In the diagram below, we can see some important clues to start a gamification project:
#GoGamers
Mostrando postagens com marcador gamification. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador gamification. Mostrar todas as postagens
sábado, 7 de outubro de 2023
A diagram to think about gamification
Rajat Paharia, in his book "Loyalty 3.0," defines gamification as the use of game design elements, game mechanics, and behavioral science to create engaging and enjoyable experiences for non-game contexts. In essence, gamification involves applying principles commonly found in games to non-game situations, such as marketing, employee engagement, education, and more, in order to motivate people and drive desired behaviors. Paharia emphasizes that gamification is not limited to traditional video games but is a versatile approach that leverages the inherent human desire for competition, achievement, and reward to encourage participation and loyalty in various activities and industries.
In the diagram below, we can see some important clues to start a gamification project:
#GoGamers
In the diagram below, we can see some important clues to start a gamification project:
#GoGamers
domingo, 25 de junho de 2017
domingo, 29 de janeiro de 2017
“Why is gamification not working in my company?”
Last week, I was invited to a meeting in a medium-size Brazilian company, which for ethical reasons will not have its name disclosed. The director of the innovation area wanted a special consulting about the gamification process implemented on the last two years. After many attempts, these tactics proved worthless for the company. The employees did not understand the purpose of this process and could not see the utility in what was proposed. Why did it happen? In the director’s mind, gamification is a positive thing for every company, after all, it’s an attempt to put games (a fun element) inside work (a boring subject) to improve their routine.
Well, it is not that simple.
In the article “Hate the games, not the players", Daniel Ruch discusses some points that can make gamification fail in the business ecosystem. First of all, Ruch gives us one good definition about the term:
“Gamification” is the application to other activities of game-playing elements (such as point scoring, competition and rules of play) in an attempt to achieve a measurable goal. In business, that goal could be greater productivity, user engagement or employee satisfaction. In our personal lives, goals might include losing weight, exercising regularly or unplugging from mobile devices.
After this definition, Ruch says that many companies tried to implement the gaming process in their DNA, but, in most part of them, the game objectives were unclear and complicated. According to Ruch, some employees “weren’t sure how to win points and badges”, and, let’s be honest: what’s the real purpose of it? One virtual trophy received in a special e-mail will not motivate behavioral change. One public score with a race between the selling departments could only create frustration and bad competition. A system that only punishes failures and never rewards positive acts is bounded to be a failure. So, what is important to think before introducing processes like gamification into a company? Here are some thoughts to dwell on:
1) Define clear goals. What’s the problem with your company that gamification will try to solve? Are employees unmotivated? Is communication between departments bad?
2) What paths are guaranteed to solve the problem and achieve the goal? And one essential thing: does your company really need to implement gamification processes? Or can the problem be solved in a much simpler way?
3) According to Ruch, “gamification begins with a why question”.
4) Once identified that gamification could be a solution for the problem, comes one important step: to hire a specialist team to implement the process. Discuss with them. Try to put the objectives clearly to the employees. Emphasize the benefits, the rewards and the gains. “We can’t make successful games without understanding the problems we aim to solve”.
5) Gamification is a not a generic solution applied to any kind of company and employee. One cautious observation and previous analysis is fundamental.
Another important thought to highlight this discussion comes from Bogost (2016, p.82) who says that
Gamification is always a polemic subject. Many experts condemn the term and prefer to talk about "ludification" or "game thinking". Regardless of how it is called, it is important to broaden the discussion on this subject.
Now, on to your opinion!
#GoGamers
Reference
BOGOST, Ian. Play anything: the pleasure of limits, the uses of boredom, & the secret of games. New York: Basic Books, 2016.
Article “Hate the games, not the players”.
Well, it is not that simple.
In the article “Hate the games, not the players", Daniel Ruch discusses some points that can make gamification fail in the business ecosystem. First of all, Ruch gives us one good definition about the term:
“Gamification” is the application to other activities of game-playing elements (such as point scoring, competition and rules of play) in an attempt to achieve a measurable goal. In business, that goal could be greater productivity, user engagement or employee satisfaction. In our personal lives, goals might include losing weight, exercising regularly or unplugging from mobile devices.
