All the world’s a game, and all the men and women merely players
I’ve actually been thinking of this for some time now. But I’ve been way too busy to write anything about it. And I actually think it is ironic that at this time, probably the busiest time ever in my life, I feel it necessary to finally get my thoughts on this out.
Through the years I’ve read about how companies and products are slowly implementing gaming features so that users will be 1) more entertained and 2) more easily tracked/mined/advertised too/etc… And lately I’ve seen a video of a presentation at DICE by Jesse Schell titled “Design Outside the Box” garnering a lot of attention. The presentation is a good one and here is one of the many sites you can view it at.
I agree with the core of what Jesse says. It is unfortunate that most of his speech is either a comical recount of social gaming emergence in the past year or a satirical story of what we can expect in the future, but I do like his main point which is this: Gaming mechanics are finding their way into all aspects of life. However, I wasn’t quite sure if Jesse had any call to action about what to do about this. He had a very short bit at the end basically saying it is in our (the game designers’) hands, but I wish he would have gone into the meat of it more. What are the ethical ramifications? What leads us to believe we will be better people with these systems in place? I think I would have even enjoyed an extreme position: maybe a rant about how this is big brother 2.0, or how we should be happy that our society is on the cusp of transforming into a superior transhuman collective working toward common goals structured originally through game design.
It is possible that the point of the talk was not to focus on ramifications and our personal influence on the future, but I find it glaringly missing. Not only do I find it missing from this talk, but from many other discussions I have heard. Honestly, I don’t even know who agrees or disagrees with how I feel about the subject. That’s why I felt the urge to post this and start a discussion.
So, assuming these sorts of game mechanics continue to trickle into our everyday lives, what should we be thinking about? As both game designers and users of “the system” what should we worry about and what should we start to change, now, to make sure these mechanics end up bettering our lives? Or should we throw the whole thing out the window?
I’ll start with some of my thoughts on the matter.
Firstly, I am acutely aware of the ethics gap that new technology often creates. An obvious target here for argument is that on the back end of these gaming systems are corporations who want to make money off of users. Or utilize user data to make more money. I’m not sure this is inherently bad, but it can obviously be extremely bad if not used properly. I often think about the gowalla’s and foursquare’s out there: The geotargetting programs that track where you are… no, that you TELL where you are… and award points for doing so. Obviously this data is very interesting to companies. And they surely keep people engaged and connected, in a way, which is their other intended purpose. But what evil can be done when the whole world knows where you are, and where you’ve been. Even if the companies themselves don’t misuse the data, others could. There was an interesting article on techcrunch about this, to a degree, but it focused on the fact that you are letting others know you are out of your house. I actually think this is a little silly, but still it shows people have it on their minds.
Now, I don’t want to focus exclusively on the horrible things people can do to you with all of the information easily available to anyone on the net. That is a different discussion. I want to focus on issues with game design, but I DO think it is important to realize that these dangers do exist and we need to have them always at the forefront of our minds when designing and implementing systems.
And really, that is what is at the root of my fears; that designers and developers do not think of the good of the end user, and user flow, before pumping out systems with game mechanics. This is another thing I wish Jesse would have covered. He pointed out that we game designers could have a phenomenal impact on the effectiveness of these systems, but he did not point out that we could also have a similar impact on the ways they truly improve life for people and furthermore, do no harm. And by this I don’t even mean personal harm by giving away user information, but indirect harm by being so narrowly effective they actually damage a process they are trying to improve.
