Recently, I spoke to Jesse Schell, he’s a game designer and a professor at the Entertainment Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon University. I wanted to talk to Jesse about the current state of gaming, and the possible future of games. He gave a very engaging, provocative talk recently, suggesting that we’re starting to see the “game-ification” of everyday life, and that gaming will likely become the norm as a mode of advertising, or even to push forward public policy. I’d love it if you have a chance to listen to our conversation, and tell me what you think. We’re hoping to include comments and reactions within the episode next week. You can leave a comment below, or better yet, call our toll-free (in Canada) voicemail: 1-877-34-SPARK
A shorter version of this interview will air on the April 4th episode of Spark, but you can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 43:44]
Play audio:
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
As a gamer and freeware programmer, I find some of what Jesse talks about to be outright terrifying. In those four groups he mentioned, I find myself within the artists/humanitarian groups, as a lot of others might. However, that "persuaders" group he talked of is slowly turning all of gaming into a Naomi Klein nightmare scenario. Even in his original lecture, he talked about how games could be used a platform for commercially branding off the spaces within our own dreams. (And, somehow, using Adblock Plus is the a moral issue…)
Game design is currently a time-and-money black hole and one with a pretty hefty political economy calling the shots. If we get one massively popular game, quite a number of soulless corporations will cough up any number of knockoff games, all in an effort to capitalize on what's selling. The only saving grace of these titles is that maybe Yhatzee Crowshaw might rip them a new one. Nonetheless, that's what the persuaders are currently doing, and it's not working very well for them. It would be in the interests of both gamers, and the game designers who actually care about what they're doing, if this group of money-mongers were kept in this disadvantaged position.
While I'm always interested to hear from hard-to-come-by perspectives on game theory, in some ways I sort of wish Schell would keep quiet about this stuff. He's highlighting a lot of things those penny-wringing persuaders would love to exploit, and I wouldn't dare give them any funny ideas.
Great interview and fascinating topic. I think we can take the free will/Skinner Box part of the discussion one step further in terms of the moral implications of applying gaming in a public policy or “humanitarian” context. Using the interview’s example of the student who completes question #2 in his homework and moves on to #3, shouldn’t the student be progressing through his homework for the sake of learning? If an old lady falls to the ground, I should help her, full stop. I shouldn’t need a game framework (earning good Samaritan points?) to do this.
I suppose this kind of moral question has been in public policy for some time, such as cash incentives for families that make sure their children attend school (successful in Mexico and now being tried in NYC). But just as games do, the gaming framework really sharpens the parameters around the question. And even game designers in the “humanitarian” group should consider the moral ambiguity of having recognition or reward (or shame or penalty) attached to behavior that some might think should be par for the course.
Using morality and ethics within a game context is tricky. If an old lady falls, yes we should help her full stop, but the only real way to do so in a game context is if good Samaritan points actually were earned. The reward is running point, not the social relation. Sad to say, this has a lot of basis in reality. Children from religious backgrounds first learn that they must do good things in order to have a happy afterlife/reincarnation. In this sense, earning good Samaritan points is actually the basis in which a lot of supposedly moral people follow.
Kohlberg's Theory Of Six-tier Moral Development states that people start out as selfish beings. 1) A child might do a bad thing because it would ultimately benefit their situation (self interest), or 2) a child might avoid doing a bad thing because it would allow them to stay out of trouble (also self interest). This is pre-conventional morality. 3) An adult might do a good thing because it would improve their one-on-one social relations (self interest) or 4) it would maintain the social order or be part of a larger group (also self interest). This is conventional morality. The theory states that very, very few people ever go beyond conventional morality. Postconventional morality is based on 5) a "social contract" perspective, or 6) a set of universal principles. Both of these have a habit of risking self interest for the greater common good, but sadly the social forces that keep society unjust force most people to function at a conventional level, even if they are thinking at level 5 level. Thankfully, more people these days think at a level 5 standpoint, but very, very, very, very, very few people ever even touch upon a level 6.
Because of this, motivating good behaviour using games has to function on a conventional morality level, otherwise very few people would have any idea on how to play the game successfully. In some ways, this is good because most gaming out there base ingame social interactions on inherity being good. At the same time, this has become trite and some will indeed become bored and go on a homicidal rampage in an attempt to "break" the game, all because it has become commonplace and we've all been there before.
