Gamification Study - Yu-kai Chou

What Are Learning Games

Learning can be immensely rewarding. As a child you may have read a Dr. Seuss book called I Can Read With My Eyes Shut where you were told, “The more you learn, the more you read, the more things you will know. The more you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

Although we are supposed to regard learning as a joy, it often doesn’t feel that way. There is a lot of information that we need to digest and remember because we are required to do so for school or work.

However, these seemingly uphill challenges can be overcome with learning games. Essentially, these are games that have been designed to optimize the acquisition of information or skills.

With such tools, it is possible to achieve high levels of mastery without the normal feelings of resistance and uphill struggle that we often face in classroom settings and assigned course work.

Another perspective on the question of what are learning games is that they demonstrate new ways of understanding our own innate aptitudes and how we best learn.

New Perspectives On Intelligence

Researchers are redefining what it means to be smart and how our brains are wired to learn.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences was developed in 1983 by a psychologist and professor of neuroscience at Harvard University named Howard Gardner.

Whereas most schools emphasize linguistic and mathematical/logical aptitudes, his framework regards intelligence as being multifaceted to include other areas of proficiencies such as:

musical intelligence – ability to create new music due to a sensitivity to sound, pitch, rhythm and tones
visual spatial intelligence – ability to visualize and use spatial judgment
kinesthetic (bodily) intelligence- ability to control movement and train responses through a sense of timing and goals
intrapersonal intelligence – ability to introspect to understand ones own emotions, states of being, sense of self in order to create new reactions to external circumstances
interpersonal intelligence – ability to relate to others and create harmonious relationships, often within a cooperative group context
naturalistic intelligence – ability to relate and communicate information naturally within one’s own surroundings
existential intelligence – ability to understand a deeper metaphysical or spiritual level of existence.

These abilities are often exhibited by exceptional individuals whose talents often lie beyond the skills that are esteemed by formal education.

However, it should be noted that most people carry all of these proficiencies to some degree. They must be given opportunities to develop them further.

Multisensory Learning

Researchers are also acknowledging the concept of multisensory learning. We are naturally predisposed to taking in information through multiple forms of sensory input. Life presents us with different types of stimuli such as sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. And we are designed to filter what is relevant and make decisions on this input to best navigate our world.

Information that fits our preferred learning modalities is more likely to be understood, remembered and even utilized to a greater extent compared to knowledge that is communicated through just sight (e.g. textbook material) or sound (e.g. regular lecture).

Games and The New Paradigms of Learning and Intelligence

Here are some new perspectives for those who are just starting to ask, what are learning games and are they really beneficial?

Learning games can be digital or non digital. They allow individuals to interact with information, instead of passively absorbing it. They engage multiple senses at the same time often through a combination of sight, sound and touch. And this aligns with how we naturally like to learn.

Players are typically encouraged to employ more than one type of intelligence to achieve the objectives of the game.

Well designed learning games motivate persistence. And they help optimize the way we take in new information by using mechanisms that relate to our core drives. Again, the Octalysis model lists these as:

1. Epic meaning and calling

2. Accomplishment

3. Empowerment

4. Social pressure

5. Unpredictability

6. Scarcity

7. Avoidance

8. Ownership

Continue reading What Are Learning Games

Game Mechanics Octalysis: Grepolis

(This post is written by Howard Shan, a soon-to-be 9th grader who has learned Octalysis and is applying it to a game that he is playing recently. Anyone out there who would like to write about similar topics, feel free to reach out to me.)

I started playing Grepolis about one and a half months ago, when I discovered the game in the Google Chrome store. This game is set in Greek times, and the military units, vessels, buildings, and gods are all shaped around Greek culture. Grepolis is a game where the player joins an alliance, builds up his city, and conquers others. According to InnoGames, the company that owns Grepolis and several other games, there are over 16 million registered players. This game is very engaging and many Octalysis principles are applied to it.

Core Drive #1: Epic Meaning & Calling in Grepolis

Grepolis is a game where you are the leader of a city, and you try to build up that city and conquer the cities of others. Being the ruler of multiple cities across the ocean makes you feel more powerful than how you feel in real life. You need to help defend your allies when they are attacked and participate in operations where everyone lands their attacks on their assigned cities at the same time. The objective of the game is to build the World Wonders and bring glory to your alliance. This is a purpose that is bigger than oneself, hence engaging.

Core Drive #2: Development & Accomplishment in Grepolis

In the game, there are some tutorial quests that give you rewards as you complete them. There are also achievements such as “Attacker of the day” or “Defender of the day.” There is also a sense of accomplishment when you climb up the rankings. Finally, after the world you are playing on goes on for a while, there is a final stage where all the alliances race to build the world wonders, and the first alliance to complete 4 of the 7 wonders wins the world.

