This paper aims at using the tools of semiotic analysis and semiotics of play in order to re-organise and specify the terminology surrounding the concept of gamification. In the first part, we propose an overview on the different theories and ideologies surrounding the topic, and we will underline the strengths and contradictions of the different approaches. In the second part we will propose a semiotic approach to the topic, drawing from Lotman's semiotics of culture, in order to redefine more precisely the different actions and metaphors related to the implementation of game and play mechanics in ordinary life contexts.
In this paper we will propose a semiotic reading of the concepts of “gamification” and “playfication”, trying to deconstruct the rhetorics that are behind the coinage of these expressions, and to shed some light on the meaning-processes that subsume them. In order to do so, we will adopt the perspective of semiotics of culture, elaborated by Juri Lotman within the Tartu-Moskow Semiotic school (see also Thibault 2016b).
From the point of view of semiotics of culture, play can be defined as a modelling system
Nowadays the unprecedented prestige of games is not limited to academia (which has consecrated them
as a respectable area of study) but it extends to many fields. Blogs dedicated to gaming are becoming
mainstream (let's think at Kotaku or at Rock, Paper, Shotgun) and also traditional newspapers often
feature columns dedicated to digital games. Despite the fact that “video games” are not always
regarded kindly – there is a fatwa against Pokémon Go (Niantic, 2016) and there is still occasional
blame on games in the aftermath of every teenage mass shooting – the apocalyptic
Symptomatic of this fact is the phenomenon of gamification, which is the implementation of game
mechanics and dynamics to non-playful activities. The term “gamification” originated in the digital
media industry in 2008, become a buzzword in the 2010s, while the interest around it peaked in
20122013. The supporters of this sort of operations claim that gamified activities are able to engage
participants in new ways and to motivate them to do tasks that they are not so eager to undertake – in
semiotic terms, games can be used to make activities more seductive
The areas in which gamification has probably been used the most are education and learning, were
game mechanics are supposed to recall the students' passion for digital games and to spur them to study
with more dedication. Manuals such as Salen (2007) and
Business too has immediately seen the potential of gamification, and studies on the topic have immediately followed. Books such as Werbach and Hunter (2012) and Viola (2011), in the attempt to systematize the different ways games can be used to improve business activities, proceed to quasiacademic analysis of the structure, components, mechanics and dynamics of games that, although somewhat shallow, can still be quite insightful.
These passionate approaches to gamification, nevertheless, have often faced criticism. Gamification experts themselves have, with time, rejected some of the mainstream theories and techniques that were popular at the very beginning – such as the centrality of the “Points, Badges, Leader-boards” trinity and the reductionist idea of a “dopamine loop” – and even started to question the morality of using addictive game mechanics. In response of these growing negative connotations, several designers started to use different terms to describe their activities, such as “gameful design” or “design for playful interactions”.
For example, game designer Jane McGonigall, who focuses on how play can be used to promote health
and social change, claimed that “we don't need no stinkin' badges” (the title of her presentation at the
Game Developers Conference of 2011). In her book Reality is broken
Nevertheless, the efficacy of these methods is still debated: a recent study
Other criticisms are moved also from ideological standpoints, for example opposing the idea that games should be used for non-playful purposes. In an amusing and witty article a group of game scholars counter-attack the “games for health” paradigm with its contrary: a “games against health” movement that ironically promotes a game design that ruins the players' health.
The games against health movement embraces player preference as a critical part of player agency,
arguing that we may more readily achieve a wholesome game culture by responding to what is enjoyed
by players rather than what is prescribed by well-meaning HCI researchers who take the position of
benevolent emancipators come to correct the players. The GAH movement therefore rejects the
antagonistic and incongruous use of games to improve health, and promotes an alignment with a more
organic function of games as they have come to be accepted and understood by the players: as
potentially sociopathic health-destroying technologies
The first serious attempt to map and analyse the phenomenon of gamification was proposed in
Other definitions of gamification, however, can be less strict, let's think at the works of the
Gamification Lab of Lüneburg University, well summarized in
Finally, there is a third conceptualisation of gamification, the broadest one, which is still pervasive,
even if difficultly identifiable with one single author. It is the trend of considering as gamified every
interactive system that makes large use of metrics or infographics, such as the rating system of eBay
and some of LinkedIn's features. This inclination of gamification towards a generalisation that deprives
the term of meaning is still quite widespread, despite the fact that many advocates of gamification have
tried to counteract it – e.g. Werbach's last rule of gamification “don't forget the fun” (Werbach and
Hunter, 2012) which urges gamificators to remember that they are not simply designing rule-systems.
A reaction to the more rule-oriented applications of gamification has also been the introduction of the
competitor term “playification”, which originated from researches on “meaningful gamification” (such
as Nicholson 2012 and 2013) – which focused more on experiences than on scores – and on
“meaningful play” (Scott 2012) – play activities designed to have specific educational objectives.
