There is something so, so huge in this, the idea of layering game-related achievements onto real life. Just the other day I was talking to Cory about WoW and its skinner-box-ness: the most amazing thing about WoW, above all other things, is how it has made the Chore something you want to Get Done. Grinding pelts? You want to level up Skinning, even though it's boring.
So what if there were such a game, layered over real life, that made RL chores or things something you really wanted to get done? There's Chore Wars, and Nike +, and now Four Square - and I'm sure, many many more to come.
Each of these so far is niched, as in, applied to a certain part of your life (household chores, fitness, going out). Generic .. life .. overlay games (GLOGs!?! oh stoppit) I haven't seen yet - anyone seen anything noodling this idea?
Imagine if wow-levelling were applied to GCSEs. Do you think it would make a difference in learning? I do. What an exercise in fun that would be, to take a subject matter - say, Biology - and turn the entire thing into Quests and Achievements, with bosses and epic rewards...
Jane McGonigal talked about this a lot last year at GDC in her "games as happiness engines" talk.
Posted by: Liz Lawley | March 14, 2009 at 17:16
Have you seen this example of a professor who designed an online course using the RPG model?
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3490/professor-turns-his-online-course-into-a-role-playing-game
Posted by: Jason Puckett | March 14, 2009 at 18:18
Here's a link to her post and slides of her presentation - http://blog.avantgame.com/2008/02/is-broken-my-gdc-rant.html
Posted by: Sean Ness | March 15, 2009 at 00:10
The Scouts and Girl Guides do it offline, with their badges and the like, but it would be great to see the same approach in more formal learning contexts.
Posted by: Foe | March 15, 2009 at 13:09
Hmn. I am... wary of this thought. I think you're suggesting grafting a game mechanic based on reward over real life, in order to motivate people to do things they would otherwise not be motivated to do.
Suppose this system works, and we have a large subset of people motivated to engage with 'boring things' / chores / biology gcse only through the medium of a game overlay. This reward structure de facto encourages engagement only to the level necessary to gain the achievement. Does providing an external motivation structure (which is necessarily impermanent) put them at a disadvantage compared to their conventionally motivated peers, who will be better able to operate in the absence of this game-framework?
Would tend to stop people learning to self-motivate, and take responsibility for setting their own goals?
How valuable a life-skill is this? Is it worth de-emphasising the learning of self-determination and drive in order to get people engaging with topics with the game overlay?
To what extend does conventional schooling already set an achievement framework around skill aquisition?
Also... broadening this out: could conventional religion be considered an attempt to put a framework of reward for appropriate behaviour around everyday life?
Posted by: k | March 15, 2009 at 18:50
As a person who both loves the achievement rush and has a zillion chores and errands to get done, I think about this *a lot*, and posted a ramble about it a little while ago.
I'd like a game that involves engaging with whatever the task is and optimizing my proficiency -- finding out what doesn't work, getting tips from others, learning to integrate it better into my routine. It'd be great if the really dreadful chores could be made more exciting than they are, through storytelling, props, some kind of multi-player...?
Assuming that tasks can include all sorts of missions and experiences (not just the boring ones), I think the levelling and achievements potential could be really cool.
Posted by: Jen | March 16, 2009 at 17:26
Kim raises an excellent point about whether self-motivation could wither and die. What a thought.
Posted by: Alice | March 17, 2009 at 12:20