=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1715/paper0
|storemode=property
|title=Fictional Game Elements 2016
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1715/Rapp.pdf
|volume=Vol-1715
|authors=Amon Rapp,Federica Cena,Frank Hopfgartner,Juho Hamari,Conor Linehan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/chiplay/RappCHHL16a
}}
==Fictional Game Elements 2016
==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1715/Rapp.pdf
Fictional Game Elements 2016
Amon Rapp Juho Hamari Abstract
University of Torino University of Tampere Gamification has been widely accepted in the HCI
Torino, Italy Tampere, Finland community in the last few years. However, the current
amon.rapp@gmail.com juho.hamari@uta.fi debate is focused on its short-term consequences, such
as effectiveness and usefulness, while its side-effects,
Federica Cena Conor Linehan long-term criticalities and systemic impacts are rarely
University of Torino University College Cork raised. This workshop explores the gamification design
Torino, Italy Cork, Ireland space from a critical perspective, by using design
cena@di.unito.it conor.linehan@ucc.ie fictions to help researchers reflect on the long-term
consequences of their designs.
Frank Hopfgartner
University of Glasgow Author Keywords
Glasgow, United Kingdom Gamification; Critical Design; Design Fiction.
frank.hopfgartner@glasgow.ac.uk
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
Introduction
In the last years, we seen the spread of different non-
ludic applications and services leveraging game
elements in their designs. Gamification is defined as the
use of “game design elements in non-game contexts”
[6], and has gained popularity as a design technique
capable of increasing the user engagement, as well as
pushing performances and modifying behavior (e.g. [1,
4, 5]). However, HCI community is discussing its
current role gamification in design. Gamification does
have positive impacts in terms of effectiveness on that HCI researchers are not usually engaged in critical
certain target behaviors [7], but its ability of immersing evaluations of the future consequences of their work.
the user in a pleasurable experience has been put into
question [11], and it has been suggested to investigate Although some exceptions exist [13, 14], this attitude
new paths for designing for gamification [12]. is also present in the gamification rhetoric, where
gamification techniques are discussed with reference to
It clearly appears that a discussion on the long-term their effectiveness and usefulness, but rarely in terms
and social impacts of gamification is in need, as it has of their capability of systematically impacting on
the power to turn “normal” experiences in enjoyable people’s life and producing long-term side-effects. To
ones, which could entail different and somehow explore these aspects, it is necessary to adopt a critical
unexpected side-effects or systemic consequences. perspective on design, instead of reinforcing its
Such consequences are rarely taken into account in the embedded values [2].
current gamification debate, which gives for granted a
number of assumptions related to games, enjoyment, Design fictions present “fantasy prototypes” in plausible
and behavior change, that actually should be discussed near futures [3] and support the creation of a
in deep. discursive space where technology assumptions may be
put into questions, exploring different alternative
It is possible, in fact, that turning a serious experience futures [8]. In this volume we explore how design
in a “fun” one could not always represent the optimal fictions can be used to make us reflect on the
choice for users, who could also be pushed to pursue unexpected outcomes of gamification.
goals that they did not freely choose, or to accept of
being involved in dynamics of which they are not fully Jonah Warren in “The Behavior Pioneers Application: An
aware. Design fictions, then, seem a technique that can Intentional Community Prototype” describes a fictional
address the exploration of such implications of questionnaire that has to be completed by applicants to
gamification design. an intentional community devoted to gamifying all
aspects of its members’ lives.
Design fictions
HCI research seems to assume that technology makes Assia Alexandrova, Lucia Rapanotti, and Ivan Horrocks
users’ lives “more enjoyable, easier, better informed, in “RE-PROVO: An Evaluation of Gamification in a Law
healthier and more sustainable” [9]. This premise leads Enforcement Organization” outline a prototype of an
researchers to focus on specific, short-term impacts of online discussion game designed to support the
their prototypes. However, technology has analysis and critique of functional requirements for
consequences on both individuals and society, and legacy system replacement and promote creativity.
long-term effects are often ambivalent, difficult to
predict, and systemic [10]. Linehan et al. [9] stress While Bernd Hollerit, Kenji Tanaka, and Helmut
Prendinger in “Contribution of affordances to
gamification” propose theoretical reflections about the Critical design and critical theory: the challenge of
effects of affordances in gamification designing for provocation. In Proceedings of the
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS
'12), 288-297.
Gustavo Tondello and Lennart Nacke in “Gamification http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2317956.2318001
Research: a 50-years Retrospective from PBLs Towards
3. Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design
Conscious Evolution” present a critical design fiction in
fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. In
which they describe how gamification research could Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
evolve in the new years Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 703-712.
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098
Lal Bozgeyikli, Andrew Raij, Srinivas Katkoori, and 4. Joseph A. Cafazzo, Mark Casselman, Nathaniel
Redwan Alqasemi, instead, in “Effects of Environmental Hamming, Debra K. Katzman, Mark R. Palmert.
Clutter and Motion on User Performance in Virtual 2012. Design of an Health app for the self-
Reality Games” explore the effects of environmental management of adolescent type1 diabetes: a pilot
clutter and motion on game design for virtual reality study. J. Med. Internet Res., 14, 13.
5. Laurentiu Catalin Stanculescu, Alessandro Bozzon,
Alessia Calafiore and Amon Rapp in “Gamifying the city Robert-Jan Sips, and Geert-Jan Houben. 2016.
Work and Play: An Experiment in Enterprise
pervasive game elements in the urban environment
Gamification. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
References” envision how a pervasive gamified app
Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative
may change the relationship between citizens and the Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16), 346-358.
urban environments in which they live. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820061
6. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and
Finally, Seamus Forde in “Including Non-Users and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements
Public Perception in Future Gamification Research” to gamefulness: defining "gamification". In
highlights the importance of considering the differences Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
between users and non-users when designing for MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments (MindTrek '11), 9-15.
gamification.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
References 7. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa.
1. Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Manuel J. Fonseca, 2014. Does Gamification Work? – A Literature
and Daniel Gonçalves. 2013. Improving student Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In
creativity with gamification and virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS '14), 3025-3034.
Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications 8. Derek Hales. Design Fictions an Introduction and
(Gamification '13), 95-98. Partial Taxonomy. Digital Creativity. Vol 24. Issue
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583023 1. 2013. Special Issue: Design Fictions 30 Apr 2013
2. Shaowen Bardzell, Jeffrey Bardzell, Jodi Forlizzi, 9. Conor Linehan, Ben J. Kirman, Stuart Reeves, Mark
John Zimmerman, and John Antanitis. 2012. A. Blythe, Joshua G. Tanenbaum, Audrey
Desjardins, and Ron Wakkary. 2014. Alternate
endings: using fiction to explore design futures. In
CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI EA '14), 45-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2560472
10. Lisa P. Nathan, Batya Friedman, Predrag Klasnja,
Shaun K. Kane, and Jessica K. Miller. 2008.
Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society
throughout interactive system design. In
Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on
Designing interactive systems (DIS '08), 1-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394446
11. Amon Rapp. 2015. A Qualitative Investigation of
Gamification: Motivational Factors in Online
Gamified Services and Applications. International
Journal of Technology and Human Interaction,
11(1), 67-82. Doi: 10.4018/ijthi.2015010105
12. Amon Rapp. 2015. Designing interactive systems
through a game lens: An ethnographic approach.
Computers in human behavior, Doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.048
13. Jesse Schell. 2010. Visions of the Gamepocalypse.
Presentation, Long Now Foundation, San Francisco,
CA, July 27, 2010.
14. Evan Selinger, Jathan Sadowski, Thomas P.
Seager. Gamification and Morality. In The Gameful
World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, 577–618.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.