Gamification vs. Gaming – the difference

This is another personal reflection that I’ve decided to undertake partly because I’ve noticed that I often use gaming and gamification almost interchangeably throughout my posts. I’ve also been questioned a couple of times about the difference between the two, and I thought I’ share some thoughts on the topic.

Gamification as a concept involves the use of gaming mechanics in situations that wouldn’t normally make use of such mechanics in an effort to increase engagement and loyalty. The term was coined by Nick Pelling (2003), a computer game writer, and has gained popularity since around2010 (2013), when technology had evolved sufficiently to allow gaming to cross the divide between being a niche pastime to a commonplace hobby. That’s the super skinny cliff notes version. You can find out more about the concept on Wikipedia (2013) and the Gamification Wiki (2013). It should be noted that the term is a heavily loaded one, and a simple google search will send you into a veritable warzone of divergent opinions and attitudes towards it.

For the record, I am not a real fan of the ‘textbook’ definition that I’ve given here. As has probably been evident in my other posts, I’m not particularly grounded in rules or quantitative data sets – I’m much more creative and interested in the qualitative aspects of gaming as a whole. I sometimes think of this part of gaming as the ‘spirit’ of gaming, with the rules acting as a point of reference for characters to relate it to their world. I have to say I’m not a fan of gaming being bastardized into a business strategy either – it feels like using a Porsche to do farmwork.

On the other hand, the broader concept of gaming is simply the overall concept of interactive entertainment for just that – entertainment. It doesn’t carry any pretensions about education or increased engagement, and as a concept exists largely independent of the stakeholders that produce gaming texts (at least, that’s my view of it). There may be financial considerations that companies in the games industry have in relation to their games, but the games themselves don’t carry any purpose other than to entertain. Incidental learning takes place as a result of increased engagement and the creation of ‘information pull’ on players, but aren’t explicit goals that they set out to achieve, as may be the case in gamification.

Again, as I’ve alluded to in previous posts, I think that the main difference between the pair is that gamification is geared towards an ulterior motive, and that it takes the rules and the ‘number side’ of gaming and holds these up as what are attractive about the concept, whereas gaming concentrates on having fun and brings more to the table than the simple sum of its’ parts. At the time of writing, I’m firmly convinced that the ‘more’ that gaming brings is the narrative and unquantifiable nature of experience as it’s lived.

I don’t necessarily think that gamification is a bad thing – it just fills a purpose. It’s not in the interest of a major shopping centre to simply entertain their customers with a rewards scheme, and there’s nothing wrong with them instituting such a scheme. I do think that gamification is very often poorly executed and pointless – as I’ve said before, I don’t think I know anyone who has spent more on their shopping than they otherwise would because they want to accumulate more points in the aforementioned example. I do wonder if there’s a ‘story-based’ gamification that deals primarily with narrative and the users journey and eschews rules, and how effective it would be if instituted.

So, there we go. Gamification is application of gaming mechanics for increased engagement, and gaming is play for no reason other than entertainment. I hope that irons out any confusion (and doesn’t make my previous posts more confusing).

References:

Conundra Ltd - Home Page. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.nanodome.com/conundra.co.uk/

Gamification. (2013, October 29). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamification&oldid=579238980

Gamification Wiki. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://gamification.org/

Google Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.google.com/trends/explore

SWOT analysis chart and advocacy of gamification of libraries – the beginning of the end (of the beginning)!

This post will begin the development of my argument for advocating gaming and gamification in the library. I have spent the last few posts dissecting the concept and relating it both to the current wider information landscape and the organization of the library itself, and now that I’ve examined all of this, I think it’s time to reflect on the process overall. I’ll begin with a chart that sums up the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) that I’ve investigated:

 

Strengths and Opportunities

Taken together, the positive aspects of gamification in libraries represents an excellent tool that fits in well with the form and function of the library. It can be adapted in many ways to fit with the already existing resources of the organization, as well as employed at service points to increase engagement with the systems in the library themselves. Gaming itself also lends itself to be well integrated into the model of ‘library as community hub’ as it is a heavily interactive concept that allows spectatorship and has a low barrier to client participation once initial considerations are dealt with.

The overall benefit to the organization here is increased immersion in all aspects of the service, a service that offers excellent return on investment when applied properly, and a creative outlet for both staff and clients. Given the massive popularity of gaming and gamification in almost all aspects of world culture, the implementation of them almost seems a no-brainer, as far as benefits go to an institution whose main deliverable is information.