Let me use an example. Microsoft recently released an Office add-on called Ribbon Hero. Basically it turns your work into a game. You get points for writing documents or filling out spreadsheets etc… Basically the thought behind it is by introducing game mechanics you can increase your productivity. They even brought on some game designers to help them, which I think is great. I have to admit, I have not tried the product, but from what I’ve seen from several videos and heard from a few sources it seems to be a really cool system. And I would bet it is effective in many cases. However, I have one main issue with this, and it holds true to almost all other systems that implement game mechanics. Any system containing game mechanics to reward users will be gamed by the users. This is crucial, so let me emphasize it: Any system containing game mechanics to reward users will be gamed by the users. Now, you may be thinking that there are cases where this doesn’t fit. Surely you’d only be cheating yourself to game a system meant to increase productivity in your work. But think back. Remember the days you were in high school or college and your teacher/professor would assign a paper that had to be 5 pages long. What did you do? You triple spaced the document and increased the margins and did everything you could possibly think of to get that 2 page paper to be 5 pages. And if you didn’t, most of your classmates did (and you don’t need game mechanics to improve your productivity!). So, using Ribbon Hero, let’s create a hypothetical scenario. You run a company and you have all of your employees run Ribbon Hero so that they all can compare their scores to each other and have fun as they do their work and the hope is their productivity goes through the roof. At first this works great, but then Bob (oh that Bob), finds a way around the system that lets him do half the work, but get the same score as everyone else. Soon, Bob is half as productive as he was before. Eventually, he lets his little secret leak and others in the company do the same. Now, I could go on with this, but the point is to show the issues with putting game mechanics in places they weren’t originally. If you don’t keep in mind the end goal things could work out counter to what was intended. And in this case, you can’t even blame the employees. What happened is that you, the boss, gave them an incentive and they worked towards that incentive. If anything, the problem was that you gave them a flawed incentive! Even if you stressed that the points didn’t mean anything, by merely introducing the mechanic you changed up the atmosphere and created a new goal everyone was working towards.
I believe this will be one of the biggest, non-obvious, issues with introducing game mechanics into systems. Influencing actions in ways not intended. I often think about a calorie counter program I have on my iPod touch. Not only does it count calories, but you can record activities you do and it subtracts those calories. One of the actions is “sexual activity.” Now, the first interesting thing about this is I wonder how many people would truly be accurate with this if they knew there was even a possibility of the data being viewed publically, but another thing I think about is that if this system had a point system (I know of other calorie counters and health programs that do) how would that activity choice influence people? If it were worth, say, 10x what other activities were worth, don’t you think there would be a great new pick up line for guys at bars? “Hey baby, how about you and me go and score 500 points?” Or excuses for adolescents to pressure their significant others? “But, babe, we HAVE to do it… I’m only 50 points from level 5! Would you keep that from me?” Humorous, yes, but with a sliver of truth. The main point is that gaming systems are intended to influence behavior, not merely track it, and if we are the ones responsible for implementing these influential systems, shouldn’t we be thoughtful to their impacts?
I sometimes joke that it is sad that I can easily find the player who scored the most goals at the game last night, but I can’t find an easy to view list of who the top brain surgeons in the US are (but if you’re interested in the band, you’re in luck!). So why don’t we create a point system and a leaderboard for surgeons? Now, this is meant mainly as a joke. Of course there are huge ramifications in doing something like this, but that is exactly what I am concerned about. How can we accomplish both things? Or can we? Can we create a system to appropriately reward the best surgeons without causing ill effects on other surgeons and patients? Would such a system truly make surgeons perform better or would they do worse feeling the constant pressure on them? To challenge Jesse’s suggestion that these mechanics, when added, improve us as people I ask: “Are we more likely to be better people, or make it look like we are better people by doing whatever is most highly rewarded through these systems?” And on that note, but to discuss another time, does that mean hackers will be our future idols?
Jesse’s closing remark is something I’m on board with. Game designers, though I’m sure they will go by different titles, will have a great impact on the future of the world and how we interact with it. We should seize on this opportunity, for sure. However, we should not do so without careful thought and consideration of the impacts beyond short term gains.
-Chris
FlashGameLicense.com
11 Responses to “All the world’s a game, and all the men and women merely players”
RSS feed for comments on this post. - TrackBack URL
Joe - February 23rd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
A great example of “game mechanics” having negative effects is in the American Public School system after No Child Left Behind.
Things that aren’t as important for the standardized test are not taught as much, things that are hard to test with bubble-sheets, like critical thinking and writing ability are not taught as much. Teachers teach the students how to pass the test, instead of giving them a real education. And most schockingly, teacher game the system by cheating for their students. Some teachers will actually go through the tests and fix a few incorrect answers here and there.
“Any system containing game mechanics to reward users will be gamed by the users.” indeed! That’s bad game-design with dire real-life consequences!
Evan Miller - February 23rd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I think the mistake is in assuming that we aren’t already doing this. People already play ‘the dating game’. When you go to ask your ‘boss’ for a raise, you throw on nice clothes to boost your ‘charisma’. Schell talked about using experience points in school as an alternative to grades, but grades are already high scores. Kids already know the rules and the objectives.
Years ago I came across a blog of a guy who was trying to get over his awkwardness when talking to women. His approach was simple: Treat himself like an RPG character and award experience points every time he initiated an interaction. Start up a conversation with a stranger on the bus? +100XP. Do it enough and you’ll level up, become stronger, more confident, and eventually have no problem with it at all.
I never checked if it turned out to be satire or viral marketing or an honest story, but the responses people had were genuine enough. They ranged from “Good for you!” to “That’s pathetic”.
And I found myself wondering, “What’s pathetic about gaining experience at something?”
If you went to the people who were calling him pathetic and asked them for dating advice, what would they say? Something along the lines of “Get out there and talk to people. Gain experience”. Yet as soon as it was experience points, people suddenly forget that the game mechanics were based on life. We designed games by looking at real life.
Games are teaching us about reality by bringing it to our attention. Why don’t I want to exercise? Why don’t I want to brush my teeth? Why don’t I want to do well in school? Why do I need ‘points’ to motivate me to do these things? Why am I doing anything? To win? To win what?
In a sense, games are becoming a physical representation of philosophy. A concrete, practical, and scientific method for us to test all the philosophical musings we’ve come up with throughout history.
Perhaps the real problem is that people would be happier if simply left in ignorance so they could focus on shooting zombies in the face.
Chris - February 23rd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I don’t think Schell or I are saying this isn’t happening already. At least that wasn’t my intention. But rather the opposite: that it is happening and will be happening even more. Maybe a big part that I didn’t emphasize enough (which Schell did touch upon) is that these will be systems created by other people for the masses. I do still think we are apt to cheat at any system, even if devised by ourselves for ourselves, but the impact is weaker. Using the example of the guy who gives himself xp for talking to people, he may decide to give himself 100xp even though the person on the bus doesn’t acknowledge him. But move this system onto a platform for the masses and I think things get worse.
Also, I don’t think using gaming mechanics are inherently bad. I just think they will have unintended consequences, and dramatic ones if we don’t try to think them through. For example, you are correct that grades in school are already an achievement system. And Schell mentions an achievement system for grades that another professor has started using that he claims is doing great. However, that WAS for a game design course, for one, and for two who knows if it is truly the best mechanic of grading? Maybe those kids are doing better because they are more apt to cheat the system. Most likely, though, it is because they are all gamers and can relate to the scoring system. Not to go too off topic, but what I find saddening about school systems is not the way they grade students, but that they don’t have several different methods of grading since everyone learns in a different way. To me, this is a good case of someone creating a gaming mechanic and assuming it is right so it stays.
