Visualisation can often give us a different perspective and shed light in corners we hadn’t considered looking.
One such visualization is the ‘Big I, Small I’.
In one of my many dives into the human psyche I was treading water along the shores of self-inflicted guilt versus motivation.
We often blame ourselves for the wrong things.
We are either too harsh with what we have failed to achieve or too lenient about our attempts.
We try, but we tend to get in our own way.
The major pitfall here is our knack to completely define ourselves AS our latest failure.
“I am such a loser, I can’t even do >insert attempt here< “.
This creates an overblown sense of guilt (and self-pity), robbing us of any empowerment that might be had and tends to leave us moping in a corner somewhere.
The ‘Big I, Small I’ visual gives us a perspective check.
The Big I represents you as the shiny complex structure that is you altogether, while the Small I’s each represent one aspect of you.
Every small I (for example: you trying to reach a deadline with good quality content) is one of many small I’s.
It is part of you and therefore not to be trifled with but it does not define you.
You are not this one thing that you are trying to achieve, you are many.
Unless you are on an amazing losing streak not all the small I’s will be negative.
Even alongside huge disappointing misses you probably still managed to do many things right.
An equally liberating perspective is that not all the small I’s are going to be positive at the same time and that’s okay.
The overall good-feeling aim is more positive small I’s than negative ones bouncing around in your big I.
Modern vrijwilligeren
Bijna de helft van de Nederlandse bevolking doet minstens één keer per jaar iets aan vrijwilligerswerk.
Hieronder valt ook het les geven, scholen bouwen of putten slaan in een ver en arm land, maar verreweg het meeste vrijwilligerswerk gebeurt bij een sportvereniging of kerkelijke organisatie in Nederland. Mensen die aan vrijwilligerswerk doen zijn vaak hoger opgeleide Nederlanders met een kerkelijke achtergrond.
Uit interviews met vrijwilligers blijkt dat zij vrijwilligerswerk voornamelijk doen om nieuwe kennis en nieuwe vaardigheden te leren. Bovendien geeft het ze een goed gevoel.
Steeds minder vaak wordt vrijwilligerswerk gemotiveerd door carrièremogelijkheden. Men vindt het belangrijker om betrokken te zijn bij de maatschappij en dit ook uit te dragen.
Een vrijwilliger besteedt gemiddeld 18,4 uur per maand aan zijn/haar onbetaalde werk. Bij ongeveer de helft van de vrijwilligers bestaan deze uren uit slechts één taak. Was vroeger een vrijwilliger nog een manusje-van-alles, in deze eeuw heeft de vrijwilliger zich ontwikkeld van alleskunner naar specialist. Dit komt vooral door de steeds betere organisatie van vrijwillig werk.
Volgens het Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau zal er de komende jaren niet zo veel veranderen in de hoeveelheid vrijwilligers in Nederland. Dankzij de vergrijzing, het stijgende opleidingsniveau en de professionalisering van vrijwilligersorganisaties wordt de groep vrijwilligers in Nederland misschien iets groter.
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.
