GAMES FOR HEALTH JOURNAL: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications Volume 1, Number 4, 2012 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/g4h.2012.0026

Review

Fun and Games and Boredom Richard Buday, FAIA,1 Tom Baranowski, PhD,2 and Debbe Thompson, PhD2

Abstract

Serious videogames use entertainment to teach, train, or change behavior. What began in the 1970s as tentative attempts to create learning software is now a recognized videogame genre and an emerging health science. Although more research is needed, a growing body of literature suggests serious videogames can be effective. Support for serious videogames, however, is not universal. An informal Web search reveals numerous skeptics. Critics question serious videogames’ entertainment value and, thus, their viability. ‘‘How can serious videogames attract and maintain players,’’ the argument goes, ‘‘if they aren’t as much fun as commercial titles, or even any fun at all?’’ This article examines the argument that, to be effective, serious videogames should be overtly fun and comparable to commercial off-the-shelf videogames. It explores differences between game developerand researcher-led projects and discusses ways serious videogames can avoid boring and alienating players. It concludes that direct comparisons between serious and commercial game entertainment values may be misdirected. Games for Change in general have a dirty secret: They’re not very fun. —David Daw, PCWorld1

Issues No need to be polite here; most serious/educational games are just way too serious.and boring. —Mathias Poulsen, Serious(ly) Good Games?11

Can a game still be called a game if it isn’t any fun? —Justin Peters, Slate2

Introduction

C

hildren play videogames for many reasons, but primarily for fun.3 Proponents of serious videogames argue the medium’s broad appeal offers teaching moments and behavior intervention opportunities.4 Delivering serious content as computer-based entertainment has drawn advocates and critics since the age of ‘‘edutainment’’ in the 1970s–1990s. Edutainment software designed to educate and entertain was faulted for not fostering deep understanding, for offering little intrinsic motivation,5 and for being boring.6 Today, 72% of American households play videogames,7 enhancing the prospect of self-motivated serious videogame play. Years of scholarly research on serious videogames, a growing literature,8 the emergence of dedicated peerreviewed journals, and now a White House initiative to study the benefits of serious videogames9 suggest the debate has turned in favor of the proponents.10 Yet, an informal Google search on the key terms ‘‘boring serious games’’ returned over 3 million results, many of them negative. The skeptics remain, and for many, the problem is not one of intent, but of execution.

A frequent quote in online magazines, personal Websites, and blogs is that expert content providers, such as educators and health professionals, ‘‘suck the fun out’’ of videogames.10,12 The charge suggests that when subject matter experts lead game development, they ignore the foundation upon which videogames attract and maintain players: Fun. Surely an exception is ‘‘America’s Army,’’ a first-person shooter game developed by the U.S. Army to promote recruitment.13 The game has been a blockbuster success with more than 40 million downloads and 15 times more registered players than the U.S. Army has active soldiers on duty.14 ‘‘America’s Army’’ has reportedly been more persuasive15 and more cost-effective16 than all other armed service recruitment methods combined. Nevertheless, after 20– 30 years of serious videogame research and development, few subject matter expert–led games have approached the popularity of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) entertainment videogames. Why is that? Successful COTS game development involves well-oiled teams of creative game designers and artists working handin-hand with software programmers. Although programmers do the heavy lifting of writing code, creatives’ jobs are more critical to a videogame’s financial success. Fun but ‘‘buggy’’

1

Archimage, Inc., Houston, Texas. USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the U.S. government. 2

257

258 videogames (games with software glitches) can do well in the marketplace.17 A creative’s job is building entertainment value, measured by the game’s ability to emotionally connect and immerse players. The longer a player is engaged, the more likely a game will be a hit. Creatives strive for many hours of initial gameplay followed by long-term re-playability (returning to a game after completion for additional tries). Serious games are products of more diverse collaboration.18 In a game for health, along with game creatives and coders, there could be physicians, psychologists, nurses, registered dietitians, exercise specialists, qualitative methods specialists, and public health professionals. There could also be experts in measurement, process evaluation, recruitment, data collection, and statistical analyses. Subject matter providers are expert on serious game ‘‘payloads,’’ but not necessarily the delivery vehicle. They may have little or no experience playing videogames themselves, assuming formative research or literature reviews will provide how and why videogames work. To build a serious videogame, subject matter experts team with game developers experienced in making entertainment. Cultural differences between subject matter experts and game creatives can run deep. For example, creatives working with a scientific researcher may be unfamiliar with the investigator’s field of study, their research agenda, or even the scientific method. Subject matter experts have been known to provide game developers with volumes of detailed needs, only to find the creatives dismissing the requirements as unworkable or un–game-like. Who leads the team is an issue. Unsuccessful collaborations between subject matter experts and game creatives can produce fun games with little serious content or games heavy on content but low on engagement. While the game did in fact have educational payloads, the mechanics were, for the most part, dumb. How does pressing a button at exactly the right time to jump over a beach ball onscreen teach anything but how to operate a game, no matter what the game says it’s supposed to be about? —Rafe Needleman, CNET News19

Making a boring videogame is one way to alienate players. Another is making a game nonsensical. Mechanics are the rules, means, and methods of playing videogames. Turn-based play is an example of a game mechanic, as are puzzles solved by dragging pieces around a screen and walking around a city to find and collect clues. Well-designed videogame mechanics interweave storyline with a player’s objectives in the game. Like a good novel, an immersive videogame causes a willing suspension of disbelief. A bad game mechanic, like a poor narrative plot device, stands out as incongruous and breaks immersion. Jumping over a beach ball to avoid falling inside a game world is a good game mechanic. Jumping over a beach ball to learn math is not. Player alienation can also occur if a serious game is designed for the wrong audience. Research-driven serious games are at particular risk. Entertainment games make money by appealing to wide audiences, such as multiple age groups or players with varying experience. Serious game research instruments are designed to test hypotheses, not return profits. Because influences on behavior and cognitive complexity vary by age,20 researchers focus on narrow study populations, say, 8–10-year-old boys. A researcher may un-

BUDAY ET AL. consciously also target those with no intention of ever playing their videogame. A game to improve 8–10-year-old boys’ diets not only has to appeal to children, but to the parents who enroll them in a research study. It must also appeal to school officials if tested in an educational setting. To obtain funding, a serious game grant application has to appeal to an agency program director and to study section reviewers, all of whom are the researcher’s peers and some of whom fault videogames for the very behavior or education problem (obesity, poor grades, etc.) researchers are trying to address. Clinical studies have to pass muster with an Institutional Review Board before a trial begins, then with journal editors and manuscript reviewers when the trial is over. In some ways, a researcher-led serious videogame for 8–10 year olds is designed more for adults than children. When does a game stop being a game and turn into an assignment? —Justin Peters, Slate2

A telltale sign of a problematic serious game is an overt display of serious content. Textbook writers and documentary filmmakers are accustomed to making messages conspicuous. Novelists, however, prefer concealing messages within narrative. Entertainment game designers similarly want players only subliminally aware of message and mechanic. Researchers may believe open displays of serious content for peer approval is a good thing, but players may find the game more like homework than fun. Poor production value can also alienate players. Much of a researcher’s budget is spent on formative assessment and field trial costs. A serious videogame funded by a five-, six-, or even a seven-figure grant can allocate only a portion to game development. In comparison, the average cost to develop a COTS console videogame in 2009 was eight figures (between $18 and $28 million).21 Online multiplayer game budgets can be as large or larger. COTS game budgets can be a hundred times larger than serious videogame budgets because entertainment games can earn $200 million in revenue, or 10 times their development cost, in their first 24 hours on the market.22 No business model has been found for similar returns on serious games. To reduce cost, some serious games are produced with amateur art assets or nonprofessional audio tracks. Today’s audiences become discerning media consumers at an early age.23 Amateur production values are quickly noticed. But low-cost production does not necessarily mean low production value. Some highly successful entertainment products were made on shoestring budgets. For example, the 1999 production cost for The Blair Witch Project movie, which earned over $240 million in revenue, was only $22,000.24 Convincing the masses to jump ship from World of Warcraft requires more than just offering them the opportunity to do so; if we really want games with the power to change the world, they’re going to need to offer the same kind of engaging and addictive gameplay that has made gaming so popular. —David Daw, PCWorld1

