The Flameful Purification of Gamification – and why good design is worth fighting for.

Source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/fireball+mario+/numerobetically/Mario%20Renders/mariorenderawesomecopy.png
If you’ve been following the #gamification hype, you’ll probably know that the recent release of Gabe Zichermann’s new book “Gamification by Design” (O’Reilly Media) has sparked some deep questions about the science and validity of the gamification thrust. Which, as any researcher would concur, is a jolly good thing (and well overdue).

Gamification is deservedly full of promise and excitement. Yet at the same time, its relatively short life has been plagued by hyped-up, shallow and sloppy thinking – from Saachi & Saachi’s terribly flawed report, to the upwelling of “gamification startups” waving their faux-scientific-dopamine-loving flags, to the horde of marketers trumpeting out the latest fad.

Some see gamification as a way to use the extrinsic fruit from games to make your customers feel like they are getting stuff, when really they are getting nothing. To them, gamification offers a cheap and easy way to trick people into ‘loyalty’. As a result of this, game designers and motivation scientists are getting mightily peeved, and naively optimistic companies can find themselves paying good money for bad gamification design that ultimately does more harm than good.

Gamification almost became a dirty word in some circles. But then along came Sebastian Deterding, a self-confessed Grumpy German, and a long-time advocate for the science of good gamification design. In response to Zichermann’s new book, Deterding released a very deep, insightful (and severe) critique. It’s very academically rigorous – imagine the type of critiques one would expect from a panel of professors at a dissertation defence – the type of stuff that puts PhD candidates into states of utter fear – distilled into one post. That’s what it was like. Take a look.

The crux of this gamification schism is that some of the marketing types advocate that games work because of status, badges, leader-boards and rewards. And it’s these folks who are naturally getting their thoughts into the limelight – they're marketers, and they're businesses, and they want you to be sold on the idea of gamification.

Alternatively, most game designers and motivation scientists instead argue that games work primarily because people enjoy engaging in goal-driven, challenge-intense and feedback-rich environments that produce progress. And it’s this side of games that has the weight of reason and evidence to support it.

Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media took special notice of Deterding’s detailed critique, which prompted Deterding to write a further, detailed response. Zichermann then made his reply (poor guy – he’d only just finished facilitating the Gamification Summit). Deterding, ever the dedicated academic, posted a further detailed reply (all worth reading), and in the meantime, in light of the recent breakthrough in AIDS research achieved by gamers, O’Reilly seems to be swayed towards what he now calls “deeper gamification” (suggesting that the conventional view of gamification is a bit… shallow).

It’s been fascinating to watch the debate evolve as the gamification industry begins its journey to maturity. I for one have always tried to avoid using the “gamification” label to describe my services, steering instead towards Dr Jane McGonigal’s term “gameful design” – crafting the constructs that capture the spirit of a game (along with an inspired philosophy of life as possibility and play).

Glorious semantics aside, what it all boils down to is good design. If you’re going to mess with motivational dynamics in play, you'll want to do it right. After all, this is human behaviour and emotion we’re playing with here. And people are smart – they’ll catch on to the charlatans soon enough. In the meantime, the good folk who design with pure intent and advocate for infinite play, and who are ever-curious to explore ways to empower people collaborate, conquer, create, master, advance, produce and to do great work… these are the ones who will help us make a better world.