252: Jane McGonigal Lives the Game

[Allen Varney]

Jane McGonigal Lives the Game

Suffering from a concussion, the noted designer of Alternate Reality Games tested her theories by turning her own recovery into a game. In this profile, Allen Varney expresses why Jane McGonigal could be the first game designer nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Read Full Article

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I dig this lady.

who wants to see a game developer nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by 2032

WHY SO SPECIFIC WITH THE YEAR?!

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

I saw her TED keynote and it absolutely blew me out of the water.

Thanks for bringing this visionary woman to the attention of the Escapist, Allen.

 

[Devious Boomer]

I'm interested in the development of ARGs. When done well, they can become the most immersive type of game as it pervades real life.

 

[zamble]

Wow.

I'm amazed by this woman, her ideas and, most of all, her effort for recovery of that concussion. I read her nblog entry on Supper Better, and it is great. It kind of reminds me of old kid's movies where a sick kid makes up a fantasy world to aleviate the pain (also remind's me of the first Narnia movie, too. Sort of).
Also, I don't know if her ideas of using game mechanics to do usefull and epic things for the world will ever come true, but I certainly HOPE that our future looks a little bit like this.
Congratulations on the article, it just made my day.

 

[DarkSpectre]

I see it as an interesting idea, but the flaw I see is the inability to convert the ideas generated to action. It is easy coming up with ideas it is much harder making them happen. The virtual world doesn't have to face the reality of accomplishing tasks. You can come up with great ideas that would solve problems but you still have to convince people to go along with you. If just one powerful person doesn't like you ideas then you will face great hardship to enacting them. A harder question to answer than say how to end hunger is how do we deal with irrational people? How do you deal with somebody that just wants the world for themselves? How do you deal with people you can't placate because the only thing they desire is your demise? To put it in gamer speak how do you deal with the evil monsters and cruel bosses? What do you do when our opponent has only one goal and it is to kill you? Games teach us that the only way to deal with that is kill or be killed. Translate that into the real world. When we are faced with monsters that won't listen and want to take everything that is ours and kill all that oppose them the choices are to capitulate or fight. You can try and bribe them but if they won't stop till they have everything then that course won't work. Throw that question out to the masses and what is the answer that arises? I would be fight. That leads to war and death. This kind of thinking just seems very naive that you can being peace to the world through games. You could bring a lot good to the world, but it only takes one monster to bring it all tumbling down. Idealists need to recognize they will never achieve their goals because they can't change the hearts of all humans.

 

[instantbenz]

Forgive me for not remembering the fellow's name, but this is brought to a simple explanation in the lecture by a fellow from DICE. He never really touched on the 'games to help people' aspect of ARG's, but this is obviously important. Plus, in a terribly selfish manner, if there is a plethora of new companies backing gaming in general, well, maybe we can get some new tech.

Lastly, may the fourth be with you! Ha!

 

[APVarney]

Forgive me for not remembering the fellow's name, but this is brought to a simple explanation in the lecture by a fellow from DICE. He never really touched on the 'games to help people' aspect of ARG's

Jesse Schell's widely noted 2010 DICE talk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FSsztwbRW0] concluded (about 3:55 into this clip) with a vision of pervasive gamelike Skinnerian conditioning. His ideas resemble those in my August 2005 Escapist article "Lifegame 2020 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_5/35-Lifegame-2020]."

 

[pumasuit]

Thank you for your article. This is the most informative article I have ever read on this site, and I am linking it to my friends. Excellent work.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I am inspired! I'm gonna get that book about losing weight by playing the game and make changes in myself, then I'll go fix the world.

Hello, optimistic traveler! There are new missions available on the Jane McGonigal Bounty Board!

 

[Sporky111]

I think this is my favourite article I've read on here to this date. This woman is a true visionary, someone to finally break down the "social outcast" and "games-are-toys" prejudices the gamer culture is subject to.

I played Superstruct when I heard of it, but I never followed up on it. I think I'll do that now that I've been reminded. I'm also going to make a point to remember her name: Jane McGonigal.

 

[abaeran]

I saw her TED keynote and it absolutely blew me out of the water.

Thanks for bringing this visionary woman to the attention of the Escapist, Allen.

Stole my words. She's a fascinating lady and I can't wait to see what she has in store for the world.

 

[eelel]

This was an interesting article. It defenetly has a lot of potential.