Playification is still a rather blurred and unknown concept, broadly suggesting that play can be
exploited for promoting social change, and stressing the importance of fun, freedom and sociality. Due
to the difficulty in describing what is, or not, playful, however, many playified systems end up
encompassing areas that are only tangentially playful – if playful at all – such as “sexual arousing”,
“sharing emotional feelings” or “being part of a larger structure”
Despite the fact that gamification does not automatically involve playification (Mosca 2012), the latter seems to rely heavily on its assumptions. Apart from the stress on the “emotional” nature of games, its theorists still connote play as something inherently meaningless, that should be harnessed and transformed in “meaningful play” by designers in order to “trick” the end users and make them do things that they normally wouldn't. In order to distinguish themselves from the most playful forms of gamification, then, the proponents of the term “playification” use play as a universal metaphor, in virtue of its prestige, while applying several design strategies that not always involve play.
For now, semiotics has dealt only marginally with gamification: the works on the subject are rather
few, often hesitant and still in a development phase
The definition of the term “gamification” by
The rhetoric of playification, therefore, has indeed more potential, as it recognises that the compelling and immersive nature of games is not determined by the numeric value of a score – or by the difficulty to obtain it – but by the challenge originated by the resemantisation and refunctionalisation of reality proposed by play. Nevertheless, the lack of a solid definition of play weakens greatly this approach, that oscillates between being an inflated version of gamification and indicating a very vague set of experiences and activities. This reveals the reactionary nature of this rhetoric, but it does not erase the importance of its main assumption: that playfulness can indeed be used to act on every-day life and change it.
The idea of a “playful gamification” proposed by Fuchs, is in between the two previous approaches.
Despite the fact that it does not clearly separate the two processes – creating a system of rules and
encouraging a playful behaviour
Last but not least, the broader rhetoric of gamification – which considers any interactive form of
measurement and tracking as being “gameful” – ceases to be prescriptive and becomes merely
descriptive. In other words, it is not any more an attempt to design activities that contain game
elements or involve a playful behaviour, but it is the tendency to see game elements in measurement
devices and systems of tracking with good graphics that have, in fact, nothing to do with games or play.
This endeavour, however, is particularly revealing of the hight modelling ability that games has
reached, as it is symptomatic of a will to label as games also things that are not – a dynamic that
Lotman describes in depth in his theory of the semiosphere
After this brief analysis, we can, therefore, propose our own definition of these different terms. As the different terminologies have often been used aiming at the promotion of design methodologies or activities, we should try to reframe them starting, not from the words, but from the things that they describe. We can distinguish, then, between three activities: -The use of game-like systems of rules in order to add value and engagement to a non-playful activity. We shall call this activity “gamification” and it reflects the modelling ability of games, which overshadows that of play. -A resemantisation of ordinary life activities or objects disconnected from any use-value, in ordinary life contexts. We will name this activity “playification” and, in its pure form, it encompasses phenomena like parkour (which resemantise the urban space in an obstacle course, but still with the objective of crossing the city see Thibault 2016) or trolling (which resemantise serious online conversations in pranks). -The use of play and/or games as a metaphor capable of describing several aspects of human life and society that are not, in principle, playful. This is using play as a metalanguage, and is based on the replicating feature of its modelling ability. In other words, their efficaciousness as a tool for describing the world is perceived so strongly that there are attempts to transform it in a universal metaphor, capable of describing every aspect of existence. Many of the projects and activities generically labelled as “gamification” are, in fact, a mixture of these three actions aiming at guiding the users through constraints, motivate them with resemantisation, and using the contemporary prestige of games as an added value for their efficacy.
Our redefinition of the terms has, first of all a descriptive goal. We have tried to make some clarity on a still confused area and to differentiate the metaphorical use of the term (due to a ludicisation of culture that makes it particularly effective) and the different operations that can be deployed in order to increase the seductive power of an activity: the use of game-like systems of rules (gamification) and the exploitation of the vertigo of play (playfication). Such clarity, we believe, can be helpful both for the study of these phenomena and for the creation of gamified or playified activities. Nicholson, S. (2012). Strategies for meaningful gamification: Concepts behind transformative play and participatory museums. Presented at Meaningful Play2012. Lansing, Michigan. [Online] Available at: http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/meaningfulstrategies.pdf Last accessed 09/12/2016 Salen, K. (2007). The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. MIT press. Scott, A. (2012). Meaningful play, How play is changing the future of our health. IDSA education symposium Boston.
Thibault, M. (ed.) (2016a). Gamification Urbana: Letture e Riscritture ludiche degli spazi cittadini. Aracne.
Thibault, M, (2016b). Lotman and play: For a theory of playfulness based on semiotics of culture. Sign Systems Studies 44(3), 295-325.
Viola, F. (2011). Gamification. I videogiochi nella vita quotidiana. Arduino Viola editore. Werbach K. & D. Hunter (2012). For the win, How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press.