Weaknesses and Threats

As with many negative aspects of any project, the ones present here often spring from outside concerns exacerbating inherent flaws in the concept itself. Here, the immersive and subtly educational aspects of gamification are mainly at in the line of fire, which is interesting because they are also some of it’s greatest strengths. Though the idea of a flawed concept may sound like a very bad thing to bring into an advocacy statement, it should be said that no concept is completely foolproof; anything, applied in the wrong way, will result in a failure. The problem in regards lies in the earlier mentioned immersion and lack of overt educational value – it’s all too easy to get these things wrong in the implementation phase and not realize until it’s too late and the player decides that the game isn’t worth it; they’re over it and have to be coaxed back, with heightened expectations and blunted enjoyment. It’s not until the outcome is revealed that the effectiveness of the means can be judged, if that makes sense.

Talking about the dangers of gamification as a simple case of misunderstanding  might seem like a bit of a copout, but this reveals a bit more of the nature of gaming to those uninitiated – the medium relies on complex machinery behind the scenes to achieve what seems to be a fairly cosmetic and formulaic outcome. A seemingly complicated game might be governed by a few simple rules; a beautifully intuitive game might have an absolutely mind wrecking algorithm behind it, or rely on unquantifiable nuances to present an equally unquantifiable story. This goes back to immersion and respecting the player, as well as the nature of the game being informal and fun – true gamefulness comes not only from an understanding of concepts but an adaptability to the changing situation of the player. In turn, that adaptability is another thing that libraries are having to come to terms with, not only in relation to themselves in the new knowledge economy, but within themselves at the vanguard of that changing economy. The old paradigm is falling away, driven off by technology, and the new one is coming. Games are now more accessible than ever, and it’s because of this that I make my case that libraries should be getting on board with it.

Reflection

The idea that stories and games don’t exist in a vacuum can’t be ignored, and neither can the idea that libraries collect the information that those media are dependent on in vast amounts. The organizations themselves are in the enviable position of having access to thousands, if not millions of texts, and the collective resources to capitalize on them to present hungry audiences with an engaging, interesting, and fun way to consume them.  Given the sheer scope of the gaming industry alone, it’d be remiss of our information repositories to dismiss the concept as not worthy. It’d be tantamount to dismissing compact discs or any form of new media that came out after books.

I say let’s feed the audiences what they want, in a considered and sustainable way. It can only benefit everyone.

Reflection - Thoughts on the concept of 'Story'

This is a bit of a bonus post that I'm putting up here in the interest of capturing all of my thoughts on the subject of my current project. This isn't referenced or researched, it is all my own words however - based on what I've read so far. It concerns the nature of 'Story' and a few other random things. I scribbled this down over the weekend just gone in the interest of getting my head together.

We need games in our lives because they take the real world and remove real world consequences, allowing us to expose ourselves to risk and experiment without any truly impactful outcome. Games allow us to experience all of the features of a 'real life' experience - immersion, emotional catharsis - expansion of knowledge - without having to deal with any 'Real' outcome of the actions we take. To take an obvious (and pretty prolific) example - in a game, you can commit virtual murder and experience the consequences of that in the game (as in, say, Fahrenheit), or not (as in any number of first person shooters), and then you can turn off the game and go about life like nothing had happened. There are real life benefits and consequences, but these are not 'in-game', unless you're playing a truly pervasive game; any effects are usually as a result of the act of playing the game, not what happens in it.

The library sector, in particular, is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the advent of gaming becoming mainstream, and receive a new burst of life itself in the process. Computer games are beginning to suffer from a dearth of story, becoming shells that look pretty but are hollow. Technology is moving faster and faster, according to Moores Law, but we aren't finding, at a consumer level - that many new things to do with it. Cat videos dominate the cyberscape, and the concept of the Reboot for major movie franchises has gained wide exposure in recent years. The selfie photo has become an art form. The world is crying out for more new ground to cover, but using new technology. The world is wanting more stories.

Stories do not exist within a vacuum - rather, they take existing information and in themselves remove real life consequences of that information, creating an explorative space to ruminate on different aspects of human experience. The stories, like games, may have real life benefits and consequences - but within themselves, there is merely conjecture on existing information. In short - Stories are Information Gamified.

