The Game(ification) of Life

There is a topic which has been buzzing for a few months. The discussion is centered on the many facets of the concept of "gamification". Put simply gamification is the inclusion of elements of games in real world activities to spice up what might ordinarily be mundane or even boring. Except it isn't really. Isn't it? The confusion of the issue has kept me from forming a solid opinion on it. And my lack of an opinion has kept me from deciding whether to write about it. Until I got this email:

"Hi Calvin,
I was reading your blog today and wonder if I could get your opinion on a diet/fitness app I am working on ?
For me, I think the main problem with being healthy is motivation. It's an abstract, overwhelming goal. I think the best way to counter this is to turn it into winnable games and small victories.
So… my app makes living healthy, and fitness into a RPG game, where users earn points, and "level up' as they accomplish their health goals. Everytime they add something healthy like veggies to their diet, they earn points. Everytime they complete a workout, they earn points. As they achieve more and more, they'll level up and unlock badges, and discounts/coupons to rewards like spas, health foods, etc.
There'll be challenges, which will get harder as people level up. And it'll follow a certain structure. First will come changing your environment such as getting rid of all junk food. Then, reducing stress, as stress leads to eating comfort food.
The whole point is to turn it into a game so people will rely less on willpower, and more on fun, achievement, and changing our environment.
What's your opinion on this idea? Would you want to know when I'm done with it? If this sounds too silly, or absurd, just ignore what I just said, hehe =)
Best, C" (I have intentionally withheld the person's name)

I'm not going to claim that this wasn't a spam email since I find it nearly impossible to believe that a total stranger would bother to read my blog, however it did get me thinking. If the task of taking on a new diet and workout regime is gamified, who is reaping the benefits? If the app costs money and enough people download it to completely offset the development costs, then the designers and developers benefit. But at what cost? If the people who buy/download the app abuse its functionality and they cheat themselves out of actually using it for its purpose, then have the people behind the scenes really helped anyone?

Consider the Nintendo 3DS. With its movement sensors, Nintendo has built pedometer capabilities into the device and added to that rewards for jogging or walking. But some users are openly reporting that they will hold the 3DS and shake it without actually doing the work in order to earn a few more virtual puzzle pieces and coins. So who benefits the most from this technology? Nintendo, who have been having trouble moving units, certainly are not being rewarded. The people who play by the rules and honestly use the functionality as it was intended are only marginally being benefited with their virtual rewards, but are theoretically seeing a high return on investment manifested in their physical health. And they would be the real winners if their victory was not overshadowed by the people who, if you'll pardon the expression, game the system. The ones who cheat are the ones who come out with the most because they have the most coins and puzzle pieces. The virtual rewards are what really matter anyway. If the improved physical health were the greater reward, then people wouldn't need the incentive that the 3DS offers. They would just do it.

Or don't. Whatever.

Even though some of the purported rewards are tangible and usable in the real world (such as earning coupons for health foods and discounts on spas) I see that as the major pitfall with the app about which I was emailed. And it is one of the major failures of the concept of gamifcation which earns it my contempt.


However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, as the father of a 4-year-old child, I have seen first hand the intended effects and positive results of gamification. As anyone who is a parent can attest, getting children to do things that aren't immediately fun is a major hassle. However, utilizing the awesome power of my magnificent brain, I developed a creature which we refer to in our family as "The Chase Monster". The Chase Monster has one goal: to capture and tickle my daughter. Whenever I need to get her to walk to some place and she refuses to do so, I threaten "calling The Chase Monster". When he is called, he is manifested in my body and will chase my daughter, herding her to where I want her to go, and if she does not get to the destination before he catches her, he attacks and there ensues a flurry of tickling and laughter. Other parents may have come up with other ways to gamify their children's chores, such as seeing how fast they can pick up their toys or awarding points for tasks completed. These are all very effective motivation techniques because they get results and I believe they help sow the seeds for strong work ethics later in life, but they are only effective for so long. When I was a pre-adolescent, my motivation for completing my chores was strictly monetary. I was given a weekly allowance for helping to clean the house and mow the lawn, but I don't think I would have been any more motivated if my parents had assigned me points for completing tasks or advanced me to a Level 2 Landscaper, because I would have known that ultimately, those intangible, imaginary rewards wouldn't have mattered if I had gained or lost them. I guess my point is that the only place for gamification in the real world is with children before they learn that they can hold their skills ransom for money.

"Meredith, call Mom and Dad and let them know that when they're ready to talk about pushing bedtime back an hour, then I'll be ready to talk about taking out the garbage."

Gamification is not a new concept, but has become a buzzword in the last few years with the increased implementation of achievement points and badges and their ubiquity thanks to platforms like Facebook and mobile gaming. There are those parties with a vested interest in making things more gamified and I can't make a solid prediction on whether the virtual rewards will become stronger or fade away into the ether out of which they are made.

