Things have been crazy lately with the term wrapping up and the ICIS conference. My main reasons for going to the conference was 1) to get in touch with IS researchers, 2) to see old friends, and 3) to get more people interested in this little thing called games research. The poster session went well and I made some very good contacts for future game research. I am so excited!
Very few people at the conference were working on games at the moment but many people said that games and gamification was the "hot new thing" when I mentioned my work. Many also mentioned that people are getting into gamification research right now. Who knows? Maybe in the next two to three years more game research work will become mainstream in the IS community
Coincidentally, signs of this change occurred when I was at the conference. A list of game researchers on Twitter was compiled and released last week. Check out the list to find other people doing cool work. Also the Special Interest Group on Games and Game Design Research passed its first round of approval! I should leave the country more often!
Milan itself was quite interesting. I didn't have a chance to really explore the place until the last day but there was no way I was going to Italy without getting a pizza. It was easily the best pizza I have ever had and it was just at a local cafe.
So in a few days I will give you an idea of what to expect in the New Year and a wrap up of my thoughts on this whole blogging thing so far.
Well after a bit of work over the year, the first paper on the effect of games on the IS discipline has been accepted! I will present it at the Workshop for Information Technology And Systems in Milan. I guess I should play some Championship Manager so that I can fit in.
With my classes starting and me nerding it up with friends last week, I didn't have a lot of time for the blog. But I did think of a few ideas which I now have a chance to write down.
We have already discussed game mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics but we have not discussed how to use this knowledge to aid gameful design. Today we will start off by talking about dynamics. Paradoxically, I thought of this idea when I was watching a video on aesthetics. Below, Extra Credit talks about how we have been getting it all wrong when discussing game genres. It really gets interesting around the 2 minute mark.
The video is perfectly right; it is rather silly to use the mechanics and dynamics of a medium to define its genres but it can be useful. By describing a movie as a "wide angle shot" movie, I know that it will feature many panoramas and vistas. Therefore if someone were to tell me that an educational video on nature was a "wide angle shot" movie then I could guess that it might show some amazing panoramas of natural wonders.
This should be the same for video games. We know that video games can be educational but what types of video games are best for teaching a particular type of subject? And is it possible to determine the types of dynamics that are needed to effectively teach and train specific subjects? Before we can answer that question we first need to discuss a fundamental concept that I call game patterns.
A game pattern is a set of game dynamics that define a game. You can have two very different games that share a pattern. This is different from a genre since, as mentioned by Extra Credit, it makes more sense for genres to be focused on how the medium makes us feel rather than the dynamics that we play. However, understanding a game's dynamics can be used to understand what it can teach us. For instance, you can have two games, one with a challenge aesthetic and another with a discovery aesthetic; but both could have the same game pattern where the player must navigate a character in a 2D environment. In one game the player may have to defeat a number of challenging enemies and in the other game the player may just need to navigate through the world to discover new and crazy things. Both have vastly different aesthetics but have very similar dynamics.
But if Fez and Rogue Legacy share a game pattern then does that mean they are teaching players the same thing? Since both games involve navigation through the environment, they both test the player's navigational skills, as well as reflexes needed to correctly jump onto a platform. As long the games share the same 2D platformer game pattern then the player will learn these things. Of course since the games are different this may mean that the player may learn things in one game that they do not learn in the other.
Moving on to more cognitive skills, as I mentioned in the last post, there is evidence that playing Starcraft increases cognitive flexibility in players. Cognitive flexibility is defined as "the ability to coordinate attentional processes between two or more concurrent or alternating operations". With this definition, ANYONE who has played Starcraft could tell that it increases cognitive flexibility but the real question is whether other games that follow the same game pattern as Starcraft will provide the same results. How similar do the games need to be? You could say that Europa Universalis is also a real-time strategy game where the player must switch between different forms of information; but the player has the ability to pause the game in EU and not in Starcraft. Is this difference fundamental for the game's effectiveness in teaching cognitive flexibility?
By analysing the dynamics and mechanics of a game can we begin to
isolate the ways in which it can teach us skills that are useful outside
of a game? For instance, I had a conversation with a friend about a bastion of nerdom: Magic: The Gathering (MtG). For those of you who do not know about Magic the Gathering, this video should give you an idea.
So it is very similar to Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh and other collectible card games. MtG can teach you about basic math since it involves keeping track of your life points, the life points of your creatures, effects on your creatures, and so on. But as Finn says in the video above, the game really teaches logic. A player can use a set of cards that has several "combos" that, when played together, have a devastating effect on their opponent. These combos can only be identified by studying how the cards affect other cards in the game. It is possible that the game creators did not even expect for the cards to be played together.
