The Revolution of Fun

The Revolution of Fun is a dissertation paper by Ferran Altarriba Bertran, conducted around the topic of gamification and serious games. Ferran looks at the potential of fun and games in non-entertainment contexts, the psychological theories and the basics of Game Design rules.

---

A study of applied games and fun as highly powerful tools to achieve goals in non-entertainment contexts through motivation and engagement.

The Theory of Fun

This section covers some of the usual things on Fun Theory like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and Johan Huizinga “Homo Ludens”…

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Then moves on to defining what a game is:

• Elliot M. Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith state that “games are an exercise of voluntary control systems, in which there is a contest between powers, confined by rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome.”
• Greg Costikyan, an American Game Designer and Science-fiction writter states that a game is “an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.”
• Tracy Fullerton, Chris Swain and Steven Hoffman, who state that “a game is a closed, formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resolves in an unequal outcome.”
• Bernard Suits states that “To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude].”
• Jesse Schell states “Games cannot simply be problem-solving activities. One who plays them must also have that special, hard-to-define attitude that we consider essential to the nature of play. So, a definition that nicely covers all ten qualities might be: ‘A game is a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.’”
• Raph Koster states “The definition of a good game is […] ‘one that teaches everything it has to offer.’ That’s what games are, in the end. Fun is just another word for learning.”

And briefly brings up Joseph Campbell’s narrative structure the Monomyth, also known as the “Hero’s Journey”.

Games and Psychology

This section looks at both the different forms of games (games, gamification, serious games, and gameful design), and the psychology behind games and fun.

Games, Gamification and Gameful Design

It starts with Andrezej Marczewki diagram where he divides games into four divisions, and also provides us with some definitions.

Differences in Terms (gameful design, gamification, serious games, and games)

• Game: a Game is a problem-solving activity approached with a playful attitude (Jesse Schell, 2008, p.37).
• Serious Game: a Serious Game is a software or hardware developed through game technology and designed through game principles with a purpose different than just entertainment (Oscar Garcia-Panella, 2012).
• Gamification: Gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in non-game contexts to engage users in solving problems. Gamification is used in applications and processes to improve user engagement, return on investment, data quality, timeliness, and learning.
• Gameful Design: a Gameful Design is the result of a design process where game thinking has been used.

Motivational Facts

This section looks at the motivational factors that games deliver (intrinsic and extrinsic), and touches on the RAMP model, which combines Daniel Pinks ‘purpose’ with Self Determination Theories ‘relatedness’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘Mastery’. After this it moves on to briefly mention Mark LeBlanc 8 Pleasures before discussing player types (Bartle, Marczewski, and Amy Jo Kim).

• Intrinsic motivation: it refers to enjoying something for the only fact of the pleasure among from its nature (for example, playing football).
• Extrinsic motivation: it refers to enjoying something due to the fact of there being a reward not necessarily connected to it (for example, working hard to get a salary). These rewards don’t necessarily have to be tangible (for example, a salary), they can be imaginary or virtual as well (a points system in a game).

R.A.M.P – Intrinsic Motivation – Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose

• Relatedness: the desire to be connected to others.
• Autonomy: the desire to decide and choose own paths.
• Mastery: the desire of developing a skill, mastering it.
• Purpose: the desire to connect own actions with a greater reason. Often related to philantropism.

Game Design

This section explores the core parts of game design… game dynamics, mechanics and elements. It provides definitions for each and why they are important.

Starting with Dynamics where it briefly mentions Steven Reiss 16 Basic Desires and how they motivate human behaviours, before moving onto mechanics and Jon Radoff’s 42 kinds of activities that people enjoy doing, and ending with game elements (points, badges, and leaderboards).

At the end of this section it also briefly touches on Platforms and what to consider when deciding on the most appropriate one (e.g. analogue, digital, transmedia)—and storytelling as a key element in the system (motivating and engaging).

Conclusion

“games and fun in general represent something more than simply a way of entertainment. As they are directly related to human psychological needs and behavioural patterns, they become highly powerful tools for achieving goal”.

“If this relationship between human psychological patterns and game elements, mechanics and dynamics is clearly established, it means that game techniques and thinking can be used to successfully promote human behaviours.”

---

Bertran, F. A. (2014). The Revolution of Fun. Retrieved from http://www.ferranaltarriba.com/docs/therevolutionoffun.pdf

Gamification in Education (Tetrad)

THIS IS REPOSTED FROM: TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES \\ ORIGINALLY POSTED BY: CASTILLOLEO211, ON JUNE 25, 2015

Gamification in education is relatively a new and emerging concept that is being widely discussed in educational circles.