My advice to C, though, is this: ditch the RPG aspect and lose the points and badges. Keep the coupons and discounts but make the person actually work for it. If the app shows that they have walked 3000 steps, but the GPS shows that they haven't actually moved, then they don't get the prize. Rather than allowing the user to forego their reliance upon their willpower, make their willpower the main motivator. Empower them to change their diets and physical activities because their rewards will be weight loss, lowered cholesterol, less risk of diabetes/heart disease, the chance to play with their children longer, and more time to spend on this mortal coil, since this is the only chance we get and we should make it count. And if people are having trouble with their own willpower, then just implement GLaDOSiri.

I need to sign off before I get too preachy and too far off topic.

Until next time, happy gaming.

Do the clothes make the man?

The importance or unimportance of the nuances of character design

Earlier last week, Ubisoft resurrected the long dormant PR machine for their forthcoming I Am Alive. For those who might not be aware, the game has been in what seems like development hell for a few years now. I remember first reading about in the print version of Game Informer magazine in mid- to late-2008. Since then, I've been following the news and updates about it getting disappointed when it was reported to be delayed or shelved, and getting excited again when Ubi confirms, or at least hints, that it is still on its way.

In spite of the roller coaster of optimism and pessimism about the game's development, I have maintained a modest yet steady level of anticipation for its inevitable release. Not to go into too much detail about the gameplay and (somewhat ridiculous) premise, I was looking forward to what I could expect in the game. You play as an ordinary schmoe in a post-apocalyptic Chicago (gotta represent for the hometown) needing to use your wits to solve puzzles along the way and barter with various renegade elements for basic survival needs. Here is the original teaser trailer which was released about late-2009 or so:

Make a mental note of everything that stood out about that video. Keep it in mind while you watch this next video which was first revealed at Gamescom 2011 and has only been circulated to the public a few days ago:

What are the differences between those two videos? Set aside the obvious disparity between the quality of the animation rendering. Yes, the old one does not have any gameplay footage, but what else? The first thing that struck me when I saw the new trailer was that the designers had completely overhauled the look of the main character. And I didn't like it.

The old protagonist was a modern young man, not particularly handsome, making his way in the big city. He is probably slogging his way up the corporate ladder; he is obviously doing well enough to buy his daily cup of national chain coffee, and rubbing elbows with the older, bigger shots with more expensive suits. However, he carries himself with not the greatest posture or gait, and he looks like he's not very anxious to head upstairs to begin work. And when the earthquake hits, all he has to help him along the way are the clothes on his back and the briefcase slung across his shoulders. And let's face it, it's not easy to mobilize yourself for survival wearing a button-down shirt, nice slacks, and dress shoes.


The new protagonist is someone we've seen before. He has automatic free-running skills and his outfit lends itself very nicely to jumping, rolling, and climbing. He's got a nice pair of gloves to protect his hands, his clothing is loose-fitting, and his backpack is tough and rugged, designed to get a little beat up. The game lost a lot of appeal to me when I saw this new guy, because not only have I seen this before, everything that made the original character so interesting and his story so compelling is gone.

As a brief primer on the basics of character design for video games and animation, a rule of thumb is that a character should have a distinguished silhouette

Even if you can't identify all of these characters, you probably recognize them anyway. And there are no other characters in the world who look like them. The new protagonist of I Am Alive does not have a distinguished, or even an interesting silhouette. And as such, the game looks less interesting. Having said that, the old design didn't have much going for it by way of a compelling silhouette, but at least, it wasn't the kind of outfit you would expect someone in that sort of a video game situation to be wearing. It was the design of a character who was thrown into an extraordinary circumstance and had to make the best of it with his extremely limited resources. It is a huge struggle for him to make his way because not only is he ill-equipped to make it in this new world both in his dearth of equipment and his lack of skills and knowledge, he is horribly uncomfortable with every step he takes because of the clothes he happened to be wearing at the time. He is like a sailor who has been shipwrecked at sea, whereas the new protagonist is like Richard Branson trying to row across an ocean for fun.

Does that mean the the game is going to be a worse product or less interesting to play? It probably will be in some parts where the player is required to free run his/her way along some puzzling routes for the Nth time in a video game. Does it speak to the importance of character design? We'll see when the game finally hits and what the reviewing community and gamers have to say about it. But there is no way to know what would have happened if Ubisoft had stuck with the original character model. I have a feeling though, that the transition to the downloadable-only format is going to give gamers the impression that it is not a good enough game to have warranted a retail release. Which is a shame and a topic for another discussion, but it is indicative of the relationship between developers/publishers and gamers. Gamers are less inclined to buy a downloadable game from PSN or XBLA for any number of reasons (lower profile/less exposure, lower production qualities, or they might not consider them "real" games) and as a result the devs and pubs don't usually put their full force behind the product which feeds back into the cycle. There are, of course, various exceptions, but I've digressed far enough already.

Suffice it to say that I think games whose characters have unremarkable design features might not succeed once the final product is released, but that doesn't mean that a well designed character can save a bad or mediocre game. The best designed characters are less important to the quality of the game than they are to the success of the series.

Until next time, happy gaming.