UX Bristol Gameful Design
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,208
On Slideshare
985
From Embeds
223
Number of Embeds
7

Actions

Shares
Downloads
30
Comments
1
Likes
5

Embeds 223

http://2012.uxbristol.org.uk 182
http://uxb.konoha 16
http://stage.uxbristol.org.uk 15
http://local.uxbristol.org.uk 4
https://si0.twimg.com 2
https://twitter.com 2
https://www.linkedin.com 2

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • You've all no doubt come with your own opinions of what gamification is and what it is good for.\n\nI'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the current state of gamification, I’m going to try and side step that somewhat. What I am going to do is talk about using games as a lens, or a way of thinking through UX design problems. \n\nAs part of this I'm going to introduce you to the MDA model, Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics, as an analysis and design tool. \n\nThis provides a good way to think through games, and more generally to introduce the idea of gameful design into design processes.\n
  • So this is just a taster session. Something to whet your appetite. I don’t hope to cover everything in a lot of depth. But I can give you an idea of where you go to next. It is going to be a speed run through a lot of stuff, very quickly.\n\nAnd really if all you get out of this is an idea that gamification is not what you need right now, then I’ve been successful.\n\nSo what do I hope you will get out of this...\n
  • This is our progress bar for the next hour. There’s a lot to cover and I don’t intend to go into a huge amount of detail. I’ll just skim over the surface, but give you a chance to get your hands dirty along the way. There’s an analysis and design exercise where you can get your brains working and crack out your sketching skills.\n\nI’m going to talk a bit about gameful design as a way to contextualise what we’re doing.\n\nThen I’ll introduce the MDA model as a way to analyse games\n\nThen as a small group exercise you will use that model to analyse games.\n\nFollowing that I’ll talk a little about experience loops\n\nThen another exercise, this time a design exercise, where you will look at applying the MDA model to a design problem\n\nAnd finally I’ll wrap up and show you some further resources\n
  • In the dim dark past of 2009 Foursquare launched. This is the service that ignited the talk about using game mechanics in different contexts. And basically became the industry blueprint... and still is\n\nPoints, badges, leaderboards, incentives, and behavioural analytics all became the core design elements behind the vast majority of current “gamified” products. \n\nLittle has changed or moved on and most gamification consultants and turn key solutions are still pushing this very basic model.\n\n\n\n
  • And this is the standard process by which “software as a service” vendors are trying to apply gamification.\n\n\nAnd what it does is not make things more fun. Really it appears to be obfuscating the service underneath. \n\nNo where does this say where and how it is meant to be fun?\n\nNo where does it say where and how players/users get any sort of value. The only value is to the business.\n\nThis is exactly what Ian Bogost has called exploitationware, or in other places, simply Bullshit.\n\n\n\nBut there is more to the idea of thinking through games, rather than simply looting them for interface patterns and painting those over other services.\n
  • Game are made up of so much more than just points, quests and levels.\n\nGames offer \n\nThe psychological research into games has shown that they are rich, detailed varied experiences that supply many of our basic, human, cognitive needs. And these aspects of games are not being used by marketing led gamification.\n\nWhich leads on to needed a radically different view of gamification. As applying badges or points doesn’t get us to these defining psychological factors.\n\nSo what is gamification and how can we think about it in better ways?\n
  • I’ve worked with some collaborators, Sebastian Deterding and Rilla Kaled to come up with this definition.\n\nThe use of game design elements in non-game contexts. \n\nWhich I’ll very quickly unpack with a little more detail\n
  • So it is the use of elements of game design. Not whole games. Which separates it from games proper. \n\nIt is elements of games, not aspects of play. Which separates the concept from ideas of playful design. \n\nAnd it is in non-game contexts (ostensibly non-entertainment), but as it is just the use of elements it is different from the, badly named, field of serious games.\n\n\n
  • And most importantly for us it is elements of game design. Which is a larger set of aspects than just interface patterns. \n\nGame design elements can be talked about on many different levels of abstraction, and all are worth including when we talk about gamification.\n\nWhat we see implemented most is game mechanics and interface patterns.\n\nImportantly here we can contextualise the MDA model, which we’ll get to, as a design method, existing at quite an abstract level. \n\nWhat I hopefully show here is that there is more to the idea of thinking through games, rather than simply looting them for interface patterns and applying those ad hoc over other services.\n\nJust to go over that definition again.\n\nGameful Design is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts.\n
