We spelen ontzettend veel spelletjes met z’n allen. Het is ons intuïtief duidelijk wat spelen inhoudt en wanneer je wel of niet aan het spelen bent maar het geven van een duidelijke definitie van spelen is vaak vrij lastig. Wat is spelen en hoe verhoudt het zich tot de rest van ons leven en onze realiteit?
Gelukkig hebben Huizinga (1938) en Caillios (1957) uitgebreid nagedacht over een geschikte definitie. Zij zien spel als een activiteit die
vrij is,
gescheiden van de rest van ons leven,
onzeker,
niet-productief,
geregeld
en volledige fantasie.
We kunnen dus nooit gedwongen worden om te spelen; als wij niet vrijwillig een spel instappen is het speel-element weg en wordt de ervaring een werktaak. De scheiding tussen het spelen en het normale leven is vaak fysiek; het bord van een bordspel geeft heel duidelijk de scheiding aan tussen waar het spel bestaat, en het spelen dus kan plaatsvinden, en waar het spelen ophoudt. Een spel heeft vaak ook een scheiding in tijd, er is een start en een stop, alleen in de tussenliggende tijd kan gespeeld worden en daarvoor of daarna is alles weer ernst.
Een zekere mate van onzekerheid is ook belangrijk; er moet ergens spanning zijn. Als enige handeling binnen een spel een zekere uitkomst zou hebben dan wordt de activiteit een stappenplan in plaats van een spelletje. Doe A en krijg B. Dat je niet een reëel resultaat verkrijgt is ook belangrijk “Het gaat om het spel en niet om de knikkers”. Uiteraard behaal je een score, een overwinning of zelfs een zak met knikkers maar die zijn alleen maar van belang binnen de spelwereld, daarbuiten heeft het speelresultaat weinig betekenis.
Een ander belangrijk onderdeel van spelen is de interactie met zichzelf of met anderen. “Playing is always communication” (Ohler, 2008) op intra- of inter-persoonlijk niveau.
Al deze criteria moeten worden beheerst in een structuur.
Een spel is een specifieke structuur die het spelen omvat.
I wanted to dive into the realm of Alternate Reality Games and find out more about how they work, why they work and what experiences they bring to the players. I expected this gaming genre to create all sorts of strong experiences since it incorporates physical reality. In order to make statements on the strength of any player experiences I needed a comparison. The most logical candidate for comparison in my mind were Massively Multi player Online Role Playing Games; MMORPG’s.
The debate on what does and what does not make up an ARG is ongoing. However, I took the six key qualities of any ARG to be cross-media, pervasive, persistent, collaborative, constructive and expressive; following McGonigal’s line of thinking in a presentation of hers in 2004. The key qualities of any MMORPG I borrowed from a book chapter of Chan in 2006; persistence, physicality, social interaction, avatar-mediated play, vertical game play and perpetuity. Another scholar thought that the persistent nature of a MMORPG was so unique that he dubbed these troll-scrolling virtual worlds ‘persistent worlds’. Obviously, no one had introduced him to the concept of ARG’s yet. ARG and MMORPG alike do not need your presence to exist. Both worlds will persist without any of the individual player’s present. Similarities between ARG and MMORPG can also be found in the importance of the social aspect. For a MMORPG it is the open social interaction that is important, for an ARG this interaction has a direction and a purpose. It is not just any old form of human-to-human contact but it is collaboration in specific. Naturally, collaboration is also possible in a MMORPG but it is not necessary.
I was very curious how these two gaming genres would compare. So after several interviews and a large number of surveys detailing player’s experiences here’s what I’ve found:
1. Perceived reality is higher for ARG-players vs. MMORPG-players
2. Social presence seems to be higher for ARG-players vs. MMORPG-players
3. There is a high amount of transferring in-game experiences into real life for both ARG and MMORPG
Perceived reality of a media or gaming environment means to what degree it is experienced as, and has the effects of, a real environment. Several concepts determine perceived reality. For example, if persona in the gaming environment behave like you expect them to behave in the real world, and whether or not you feel you have control over objects in the environment, or if you feel your choices can influence the interaction with the environment. That ARG-players experience more perceived reality than MMORPG-players makes sense as MMORPG-players may have a multitude of human-human interactions and influence of the environment interaction, they do not have sway over the development of the overall storyline the way ARG-players do. Earlier research has shown that all psychological effects of a media environment are heightened if the perceived reality is heightened. Following this logic, it would mean that all effects of playing an ARG should be stronger than (the same) effects of playing a MMORPG.
Social presence has to do with how close and real you feel the presence of others within the gaming environment. Questions as to whether or not you felt understood by other players, if you were influenced by their moods or cared at all about their well-being were asked to determine the experience of social presence. A trend towards a higher experience of social presence of ARG-players could be deduced from the answers given. Most likely, this has to do with the strong need for collaboration embedded in an ARG. This very specific, and more intense, form of interaction would create a higher sense of social presence.
