Would the real Mary Poppins please stand up? Approaches and Methods in Gameful Design
•
2 likes•1,045 views
This document discusses approaches and methods for gamification design. It outlines two conflicting theories of fun: fun as an additive substance that can be added to non-fun activities, or fun as an emergent quality that can arise from any well-designed system or activity. The document advocates following game design principles to restructure existing activities and find inherent challenges, then structuring them with goals, rules, and feedback to create engaging gameplay experiences. It emphasizes iterative playtesting to get the design right.
Report
Share
Would the real Mary Poppins please stand up? Approaches and Methods in Gameful Design
- 1. would the real mary poppins please stand up?approaches and method in gamification Sebastian Deterding / @dingstweets Digital Creativity Labs, University of York January 27, 2017 c b
- 3. we are all game designers
- 7. old idea: learn enjoyment design from games Malone 1981, Carroll & Thomas 1983, Blythe et al. 2004
- 8. recent surge of interest gamification serious games persuasive tech
- 9. gaMification The use of game design elements in non-game contexts Deterding et al. 2011
- 11. sustainability
- 12. education
- 13. the pursuit of happiness
- 16. <2> what is fun? (baby don’t hurt me)
- 17. (a)
- 19. “just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down” aka fun as additive substance
- 20. some things are inherently fun
- 21. and some things are not
- 22. so: add funstuff™ to nonfunstuff™ for more fun
- 26. a resounding failure … Squire 2006, Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2007
- 27. Bruckman 1999
- 28. gaMification The use of game design elements in non-game contexts Deterding et al. 2011 … which doesn’t bode well for this
- 29. (b)
- 31. “in every job that must be done, there is an element of fun” aka fun as emergent systemic quality
- 34. Every activity can become fun, interesting
- 35. experience is a dynamic, emergent quality Hassenzahl 2010
- 37. aestheticsmechanics dynamics Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek 2004
- 38. Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek 2004 aesthetics Frustrating end game mechanics dynamics Slow poverty gap +$ !+ -$ !-
- 39. so how do you design that?* Deterding et al. 2013 * obligatory visualisation of ephemeral design work with people pointing at post-its
- 41. lots of industry work, little research Deterding et al. 2013
- 42. if you want to know more • Conceptual development of requirements from literature • Review of existing methods against requirements • Iterative design-based development and evaluation of method through 19 projects & workshops with teams of 2-6 (n=335)
- 43. guiding questions 1. What are the enjoyable, motivating experiences characteristic for gameplay? 2. What game structures and processes afford these experiences? 3. How does game design create these structures and processes? 4. How can we integrate this into design methods for non-game systems?
- 44. raph koster »Fun is just another word for learning.« a theory of fun for game design (2004) #1
- 45. raph koster »Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes games fun.« a theory of fun for game design (2004)
- 48. edward deci, richard ryan »An understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.« the what and why of goal pursuit (2000)
- 49. chief source of game enjoyment: overcoming challenges Malone 1981, Csikszentmihalyi 1990, Koster 2005, Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010, Klimmt & Blake 2012
- 51. raph koster »Fun is just another word for learning.« a theory of fun for game design (2004) through interesting challenges
- 52. goals …
- 53. + rules …
- 56. + feedback …
- 57. = experiences of competence
- 58. formal structure of games: skill atoms/loops Cook 2007, cf. Dormans 2012
- 59. aestheticsmechanics dynamics Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek 2004 #4 how the user experiences it
- 60. aestheticsmechanics dynamics Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek 2004 how the designer creates it
- 61. Rainer Knizia »The life blood of game design is testing. ... Why are we playing games? Because it‘s fun. You cannot calculate this. You cannot test this out in an abstract manner. You have to play it.« shift run stop, episode 40 (2010)
- 62. iterative experiential prototyping & testing
- 63. central goal conflict of applied game design Goal conflict game design Enjoyable inefficiency interaction design Usable efficiency #4
- 65. how do we make one support the other? Goal congruence game design Enjoyment interaction design Efficiency
- 66. intrinsic integration: core challenge = to be learned skill Habgood & Ainsworth 2011, Echeverría et al. 2012
- 67. what about real-world output, not learning?
- 68. john M. Carroll & John C. Thomas »Tacking on ad hoc complications will not evoke fun.« fun (1988: 21)
- 69. intrinsic integration: restructure inherent learnable challenge For ticket, drag red dot through labyrinth Ticket
- 70. Level 2 For ticket, drag red dot through labyrinth Ticket
- 71. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi »Mowing the lawn or waiting in a dentist’s office can become enjoyable provided one restructures the activity by providing goals, rules, and the other elements of enjoyment to be reviewed below.« flow (1990: 51)
- 72. create find and restructure already-inherent challenge
- 76. needs formative research to elicit challenges Khaled & Ingram 2012
- 77. <4> summary
- 78. gaMification The use of game design elements in non-game contexts Deterding et al. 2011 TO DESIGN FOR GAMEFUL EXPERIENCES …
- 79. Bruckman 1999 don’t sugarcoat nonfunstuff™
- 80. FIND AN INTERESTING CHALLENGE
- 82. AND playtest and iterate ’TIL YOU GET IT RIGHT