What We Can Learn from Gamification in Asia
A Discussion with Students at Leiden University
Last week, I had the pleasure of joining a conference at Lund University that focused on Digital Asia. Among the many excellent conference contribution, one in particular made me think of a course I am currently concluding in Leiden. Ayaka Löschke discussed a case from Japan in which activists had ‘gamified’ their efforts to counter Japan’s far-right. Calling out a ‘ban festival’, Japanese internet users took to YouTube to systematically make use of the site’s terms and conditions, reporting right-wing content so it would be taken down (English news coverage is sparse, but this thread on reddit discusses the activities). According to Löschke, the activists enhanced their efforts through gamification: by awarding each other points and ‘levelling up’, they motivated supporters to join.
The activism seems to have been effective at removing a large amount of hate speech content from YouTube, though Löschke also pointed out that many right-wing content producers felt vindicated by this ‘ban festival’ in their sense of persecution. Whether such activities should be considered successful remains an open question. But for Löschke, the issue raises another important question, and it is the question that also runs through the our grad course on ‘Digital East Asia’ at Leiden University: is gamification a good way to motivate someone? Points, levels, and badges can get people engaged in an activity, but are these motivations then not grounded in external incentives that do not actually generate intrinsic interest in the larger project? Does the ‘fun’ that gamification creates ultimately crowd out the seriousness of the issue, in this case of far-right hate speech on YouTube?
As we conclude our graduate seminar on digital technology and politics in East Asia, I’ve asked our participants to debate the merits and downsides of gamification online. The course itself was gamified, so participants gained ‘XP’ (experience points) to ‘level up’ their grades as they embarked on ‘quests’ and prepared for the ‘final boss fight’ (their research paper). What is it like, going through such a gamified experience? Is the terminology of ‘XP’ and ‘quests’ just window dressing, or does it have an impact on motivation? What, if anything, can this experience in the gamified classroom tell us about gamification elsewhere, for instance in East Asia, where companies, governments, and activists are increasingly trying to leverage the power of game mechanisms in contexts that are not themselves games? And maybe most importantly: if games are complex systems with rules that have to be understood and mastered, can the experience of mastering a gamified system teach us about other complex, rule-bases systems like the information society or digital capitalism?
These are some of the issues we’ll be debating below, in the comment section. Join us to share your thoughts and experiences with gamification.
Share This Post, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Florian Schneider
52 Comments
Comments are closed.
Udjaja, Yogi. “Gamification Assisted Language Learning for Japanese Language Using Expert Point Cloud Recognizer.’’ International Journal of Computer Games Technology (2018): 1-12. http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijcgt/2018/9085179.pdf
Check out this article of Yogi Udjaja (2018). The article discusses results of applying gamification methods to language learning (Japanese). This gamification method seems to significantly improve students’ results. This is very much related to our course and shows that gamification in education might be a useful tool to increase students’ performance.
That’s a really interesting article! Especially since the author reports an increase of language ability from 20% to 100% in just one week. I wonder if that also works with other languages, e.g. Chinese. It would probably need some modification but I’m sure that gamification would help students study, at least vocabulary. Maybe in high school one could consider implementing gamification…What do you think?
Lowe, Karintha. “Candy Crush Chinese: the Gamification of Language Learning.’’ The World of Chinese, March 2, 2015. Accessed on December 5, 2019. https://www.theworldofchinese.com/2015/02/candy-crush-chinese-the-gamification-of-language-learning/
To continue the discussion of gamification in language learning, I think it is interesting that in recent years numerous new language learning apps have been developed. However, question is whether these apps are really contributing to one’s understanding of a certain language. In the article below, Dr. Peter Crosthwaite of the University of Hong Kong states that there are very few examples of somebody reaching an advanced level through the use of only an app.
These apps use very similar gamification methods as our course, Duolingo for example works with XP, levels, streaks etc. Personally, I think this is a good way to motivate users/students to keep on playing and learning. However, in the case of language learning, I think it would be best to use the app in combination with a real language course (with a real teacher) instead of relying on the app only.
I agree with your observation (and that of the article you refer to) that gamification in language education has its limitations. Especially apps are focused on beginners and do no address more difficult parts of language learning, such as the specific workings of grammar. As these apps are so easily accesible (and also deletable) there is little long-term commitment required and users can easily quit. Unless one has amazing self-discipline, I think this kind of gamification through such apps only have short term benefits for language learners.