 

[Davrel]

Concussion...for FIVE WEEKS? How hard did she smack her head? That kind of sick-leave makes it sound like she had a mild brain haemorrhage...

 

[nicholasofcusa]

LOL at the weaksauce 'criticism' at the end of this piece. I have no problem with using games educationally, but the entire attitude here smacks of "Let them eat videogames!" I realise The Escapist is an entertainment rag and not journalism and as I'm totally uninterested in forum-debating the role of Bretton Woods Institutions in the world economy I won't elaborate on the ideological problems with Evoke, but I do think the end of this article is just plain bad writing.

Why even mention criticisms of the source of funding to then dismiss them as 'niggling'? Why do you think the other ARG is 'arch' as opposed to, say, someone who gives a talk at TED? Your editor should have mandated that as a puff piece it's best not to mention these issues at all, lest the reader expect that you will go on to substantively address them. When serving up a confection, it's a poor show to leave any gaps in the icing.

 

[APVarney]

I realise The Escapist is an entertainment rag and not journalism and as I'm totally uninterested in forum-debating the role of Bretton Woods Institutions in the world economy I won't elaborate on the ideological problems with Evoke, but I do think the end of this article is just plain bad writing.

Sorry to hear this anonymous person's crippling ennui makes him too tired to marshall his obvious economic expertise to demolish my insipid puffery. Possibly a good multivitamin might help.

 

[nicholasofcusa]

"Possibly a good multivitamin might help."

Or an ARG? You seem to think they will help malnourishment in Africa after all.

Sadly I don't think revealing my identity (or my gender!) will improve your article. Engaging maturely with the criticism I raise rather than indulging typical forum ad-hominem behaviour might, though.

 

[APVarney]

I don't think revealing my identity (or my gender!) will improve your article. Engaging maturely with the criticism I raise rather than indulging typical forum ad-hominem behaviour might, though.

Haven't seen any criticism at all yet, champ, just innuendo (and gratuitous insults that apparently don't count as "typical forum ad-hominem behavior"). If you muster the strength to offer actual argument, I'll address it with whatever credibility I gain by speaking in my own person under my real name, like a grownup.

 

[nicholasofcusa]

You're right, my posts probably won't be winning any awards for internet politeness. I apologise.

I'm happy to clarify: my criticism doesn't have anything to do with my economic expertise. It's to do with the article's ending where you raise issues which I think are very important only to dismiss them. By using adjectives like 'arch' and 'niggling', you trivialise any problems or grievances people might have with Ms. McGonigal's employer. Now you might have an argument supporting the WB but you don't present it in the article - although there's no doubting your position given the way you've characterised the opposing view. I believe a fairer article would have dealt more substantially with these issues (or, alternatively, not have raised them at all).

 

[beefpelican]

I see it as an interesting idea, but the flaw I see is the inability to convert the ideas generated to action. It is easy coming up with ideas it is much harder making them happen. The virtual world doesn't have to face the reality of accomplishing tasks. You can come up with great ideas that would solve problems but you still have to convince people to go along with you.

I agree with a good deal of this post, but there are a couple of particulars that I'm not sure about. I agree that it is hard to motivate large groups of people to follow your ideas. Even if the games managed to come up with a perfect solution to all our problems, that idea would still be completely untested, so it would be hard to actually implement. On the other hand, the ARGs never claim to be perfect solutions to all the world's problems. They just try to help. They accomplish this in two ways. First, by getting people to think about important issues, like a worldwide oil shortage, before they become problems. Thus, if or when an actual shortage occurs, these people will be a little more prepared. Second, it encourages people to apply their solutions personally and locally. This may not be a huge change for the better, but it is certainly a change for the better. With enough little changes, a large change is possible.

Games teach us that the only way to deal with that is kill or be killed.

I agree with this in reference to most games. However, McGonigal is not trying to change the world with Gears of War. Her games encourage alternate, nonviolent solutions.

Idealists need to recognize they will never achieve their goals because they can't change the hearts of all humans.

I'm not sure how an ARG would deal with the war scenario you raised. Maybe there is no good solution, but this is not the fault of the games. It is, like you said, because humans are generally terrible to each other. Idealists may never fully accomplish their goals, but this is no reason not to try. McGonigal's games are not perfect, but I think they are an innovative step in the right direction.

On a sorta related note, I recommend watching the TED talk McGonigal did. It's only about half an hour long and it's really interesting, and goes over all the stuff I just said, but better, and with powerpoint slides!