One game that is infamous for being able to subvert the basic "be a good boy" mentality is Bioshock, a game which takes place in an Ayn-Randish dystopia where your self interest will usually come at the very visible cost of someone else's life, usually a cute little girl who coyly believed her teddy bear would shield the bullets. This stark darkness was the first time in years the gaming community felt that their moral conscious would have such an effect on their gameplay style.
I'm disappointed that Nora never seems to question this brilliant Farenheit-451ish plan to have TV cameras watching and interact with the consumer but only seems to find it a fascinating and "provocative" idea with a myriad of positive possibilities… (my note: mostly for the purveyor).
Isn't it the duty of our "journalists" to investigate ALL angles of changes in our society — positive AND negative? In this case, one hopes she would have questioned the slippery-slope invasion of privacy aspect of this technology (as I can imagine those cameras will eventually be not only on top of the TV, but inside it where the consumer has NO option to turn it on or off). If this is where things are going, I, and many others will be forced to throw our TVs out the window, a la the movie "Network."
Acceptance (nay, cheerleading) of new technology without thoughtful reflection has gotten our society into deep trouble in the past, and it looks as though this pattern will only continue.
I consider myself to be a gamer and think that there are many valuable experiences that can be found through playing games, however I found the "game-ified" world that Schell was describing to be quite alarming. If we turn daily activities into games where we are rewarded for shoping and watching advertisements, we are not partipating in a game – but rather, we are being gamed. Our role in such a society would be simply to act as pawns, operating within the confines of an extremely limited and constructed reality.
The problem I see here is that we are fetishizing games – turning them into a gleaming object that will promise us bliss, excitement, stimulation, and even a "better world". But to avoid being gamed, we need to be accutely aware of exactly what we are expecting games to fulfill for us, and question wether the game is actually the best means of meeting those needs and desires.
As someone who has gone from spening over 10 hours a day playing computer games to not owning any electronics more sophisticated than a radio, I've had the chance for such reflection. For me, what I had always sought in games was the ability to build and construct my own environments, to engage intellectually with another person (or computer) and for the opportunity of a social life. However, after going to university to study Fine Art (and leaving my computer behind in order to not be distracted) I have since discovered that all of those desires can be fulfilled through everyday life in ways which are infinately more satisfying. This is the danger of game-ification, that we become so fixated on the game as a symbol of bliss and fulfilment that we no longer deal with our needs and desires in real ways, instead expecting that the next game will be able to satisify them in better ways.
I still play games (mostly table top) but I do so with an awareness of what I am seeking in them, and how they are effecting me. Sometimes I play them for a chance to problem solve, the opportunity to pit myself against someone else, or for a chance to tell a story and engage in imaginative roleplay with a group of people. All of these are things which can be facilitated by a game, but a game is not neccisary, nor can a game guarantee to fulflill these desires in and of itself.
Even still, I am sometimes drawn in by the fetish and find myself buying a game with the feeling that it will make my life better in some fundemental way. But it never does – only I can do that for myself.
do u have a real game designer that I can interview for a school project? If so email me at rkiewra@gmail.com or call at (304) 345-0938 or (304) 767-4607
What struck me about this interview was the idea of understanding the elements that lead people to choose to invest hundreds of hours solving puzzles on console games and incorporating those elements into real world challenges like environmental change, preventative health, etc. I'm going to start looking for and thinking about those mechanics in my workplace.
With regards to the negative potential consequences and "ick" factor of yet another level of consumerization/advertising influencing our actions on a subconscious level, I think we need some serious debate and protective legislation from government to prevent turning us all into drooling zombies.
happy worker bees building a better community. not drooling zombies tripping over ourselves to "best" our friends mafia war points.
I was playing a lot of games and in some point saw that they are taking control over me . Wtching ads before them and in them totally made me to be the game , not me to play one . After that I lost interest in that kind of losing time and turned to reality . But yet play from time to time , only rare .
happy worker bees building a better community. not drooling zombies tripping over ourselves to "best" our friends mafia war points.