游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

玩游戏是否有利于解决现实世界中的问题?

发布时间:2012-11-05 17:26:26 Tags:,,,

作者:Chris Jensen

某位精英学生Rhett Bradbury向我推荐了Jane McGonigal的作品,Jane McGonigal是一名游戏设计师兼拥护游戏可以拯救世界的传道者。Rhett认为,McGonigal的作品对他的平面设计硕士论文具有十分重要的影响,因为他正考虑如何突破游戏领域的常规目标(销售物品),追求更崇高的目标(赋予人类力量,实现自由)。在我看来,McGonigal作品的突出之处在于,它间接地重新定义了个人及所有社交圈中人类健康的重要性。如果游戏有助于保持个人与社会健康,那表明玩乐在我们进化过程中发挥了重要作用。

McGonigal在TED大会上发表了两次演讲,这也是我写下此文的基础。我并未涉略她所撰写的书籍《Reality is Broken》,也没有时间研究她所制作的项目。因此我只能依据这两篇演讲。她的首次演讲见于2010年,标题为《Gaming can make a better world》:

Jane_McGonigal(from fr.wikipedia.org)

Jane_McGonigal(from fr.wikipedia.org)

我通过她的演讲发现:McGonigal并不担心自己的想法过于大胆与乐观。这似乎是在TED大会上发表演讲的先决条件——即你的想法必须脱离传统,且思路明确,然而她所声称的“拯救真实世界十分简单”真像拯救虚拟世界那么容易吗?

McGonigal大胆地设想,我们可以利用游戏的力量与魅力,创造出更加美好的世界。她指出,目前,人们每周投入在各种网络游戏上的时间为30亿小时。由于全球共有70亿人口,那么每人每周平均的游戏时间为半个小时。虽然这是较小数据,但考虑到鲜少有用户拥有访问游戏的权限(游戏邦注:比如工作之余的空闲时间、访问技术),这意味着有些玩家投入的游戏体验时间足以弥补其他普通人士。因此,虽然人们耗费的游戏时间分配并不均匀,但其数值仍然十分庞大。那这种活动算得上是一种浪费时间的行为吗?它有利于营造一个更加美好的世界吗?

而这项研究的主要问题便是游戏是否属于浪费时间的一种行为。在某些情况下,答案是肯定的,因为游戏的基本定义是它不具备即时或直接功能。可能完成某些任务十分“有趣”,但如果任务“已经完成”,并产生直接效益,那它就无法定义为游戏(游戏邦注:人们普遍误认为充满‘乐趣’的体验均属游戏范畴)。所以,如果游戏产生间接效益,那么一定情况下,这些效益恰好等同玩家投入的精力。但一般情况是:如果我用那些时间玩游戏,而不是外出从事既可以满足自己的衣食住行,又能养育家人的工作,那么玩游戏并不能满足我的生存条件。这也是为何我们认为游戏应在“轻松领域”(Burghardt,2005),即满足所有基本需求,也无任何潜在危险的情况下进行。“轻松领域”是了解谁能够花时间玩游戏的重要概念:那些在基本需求方面苦苦挣扎或无能为力的人们是不可能在游戏上投入大量时间。这也是为何典型的游戏玩家住在所谓的‘发达世界’中,那里除了最贫困的人群,其它人均有额外的时间与精力用于体验游戏。大多数研究游戏的生物学家纷纷赞同游戏是剩余价值的产物:只有拥有额外时间、食物与安全条件的生物体才会演变出玩这种行为。有趣的是,人们养育孩子的一个普遍特征便是为他们提供一个“轻松领域”:一定程度上,父母可以满足孩子的所有需求,支持他们度过一个愉快的童年。实际上,人们通过童年进展的经济状况便可知晓“轻松领域”的动态:那些在社会中拥有最高权力的人们可以延长孩子的童年期,甚至逾越青春期,而穷人面临的生活压力可能会减少孩子的娱乐时间,提升工作时长。