Most of these combos are a set of "if -then-else" statements that ensure that the player does well in the game. Now the beauty of using specific dynamics to teach a concept is that the designer is free to use whatever aesthetic they want for the game. If your audience likes to day dream then you can use a fantasy card game where the player pretends to be a powerful wizard. If your audience is competitive then you can create a dueling-card game where the player is trying to destroy their opponent (like Jake), or if your audience is inquisitive then you can design a game where the player tries to gain and learn about new and exciting creatures (like Pokemon). If the basic game pattern is the same then the player still needs to use logic to do well in the game. So the aesthetic is the "hook" (why people enjoy the game and their motivation for playing) and the pattern delivers the lesson. In the case of MtG, and other duel type games, it is the lure of domination that makes you learn the how to use logic to win the game.
For my research, I would love to setup a similar study as the Starcraft study to determine whether a collectible card game that has several combos is best for teaching a context that involves logic like computer programming. A card game where the player must use several complicated combos to win may provide a better chance for learning logic than a game where combos are not so important.
Just like the Starcraft study I could find 70 people who have never played collectible card games or know how to program and subjects would play in a week long Magic tournament, Pokemon tournament, or go outside or whatever non-gamers do. I could then teach programming to all of the subjects and ask them to code a simple program. It would be interesting to see whether those who competed in the Magic tournament learned significantly faster, or wrote better code, than those who did not. Of course I would have to get this past ethics review since there could be possible side effects.
I am back from my Ghana vacation. It was inspiring, relaxing, and wonderful but it is time to get back to the real world (so to speak). I had planned to sleep in and then catch up on all of my work later in the day but I woke up early and found something interesting on the Internet. So here I am writing this post. This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, Jetlag. Use Jetlag for all your productivity needs!
What I found was this interesting article on Game Jar by Mr. Geoff Hankes. I suggest that you read it before moving ahead with the rest of the post. However here are the highlights.
"Mostly, it’s because I feel that the majority of stories in video games are just plain bad compared to other mediums.
Characters are little more than
arch-types and cliches to me. They’re generally flat, boring,
underdeveloped shadows of actual characters that I cannot even begin to
relate to in any way, shape, or form. Plots are often non-nonsensical roller coaster rides that move you from
one set piece to the next, so you can shoot another army guy or alien in
the face without any real consequence to the greater context of the
world that you’re in.".
...
That’s why I’ve mostly consumed games as a set of mechanics, and how
those mechanics are entertaining. In doing so, I’ve approached games as
an academic critic. I’ve been reading my reviews lately and come to
realize they’re written more as papers, and are often dry, technical.
Which is what they should be if I’m only focusing on mechanics.
...
For those of you that don’t know, Crusader Kings II is a game that puts
you into the role of a medieval ruler – a simulation at its core, but
has many “gamey” parts to it as well. As you play a character, you gain
prestige and piety which contribute to your dynastic score when your
current playable character dies. The only clear cut goal in the game is
to have someone bearing your dynasty’s name by the year 1453. Other than
that, players are on their own to create their own goals and
achievements. It is one of the hardest games I’ve ever played. And its
the only one in a long time to make me engage with it on an emotional
level.
...
So why did Crusader Kings II touch me on such an emotional level? How did
this game which is ostensibly a collection of menus and hidden
background calculations get through to me in such a powerful way? It’s
because through those systems that we can become exposed to those
important aspects of characterization. I experienced [my character's] life during
his triumphs, his losses, and his frustrations. Of course, there is an
amount of role-playing going on here, but don’t we role-play in every
game?
First off let me just say that Crusader Kings 2 is AMAZING!
Ahem. Well anyways, as i read through the article I thought about the research I have seen in the past year. The concepts in the research provided a perfect framework for understanding the feelings of the author; specifically the discussion of mechanics vs. aesthetics. Story-telling in certain games did not engage him because they lacked a particular aesthetic but Crusader Kings 2 filled that need because its mechanics were used in service to creating a player driven story rather than the story being an excuse for the game's mechanics. But the last sentence I highlighted is really intriguing to me. The author assumes that every other gamer will feel and play as he does ("don't we role-play in every game?"). Some people probably do not.