After this definition, Ruch says that many companies tried to implement the gaming process in their DNA, but, in most part of them, the game objectives were unclear and complicated. According to Ruch, some employees “weren’t sure how to win points and badges”, and, let’s be honest: what’s the real purpose of it? One virtual trophy received in a special e-mail will not motivate behavioral change. One public score with a race between the selling departments could only create frustration and bad competition. A system that only punishes failures and never rewards positive acts is bounded to be a failure. So, what is important to think before introducing processes like gamification into a company? Here are some thoughts to dwell on:
1) Define clear goals. What’s the problem with your company that gamification will try to solve? Are employees unmotivated? Is communication between departments bad?
2) What paths are guaranteed to solve the problem and achieve the goal? And one essential thing: does your company really need to implement gamification processes? Or can the problem be solved in a much simpler way?
3) According to Ruch, “gamification begins with a why question”.
4) Once identified that gamification could be a solution for the problem, comes one important step: to hire a specialist team to implement the process. Discuss with them. Try to put the objectives clearly to the employees. Emphasize the benefits, the rewards and the gains. “We can’t make successful games without understanding the problems we aim to solve”.
5) Gamification is a not a generic solution applied to any kind of company and employee. One cautious observation and previous analysis is fundamental.
Another important thought to highlight this discussion comes from Bogost (2016, p.82) who says that
A job is made of fun not by turning into a game, but by deeply and deliberately pursuing it as a job. Jobs are fun when their work is meaningful, when their activities matter, and when the act of conducting them can be done over and over again with the increased commitment. Fun can’t be added to something, like sugar to coffee or like songs to chores.
Gamification is always a polemic subject. Many experts condemn the term and prefer to talk about "ludification" or "game thinking". Regardless of how it is called, it is important to broaden the discussion on this subject.
Now, on to your opinion!
#GoGamers
Reference
BOGOST, Ian. Play anything: the pleasure of limits, the uses of boredom, & the secret of games. New York: Basic Books, 2016.
Article “Hate the games, not the players”.
domingo, 12 de junho de 2016
Book: Mapping the Digital - Cultures and Territories of Play
I want to share good news in this post: in 2014, I presented the paper “Health, consumption and entertainment: the Nike brand embodied as a playful experience”, that I wrote along with my friend Marcelo Vasconcellos for the Video Game Cultures & The Future of Entertainment conference (VG6).
This week, I received awesome news: all the papers from the conference were compiled in a fantastic book named Mapping the Digital - Cultures and Territories of Play. Edited by Lindsey Joyce and Brian Quinn, and published by Inter-Disciplinary Press (Oxford) the book is a wide discussion about the state of play and the state of games in contemporary culture.
This is what I call a level upgrade!
CLICK HERE to buy!
Below, you can read the book's synopsis:
"Mappings the Digital: Cultures and Territories of Play is an interdisciplinary discussion about the state of play and the state of games in contemporary culture. This volume takes a critical look and how our cultures and territories are being renegotiated through our engagement with digital media, games, and tools. This volume argues broadly that our tangible world, and our understanding of it, are being renegotiated and remapped by the digital worlds with which we engaged. Specifically, the chapters in this volume analyse linguistic changes; unique in-game cultures and behaviours; and new methods for communicating across real and perceived boundaries, for understanding cultural experiences, and for learning through play. Drawing from the global expertise of scholars within the fields of Cultural Studies, Game Studies, Foreign Language, Science and more, this volume bridges academic boarders to assemble a cohesive and authoritative resource on digital culture and play".
#GoGamers
This week, I received awesome news: all the papers from the conference were compiled in a fantastic book named Mapping the Digital - Cultures and Territories of Play. Edited by Lindsey Joyce and Brian Quinn, and published by Inter-Disciplinary Press (Oxford) the book is a wide discussion about the state of play and the state of games in contemporary culture.
This is what I call a level upgrade!
CLICK HERE to buy!
Below, you can read the book's synopsis:
"Mappings the Digital: Cultures and Territories of Play is an interdisciplinary discussion about the state of play and the state of games in contemporary culture. This volume takes a critical look and how our cultures and territories are being renegotiated through our engagement with digital media, games, and tools. This volume argues broadly that our tangible world, and our understanding of it, are being renegotiated and remapped by the digital worlds with which we engaged. Specifically, the chapters in this volume analyse linguistic changes; unique in-game cultures and behaviours; and new methods for communicating across real and perceived boundaries, for understanding cultural experiences, and for learning through play. Drawing from the global expertise of scholars within the fields of Cultural Studies, Game Studies, Foreign Language, Science and more, this volume bridges academic boarders to assemble a cohesive and authoritative resource on digital culture and play".
