Life is a Game

As I delve into my old research and work to re-establish myself in the world of Academia I came across a term that everyone in my field seems to have an opinion about. Below are some of my underdeveloped thoughts.

​Gamification

from the Wiki:

Gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context in order to engage users and solve problems.[1][2][3] Gamification is used in applications and processes to improve user engagement, Return on Investment, data quality, timeliness, and learning.[4]

My Take

My first critique is that under this definition we are seeking to simply use game thinking and game mechanics in a "non-game" context. Rather, I would argue that gamification should be focused on re-imagining "non-game" contexts as games instead of just looking to add game thinking and game mechanics. If our goal is to engage users and solve problems then simply employing these elements does not guarantee any form of success. I believe that we need to re-imagine non-game contexts as games, and then identify what types of game thinking and game mechanics are employed in order to develop off them (i.e. make implicit elements explicit).

Everything is a Game

In my research of game theory I came to conclude that we are normally engaged in "games." We engage in games through business, in our personal and professional relationships, through socialization, through political action, in educational pursuits, etc. Though these might not be what we traditionally categorize as "games," they very much are.

To further understand how game elements are incorporated into everyday life, it helps to differentiate the two basic types of games that we play; namely zero-sum games and non-zero-sum games. In zero-sum games we operate as competitive individuals, and (ideally) as collaborative individuals in non-zero sum games - even though they (can) contain competitive elements. It can be harder to categorize gains in the latter, but recognizing gain in the former is usually straightforward.

Zero-Sum-Games
Someone gains, someone loses (Competitive)

• Merging in Traffic
• Auctions
• Competing for a Client
• College Applications
• Checkers
• Options Trading

Non-Zero-Sum Games
Everyone gains/loses something- not inherently competitive- can be collaborative

• Marriage
• Co-Ops
• Dungeons and Dragons
• Democracy
• Work Projects
• Learning

Gamification should be focused on re-imagining non-game contexts as games.

Breaking the Game

I believe that when confronted with a problem humans are naturally inclined to (a) maximize gain and (b) minimize effort. These principles, when aligned to game scenarios, leads to a tendency to exploit or manipulate rules for the purpose of (a) and/or (b).

The challenge for game designers, therefore, is to control or redirect these motives in a given scenarios toward productive ends (or perhaps fair ones). When the designers fail at this (and they often do) the game becomes "broken." My definition of a broken game is one which the the intended rules and outcomes of its design are subverted by its implicit flaws.

Even for famed economist and MIT graduate Steven Levitt, developing games is hard:

The Homework System is a Game

I, like many of my peers growing up, hated homework. Like many of my peers I also occasionally cheated on homework. Don't judge me, you probably have to.

Other than avoiding punishment, (a notoriously bad incentive) what was the reason to be honest about it? If my incentive is simply to get a good grade on my homework so that I pass with a "good" grade in the class, then why not cheat? Cheating becomes a calculated risk.

If we don't find any intrinsic value in what we are learning, then learning it becomes an option not the object.

In the case of traditional homework the grade is our primary incentive - not our participation nor our understanding of the material. We humans tend to work toward efficiency in achieving our goals, not adherence to intended protocols. If I know I can get what I want with the least possible expenditure on my part, then I will employ that methodology (e.g. cheating)! 

Admittedly, this "instinct" usually gets repressed because "cheating is bad," but I think we should see cheating as a way to debug our systems. It signals a time to re-examine it, realize where the design has gone wrong and redesign it!

If we don't find any intrinsic value in what we are learning, then learning it becomes an option not the object.

Debugging "Homework" Through Gamification

I believe that human creativity will always find a way to subvert established norms for maximum gain/minimum effort (e.g., hacking culture). Therefore, we should do away with expectations of normative behavior and create "gamified" systems that are designed around incentives, rather than rigid protocols. Learning objectives should promote learning through problem solving and student autonomy (i.e., students choose when and how to participate) rather than conformity. As designers, we can assist students by providing them with navigation, productivity, and communication tools to use as they pursue an objective. A simple example:

Education - a Quest

• Identify the learning objectives, knowledge, skills, and abilities, you want students to obtain (their mission).
• Create a narrative to arrange these objectives (personal or impersonal, real or fictional).
• Employ objective-based resources to help them on their way (swords and shields).
• Design a sequence of challenges (missions) to that incrementally builds up skills and abilities up to face a cumulative challenge (boss-battle).
• Provide them with a group option (guilds) and space to share information (a town).
• As they make progress, have a means to display it (progress meters/skill trees)
• As they complete objectives, reward them (minor badges, unlocks, status).
• After they complete their quest, reward them recognition of skill sets they "unlocked" in the process (major badge, major status, etc.).
• Let students choose when and where they want to attempt challenges, but don't allow them to advance to others that require learning objectives they haven't met (competency-based).

This approach eliminates:

• Dog ate my homework excuses
• Viewing collaboratively generated work (copying) as cheating
• Application confusion (i.e.,"when am I ever going to use this?")
• Arbitrary deadlines

This approach supports:

• The drive to collaborate in order to "beat" the game
• The drive to communicate with each other
• The drive toward self-betterment
• The desire for empowerment
• Requisites for demonstrated knowledge in order to advance
• Rewards understanding and competency

Again, the structure already exists - we're just changing the interface; one that recognizes it, develops on it, and illustrates it. Students already "cheat" through collaboration, copying, and finding creative excuses. They talk in class and don't understand why they have to learn your material. They want to be able to "game" the system because it gives them power and freedom. So give them power and freedom; let them talk in class, let them collaborate, and let them find creative "excuses" for problems. In the end they know they have to learn the material because it's made obvious they can't advance themselves without it.

They want to be able to "game" the system because it gives them power and freedom. So give them power and freedom;

TL;DR (Summary)

Operating under my belief that all systems are games, I believe that "Gamification" is not about employing game elements or thinking into "non-game" environments but rather recognizing the underlying games that exist in every system and illustrating them. Designers should consider employing game thinking to design systems that are flexible, and which you know people will exploit. Attempt to channel the exploitative energy down productive and enlightening paths through game mechanics - don't get hung up on adherence to rules. Finally, use game elements to represent the mechanics for simple navigation and learner expression. If you make the incentive of the game to learn and to pursue self-betterment, and not simply to achieve some extrinsic artifact such as a grade or a badge, then you can properly "gamify" the already existing game a "non-game environment."

I still have a lot of work to do on this concept, and this post was pretty disorganized, but I've been sitting on this for awhile and just wanted to get it posted. Help me develop this further by sharing any thoughts or criticisms below.