For both ARG and MMORPG-players a high amount of transference was found. To determine this I focused questions on ‘strategic knowledge’ which is knowledge on how to do something in general, regardless of context. I took strategic knowledge statements from my interviews with ARG and MMORPG players and employed them in my survey, to make sure I was asking about things that players actually experienced within their game environments. For both player groups I found a high amount of the application of strategic knowledge in real life that was experienced in-game. However, there was no difference in the strength or amount of this transference between ARG and MMORPG-players.
This research shows that an ARG environment is very real to its players. Not in the sense that players ‘confuse’ make-believe with reality, but in the sense that is an important environment eliciting real emotions, real interactions and real results. That an ARG creates stronger effects due to high perceived reality combined with several transference effects makes it a good learning environment that would be very suitable as a social learning tool.
The distinction between real and play seems clear, but at closer inspection the concept of play reveals itself to be a complex one.
Johan Huizinga – a Dutch historian and cultural thinker, one of the first to take play seriously – sums up play as
“a free act, that is consciously ‘not meant’ and outside of normal life, that still might completely absorb the player, to which no direct material interest is connected, or use is gained, that unfolds itself in a purposely set up limited time and space, which adheres to certain rules and order, and brings forth a sense of community, which gladly shrouds itself in secrets or is distinguished from the real world by use of disguise. “(translated from p. 41, Huizinga, 1938).
Caillios (1957) defines play as an activity that is essentially free, separate, uncertain, unproductive, governed and make-believe. Meaning that we cannot be forced into play; it is something we undertake by our own choice. If we would be forced, the experience would cease to be play and become an assignment. Furthermore, play is separated from normal day-to-day living. Often this separation is physical; one chalks lines on the ground for hop-scotch to physically limit the playing field or plays a board game on a board and only on this board does the game exist. Play is also separated in time: there is a start and a stop to the playing. Play also requires some level of uncertainty; will it work, will it be fun, will the audience laugh and of course who will win? If the outcome of the undertaking was certain play would turn into a task. It would be no more than a series of steps to achieve an outcome. The achievement of an outcome must also be absent; the product of play can only be play itself, otherwise it becomes merely a means to an end. To control all the things play must or must not be, play requires rules. Finally, play can never be real.
When we combine these defintions we can describe play as
a domain that is within society yet different from it,
a domain which has no merit beyond itself,
in which chance is always of influence
in a complex structure governing the fantasy
of which the domain is created
and a domain to which one must enter voluntarily.
Caillios further defines four different categories of play agôn, the competitive type of play (the Olympics) alea, games of chance (Roulette) mimicry, where we can pretend to be something we are not (Theatre) ilinx, the disruption of our normal state or being in search of vertigo (Roller-coaster ride).
The different types of play offer different dynamics to the player; during alea the player is passive and content to let ‘the fates decide’. During mimicry the player must actively ‘play his part’ or the illusion is lost. Often the categories merge in a single game, yet one always remains dominant. For example; most card games are a mixture between the wits of agôn and the luck of alea but in playing poker agôn is more dominant.
Caillois then adds two components as dimensions of play; paidia describes a state of uncontrolled fantasy whereas ludus describes a state of overly conventions.
Between paida en ludus the level of fantasy versus rules can be described. Both states have no function in the absolute; both pure uncontrolled fantasy and conventions for everything would no longer be play.
These four categories and two dimensions are very useful to create some sort of order in the numerous kinds of play. In each instance of play one of the four categories will be dominant and it can be placed along the sliding scale of freedom versus rules.
This categorisation allows for a comparison between various kinds of play.
Can you gamify everything?
Well, yes. A game is a structure; in itself it holds no content. Therefore any content may be added and enjoy the great benefits in motivation and teaching power that a game can give us. Any knowledge or skill can be practiced and improved via gaming. The possibilities seem endless.
Should you gamify everything??
No, probably not. First of all there is a target audience for a gaming structure; those with mediocre interest in the topic and average motivation to obtain the knowledge or the skill embedded in the game. Those whom are really interested in the thing you’ve gamified will be annoyed by the veil of fun you’ve layered over the morsels of the interest they are seeking. Rightly so. Then there are those who are absolutely uninterested or averse to whatever you’ve poured into the gaming milk. They will be annoyed by what you are forcing down their throats and this is in the way of experiencing a good game. At any sign of annoyance all gaming ends. Even if the game is not physically ended (confidence is high) than still the ‘fun factor’ has failed and all psychological processes that you wanted to tap into through gaming are not upright and paying attention.
When you’ve determined that your target audience might actually be lured into your game WILLINGLY the second struggle awaits. How to gamify your topic or skill?? Simply adding a score and a start button does not a game make (just like relabeling your Sales department does not Marketing make but let’s not get into that). From what, preferably unexpected and immersed, perspective can you approach what is to be gamified? No farfetched connections, no blocks of knowledge interrupting game play, no unavoidable narrative that adds nothing to the storyline but a true Game Experience. Here there are no prepared answers or structures. This is up to creative minds that can find appealing approaches to whatever. Emphatic minds that understand all aspects of their content and find surprising ways to connect to it that, once shown, are absolutely logical. Most of all: minds that understand their player audience.
