Game review


Published on

Exploration of game design for social networking application. Process of planning and playing.

Published in: Design
1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Game review

  1. Dames Making Games NoJamA weekend in game-making
  2. Idea 1.0To design a gameThat helps people network more effectively…, withcommunity validated chemistry to avoid playersmanipulating their own profiles and scores.That encourages people to move beyond their immediatecircles and disciplinesThat rewards players on networking beyond numbersConnects people through chemistry as well as industryGives points that rewards people for checking in withpeople, rather than places
  3. Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems - the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in groupcollaboration environments.pdfAccording to Driskell et al. (1987, see also Woodman et al. 1993), a team’s performance potential is influenced by (1) individual-levelfactors, such as personalities, skills, and knowledge of team members; (2) group- level factors, such as size, structure, orcohesiveness; and (3) environmental-level factors, such as reward structure or the nature of the task. These ―input‖ vari- ablesinfluence the group interaction process, leading to process gains and losses that determine the extent to which the group’s potentialperformance trans- lates into actual performance outcomes (McGrath 1984).Early research in the area of idea generation focused on identifying various techniques for enhanc- ing group creativity and performance Must be more interesting ways to network(Osborn 1957, Van de Ven and Delbecq 1974). However, studies attempting to empirically evaluate the efficacy of such methods consistentlyfound that noninteracting individuals whose ideas are pooled (i.e., individuals working as nominal groups) outperformed interact- inggroups (McGrath 1984, Mullen et al. 1991). Pro- cess losses such as production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and free riding havebeen identified as the main cause of poor performance in interact- ing groups (Diehl and Stroebe 1987). In more recent work, computer-mediated idea generation has been found to help overcome some of these process losses by providing features such as parallel communica-tion, group memory, and anonymity (e.g., Connolly et al. 1990, Valacich et al. 1994).Prior research suggests that both intrinsic and extrin- sic motivations are important factors in information systems success. Whereas More creative ways to meet peopleintrinsic motivation ―refers to the pleasure and inherent satisfaction derived from a specific activity,‖ extrinsic motivation―emphasizes performing a behavior because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes that are distinct from theactivity‖ (Venkatesh and Speier 1999, p2).Venkatesh (1999) demonstrates that training aimed at intrinsic motivation can aid in creating a posi- tive experience for the user.Venkatesh (2000) fur- ther demonstrates that computer playfulness can be regarded as an antecedent to the perceived ease of use of aninformation system, which, in turn, influ- ences a user’s intention to use the system. In addition to intrinsic motivation, extrinsicmotivation (such as the perceived usefulness of a system or the instru- mentality in providing rewards, Davis et al. 1989) can also More engaging forms of rewardinfluence the intention to use a system. Related to idea generation, prior research has suggested that intrinsic motivation is a keyelement in creativ- ity (e.g., Amabile 1983, Cacioppo and Petty 1982), influencing the quality of ideas generated and thus the overalleffectiveness of idea generation groups (Chidambaram and Tung 2005).Because group idea generation is sometimes regarded as ―practically effortless‖ (Diehl and Stroebe 1987, p. 502), social loafing has beenconsidered to be only a minor element contributing to productivity losses in group idea generation, and has therefore received onlymodest attention by prior research (with Chidambaram and Tung 2005 being a notable exception). Traditionally, idea generation studieshave used variants of Osborn’s (1957) proce- dural rules—not to criticize others, to build on the ideas of others, and to suggest any Creative on individual &group levelidea regardless of its quality or feasibility—to mitigate various pro- cess losses. However, these rules cannot offset the ten- dency ofindividuals to engage in social loafing and negative productivity matching (i.e., the tendency of individuals to match their efforts tolow performing members of their group); thus, researchers have sug- gested stronger (external) interventions for behavioral modification(Hackman and Morris 1975, Parks and Sanna 1999, Paulus and Brown 2003)Rather, to leverage the motivation and strengths