Gamification, Games-based learning, and Serious games

April 20, 2014 Theory No comments

In Gamification, Games-based Learning, and Serious Games – Any difference? Bhasin argues that there is no difference between the three. Suggesting that “gamification, games-based learning, and serious games are effectively the same thing, because in a corporate environment, all learning relates to strategic objectives and has serious purpose”. Bhasin then attributes this to the rise in popularity of games, and attributes the following to its traction:

  • Marketplaces forces
  • The connection between games and learning in children (noting “brain scientists the world over agree that the games’ challenge-achievement-reward loop promotes the production of dopamine in the brain, reinforcing our desire to play”)
  • Rising interest among adults in games (reports on statistics about gamer demographics)

Bhasin then moves on to discuss the design of gamification. He opens with “it is the mechanics of the game – not the theme – that make it fun (Zichermann and cunningham)” However from experience in the boardgames community theme can be the deciding factor in engagement with the game, and it is well noted that pasted-on themes provide for a less engaging experience.

After discussing the best use of leaderboards he outlines some other gamification elements that could be used. The focus on leaderboards and competition shows the authors hasn’t really considered the benefits on other elements in a meaningful way. The other game mechanics listed include, pattern recognition, collecting, surprise and unexpected delight, organizing and creating order, gifting, recognition of achievements, leading others, being the hero, and gaining status.

by the end of the post I feel like Bhasin has just cherry-picked some of Brenda Enders work to focus on. Further investigation of Brenda Enders work (noted as “Gamification, Games and Learning: What Managers and Practitioners Need to Know”, 2013). When discussing interactivity and feedback Bhasin focuses on Enders best practice for challenges. He then expands on this with James Paul Gee’s ideas on risk taking, challenges and consolidation, story telling and briefly touches on motivation. Then finishes off the the SAPS model of rewards (Status, Access, Power, Stuff).

 

References
Bhasin, K., (2014) Gamification, Games-based Learning, and Serious Games – Any difference?, Learning Solutions Magazine. 27th January, 2014. http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1337/gamification-game-based-learning-serious-games-any-difference. Accessed 16/04/2014.

 

Conventions – PAX East

April 17, 2014 Industry No comments
Japanime Games - Krosmaster Arena at PAX East

Japanime Games – Krosmaster Arena at PAX East

In keeping up-to-date with the gaming industry I’m currently reading all about the Awesomeness of PAX East. PAX East is a Geek convention, held over three days in Boston, MA. PAX is a convention that can satisfy every geek from board and table top games, to video games, to cosplay. PAX (Penny Arcade Expo) is the brain child of Penny Arcade, it has been growing since 2004. 2013 marked the first year PAX expanded its convention beyond the USA, to Australia, in fact. Which naturally excited Aussie fans, who often feel they get the short end of the stick when it comes the gaming industry.

Greenbrier Games at PAX East 2014

Greenbrier Games at PAX East 2014

For those of you who PAX is unfamiliar, is it on opportunity for industry bodies (publishers, producers, developers, marketers, etc) to exhibit wares, release new products, market to a new demographic, and mingle with their audience, and end-product consumers. It is also an opportunity for fans and consumers to immerse themselves in the culture over a few days, meet new friends, and see what is happening in the industry. While exhibitions serve as a major part of the convention it is also a place of learning and sharing, with a full schedule of panels and talks, given by a variety of speakers including developers, artists and prominent people in the gaming media.

Soda Pop Minis @PAX East 2014

Soda Pop Minis @PAX East 2014

There are some great things happening in table top gaming. The Escapist Magazine covered most of the Tabletop exhibitors (link). It is really good to hear that indie developers are getting as much attention as some of the bigger guns in the board gaming industry (like Iello and Mayfair Games). The slew of successful Kickstarter campaigns have obviously helped in boosting the variety of products entering the market. These kickstarted companies included Soda Pop Minatures (Publisher of Super Dungeon Explore), Japanime Games (well known for Krosmaster Arena), and Cool Mini or Not (famous for the Zombicide Series). While other indie developers seek to develop without the assistance of Kickstarter, with a wide variety of themes and games (link).

PAX 2014 Cosplayer: A hulking Space Marine from Warhammer 40K (click for source).

There were lots of video games, and video game announcements at PAX, naturally as a main stay of the convention. The one for which I found myself most excited is Blizzard‘s announcement of a Story Mode for Hearthstone – Curse of Naxxramas, coming in US Fall 2014. Blizzard had only just recently released an iPad version of Hearthstone for Canadian and Australia (&NZ) iPad users, which I imagine brought back more than a few players to the game. Hearthstone is a free-to-play electronic card game designed by Blizzard Entertainment based off the popular World of Warcraft story line. This online only card game features one on one battles against different live players in real time. Each player choosing a different class to play, which has inherently different play styles (Mage, Warrior, Shaman, Priest, etc), so there is something to suit everyone.