McGonigal对“轻松领域”的看法(其实她并未明确谈到)十分有趣。她以古吕底亚人作为试验对象,他们每隔一天玩一次游戏,以此分散对饥荒减少食物供给这一事实的注意力。在游戏之日,虽然无人吃饭,但游戏却转移他们的饥饿感。由于Herotodus故事的存在,人们认为上述故事可能出自杜撰(虽然McGonigal已提供充分的证据证实该故事的真实性),但无论该故事是真是假已无多大关系。如故事所述,这些吕底亚人是生活在“轻松领域”吗?按照基本标准的话,显然如此,因为他们能够幸免于饥荒。虽然饥饿会令人不快,但却不是主要致命因素。McGonigal认为,她从吕底亚人的例子中受到启发,因为当面对这个不太理想的世界时,玩游戏确实可以逃避残酷的现实生活。这也是她认为目前人们玩游戏的目的:用于逃避残酷的“现实世界”。在这次调查分析中,她的看法与批判玩游戏属于浪费时间的人们并无两样,即使她抱以游戏玩家更多的同情之心。虽然我们所创造的世界可以满足且已超过我们的物质需求,但却让我们陷入焦虑状态,迫使我们将玩游戏当作一种逃避手段。

当然,网络游戏并非唯一支持我们逃脱社会孤立感以及来自发达世界压力的活动。我可能不会玩网络游戏,我可能对这种做法持矛盾态度,但我不会断言自己从来没有为了逃避现状而进行某些活动。如果我不能溜冰、骑山地车,或者每周在攀岩馆里耗上几个小时,那我定会抓狂。为什么?因为我生活的世界充满了压抑与束缚,这种不确定性与压力感形成一种焦虑情绪。我需要通过一种与众不同的娱乐形式舒缓这种情绪,它不一定具有意义。但重要的是,它们不会产生明确的直接效益:它们所消磨的时间足以供给我完成另一篇博文,或者发表另一篇科技论文,总之,这些事情给我带来更棒的感觉。因此,为什么我得通过游戏舒缓焦虑感呢?对此我会争辩道,游戏可以改善我们的心理与身体健康(记住游戏的普遍主题为运用肢体),基本上有助于克服压力与焦虑,并且不再影响工作。所以,适度地体验游戏,缓解情绪,其效果不容小觑。

McGonigal认识到,实际上我们仅将玩游戏作为逃避手段。她希望我们可以更有效地利用游戏解决个人与社会问题。鉴于此,我们转换了研究角度,将家养动物引入到动物世界的游戏中。我们通过研究发现,动物主要利用游戏优化自身能力,及其栖身的世界,并非作为纯粹的逃避手段。尤其是,幼崽参加游戏是为了了解它们栖息的物质与社会世界,通过游戏的不断练习学习技能,而从基因的角度上看,它们一般能够掌握这些技能(Spinka et al. 2001)。如果我们也在游戏上投入大量时间,那么产生的结果应与动物类似:也许,纯粹利用游戏逃避现实并非浪费时间,但我们应利用游戏潜在的丰富价值。

McGonigal还在演讲中粗略地提到“进化”一词。同大多数人一样,她认为我们属于一个物种进化,但她所说的‘进化’仅指稀有物种的演变。作为进化生物学家,我对“进化”一词尤为敏感,但那不是我的本意:其实,进化与McGonigal想要解决的问题密切相关,因此我们应花些时间布置进化环境,借此游戏可能会发生更具成效的改变。人类进化分为两种形式:生物与文化。大多数人都基本了解我们的生物进化,这起源于上百万年前的祖宗环境。就McGonigal的“追求”方面,我们应考虑到生物进化遗传的两大特征。一方面为生物进化的速度:由于人类是自然选择可以长期存在的物种,他们在连续几代的进化中仅仅改变了整个‘基因库’,因此我们的生物进化速度十分缓慢。如果我们这一代发生显著‘进化’,那就不是生物进化(虽然某些严重的瘟疫会摧毁整个人类,这可能会引起重大进化)。另一方面,由于基因遗传的作用,我们会倾向选择某些特征。其中一种便是从游戏中获得快乐:我们确实属于好玩物种,而游戏显然有助于我们祖先适应自己的生存环境,因为享受游戏似乎是人类社会的普遍现象。虽然上没有明确规定‘人性’的条文,但我们具备基于生物遗传的倾向性与特定潜能。

