Summary:
The purpose of this paper, was to examine how individual people play games within the context of a large group. The game chosen was a health-based game that depended upon pervasive technologies and was targeted at youth in schools. After the completion of a large field-trial, they found five player types that existed when individuals played their game. These types (achievers, active buddies, social experience seekers, team players and freeloaders) highlighted the precocious nature of individual vs. group rewards and that the balance depends on the user/player.
Response:
To me, this paper was about designing games that balance (or in some cases, leverage) the “me. vs everyone else” aspect. Their findings suggested a wide range of behavior, with personal health being a motivating factor. It would have been interesting to see a different game played for the trial, which had a potentially more imbalanced “me vs. everyone else”, that could have involved toys or candy (for example). Would there have been such a wide range of behavior? Would the game even matter at all if the reward was the focus? In these questions, a larger question comes to mind as well, namely, does the gameplay, or the game itself truly matter, if the outcome surpasses it?
No comments:
Post a Comment