To encourage diversity in a somewhat controversial more PAX introduced the Roll for Diversity Hub and Lounge. News is still coming out about how this helped or hindered PAX. One brave trans person shared their experience in a new blog about diversity issues in the gaming industry. As I write this their is a ragging conversation happening on Reddit. I’m sure more experiences will be shared over the next week or so as the glow and high of the convention dies down.

Gamification in Higher Ed Briefly

April 14, 2014 Gamification No comments

Sarah Moore shares her experience with an LMS development company and her thoughts on gamification and higher education. Her important points are the benefits gamification can have to many facets of a students development including;

  • Cognitive Development
  • Emotional Development
  • Social Development

While some of the commenters on this blog post raise concerns around overexposure to technology, the impacts of over stimulating audiences, and whose responsibility it is to create the gamified experience.

MDA – Mechanics, Dynamics and Asthetics

April 10, 2014 Theory, Video Games No comments

Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek (2004) present a framework for developing games and thinking about games research. They start from the perspective of the player and the designer as a one way communication into a product, the game.

They formalize the consumption of games to into their components, rules, system and fun. Which they extrapolate their design components.

MECHANICS > DYNAMICS > AESTHETICS

Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.

Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others outputs over time.

Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system.

The authors then talk about language around fun, and how the vocabulary for “fun” is very limited. Then launch briefly into a “fun” taxonomy.

1. Sensation - Game as sense-pleasure
2. Fantasy - Game as make-believe
3. Narrative - Game as drama
4. Challenge - Game as obstacle course
5. Fellowship - Game as social framework
6. Discovery - Game as uncharted territory
7. Expression - Game as self-discovery
8. Submission - Game as pastime

This is interesting, and possibly useful. However how does this fit with other taxomonies? Does this cover everything one considers fun. What about other interpretations of fun? This taxonomy is Marc LeBlanc’s (author) eight kinds of fun (http://8kindsoffun.com/). Other ways of defining of categorizing fun is Nicole Lazzaro’s Four ways of fun (link). No doubt there are also some commentary from the fields of psychology.

The authors then move onto explaining the model. They feel it best to start from the user perspective, with aesthetics. This idea of starting the game design process from the user experience point of view is not new and shared by many designers (including Kevin Werbach, Gamification Design Framework). The model is very simple and the about definitions of the steps give most of it away. However, here are some choice quotes for each step that may be of use.

Aesthetics

“They succeed when the various teams or players in these games are emotionally invested in defeating each other.” Touching on emotional investment for engaged play.

Dynamics

[Between winners and losers] “As the gap widens, only a few (and sometimes only one) of the players is really invested. Dramatic tension and agency are lost.”

Mechanics

“By applying … changes to the fundamental rules of play, we might be able to keep lagging players competitive and interested for longer periods of time.”

They conclude that simple changes to games can result in a better user experience. “In addition, by understanding how formal decisions about gameplay impact the end user experience, we are able to better decompose that experience, and use it to fuel new designs, research and criticism respectively.”

 

References

Hunicke, R., M. LeBlanc, et al. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.

Research – getting started

April 10, 2014 Research Journey No comments

So now my research journey truly begins. My coursework has started, actually we are almost half-way in, I’ve had my first couple of meetings with my supervisors, and I’ve started the researching process.

After the push from the supervisors I looked into EndNote. I had previously used it in undergraduate with small collections (for essays), but found the interface quite ugly, and not very user-friendly. Thus far I have been using Mendeley to log all of the papers and items I had been collecting. Which had been suggested to my by a Colleague. Mendeley has the extra bonus of a free iPad App. This has meant I have convenient access to my whole collection of research while I’m on the go. I’ll be honest that iPad goes with me pretty much everywhere. I cracked open EndNote and started plugging in all of the references I had used in my submitted Masters Research Proposal. Looking at both programs, they both meet my needs – they store reference information, can store actual PDF items, output to something close to Harvard Reference style, and has some integration with MS word for in-text referencing. So now I’m stuck. I have a Mendeley library which is now very full having provided a dumping ground for collected items for the past 6 – 8 months, yet EndNote is nice a clean and has quality detailed references in it.

Mendeley_lib

My Mendeley Library

EndNote_lib

My EndNote Library

Now I guess it’s down to a choice. I’m quite attached to the library I have built up in Mendeley, which it is available to me on my iPad. Though I also really value the quality notes I’ve been adding to the entries in EndNote. UOW currently only supports EndNote, so naturally I’m leaning towards EndNote. I think long term when I’m stressing about submission the relieved pressure if I need it may come in handy.

Naturally, the Thesis Whisperer has written about her experiences with reference software. She concludes that its  personal choice. I guess the next few months as I read more and more about the Gamaification field I can really test out both, and hopefully come to a final decision.

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »