In a blog post by Greg Luterbach (February 1,
2013), he suggested that gamification has permeated many aspects of popular
society including professional sports, consumer goods, entertainment and social
relationships. Since this
infiltration of gamification was not as obvious to me, I decided to challenge
myself to look for examples of gamification in aspects of society other than
the context of formal education.
Within just a few days, I had recognized the presence of gamification in
all of the domains that Michael had suggested; the sports channel TSN promoted
an online challenge for viewers to predict the winning outcomes of hockey games
(TSN Game Predictor Hockey Edition),
Hasbro sponsored a contest where the public could help decide on a new playing
piece, and a commercial was broadcast highlighting the tasks performed by the
contestants on an upcoming episode of the Bachelor.
It was the latter example that really got me thinking about
how gamification had changed the paradigm of prime-time television
programming. When Survivor made its debut in 2000
it immediately appealed to the public viewing audience as it featured regular
Americans facing-off against one another in a variety of tasks towards the
ultimate quest of being the Sole Survivor and the winner of a million
dollars. Since then a host of
reality television shows have come to dominate the airwaves, including The Amazing
Race, Fear Factor, American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, Dancing With
the Stars, America’s Got
Talent, Wipe Out, Big
Brother, The Bachelor,
and The Bachelorette.
While these programs are all games in their own right, there
are many other social dynamics at play; finding love, co-habitating with a
diverse group of people, following ones’ dreams to achieve stardom, overcoming
personal fears, and participating in world-wide cultural practices. The shows contain many of the elements
of ‘good games’ such as separate tasks, increased difficulty with the
progression of each level, collaborative play, feedback, reward and working
toward the ultimate quest. Each week
the participants engage in a number of tasks, often working in a team, with the
winner(s) receiving a reward. The
players receive feedback on their performance either from other participants or
the host, or engage in self-reflection (often given as a monologue to the
camera), discussing their strategies and identifying the consequences of their
choices. Players are eliminated
until there is an ultimate winner at the end of the quest. Viewers are also
involved in the game play of these reality shows. For many shows there are Twitter feeds and Facebook groups,
and the public is often involved in voting for their favourite players or
participants.
While the participants in many of these shows may not view
their experience as a player within a game, they are in fact, part of an
ultimate example of gamification.
As I watch the Bachelor or Bachelorette (yes, I admit that I watch these
shows) and hope that my favourite choice truly finds love (hokey, I know) I
will not be able to sit back and enjoy them in the same way without analyzing
the design of the game and how the participants engage in this ultimate gaming
experience.
Hi Lisa
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Yes, I find features of gamification everywhere and reality TV is no exception. Your examples of how TV had adopted those strategies are very good. A new strain of gamification I’ve recently noticed is how sports now use the “second screen” concept where you are encouraged, rewarded and tracked to have your tablet or phone beside you while you are watching the game. This way they can push different content (and ads too) beyond what they are broadcasting. It creates conditions that allow for interactive TV. I guess we’ll both be along for the ride because I too watch reality TV!
Thanks!
Greg
I have my own take on many (most?) of the so-called "reality" shows. You're right of course - they absolutely are games - and they ever let the viewing public pull back the curtain - most would see there there is virtually no reality to these shows at all. They are low-budget entertainment (you don't really need to hire much in the way of writers, or set designers, or artistic directors...).
ReplyDeleteIn spite of having tried a number of times - I can not sit through an entire episode of any one of those shows. I realize these shows are hugely popular, but I actually worry more about what the popularity of shows like this says about society than I do about the popularity of monster shooter videogame. These show are ostensibly about "real" people. What I see is a game that is predicated primarily on competition, where winning requires bullying, and deceit.. and it always makes me feel very uncomfortable. The German word Schadenfreude also comes to mind.
Hi Michelle (and Katrin),
ReplyDeleteAs a read your post and its comments a few things come to mind.
I've never been a fan of reality tv shows. The phony drama and notched up conflict really bother me and, in my opinion, display humans in their lowest form of social interaction. Of late, however, there are two shows which have grabbed my attention. American Idol has added some intelligent musicians to their judging panel in Keith Urban and Mariah Carey. They are both knowledgeable about music theory, multiple genres, and possess pop sensibility. The show does not focus on the dynamic between the contestants but rather, their ability to sing and perform (though the emphasis on physical image and looks is bothersome). The other show that I think handles the competition component well is Chopped, a cooking show where four contestants compete in an appetizer, main and dessert course until there is only one left. Minimal drama between contestants, it focuses on the food they're able to creatively combine and prepare and the critiques seem to come from an excellent panel of chefs. For me, reality competitions that work focus on high skill level in a chosen area, expert feedback, and minimal drama between players.
The same criteria apply to video games that seem to work. Mastery of skill, expert feedback for improvement, and questionably, minimal drama. Students want to learn. A game becomes boring if there is no skill involved. Games highlight this second nature desire to learn in students, who, during the regular school day, may appear 'anti-learning'. Can anything be gained from this reality tv formula that could benefit our education system?
On a final note, as I was reading your post, I kept thinking about the book The Hunger Games. I'm not sure if you read it, but it takes social and public competition to a different level, where contestants are selected and must compete until the death in a very public format, broadcast live throughout each city. Life is displayed on public screens throughout the cities and citizens can watch (what the game controllers have selected) scenes live from the competition. What if our world becomes infiltrated by large, live action screens? Wait, we are practically there...don't we all carry around our own little live action screen?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Michelle.
Christina
I think I've seen the cooking show you mention - I agree. It focused on the professional skills rather than the "social". I too found it entertaining ....and I learned some stuff too - always a bonus for me!
ReplyDeleteI must admit I did not read or watch The Hunger Games. I find the whole idea distasteful. It could be an interesting story, but my guess is that as a film, the director would cater to the lowest common denominator and focus on the violence and gore.
Lately, my family and I have been turning more and more to British television and film. What we have been seeing is far less violent, and often far more intelligent.
In fact, this weekend we tried to watch 2 films, 1 American and 1 British - both rated 14A. The American one was Lawless (about bootleggers & mobsters during prohibition). We chose it because we like the quite a lot of the actors. We turned it off after about 20 minutes because we could no longer stomach the graphic violence.
So then we tried the British film: The Liability (about a hitman and his final target). The only actor we recognized was Tim Roth - known for ultra-violent films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. We were expecting it to be worse than the first and were pleasantly surprised. It was certainly violent, but they did NOT zoom in on spurting blood and fists in people faces. It had some humour, AND an interesting story to boot. we atched that one to the end.