So I've read a book about gaming. More specifically: "Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world", a book containing a (sort of) thesis about why games are good for you and how they benefit mankind in general.
At first glance, author Jane McGonigal brings things to the table gamers already know. It motivates, passes the time, gives us a goal, teaches things like determination, co-operation, persistence and stuff like that. She stands in favor of things being fun, and that having fun is important. Nonetheless, it's not why she wrote the book. She acknowledges that many of us use gaming as escapism from the real world, but (and this is an important one) she claims we do it because "reality is broken". Throughout most of the book, she argues that games shows that games have a huge if not tremendous potential to unite ourselves. From the teamwork found in world of warcraft to the collaborative ten billion'th kill in halo...we yearn for something that is above ourselves. To help construct something. Be part of a group or a community. And have a goal; have something to strive towards.
The second part is mostly about gamification. The idea is that games are something we are intuitively drawn towards, and that as such, using games in our daily work routines help motivate us, overcome issues and even connects us with others. Things that were boring and pointless can relive when played as a game (chore wars is talked about in depth).
But it doesn't stop there. Games can motivate us to do things we wouldn't normally do or even find awkward. McGonigal mentions quite some projects that have plenty of promise and are received well, though they may raise an eyebrow at first glance. Dancing without anyone seeing you? A game that puts young and old together on the phone? Playing a cardlike game in a graveyard?
The third part takes the odds to an even higher stake and argues that can, and in fact should, change the world. Thanks to the internet, it's easier than ever to create a worldwide audience for things that, well...deserve a worldwide audience. Through the means of games, you can unite people from other states, countries and even continents. Missions that are deemed impossible can be crowdsourced to the masses, and when spoken to in a motivating way, it's a force to be reckoned with (it is suggested that wikipedia's mechanisms of exploring articles, scores for writing and the clear intended goal drew lots of gamers to build it to what it currently is).
So far so awesome...right? Alas...I don't really buy into Jane McGonigal's idea that within ten years, a game designer will win the Nobel prize. Yes, the stories she tells show a clear spark and I'm sure her work (most of what she talks about are project she has worked on or is busy working on) has a positive influence on her environment. And don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of projects like "world without oil" raising our collective thoughts on what it would mean if the oil drain stops...but despite the clear wins across the board (fold-IT, anyone?) I think she underestimates just how fragmented the masses become with each new game. To a degree, I think this fracture lies within "gamers" as well (even down to the very name). I felt kind of sad having barely heard about these projects. Even worse: a few days ago, I read an article that computer games haven't stopped board games from being sold...rather the opposite. I didn't knew that. Board games (or card games, for that matter) weren't mentioned in the book either. And this little poll I held to vent my ponderings further proved this: we surround us too much with what we already know (and the ones thinking alike) to be open for this sort of thing. It may be true that in manhours, it would only take the entire WoW-community three days to recreate all the articles on wikipedia...but I seriously doubt it'll motivate those gamers.
Something I missed even more was the process of game design. I won't deny that if all gamers (ALL of them...not just those who coin the word for themselves) started to work together, it'd change this world. I just don't think I believe in her vision that somewhat comes accross as a sleeping giant that'll awaken when times are most dire. But we'll see...
At first glance, author Jane McGonigal brings things to the table gamers already know. It motivates, passes the time, gives us a goal, teaches things like determination, co-operation, persistence and stuff like that. She stands in favor of things being fun, and that having fun is important. Nonetheless, it's not why she wrote the book. She acknowledges that many of us use gaming as escapism from the real world, but (and this is an important one) she claims we do it because "reality is broken". Throughout most of the book, she argues that games shows that games have a huge if not tremendous potential to unite ourselves. From the teamwork found in world of warcraft to the collaborative ten billion'th kill in halo...we yearn for something that is above ourselves. To help construct something. Be part of a group or a community. And have a goal; have something to strive towards.
The second part is mostly about gamification. The idea is that games are something we are intuitively drawn towards, and that as such, using games in our daily work routines help motivate us, overcome issues and even connects us with others. Things that were boring and pointless can relive when played as a game (chore wars is talked about in depth).
But it doesn't stop there. Games can motivate us to do things we wouldn't normally do or even find awkward. McGonigal mentions quite some projects that have plenty of promise and are received well, though they may raise an eyebrow at first glance. Dancing without anyone seeing you? A game that puts young and old together on the phone? Playing a cardlike game in a graveyard?
The third part takes the odds to an even higher stake and argues that can, and in fact should, change the world. Thanks to the internet, it's easier than ever to create a worldwide audience for things that, well...deserve a worldwide audience. Through the means of games, you can unite people from other states, countries and even continents. Missions that are deemed impossible can be crowdsourced to the masses, and when spoken to in a motivating way, it's a force to be reckoned with (it is suggested that wikipedia's mechanisms of exploring articles, scores for writing and the clear intended goal drew lots of gamers to build it to what it currently is).
So far so awesome...right? Alas...I don't really buy into Jane McGonigal's idea that within ten years, a game designer will win the Nobel prize. Yes, the stories she tells show a clear spark and I'm sure her work (most of what she talks about are project she has worked on or is busy working on) has a positive influence on her environment. And don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of projects like "world without oil" raising our collective thoughts on what it would mean if the oil drain stops...but despite the clear wins across the board (fold-IT, anyone?) I think she underestimates just how fragmented the masses become with each new game. To a degree, I think this fracture lies within "gamers" as well (even down to the very name). I felt kind of sad having barely heard about these projects. Even worse: a few days ago, I read an article that computer games haven't stopped board games from being sold...rather the opposite. I didn't knew that. Board games (or card games, for that matter) weren't mentioned in the book either. And this little poll I held to vent my ponderings further proved this: we surround us too much with what we already know (and the ones thinking alike) to be open for this sort of thing. It may be true that in manhours, it would only take the entire WoW-community three days to recreate all the articles on wikipedia...but I seriously doubt it'll motivate those gamers.
Something I missed even more was the process of game design. I won't deny that if all gamers (ALL of them...not just those who coin the word for themselves) started to work together, it'd change this world. I just don't think I believe in her vision that somewhat comes accross as a sleeping giant that'll awaken when times are most dire. But we'll see...