If gamification wants to succeed it needs be directed at the appropriate audience and concern itself equally with what it wants to achieve as the Experience through which it aims to do so.
Toen Julius Ceasar zei: “Geef het volk brood en spelen” bedoelde hij iets wat wij nu zouden classificeren als sport.
Een sport is een vorm van spel. Ondertussen nemen wij sport zo serieus dat als een andere vorm van spelen (gaming) de sportarena binnenloopt en vraagt om erkenning men zich gaat zitten afvragen of spelen wel sport is…
Wikipedia geeft ons een werkbare definitie van sport: een set regels, waar competitie binnen afspeelt, ter vermaak van de deelnemers en/of toeschouwers, een fysieke of mentale activiteit waarvan winnen het primaire doel is. Dit leggen we dan naast de kenmerken van spelen van Caillois (1957): een ‘veld’ binnen de maatschappij en toch erbuiten, die geen waarde heeft buiten zichzelf, waar kans altijd invloed heeft, bestaande uit een complexe structuur die de fantasie van het spel regeert en waar men vrijwillig in is gestapt.
In beide definities zien we regels. Een benodigde structuur om de eigenlijke onzin bij elkaar te houden. Is sport een eigen domein; binnen onze maatschappij en toch erbuiten? Als we kijken naar het afwijkende leven van atleten, de afbakening van de gemiddelde sportvereniging en het sociale belang van sport in onze samenleving dan is sport wel degelijk een eigen domein. Geen waarde buiten zichzelf laat zich lastiger op sport plaatsen. Er is geen echt effect van welke sport dan ook maar omdat wij er als samenleving waarde aan hechten ontvangt een sporter sociale en monetaire waarde voor zijn sportuitoefening, en eventueel een verblijfsvergunning.
Het toeval moet blijven bestaan, kans moet een kans hebben om sport een spelletje te houden. Veel sporten lijken weinig meer met toeval te maken te hebben maar volledig te werken op vaardigheden. Lijken, want alle hoogtetrainingen en klapschaatsen ten spijt blijft er een vrij hoog gehalte toeval aanwezig in elke competitie. Op z’n Cruijffiaans beter bekend als “De bal is rond”. Menselijke vaardigheden worden tot in den treure getraind om schijnbare vat op dit toeval te krijgen. De rest van ons kijkt vanaf een zijlijn toe hoe de sporter als een god structureert wat wij niet kunnen vatten. Eindelijk iemand die het onverklaarbare fysieke tot in de puntjes beheerst; sport als religieuze ervaring. Maar zonder bemoeienis van het toeval zou er geen spanning zijn. Wanneer de uitkomst al vaststaat, of te berekenen is, voordat de wedstrijd begint dan is er verder niet veel aan. De schijnbare afwezigheid van toeval zorgt voor de aanbidding van de atleet, de daadwerkelijke aanwezigheid van toeval zorgt voor volle tribunes.
Het laatste spelcriterium is vrijwilligheid. Alhoewel we vaak vinden dat we ‘moeten’ sporten voor onze gezondheid en fysieke uitdrukkingsvorm is er nergens een verplichting. Voor een atleet ligt dit misschien anders maar dan spreken we niet meer zozeer van sport of spel, als wel van werk.
Wanneer we wederom met z’n allen de perikelen op en rondom het voetbal-, hockeyveld of de schaatsbaan ontzettend serieus zitten te nemen is het tijd om een klein momentje te nemen en je te realiseren: Sport is een spelletje.
Caillois, R. (1957) Le jeux et le Hommes [Man at -play] (M. Barash, Trans.) University of Illinois press.
Reality is broken Why games make us better and how they can change the world
By Jane McGonigal
An inspirational book, lets start there, Mrs McGonigal has most definitely written an inspirational book here. It is an easy read; keeping it light and easy to follow while still packing it with enough chewy science to keep me satisfied. Suitable for the average crossword-puzzler and the established game researcher. The positive twists and turns make me want to throw my hands in the air in fiero shouting “Yes, exactly!”
A popular scientific piece of writing with a very well thought out information structure and the 14 Reality Fixes that gaming can provide. Explaining why reality does not function all too well at times and how a gaming structure might plug the hole reality left for us to stick our foot in. She clearly explains the psychological mechanisms involved and hands us the implications, the implementation and -thank you very much- the proof.
The only drawback is that it is all on the positive side. Yes, gaming has effects. Yes, gaming has positive effects. Gaming has an immense potential for learning and affecting behavioural change. Oh yes indeed. But if it can do good, it can also do bad and this is only briefly addressed in this book. Discussing any adverse effects is not the scope of the book or the intention of the writer, which is fine, but I find the need to keep this in the back of my mind while reading this prose of gaming.
I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in what gaming does to us and what it could mean to the world at large, as well as those interested in (Alternate Reality) Gaming. Upon closing the covers one feels ready to change the world with good game :-)