Core Drive #3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback in Grepolis

You cannot really design how your city is built, but you can decide which buildings you consider valuable to upgrade and which to not (there is a maximum amount of farm space that you can have once you upgrade your farm to the max, and if you build all your buildings to the top level, you would have less room for troops) . There is an academy where research is done, but if you upgrade the academy to the max, you still are not able to research all the available technologies. You need to choose which researches should be researched for that specific city and your style of play. Meaningful choices lead to more engagement.

Core Drive #4: Ownership & Possession in Grepolis

In Grepolis, there exists the desire to capture more cities and expand your empire. Also, you and your alliance desire to build world wonders and win the war. This can result in players staying up really late to time their attacks perfectly, attempting to attack with the most efficient way.
Continue reading Game Mechanics Octalysis: Grepolis

WoW Addiction: Game Mechanics Research of World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft Game Mechanics

World of Warcraft (WoW) is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Blizzard Entertainment. Released in November of 2004, World of Warcraft holds the Guinness Record for most subscribers of any MMORPG.

World of Warcraft’s popularity has seeped into popular culture in many forms, and has been known to be addicting. Some players report losing months, and even years, of their lives planted in front of their computers while questing and leveling their characters. World of Warcraft’s popularity and addicting nature can be traced to the game mechanics design implemented by Blizzard.

Gamification is design that places the most emphasis on the human in the process. It’s Human-Focused Design, as opposed to “function-focused design”. The gamification framework Octalysis, makes it very easy to see how World at Warcraft can be so addicting.

Core Drive #1: Epic Meaning & Calling

Epic meaning and calling refers to the drive players feel when they believe what they are doing is greater than themselves. Whether it is helping fellow players, or contributing to a wiki, players often feel that the good of the community rests on their shoulders.

World of Warcraft relies on epic meaning and calling from the beginning of character creation, and throughout the game as players become more involved. First, players must choose between opposing factions, the Alliance and the Horde. Additionally, players may also join guilds or groups. Much of World of Warcraft’s gameplay is designed so that players can only complete certain quests as a member of a group. Because players must rely on one another, every individual must understands that his role in the game also supports the greater good of the group.

Core Drive #2: Development & Accomplishment

This refers to overcoming challenges, making progress, and developing skills. The challenge aspect of this portion of the framework is essential for players to find meaning in their activity.

Development and accomplishment are probably the most prolific aspects of gamification within World of Warcraft. The majority of players who experienced WoW addiction to the game report the overwhelming need for their characters to level up, gain new skills, or become more powerful. Completing quests allows players this opportunity, and is one of the driving focuses of the game.

Core Drive #3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback

Continue reading WoW Addiction: Game Mechanics Research of World of Warcraft

User and Player Types in Gamified Systems

Much of what we have learned about how people act and interact in gamified environments has been derived from what we know about game theory, social dynamics, as well as Player Types. After years of research, we now have practical ways of classifying user types, similar to the way game players have been classified by types. This can aid in understanding the human elements of a situation and help in building an effective gamified design.

From the Realm of Games

Richard Bartle, a British writer and professor at the University of Essex, has conducted research in the areas of game design and game development, as well as explored player personality types for massively-multiplayer online games. He is best known for his theory on game participant psychology which classifies players based on their gaming preference.

These preferences are deduced from a series of thirty random questions which identify characteristics associated with specific character types. Bartle identified four main character types – Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. The results from this test produced a metric known as the “Bartle Quotient” which represented the relative presence of each characteristic trait.

Bartle’s Four Player Types

Bartle’s four main player types are characterized in the following descriptions:

Achievers – players who focus on obtaining some level of success, as measured by points, prizes, material possessions, or other valuation criteria. Known as the “Diamonds,” they will strive to gain rewards, recognition and prestige, with little or no advantage in gameplay or advancement.

Explorers – players who seek out the thrill of discovery, learning about anything that is new or unknown. Referred to as the “Spades” because they tend to dig down and uncover things, explorers feel a rush of excitement when they discover a rare artifact or a secret pathway.

Socializers – these are individuals who are attracted to the social aspects of a game, rather than the game strategy itself. They are the “Hearts” of the game world, because they gain the most enjoyment from interacting with the other players in the game. For them the game is the social vehicle that allows they to engage others and build interesting relationships.

Killers – these players live for the competitive elements of the game. They are referred to as the “Clubs” because they like to “take it to” their competition. They love the opportunity to compete (and beat) the other players.