另一倾向性便是文化方面。‘文化物种’有何寓意呢?借此,人类(是其它物种中为数不多能够以‘文化’定义的种类)可以交换有关行为举止方面的大量信息。有些行为允许我们改变周围环境,从而大量增加‘思想文化’与‘物质文化’。网络游戏便是物质文化的最终产物,而且有趣的是:我们具备控制物质世界的先进能力,我们有能力在大脑(想象是我们模拟虚拟世界的最初思维方式)之外构造虚拟世界。这便是文化演变的结果。虽然文化进化存在争议,但事实上,它正以十分快速、明显的方式进行。作为人类进化的第二种形式,文化进化展示了人类的发展前景与潜在危险。虽然同比其它物种,我们可以通过操控环境更大限度地满足基本要求,但它也给我们带来了两难境地。随着文化日益凌驾于我们生活的环境,它很有可能从我们祖先进化而来的环境中消逝。我们的生物进化已无法赶上快速进展的文化环境,所以我们极有可能与自己生存的环境‘脱离’。

我认为,McGonigal所提及的推动我们逃避现实的某些问题实则是与环境脱离的结果。在最近的进化历程中,我们从来没有在室内、孤立他人或从事高风险性的思维活动中耗费大量时间。由于McGonigal擅长刻画,我们也对这个相对新颖的真实世界表示失落(而讽刺的是,是我们亲手创造了这个世界),因此我们会逃向可以感受到“历史性胜利”的世界中,而在现实世界中已无法体会到这种感受。也许我们祖先在现实世界中体验过“历史性胜利”的时刻,但我们已经错过,或者再也不会体会到。在祖先看来,消灭一个竞争部落,或者追捕一只危险凶残的猫可能就是“历史性胜利”的时刻。因此,回到我们早期生活的环境并不是不可能,或者是不可取的行为。而我们所要创造的世界应该是让祖先感到安全与满足的“历史性胜利”,比如在我们全新的文化环境中重新创造大丰收的喜悦之情。我们应自主掌控文化的进化过程,确保自己可以融入我们创造的世界。

McGonigal就游戏能够挖掘我们的好玩潜能,创造更加美好的文化世界方面拥有一些不错的创意。她也在视频中清晰完整地阐述了这些内容,在此我不再重复。我打算调查McGonigal是如何努力地把游戏作为逃避工具转变为转化手段。她在演讲中提到三款游戏:分别为《World Without Oil》、《Global Extinction Awareness Program》和《Evoke》。她试图在这些作品中探寻游戏的主要优势:支持个人与社会团队通过想象、练习与即兴表演优化自己。“优化自己”有何含义?这取决于游戏及相应目标。似乎每款游戏都支持玩家改变他们在全球挑战上的文化观:这是通过游戏进行的个人转化。然而,这些游戏还存在一个有趣的潜在社交维度:由于它们具有互动性,且需要就社交方面的大规模解决方案,它们也能孕育一些全新的文化理念。而这些理念不仅可能会改变个人,还可能改变整个社会。

我真心希望这些项目(游戏邦注:其中某些已停止运行)能出色地证明与挖掘数据。为了支持游戏具备转化性这一想法,McGonigal与其合作者至少需要可以证明这种潜在性的结果。我个人更倾向于相信游戏具有个人转化潜能,并未过多寄希望于它们能产生大量创新型的社交解决方案。该观点反映出我的设想,即世界并不缺少相关问题的清晰解决方案,只有团队可以解决应用方面的问题。当然,正确的个人转化可能会改变团队意志。McGonigal应明确承认,她正尝试大规模地影响文化进化,我佩服这种抱负。也只有大规模地转变文化,才能保护文明的优势,我们也能最先享受到这些游戏。