#GoGamers
quarta-feira, 15 de julho de 2015
segunda-feira, 25 de maio de 2015
Serious games: a definition
In this moment I'm reading the excellent book "Design and use of serious games". In this text I found a very objective and didactic definition of this kind of game. In the words of Kankaanranta and Neittaanmäki (2009, p.21) we can define serious games as
This idea helps us think games beyond entertainment. It is certainly an inspiration to understand games as tools in the areas of education, health and business training. Let's think about it and discuss.
#GoGamers
Reference:
KANKAANRANTA, Marja; NEITTAANMÄKI, Pekka (Eds.). Design and use of serious games. Jyväskylä: Springer, 2009.
games that engage the user, and contribute to the achievement of a defined purpose other than pure entertainment (whether or not the user is consciously aware of it). A game’s purpose may be formulated by the game’s designer or by the user her/himself, which means that also a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) game, used for non-entertainment purposes, may be considered a serious game. The desired purpose, i.e. a serious game, can be achieved through a spectrum ranging from the mere utilization of game technology for non-entertainment purposes to development of specifically designed games for some non-entertainment purpose or the use and/or adaptation of commercial games for non-entertainment purposes. We also propose that any combination of the above would constitute a feasible way to achieve the desired effect
This idea helps us think games beyond entertainment. It is certainly an inspiration to understand games as tools in the areas of education, health and business training. Let's think about it and discuss.
#GoGamers
Reference:
KANKAANRANTA, Marja; NEITTAANMÄKI, Pekka (Eds.). Design and use of serious games. Jyväskylä: Springer, 2009.
quinta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2014
Social engagement loops
The use of games in non-gaming activities is rising each and every year. The idea of “gamification” (or game thinking, or ludic interface) became popular in our business culture and one feature to highlight in this context is engagement.
A game, in a business context, for example, needs a perfect balance between serious content and entertainment. From there, it’s possible to create strategies to engage audiences more accurately.
One fundamental idea in this discussion is the idea of “social engagement loops”.
As Cunningham and Zichermann say (2011, p.67) “social engagement loops, while not exclusive to games, borrow heavily from a viral loop design. A designer must not only see the way a player engages with the system, but also how he leaves it and – perhaps even more importantly – what brings him back again. In a social engagement loop, a motivating emotion leads to player re-engagement, which leads to a social call to action, which flows to visible progress and/or rewards, which loops back around to a motivating emotion”.
The figure below illustrates this idea:
A social engagement loop, designed to maximize player engagement and reengagement using core product design (CUNNINGHAM; ZICHERMANN, 2011, p.68)
Certain ludic contexts need deeper strategic building. Especially when we talk about serious games, business games, and gamification. The book in the end of this post is a great source of reference for this subject.
Reference:
CUNNINGHAM, Christopher; ZICHERMANN, Gabe. Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Canada: O’Reilly, 2011.
A game, in a business context, for example, needs a perfect balance between serious content and entertainment. From there, it’s possible to create strategies to engage audiences more accurately.
One fundamental idea in this discussion is the idea of “social engagement loops”.
As Cunningham and Zichermann say (2011, p.67) “social engagement loops, while not exclusive to games, borrow heavily from a viral loop design. A designer must not only see the way a player engages with the system, but also how he leaves it and – perhaps even more importantly – what brings him back again. In a social engagement loop, a motivating emotion leads to player re-engagement, which leads to a social call to action, which flows to visible progress and/or rewards, which loops back around to a motivating emotion”.
The figure below illustrates this idea:
A social engagement loop, designed to maximize player engagement and reengagement using core product design (CUNNINGHAM; ZICHERMANN, 2011, p.68)
Certain ludic contexts need deeper strategic building. Especially when we talk about serious games, business games, and gamification. The book in the end of this post is a great source of reference for this subject.