Comparing serious games with entertainment games suggests they compete for the same consumer discretionary spending dollar. This may not be the case. Entertainment game business models are often business-to-consumer (game publisher to game player). Commercial entertainment games

FUN AND GAMES AND BOREDOM are directly or indirectly player paid. The serious videogame market is largely business-to-business (companies hire other companies to create ‘‘advergames,’’ for example, or the federal government funds institutional development and testing of educational and health games). Most serious games are subsidized. Serious games may also not be in direct competition with entertainment titles for consumer mindshare. Entertainment games are often played uncontrolled in unsupervised settings. Many games that teach, train, or change behavior are directed activities played in supervised environments where competition from other forms of entertainment is low (schools, healthcare settings, or living room sofas filled with parents).25 To be effective, a serious game in a controlled environment may not need to be as much fun as a COTS entertainment game, merely more fun than its analog alternative (didactic lessons, traditional medical treatments, or parental lectures). In this context, serious games can excel. ‘‘The Oregon Trail’’ was originally developed by the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium in 1974 for play on timesharing minicomputers.26 The game teaches U.S. history through the eyes of the player acting as wagon train leader. With the game ported to personal computers, more than 5,000 U.S. school districts had access to the game in 1985.27 The videogame is still available, now for the Nintendo Wii (Nintendo of America, Redwood City, CA) and Apple (Cupertino, CA) iPhone and iPod touch and as an online Facebook social game. Although ‘‘The Oregon Trail’’ offers a fraction of the entertainment value contained in blockbuster entertainment games, it remains popular.28 Serious videogames like ‘‘Escape from Diab’’ and ‘‘Nanoswarm: Invasion from Inner Space’’ (Archimage, Houston, TX) were developed for home personal computers. Responses of children to questionnaires and of adults to interviews revealed most children (80%–90%) enjoyed playing the games.29 As long as a serious videogame does not alienate players, overt fun may be unnecessary. ‘‘Enjoyable’’ or ‘‘likable’’ may be good enough. Discussion Sometimes a [serious] game will deliberately sacrifice fun and entertainment in order to achieve a desired progress by the player. —Wikipedia30

Fun is an entertainment game’s payload, but a serious game’s payload is delivered through fun. It is interesting that both kinds of videogames can be haunted by fun-sucking vampires. According to John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts, the world’s largest videogame publisher, many entertainment games are also ‘‘boring people to death.’’31 If true, it would be useful to know what accounts for the entertainment videogame industry’s enormous size, estimated to grow to $80 billion by 2016.32 Until the emotional and cognitive rules governing the phenomenon of fun are better understood, using fun for either serious or entertainment purposes could remain challenging. Can serious games directly compete with entertainment titles? The success of ‘‘America’s Army’’ suggests they can, sometimes. Should serious games strive for equal entertainment values? The playing field is not level. Serious games that mirror entertainment game ‘‘gestalts’’ (the way players think