According to Kapp (2012), Gamification as it relates to education can be defined as “using game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems.

Wang (2011) further defines it as “a series of design principles, processes and systems used to influence, engage and motivate individuals, groups and communities to drive behaviors and effect desired outcomes.”

According to a Gartner Group study, 50% of organizations that manage innovation process will gamify those processes within the next decade (Gartner, 2011).

While the aforementioned definitions are derived from the business sector, it is important to note that it is this sector that could potentially influence education, as educators prepare their students for the 21st century workforce. Therefore, it seems that gamification in education is inevitable and as a result, careful study and analysis of this emerging concept should be on the forefront of every educator’s agenda.

gamification in education – tetrad

Enhances

Gamification in education has the potential to enhance student engagement more so than a traditional lecture or textbook reading. Students that find one particular subject boring could possibly find it fun if the subject were to be presented in a gaming format. Additionally, gamification has the capability to provide immediate performance feedback and display progress, which could also serve as a motivator.

Obsoletes

Gamification in education also has the potential to replace books and traditional brick and mortar type schools/classrooms. Gamification tends to lend itself to distance learning where there is no need for a building or classroom. Gamification and distance learning can conceivable offer computer-based or online instructional material such as textbooks, articles, websites, and other pertinent material, which could eliminate the need for hard-copy textbooks and articles. As a result, libraries would also become extinct, as online databases would provide necessary resources for the gamified learner.

Retrieves

Gamification can also rekindle the practice of collaboration by provide students a broader range of opportunities to collaborate, problem-solve, and network with other students from diverse backgrounds and cultures, yet another 21st century skill that our students need to have.

For years, traditional learning has placed emphasis on the premise that failure is not an option, yet learning from ones mistakes is the primary method of learning in gamification. Failure allows students to revaluate their approaches to problem solving and it also permits them to test their own hypothesis, which in return would result in a positive learning experience.

Reverses

While the aforementioned benefits of gamification in education have merit and value, it would irresponsible not to consider the possible reverses and potential problems that may surface. The use of gamification in a leaning environment, if used inappropriately could possibly lead to the infantilization of learning. Students would run the risk of believing that if the gamification experience is not fun then learning the material would hold no value. Additionally, the focus would be on the rewards and achievements a student could gain and not on the self-satisfaction of newly acquired knowledge. There would be an increased intrinsic value to learning that simply focuses on a means to an end.

Conclusion

Gamification in education can prove to be a tremendous tool for engaging students; however, if it is poorly implemented and improperly utilized this emerging concept could lose its significance and usefulness.

It is vital to gain an understanding of the dangers and stipulation that are required in implementing gamification. While gamification can possibly increase student engagement and achievement, it behooves us as educators to consider our goal in the framework of learning and not in the context of simply adding another trending and emerging technological device or concept.

---

Gartner, Inc. (2011). Gartner says by 2015, more than 50 percent of organization that manage innovation processes will gamify those processes. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1629214

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education (p. 11). John Wiley & Sons.

Wang, R. (2011). Demystifying enterprise gamification for business. Retrieved from https://www.constellationr.com/research/demystifying-enterprise-gamification-business

Skill Trees

I recently came across skill trees and was intrigued by the idea of them and liked the way they could be used in teaching and learning. It would be interesting to use this concept when doing lesson plans (sequencing, pre-requisites, etc.).

I think this would be a great tool to allow students to customise their journey (what skills to upgrade), as well as allowing them to visualise areas that they are strong in and areas that need improving. It would also be great to make connections between certain “nodes” (or branches) on the skill tree and specific careers, showing them where certain skills can take them.

Skill Trees (also known as talent trees) are a component that can add depth, fulfilment, and replayability to most any game. They are also great for easing in new gameplay dynamics by starting players with scaled-down versions that can be fully unlocked over time, or by delaying their acquisition so players are not overwhelmed at the start.

Legends of Aethereus Skill Tree

What is a Skill Tree?

Skill trees are an array of skills that start small, but that grow and branch out into a more robust organism. They are populated by “nodes”, which are tied to various components of the game (max health, regen, bonuses to income, movement speed, etc.).

Everything that the player is or does can be tied to nodes in skill trees. The nodes are unlocked as the player progresses in the game until a node is “maxed”. The base value of these nodes and their tiered bonuses are key ways for a designer to balance gameplay.

They can be unlocking mechanics that ‘gate’ the player from picking whatever they want, whenever they want. A certain number of low tier talents, or player levels, may be required to reach higher tiers. If a player is able to choose any talent at any time—the progression dynamics, and the “flavor of play” each tree brings will be lost.

Path of Exile Skill Tree

Why use Skill Trees?

They are fun little puzzles that empower the player to personalise the game into something they enjoy. This personalisation also feeds a common need for self expression. Though simple and isolated from play, the impact skills have on your game can be very meaningful.

There’s no better way to educate your player in what they can (eventually) do in your game than by having a talent tree that they’ll be looking over time and time again thinking about where they want to advance their character.

Talent trees can make your player feel empowered and surprise them. They can also be the carrot on the stick that keeps them playing so they can get that one talent that defines their build and items.

How to Use Skill Trees?

Pacing the progression of a talent tree is vital to making it a positive aspect of your game. Lower tier talents should be simple but potent, hooking the player immediately. Conversely, it’s best to add more complex aspects of the tree at higher tiers, to ensure the player is ready for these more complex dynamics.

---

Berry, J. (2013). Let’s Spec Into Talent Trees: A Primer for Game Designers. Retrieved 22 June, 2015 from  http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/lets-spec-into-talent-trees-a-primer-for-game-designers–gamedev-6691

Design Thinking – Human Centred Design

“Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.” —Tim Brown, president & CEO

The three “Design Thinking” forces (people, business, and technology) are then translated into the three lenses of Human Centred Design (HCD):

• Desirability (people): What do people want, need, desire?
• Feasibility (technology): What is technically feasible.
• Viability (business): What is financially viable.

IDEO human-centred design (HCD) lenses

HCD is a process and a set of techniques used to create innovations. It starts with the people we are designing for, and examines their needs, dreams and behaviours through the “desirability lense”. We seek to listen to and to understand what they want. Once we have identified what is desirable, we then view our solutions through the lenses of “feasibility” and “viability”. (IDEO, p. 5)

“The solutions that emerge at the end of the Human-Centred Design should hit the overlap of these three lenses.” (IDEO. p. 6)

THE HCD PROCESS

The HCD process goes through three main phases:

• Hear: Collect stories and inspiration from the people you are designing for (ethnographic research: observation, interviews, etc.). Determine who to talk to, how to gather stories, and how to document your observations.
• Create: Work to translate what you heard from the people into the reality of today. This includes moving from concrete to more abstract thinking in identifying themes and opportunities, then back to the concrete with solutions and prototypes.
• Deliver: Begin to realise your solutions by taking your top solutions, making them better, and move them towards implementation by, revenue and cost modelling, capability assessment and implementation planning.

IDEO human-centred design (HCD) process

“In the process you will move from concrete observation about people and their needs and desire, to abstract thinking as you uncover insights and themes, then back to the concrete with tangible solutions.” (HCD Connect Website, n.d.)

---

IDEO (n.d. b). HCD. Human Centred Design. An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Retrieved 1 June, 2014 from http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/hcd_toolkit/HCD_INTRO_PDF_WEB_opt.pdf

HCD Connect Website. (n.d.). Human-centered design allows us to create and deliver solutions based on people’s needs. Retrieved 14 June, 2014 from http://www.hcdconnect.org/toolkit/en

The Art of Game Design: A Deck of Lenses

This deck of lenses is basically a creativity toolkit with 100 unique cards that feature very important questions aimed towards improving your game. All the cards reach different aspects of game design such as game mechanics, story, creativity, playtesting among many others. One of the great advantages of the book and the deck is that even if you’re a novice or expert game designer you and your game can greatly benefit from both of them. Read more about the cards here:

The Art of Game Design: A Deck of Lenses

Link to the Book here
Link to the app here

Gamification Inspiration Cards by Andrzej Marczewski

I love cards and have just received my pack of gamification inspiration cards by Andrezej Marczewski. I got the Black and White cards, but he has just made a version in colour as well.

Gamification Inspiration Cards

Andrezej designed these cards (53 in all) to help inspire ideas and build new and interesting gamified solutions. They have been developed to work hand in hand with his user types (Achievers, Socialisers, Philanthropists and Free Spirit).

Gamification Inspiration Cards

The Gamification Aesthetics Color Wheel

The Gamification Aesthetic Colour Wheel is a Gamification design toolkit by Victor Manrique and Isidro Rodrigo

Gamification is not only built out of mechanics. We need design, art and technology to create an everlasting gamified experience, and we strongly believe that gamification aesthetics have not received the importance they truly deserve yet.

As you might have realised, this toolkit is designed as “a color wheel”, meaning that all of its elements are related to each other and that there is some kind of logic behind them. There are 12 key elements to take into account when defining any experience’s aesthetics, and we usually have to follow certain steps to get the best out of it.

The Gamification Aesthetics Color Wheel Cards

Check out their site to learn more:
http://www.epicwinblog.net/2015/02/the-gamification-aesthetics-color-wheel.html

Gamification Mechanics Videos by Isidro Rodrigo

I have been doing an online course called “Gamification Design 2015” with iversity.org which has been quiet interesting.

In particular Isidro Rodrigo talks about how to design your own gamified experience. He has created video tutorials to guide you through various mechanics, there will be 35 in total—he has not finished them all yet.

You can see the first 6 here:
http://www.epicwinblog.net/2014/11/the-35-gamification-mechanics-official.html

Bartle’s Taxonomy of Player Types

Richard Bartle co-created MUD (Multi-User Dungeon), the text-based precursor to today’s MMORPGs, while studying at Essex University. He ended up formulating the theory that all MUD players could be broken down into four main types: killers, achievers, explorers, and socializers. This theory has since been used in all sorts of game design situations.

Bartle theorized that MUD players could be split into four types, giving psychological portraits of players populating a virtual world for fun:

• Killers like to provoke and cause drama and/or impose them over other players in the scope provided by the virtual world. Trolls, hackers, cheaters, and attention farmers belong in this category, along with the most ferocious and skillful PvP opponents.
• Achievers are competitive and enjoy beating difficult challenges whether they are set by the game or by themselves. The more challenging the goal, the most rewarded they tend to feel.
• Explorers like to explore the world – not just its geography but also the finer details of the game mechanics. These players may end up knowing how the game works and behave better than the game creators themselves. They know all the mechanics, short-cuts, tricks, and glitches that there are to know in the game and thrive on discovering more.
• Socializers are often more interested in having relations with the other players than playing the game itself. They help to spread knowledge and a human feel, and are often involved in the community aspect of the game (by means of managing guild or role-playing, for instance).

Richard Bartle’s Player Types: Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socialisers

The horizontal axis represents a preference for interacting with other players vs. interacting with the world and the vertical axis represents a preference for (inter)acting with something vs. (inter)acting on something. So, achievers prefer to act on the world, while socializers prefer to interact with other players.

Bartle found that players tended to belong to a primary category, but drifted between several others depending on their mood, situation and preferred goal in the game. Having categorized those type of players, drawn to the same virtual world for different reasons and still acting and interacting in the same playing field, he was now able to better balance the game.

http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

Amy Jo Kim’s – Social Action Matrix

Richard Bartle’s player types did a good job at raising awareness that different people enjoy different types of fun. However Amy Jo Kim found that Bartle’s system did not apply well to casual, social and educational games.  For example, the “Killer” archetype is almost non-existent in the player base of a casual games for a high-traffic women’s portal. Apparently teenage male hackers aren’t drawn to harass a site full of Moms. Inspired by Bartle, Amy Jo Kim took her experience at building and playing successful – and NOT so successful – social games and services, and identified four key patterns to how people like to socially engage: Explore, Create, Compete, and Collaborate. She then used this to map out the Social Actions, or Verbs of the players:

Amy Jo Kim’s Social Action Matrix.

• Explorers are motivated by gaining knowledge, exploring boundaries, finding loopholes, and knowing the rules that govern a space. Explorers love to poke at systems and discover their ins-and-outs. They enjoy accumulating and showing off  knowledge. Explorers value accurate info, clever design, and  relationship-building via knowledge exchange. They can enjoy exploring with others, but often it’s a satisfying solitary endeavor.
• Creators are motivated by opportunities for self-expression. Creators love tools and systems that let them personalize their experience, make their mark,  and express their uniqueness. The best Creators will fully use any available tools to make things that others admire and emulate. Creators value original thought, creativity, hard work, and personal style. They  enjoy customizing backgrounds, fonts and avatars.  They seek status, recognition and influence through creative skill
• Competitors are motivated by testing their skills and seeing how they stack up. They find external ranking systems and zero-sum game mechanics appealing because those structures mirror their internal dialogue and POV. Competitors love to develop their skills, showcase their prowess, and know where they stand within a group. They value mastery, learning, and relationship-building via friendly competition.
• Collaborators are motivated by working with others towards a greater goal.  They love to “win together” and measure success as collective impact. Collaborators enjoy participating in groups and teams, forming partnerships, and playing coop games. They value teamwork, shared learning, and relationship-building via shared tasks.

This matrix is a simple, and practical system for describing common motivational patterns in social and casual games. Think of this Matrix as a starting point for understanding and analyzing what motivates players of casual, social and serious games and gaming systems. Try using it to design experiences that will delight and engage your players by targeting these core motivations.

http://amyjokim.com/blog/2012/09/19/social-engagement-whos-playing-how-do-they-like-to-engage/