  • \n
  • So as part of this I'm going to introduce you to a system for doing game analysis and design that can be used outside of games to do what I would call gameful thinking and gameful design more generally in interaction design.\n\nThis is the MDA model\n\n
  • Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. Mechanics are an often used term in game design, but tend to refer to things at a slightly deeper level than simply rules. \n\nDynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time. These are the emergent properties and behaviours in which the mechanics and the player interact.\n\nAesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when they interact with the game system. The feelings and meaning that emerges from the gameplay.\n\n\n\nThe MDA model is a model of both bottom up as well as top down design. For example Doom was a game that was an example of bottom up design. It was a 3D game mechanic looking for a game. Will Wright's, the Sims was a top down design exercise in that it was a particular desired aesthetic goal and scenario, and the game was designed under it. \n\nThe key thing to remember in all of this is that the player encounters the game from the aesthetic level. And the designer must design the mechanics to indirectly evoke an aesthetic effect.\n
  • Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. Mechanics are an often used term in game design, but tend to refer to things at a slightly deeper level than simply rules. \n\nDynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time. These are the emergent properties and behaviours in which the mechanics and the player interact.\n\nAesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when they interact with the game system. The feelings and meaning that emerges from the gameplay.\n\n\n\nThe MDA model is a model of both bottom up as well as top down design. For example Doom was a game that was an example of bottom up design. It was a 3D game mechanic looking for a game. Will Wright's, the Sims was a top down design exercise in that it was a particular desired aesthetic goal and scenario, and the game was designed under it. \n\nThe key thing to remember in all of this is that the player encounters the game from the aesthetic level. And the designer must design the mechanics to indirectly evoke an aesthetic effect.\n
  • Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. Mechanics are an often used term in game design, but tend to refer to things at a slightly deeper level than simply rules. \n\nDynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time. These are the emergent properties and behaviours in which the mechanics and the player interact.\n\nAesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when they interact with the game system. The feelings and meaning that emerges from the gameplay.\n\n\n\nThe MDA model is a model of both bottom up as well as top down design. For example Doom was a game that was an example of bottom up design. It was a 3D game mechanic looking for a game. Will Wright's, the Sims was a top down design exercise in that it was a particular desired aesthetic goal and scenario, and the game was designed under it. \n\nThe key thing to remember in all of this is that the player encounters the game from the aesthetic level. And the designer must design the mechanics to indirectly evoke an aesthetic effect.\n
  • Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. Mechanics are an often used term in game design, but tend to refer to things at a slightly deeper level than simply rules. \n\nDynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time. These are the emergent properties and behaviours in which the mechanics and the player interact.\n\nAesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when they interact with the game system. The feelings and meaning that emerges from the gameplay.\n\n\n\nThe MDA model is a model of both bottom up as well as top down design. For example Doom was a game that was an example of bottom up design. It was a 3D game mechanic looking for a game. Will Wright's, the Sims was a top down design exercise in that it was a particular desired aesthetic goal and scenario, and the game was designed under it. \n\nThe key thing to remember in all of this is that the player encounters the game from the aesthetic level. And the designer must design the mechanics to indirectly evoke an aesthetic effect.\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • As Marc LeBlanc, one of the creators of this says, the MDA model formalises the consumption and creation of games. Formalises concepts such as fun, systems rules.\n\n\n\nThe fun can come in a huge variety of types, for example the pleasures of make-believe, drama, sociality, challenge or simply as a way to pass time.\n\nThe systems can be modelled in a variety of manners. There is no single system to represent all of this.\n\nAnd the underlying systems of rules, mechanics, processes, algorithms can be very nested.\n\n\n\nWe can also think of them as having parallels in interaction design with concepts such as user experience, user journeys and individual interactions and interface elements. And start to map them across.\n\n\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • Foursquare is also an example\n- Encouraging new and continuous users\n- Points system requires constant attention\n- Decaying points, new checkins worth more\n