Don’t forget about its pay-to-win features. Most language learning apps do offer interesting courses, however, they often work with features that you can only unlock by paying for (segments of) the course. While there is nothing wrong with paying for education, I do believe that this market is over-saturated. How can the consumer pick the best app for learning language? I personally feel like Duolingo isn’t a great app, since it focuses on bullshit sentences and enforces a way of teaching grammar that doesn’t work for anyone. However, it is highly addictive to play. In the end, you’ll know how to say “I am an apple” in Spanish, but is it really beneficial?
I agree with both of your arguments, Emma. However, I wonder how they relate to each other (or maybe I just don’t get it). I believe it’s fair to charge for more advanced/effective exercises since the developers also need to make a living out of their apps. Also, users benefit from those extra features. The fact that the market is over saturated is something quite different in my opinion. Yes, there are many other language apps as well, but I don’t see what it has to do with charging features. Also, the greater competition might force app developers to further improve their products which in the end will benefit users.
The importance of intrinsic motivation in gamified learning is also pointed out in this article:
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162-1175. https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
I have a similar article here: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1222424/file.pdf
that discusses how gamifying certain features of non-game contexts actually motivates individuals towards certain tasks that taps into ideas of ’emotions’.
Like Jelena, I agree that the value of gamification elements in language learning is limited. In fact, I think gamification makes little to no difference if the learner is not intrinsically motivated to master a language. I feel it is somewhat like “window dressing” as professor Schneider puts it, because gamification ultimately cannot change the fact that learning a language means hard work and effort and shouldn’t necessarily be “fun”. If a learner is introduced to a language through a fun app, they might be deterred from learning beyond what the app offers, because they will then be confronted with the reality of the (not always so fun) language learning process.
Aside from education, gamification is also applied to health care insurance. Recently, A.S.R. released Vitality: customers who download the app and reach their exercise/health goals receive rewards such as discount on their insurance. I wonder to what extent such programs actually contribute to improve one’s health. I’ve seen similar apps in South Korea, but there seems to be little academic research (as far as I can find) (Dutch article about the program: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/159428/verzekeraar-a-punt-sr-biedt-korting-en-cadeaubonnen-aan-klanten-die-wearable-dragen.html ) As the program requires the user to wear a smartwatch (or other wearable) it also raises some questions about privacy.
A similar system, though less technologically advanced, is in use by many German health insurances already. Customers are encouraged to take part in preventive health courses such as Yoga and can receive an 80% reimbursement from their insurance, so in the end, they barely pay anything. Or they can collect “points” when conducting preventive measures (such as seeing the dentist twice a year) and when they collected a certain amount, they can receive 100€ . I personally believe it’s fair to “nudge” people to engage in a more healthy lifestyle since the monetary incentive is not too big that people might use it to make money. On the contrary, I believe it helps those people who want to take care of their health but face financial limitations.
Using games as an incentive should never be limited to technology. I believe that this strategy could be implemented everywhere, as long as the rules are clear and it is accessible to everyone. Playing games should be for everyone, motivating everyone.
Florian Schneider’s point about gamification in activism is very intriguing, and that is why I’ve found this article about gamification in climate change activism –> https://bit.ly/2YwvcL3
The author argues that although these strategies can be beneficial, the concept of gamification is also deeply rooted in technology and therefore not accessible to everyone.
In my own experience, I’ve found this in the app ‘forest’, a study timer where you can collect coins – the app will let you plant actual trees with said collected coins, and therefore fighting deforestation.
Coming back to my initial argument about gamification in the offline world, there is another example. I visited a festival a couple of years back where you were encouraged to collect thrash. With every bag you’d get a stamp, and those stamps were later traded for real life prizes. Some beaches do this as well, at Scheveningen you can collect thrash and make art –> https://bit.ly/2P6cXt4 However, I understand that art is not an incentive to everyone.
Gamification, online and especially offline, could make the world a cleaner (and better) place. But in order for this to happen, issues relating to the environment should be on everyone’s agenda, and we’re not there yet.
