Tapping into the Activity

As we saw in the previous part, the activity is only the starting point for a gamified application.

The actual service refers to the scaling of this activity. By scaling we mean the way the activity is guided and paced over time. This process translates into a clear and definitive objective, a goal that is either set by, or negotiated between the user and the application, and a progressive path of short and intermediate goals leading to it. This structure of short, intermediate and long term goals is what gamified applications are basing their product cycles on. As such, an example of such a goal structure in a gamified sports tracking application would be, a kilometer run (short-term goal), a half-marathon run (intermediate-term goal), national running champion (long-term goal).

Thus, the role of the application is to reinforce these goals through a series of challenges that will keep the user motivated, immersed and energized. An approach we view very much rooted

Chapter:3. Exploration: Gamification for Dummies

6 5

in Csíkszentmihályi‘s Flow theory (Csíkszentmihályi M. , 1991), that advocates for a close match between the skills and capabilities of the user with the difficulty/scope of each challenge, in order to sustain a high level of engagement with the activity. As such we see Flow theory not only as a grounded argument for such approaches, but also as the stronger connection between gamification and game design as both are expressed today. Indeed, Csíkszentmihályi‘s work has influenced many academic and practical fields, and a closer look to the most popular and widely acceptable textbooks of game design will reveal that the dominant player-centric design approach is in fact grounded on Flow theory:

―Objectives give your players something to strive for. They define what players are trying to accomplish within the rules of the game. In the best-case scenario, these objectives seem challenging—but achievable—to the players. […]When players talk of challenge in games, they‘re speaking of tasks that are satisfying to complete, that require just the right amount of work to create n sense of accomplishment and enjoyment.‖ (Fullerton, Swain, & Hoffman, 2008, pp. 60, 86)

Consequently, we find that the rhetoric of the optimal challenge has shaped game design; as a result, many different approaches of deploying progressively challenging goals have been explored not only in theory but also put in practice. Methods about both long and short term difficulty progression (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005; Chen, 2007), as well as automated difficulty adjustment (Bailey & Katchabaw, 2005) have been named, proposed and tested over the years.

Thus, whether gamification advocates term this approach as ―user progression‖, or ―scaling‖, or ―user guidance‖ of the core activity, we believe that makes little difference. The argument here comes directly from Csíkszentmihályi who warns us that flow is very much dependent on the attitude of the user towards the activity and thus cannot be bestowed or forced through a process of distributing challenges but it rather has to be addressed contextually (Csíkszentmihályi M. , 1991). As such, it is not surprising that gamification advocates have been also stressing out the importance of addressing core activities that are already motivating

Chapter:3. Exploration: Gamification for Dummies

6 6

for the user²¹ (Kim, 2011). It couldn‘t be otherwise; no matter how well a challenge is scaled to fit the user‘s skills, it cannot function if the user is not motivated enough to pick up the challenge in the first place²².

However, strategic distribution and scoping of the objectives is only one part of the process, the other is feedback; the way the application communicates these objectives and acknowledges progress. Again, the norm of communicating feedback in gamified applications is rooted deep into the traditions of game-centric design and as such it needs to be clear and direct:

―When a game has clearly defined goals, the players know what needs to be done to win, to move to the next level, to achieve the next step in their strategy, etc., and they receive direct feedback for their actions toward those goals.‖ (Fullerton, Swain, &

Hoffman, 2008, p. 88)

Thus, every action that is part of the core activity must not only be logged but also acknowledged. As such, the result is very often a positive reinforcement strategy which essentially rewards the users not only for their overall performance, but for every action. For example, Microsoft‘s ‗Ribbon Hero‘, a gamified tutorial application for introducing core Microsoft Office features, is rewarding the user for every step taken in the tutorial (see Figure 14).

21 The term Csíkszentmihályi is using is autotelic. It derives from the Greek words auto (self) and telos (goal), thus it describes an activity of which the motivation and goal is the activity itself.

22 An example here would be a user-optimal marathon training program; no matter how well the program could account for the runner‘s fitness, physique etc. it would never work if the user is not interested in running a marathon.

Chapter:3. Exploration: Gamification for Dummies

6 7

Figure 14. Ribbon Hero (Microsoft)

We find this positive reinforcement strategy inspired by casual game design²³; as we discussed in the previous chapter (2.1.2 The Rise of the ―Casual‖ Game), casual games are characterized by an excess of positive feedback, that is very often associated with their appeal (Juul, 2010). Whereas in casual games this excess of positive feedback is primarily driven by aesthetic rewards (often termed juice or juiciness, for more see Juul, 2010; Gabler, Gray, Kukic,

& Shodhan, 2005), in gamified applications it takes the form of quantifiable ones, points, badges and virtual items.

Thus, the goal here, contrary to casual games, is not to reinforce the objectives by appealing to the senses of the user, but rather by creating a social and personal investment. In that sense, the model does not aim towards the user‘s aesthetic delight but their rationality²⁴. As such, points, badges and virtual rewards assume an instrumental role in the model.

23 Even though positive reinforcement in games has been a standard in game design before the emergence of casual games, we argue that the unprecedented appeal of casual games to a massive new audience along with the abundance of positive feedback they overwhelmed their players, led many to see a correlation between the two.

24 We use rationality here in an economics-rational choice theory sense (wanting more/better rather than less/worse of a good, points, badges etc.)

Chapter:3. Exploration: Gamification for Dummies

6

8