My first post: Reality is Broken
The basic thesis of Jane McGonigal’s book, Reality is Broken, is that human lives, can be improved, made more meaningful, and more enjoyable if we can somehow engineer life to be more like a computer game. She starts by noting how much time people are willing to spend playing video games and observes that much of game playing is like doing work, except that it is purposefully made more difficult by adding obstacles in the way of completing the task. From there she delves into the question of “why?” Why will we willingly spend countless hours doing pointless tasks such as arranging colored squares, or tending imaginary farms, which we would not enjoy if it were our job.
She answers this question by listing what she believes are the engaging aspects of games. Foremost amongst them is the ability of games to generate what psychologists call ‘flow’. Which as I understand it is defined as a kind of complete immersion in a task, which creates a positive feeling of energized focus. Normally this is a difficult state to achieve, a creative person may achieve it through years of devotion to their craft, or athletes and adventurers might achieve it by putting themselves in extreme situations, but according to McGonigal, games draw the player into a state of flow almost immediately. There are a number of ways that games draw us in. These include such things as; having a very clear goal to accomplish, for example, eliminating all the enemies on a level; having a clear sense of progress in your mission, like progress bars, and satisfying audio and visual reactions when obstacles are beaten; a sense of tangible self-improvement, such as when an avatar ‘levels up’; a sense of working for a larger project, such as a team goal in an online game; having a social component; and continually raising the level of the challenge.
After laying out what she sees as the positive aspects of games, she proposes ways that the lessons learned from well designed games might be applied to make peoples lives more enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as finding real world solutions to large problems
It is an interesting book and thesis, although I often feel that her background as a game developer gives her rather a rosy perspective both in terms of the benefits of games, as well as their ability to be applied to life. That being said, there are plenty of real examples of games making tangible difference in people’s lives, such as people with alzheimer’s disease, and autism, so it is certainly worth further exploration.
I agree with your comment that her background as a game developer gives her a “rather rosy perspective” of the benefits of games. Clearly there is a lot of work being done with games in real life environments to improve our real lives, such as education. I wonder what the downside, if there is one, is to this kind of education? I am also not convinced about the definition. I’m not sure that pilots using flight simulators don’t ‘play’ their job like a game. I’m also not convinced that ‘goals’ define a game. I guess they do if we say they do but I”m always struck by how much learning and playing happens in children in the absence of goals. – D Cowdery
Interesting that you mention “learning in the absence of goals”- I found the discussion of educational games to be the most generative in McGoingal’s book. Though imagining life as a video game reminds me too much of Baudrillard’s warnings, using game structure in education is very productive. Masking “goals” in gaming such as teaching AI students math is a brilliant way to inspire interest. Natalie I also agree with your sentiment on games making a difference in people’s lives. Check out this augmented reality game for stroke rehabilitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrB27YPE8nI
- Raheem
The book that really wooed me the first days of reading, but now, from a distance of seven days, I think I can add some of my thoughts to it.
I can say that I played Sid Meier’s “Civilization” perhaps even 200 or 300 entire days of my life, scattered over past 15 or 20 years. The same for some other games, such as Duke Nukem, Jedi Nights, etc. So I can say that I was addicted to some games, and I know very well how they can be contagious. I can say also that I learned something about politics and history from “Civilization”, but if I used the same amount of time to study about the same topic, I believe I could write a PhD thesis. So, from my point of view video games are interesting to motivate the learner, but they can also horrendously consume time and I am not sure that playing long games is the fastest way to learn things. (Up to certain extent, games can motivate the learner, that is true.)
Besides, video/computer are physically static, so I’d rather play sports than computer/video games…
On other hand, Real Life Games such as the one where you have to draw a smile from someone gave me new perspective on gaming. (I apologize, just dropped the book in a library and cannot remember the name of the game.)
But generally, idea of being more active in a real life world by being more active in parallel world, I find rather alienating and dreadful.
So, from a perspective of a former game addict, I can say that what I liked most with computer games is that the results are immediate and punctual in opposition to the real life where results often come with a delay. (If they ever come.) Games provided me with a similar kind of feeling as when playing a musical instrument: they drag me instantly to the “here and now” state of mind from an abstract state of mind where my thoughts would wander through myriads of life combinations and plans about impredictable future.