Reference:
CUNNINGHAM, Christopher; ZICHERMANN, Gabe. Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Canada: O’Reilly, 2011.
quarta-feira, 13 de agosto de 2014
Interview with Jesper Juul
This week we have a special post on Gaming Conceptz. Jesper Juul, the video game theorist, gave this blog a special interview. I had the honor of meeting the author last year at the F.R.O.G (Future and Reality of Gaming) Conference. Enjoy the content! Thank you so much Mr. Juul. May the force be with you. =)
Bio: Jesper Juul is a video game theorist and associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - The School of Design, and a visiting associate professor at Comparative Media Studies/Writing at MIT. He has been working with video game theory since the early 1990s, at the IT University of Copenhagen, MIT, and at New York University. His previous books are the video game theory classic Half-Real and A Casual Revolution. He recently published The Art of Failure, a book that combines personal confessions about failure with philosophy, game design analysis, psychology and fiction theory.
1) In your last book 'The Art of Failure' you talk about 'the pain of playing video games' in a very interesting way. What was your primary inspiration source to write about this subject?
Two things: 1) That our interaction with video games is clearly filled with frustration and unhappiness, yet we tend to talk about video games in purely positive terms - good, great, awesome, deep etc.. Why are we not talking about this darker side of game playing, and why do we play games even though it is there? 2) My personal experience as a very sore loser of all types of games. Losing makes me very frustrated, yet why is losing so important to me?
2) 'The Art of Failure' is about video games. Can we use the same ideas for board games and card games?
I used mostly video games as examples, but most of the discussion applies to all games. Video games then add some particular twists, especially in terms of single-player games, where the designer can closely follow the progress of the player and tweak the difficult and failure rates to match the player's current skill level.
3) In your keynote at F.R.O.G. 2013, you talked a little bit about "Gamification". This buzzword became very popular recently. What do you think about this buzzword? Do you think it's a good concept to define the use of game elements in non-game activities? Do you think it's correct to use 'game thinking' instead?
Like most buzzwords, gamification is overused, overhyped etc.. We could try to introduce a different term, but I think we should rather try to live with "gamification" and then explain what its problems are, what the advantages are etc.. I.e. the important thing is not the word itself, but what we use the ideas for, and how we implement them.
Gamification is a good idea in some activities.
It works best for situations where users / students / employees are in need of feedback, and when the gamification system allows the user to exercise sound judgment.
It works very badly in situations where users are meant to be creative, or if they are already deeply, personally committed to doing the best job that they possibly can. In such situations, gamification can become deeply demotivating.
We could call this the paradox of gamification: we associate games with fun and freedom, yet if we implement the wrong kind of gamification system, it becomes 1984, instead, by closely monitoring and punishing everybody who deviates from the path decided by the leaders.
4) The world is going mobile. How do you see the field of mobile gaming for the next years?
For a while, it seemed that traditional games would keep playing on consoles and PCs, and the broader public would be playing on mobile devices. But now this division seems to have almost disappeared. I think we will continue to see more, "deeper" game experiences on mobile devices.
For phones and tablets, the question to me is still whether external controllers will at some point become mainstream.
5) What are you playing at this moment?
My summer playing has mostly been Clash of Clans - there is something deeply compelling about the strategic multiplayer clan experience.
6) Send a final message to the new researchers of the gaming studies field.
There are many, many things that we don't understand about games, players, development and so on. What is the question that you are in a unique position to formulate and then answer?
Bio: Jesper Juul is a video game theorist and associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - The School of Design, and a visiting associate professor at Comparative Media Studies/Writing at MIT. He has been working with video game theory since the early 1990s, at the IT University of Copenhagen, MIT, and at New York University. His previous books are the video game theory classic Half-Real and A Casual Revolution. He recently published The Art of Failure, a book that combines personal confessions about failure with philosophy, game design analysis, psychology and fiction theory.
1) In your last book 'The Art of Failure' you talk about 'the pain of playing video games' in a very interesting way. What was your primary inspiration source to write about this subject?
Two things: 1) That our interaction with video games is clearly filled with frustration and unhappiness, yet we tend to talk about video games in purely positive terms - good, great, awesome, deep etc.. Why are we not talking about this darker side of game playing, and why do we play games even though it is there? 2) My personal experience as a very sore loser of all types of games. Losing makes me very frustrated, yet why is losing so important to me?
2) 'The Art of Failure' is about video games. Can we use the same ideas for board games and card games?
I used mostly video games as examples, but most of the discussion applies to all games. Video games then add some particular twists, especially in terms of single-player games, where the designer can closely follow the progress of the player and tweak the difficult and failure rates to match the player's current skill level.
3) In your keynote at F.R.O.G. 2013, you talked a little bit about "Gamification". This buzzword became very popular recently. What do you think about this buzzword? Do you think it's a good concept to define the use of game elements in non-game activities? Do you think it's correct to use 'game thinking' instead?
Like most buzzwords, gamification is overused, overhyped etc.. We could try to introduce a different term, but I think we should rather try to live with "gamification" and then explain what its problems are, what the advantages are etc.. I.e. the important thing is not the word itself, but what we use the ideas for, and how we implement them.
Gamification is a good idea in some activities.
It works best for situations where users / students / employees are in need of feedback, and when the gamification system allows the user to exercise sound judgment.
It works very badly in situations where users are meant to be creative, or if they are already deeply, personally committed to doing the best job that they possibly can. In such situations, gamification can become deeply demotivating.
We could call this the paradox of gamification: we associate games with fun and freedom, yet if we implement the wrong kind of gamification system, it becomes 1984, instead, by closely monitoring and punishing everybody who deviates from the path decided by the leaders.
4) The world is going mobile. How do you see the field of mobile gaming for the next years?
For a while, it seemed that traditional games would keep playing on consoles and PCs, and the broader public would be playing on mobile devices. But now this division seems to have almost disappeared. I think we will continue to see more, "deeper" game experiences on mobile devices.
For phones and tablets, the question to me is still whether external controllers will at some point become mainstream.
5) What are you playing at this moment?
My summer playing has mostly been Clash of Clans - there is something deeply compelling about the strategic multiplayer clan experience.
6) Send a final message to the new researchers of the gaming studies field.
There are many, many things that we don't understand about games, players, development and so on. What is the question that you are in a unique position to formulate and then answer?
quarta-feira, 16 de julho de 2014
Google Maps Smarty Pins: putting trivia on the map
Google is well known for using different strategies of entertainment in its various sites and social networks. The latest company's creation is the Smarty Pins game, a trivia challenge that uses Google Maps to solve enigmas.
Before playing, you can select some categories for the questions like “arts & culture”, “science & geography”, “sports & games”, “entertainment” etc. The main idea of Smarty Pins is to answer as many questions as you can before you run out of kilometers (the “energy” of the game); you need to submit answers by dropping a pin on the map at the correct location and kilometers are lost by placing the pin incorrectly (bonus kilometers are gained for quick thinking). There’s a cool gallery of trophies and badges for advanced players.
In the example below – in the category “sports & games” – the system asked “Which city hosted all FA Cup finals between 2001 and 2006 while the new Wembley Stadium was under construction?”. You have little time to drop the pin on the correct location.
After choosing a place and dropping the pin, the system returns the right answer and the difference between your tip and the correct place.
With this tool, Google is teaching – in a fun way – how to use various Maps tools.
Click here to play >>
Before playing, you can select some categories for the questions like “arts & culture”, “science & geography”, “sports & games”, “entertainment” etc. The main idea of Smarty Pins is to answer as many questions as you can before you run out of kilometers (the “energy” of the game); you need to submit answers by dropping a pin on the map at the correct location and kilometers are lost by placing the pin incorrectly (bonus kilometers are gained for quick thinking). There’s a cool gallery of trophies and badges for advanced players.
In the example below – in the category “sports & games” – the system asked “Which city hosted all FA Cup finals between 2001 and 2006 while the new Wembley Stadium was under construction?”. You have little time to drop the pin on the correct location.
After choosing a place and dropping the pin, the system returns the right answer and the difference between your tip and the correct place.
With this tool, Google is teaching – in a fun way – how to use various Maps tools.
Click here to play >>
sexta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2012
One year of Gaming Conceptz and a special interview with Gonzalo Frasca
By Vince (@vincevader)
One year ago I started posting here about gaming concepts, game design, gamification/ludification, games and many more aspects of the ludic universe.
And, 84 posts later, the blog is still alive and kicking.
I want to thank you all for the feedback, e-mailing and the great acquaintances I made through the blog during this year.
And to celebrate the year one of the Gaming Conceptz we have a great interview with Gonzalo Frasca. Enjoy! Go gamers!