I keep seeing advertisements of the app ‘headspace’, which is designed to help people meditate and put their minds at ease. While I can see the value of these apps, and have tried ‘Forest’, I feel as if gamification in these apps is not enough to actually get me to study or meditate. It feels fun to plant trees while you are learning, and it is nice to have an overview of the amount of hours you study per day or week. But overall it is rarely what motivates me to start studying, rather the forest app is something I would turn on and than put away if I happen to think of it when I pick up a book or open my laptop. All in all it does not feel nearly as valuable as intrinsic motivation.
On the other hand, I think that in your example of cleaning up the beach, where more human feedback would likely be involved, people would be more easily motivated to join in collecting garbage. As such, while it would still be mostly external motivation, the human factor might make it more effective. In such instances it does indeed seem that gamification could make the world a better place. However I wonder if increased motivation through gamification, and as a result an expectation to be rewarded, could hamper our ability to be intrinsically motivated.
I agree with Emma, gamification is not simply limited to technology, this article: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janaki_Kumar2/publication/262312974_Gamification_at_Work_Designing_Engaging_Business_Software/links/587e4adb08aed3826af45cac/Gamification-at-Work-Designing-Engaging-Business-Software.pdf
discusses the idea of a person-centered design for gamification in everyday business. Words like “clear mission” and “player” are interchangeably used in enterprise settings for the purpose of improving business performance.
Additionally, in the field of sports, they’ve also started implementing ideas of gamification into high-stress professional sports as a way to boost employee motivation (the athletes). This in itself is quite intriguing because in its own right, sports possess features of ‘games’. In this light, are we all just programmed to only progress if things are made into a game? Is this associated with decreasing high-pressure situations that accumulate in stressful environments?
Article:
https://www.tenfold.com/gamification/gamification-sports-nike-baseball
Wang, Fan, Yanli Wang, Xia Hu. ‘‘Gamification Teaching Reform for Higher Vocational Education in China: A case study on Layout and Management of Distribution Center.’’ International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 12, No. 9 (2017): 130-144. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/7493
This articles discusses gamification for higher vocational education in China. The study shows that by including game elements in the curriculum, students achieve ‘outstanding’ results. The authors look into gamification elements in the course Layout and Management of Distribution Center. The curriculum made use of 5 different games which were created to stimulate enthusiasm among the students. Not only did the results of the students increase, the students themselves also experienced the course as more positive than before.
A critiqued downside of gamification might be the element of competition that adheres to games. Even tough the element of competition may be a personal choice of the creator and is therefore not always included, when it is included, this may have a psychological effect on students. Therefore, we must not automatically assume that gamification within the classroom with apps such as Kahoot are without disadvantages.
I definitely agree with you on this point. Including rankings etc. in a certain course can discourage students when they are not high on the ranking but still put in lots of effort. However, on the other hand, it can also stimulate students to put in more effort in order to avoid finishing last.
I think it depends in which context gamification is applied to. Among friends (on for example language learning sites/apps), competition might be fun. However, would this be included in our course, I would personally feel uncomfortable with that.
Very fair critique. I also believe that gamification in selected circumstances can be helpful as long as it stays playful. But if it was implemented in the entire school system, I think it would put too much pressure on the students to reach a certain goal instead of enjoying studying itself.
This would indeed be highly contrasting with the philosophy of Montessori teaching which I personally find highly relevant. According to this philosophy, each child has an inherent motivation to learn. School should encourage and support the child to learn in its own way and pace, giving it enough personal space to develop freely (for more, see http://www.montessori-institut.si/wenPedBasic.php).
However, if we’d implement gaming mechanics in many school features, children’s intrinsic motivation to learn could be dampened.
From my own experience in the case of learning languages, I would say gamification is quite a useful tool both for users learning their target language but also for marketers who are trying to make their language learning apps more attractive and immersive for their users.