Gamification in Libraries: What works, Part 1: Three examples

Gamifying libraries is something that requires a fine balance of various aspects in order to do well. This post is going to examine what's worked in the 'real world'. By this, I mean events and programs that have been successful in increasing client/user/player engagement in a library system. I'll take a quick look at the events themselves, including what they entailed and their outcomes, and then I'll explain why I think they've been successful. Part 2 will be more of a broken down look at different aspects of gamification that work. I'll be looking at exactly what makes users engage with a game in a library context, and mix in a little bit of game theory as well (known as Ludology).

One of the better known examples of gamification working in a library is Find the Future, a night-long event held at the New York Public Library on May 20th, 2011. The game involved 500 library clients getting into teams of 8 and searching the library for various objects within it's collection, each of which had an element of a story attached to them. There were 100 items in total and social media and technology in the form of mobile phones was used extensively through the course of the game (the game also has its own app which allowed library visitors outside the event itself to play their own version of the game). After the event was completed, a book entitled '100 Ways to Make History' was compiled from the players' efforts. The event was held as part of that libarys' 100th anniversary and gained a large amount of media attention.

Find the Future is an excellent example of gamification working in a library because it made use of many of the aspects of games to a positive outcome for everyone involved. It was heavily collaborative, and large in scope. It made use of the libraries resources in a creative way, resulting in information pull instead of push. It gained the library media attention, exposing the library to new audiences and also simultaneously reinventing itself for a new generation whilst using the resources it already had. It also resulted in an extension of the libraries' resources in the form of a book that was made through collaboration based on already existing resources. It's also a good example of how to layer gaming mechanics into an event and make them an integral part of one, instead of laying them over the top of something that isn't built as a game and trying to make it work. There were no scores in this event - it's possible there was a leaderboard and there would have been some sort of a schedule that it had to run to in order to be completed in time, but what the players were there for was the story they were creating, and the stories behind the objects - not to win against anyone else.

In 2008 the University of Michigan also gamified part of one of their courses involving Information Literacy. The game itself was a web-based board game called Defense of Hidgeon: The Plague Years, and combined the story of how a medieval-era town surviving the Black Plague with both on- and offline research methods for those playing. The ruleset was quite involved and the learning payoffs were staggered to introduce the characters to various tools that they could use to progress in the game, resulting in a high level of engagement. The game also worked well as an experiment in gamification as data was collected on play styles, overall engagement, and payoff in learning outcomes. A number of recommendations were given for gamification itself after the experiment had been completed.

Defense of Hidgeon is another good example of how to integrate game mechanics into a model for education and increase engagement without forcing players to deal with pointless gaming features that don't really count towards the task at hand. This example was more competitive than Find the Future, which is interesting because my initial feeling on gamification was that 'Cooperation meant sustained interest, but competition meant limited engagement'. I can't comment on whether or not Defense of Hidgeon would eventually have caused disengagement with the students who played it (indeed, some didn't engage at all), but it seems that for the time it was played, it provided a valuable learning experience. It's also interesting to note that throughout the course of playing the game, some events that the teachers planned interrupted the flow of the game, causing disengagement with some of the players.  Though this did not sink the game, it was a large issue for the teachers. It seems to me that this is a good example of a 'tacked on' event that isn't properly integrated with the game mechanics/learning outcome symbiosis that I've been talking about.

The final example I'm going to discuss involving gamification of libraries is probably a little bit more 'gaming in libraries' than 'gamification of libraries', but I think it's still worth discussing - International Games Day. This yearly event takes place around the world and is organized by the American Library Association. It involves libraries operating as venues for clients to play games of all kinds, from computer games to board and puzzle games.  The event attracts a lot of attention - despite an election being held at the same time and Hurricane  Sandy disrupting many services in the Northeast of America, over 1000 libraries and 17 000 clients participated there. It also provides community-building between libraries themselves, with international games of Chinese Whispers and inter-library video game tournaments taking place as well.

International gaming day is a valuable concept to look at when discussing gamification of libraries. In addition to being an established resource and community, the fact that it is a library initiative that demonstrates the power of gaming in that setting can't be overlooked. This is gaming done right because it appeals to the masses; it shows how popular the concept is and shows that libraries can function as venues for it. It wouldn't be a big jump for libraries to start to integrate gaming and the traditional holdings together from this sort of event, given its success and huge scope. Though not of the same breed of gamification as Find the Future, International Gaming Day is its own entity, and that makes it a valid consideration for me as I progress from here.

These three examples all have different aspects that allow them to work in a library context. I think they demonstrate the diversity of the medium and the many applications that gaming could have for libraries, and this helps give me an idea of the scope of what I'm talking about here. In my next post, I'm going to think about a couple of the elements of games that allow them to work within a library setting.