The discussion of aesthetics and mechanics does not focus on the player, only the reasons for the affinity that players have for particular games. However, several researchers have identified player profiles that have specific preferences based on their style. Here is an article that tries to merge all of this research. From the article, and based on the profile found in the link, I would say that Geoff is a Idealist/Socialiser who is interested in the interplay between people and characters. The shallowness of these relationships in most video games stories is what makes them so frustrating to him. Crusader Kings 2 allows him to "play" with complex relationships, but rather than just present them as a set of numbers, the game turns these interactions into a coherent story that the player can control.
What is really exciting is what this all means for research. If we can determine the types of mechanics that create a specific aesthetic and the aesthetics that appeals to particular player profiles then we have created a Unified Gaming Theory. Even more excitingly, we can transform Game Design from a messy art-form into a more manageable process. This does not mean that game design becomes, "by the book", or uncreative but manageable. I would say that it is akin to baking.
In the 21st century we are very good at making a basic chocolate cake. We even have recipes that tell us how to do it. However, if all chocolate cakes tasted the same then it would be a sad, sad world. People take these recipes and change them for specific tastes. For instance, if we know that a person does not like sweet things we can make the cake with dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate. By understanding the interplay between mechanics (the difference between milk and dark chocolate), aesthetics (sweet vs. bitter taste), and player profiles (non sweet tooth), we will be able to tell that Geoff would have loved Crusader Kings 2 before he even played it. And we would be able to make a similar game for people who are more interested in rational management instead of relationships. Making everyone happy. Hmm, looks like this might be next year's project!
So why write a post about
fun? Well fun and purposeful games, specifically gamification, are intertwined . The people who talk about gamification almost always give the impression that it is a tool to create more fun. Gamification makes working FUN. Gamification makes boring tasks FUN. Gamification makes learning
FUN.
Fun is great, it gets people involved, they enjoy what they are doing and want to continue doing it. However, like the video above, you can only have so much of "so much fun". The problem with attaching purposeful games to "fun" is that it leaves you open to attacks like this. Postman essentially states that our obsession with entertainment is destroying rational thought and critical thinking in our society; the "killer-app"of his argument is television news. It is really hard to argue against him on that point. However, when I read Amusing Ourselves to Death, a long time ago, there was something that did not sit well
with me. The "fun" described in the book was very different from the "fun" I was having playing Starcraft at the time. The amusement that Postman was referring to was passive entertainment but by championing purposeful
games that try to make everything fun aren't we doing the same thing?
The answer is a resounding: It depends! There is some evidence that Postman's arguments can be applied to gamification. For instance, the reading encouragement programs in schools (like the BookIT program) are complete failures. In these programs, kids get points for reading books and can redeem these points for free pizza. It was found that kids in these programs were reading more, but were less likely to understand what they read and had changed their reading habits towards shorter and less substantial material.
On the other end of the argument is Jane McGonigal and her full-throated defense of how games
can make the world better. For instance, she mentions a game called World Without Oil which was, essentially, an online game of Dungeons and Dragons where the players pretended to be in a "World Without Oil" and then blogged about their experience. Other players could help them along and provide solutions to the problems that they faced. In short, for 32 days they had to actively think about how they were living in a World Without Oil. This helped people to actually care about this issue rather than just "raise awareness" about the issue.
So is fun a problem? It depends on how we define fun. Most detractors of purposeful games think that fun is this:
Comfortable and easy. It ensures that nothing is wrong and everything is going to be fine. Most purposeful game champions think fun is this:
Complex, engaging, and challenging.
What is funny is that as managers and consultants are using the word "fun", while video games developers are turning their backs on fun. There are embracing the word "engaging". The same issues that Postman has about people being non-critical thinkers is also annoying developers about the current crop of gamers.
Here is an article about a game designer who thinks that current games are "ruining" a generation of gamers. By "ruining" he means that modern games are making their players worse gamers. How is this possible? In short, he mentions that skill is no longer needed to play certain games and so when these gamers are given a challenge, they balk at it. Fun, the comfortable couch kind, is actually limiting video games! The folks at Extra Credit put it best.
So from an entertainment point of view, Extra Credit comes up with some pretty interesting ways to create engagement. However a group of researchers have gone further and identified the psychological needs that video games can fulfill that are beyond fun: autonomy, presence and perceived competence. An engaging game will put us in a world where we can do what we want, and feel immersed in that world but will also challenge us and give us a sense that we are performing better as we play.
So for purposeful games to work they will have to encourage the behaviour that we want (not more books read, but books read well) and also be engaging. Not fun. Because sometimes amusement is not appropriate.
