Gamification: Games, Puzzles, Toys, and Amusements

I’ve lately been deeply concerned by some of the things I’ve seen being done (or heard being proposed) under the aegis of “gamification.”  It’s more than a passing feeling of disappointment, more of a long-term concern because if gamification is done poorly, it will likely be rejected as worthless by the entire customer experience profession – and in doing so we will be throwing away a great deal of potential because of the misuse of the term and thoroughly egregious misuse of the concept itself.

Gamification is the inclusion of game-like components into non-game situations: namely, the buying, using, and servicing behaviors of consumers of non-entertainment products.   Done properly, gamification can make some of the less enjoyable processes in these experiences more entertaining, or at least less onerous, and that’s a great thing.   Done poorly, gamification is a nuisance and a distraction, that can make the customer experience far less enjoyable and even irritating, and that’s a very bad thing.

The primary problem is that gamification is being used to do silly and pointless things: any wacky idea that someone wants to toss into the mix, including those that contribute nothing and even detract from the experience, is labeled “gamification” – and when these wacky ideas fail, which is in some instances inevitable, gamification will get a bad reputation.

To that end, I’ve pulled together some of my research on game design, in an attempt to explore the nature of “game” and thee game-like phenomena (puzzles, toys, and amusements) and will explore what each of these items is, how it might work, and how it might be relevant to customer experience.

I can tell already that this is going to be a long mediation, but hopefully worthwhile to anyone who is interested in understanding the concept better, using it appropriately, and identifying instances where gamification is simply a mask to cover utter stupidity that will do more harm than good.

Games

It’s generally understood that games are regarded as non-serious play activities, but a game is a heavily structured kind of activity that has a number of essential features:

• A game has a specific objective the player is attempting to accomplish
• The player is given certain equipment or other resources 
• The player also brings his own mental, physical, and (sometimes) material resources to the game
• There are rules and procedures that require or prohibit certain actions
• The player has some latitude to choose his own actions within the boundaries of rules and procedures
• When the objective is achieved, the game is over

These are the features common to all games – if any is lacking, then the activity is not a game, but something else.   There are other features such as a defined playing space (board or field), elements of random chance, competition between players, etc. but these are present in some games and absent from others.

The similarity between a game and a serious activity can be seen in those very same features.   A person who is saving for retirement has a specific objective (amass a certain amount of wealth by a certain time), is provided various resources (kinds of investments), has some level of skill (financial savvy), must play be rules and procedures (the SEC provides quite a lot), may choose his own actions (investment strategy), and plays until the objective is achieved.    

Any serious activity that has those qualities may be treated as analogous to a game, and gamification leverages the various elements of game experience that correspond – which are largely those that provide feedback as to the player’s progress toward success.   For example, a game provides a score to give the player a sense of progress, and so do non-game scenarios (e.g., the growing balance of a retirement account).     Doing gamification well requires an experience designer to recognize these similarities and determine when game-like elements are supportive of a non-game behavior.

There’s also the notion that games can be repeated, and that the game is a little different each time it is played.   This, too, is analogous to real-life experiences, though the amount of tolerance players have for variations is far less in real-world experiences (we expect that our grocery shopping will be the same from one week to the next), too much consistency makes the task onerous.

Puzzles

A puzzle has some of the elements of a game, but with a few key differences:

• The rules and procedures are far more constraining
• The player is more willing to accept the possibility of failure
• Once a puzzle is solved once, it loses its entertainment value
• The outcome of a puzzle is binary, it is solved or it is not solved 

These differences should help to identify real-life situations in which a person takes more of a “puzzle” mentality than a “game” mentality – and in fact, many commercial experiences are more like puzzles than games: buying your first car is filled with excitement and uncertainty, but when you’re doing it for the fifth time, it’s rather a boring necessity.

A given puzzle is generally not repeated – it takes a simple and tedious mind to be amused by the fact that doing the same things multiple times achieves the same outcome.   However, puzzles often provide more long-term engagement when they are provided in a sequence, such that each puzzle teaches the player skills that he can leverage in attempting to solve the next puzzle in a series, which is a little more difficult or presents new parameters for added challenges.