Sites such as Japanese Level Up (https://japaneselevelup.com/) have used the idea of gamification to set themselves apart from traditional language learning methods such as studying by textbooks. They have successfully created a ‘new’ way of learning that targets learners who want to study based on their interests (such as anime, manga, music) instead of going through textbooks full of, to them, unrelated knowledge and vocabulary. I think there is much to say for gamification, there’s no denying that for many the idea of making language learning a game helps them stay interested and engaged in that particular language. However I would also add that I do not think this method of studying is the most effective. What most of these gamification apps seem to focus on is making sure the app is addictive, has bright colors and a fun interface to make users stick around but this does lower the quality of their learning content. As Emma has stated in this comment section as well, apps like Duolingo teach you only small and simple sentences all the while ignoring the groundwork of a language, namely grammar. We have to, therefore, ask ourselves if gamification really is worth pursuing in language learning.
https://www.abacusnews.com/tech/china-using-social-credit-apps-gamify-government/article/3033202
This article discusses the social credit system apps and how they ‘gamify’ government in China. For example, the “Chengxin Chunyun” app released in 2017 by local government agencies allowed users to upload the photos of a ‘bad behaved’ train/plain passengers along with the description of the offence so that the disciplinary measures can be taken. This app is an example of China’s effort to expand the social credit system by turning the process into a game.
Surveillance was never this fun! This was an interesting read, especially since Western bias about this topic is often very negative. I’ve found that this article –> https://bit.ly/347BYbk goes over the topic in roughly the same fashion, if you’re interested you’ll probably enjoy this read.
Coming back to your article, the thing that stood out to me was the incentive for snitching. While the credit system may in fact not be that different from credit scores in the western world, this is creepy. Unfortunately, the link offered by the article did not work and Googling didn’t do a lot for me either. If someone can back this claim up, this would be much appreciated!
Wow, that is incredible! Even though the article says the app is not online anymore at the time of writing, just the thought of encouraging people to report other people’s bad behaviour reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems like the German Democratic Republic where even family members spied on each other, destroying any interpersonal trust.
Also, just taking a picture is not necessarily a real proof since you can’t always capture the wrongdoing in a single foto (though I’m not saying that I’d prefer taking videos in terms of privacy concerns, but it would help identify true from wrong accusations).
I believe that gamification makes tasks more fun and challenging and with that it motivates people to perform them. Mundane activities become quests and one will be aiming to level up. However, more increasingly gamification is utilized as a business tool and caters to attracting customers.
The Thai company PlayBasis offers “gamification as a service”. They state that “Playbasis aims to make it easy for businesses to implement game-like services onto their customer-facing or back-end web platforms to incentivize workers and customers”. https://www.techinasia.com/playbasis-thailand
I find this very interesting as games are slowly becoming widely represented throughout society and are thus present in everyday life on a daily basis. This would imply that more increasingly mundane challenges become gamified and so games would become part of the new mundane life. Would there still be any merit in gamification when game concepts are everywhere or would leveling up lose its meaning?
I think you are right, the gamification of the day-to-day activities makes it more fun. It is very interesting how this concept is used in the business world, as a tool to generate more profit. I think it has to do with the growing entertainment industry. Nowadays, people are expecting to be constantly entertained and this expectation is being transformed into these day-to-day activities. Otherwise, they lose interest and motivation. Therefore, businesses seek to adapt and implement various game components to their business model.
“Why gamification is serious business”
Another very informative article on the various aspects of the gamification business. When discussing gamification in south east-Asia the author states:
“When Citibank launched a credit card aimed at 21-to-35-year-old Singaporeans, for example, it incorporated social media features designed to let them personalize their experiences. Users could gain points by checking in at specific locations, such as restaurants or stores, and “sharing” or “liking” deals on Facebook. They could also vote for a particular experience or location and win a special Deal of the Month from winning establishments”.
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-outlook-why-gamification-is-serious-business
Interesting article! From reading this I do wonder, if it is becoming more and more popular for all sorts of businesses to incorporate gamification tactics into their marketing strategies and products, how long it will take before governments themselves will participate? Or have they already done so? I also wonder if this is a development that is to be welcomed or not.
https://govinsider.asia/security/four-ways-governments-are-using-gamification/
Check out this article! Governments are indeed already participating in incorporating gamification methods in their policies. This article includes an example of the Taiwanese government that already used gamification methods way before the introduction of the internet. The government used receipts as a lottery number, preventing shops to evade taxes. A receipt will force businesses to keep transactions on the book.
From my experience it is fun to join, also because it is open to everyone (also toursits, foreign students etc.).
Keane, M., & Su, G. (2019). When push comes to nudge: A Chinese digital civilisation in-the-making. Media International Australia, 173(1), 3-16. https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/doi/pdf/10.1177/1329878X19876362 .