259 about and interact with a game)33 imply that players will enjoy an entertainment game experience. Unmet expectations can lead to disappointment. Disappointment can lead to boredom. Instead of setting the stage for direct comparisons, serious games might consider a different strategy. ‘‘Foldit’’ is a crowd-sourced research instrument delivered as a videogame experience.34,35 Its puzzle-solving metaphor, points reward system, and game-like leader board, however, belie a novel conceit. Players use the game’s tools to bend protein molecules to achieve high scores, yet ‘‘winning’’ is not the point. Scientific researchers review high scoring solutions and test for real-world applications, which may or may not exist. At the end of 2011, ‘‘Foldit’’ had 240,000 registered users. Today, "Foldit" and its outsourced (and unpaid) collective are designing protein inhibitors to block the 1918 pandemic influenza virus.36 To a quarter million users, the game is challenging and compelling. But to compare the entertainment value of ‘‘Foldit’’ with that of ‘‘World of Warcraft’’ (Blizzard Entertainment, Irvine, CA), ‘‘America’s Army,’’ or even mobile videogames would be misleading. Like ‘‘The Oregon Trail,’’ the gestalt of ‘‘Foldit’’ is outside mainstream entertainment games. Subject matter experts and videogame developers are trying to make inherently boring topics fun, but their task is as difficult as it is revolutionary. Although constructive criticism can be a powerful force driving any revolution, destructive criticism can have a chilling effect, especially on inquiry and invention. We are in the earliest stages of learning how to design and use games for maximal positive effect.37 The nature of fun is one of many open questions in need of research. Conceptual models of how videogames engage players are needed to create better games that educate and influence behavior.38 What is the role of immersion, and how best to use it? How do different game mechanics affect learning and behavior? What is the impact of self-motivated game play in uncontrolled environments versus directed play in controlled settings? History may show the highest and best use of serious videogames is not as fun per se, but something related. Emerging media are frequently burdened by existing media they first resemble. Early photographers imitated painting’s motifs and conventions.39,40 The first movies were little more than filmed theatrical stage productions.41 It takes time (i.e., research) for new media to find their own space and language. Instead of comparisons with entertainment game titles, pundits may one day consider serious videogames on their own merits. Acknowledgments This article was primarily funded by grant U44 DK6672401 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. This work is also a publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA/ARS) Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, and had been funded in part with federal funds from the USDA/ARS under Cooperative Agreement Number 58-6250-6001. Author Disclosure Statement R.B. is President of Archimage, Inc., the videogame developer of ‘‘Escape from Diab’’ and ‘‘Nanoswarm: Invasion

260

BUDAY ET AL.

from Inner Space.’’ T.B. and D.T. declare no competing financial interests. 19.

References 1. Daw D. Games with a cause (and not much else). PCWorld April 21, 2012. www.pcworld.com/article/254190/games_ with_a_cause_and_not_much_else.html (accessed May 6, 2012). 2. Peters J. Gaming: World of borecraft. Slate June 27, 2007. www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2007/06/world_ of_borecraft.html (accessed April 20, 2012). 3. Olson CK. Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Rev Gen Psychol 2010; 14:180–187. 4. Baranowski T, Buday R, Thompson D, Baranowski J. Playing for real: Videogames and stories for health-related behavior change. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34:74–82. 5. Papert S. Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game Developer June 1998. www.papert.org/articles/ Doeseasydoit.html (accessed May 12, 2012). 6. Egenfeldt-Nielsen S. Third generation educational use of computer games. J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia 2007; 16:263–281. www.editlib.org/p/24375 (accessed May 13, 2012). 7. Entertainment Software Association. 2011 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry. www. theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf (accessed May 13, 2012). 8. Primack BA, Carroll MV, McNamara M, et al. Role of video games in improving health-related outcomes: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2012; 42:630–638. 9. Toppo G. White House Office studies benefits of video games. USA Today June 2, 2012. www.usatoday.com/ news/washington/story/2012-01-26/educational-videogames-white-house/52908052/1 (accessed May 5, 2012). 10. Van Eck R. Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Rev 2006; 41:16–30. 11. Poulsen M. Serious(ly) good games? November 13, 2011. www.mathiaspoulsen.com/seriously-good-games/ (accessed May 6, 2012). 12. Prensky M. The motivation of gameplay: The real twenty-first century learning revolution. On the Horizon 2002; 10:5–11. 13. America’s Army [videogame]. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. www.americasarmy.com (accessed May 24, 2012). 14. Mezoff L. America’s Army Game Sets Five Guinness World Records. February 10, 2009. www.army.mil/article/16678/ (accessed May 13, 2012). 15. Singer P. Video game veterans and the new American politics. Washington Examiner November 17, 2009. http:// washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/11/video-gameveterans-and-new-american-politics/20385 (accessed May 13, 2012). 16. Edwards J. America’s Army recruitment video game cost taxpayers $33M. CBS News December 11, 2009. www. cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743778/americas-armyrecruitment-video-game-cost-taxpayers-33m/ (accessed May 13, 2012). 17. Skipworth H. The top 5 video game glitches. The Telegraph August 15, 2010. www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7944810/ The-top-5-Video-Game-glitches.html (accessed May 8, 2012). 18. Thompson D, Baranowski T, Buday R, et al. Serious videogames for health: How behavioral science guided the

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. 25.

26. 27.

28.

29.

30. 31.

32.

33.

34. 35.

36.