  • \n\nWe’ve completed about a quarter of the session. Phew. Still a lot to go. But now it is over to you.\n
  • 15 minutes \n\nTake a sheet of flip chart paper and divide it into three. \n\nWrite Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics, or simply MDA on the three sections.\n
  • \n\nTimer to start.\n\nChoose people to talk through their thinking\n
  • 30 minutes\n\nChoose people to talk through their thinking\n
  • \n
  • Applying game design elements in non-game contexts is not necessarily easy. \n\nThe hard part is probably figuring where these design strategies are appropriate. \n\nThey don’t necessarily make sense everywhere in a system/interface. And this is one of the key problems of applying gamification.\n\nOne way to approach this and think about it is via the idea of the core game loop. Which gives us a route in to gamifcation, but can also teach us a lot about experience design in general.\n
  • Games have a core experiential loop. The heart of the game. The central, repeated, learnable action and activity. \n\nWhether this be jumping in Mario, versus a number of obstacles. Either from platform to platform, or onto Goombas.\n\nWhether it be your turn in a board game. Or the complex set of decisions in a turn of civilisation 5. These all have a core loop of experience that presents the player with every more challenging and enjoyable obstacles. It’s this that leads Raph Koster to say “playing games is learning”\n\nAnd the core game loop is quite clear...\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • Game clearly follow this tight iterative loop. A loop of goals, actions, feedback, new goals. And this loop is nested, from an entire game, to a level, to a dungeon, to an encounter, to the moment to moment interaction.\n-------\nGoals are Explicit, understandable, nested goals. They are explicit and understandable in the sense that they are unambiguous, clear, possible, achievable, etc whilst still being a possible challenge to the player.\n\nTo achieve these goals players can perform actions. These actions have a set of choices that is neither too large to be confusing and cause choice paralysis, nor too small as to be boring. These choices also have to be interesting, real choices, not just arbitrary ones. And with enough information to support that decision making process. These actions should be difficult and challenging. Not straightforward. Carrying these out should be just hard enough.\n\nAnd when you succeed or fail in these actions the feedback needs to be immediate. Right there, right then. It needs to be consumable, that it is also clear, understandable, glanceable, contextual. And as game designers say, the feedback needs to be juicy. It is exciting, epic, buzzing, visceral, showy. Fireworks go off, controllers buzz, great sound effects play. The bullets blast big holes, there are explosions, your screen goes blood red.\n\nAnd then the loop starts again with another enemy, another level, another game, another loop through this.\n-------\nThe core loop is something that is tweaked and tuned throughout game design and playtesting. And finding these sorts of experience loops in other systems gives a simple route into applying gameful design.\n\nNow most UX experience loops are designed to not be repeated. And are often designed to just satisfy requirements, not go beyond. They merely satisfice. Whereas games aim to make things feel epic. To Epifice, or epicify things. \n-------\n\n\n
  • \n\nNow it is time to apply that MDA model in a design exercise to a core experience loop in a system\n
  • The client is an online dating service in a fairly primitive state. More or less simple profiles and the ability to message each other. \n\nThe goal of improving contacts will improve the user experience, but also it is the main way the site is monetised. As user to user contact is charged for.\n\nRather than looking at the whole site, we’re looking at just the messaging service. It is simple, users click on a button on another users profile and are sent to a web mail like interface. Subject lines and body are open and freely editable.\n\n\n
  • Divide you paper into three again. Or use three sheets of paper.\n\nSketch if you like. Have ideas, go crazy. The sky is the limit.\n
  • \ncollect thoughts and examples from people\n
  • \n\n
  • \n\nWe’re nearly finished our speed run.\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n

