Jan
Gamers Save the World?
Who said that saving the world had to be a chore? I was blown away when I stumbled upon this TED talk by Jane McGonigal, who’s already tapping game design concepts and gamer geek enthusiasm to create awareness about peak oil and another to create solutions for major crises in Africa.
Watch this TED talk and see if you’re as inspired as I was. Meanwhile, I’ve started talking with folks about possible games to help Detroit’s sustainability efforts. AND i just invented a game concept to help advance energy efficiency (though I have a few bugs to work out — I’ll announce it here once it’s completed).
So, forget the Doom and Gloom! Try something more like Doom and Pictionary.
If you’re geeked enough to want to participate in the games-can-save-the-world revolution, be sure to check out Gameful.
11:39, 22.01.2011
Interesting timing! I just finished reading Cory Doctorow’s wonderful For the Win which postulates international union organization using online gaming. Recommended.
21:04, 24.01.2011
Good timing indeed!
Check out this critque of McGonigal’s book here:
http://www.themillions.com/2011/01/the-dwindling-difference-between-play-and-work-jane-mcgonigals-reality-is-broken.html/comment-page-1#comment-18222
I’ve commented there on my response.
10:44, 01.02.2011
[...] post is a direct response to the recent Lagomorph post, Gamers Save the World?, which itself was a reaction to the following TED talk by Jane [...]
10:51, 01.02.2011
Well, I’m not sure if you’re going to get a pingback or not, but I just posted my thoughts to my dusty old blog.
http://wordmidden.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/gamers-will-not-save-the-world/
21:54, 04.02.2011
Hey Phredd,
Okay – now we’re into it. [sleeves rolled up.] This in response to your post at http://wordmidden.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/gamers-will-not-save-the-world/
Some of your points I’m spot on with, and others I want to bat back. I’ll just enter in. There’s a lot of possible discussion points, but in the interest of… staying interesting(?)… I’ll limit my comments to a few key points:
1) While I agree that McGonigal’s TED talk does focus on a limited spectrum of the gaming medium (which is larger and richer than she may imply), I disagree that your many examples eliminate her claim of gaming hours that could be more productive. Do I believe all gaming hours can be “turned” productive? No, but the examples you gave all involve game mechanisms that can be used to provide something useful. For example: Farmville is evil. Right. But the addictive mechanisms it uses successfully harness people’s motivations. And the scamming element could actually be transparent and lead toward good instead of to a company’s profits.
2) When you talk about clear win-goals and structured game rules in settings that don’t fit McGonigal’s concept, I fail to see what you’re talking about. Dealing with climate change fits this model really well. We have real limitations in the resources of the planets, chemical and atmospheric limits, the general laws of physics, etc. And we have a few clear goals that must be accomplished for a win — and we have a really wide open playing field on how to get there. It’s just one big game, innit? And will there be uncontrollable ludic flights that don’t directly lead to the win in the process? Absolutely – there already are. And the “game” still continues on with more players every year. But most don’t have good feedback mechanisms and aren’t levelling up quickly enough.
3) Your concern that making play be a means to an end can ruin the sense of play is a crucial question. You say “The value of play is play itself.” This is quite true. And it needn’t run counter to the notion that the play can be productive and useful in real life. In fact, there seems to be a growing trend for people to seek pastimes that have a sense of meaning. And from intentional community life, I know that this can be both beautifully powerul and damning, depending on the context.
I don’t think the issue is that play cannot have a productive end in mind. I think the key is that play must remain voluntary. One must be able to leave the game and stop playing at any time. Which is why the game must be well-designed and fun in order for people to keep playing it. But if it is fun, and then people do choose it, saving the world doesn’t have to be a verboten product.
22:09, 04.02.2011
Sorry – one other thought here.
McGonigal’s take remains extremely optimistic (see her recent appearance on the Colbert Report [thanks anna] http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/373360/february-03-2011/jane-mcgonigal).
And I worry a bit that her failure to address the shadow-side of gaming could lead to real problems. Specifically, I mean the shadow side that is about addictive escapism with the same soul-numbing effects of other addictions. I’ve felt it. It’s gross.
Even so, I’m not convinced that her optimism is bad. I think play is a powerful force for good in the world (just by nature of being playful), and by defining and highlighting the best attributes of gaming, she is helping lead this powerful force toward a greater good.
Therefore, while I think we need to watch for those shadows, I still think she’s on target.