Gaming Archives - Page 22 Of 24 - Gamified UK

Don’t Love Games? Step Away From the Gamification

May 11, 2017May 21, 2012 by Andrzej Marczewski

New dice Don 8217 t Love Games Step Away From the Gamification

Games. I love them. Board games, card games, video games and anything else you can put the word games after. I play them, I write about them, I think about them, I dream about them and from time to time I even try my hand at making them (http://www.fuzzyd.co.uk/robbers). So what does this have to do with such a business orientated subject as Gamification. One needs to be a savy expert to be able to speak on such highbrow topics – not a games loving lout?

Well Mr suit, that’s where I think you are dead wrong. Jesse Schell in his excellent “The Art of Games Design: A Book of Lenses” asks a simple question. “Do I love my Project”. He goes on to state “If the creators of a game do not love it, the game will surely fail”. So I ask you. If you do not love games, dream about them and want to play them all day every day – how can you talk about gamification with any conviction, let alone make decisions about it’s implementation or design? As horrible as the name may be, gamification contains a key word. Gam(e). Whether you like it or not, implementing gamification is implementing at least some elements that come from games.

Some might say – “Wait a moment Andrzej, it is all about setting rules and then getting others to follow them – then we can shove some badges on to make people come back for more”. To those I say “Step Away From the Gamification“. To be good at something you have to understand it. To be amazing at something you need more, you need to love it with every fibre of your being. If it were that simple then we would not need games designers. We could feed the magic Game Formula into a computer and it would churn out hit game after hit game.

I may be sounding a little preachy and over dramatic here. Of course you can implement gamification if you are not a lover of games, but how do you expect other people to want to engage with these elements if you do not believe in them yourself. If you don’t love games how can you expect people to play one that you have created? It is almost cynical. Like rock musicians making bubble gum pop to sell records. You know their heart is not in it and that always shows in the end product.

If you want to get into gamification, play some games. I am not talking about getting addicted (though that helps), but just try a few. Here is a list I once gave someone who asked. It is by no means complete, but it may get you on your way.

Space invaders. A game of such simplicity that you could be forgiven for dismissing it. However, just examine the core concepts. The task is shooting the aliens. The skill is in using your shields, timing your shots and avoiding the bullets. The reward is a high score chase.

Sid Meiers Pirates! An early open world game of sword fights and sailing. There is a brilliant remake of it available in iPad. It has been on pretty much every platform since the commodore 64, showing just how good it is. It takes a simple story, adds resources and action and puts it all into an open world for you to explore.

Sam and Max, Monkey Island, Broken Sword 2 or LA Noire. All are master classes in how to tell a story and bring the player along for the ride.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The second of the 3D GTA games and for me one of the most complete games ever made. You could spend a lifetime just messing about! Exploration, missions and again – fun.

Half Life 2. A solid, well made, well balanced linear single player fps. It has a strong story and great characters. The world it creates becomes very believable in no time at all.

All of these games demonstrate some real core thinking in games, be it creating a world you can lose yourself in or solid story telling.

When you think about gamifying anything, you need to look at it as game design. Is your core mechanic some kind of story. IE are you trying to bring the user through a series of steps to get them to some form of conclusion. Are you looking at making use of a selection of game mechanics to achieve a goal. Are you just wanting to influence the user journey without any direct or in your face gamification.

These concepts and more are seen in the games I mention. It is a very short list and of course, there are thousands I could have chosen from. You will probably disagree with me, but at least you will have had to think about it to disagree.

The Death of Gamification

May 4, 2012May 4, 2012 by Andrzej Marczewski

Ok, so that may have just been one of those attention-seeking headlines. However, what I want to explore briefly is what will kill gamification if people keep heading the route they are now.

The short answer to this is, misguided over complication. As more people jump on the gamification bandwagon, people’s definitions and ideas seem to be getting ever more complex. They seem to miss the core point about gamification.

Recently at gSummitX, Gabe Zichermann was discussing the key reason games work. Just as I have described games simply as Task and Reward, he added a key final stage. Ahhhhh. Task, Reward, Ahhhhh. As he explained, that Ahhhh is the release of Dopamine – a feel good drug the body creates when you achieve something. In video games this is happening constantly. Within your workday, under normal circumstances, it probably never happens.

So, back to complexity. In general the more unnecessarily complex something is, the less enjoyable the majority will find it. Take Space Invaders. A game that is some 30 years old, yet still people are striving to get three letter representations of their names onto a leader board to hold the high score. Same with Pac Man and many other “classic” games. These days, for the most part (I will explain), I can’t think of many games that people will still be playing in 30 years time. My exception to this has to be RPGs. As a friend pointed out, these can span many years of activity with little more than content updates. This also works around a more social dynamic as well. People form communities and keep each other going. However, they still tend to need updates. When was the last time Space Invaders was given a content update? The reason for all of this is that these games contain the absolute minimum of mechanics. Shoot, dodge, shoot, dodge. That’s it. Pac Man is a little more complex. Run, Eat, Avoid, Chase – but we are hardly talking 100 keys and a million things happening at once. There are of course other motivates for constant refresh. The current generation of gamers can handle much more information and complexity than previous generations. They need constant updates to stay interested. In addition, it makes the games companies more money!

Now, you can agree or disagree with that – doesn’t matter to me. The next bit is what is important anyway!

With gamification, you tend to be trying to influence behaviour in a simple and fast way. Score boards, badges, loyalty point cards etc. These are all very simple and easy for the end user to understand. What is beginning to happen is over complication of these simple ideas. Multiple levels of loyalty, almost RPG like quests in areas that need nothing more than a simple leader board. That is not to say that the more complex ideas won’t work. It is more about not using them just because you can, but because they fit the needs of the problem.

There are many ways to implement gamification. What you have to keep in mind is what best suits the needs of the users, clients, task or whatever. If all that is needed is a badge or two, then use them. If you can see that the best way to drive engagement is to introduce a full RPG style quest, reward system then use that. Just keep it simple if you can.

Oh and that core point that people seem to miss – fun.

The Jobification of Games – A Parody of Gamification

November 14, 2017January 23, 2012 by Andrzej Marczewski

A Parody of Gamification

I have written at length about Gamification. Some people have even begun to take what I say seriously, which is great. However, time for some fun. What if we flipped the idea on its head. If games worked based on the set of rules many businesses have. How would a jobified game actually play?

A Quest is Born

The day starts with you sitting at your desk. First, you boot up your PC and do the morning “kitchen dance”, as you get your first cup of coffee for the day. After returning to your desk and going through your news feeds and non-essential emails, it is time for work. Top of your inbox you see an email with a red exclamation mark. Ignoring your instinct to park it for later – if it was that important they would surely have called – you notice the title. “Urgent, hero needed”. As you read on, your eyes widen, Sarah from accounts has been kidnapped by a rival firm, Evil Corp. The evil boss of Evil Corp will not release Sarah unless Nice Corp (the company for which you work) agrees to their take over terms. The boss of Nice Corp wants you to rescue Sarah before it is too late.

Level 1 – Time for Action

As with all good adventures, a trip to HR is needed – just to check that your contract actually allows your boss to ask such things of you. After discovering that you signed a waiver to all personal, social and real life, you head to the next phase of your quest.

Level 2 – Project Manager

You schedule a meeting with the quest project manager. Now, of course, he is a busy man – so you have to wait until next Tuesday to go through the project plan. Going into a save state, you fast forward to next Tuesday. Greg, your assigned project manager goes through the project plan with you. After agreeing on who the major stakeholders are, what the key targets are and what the performance indicators will be, you are nearly ready to go and rescue the fair Sarah from Evil Corp.

Level 3 – Choose Your Team

All good heroes need a sidekick or two. Sadly, Nice Boss informs you that due to cutbacks, savings and “downsizing” there are no mages, barbarians, thieves or the like. Instead, you will have to have the work experience boy, Dave from the post room as your questing partner.

Level 4 – Equip Yourself Adventurer

You and Dave head to the company armoury where you are met by Bob, the armourer. Bob gives you a pile of paper works to fill in, entitled “Risk Assessment”. He then subjects you to 3 hours of questions about the dangers of the quest and what sort of things could happen. He then takes you to the armoury. All you see in the room is a pea shooter, a chair and a tv/video combo. Bob sits you down to watch an instructional video titled ” The Pea Shooter and You”. Two hours later he hands you a certificate that states you have now completed the Pea Shooter training and are allowed to carry a pea shooter into battle. You ask about the magic spells and the swords you would prefer to have. He informs you that they are too dangerous. The company liability and insurance do not stretch far enough to cover such things these days. You leave equipped with a pea shooter, foam safety peas (you could take someone’s eye out with real ones!) and of course some safety goggles.

Level 5 – Come Get Some

Finally, you leave the building to battle your way to Evil Corp (across the road). Negotiating the traffic and the suicide bike couriers you breach the revolving doors. Receptionist –a-saur greets you with a smile of pure lipstick. “ Hello, and how can I help you?” she roars. Covered by Dave, you fire a barrage of terrifying peas at her. After 10 minutes she finally tells you which floor you need to go to in the “Lift of Doom” and you set on your way. Unbeknownst to you, Dave has been hurt in the attack.

Level 6 – Bye Bye Dave

As you enter the life and press the button for the 666^th floor, Dave collapses. As you look at him, you see that he has a potentially fatal paper cut. He begs you for help. As you bend down you suddenly remember. Your corporate first aid certificate ran out last Monday. Doing anything to help Dave, could get you sued should it go wrong. Deciding that litigation is just too much to handle, you smile sadly at Dave and explain the situation. Ignoring his pleas for common sense to prevail, you step out of the lift and leave him to die alone. Still, better than your insurance premiums being hit!

Level 7 – Nearly There.

You are greeted by Evil Boss’s PA, twelve office managers and other assorted suite clad minions, Hundreds of them, all with job titles that make no sense. You fight endlessly through them, foam peas fly and blood sprays until finally only you are left standing. Battered and injured you stand for a moment, looking at the door at the end of the hall. From out of nowhere a package appears. You open it to discover a whole heap of bladed weapons, throwing stars and potions to heal and enhance you. As you go to pick them up, you remember the Bribery and Corruption course you had been sent on the previous month. Of course, you are not allowed to take any of these, you are in a competitors office. Should you ever do business with them in the future, taking these essential quest items could be seen as bribery. Happily, you put down the parcel, and with the strength of spirit that only a good corporate citizen has, you limp – bleeding and wheezing into the office of Evil Boss.

Final Level – Boss Fight

Hanging from a wall to your left, you see Sarah from accounts. She looks ok but screams out a warning. Almost too late, you see Evil Boss spin around in his chair. Sitting there you see the most shocking human imaginable. Nice boss. That’s right, your boss is sat in the chair of Evil Boss. He smiles the smile of a man who thinks he knows too much and begins to explain. Whilst you had been on your quest, Nice Corp “Acquired” Evil Corp and all of its assets. The situation with Sarah from accounts and you are both parts of the “legacy” of Evil Corp. As such he was going to have to deal with us now before it was too late. Before he can finish telling you the details, you snap. Screaming and brandishing your peashooter you attack Nice Boss. After 20 minutes of saving and restarting, you discover his weak spot and shove your pea shooter in – right up to the mouthpiece. He falls to the ground moaning quietly about paperwork. Triumphantly, you cut Sarah down from the wall and share a passionate kiss with her, before heading back to Nice Corp.

Epilogue – One Month Later

Following your epic quest, life changed dramatically. First of all, you were instantly promoted and given a pay rise that was completely disproportionate to your experience level. You did not mind – how could you – you were a hero. It was two weeks after the death of Nice Boss that things went wrong. At the beginning of the week, your line manager called you into her office. She wanted to discuss Sarah from Accounts with you. It turns out that after you rescued her from the office of Nice / Evil boss, she filed a sexual harassment suit against you. Kissing her had been inappropriate and as such you were to be suspended until the official hearing. So here you are now. A broken man, with nothing to do and nothing to live for until the hearing.

Suddenly there is a knock at the door. Reluctantly you go over and open it. Stood in front of you as bold as day is Dave – the Post room boy. He is wearing an expensive suit, his hair is slicked back and he looks somehow older. Next to him stands Sarah from Accounts. Both are pointing Pea Shooters at you. Dave looks at you and smiles a cold smile. “We need to talk” he snarls.

The Credits Roll…..

Well – it is a video game and there have to be at least three sequels

Right, well that is out of my system now! Next post will be a slightly deeper look at some game mechanics that don’t rely on rewards to keep you hooked!

Gamification: you got to play to win

April 20, 2014January 14, 2012 by Andrzej Marczewski

{EAV:416af6783215c41a}

A lovely chat with some new friends brought about an interesting thought. Can you really write games or gamify things if you don’t play games?

I have rambled at length about my views on gamification. I have explained what I think the basics of game theory boil down to. A task with some kind of reward or incentive offered for completion. This can bean obvious reward, such as a badge, or it may just be the enjoyment the task brings. It is all easy stuff to understand. However, the kicker is – understanding is not enough. As with so many things in this world, theory is not enough. I know the theory of nuclear fusion, it doesn’t mean I can build a reactor in my back garden!

The same is true of games and gamification. You could know all about game theory, about game mechanics and badges and the stats behind it all, but if you don’t actually play games, how can you expect people to be engaged with you interpretation of it all. You have to “get it” to be able to really be in a position to make “it” work.

It’s why you can’t get a driving licence, just by getting 100% on your driving theory test. They expect you to be able to actually physically drive a car as well. It is why knowing the scales, chords and structure of the Blues, doesn’t mean you will be able to play them. You have to feel the Blues, you have to get it.