In this article, Keane and Su describe the creation of a digital civilisation in China. Through digital nudges (such as push notifications or gamification), “people are steered to make choices”. The Chinese government has developed a plan to create a harmonious society, where gamification plays a role in the making of it. To take one example of gamification you can take a look at the (coincidentally also mentioned in the article) ‘Xuexi Qiangguo’ app. This app is made to learn Chinese norms and values through examples of Xi Jinping thought and Chinese culture. The gamification element comes with a scoring system that gives you points when spending time in the app and completing tests. Participants (currently almost only party members) can track their own and their co-workers scores in leaderboards and get rewards according to their status.
This example shows how the CCP goal of creating a harmonious society uses fun and/or competitive gamification elements to make people read and watch things that actually have a serious meaning behind it. I think this kind of strategy is purely based on the psychological behaviour of human nature, where competition and retention (rewards, goals, status and feedback) are deeply embedded in. To me, it is quite scary to realize how a government is able to use gamification to make people do something in a way that they are not (fully) aware of, but are vulnerable to. Sadly, I know this does not limit to China or even Asia, but to the world we know now.
In addition I would point to this article which supports the idea of Gamification being a great asset for companies trying to tie consumers to them by creating immersive gamification environments, thereby also raising their brand awareness. http://www.incentivemag.com/Strategy/Consumer/How-Gamification-Is-Engaging-Consumers-and-Developing-Brand-Awareness/?p=4
As the article describes, Gamification has the function of helping to create band ambassadors from a company’s online community, it reinforces brand identity through live engagement and creates brand advocates and lastly using aspects of gamification helps to keep products top of mind with consumers. The article for example points to the case of Nissan’s promotion of the new NC2020 car and how they teamed up with Gran Turismo and Playstation to incorporate their car into the video game. This not only helped create brand awareness, but creates more potential buyers as Jerry Deneey explains “Today’s future car buyers are being inspired by video games.”
While this is an example that is quite obvious gamification, you can also look to businesses like supermarkets and coffee shops who use stamp cards in exchange for a discount or free drink thereby using an aspect of gamification in order to tie customers to themselves. More specifically we can look towards how Starbucks in the US quite literally uses gamification for users to win prizes and discounts on their orders by playing several games and collecting points on the Starbucks app.
I think this is a great example of how businesses can also use gamification to their advantage in all sorts of different ways.
Following up on the gamification of social credit in China, it is important to mention the Sesame Credit (reference to the legend of Ali Baba, Open Sesame!). Sesame Credit has access to the users’ financial history, ethics and duties, and online activities, which can lead to either ‘rewards’ (certain public services, access to get loans, etc) or ‘punishments’ (ban from purchasing a train/plane ticket, etc). Sesame Credit uses various game techniques, which makes it exciting for users, such as ranking and competition. This system was also called the third wave of surveillance gamification, that is also the most powerful one since the users get material rewards enabled by the government and corporations.
http://www.sbgames.org/sbgames2019/files/papers/ArtesDesignFull/196937.pdf
You are right that the game techniques make it exciting for users, but what do you think are the negative sides of rankings and competition in a society? In video games, performing badly always leaves you with the option to opt-out of the game and do something else, but the systems like sesame credit (or even the different government systems) do not seem have that option. I fear that there might be people who will be ‘trapped’ in the bottom rankings and feel bad about it. I believe the pressure of a social ranking system might make people do bad things if they are not performing well.
Yes, this kind of social ranking practice definitely has a negative side. Just as you mentioned, being ‘trapped’ in the bottom is one of them. On the one hand, it is argued (mainly by the Chinese government) that the social credit system will help to create more transparency about businesses and individuals that are breaking the law. On the other hand, it is indeed a major privacy issue. Basically, a citizen is left with no other choice but to comply with the system’s rules.
I wonder how many people are actually encouraged to “behave better” in life through these kind of practices. I imagine that people with certain privileges will actually try to get perfect scores, but say that you come from a bad neighborhood, you’d never had a chance to begin with. Will it help pull people out of the gutter or will it push people further into it? Will programs like these actually help you to level up?
https://www.businessinsider.nl/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4/?international=true&r=US
In some instances the downsides of a low score included restricted or no access to high quality schools for one’s children. In this manner credit programs may instead of helping up all of society, merely benefit those that are already ‘good citizens’, while further pushing down those with a bad score and their friends and kin.
