In this part I aim to provide ten precises which are written from Walz and Deterdings' book, "The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications", 2015.

This book contains 15 approaches and essays written by scholars on the concept of game designing and its shift during its history, from a traditional and linear approach to a more sophisticated and interactive mechanism. Furthermore these essays put emphasis on how these dynamic and interactive systems can impact on the knowledge of societies and also how to gain business advantages via these interactive platforms.


(Deterding, 2015)

Deterding in his paper, “ The ambiguity of games: historic and discourses of a gameful world.”(2015, pp. 23-24), mentions that according to scholars “The ludification culture”, has been evolving from finished products to interactive and constantly evolving online services.

The author explains that the growing up trend of digital games has fostered the “gamer generation” through its playful media practices and identities in order to put emphasis on the “ludic century” where games have become the dominant culture of societies.

According to this essay, “scholars call the twenty-first century a “ludic century” where games become the dominant cultural form because they match the systemic, computational, participatory constitution of our time.”


(Ian Bogost, 2015)

In his article on the game design concept, “Why gamification is bullshit.”(2015, pp.77), he argues that game designers with the aim of consultancy have the primary purpose of justifying their own existence rather than being helpful for their audience and clients.(Ian Bogost, 2015)

The author describes this statement by mentioning that consultants tend to generate more problems than solving them, in order to justify the useless existence of consultants and also accordingly the gamification as consulting approach. According to this sense the author mentions, “gamification rise entailed its rhetorical advance more than its application.”


(Conor Linehan, Ben Kirman, and Bryan Roche, 2015)

In this paper, on the psychological effects of rewards, the “Gamification as behavioral psychology ”(2015, pp. 95), the authors suggest that rewards should be given with the purpose of increasing the likelihood of rewarded behavior being repeated in the future. (Linehan, Kirman and Roche, 2015)

According this statement, the authors claim that solely providing users rewards in any kind of situation is of little value unless the users’ behavior change, in order to, highlight the importance of the situation in which the rewards are effectively given to the users.

“Simply providing people with rewards is of little value unless there is a check to see whether subsequent behavior has changed as a consequence (if not, then the reward was not a good reinforcer).” (Linehan, Kirman and Roche, 2015)


(C. Scott Rigby, 2015)

Rigby in his paper, the “Gamification and motivation”(2015, pp. 126), suggests that gamification is a long term concept which needs deep engagement of users to influence on areas such as education, health care and personal growth.

The author puts emphasis on the importance of having appropriate motivational models for gamifiers, in order to draw attention on how to gain sustainable and deep engagement of users and hence impacting on those areas mentioned before. In this regard the author quotes, “Extant research on specific theories of motivation and engagement has validated their potential to be highly relevant to gamification in this regard.” (C. Scott Rigby, 2015)


(McKenzie Wark, 2015)

Wark in this essay, “Losing is fun”(2015, pp.161), claims that to play the games is always purely input of energy and our all effort for the output of which goes nowhere and so the reason why in all playing games, losing is fun.

According to this, the author explains, it is common sense that games are open ended systems and the meta-games nested inside an open system from which they drew freely and into which they could quietly extrude any remainder. However it turned out that the game at root is also a closed world. Games has external input of sunlight and source of all our power-ups while has nowhere for outputs to go hence games are closed systems. “To play the game is always to treat as purely external the input of energy and the output of waste.”(McKenzie Wark, 2015)


(Marc Hassenzahl and Matthias Laschke, 2015)

In their article, the “pleasure troublemakers”, considering the notions of “change and choice” and also “objects as change agents”, it is claimed that we need principles for designing effective and helpful games, otherwise the objects might make long term troubles although they seem pleasant for the users.

Put is simply, the authors argue that our day to day choices of utilizing objects have long term effects on our overall performance and outcome such as they way we eat, interact and communicate with others. Hence, the design of these objects are effective on all societies and accordingly the productivity of these societies. The authors suggest that these two notions, restrict the potential design space for pleasurable troublemakers, in order to highlight the outcomes of trouble making decisions in terms of choosing the right objects. Regarding this they quote, “we need principles for the design of what we call transformational objects or more affectionately pleasurable troublemakers.” (Hassenzahl and Laschke, 2015)


(Jaakko Stenros, 2015)

Stenros on the concept of playfulness, the “Behind games: playful mindsets and transformative practices “, claims that alternate reality games and others pervasive games tend to help to foster the emergence of humor in the game designing practices and also it helps the players to overcome the pronoia feeling of everyday about the mechanisms of daily incidents.(Stenros, 2015)

In other words, the author states that these games brings a bit of magic in to our daily lives to make us to think how it would be if the life was a game in order to try to perceive where playful possibilities lurk in the everyday life activities.