of users when designing informa- tion systems, Zhang (2008b) advocates the use of a―positive lens,‖ arguing that people tend to use and continue to use information systems to fulfill var- ious psychological, cognitive,social, and emotional needs. Hence, an object’s (or technology’s) properties that support these motivational needs (i.e., the object’s―motivational affordance,‖ Zhang 2008a, p. 145) can influence whether, how, and how much the object (or technology) will be used. Todesign a system high in motivational affordance, Zhang (2008a) proposed 10 design principles related to five different motiva- tionalsources. Specifically, these principles are aimed at fulfilling the users’ (1) psychological (autonomy and self); (2) cognitive(competence and achievement); (3) social, psychological (relatedness); (4) social, psy- chological (power, leadership, and followership);and (5) emotional (emotion and affect) needs.People have an inherent need to accomplish tasks and aspire to excel as compared to a standard of excel- lence. This comparison can takethe form of compe- tition with one’s self, or against others (Heckhausen 1967). Fulfilling this need, however, necessitates that people
  4. Attempting Focus
  5. Exploring mechanics – idea 1Each player is allocatedpoints relative to aposition and every otherplayer in the gameA player must collect themost points in theshortest period of timeand does so by connectingwith other players in thegame. The further awayother players are fromyou, the higher theirpoints value.
  6. More ideas 2) A similar mechanic to the oneabove, but upon arriving at an event,each player is served several quests that involve connecting with different people at an event in different ways.3) Find and seek mechanic. Player is served a symbol upon arriving at anevent / checking in and must find the other person at the event with the same symbol. As he makes his way around a group, he collects other symbols. Other players can declare their symbol and ask if he has met this person already, but they can only ask with yes or no questions.
  7. More ideas Describe your interest in the event in three words.Network around the event to find someone else with the same trait. The first person to collect all three traits wins the game.As we move through the year and go to different events,existing words that have already been banked, decrease in points value so there’s more emphasis on being creative with your words.Would people manipulate the mechanic by arranging word selection before an event? Would you have multiple rounds, with different questions and sets of three answers.
  8. Word In The Meet
  9. Word In The Meet My word by me Your word by me Your word by me Your word by me
  10. “Winner”? Least consistent feedback Very strong consistency in Fairly strong consistency in feedback feedback About Rachel About Alex About Henry About Cale Inconsistent (formatting inRachel on others writing) Broke own rules Cale on others Sometimes inconsistent Old school / Questioned rules knowledgeable Alex on others Mostly consistent Relaxed about rules Ambitious Erudite Consistent Followed rulesHenry on others Inquisitive Are people manipulating conversation towards their own word? Should people assign themselves a word AFTER they’ve assigned everyone else in the group a word?
  11. "Rachels game is an excellent icebreaker with visible teambuilding results, which allowher to quickly sort both the impressions group members give to each other, and capturesomething of how they think of themselves.Try a bigger dataset - at least 10 people. I want to see you play it with a huge number ofpeople and make a big grid. Its a really great game of first impressions. Its a goodtool for helping people learn how to give better first impressions."AlexThink about how youre evaluating the criteria for the "winner": how people offer thesewords in terms of formatting/presentation, thematic suggestion etc. These attributes becomethe basis of the scoring system. Make sure you time the game and perhaps if you use alarger group, assign less time to the conversation. Perhaps three minutes would be good,with a timer. Work out criteria, work out process and then you can make it digital reallyquickly. Once you work out the mechanics and youve done enough play testing with your"minimal viable product", you can then scale it and test different ideas with other people- theyll get this framework.HenryThis isnt a game that you try to win. Its a non-competitive game which put me off a bit,but once I got over that, it was a really good way to learn things about people that Ididnt know and of course those were people that I knew already! And better cards - theseones were kinda uneven. It didnt seem like so much of a game - it was more a socialactivity, but I really enjoyed playing.Cale