Gamification and Utopic Dreams
Reality is Broken talks about how games can motivate us to save the real world (part III). As oppose to a 9-5 job, games do a better job of making us happy. Games can solve problems is our personal and social world, from promoting creativity and reducing anxiety and depression to solving the issues around poverty, global energy crisis and so forth.
Jane McGonigal is for sure an optimist, but I am not sure if I buy the idea of games as tools to save our world or even to make us happy. If anything games and digital technology have made our world more complicated, darker even. Think about social networking and its relation to personal privacy, cyber bullying, scams, cyber fraud, and…
Alternate Reality Game games like Evoke, FreeRice might be able to ignite some positive movements in the real world but could we think of games as a frontier for humanity. Even if we accept that games are capable of creating “change”, could a virtual presence make equally good decision as our physical one. Considering our cognitive abilities are connected to our senses and emotions, would a virtual presence be able to make as clear judgement as a physical one? Theoretically games could to be used to save humanity but at the same time games have the potential to turn our reality into a schizophrenic delusion.
I agree that gamification of “serious” contents could be helpful but I think the limitations are far too much to look at them as a reliable social tool for a “positive social change”. Why do game designers should go after “positive change”? It seems with any new type of media we tend to create more chaos than order. Do we need “positive changes” considering we are not very good in predicting the full consequence of our actions?
Games makes us happy because they are hard work that we choose for ourselves, and in turns out that almost nothing makes us happier than good, hard work
I don’t see that many avid gamers who are willing to come and participate in a real world problem solving case. The pleasure of playing games is not all about achievement and collecting point, a big portion of this pleasure comes through escapism and disembodiment. Creating games that are about engagement in the real world cannot provide such type of pleasure. Also, there is a fine line between what a play is and what a work is. It is true that work can turn into a fun game but similarly a serious game that is pushed far enough can become a tedious work.
But here are a few questions:
When we’re playing a good game—when we’re tackling unnecessary obstacles—we are actively moving ourselves toward the positive end of the emotional spectrum. We are intensely engaged, and this puts us in precisely the right frame of mind and physical condition to generate all kinds of positive emotions and experiences. All of the neurological and physiological systems that underlie happiness—our attention systems, our reward center, our motivation systems, our emotion and memory centers—are fully activated by gameplay. This extreme emotional activation is the primary reason why today’s most successful computer and video games are so addictive and mood-boosting.
What makes a game addictive? It is happiness? What is the happiness factor when it comes to playing games?
What happens to the body, when we play video games? Do you think a disembodiment self, a virtual self is capable of clear judgement in a game environment?
This was an interesting read, yet I feel disappointed, maybe because I am too tired and had a long day or maybe there was something about the overly optimistic prospect of games that made me uneasy. My work /research could be considered part game, part activism, and part data visualization, so I was excited to read this book and reaffirm my practice in digital media-activism. Somehow, it worked the opposite for me. I am not sure if combining social activism and games is such a good idea any more. Just curious to see what was your take on this?
S.
I agree with you that one of the main reasons to play games is to escape reality, at least, to avoid the unpleasant part of it, especially when our daily life includes a repetitive routine or an unfulfilling job. Some other games as well offer different challenges that are engaging per se, in the same way some hobbies or personal interests are, such as painting, crafting, or writing. So, games are only another part of life, in the same way our personal interests and goals are, and the problem with McGonigal is that is offering gaming and its rules as a solution to fix reality, when is no more solution than the solutions sold by books like the best seller The Secret, written by Rhonda Byrne, and others in the same line, offering a pragmatic way of seeing reality in order to achieve happiness.
I believe videogames demand a certain level of disembodiment from the player, in order to project oneself into the game and take decisions according to the logic of the game. And I believe that our virtual self is capable of great judgment when following the rules of the game, if a more complex reality intrudes to the virtual universe of the game it will create great conflict inside the player’s mind, bringing consequences according to the circumstances. In a way it demands that people dehumanizes themselves in order to follow the order imposed by the game.
As well, talking about social activism and games may work, but we are used that the commitment with a cause must be truthful and not because one is pursuing a reward or acquire a new level of power or whatever; as well, manipulating people into helping a cause may be good in principle but there is something missing in the way, because the people is not there because they believe in helping but because they believe in the game.