But these classifications were largely based on patterns of social interaction between players that Bartle observed in the scenarios found in multi-user dungeons, or “MUDS” games. Though they describe how different players might be motivated and enjoy different types of interaction, and to have “fun” in competitive MUDS settings (or possibly MMORPG’s in today’s setting), this system can be limiting for other game systems and game-based situations.

A Different Perspective for Gamification

In reality, a gamified system is rarely the same as a MUDS or MMORPG game. Bartle’s Player Type scheme is not necessarily accurate for this setting, though the terms could be used as generalized descriptors for similar behavioral traits. The major difference is that in a gamified situation, individuals won’t necessarily be able to have the same freedom to “play” and “explore” the game as a MMORPG.

Andrzej Marczewski believes that we should step back and initially view the situation with two basic types of players in mind. Those “willing” to play, and those “not willing” to play. Andrzej refers to the “willing” players as those that can be engaged with extrinsic things such as badges and trophies. For many, these are of no particular interest. However, they can still be engaged if the system can be designed to do so.

In a gamified setting, Andrzej created a five “user type” system:

Player
Socializer
Free Spirit
Achiever
Philanthropist

Note that “Socializer” and “Achiever” are the same as Bartle’s terms for two player types.
Each of his five user types can be strongly influenced by any of the four intrinsic motivators – relatedness/social, autonomy, mastery, purpose, or by extrinsic rewards. This is represented in his diagram:

Andrzej User Types

Continue reading User and Player Types in Gamified Systems

Gamification: What Makes Game of Thrones Addicting

This is a guest post by Steven Laird. Steven is currently a Systems Integration Consultant at Accenture and is interested in the intersection of technology and psychology. He believes a gamified culture may be the answer to a countless array of world problems afflicting the human condition. Feel free to contact me if you would like to post a guest post here too.

Gamification of Thrones

Having had the wind knocked out of me from the heart-wrenching conclusion of Season 3 of Game of Thrones, I began to think of what else I could do in the meantime while I waited another eternity for my beloved show to come back.

Given how much time I sit around thinking about two topics: Gamification and Game of Thrones (Game of Thrones), I found it fitting to unravel the show that has taken the world by storm and offer some semblance of an explanation as to why I and many others feel just as addicted to this show as any popular video game.

In a nutshell, this show has every addicting element beautifully woven together into an epic masterpiece that is able to appeal to anyone…and here’s why – from a screenwriting, gamification, and avid fan perspective.

Game of Thrones through the Lens of Gamification and Octalysis

To start with, this show naturally has plenty of violence and sex to appeal to our baser appetites and fulfill that Hollywood formula. This is of course the 9^th, or “hidden” Core Drive in the Gamification Framework Octalysis – Sensation.

While this is a crucial element, it really is just a miniscule ingredient as the script and story itself stem from the creepy genius of George Martin who has already done the heavy lifting of crafting an elegant and fantastical world containing a gamut of interconnected characters vying for a claim to the throne.

With the groundwork laid out, Game of Thrones is already ahead of its peers as it does not have to suffer from tight deadlines stifling the quality of creativity necessary for a story to unravel with the right amount of tension, unpredictability, character development, and the answer to those “so what” questions. (Remember how Lost unfolded?…me neither)

While I can make the argument that Game of Thrones is well done from a screenwriting perspective, how exactly does this relate to gamification? Although we have typically thought of gamification as only relating to the addicting elements of games, Yu-kai Chou likes to refer to it as “Human-Focused Design,” and can actually be thought of much more broadly given those same elements of great screenwriting touch upon the same core drives outlined in the Octalysis Framework.

By providing an Octalysis Score of how Game of Thrones fares among each one of the Core Drives, it is my intent to exemplify how fundamental screenwriting principles increases an Octalysis score from a viewer and Game of Thrones character’s perspective.

(Warning..Spoiler Alert!)

Core Drive 7: Curiosity & Unpredictability

With over 34 characters in the background of the world of Westeros – the fictional world where the action takes place – Game of Thrones has captivated audiences by featuring unpredictable plot twists that invoke a multitude of emotions.

Just as one story ends, the genesis of a new plotline carries on concurrently to progress the story in a fashion where a constant tension always exists between what the audience believes to happen, what the characters intend to happen, and what actually happens.

As main characters are killed off in realistic brutality usually reserved for the “bad” guy, viewers can’t help but wonder and debate with their friends what will happen next. In an age where TV shows and movies are incredibly formulaic, and hence, predictable, watching a show where I have no idea what is going to happen until right before the moment is a welcomed surprise.