Gonzalo Frasca (Montevideo, 1972) is a game designer and academic researcher focusing on serious and political videogames. Frasca is originally from Uruguay, where he established Powerful Robot Games, a videogame studio in Montevideo. In video game theory, Frasca belongs to the group of so called "ludologists", who consider video games to be simulations based on rules. They see video games as the first simulational media for the masses - which means a paradigm shift in media consumption and production.
1) How You've become a serious games researcher?
I'm interested in games. Serious games try to take games even further. So, anybody who's interested in pushing the envelope in games should be interested in serious games. Even if most serious games do not succeed, just thinking about the questions they raise is enough to make us better designers.
2) What would be the best definition for ludology? And narratology?
Ludology is just a word for game and play research. It's as simple as that. There are several definitions of narratology, but basically it's the discipline that studies stories and storytelling.
3) We can see a "wave" of studies about the use of game mechanics in a lot of areas of knowledge. What's your point on the buzzword "gamification"?
I've seen a lot of buzzwords come and go. I think it's positive people are interested in applying games on other fields. If gamification is here to stay or will fade, time will tell. In general, I generally try not to trust recipes and most of what I've seen about gamification looks like a magic recipe to me. But I could be wrong.
4) The use of serious games for political campaigns and education has improved in the last years?
Not really. And that is an interesting question. The simple answer is that they are not relevant. I believe we're still waiting for critical mass. Sooner or later it'll happen. Specially in education. That's my current obsession. I would actually say that these days I'm more interested in education than in games. Well, actually, it's hard to see one without considering the other.
5) The world is going more and more ludic with new digital interfaces and social media. That's a fact. Are the companies and advertising agencies ready for these changes?
I'm not sure. Videogames are still considered cool per se, not because of what they can do. Again, we're still in the very early ages of this genre. I know it doesn't seem like it. It's not because of technology: it's about social conventions. The more we incorporate play into our culture, the easier it'll be. I know this sounds totally hippie and new agey. But play is basically about not being afraid of doing. Play literally will make us free.
6) Send a final message to the new researchers of the gaming concepts and game design field.
Play my new iOS game: Space Holiday (LINK HERE). It's not serious at all, not political: it's a plain, full puzzle game. It was a challenge I set to myself: I always liked puzzle games and I always thought it was the kind of game I couldn't make myself. I worked really hard to prove myself wrong.
In any case, stay away from labels: researcher, designer, creator, player - those categories overlap all the time. You can't be good at one without being good at the others.
One year ago I started posting here about gaming concepts, game design, gamification/ludification, games and many more aspects of the ludic universe.
And, 84 posts later, the blog is still alive and kicking.
I want to thank you all for the feedback, e-mailing and the great acquaintances I made through the blog during this year.
And to celebrate the year one of the Gaming Conceptz we have a great interview with Gonzalo Frasca. Enjoy! Go gamers!
Gonzalo Frasca (Montevideo, 1972) is a game designer and academic researcher focusing on serious and political videogames. Frasca is originally from Uruguay, where he established Powerful Robot Games, a videogame studio in Montevideo. In video game theory, Frasca belongs to the group of so called "ludologists", who consider video games to be simulations based on rules. They see video games as the first simulational media for the masses - which means a paradigm shift in media consumption and production.
1) How You've become a serious games researcher?
I'm interested in games. Serious games try to take games even further. So, anybody who's interested in pushing the envelope in games should be interested in serious games. Even if most serious games do not succeed, just thinking about the questions they raise is enough to make us better designers.
2) What would be the best definition for ludology? And narratology?
Ludology is just a word for game and play research. It's as simple as that. There are several definitions of narratology, but basically it's the discipline that studies stories and storytelling.
3) We can see a "wave" of studies about the use of game mechanics in a lot of areas of knowledge. What's your point on the buzzword "gamification"?
I've seen a lot of buzzwords come and go. I think it's positive people are interested in applying games on other fields. If gamification is here to stay or will fade, time will tell. In general, I generally try not to trust recipes and most of what I've seen about gamification looks like a magic recipe to me. But I could be wrong.
4) The use of serious games for political campaigns and education has improved in the last years?