37.

development of a serious videogame. Simul Gaming 2010; 41:587–606. Needleman R. A Father’s Lament: The Real World Is Not a Game. CNET April 28, 2012. http://news.cnet.com/83011023_3-57423522-93/a-fathers-lament-the-real-world-is-nota-game/?tag = mncol;editorPicks (accessed May 6, 2012). Kremers SP, de Bruijn GJ, Droomers M, et al. Moderators of environmental intervention effects on diet and activity in youth. Am J Prev Med 2007; 32:163–172. Meloni W. The Brief—2009 Ups and Downs. January 5, 2010. hwww.m2research.com/the-brief-2009-ups-and-downs.htm (accessed May 6, 2012). Peckham M. Halo Reach snatches $200 million in first 24 hours. PCWorld September 16, 2010. www.pcworld.com/article/ 205542/halo_reach_snatches_200_million_in_first_24_hours. html (accessed May 6, 2012). Buckingham D, Banaji S, Carr D, et al. The Media Literacy of Children and Young People: A Review of the Research Literature. 2005. http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/145/1/Buckingham medialiteracy.pdf (accessed May 24, 2012). Internet Movie Database. The Blair Witch Project. www. imdb.com/title/tt0185937/trivia (accessed May 5, 2012). Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Cullen KW, et al. Squire’s Quest! Dietary outcome evaluation of a multimedia game. Am J Prev Med 2003; 24:52–61. The Oregon Trail [videogame]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011. Coventry J. Educational computing for the masses. SiliconUser June 8, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20070628002639/ http://siliconuser.com/?q = node/12 (accessed May 12, 2012). The Legend of Oregon Trail. www.oregontrail.com/hmh/site/ oregontrail/articles?article = 2240&categoryname = fanfare (accessed May 5, 2012). Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Thompson D, et al. Video game play, child diet, and physical activity behavior change a randomized clinical trial. Am J Prev Med 2011; 40:33–38. Wikipedia. Serious Game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Serious_game (accessed May 6, 2012). Wingfield N. EA chief cites need for more innovative games. Wall Street J July 9, 2007. http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB118387245259860156-search.html (accessed May 6, 2012). Takashi D. With online sales growing, video game market to hit $81B by 2016 (exclusive). VentureBeat September 7, 2011. http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/07/with-online-salesgrowing-video-game-market-to-hit-81b-by-2016-exclusive/ (accessed May 6, 2012). Lindley C. Narrative, game play, and alternative time structures for virtual environments. In: Go¨bel S, ed. Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment: Proceedings of TIDSE. Darmstadt, Germany: Springer, 2004:183–194. Center for Game Science at University of Washington. Foldit [videogame]. http://fold.it/portal/ (accessed May 24, 2012). Marshall J. Victory for crowdsourced biomolecule design: Players of the online game Foldit guide researchers to a better enzyme. Nature January 22, 2012. www.nature.com/ news/victory-for-crowdsourced-biomolecule-design-1.9872 (accessed May 21, 2012). Fleishman, SJ, Whitehead TA, Ekiert DC, et al. Computational design of proteins targeting the conserved stem region of influenza hemagglutinin. Science 2011; 332:816–821. Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Thompson D, Buday R. Behavioral science in video games for children’s diet and physical activity change: Key research needs. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011; 5:229–233.

FUN AND GAMES AND BOREDOM 38. Thompson D, Baranowski T, Buday R. Conceptual model for the design of a serious video game promoting selfmanagement among youth with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010; 4:744–749. 39. Novak B. Landscape permuted: From painting to photography. In Goldberg V, ed. Photography in Print. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1981:172. 40. Mora G. PhotoSpeak: A Guide to the Ideas, Movements and Techniques of Photography, 1839 to the Present. New York: Abbeville Press, 1998:161.

261 41. Toulet E. Birth of the Motion Picture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988:37.

Address correspondence to: Richard Buday, FAIA Archimage, Inc. 4203 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 390 Houston, TX 77006 E-mail: [email protected]

Fun and Games and Boredom.

Serious videogames use entertainment to teach, train, or change behavior. What began in the 1970s as tentative attempts to create learning software is...
107KB Sizes 2 Downloads 3 Views