The lack of an option to opt-out is indeed worrisome. Even if there were such an option (at least as of now most credit systems are not mandatory yet), not displaying one’s score may gradually become the equivalent of admitting that your credit score is rather low, there are increasingly many advantages to be obtained through a high score. E.g. not only can a higher score net you a priority status on Baihe (one of the main Chinese dating platforms), many people also flaunt with their high scores. Consequently I can imagine that if this becomes customary, not showing your credit score would come to imply that you have something to hide.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186
I think this is quite a scary development. I think we have to ask ourselves if we really want to be subjected to gamification strategies and projects from our own governments. Especially in the case of China, I think use of gamification by the government either directly or indirectly creates a dangerous situation of which most users of such practices might not even be aware of. As the article states, Sesame Credit has found the perfect mixture of people due to Chinese people and their attitudes towards compliance with authorities, China’s technological settings which allow population monitoring, and the promise of social mobility through using Sesame Credit. I think this is an excellent example of the dangerous side of gamification. Gamification is a great tool for businesses and for individuals but when such practices are enacted by governments, gamification also becomes something that can be used to create unwanted situations. Especially since gamification tactics and its effects on our behavior might not always be so easy to be noticed and deconstructed by individual users with no prior knowledge.
I completely agree with your point! The Sesame Credit system makes every personal experience in an interaction and I believe this is dangerous as it causes distrust among citizens. It might be an extreme comparison but in some ways it makes me think of the state security service in East Germany (Stasi)
If you look at the websites on marketing in China, you will definitely find some information on gamification and its applicability to your business. For example, this article provides a short overview, instructions, tips, and mistakes to avoid to increase your audience engagement through WeChat gamification. The existence of this type of material online demonstrates that gamification is already a widely accepted business practice that ‘you’ need to implement to keep up.
https://www.marketingtochina.com/increasing-your-audience-engagement-through-wechat-gamification/
On the topic of companies in East Asia trying to utilize gamification in services or contexts that are not games, this article claims that Kakao Games, in South Korea, is planning to launch a subsidiary entirely dedicated to developing and implementing gamification elements in various aspects of real life: Korea Times, ‘Kakao Games to Launch “gamification” Service’, 8 March 2019, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2019/12/134_265043.html.
The company claims the gamification service they are working on will allow users to “maximize the excitement of outdoor activities” and will “make people compete with each other while doing outdoor activities such as walking or riding a bicycle”.
It is unclear whether this kind of endeavour would be succesful or even desirable for the general Korean public, but this does show that gamification is recognized by companies as being potentially very profitable and a promising investment.
It’s nice to see some push back to Japan’s far-right. However, we should not forget that the online realm is where the Japanese far-right is at its strongest. As Tsunehira (2016) (https://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00208/) has detailed in his contribution. In this sense, Japan’s ‘Internet Far-Right’ draws its strength from the features of the internet, like anonymity, and targets disenfranchised individuals. Mostly in a playful manner. Much like the western Alt-Right, you could say there’s a reciprocal inspiration.
That they are reporting (traditional) far-rightists on YouTube is all within their right and YouTube is quite progressive as it comes to banning hateful content. Hall (2018) (https://www.academia.edu/37383917/Japans_Right-wing_YouTubers_Finding_a_Niche_in_an_Environment_of_Increased_Censorship) found that certain Japan-based YouTubers that are on the fringe of being too extreme, are also ‘playing by the rules’, while still producing content that one may find objectionable or divisive.
This playful manner to ban far-rightists has its downsides. One of the bigger complaints of (far-right) extremists is that they perceive themselves as outcasts. Literally casting them out only fuels their argument, and strengthens their resistance. One of their universal believes I have found is absolute freedom of speech. Everyone who does not support that is either a ‘Neo-Marxist’ or an ‘NPC’ (a gamic term: non-player character). To see examples of what they might argue, can be seen on an interesting website that outlines debates in a gamic manner is Kialo (https://www.kialo.com/should-hate-speech-be-legally-protected-10134).
This NPC characterization is one of many gamic terms alt-right/internet far-rightists use to demonize everyone they oppose. Once one begins to think like them they unsurprisingly become ‘red-pilled’, a reference to the Matrix movies, in which the protagonist gets to choose a pill to either stay in simulation (blue pill) or see the reality beyond the simulation (red pill). I think this is best explained by ‘themselves’. One of the ‘fringe’ YouTubers Hall (2018) studied was Black Pigeon Speaks (also referred to as ‘BPS’). He makes video essays that are at the very least sympathetic to the more core Alt-Right (or ‘alt-light’) thought.
On Japanese, Chinese and ‘Far-Eastern’ culture (video series):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlxzTYKtDmmR1_Yb_uHx0H_UERSkCahqh
Also search for “NPC”, “Red-Pill” or “Marxism” to see many videos on those topics on his channel.
Just notice how this is not banned, which is mainly due to the fact that he still plays by the rules. Hall (2018) raised the question of whether YouTube still could ban content like this, but then it remains the question if they should. The (Japanese) Alt-Right rhetoric is drenched in gamic terms, and we should wonder whether playing this game they play is just simplifying reality as well. Maybe we should think outside of the box where it comes to these groups, think for ourselves; not conform to the NPC cliché.
So far, a lot of the discussion regarding this topic has been on the benefits of gamification. But what about the downsides? I don’t think that just because something is gamified, it will be succesful. Many people use gamified apps not to level up their life, but just to be on top and hold a #1 position on the leaderboard. Gamification has transformed largely into a marketing strategy, companies think that they’ll have to deliver gamified content in order to stay relevant. And let’s not forget the most important thing: a game needs good mechanics in order to make it work. A game needs a certain aesthetic. There are rules and these rules need to motivate a player. A game needs to be challenging, it needs to be fun. Just gaining XP and leveling up is often not enough, a game needs to be engaging.
What are your thoughts about the downsides of gamification?
I agree with you, a more balanced discussion around the ideas of gamification are necessary, but similarly, I also believe many of those involved in those discussions do have a sensible idea of certain downsides associated with gamification. At the end of the day though, we buy into this hype and label new exciting terms as promising. What constitutes a game, however, is quite dynamic and I would argue changes frequently, it probably is not the same as it was let’s say 20 years ago. So long as it possesses this ‘fun’ factor, its a game, and for me, if I gain XP and level up, it’s normal in comparison to other people – bringing in the fun through competition.
I think that gamification can have the downside of making things addictive, furthering the modern trend of continuously receiving impulses, and always being busy. As a result it could become even more difficult to find a time and place for being free from distractions, and open for basic yet important matters such as self-reflection.
As for your point about a game having to be more than just gaining XP and levelling up, I could not agree more. I have often tried and quickly quit games because they felt like they were just that, offering challenge nor relief.
Good point! I think there’s also the aspect of competitiveness that we probably should evaluate further. Do we really want to live in a society where gamification and the competition that goes along with this, is rampant?
Arguably there are many parts of our lives in which we do not desire gamification. I therefore wonder what kind of negative effects gamification can also have on mental health and general mental clarity. It is hard to maintain peace of mind when you feel that in every aspect of your life, you’re always competing.
Exactly my thoughts Esther. While I enjoyed the gamified course, a constant competition in life would be tiresome. Games are fun, but should not envelope a persons life, where’s the fun in that?! Just like I would discourage studying in bed, because that is where people sleep, I would discourage constant competition. In my opinion, a clear separation between work and games is the best situation for a person’s mental clarity.
An interesting early example of gamification is Japan’s ‘sugoroku’, which are themed illustrated board games aimed at children. Japan’s government used these games in the 1930s and 1940s to convey political views and concepts (such as justifying expansionism and imperialism) and to validate and naturalize war to its target audience. For example, some sugoroku simulated imperialist seizure of foreign territory in a playful way. More can be found in Sabine Frühstück’s book: Playing War, chapter 11.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=l6swDwAAQBAJ&hl=nl&source=gbs_ViewAPI&redir_esc=y
Are games or gamified systems that different from systems in the actual world? Many elements of a game (e.g. rewards, bonus points and level-ups) are parallel to elements in the ‘actual’ world, for example companies that reward their employees with bonuses or promotion.