Not really. And that is an interesting question. The simple answer is that they are not relevant. I believe we're still waiting for critical mass. Sooner or later it'll happen. Specially in education. That's my current obsession. I would actually say that these days I'm more interested in education than in games. Well, actually, it's hard to see one without considering the other.
5) The world is going more and more ludic with new digital interfaces and social media. That's a fact. Are the companies and advertising agencies ready for these changes?
I'm not sure. Videogames are still considered cool per se, not because of what they can do. Again, we're still in the very early ages of this genre. I know it doesn't seem like it. It's not because of technology: it's about social conventions. The more we incorporate play into our culture, the easier it'll be. I know this sounds totally hippie and new agey. But play is basically about not being afraid of doing. Play literally will make us free.
6) Send a final message to the new researchers of the gaming concepts and game design field.
Play my new iOS game: Space Holiday (LINK HERE). It's not serious at all, not political: it's a plain, full puzzle game. It was a challenge I set to myself: I always liked puzzle games and I always thought it was the kind of game I couldn't make myself. I worked really hard to prove myself wrong.
In any case, stay away from labels: researcher, designer, creator, player - those categories overlap all the time. You can't be good at one without being good at the others.
quarta-feira, 15 de agosto de 2012
The Gamification of Death: How the Hardest Game Design Challenge Ever Demonstrates the Limits of Gaming
Video games can evoke powerful emotions, and deeply affect the people who play them. Plenty of games have already proven that the medium is capable of dealing with complex issues, but are there subjects that video games just aren't equipped to handle?
Margaret Robertson of the experimental game studio Hide&Seek explored this very question at GDC 2012, as she and her team ran into some real trouble when working on their interactive media experiment, Dreams of Your Life.
[Note: To access chapter selection, click the fullscreen button or check out the video on the GDC Vault website]
Source: Gama Sutra.
Margaret Robertson of the experimental game studio Hide&Seek explored this very question at GDC 2012, as she and her team ran into some real trouble when working on their interactive media experiment, Dreams of Your Life.
quarta-feira, 1 de agosto de 2012
About Cognitive Apprenticeship and Games
"When you play the Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception game on the PlayStation 3, you don't tell Nathan Drake what to shoot, you don't direct him where to go, and you don't give him commands to follow. No, you don't control Nathan Drake because you ARE Nathan Drake. By operating the character in the game, you learn the implicit rules of the world you inhabit".
REFERENCE:
KAPP, Karl. The Gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeifer, 2012. (pages 69 and 70)
REFERENCE:
KAPP, Karl. The Gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeifer, 2012. (pages 69 and 70)
quarta-feira, 27 de junho de 2012
What is Gamification?
Some definitions from the book "Gamification of learning and instruction":
"Process of using game thinking and mechanics to engage audiences and solve problens." - Gabe Zichermann, author of Game-based Marketing
"Using game tecniques to make activities more engaging and fun." - Amy Jo Kim, author of Community building on the web
"The broad trend of employing game mechanics to non-game environments such as innovation, marketing, training, employee performance, health and social change." - The Gartner Group
"Is the use of game play mechanics for non-game applications (also know as 'funware')." - Wikipedia
Combining elements from these definitions and getting rid of the emphasis of getting people todo things they ordinarily consider boring, results in defining the term gamification as:
"Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems." - Karl Kapp
Only badges, points and rewards; trivialization of learning; new ( the military has been using "war games" simulations, and goal-driven experiences to train personnel for centuries).
REFERENCE:
KAPP, Karl. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer: San Francisco, 2012. pages 10 & 12
"Process of using game thinking and mechanics to engage audiences and solve problens." - Gabe Zichermann, author of Game-based Marketing
"Using game tecniques to make activities more engaging and fun." - Amy Jo Kim, author of Community building on the web
"The broad trend of employing game mechanics to non-game environments such as innovation, marketing, training, employee performance, health and social change." - The Gartner Group
"Is the use of game play mechanics for non-game applications (also know as 'funware')." - Wikipedia
Combining elements from these definitions and getting rid of the emphasis of getting people todo things they ordinarily consider boring, results in defining the term gamification as:
"Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems." - Karl Kapp
What Gamification is not
Only badges, points and rewards; trivialization of learning; new ( the military has been using "war games" simulations, and goal-driven experiences to train personnel for centuries).