在2012年的最新演讲中,McGonigal展示出其作品理念的有趣转变。

Jane McGonigal(from photos.siggraph.org)

Jane McGonigal(from photos.siggraph.org)

你会发现,该作更加注重为了自身利益的个人转化(而不是更大范围地影响社会)。而这也清晰地反映在McGonigal部分生活的转变:为了解决外伤性脑损伤留下的极具挑战的后遗症,她将玩游戏当作康复工具。这是一篇十分明智的演讲:我发现,她就临终悔恨与意识到游戏潜能的联系阐述得十分贴切,她用“时常说出愿望”的方法在游戏体验上耗费大量时间,但确实可以时时刻刻避免自己沉迷其中。

无论人们能否通过《SuperBetter》这类游戏转化为我们拯救世界所需的更大规模的文化变革,这仍是个疑惑,但也许这不是该作品的寓意所在。我也不能错误地认为McGonigal可以分别同时承担这两个挑战。

通过McGonigal的作品,我看到了自己的积极面与消极面。我认为,她通过强调游戏在我们进化本质的生物与文化层面上的价值,突显某些事物的重要性。我赞同可玩性的‘游戏类’方案可以解决许多社交问题。我认为完全有可能通过游戏改变人们的观念与身份。也许,我俩态度的不同之处在于体验的游戏类型不同。我十分疑惑虚拟世界的潜能(游戏邦注:比如《魔兽世界》、《第二人生》以各种Will Wright模拟游戏产生的潜能)可以解决现实世界中的问题。我乐观地认为玩家可以通过解决‘虚拟版的现实世界’问题来面对真实世界:1)在游戏环境中解决问题似乎不见奏效;2)互动性游戏利于社会团结,团队可以集体解决问题;3)上百万名玩家乐意耗费数十亿小时体验这些游戏。但我认为McGonigal并未过多关注虚拟世界的固有本质。如她所言,这些游戏极具吸引力,因为它们会不断地向玩家呈现难度极小的问题。它们是为迎合玩家的内心喜悦而设计,只有这些充满乐趣的游戏才能在充满竞争的游戏市场中生存。真实世界的真正问题并不是它无法提供快乐,或是并未逐渐体现出更具难度的挑战:这种难度是由我们的文化演变,而不是由游戏设计师所决定的。

玩游戏可以改变我们的思考方式?我表示认同。

转变视角可能会改变我们的集体意志?也许吧,虽然不少其它类型的游戏已向相反方向发展(对抗气候变化的游戏比对抗怪兽的游戏更具吸引力吗?)。

通过虚拟世界产生的新想法解决现实世界的问题?我认为这可能有点过于乐观。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Can playing games make the world a better place?

by Chris Jensen

One of the very talented students I work with in the Envirolutions club, Rhett Bradbury, pointed me towards the work of Jane McGonigal, a game designer and evangelist for the idea that games can save the world. For Rhett, her work is important to his Master’s thesis in graphic design, as he is considering how to move beyond the usual goal of his field (selling stuff) to more lofty goals (empowering people, making our democracy function better). For me, McGonigal’s work is salient because it addresses indirectly the role of play in human health, both as individuals and within our various scales of social grouping. If play is important for maintaining our personal and social health, that tells us something about the role of play in our evolution.

McGonigal has two talks on TED, which are what I am basing this post on. I have not read her book, Reality is Broken, nor have I had time to check out any of the game projects she has been involved in creating, so I am only working with these two talks. The first talk was given in 2010:

TED Talks “Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world”

Watching this video, one thing becomes clear: McGonigal is not afraid to be bold and extremely optimistic about her ideas. This is seemingly the prerequisite for a TED talk — your ideas need to be unconventional and unequivocal — but does her claim that it is “as easy to save the real world” as it is to save virtual worlds hold up?

