From Matters of Play
Jump to: navigation, search
  • example quotation here... (copy the entire passage here and note the page number).
  • example question/comment here... (short question and comment)

[click "edit" at top of this page when logged in to add you Q&Q. Just copy this "Name" section and paste below, and replace this placeholder content with your own!]


"If your game or technology really 'works' it freaks me out. [...] If you actually figure out methods to control peoples behavior-- if you can persuade them by giving them artifacts and changing their minds --you can bet [these methodologies] will get adopted by governments, propaganda, and advertisements in no time."

  • You could argue that this is already in place, to some minor degree. When you play free games on your phone, often you'll get an ad that demos another free game. The trick is to entice you into playing the game, and then gauging you for bonuses later. It's especially insidious with games from the King! company; it always starts out easy and rewarding, but eventually it begins to get harder and harder to entice you to pay to get further. On a grander scale, this works in the vein of teaching people to snitch on their neighbors during the Witch Hunts, the Red Scare, Nazi Germany, the reward being payment or "divinity." One could argue that these practices are already WELL in place, they are just not framed and marketed as a "game" or "play"


"When you focus on measurable goals, you're sort of narrow(ing) your action(s)... We favor individual change vs. systemic and long-term change."

  • While his arguments against standardized testing and other general, measurable goals work to this message, I think it contradicts itself by suggesting that we favor individual change over overall change. Aren't these test so generalized that they ignore individual trends in favor of low-hanging fruit like very vague goals? Perhaps it'd be better said that change should come from better information representation.