REFERENCE:
KAPP, Karl. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer: San Francisco, 2012. pages 10 & 12
sexta-feira, 30 de março de 2012
A new book for my library
Arrived today another title for my game design shelf. I want to discuss more about gamification and I think this book has a good point of view. Buy here (link).
And below the book description:
"What do Foursquare, Zynga, Nike+, and Groupon have in common? These and many other brands use gamification to deliver a sticky, viral, and engaging experience to their customers. This book provides the design strategy and tactics you need to integrate game mechanics into any kind of consumer-facing website or mobile app. Learn how to use core game concepts, design patterns, and meaningful code samples to a create fun and captivating social environment.
Whether you're an executive, developer, producer, or product specialist, Gamification by Design will show you how game mechanics can help you build customer loyalty".
Szia!
And below the book description:
"What do Foursquare, Zynga, Nike+, and Groupon have in common? These and many other brands use gamification to deliver a sticky, viral, and engaging experience to their customers. This book provides the design strategy and tactics you need to integrate game mechanics into any kind of consumer-facing website or mobile app. Learn how to use core game concepts, design patterns, and meaningful code samples to a create fun and captivating social environment.
Whether you're an executive, developer, producer, or product specialist, Gamification by Design will show you how game mechanics can help you build customer loyalty".
Szia!
quarta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2011
How about "ludification"?
By Vince
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate at Think Design Play DIGRA 2011, a congress in the city of Hilversum, Holland. During the three days of the event, many themes were discussed, among them: the main tendencies for the game industry, the use of games in education and politics, new interactive interfaces using game mechanics and the influence of violence in electronic games. I took part on a “advertising and games” panel, where I exposed some cases and concepts of games used in political campaigns, from a category called “serious games”.
I had the chance to participate in many panels and see excelent key notes, but it was during a presentation of Professor Espen Aarseth – a major figure in the emerging fields of video game studies and electronic literature – that I had the insight that led me to start writing on this blog.
Aarseth criticized the use of the term “gamification” in the present scenario, meaning that there’s much more in the term - we are forgetting some previous and extremely important concepts when we talk about inserting game mechanics in a non-game atmosphere.
In order to continue Aarseth’s argument, I propose a term to dwell on: "ludification", instead of "gamification". When we discuss "gamification", we are only talking about games, and I believe the idea is to go beyond that. When we use the word ludus – latin for “play” – we realize that the idea is to instert much more than just game mechanics for processes that are not games.
I believe that, when talking about "ludification", we are thinking of playful interfaces in a broader way. It can be a game mechanic, as well as a deeper way of telling a story. I can be common element to the language of games, like the rolling of a dice, as well as it can be a cartoon in a different context.
My point is that this is the century of playfulness, and more than just thinking of a way to offer games to a diverse audience, we should learn how to offer varied languages of entertainment – where the game is also inserted.
Now on to your opinion!
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate at Think Design Play DIGRA 2011, a congress in the city of Hilversum, Holland. During the three days of the event, many themes were discussed, among them: the main tendencies for the game industry, the use of games in education and politics, new interactive interfaces using game mechanics and the influence of violence in electronic games. I took part on a “advertising and games” panel, where I exposed some cases and concepts of games used in political campaigns, from a category called “serious games”.
I had the chance to participate in many panels and see excelent key notes, but it was during a presentation of Professor Espen Aarseth – a major figure in the emerging fields of video game studies and electronic literature – that I had the insight that led me to start writing on this blog.Aarseth criticized the use of the term “gamification” in the present scenario, meaning that there’s much more in the term - we are forgetting some previous and extremely important concepts when we talk about inserting game mechanics in a non-game atmosphere.
In order to continue Aarseth’s argument, I propose a term to dwell on: "ludification", instead of "gamification". When we discuss "gamification", we are only talking about games, and I believe the idea is to go beyond that. When we use the word ludus – latin for “play” – we realize that the idea is to instert much more than just game mechanics for processes that are not games.
I believe that, when talking about "ludification", we are thinking of playful interfaces in a broader way. It can be a game mechanic, as well as a deeper way of telling a story. I can be common element to the language of games, like the rolling of a dice, as well as it can be a cartoon in a different context.
My point is that this is the century of playfulness, and more than just thinking of a way to offer games to a diverse audience, we should learn how to offer varied languages of entertainment – where the game is also inserted.
Now on to your opinion!
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)