McGonigal’s big idea is that we can leverage the power and allure of games to make the world a better place. She points out that currently humans play various forms of computer games for an astounding three billion hours per week. With seven billion people on the earth, that is nearly half an hour per week per person. That may not seem like much, but given how few people have access to the privileges that are still the prerequisite for most gaming (spare time beyond subsistence work, access to electricity, access to technology), this suggests that some people are spending enough time playing games to make up for the rest of the population that cannot or will not spend time on these games. I know someone out there must be counterbalancing the zero hours I spend on computer games every week. So while the amount of time being spent on gaming is not evenly distributed throughout the population, it is substantial. Is this time a waste, and can it be better leveraged for a better world?

The question of whether or not play is wasteful is central to the study of play. The answer has to be “yes” in some contexts, because the fundamental definition of play is that it is not immediately or directly functional. It may be ‘fun’ to accomplish some task, but if that task is ‘work’ — if it directly produces a benefit — it cannot be considered play (it is a common misconception that anything experienced as ‘fun’ should be considered play). So if play only produces indirect benefits, those benefits will only be worth the cost of play under certain conditions. Some of these conditions are obvious: if I spend my time playing instead of going out to do the work that is required to feed, cloth, and house myself and any dependents I might support, play is a maladaptive behavioral response to the conditions in which I live. This is why we say that play must occur in a “relaxed field” (Burghardt 2005), where all basic needs have been met and there are no imminent dangers. The concept of the “relaxed field” is important to understanding who can spend time playing games: people who find meeting their basic needs arduous or impossible are not predicted to spend much time in play. This is why the archetypal game player lives in the so-called ‘developed world’, where all but the most impoverished find that they have extra time and resources to spend playing. Most biologists who study play agree that it is the product of surplus: only organisms that have extra time, food, and safety can evolve play behaviors. Interestingly, a common feature of human parenting is the provision of a “relaxed field” for our children: up to a point, parents meet all of their childrens’ needs, allowing human childhood to be an exceptionally playful period. In fact, one can see the dynamics of the “relaxed field” by looking at the economics of childhood development: those who are most privileged in our society can extend the play of childhood well beyond adolescence, whereas a defining feature of poverty is that its stresses reduce the time period during which children can play instead of working.

McGonigal’s take on the idea of the “relaxed field” — which she does not explicitly mention — is interesting. Her paradigmatic game was played by the ancient Lydians, who spent every other day playing games in order to distract themselves from the fact that famine had reduced their supply of food. On game days no one ate, but the games helped distract them from their hunger. Attributed to Herotodus, the story may be apocryphal (although McGonigal points to evidence that corroborates the story), but whether or not it is true is not really important. As described in the story, were the Lydians in the “relaxed field”? Well, by basic standards they apparently were, because they survived the famine. Hunger may have been unpleasant, but it was not predominantly deadly. For McGonigal, the parable of the Lydians is instructive because in the face of a less-than-ideal world, games were used as an escape from the harsh realities of life. This is how she conceives of most gaming as practiced today: as an escape from the harsh realities of the ‘real world’. In this diagnosis she is not different from those who criticize games as a waste of time, although she is far more sympathetic to game players. We have created a world that meets and exceeds our material needs, but leaves us with anxieties that push us into the realm of play to escape.

Computer games are certainly not the only form of play designed to allow us to escape the social isolation and stress of the developed world we have created. I may not play computer games, and I might even be proud and snarky about that, but I certainly cannot claim that I never engage in play activities that provide an escape. If I cannot go to the skatepark, ride my mountain bike, or spend a few hours in the climbing gym each week, I begin to feel crazy. Why do I feel crazy? Because the world I live in is so stressful and demanding, and uncertainty and pressure create anxiety. That I salve this anxiety with a different form of play than others is not necessarily all that significant. What is significant is that these forms of play provide no clear immediate benefit: they cost me time I could have spent writing another blog post or publishing another scientific paper, and all they do at the time is make me feel better. So why do I salve my anxieties with play? Well, I would argue that the games I play improve my mental and physical health (notice their common theme of physical exertion), and basically keep me from becoming so overcome by anxiety and stress that I cannot be productive when I am working. So the salve may have value so long as ‘play as a salve’ is done in moderation.

