One of the key issues facing gamification as it moves defiantly into its mid-teens is a lack of consistency and interoperability of the language used to describe it. The first and most obvious example of this is the lack of anything resembling an agreement on a definition of gamification. Wikipedia seems to change pretty regularly, and almost every gamification expert out there has their own version. Very few like the Wikipedia version either; “The use of game elements in non-game contexts” being the most popular. Don’t get me wrong; I love Sebastian Deterding, and the definition fits the original meaning of gamification, but things moved on a little, or at least I hope they did.
Definition
I was wrong: A definition of gamification that should make sense to everyone!
I was wrong… for many years in fact. So, here I am again, banging on about definitions. I have been here before, but usually trying to push through the idea of a more academic and “correct” definition of gamification. However, over the years I have realised that this is not much use to most people! I have banged my head against more tables and brick walls that I would care to mention trying to get people to understand “no, it’s not about games…. Well it could be… urm…”
This comes down to the fact that in the non-academic world, the word gamification, or gamify sits in a series of words that essentially mean to become more of something, or to become it!
Take the word beautify as an example. The Oxford dictionary defines that simply as “make beautiful”. Whilst we are thinking of the word simply, it also defines simplify as “make simple”.
So, it stands to reason that the layperson would look at the word gamify and assume it means “make gameful” or just “make game-like” (as gameful isn’t really in common language still). And, as we are looking at this from the layperson perspective – I’m throwing in the word game as well, not just game-like!
If we go on to define the noun version of beautify, beautification, we would use something like “the process of making something more beautiful”. We don’t see anyone defining it as “the process of using elements of beauty in non-beauty contexts”!
In the same way, the definition of gamification should be “the process of making something a game or more game-like”.
And this is where the issue lies for most people, especially those outside of the academic world. The definition of a word is pretty direct and simple, it does what it says. It doesn’t contain caveats or descriptions of what is not included, it is just what the word is, means or does.
You can add the how and the why, but that might change in different contexts. For instance, we could talk about the beautification of urban areas.
Beautification of urban areas: the process of making urban areas more beautiful to improve the aesthetic qualities for those who live there by adding parks and green land.
In the same way, you could say
Gamification of learning materials: the process of making learning materials into a game or more game-like to improve users experience, participation and completion rates by using the materials in a scenario-based simulations, with deep gameplay as well as progress markers such as points and badges”
The point of all of this nonsense is that my big takeaway after 10 years of trying to explain gamification is that most people just assume the word is defined the same way other words that end in “ify” and “ification” are, not caveated and twisted to exclude the main item they think it refers to! They don’t care that strictly speaking it should not include full games and points and badges are too simple to be part of it and… blah blah blah.
So from now on, accepting that I have spent 10 years probably hammering home something considered wrong to the majority of non-experts in the world, I am using the following…
“Gamify (verb): make a game or game-like”
“Gamification (noun): the process of making something a game or game-like”
I use “something” here rather than ” an experience, service, system, UI, turnip etc” because I am trying to keep it as simple as clients want it to be. We can add context and methods after they understand this.
What game-like may contain could be up for discussion, but as far as most clients are concerned, it absolutely covers everything from adding points and a leaderboard all the way up to making a full game – so it should mean that to us as practitioners if we ever want to get over the massive speed bump which is still the word Gamification!
Don’t get me wrong, from an academic perspective and from a practitioner to practitioner perspective there are still 50 shades of gamification and game based solution design to talk about. However, we are in the business of solving problems, not creating them because we feel that serious games and gamification are different and should not be spoken about in the same breath, or that we should correct the prospective client for their lack of understanding!
Towards Creating an Open Definition of Gamification
Ok, so here we are again, looking at the definition of gamification. I have defined it a few times, as have many others. However, this time I am approaching it from a slightly different angle.Game design is the core of what we are doing most of the time. Working out what goes where and importantly why it goes there. Game elements are those parts or lessons from games that we use in our designs. Goal setting, feedback, rewards, narratives, leaderboards, social interactions etc. These are often considered mechanics and dynamics (as well as aesthetics) but can include more. Play is something I am seeing more and more in good gamification, where designers are allowing for some freedom to explore and experiment outside of the “stricter” structural rules of the system. It is hugely important to include this as we move forward with gamification design. Non-Entertainment purposes rather than non-game contexts. This may cause some issues as strictly speaking this could include real games as it does not explicitly exclude them! However, what I am trying to get at is that gamification is concerned with achieving defined objectives, where entertainment-based products are more focused on fun being the objective.
Having just been at Gamification Europe, I have realised that my militant stand on needing a definition for gamification is right, but maybe my personal definition is a bit too flaky and the official definitions are a bit too limiting.
Depending on where you look, the generally accepted definition goes along the lines of
The use of game design principles and game elements in non-game contexts
This very specifically precludes the use of actual games as a part of pure gamification. A stance that I still hold onto. As I explained recently, it is important to be able to separate different practices to be able to understand where specialisms may lie. Game design is focused on making fun experiences, where gamification is focused on specific objectives.