In the spirit of welcomed surprises, the cunning and ambivalent Varys frequently demonstrates the core drive of Curiosity & Unpredictability as he commands an army of “birdies” across all lands to constantly keep him updated on gossip and critical war info. Having no real loyalty to any faction, Varys is an interesting conundrum who proves to be quite unpredictable himself as viewers have to wonder what ploy he will hatch next. Given how much this core drive jibes with both viewers and characters alike, I have to rate this as the strongest core drive for Game of Thrones, especially in the early Onboarding phases.

Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback

Continue reading Gamification: What Makes Game of Thrones Addicting

Gamified Competition in The Enterprise Workplace

Competitive gamification is certainly becoming a hot, new business theme in modern corporate development these days. It has been demonstrated to be effective in sales, where game mechanics based on competitive models are used to promote a “competitive interest” in engaging customers and closing deals. Now management is exploring other business functions which might benefit from competitive gamification mechanics and techniques.

But competition may not be effective, or even desirable in the enterprise setting. Why? Because it tends to create an unhealthy environment where employees put self interests above corporate and even customer interests. Instead of working towards a win for the company, a win for the customer, the individual just focuses on beating the internal competition – his colleagues and fellow employees. (To win the brass ring; that cash award or trip to Cancun.)

Gartner has predicted that 80% of the current enterprise initiatives in gamification will fail by 2014, primarily due to do poor design. Melissa Visintin further expands on this by stating that companies are trying to force game mechanics based on competition instead of understanding each situation and properly designing solutions based on the most appropriate mechanisms. It is not enough to simply throw together competitive game elements and expect the result to be effective.

What Exactly Is Gamified Competition?

A Working Definition of Competition

Mario Herger from Enterprise-Gamification.com explored the nature of competition from a number of perspectives. Drawing from Wikipedia, he has defined it in terms of ecology and sociology as:

“a contest between individuals and entities for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, for prestige, recognition, awards, mates, or group or social status, for leadership.”

Notice the emphasis on the individual (or entity), and the need to “contend” or “contest” for something; implying that there will be a winner, as well as a loser. Maybe many losers.

In the enterprise this implies that we will have people competing with other people within the company. OK, that seems reasonable. But Mario Herger points out that this is contrary to the essential meaning of the corporation; yes, the very nature of an enterprise. For corporations are formed to bring people together and pool their different strengths in a collaborative setting. The fundamental design of an effective corporation taps the talents of its constituents to build something greater than the component parts. And yes, even more competitive in the external environment – the marketplace, where it faces the challenges brought forth by the other companies.

So now, do we want to introduce an anti-collaborative element – competition among the internal players, and potentially reduce their effectiveness as corporate team members? Possibly for customer engagement, but only after thoughtful analysis indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks, and possible long term detriment to the employees and ultimately the enterprise.

In general, adding the additional stress of competition to the challenges that employees face on a daily basis, will only result in a deteriorating situation with increased probability of burnout and uneven performance. Employees will become more motivated – to look for new opportunities elsewhere.

The Different Types of Competition

One perspective that we can view competition from is that of whether it can be deemed as healthy versus unhealthy. Mario Herger distinguishes between a “good” adaptive competitiveness and a “bad” maladaptive competitiveness by a set of specific characteristics.

Adaptive competitiveness has the following characteristics:

Perseverance and determination to rise to the challenge, but bound by an abiding respect for the rules.
The ability to feel genuine satisfaction at having put in a worthy effort, even if you lose.
The fact that you don’t have to be best at everything, just in the domain you train for.
Being able to deter or discourage gratification.
Being marked by constant desire to strive for excellence, but not for the desperate concerns of rank.

Maladaptive competitiveness in contrast, is characterized by:

Psychological insecurity and displaced urges.
A person who cannot accept the losing part of competition.
One who competes when others around are not competing.
A person who has to be best at everything.
One who doesn’t stop when the whistle blows.
An individual who drags others into competition.
One who will resort to cheating when he/she can’t win.

How Winners and Losers React

Now that we see that competition can be thought of in terms of adaptive and maladaptive forms, how do we view the players in these competitions? What are the common reactions that “players” have? Herger cites two Hungarian researchers – Martá Fülöp and Mihaly Berkics. They found that there are four common reactions for winners and losers.

Winners typically can either show:

Joy, expressed through gleeful enthusiasm.
Satisfaction with ones own competence.
Denial of the win as way of social cautiousness. Those players would feel guilty and fearful of the losers’ reactions, like retaliation, so winners would mask their inner joy and not express it openly.
Narcissistic self-enhancement, where the winners would feel a malicious superiority over the losers.

Continue reading Gamified Competition in The Enterprise Workplace