McGonigal identifies the fact that we play solely for escape as a major problem. She would like to see us turn play into a more productive exercise by using play to tackle both personal and social problems. In suggesting that we take this turn, she is in some ways bringing the human animal back towards the kinds of play displayed by other animals. From what play research suggests, it appears that animals use play to better themselves and the world they inhabit rather than simply to escape. In particular, juvenile animals engage in play in order to learn about the physical and social world they inhabit, developing skills through the practice of play that would not be possible to ‘hard wire’ genetically (Spinka et al. 2001). If we are spending a lot of time playing, we should be producing outcomes that provide the same later benefits realized by animals: simply using play to escape is perhaps not wasteful, but under-utilizes the rich potential of play.

McGonigal does use the word “evolution” in this talk, but she uses it in a very sloppy manner. Like a lot of other people, she suggests that we are as a species evolving, but her use of the word just suggests poorly-specified change. It is easy for me to nitpick as an evolutionary biologist about how the term “evolution” is used, but that is not my goal: evolution has tremendous bearing on the problems that McGonigal wants to tackle, so it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out the evolutionary environment in which games might be more productively harnessed for change. There are two forms of evolution that are relevant to human beings: biological and cultural. Most people have a basic understanding of our biological evolution, which results from millions of years in a variety of ancestral environments. Two features of our biological evolutionary heritage are important to consider in light of McGonigal’s “quest”. The first has to do with the speed at which biological evolution occurs: because humans are a long-lived species and natural selection can only change our overall ‘gene pool’ over successive generations, we evolve biologically very slowly. If we are ‘evolving’ significantly in this generation, it cannot be biological evolution that is producing that change (although if some horrible plague overcame our species, that might come close). The other aspect of our biological evolution to consider is that we come predisposed to certain characteristics because of our genetic heritage. One such predisposition is joy in play: we are an extremely playful species, and apparently play served our ancestors well in their environment because an enjoyment of some form of play seems to be a human universal. There is no such thing as ‘human nature’ writ specifically, but we have predispositions and particular potentials based on our biological heritage.

Another predisposition is to be extremely cultural. What does it mean to be a ‘cultural species’? Well, humans (more than any of the few other species that can be considered ‘cultural’) exchange immense amounts of information about how to behave. Some behaviors allow us to modify the environment around us, leading to the immense proliferation of not just ‘idea culture’ but also ‘material culture’. Computer games are an end product of this material culture, and an interesting one at that: we are so advanced in our ability to manipulate the material world that we have gained the ability to build virtual worlds that are external to our brains (which — via imagination — are the original vessel for our virtual simulations). Culture evolves. How and why culture evolves is controversial, but the fact that it evolves, and evolves at an incredible pace, is obvious. As the second form of human evolution, cultural evolution presents both promise and peril. While being able to manipulate our environment has allowed us to meet our basic needs with a facility greater than any other species, it has also created a dilemma. As culture increasingly defines our environment, it also has the potential to drift significantly from the environment in which our ancestors evolved. Our biology cannot keep up with this rapidly-evolving cultural environment, and so there is the potential that we can become ‘mismatched’ to our environment.

I would suggest that some of the problems that McGonigal identifies as pushing us to escape from reality are the result of such mismatches. In our very recent evolutionary past we never spent so many hours indoors, so many hours isolated from others, or so many hours doing high-stakes mentally-demanding activities. As McGonigal does a good job of portraying, we are frustrated by this relatively novel real world (that — ironically — we in fact created), so we escape into worlds that allow us to experience “epic wins” that we can no longer gain in the real world. Perhaps our ancestors experienced “epic win” moments in their real world that we somehow miss but might also be better off missing. It is likely that the slaughter of a competing tribe or the hunting down of a dangerous predatory cat would have been “epic win” moments for our ancestors. So going back to our early environment is not necessarily just impossible, it is also undesirable. What we need to create is a world in which “epic wins” that would have been both safe and satisfying to our ancestors — say the joy at a bountiful harvest — are recreated in our new cultural environment. We need to grasp the reins of our own cultural evolution to ensure that the world we create is hospitable to our biological selves.