However, the more I look at the industry and the more I listen to other experts in the field (and the more I do in the field), the more I realise that we are doing far more than just using game elements and game design principles. So, should we be looking to come up with a definition that practitioners all feel encompasses what it is we do, in a way clients can understand, without defaulting to “it’s a bit like making games, but without making a game…”? All of us using our own versions confuses the general public – those who are actually paying for this stuff!!
For instance, where does play stand in the official definition? What are game elements? What is a non-game context? I often hear and use “game-like” as part of the definition. However, that is not always true. A dashboard can be designed in a way that uses lessons from games but is not game like in the slightest. Nudges, feedback, goal setting etc. don’t create a game-like experience, but can all be seen in games.
When you look at what we are doing, we are using games (we are, we know we are, but we don’t want to lump them into gamification as they are serious games), behavioural psychology, game design, game mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, play and probably a lot more besides.
So does a definition need to include all of that? Sticking to our “not building games” mantra provides some limits to our definition. With that in mind, I open the conversation with the following.
A starter for 10
The use of game design, game elements and play for non-entertainment purposes
The Importance of Definitions (and Why They Don’t Matter)
Yep, paradoxical title alert!
Recently I got into a very interesting debate on LinkedIn about the definition of Gamification. Now, I have long had my definition of gamification, one that doesn’t stray too far from the closest thing we have to a “proper” definition.
- Mine: The use of game design metaphors to create more game-like and engaging experiences.
- Proper (From Deterding et al): The application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts
Whichever definition you follow or whomsoever you may ask in the industry, 9 times out of 10 you will get something along those lines. The core of most peoples definition revolves around the use of game “bits” to improve things that are not games. What they don’t often say is that it is creating a game.
There is a very important reason for this.
Expectations
One consistent complaint from people who don’t like gamified solutions, that they are not games, they were expecting a game. I had a professional reviewer review my book Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play who gave it 2 stars out of 5. Their complaint was “I thought it was going to teach me how to make a game”. This was despite spending an entire chapter at the start of the book explaining why gamification was not the same as making games!
If we could all agree that gamification is not about creating actual games, then we could avoid this sort of issue with people’s expectations. If they expect a gamified solution and not a game, they won’t be disappointed when they get a gamified solution!
When is A Digger Not A Digger?
The discussion on linked in was triggered by a silly meme I made that equated comparing games to gamification to comparing sports cars to diggers. They share similar DNA but have totally different purposes. The argument was that the purposes were contextual. If you race two diggers, did that not make them race cars? The answer is no, they are still diggers, they are just racing. Their intended purpose has not changed, just how they are being used. They were still built to be diggers, to move earth. The fact that someone raced them did not change their nature.
Taking that a little further, imagine a wall that you wish to put a screw into. All you have is a hammer. You can use the hammer to smash the screw into the wall and that may well work. Does that make the hammer a screwdriver? No! Imagine now that you have a knife, not a hammer. You could use the knife to actually screw the screw into the wall, as the tip of the blade might fit the screw head. Is the knife now a screwdriver? No, it is still a knife. If you took the knife into a workshop and cut chunks out of it, and refashioned it into a screwdriver – then you have redesigned and repurposed it into a proper screwdriver. It has been physically transformed into something new.
The thing we suffer from with gamification is that many people don’t feel it has been properly defined. But really, it has. We all know it has, we just like to add our own spin to it. At the end of the day, it is almost defined by what it isn’t. Gamification is not the process of creating a game. The process of creating a game in a non-game context is the process of creating a serious game. But of course, that has some sticky points as well.
What Is Entertainment
Take a very well known game, Sid Meier’s masterpiece, Civilization. When this was created it was created to entertain people. That was it’s “designed intent”. Now, many people have played this game and have discovered that it is also a great teaching tool. You can learn about geography, history, politics, military strategy and more. So, it is a game that teaches you. Does that mean that it is actually a serious game? No! It is still an entertainment game, that can be used for non-entertainment purposes.
The flip-side would be the serious educational game, the Oregan Trail. This was created in 1985 to teach students the realities of life in 19th century America as a pioneer. It was designed to teach, but it is a very fun game to play. Does that make it an entertainment game? No! It’s designed intent was to teach, so it is a serious game focused on education. I have more on those differences in my Game Thinking pages
Why Does This Not Matter?
Ok, so as I have said, this does matter, of course it matters. If we can’t define things, how can we set expectations of what they will deliver? If we have no definition of what a table is, we could not complain when we buy a table and are handed a sofa!
In the world of gamification solution design, the definition should not define how we think about solving problems! The definition is there to give us the language we need to describe concepts. However, if we find a problem that needs a serious game, we build a serious game. If it requires a gameful interface, that’s what we do. We don’t turn to the client and say “Sorry sir, I think you are talking about serious games, I just do gamification, you know the process of not making games!” At least I hope none of you does!?
What Does a Gamification Consultant Do??
A question that I ask on a very regular basis, once I have explained what gamification is, is “What does a gamification consultant actually do?”
Well, this short video should help you get the idea!
Oh and my Gamification Journey Worksheet is still only £10 – going up to 15 soon 🙂
[purchase_link id=”4857″ style=”text link” color=”” text=”Buy the planner now!” direct=”true”]