Transcript

  • 1. Gameful Design Tools Escaping gamification using the MDA analysis modelDan DixonUWE | DCRC | PMStudio
  • 2. three learning objectivesSee gameful design as a broaderapproach than gamificationApply the MDA model to analysis anddesign problemsSpot core experience loops
  • 3. session structure you do stuff heregameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 4. Industry Blueprint Points Badges Leaderboards IncentivesTracking, Feedback Goal-setting Competition Rewards (And behavioral analytics in the backend)
  • 5. “Gamification by Design”1. Establish business objectives2. Translate those into trackable user behaviours3. Rank user behaviours by their relative importance to your business objectives, and attach point values accordingly.4. Beyond simple behaviours, devise more complex tasks and missions comprising multiple behaviours5. Determine conditions to display special achievements (badges, trophies, ...) and levels6. Determine incentives (redeemable and non-) attached to points, achievements and levels, if any7. Support the theme/content of your system in the copy and visual design of your points, missions, achievements and levels.
  • 6. “Gamification by Design” i t ! h1. Establish business objectives ls2. Translate those into trackable user behaviours l3. Rank user behaviours by their relative importance to your business objectives, and attach point values accordingly. u4. Beyond simple behaviours, devise more complex tasks and missions comprising multiple behaviours B5. Determine conditions to display special achievements (badges, trophies, ...) and levels6. Determine incentives (redeemable and non-) attached to points, achievements and levels, if any7. Support the theme/content of your system in the copy and visual design of your points, missions, achievements and levels.
  • 7. ...what games offer...Autonomy EscapismCompetence CreativitySociality PurposeSurprise Meaning
  • 8. Gameful Design- The use of game designelements in non-game contexts
  • 9. Gameful Design Gaming (Serious) Games Gameful designSystem Element Toys Playful Design Playing
  • 10. Levels of Design Playtesting, playcentric design, valueGame design concepts conscious game design, ... MDA model, Game design atoms,Game design methods CEGE, ...Game design principles Enduring play, clear goals, variety ofand heuristics play styles, ...Game design patterns Levels, time constraint, limitedand mechanics resources, betting, ...Game interface patterns Badge, leaderboard, timer, ...
  • 11. progressgameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 12. The MDA Model (a formal abstract design tool)
  • 13. The MDA Model emotional and semioticAesthetics = responses in the player/user = the emergent behaviours ofDynamics the systems being designedMechanics = underlying data, algorithms, processes.
  • 14. The MDA Model player emotional and semioticAesthetics = responses in the player/user = the emergent behaviours ofDynamics the systems being designedMechanics = underlying data, algorithms, processes. designer
  • 15. MDA FrameworkAestheticsDynamicsMechanics
  • 16. MDA FrameworkAesthetics funDynamics systemsMechanics rules
  • 17. MDA FrameworkAesthetics fun experienceDynamics systems user journeyMechanics rules interactions
  • 18. Examples
  • 19. Examples MonopolyThe crushingly depressinggap between rich and poorPositive feedback loops incurrency system.Pass Go collect £200.Small value chance cards.Houses, hotels.Mortgages cant collect rent
  • 20. Examples Monopoly Silent HillThe crushingly depressing Fear, nervousness,gap between rich and poor uncertainty. Strategic care.Positive feedback loops in Relationships betweencurrency system. environment and character capability.Pass Go collect £200. Limited ammo.Small value chance cards. Slow, limited running.Houses, hotels. Unsteady aim.Mortgages cant collect rent Powerful opponents.
  • 21. Examples Monopoly Silent Hill Deus ExThe crushingly depressing Fear, nervousness, Choice in play mode.gap between rich and poor uncertainty. Different strategic Strategic care. possibilities.Positive feedback loops in Relationships between Augmentation tech tree.currency system. environment and character Level design with multiple capability. routes.Pass Go collect £200. Limited ammo. Stealth, combat, hackingSmall value chance cards. Slow, limited running. augmentations.Houses, hotels. Unsteady aim. Boxes, ledges,Mortgages cant collect rent Powerful opponents. cover for stealth.
  • 22. progressgameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 23. Analysis Exercise Groups of 4 - 6 Choose a game you all knowAesthetics 1. How does it makes you feel?Dynamics 2. What are the system behaviours?Mechanics 3. What are the elements of those systems?
  • 24. thoughts
  • 25. progressgameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 26. Core Experience Loop
  • 27. The CoreLearnable Loop
  • 28. Game Loop GoalsFeedback Actions
  • 29. Game Loop Understandable Explicit Nested GoalsFeedback Actions
  • 30. Game Loop Understandable Explicit Nested Goals Constrained choiceFeedback Actions Clear Micro-challenging
  • 31. Game Loop Understandable Explicit Nested Goals Constrained Immediate choice Feedback Actions ClearConsumable Juicy Micro-challenging
  • 32. progressgameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 33. design challengeClient = Online dating ser viceGoal = Improve contactsTarget area = User to user messagingCurrent state = Simple, email like system
  • 34. design challenge Groups of 4 - 6 Tune the dating site message systemAesthetics 1. How do you want it to feel?Dynamics 2. What systems/interactions are necessary?Mechanics 3. What are the basic interaction elements?
  • 35. thoughts
  • 36. progressgameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up
  • 37. wrapping upGameful design as a UX lensThe MDA model as a way to both Analyse DesignEpicifying the core experience loop
  • 38. finally...http://bit.ly/gamefuldesignwww.digitaldust.org@digitaldustWhat’s the appetite for more?
  • 39. ding!gameful analysis design design exercise exercise the MDA experience wrapping model loops it all up