What Games Are — Games and life.
Before we dive deep into gamification, its principles and how it is related to software development, we need to figure out what games actually are and how they are related to our lives.
Jesse Schell in his “The art of game design” defines games as
a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.
It sounds good, but doesn’t say much. This definition fits more into game design principles and this is not what we need.
Bernard Suits comes up with a more precise definition of games:
To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less efficient means, and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity.
Yep, that sounds better. Can we deconstruct the definition even more while making it simpler?
Jane McGonigal does just that:
Games are unnecessary obstacles that we volunteer to tackle.
Sweeeeet. Simple and precise. What a great definition. She continues:
When people play games, they are trying to achieve a feeling of “eustress,” a kind of positive stress that motivates us to perform our best. …golf fits the definition of a game, since it creates unnecessary obstacles to putting a ball in a hole. … in real life, we would just drop a ball in a hole. Why does it become a game when we make it harder?
Interesting observation, isn’t it?
If we look at Suits’ and McGonical’s definitions of games, we can come to a conclusion that we all are playing the game of life. Everything that is described in the definition fits the description of society, societal norms and the way we live our lives in society and how we try to better ourselves.
But where games do better than the game of life? Why are they more engaging?
Charles A Coonradt in his “Game of Work” wonders:
Why would people pay for the privilege of working harder at their chosen sport or recreational pursuit than they would work at a job where they were being paid?
… to which he answers that with hobbies one gets:
Clearly defined goals
Better scorekeeping and scorecards
More frequent feedback
A higher degree of personal choice of methods
Consistent coaching
Keep in mind that Charles was wondering about such things in 1973 when computer games were, let’s put it this way, not visually advanced and not that popular. Nowadays we have computer games that the entire population of Earth puts massive time in — World of Warcraft, for example, already amassed more than 6 billion hours of gameplay.
Games actually are quire hard. They are a lot of hard work — no exception (unless they are shitty games whose creators don’t understand the definition of “Challenge”). You don’t believe me? Well:
Say I’m playing a shooter and there is a bad guy I need to kill. That’s the Challenge. To Kill the bad guy I will need many skills. I need Dexterity to use the controller, I need Precision to aim, Measurement to evaluate his speed and predict where he will be to shoot him. Maybe he has a pattern of hiding and showing up so I might need Timing or maybe he doesn’t and I will need Reflexes. I probably need some Management skills to keep track of my ammo and health and make sure I don’t run out. I might have to use some Tactics to corner him. And if I have met this type of enemy before I will use Memory to remember how to kill him in the most efficient way.
That does sound like life…
Furthermore, there’s something called “grinding” in games. It is
the act of performing repetitive tasks, usually for gameplay advantage but in some cases for purely aesthetic or cosmetic benefits.
In games sometimes you have to spend a lot of time killing some mobs for experience points so that you level up. And it can take plenty of time:
The way “grinding” is done in competitive games is by playing short matches (3–7 minutes), typically very adrenaline driven engagements. Once an engagement is over, a player is left in a state of imbalance — the player wants to experience the rush of victory again or is dissatisfied with defeat and wants to win instead. It’s difficult to get off this cycle, which is why such games are called addictive. A player can spend entire day doing these short matches while looking forward to a more powerful tank/plane/gun/etc.
Hmmmmm, sounds like going to gym perfecting your body or learning new programming language. But why does it work so well in games and so bad in real life? Why is it so easy to play a couple of levels in Homescapes, but so difficult to write documentation to your code?
Yu-kai Chou in his “Actionable Gamification” says the following:
The only problem is, unlike most games with a computer interface, life does not have clear objectives, visual cues to tell me what to do, or feedback mechanics to show me how I have advanced in it. I had to design my own game, along with clear goals, meaningful quests, and creative feedback systems. Effectively, I had to transform life into an entire adventure where I, the player, could advance and grow in.
So here it is — the world of gamification.
