Ian Bogost is Director of Graduate Studies at the School of Literature, Communication and Culture at Georgia Tech. He calls himself a “designer, philosopher, critic, and researcher who focuses on computational media—videogames in particular” who has started his own video game studio called Persuasive Games.
Persuasive games makes games that turn all sorts of non game activities, such as running for local government and airport security, and turns them into games. This pretty much fits the definition of gamification; adding game mechanics to a non game activity.
Ian Bogost heads this up. And Ian Bogost thinks that Gamification is Bullshit.
He states “More specifically, gamification is marketing bullshit, invented by consultants as a means to capture the wild, coveted beast that is video games and to domesticate it for use in the grey, hopeless wasteland of big business, where bullshit already reigns anyway.”
In fact, he has labelled it “Exploitationware”. So what's going on?
While Ian Bogost does still see the usefulness of video games in all sorts of ways, he views the current surge in use of what he calls “exploitationware” as a manipulative veneer which covers the greed of those who are using it. His concerns lie not in the fact that people are using game mechanics outside of entertainment, but rather which game mechanics people are using and what they are using them for.
In another of his articles he discusses the difference between the terms “serious games” and “gamification”.
“Serious games”, on one hand, are serious. They are video games that are designed and produced to solve a problem. They take a real, non-game situation, and make a video game out of it in order to train, educate or solve real issues. An example of this is Foldit, a video game about folding proteins. Players recently solved a problem that scientists have been working for over a decade. Serious games are hard to develop, hard to implement, but are fantastic when they work.
“Gamification”, as Bogost describes it, is simple. You just add points. He refers to one critique of gamification which claims that it only seeks to add one minor aspect of gaming, a point system. But Bogost does not just claim that gamification doesn't really do what its meant to (i.e. its claim to add game mecahnics is bullshit itself), but he claims that gamification is exploitation. His claim is that “gamification proposes to replace real incentives with fictional ones” and in doing so, exploits the customers, employees or whoever else gamification is being used to manipulate.
What does this have to do with education?
Well, when someone suggests that we replace marks with experience points or put a leader board in the library for returns, maybe we should think what it is we are actually doing to our students. Are we seriously utilising game mechanics in a way that makes our learning activities different and fun or are we simply pasting on a points layer in a cynical attempt to squeeze a little more effort out of our students?
Good questions Daniel. In relation to the distinction between serious games and other games I was reminded of the long history of debate (since the late 1960s at least) about 'high' culture and 'popular culture' in the worlds of art, literature, film and so on. The debates began in the university sector but soon influenced the school curriculum and resulted in, for example, a pulling back from setting the cultural canon in literature (Shakespeare, Milton, Donne etc) as the only works to be studied and the inclusion of diverse 'texts' including everyday popular texts (magazines, newspapers, TV, young adult fiction, etc).
ReplyDeleteI had not heard of gamification before Daniel. I guess that part of our role as teacher librarians is to sift through the ‘bullshit’ before we recommend games to teachers or add them into the library collections. From reading the articles and viewing the resources on this and other video games blogs it is obvious, as Karl Royle has stated on his website, Gamebased Learning, (http://www.gamebasedlearning.org.uk/content/view/67/60/1/1/), that “games of any type may be used as motivational tools within education. The use and adoption of games as a part of a curriculum that uses the culture of learners and their critical engagement with pervasive media within the classroom is a natural progression in the use of ‘new’ media in teaching. “(p.2) If we as educators see games as being part of what constitutes a worthwhile education in the 21st century we need to be able to identify and avoid gimmicky money making trends such as gamification and Exploitationware. This may take practise and be time consuming & we may need to draw on the experiences and expertise of our colleagues in forums such as OZTL_NET, but if we are to be professional practitioners in our chosen field it is essential.
ReplyDeleteI had never considered gamification in such a negative sense before. I am a little prone to gimmicks I think. These "exploiting" versus "serious" games probably do and will have a role, even in educational contexts. Students respond well to some lightheartedness - certainly a motivational tool I "cynically" use to " squeeze a little .... effort out of ... students".
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that it is a new thing. When I went to school, we had house points for picking up litter, and class points for responsible behaviour and individual prizes for good results etc... - it just seems to have taken a technological twist and turn. We did have competitions for spelling or grammar or geography that ran on similar premises to the gamification concept.
This did make me think, though, of the Volkswagen marketing campaign from a couple of years ago that went viral on youtube (http://thefuntheory.com/). Have you seen these? "This site is dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better." So even though it was "gamification" or gimmicky, it did achieve some societal good and isn't that what we educate students for? To make a difference? To make the world a better place? (sorry, drifting into sappiness now!)
I agree that this video game type might not be the ideal preparation for tertiary bound academic students, but they may just meet the needs of other students in our classrooms, who need to engage with curriculum in different ways. With differentiated learning a department catchcry at the moment, surely gamification could be another strategy in our pedagogical toolkit.
Hi everyone, I'm hoping to put another post up tonight and another couple over the next few days.
ReplyDeleteBut to further the discussion about serious games and gamification and to clear up the negative vs the positive aspects of gamification, it might be worth noting some distinctions between serious games and gamification.
The distinction between serious games and gamification is one where serious games discuss an entire game that addresses a non game situation, whereas gamification refers to the use of game elements in non game settings. The difference then is a serious game is a video game with a 'serious' purpose but gamification is a non game situation that has been structured with some game elements.
It would be good to make a further distinction within gamification itself. There is the type of gamification that uses points and token rewards to get the player 'hooked', they would decrease the intrinsic motivation of the player. On the other end, there are gamification applications that make a non game activity that benefits the player more engaging and helps the people involved to be more motivated to participate. The second application of gamification would increase intrinsic motivation, the player would come away more motivated and more engaged and more willing to participate in activities without token rewards but the first application of gamification could well leave the player with less intrinsic motivation than they started with; they could end up hooked on gaining rewards for their actions – even if the rewards are token and as intangible as a title or badge that would only apply within the game.
Once we make this distinction, we can start to explore how gamification can be beneficial and how it can be detrimental in educational settings.