these books made me more confident that what I and we are doing is relevant and important.

* In fact, we are partly there. The latest of these books (Everyware) was printed in 2006, and already it was said ubiquitous technology is in part already here.

Irrationality and What Should We Do with it

Time to discuss some stuff I've read from books recently. The first book is Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. It's actually a book for behavioral economics, but can tell a lot about how we humans are wired for anyone in any field. Because it's also quite fun, not too long and well-written, I can recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in human behavior.

In the book, Ariely discusses a lot of different types of circumstances where humans repeatedly fail in rational thinking. Hence the name. A lot of the stuff is actually really familiar for most of us, because we've been down those roads. The book does a good job of pointing out the circumstances where people make bad decisions. If people became more aware of these things, maybe they could make better decisions in the future. Who knows, right? For someone in the HCI field, and game design as well, every tidbit of knowledge about human behavior is valuable. Here are some thoughts I gathered while reading:

Actually my first thoughts were whether we could actually use this kind of irrational behavior to purposefully "deceive" the users. For game design, it's also helpful to know how people form their decisions in different circumstances. This way players could be guided implicitly instead of explicitly when the designer would really like the them to pick a certain option. Most players would likely end up picking the intended option, but they would still think they are firmly on the driver's seat. Actually I think it would be an interesting for game researches to analyze how decision making situations are staged in games (although they may have also done this kind of research already).

And what about interfaces? It's kind of a harder case. Here the designer doesn't want to guide the user into doing something. The idea is for users to get what they want, which is something we really cannot predict. I don't have any particular ideas yet, but I'd like to explore the concept of purposeful deception in usability to produce outcomes that make for a better user experience. Maybe it's a dead end but you never know before you try.

Then again, should we exploit irrationality? After all, it causes people to make bad decisions that can be really damaging to themselves in the long run. Perhaps it would actually be better to make games and applications that highlight our irrationality and make us aware of how it affects us even in situations we consider "too important to fail". Some games do require players to abandon certain types of irrational behavior. A lot of board games for example encourage players to make hard decisions instead of keeping all the options open. In order to win, players need to commit to a strategy sooner or later. It promotes simple folklore wisdom; "if you run after two hares you will catch neither".

This I think is another interesting topic where games could be used for teaching people, more effectively than most learning methods. After all, games are good for experimentation, because players don't lose anything permanently (in most games anyway). Of course therein lies a problem as well: we think differently when we know there is nothing to lose. So even if we learn to avoid our irrational behavior in a virtual world, does this wisdom transfer into real life, where losses are also real? It might be a tough challenge to come up with something that produces real benefit, but something that should be considered.

We are already coming up with games and applications that encourage people to exercise and look after their health etc. Should improving our thinking be the next step? After all, it is our thinking that's the root of everything else.

(I've also re-read Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things but it's something I'll get back to later.)

It's Easy - All You Need is the Holy Grail

The first two books I decided to read for my post-graduate studies were A Theory of Fun for Game Design (by Raph Koster) and What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy (by James Paul Gee). I chose these for two reasons: First of all, they both deal with the very fundamental basics of why people play games and what games can give us, and well, they were available through the university library as ebooks, while the rest of the books I wanted to read were not. Anyway, no matter the reason, they turned out to be really good reads, and I can recommend them to anyone slightly interested, especially the first one since it's really short, lightly written but has a lot of good points. Gee's book is a bit heavier, but still easy to read and not too long.

The main points are related to learning, which for the second book should not be such a big surprise. In the first book, Koster takes the view that games are fun because we are learning when we play. It is at least very hard to deny the learning part. Gee on the other hand writes about how good teachers games (and game designers through their work) actually are. The claim that we learn things when we play games is hardly revolutionary. Most games are not in fact easy. And quite a lot of them are actually very complex, so when you pick up the controller for the first time, you can't just suddenly do everything in the game. Actually, you might need to learn more things to play some particularly heavy games than you would need to pass a high school course of any given subject (I'm going to give an example in a later post, for now just take my word for it).

Of course, the problem from education's point of view is that games mostly teach skills that are only relevant inside the gameworld (and probably in gameworlds inside the same genre). Although this is not exactly true, as there are several very common abilities that playing games can enhance, there are a lot of school subjects that you really cannot learn from modern games. Of course, educational games can be, at least in theory, created for any subject. However, and hence the title of this post, it is often seen particularly difficult to disguise the learning in such a way that the player doesn't feel he's studying some boring school subject while playing, but just happens to need those skills to proceed in the game. That's the Holy Grail of educational games in my opinion.

If you read through Gee's book, you'll find that we don't actually need this Holy Grail to combine the way games teach us to learning something that is actually useful (I'm not going to argue about the usefulness of school subjects). Gee introduces 36 learning principles that we could just take and try out in school education. I'm not going to repeat them, but one of the general impressions you get from them is that games are effective in teaching how to play them because (at least good games) put all the information into a relevant context, and they allow us to safely explore options and make choices, as well as form opinions. And when playing games, the best performance can only be achieved by understanding how the game works, and by forming connections between facts.

So what about Koster's claim, games are fun because we learn when we play? From the above we can definitely conclude that we are learning, and actually really efficiently, while playing games. From experience or just statistics we can conclude that games are indeed most likely fun. Not always easy fun, but there has to be something going on, because games are so popular. Games are not just passive entertainment. Playing a good game and improving in it gives a sense of achievement, which is also the high point of learning. Not convinced? Well, you just have to read through both of these books and decide for yourself.

So bottom line? Teachers and usability researchers should take a good like at game design. This is one of the central things I'm going to explore in my studies. Finding that Holy Grail, I'll probably leave to others.