Would you trust a music critic who never listened to music, a film reviewer who never watched a film? Would you trust a plumber to fix your car or a mechanic to build your extension? Of course not. So why should anyone trust a non gamer to make their most important processes feel and behave more like a game?

So, if you want to talk, with authority on gamification – you have to play games in my mind. I am not talking about being addicted to Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, but you have to have a passion for games and most importantly what makes them fun. As many have said, it is not all about putting badges on sites and offering experience points. Quite often that will play a role, but you can give so much more to the user if you actually understand how games work and what makes them fun – and the best way to do that?

Go play some games. Have fun damit and then read all the theory of how to apply the mechanics that you found fun to your real world situation.

Whilst Innovation may not be Dead, where is the Courage in the Games Industry?

October 15, 2013November 14, 2011 by Andrzej Marczewski

People often ask where the innovation has gone in the games industry. I have been guilty of it on the past. In fact, this article was going to be titled with that exact question.

However, the more I drafted the piece and the more I thought about it, the more I realised that innovation is still alive and kicking in our industry, albeit sometimes quietly. What is missing now is courage.

When I first really got into games, everything seemed innovative. People were really beginning to understand what games could be. This was back in the Days of the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64.

The industry was still fresh. It had hardware that could really be pushed and it had the foundations laid by the arcades and home consoles like the Atari 2600. These had given the world a new form of entertainment media, one where it seemed that every new game strived to be different from the last. The only way to stand out was to innovate and have the balls to get it published. Of course the game had to be good as well. Again though, these were the days of small development teams working in bedrooms. They were creating games that they were passionate about. They wanted to create things no one had seen before and believed with all their heart they were going to make a great game.

All too soon though, people started to make real money. Large publishing houses, like Ocean, became more and more prominent. Whilst games were still being produced that tried to push the boundaries – to think outside of the box – they became fewer and further between.

It took me a long time to realise what was happening, but it all clicked into place after I had played my umpteenth terrible movie tie in. The trouble was that the games industry was trying to mould itself based on the film industry.

As we head to the present day, this is much easier to see than it was then.

You see, it is all about money. Everyone wants more of it. The more you have, the more you want. In any industry this tends to mean you are less and less willing to take risks if you have found a successful formula or brand.

Take Call of Duty. This started off as a bit of an underdog. A World War II FPS, which was launched into a market that was already having a love affair with Medal of Honor. It took courage to release such a game at that time, but someone somewhere at Activision was convinced it would be a success. Of course, we all know it was.

Activision had found its formula. Call of Duty worked. It made money, it got great reviews and people loved it. So Call of Duty 2 was released. Again, people loved it. Really it was little more than an update to the first game. Better graphics, tighter narrative and more involved multiplayer, but still not greatly different at its core. Just like in the films, sequels became the main stay of the industry.

With games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare, reviewers kept giving good scores and people kept spending millions on the games – so more sequels got made. However, I have to ask. During all of this, how many games didn’t make it out of Activision (or any other publisher for that matter) that were stopped by a man in a suit holding a calculator saying that they just couldn’t make money off that idea.

Innovation is still there in the big companies. Games like Heavy Rain and LA Noire prove that. But they took courage to release. They were not obvious choices for a publisher to make. It paid off though. Both were critically well received and made lots of money.

Another problem is how innovation is viewed. I shudder when I see a press release that tells me of the latest iPhone game that has an innovative control system. Normally that just means it’s a bit weird and you probably won’t like it. Different for the sake of different is not always a good idea.

That said I did say that about the Wii and Kinect. How wrong was I?

But the point is, innovation does not mean a game is going to be good. I get fed up of seeing publishers complaining that reviewers just didn’t get their game. Normally this is because the game was just plain broken at the time it was released to the press. That however, is another blog post. All I will say, next time you see a publisher complain about getting 8s (which I might add is a bloody good score in anything else, A at A-Level, 1st Degree – again another article there) and saying reviewers just didn’t get it, check to see if there is a release day patch fixing everything the reviewers didn’t like!

Anyway, back to my point here. I am sure there is one. Innovation is there, you just have to look at all the great indie development that is going on. But it is also in the major releases, you just have to look hard for it at times.

When you next get to a point in a game where you just go “wow, that bit was great. I wish they had explored that idea more”, just think of this. There was probably a developer or a game designer that originaly tried to pitch the idea as a whole game, and a man in suit carrying a calculator said no!

Finally, take a look at the games chart and ponder my thoughts. Count how many games are sequels or spin offs. Especially next weeks – the week after Modern Warfare 3 is launched, see how many in the top 3 or 4 contain the number 3 in the title!

Originally posted on Yet Another Review Site