McGonigal has some great ideas as to why games might allow us to tap into our playful potential to make a better cultural world. They are clearly and nicely elaborated in the video, so I won’t outline them here. What I do want to look at are her attempts to convert games from tools of escape into tools of transformation. In her talk she describes three games: World Without Oil, the Global Extinction Awareness Program, and Evoke. Each of these games attempts to exploit the major benefit of play: they allow individuals and social groups to use imagination, practice, and improvisation to better themselves. What does it mean to “better themselves”? Well, this depends on the game and its goals. It seems as though each of these games will allow players to change their cultural perspective on global challenges: this is personal transformation through play. But there is also an interesting potential social dimension to these games: because they are interactive and require large-scale solutions to social problems, they also could serve as an incubator for new cultural ideas. These ideas have the potential to change not just individuals, but the whole of society.

I really hope that these projects — several of which are no longer up and running — have been well-documented and mined for data. In order to support the idea that games can be transformative, McGonigal and her collaborators need to produce results that at least suggest this potential. Personally I am more convinced by the personal transformative potential of these games than I am hopeful that they will produce massively innovative social solutions. This opinion reflects my assumption that the world does not lack clear solutions to its problems, only the collective will to address these apply these solutions. Undoubtedly personal transformation of the right type could produce a shift in collective will. What should be clearly acknowledged is that McGonigal is attempting to affect cultural evolution at a massive scale, and I appreciate this aspiration. Only cultural shift on a massive scale will preserve the benefits of civilization which allowed us to enjoy so much play in the first place.

The more recent talk, from this year 2012, presents an interesting shift in McGonigal’s work:

TED Talks “Jane McGonigal: The game that can give you 10 extra years of life”

As you can tell, this work is much more centered around personal transformation for its own sake (as opposed to for its impact on the larger society). Clearly this reflects in part a shift in McGonigal’s own life: dealing with the very challenging aftermath of a traumatic brain injury, she turned her game solutions towards personal health. This is a very smart talk: I found her connection between deathbed regrets and the under-realized potential of play to be really compelling, and her “Genie’s wish” approach to taking time out to play is a very powerful rationale for avoiding the temptation to be directly productive all of the time.

Whether the kind of transformations people can make via games like SuperBetter will translate into the kinds of larger cultural changes we require to save the world is questionable, but perhaps this is not the goal of this particular work. I cannot fault McGonigal for taking on both challenges separately.

McGonigal’s work intrigues me, bringing out both my optimistic and pessimistic sides. I think that she is onto something profoundly important by emphasizing the value of play in both the biological and cultural realms of our evolved nature. I agree that playful ‘game-like’ solutions to social problems have a lot of promise. I think that changing people’s ideas and identities through play is entirely possible. Perhaps where I depart from her optimism is in the form these games will take. I am very skeptical of the potential of virtual worlds (such as those produced by World of Warcraft, Second Life, and various Will Wright simulation games) to be converted into problem-solving exercises in the real world. I get the major assumptions that underly this optimistic hope to shift gamers over to solving ‘virtual real-world’ problems: 1) that solving problems in a gaming context does not feel like work; 2) that interactive games build social solidarity and allow for collaborative problem-solving; and 3) that millions of people are willing to spend billions of hours playing these games. But what I think McGonigal pays too little attention to is the very canned nature of virtual worlds. All of these games are appealing — as she points out — because they constantly dangle the player in front of a problem that is just a little bit harder to solve. They are designed with the player’s enjoyment in mind, and only those games that are enjoyable survive in the very competitive game market. The real problems of the real world are not enjoyable, and they do not present themselves in progressively-more-challenging increments: they are here, and they are at the level of difficulty dictated by our cultural evolution, not some game designer.

Change our way of thinking through playing games? That I will buy.

Transform perspectives to potentially change our collective will? Maybe, although there are many other forms of play pushing in the opposite direction (will playing against climate change really ever be more appealing than playing agains ogres?).

Solve the world’s problems by producing new ideas within a virtual world? That might be a bit too optimistic.(source:christopherxjjensen)


上一篇:

下一篇: