Raw response to (and applications for): "Theory of Fun" podcast: http://tinyurl.com/ywpx8t
[PREFACE: After 2007 SXSW keynote by Will Wright, 2008 SXSW keynote by Jane McGonigal, and listening to the above podcast from 2007 Etech by Raph Koster, I'm thinking there is some real meat to explore here. All of the following thoughts don't even touch on the idea of Games that Matter that involve Sustainability as an overt goal. But interestingly, game design theory is all about sustainability... I'd like feedback, if you have any to offer, on which of these sub-topics you'd like to see me develop].
Make process design that is micro-rewarding and feeback rich.
Entreprenurial game that rewards teamwork and competition at different levels to foster collaboration and differentiation.
Ways to form guilds easily (and allow solos so that individuals can showcase and hone their talents). Everyone should have an opportunity to be the alpha warrior in their own specialized domain, so my guilds best map-maker goes against yours. The rest of the guild can support their warrior, and coach them afterwards on what could have gone better.
Concern: Raph's talk focused on Amazon vs. Ebay, and I can see evil folks trying to figure out just how to milk us of dollars. Not really a concern though, if we figure out how to "game" that and go one better. The audience, if knowledgeable about the larger structure, becomes the game designer through interaction.
Social network stuff for most people is either an initial turn-off (too hard a ramp to even start - unclear objectives or feedback), or an initial novelty that soon wears off (like a one-trick toy, mall copters)
Make magazine does a good job of getting people to a high-level of functionality on cool stuff by giving detailed instructions. Need to provide a path into understanding the micro-detail so that I can dig into changing the interaction without it just failing. They don't have to do this, but just encourage their audience to do it and let it go.
Transform the landscape of game-play such that experienced players fair better by meaningfully tutoring, or at least meaningfully redirecting, noobs rather than mocking them and trying to keep the space noob-free. This has to do with macr0-structure of self-perpetuating awesomeness (which the SXSW talk was not a self-referential example of).
Public Radio as a game for folks to delve into their passions, mine value, and crossmarket their exploits, including fund-raising and audience skill-building.
Have a team of consultants who really digs into this, understands Raph's work, Jane McGonigal (SXSW) talk, and WIll Wright's game structure (SXSW2007 keynote). Then offer a $50,000 workshop to a company. They have to at least seriously try your game design, and if they don't like it, they get their money back. In fact, have guilds of trainers who do this better or worse, and have an obvious feedback system.
Make it easier for people to invent self-expression filled roles.
Thought: trying to transform college/university to teach with game design in mind is probably a waste of time, just need to provide a compelling alternative that works on it's own, and either makes some/all aspects of higher ed obsolete, or makes them want to emulate.
Comments