Because solving a puzzle is an accomplishment, there are intrinsic psychological rewards for having been successful, and a certain esteem that is generated by the ability to succeed where others struggle or fail.   We sites that provide a series of puzzles often give players ranks or badges that recognize this fact.

Admittedly, I am not quite as confident in my analysis of puzzles.   It seems to me there’s something lacking, but I can’t quite figure what it is, but it is certainly a different species of leisure activity and I have a sense that the differences I’ve noted are valid, though maybe not comprehensive.

Toys

Toys represent an entirely different kind of leisure activity that have distinctly different qualities than puzzles or games:

• A toy allows the player to exploring the capabilities of an object
• There is no objective for playing with a toy
• There are no rules for playing with a toy

A good example of a toy is the yoyo, a disk on a string that the player experiments with to see what he is capable of doing with it.   If the player defines an desired outcome (a specific trick he would like to be able to do with his yoyo) the toy becomes a puzzle.   If he provides a context such that all the various requirements of “game” are addressed, then the toy becomes a piece of equipment used in a game. 

Toying behavior can also be highly relevant to serious experiences, largely as a method of exploring options before an action is taken.   An investor might use a simulation to project the future returns of an investment he is considering or to compare several.  A customer shopping for a car might use a web site to see what his vehicle would look like with various colors, styles, and features.

The difference between gamification and toyification (and please let someone find a less clumsy term for the latter) is the seriousness of the endeavor.  It seems to me that gamification is applicable when an individual is performing an actual task, whereas toyification is exploring options without committing to an action (at least, not at the moment).

Likely the most important factors to keep in mind when considering using a toy in a non-play activity are the amount of latitude the user must be given in order for him to find the toy interesting (a constrained toy becomes a boring task), that a toy depends on the interest and creativity of the player (you cannot make a toy that will entertain a dull and unimaginative person), and the fact that, no matter how entertaining the toy, players will eventually lose all interest in toying with it.

Amusements

I felt it necessary to mention amusements here because it seems to me that many people (particularly designers) don’t seem to appreciate that amusements are not games, puzzles, or toys, but has one distinct quality that cause them to be excluded:

• An amusement is experienced passively

A cartoon is a good example of an amusement: the “player” merely experiences the program as designed.  He cannot take any action to influence the way that the cartoon is presented (play, pause, forward, and reverse alter the rate at which it is experienced, but do not change the experience).   And once an amusement has been experienced, there’s very little value in repeating the experience.

My sense is that it’s worthwhile to consider amusements because many of the instances in which I have seen gamification go horribly wrong are the result of someone attempting to insert a random amusement into a task flow.  That’s not to say that amusements are not of some value in the context of a serious task, merely that it is not the same thing as gamification.

The greatest problem in using amusements effectively is that a person who is performing a serious task is not very interested in being distracted by an amusement.   They may benefit from instruction or information that will enable them to make better decisions, and this information can be delivered in an amusing way – but when the amusement value surpasses the informational value, then it has become counterproductive and annoying.

Gamification Done Right

My intent in exploring the four separate categories of game, puzzle, toy, and amusement is to suggest to designers that it is important to consider which is the best “fit” for any given task situation in which the user’s interest or motivation may be bolstered by a game-like component.   Simply considering which of the four is most analogous to a non-game task can be helpful in avoiding some dreadful mistakes (such as providing a game feature to an interaction that is more analogous to a toy).

Another critical consideration, which is much more difficult to make general observations about, is whether a given idea is supportive or distracting from the task the user is attempting to perform.   This requires consideration of the idiosyncratic nature of the task and the proposed game element, with an eye toward whether interacting with the element better enables the user to perform the task or provides them with encouragement and motivation to remain engaged.

That will likely require a great deal more consideration, and I hope to get back to it in a later post – but for now, my sense is simply understanding the nature and qualities of these four basic elements will serve to support better design decisions regarding gamification.