Regarding this the author says, “Once players have noticed some clear invitations to play, they may be overcome with pronoia, the feeling that the world is conspiring to help them.” (Jaakko Stenros, 2015)


(Miguel Sicart, 2015)

Sicart on the ethical view of gamification, the “Playing the good life: gamification and ethics.” (pp.235, 2015) states that considering the development of the good life in terms of gamification, we need to look at how the design has understood the activity of the play. Put it simply, the author mentions that a well designed gamification should be with the aim of designing for play rather than games in order to inspire designers to gamify align with the ethical point of view. Regarding this the author quotes “This is meant to be a reflective and inspirational approach—not so much a method as a set of ideas and provocations for designers.”(2015)


(Mary Flanagan, 2015)

Flanagan on his paper the “Playful aesthetics: toward a ludic language.” (2015, pp. 252) states that time like any other playful aesthetics, implies power.

In other words, the author mentions that playful technologies have the power of duration which creates aesthetics based on games. The authors draws attention to the importance of time in order to describe how the time forms discipline and regulates the governance of the gamification. In this regard it is quoted that “duration is subjective and constitutes our internal life.” (Bergson, 2012)


(PJ Rey, 2015)

In his paper on the concept of gamification, he states that “gamification is the long term strategy of generating revenues in the economic sphere of consumption in gamification.” (PJ Rey, 2015, pp. 282)

In other words, the author mentions that the hyper commodities are the commodities which are not consumed with the purpose of satisfying simple biological needs, rather they are consumed as a part of sophisticated social code. The author highlights the importance of hyper commodities in order to draw attention on the potential of generating revenues by these type of commodities.

Considering this the author quotes,”gamification is the strategy to channel our attention toward advertisements or commodities that will, ultimately, generate revenue for the capitalists who engineer the gamification.” (PJ Rey, 2015)


"A game that changed my life"

In this part I aim to discuss about the amusing and also the longest game which made me to stick on playing it for a quite long time and it taught me some major strategies of winning which I think, they were useful in all decision making procedures of my life.

This interesting game is called “ Clash of Clans” and it changed my vision in many different ways and it proved the fact that for winning there should be a strategic planning beside trading off between the most effective variables of the decision making process.

In other words, in my opinion there are some main strategies in any kind of strategic decision making process, with which one could become able of increasing the probability of winning and also gradually improving the overall level of their game account.

These strategies are mainly based on the fact that one should properly trade off between main variables and resources in terms being both sustainable and the winner. I believe planning for these type of games could be effective practice for any decision making procedure in the real life.

These variables are resources of money, time, human resource (troops) and also the scope, which in this game could be equal as the level and quality of the player’s clan.

In this game the whole idea is about to gradually improving the troops and also the defense mechanism (the player’s clan) , by gaining coins with attacking to others’ clans. The reason why I think this game could change the vision of people is about the strategic essence of the game in that the outcomes of attacks are always different each time, even though the player each time attacks with same troops and levels.

The trade off which mentioned above, is about the matter of how properly spending the money or coins in terms improving both defense and troop mechanisms all together.

In this game, players gradually could level up and save coins due to improvement of their troops and also their defense mechanism. The cheaper the attacks which players take, the more profitable the outcomes would be, hence more coins would be gained. However the quality of troops should be proper with the stage of the rival’s defense mechanism, otherwise the player would lose the game and accordingly all the coins which is spent on training the troops. Therefore, by the strategic planning on how to train adequate and proper troops while gaining the most coins and also spending less on training the troops, players could improve their strategic planning skills beside the practice of trading off the resources.

After taking the first attacks the player can improve his/her clan beside the the level of each troop. This depends on how frequently the player wins profitable wars, and also how often the player plays the game.

However, it should be noted that players can buy gems to accelerate the process of this improvement and this happens with spending money on purchasing gems from the application store. It is common belief that the business model of Clash of Clans inappropriately gains money, at the point that players are happy with spending money on accelerating the improvement of their clans.

All in all, in my opinion, games could be both good and bad and it depends on the players on how to have fun with games while learning lessons and not wasting their time and money.

All Posts

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!