Your last comment is especially interesting. In every case we’ve touched upon the game mechanics added to a system have an effect… increased happiness. Or at least it is an intended effect. Is this something that is necessary? Do these mechanics only work if they show short term gain… even incremental gain to a larger goal? If I wanted to start a farm I would have to endure a lot of hardship before I could reap my reward… and plants don’t grow fast enough to see even daily incremental change. But in a game you do see these minute changes. You are immediately rewarded even for small steps to a larger goal. It would be interesting to see if a game like WoW would be successful if they only had level 1 and level 80.. no in between levels.
rosedragon - February 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Interesting thoughts. It sounds both scary and attractive, also make me remember again something I have been thinking around. Was us, the game developers, are the evil one who cause millions of people procrastinating on theirs job and kids break from school? Or it is theirs own fault to unable to put entertainment aside works? Or perhaps the whole world makes a mistake by pushing people to use most time on works they don’t actually like? Are we life to be useful for people around us or enjoying the life? Which one is wrong?
rob james - February 24th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Chris,
You obviously dont have the stats of a government led health system. You can easily get stats in the uk for pretty much everything in hospitals, we have league tables for them and they are all given ratings out of 5 (I think). The education system is exactly the same, each school already has a percentage rated on them based on exam results and every year the government produces a league table for the entire country.
eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7974661.stm
Chris - February 24th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Rob,
That is really cool. I was not familiar with that system. So you could literally look at a list of the top pediatric surgeons publicly somewhere? Is there ever an issue with “gaming” the system? Do people often use the numbers to make decisions?
Danc - February 24th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Anyone who has ever designed a game knows that all game mechanics have unintended consequences.
It is the nature of complex emergent systems. This is why a fundamental step in any game design is the act of balancing the game to remove degenerate strategies.
So far we aren’t talking about anything new…just the same old process that game designers have been going through for decade (millennia?). In all game design, you create a rule set, test it with player, fail in some fashion and then fix it.
There are two things that make the movement of game mechanics into the ‘real world’ interesting.
- In multiplayer games, bad game design and the process of failing has social consequences. Relationships are altered, emotions flare and grudges are formed. If you do not properly set expectations that your game rules will change and hard earned skills will be deprecated, then players will often rebel.
- The closer you get to the game affecting player’s basic human needs, the more costly bad design mistakes become. If you accidentally reward doctors for cutting off finger and the number of amputees skyrockets 1000%, the fact that you fixed the issue doesn’t alleviate the damage you’ve already done.
Interestingly enough, these are exactly the same issue that come up in running a government, testing new medicines on humans, and running a religion. It is the universal messiness that comes from intersection between rules and people.
I personally find this to be an exciting time. Most rules throughout history are created by people in power with little reason to select the best solution. Modern developers are creating a vast new set of techniques for engineering effective social systems. Things like metrics dashboards and A/B testing let see what works and what doesn’t…and then you select the pragmatic solution. Heck, imagine if this philosophy were applied to the currently deadlocked U.S government.
take care
Danc.
Chris - February 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Danc,
That is exactly my point. These are no longer games we are talking about, but we are treating them like games (and applying actual game concepts to them!)
I agree that this is an exciting time, but we should also be careful not to lose ourselves in that excitement.
We can, of course, wax philosophic and say that in reality all we’ve ever done is apply game mechanics to systems. In fact I sthink that. But we have to pair it down a bit to have a relevant discussion about this *new* way of going about it. Things like Schell’s story of a future ruled by “points” that I think most people would agree seems to be a bad future, followed by “this could make us better people” really raises a red flag to me. I have no way to know if he is right or wrong, but it makes me highly skeptical.
Also, balancing a game and balancing a system in the real world is extremely different. Games are microcosms where you can limit the rules and goals and heck even the players if you want. In the “real world” we don’t have such luxuries. For example, using the prius example where you can watch a little plant grow in your dashboard when you save fuel, what if it turned out that people started getting into accidents because they weren’t focused on the road, but on the plant? Or a more funny, and probably more possible outcome, what if people started driving more so that they could see the plant grow? Thus as they drove more they polluted more, even though they were saving gas during the times they were driving?
And A/B testing is great, but it can’t or at least won’t be applied to everything. And when your yield is measured in the % of lives lost it takes on a little different meaning than when applied to a game.
And I imagine if you applied A/B testing to our government what you’d get is either the exact same system we have, or a full fledged democracy where the minority stakeholders are oppressed
I’m not saying we can’t pull these things off. In fact, we have to.. we have no choice. This is happening. But WE are the people that will make it move forward, so I think we should be mindful of how we proceed. Surely, no one can know how a system will impact the masses until it is released into the wild, but we can try our best and think ethically about it before we do so.
And to make it clear, I may not be arguing with anyone… this may be the popular belief. But I’ve not seen anyone state beliefs in this area, and even Schell side stepped the issue. That’s my reason for bringing it up.
UnknownGuardian - February 25th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I listened to his talk a few days ago, and I found quite a bit of interesting things. I’m not sure its the rewards that are hooking people into the game. I think its more like the chance to compete and be better than someone else. It might even go deeper, that their need to feel better than others and gain rewards is driven by their social life which doesn’t compensate for their needs. Then the competition insight led to another conclusion, that you need another person to compete against. Someone the player knows and/or can relate to in some way. This is my theory behind why Facebook games tend to be a hit. The desire to do better than someone else *just might* be the driving force behind the gaming industry.
Kevin Trepanier - February 26th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Very interesting, important conversation. It’s important to note that there are inherently flawed aspect about game mechanics mostly because they are mainly based around rewards and punishments (mostly rewards in the past few years) in order to motivate the “players”.
(I’ll try to sum up a few of my ideas on the subject but it is a very complex subject that I have not fully grasped yet…)
Being a young dad of a 1 year and a half, I’m very concerned about children’s education and read a few challenging books on the subject. An important one that goes totally against the reward and punishment system is “unconditional parenting” by Alfie Kohn.
While it is specifically about children’s education, it quotes SEVERAL studies showing clearly that rewards are actualy counter-productive in motivating peoples. Once you start offering a reward for a specific task, the one performing the task becomes much less interested in the task itself than he is in receiving the reward. Thus, he will take whatever shortcut he can to achieve the said task without bothering about it being fun, relevant or even well-done.
It was also found that children who have the freedom to explore and do what they want without being punished or rewarded but instead encouraged and guided develop a stronger sense of self and develop aptitudes much quicker and are much more interested in what they do and so do it better.
There is a HUGE difference between doing something because you are expecting a reward and doing something because you feel like doing it. Obviously the one doing something because he wants to do it is the happier one…
Finally, this is maybe one of the causes of the popularity of games in our current day and ages: because people have been raised with the “carrots and stick” through most of their life, they get to work and are reluctant in doing anything (I still hate washing the dishes and I mostly blame it on being forced to doing it when I was young). I may be portraying a pathetic picture of our society, but games are still a good way to receive the expected pat on the head and also a good way of rebelling against “having to do” something else.
Porter - March 20th, 2010 at 1:43 am
This was an amazing read, and I recall Andrew showing the Jesse video awhile back, good stuff. Your point about there being consequences is dead on.
I was thinking about the work scenario, and I believe that it could be worked around. For instance, if productivity increased so much, there could be worthwhile to have someone manually alter points for users that are abusing the system. For example, Bob starts slacking off, he earns a ton of points, but it just isn’t quality work. It could be someones job to let him know he’s not doing it right, by manually subtracting points, and updating him with a report at the end of the week, all within the point/game interface. This would put people back in line, gaining the positive aspects of the program back once again.
As for surgeons, the first thing that came to mind was a Kill/Death ratio, I couldn’t help but laugh at the horrible thought. I think something such as this were there is a life and death matter really helps people visualize the issue at hand. There is no doubt in my mind that turning things into a game would greatly alter how people perform, I can only help but feel it would be dangerous in a field such as surgery.
I think the most important thing to figure out is where and where not these systems would be acceptable. I strongly believe they’re going to become a real thing, and sooner than we think, but I share your concern that they need to be done carefully. I for one would love to make a game out of staying in shape and eating right. Walking and riding a bike instead of taking a car or the bus would be fun to keep track of, and any rewards gotten by doing so would be right up my ally of interest. Either way, definitely an interesting read, very glad you flushed out these ideas, keep it coming.