1

Exploring the Method, Goal, Audience and

Context of Gamification

Ruud Koorevaar MA New Media and Digital Culture,

University of Utrecht, Netherlands

3290352

ruud@flight1337.com

PREFACE

During the few months I have spent as a researcher at Flight 1337, a company specialized in ‘engagement

design’, I have learned valuable insights from a practical point of view, in contrast to my academic education.

As I worked on various projects concerning engagement design I was able to apply and expand my knowledge

which I have garnered during my MA in New Media and Digital Culture and BA in Social Sciences at the Utrecht

University. The following report is the result of the joint forces of this academic education and my experience

at Flight 1337 while being applied to the concept of ‘gamification’, which is a concept closely related to

engagement design.

ABSTRACT

Gamification is a contested concept as it is

appropriated and used by a variety of perspectives.

This paper goes into detail of the discourse

surrounding this concept and proposes a definition

of gamification. Gamification is defined as the use

of game elements to drive user engagement and

actions in non-game contexts. In the analysis this

definition is taken apart piece by piece resulting in

the analysis of the method, goal, audience and

context of gamification.

KEYWORDS

Gamification, meaning, MDA-framework, Fogg’s

Behavior Model, flow

1. INTRODUCTION

Some call it bullshit (Bogost, 2011) or a sign of the

‘gamepacolypse’ (Schell, 2010), others see it as a

marketing tool to invoke engagement with your

users (Zichermann, 2010) and still others are

looking at it from an academic standpoint

(Deterding, 2011b). Perspectives on what it is and

what it can do clearly vary wildly, but one thing is

for sure: gamification has caused quite the stir.

The term ‘gamification’ has only just recently

emerged, but it is being pushed and pulled in a

multitude of directions at once already. But what

are we actually pushing and pulling around? It is

vital to get a firm grip on the concept of

gamification in order to effectively discuss it.

This research is divided into two sections. The first

section will explore the current discourse

surrounding the term gamification. Various

perspectives on gamification will be highlighted

and posed against each other in order to give a

glimpse of the on goings within this emerging field.

These are perspectives from leading figures in

debate about gamification. Gabe Zichermann, for

2

example, takes on a consumer centered approach

in his book ‘Game-Based Marketing’ (2010). On the

other hand, someone as Ian Bogost can be

considered a game designer and theorist who

generally dislikes the term gamification as he

argues that it merely represents "marketing

bullshit" (2011). Then again, Sebastian Deterding,

scholar, proposes a definition of gamification to

use it as a concept (2011c). Building upon this

discussion I will portray my own position within

this discussion. This will be done by formulating a

definition of what gamification entails. This

definition will serve as the guideline as to which

the remainder of the analysis is shaped to. Due to

the heavy dependence on this formulated

definition I will lift a slight tip of the veil:

Gamification is the use of game elements to drive

user engagement and actions in non-game

contexts.

The second section of this paper will be in light of

this definition. The definition will be taken apart

piece by piece, resulting in four separate parts

detailing the method (use of game elements), goal

(to drive user engagement and actions), audience

(users) and contexts (non-game contexts).

However, due to the limited scope of this paper I

will not go into equal detail concerning these four

parts. Since this definition centralizes the goal

aspect, the primary attention will be given to this.

With this analysis I wish to provide a deeper

understanding of the ravenous concept of

gamification. Gamification is already happening,

the beast is loose, and now we have to make sure

that this beast does not go out on a rampage. I will

take steps to size up this beast, see what it's made

of and, hopefully, tame it so that it can be used in a

directed approach.

2. DEFINING GAMIFICATION

Let's deal with a fairly important question right

from the get go. What is gamification?

Unfortunately, this question does not have a single

answer. This is firstly because it is a relatively new

concept. It has not yet been explored to the extent

that an approach was formalized that lived through

the test of time. Secondly, it is a difficult matter to

find a single answer as gamification is being used

and appropriated by a wide variety of parties,

leaving the field in a heavily contested state. This

research will not give you the one answer of the

above question to rule them all, but will instead

propose a formal perspective on what gamification

entails. For starters, it might serve you, the reader,

most to present a glimpse inside this contested

field to see how gamification is pushed and pulled

into a multitude of directions.

The following discussion serves as an example of

two fronts with each their own views on

gamification clashing. These two fronts are, put

rather bluntly, the optimistic marketers

represented by expert, author, speaker and writer

on the subject of gamification and engagement

mechanics, Gabe Zichermann and the scholars

represented by Sebastian Deterding, a scholar who

designs and researches user experience,

persuasion and playfulness in games and the web.

It was your run-of-the-mill Thursday in the middle

of September 2011. However, not for very long as

on that day things were about to change quite

rapidly. A storm was brewing. You might even say

that this storm was looming on the horizon for

quite a while already, more specifically since the

release of Gabe Zichermann and Christopher

Cunningham’s book 'Gamification by Design'

(2011). However, the reason for this storm to occur

on that average Thursday came by the hands of

Sebastian Deterding (2011a).

'Gamification by Design' is written with the

purpose of demystifying and informing the

business-minded crowd regarding the application

of gamification within a business context.

Zichermann does this from the framework of

understanding gamification as "the process of

game-thinking and game mechanics to engage

users and solve problems" (2011, xiv). He uses the

concept to signify a way of thinking and the

application of game-like elements to enhance the

interaction with users. He builds on this framework

by applying a variety of sources from both the

academic world as well as the professional field of

game design.

3

However, according to Deterding the academic

references were performed in a rather lackluster

manner and did not sufficiently serve as an

academic and theoretically sound backbone.

Deterding argues that this backbone was not

constructed accordingly and by subjecting it to

academic scrutiny it shatters. These few sentences

illustrate Deterding’s opinioned position towards

'Gamification by Design' and Zichermann's point of

view:

"So what remains in the end? A hundred-or-so

pages of other peoples' ideas hastily copied

together, incoherent, often contradictory, and

riddled with errors (as happens in hasty copying);

lacking due credit to an extent that borders on

plagiarism; mixed with claims that are boasting,

unfounded, false, even positively dangerous;

misunderstanding games and their appeal;

promoting a flawed and unsustainable “loyalty-for-

cheap” philosophy; artificially pumped up with a

long advert (read: sponsored tutorial), and littered

with further ego-adverts to go and visit

GamificationU.com, ‘’The #1 expert resource

online for gamification best practices and

methodologies”." (2011a)

Deterding made his discontent plainly visible (the

title of the commentary is rather provocative as

well: 'A Quick Buck by Copy and Paste') incurring a

public back-and-forth discussion between the two

gamification experts. Without going into further

detail of the actual contents of the discussion, it

can be said that these two fronts represent two

drastically different sides of the same coin:

gamification.

So what is gamification then? According to another

member of the discussion, Ian Bogost, scholar and

designer of videogames, it is marketing bullshit.

Not bullshit in the sense of it being crap, but in the

sense that the term ‘gamification’ does not

describe its intentions truthfully. To gamify

something is reassuring as it "gives Vice Presidents

and Brand Managers comfort: they're doing

everything right, and they can do even better by

adding 'a games strategy' to their existing

products, slathering on 'gaminess' like aioli on

ciabatta at the consultant's indulgent sales lunch"

(2011). Bogost finds the term ‘exploitationware’

more accurate in describing the actual nature of

the beast, as he quotes from a hypothetical

conversation: “What about gamification? That

seems cheaper and easier.” “Oh you mean

exploitationware? It’s great if you don’t mind

swindling your customers.” Bogost finds that

gamification (or exploitationware) endangers the

personal autonomy of the public as the inherent

nature of implementing game-like structures in

non-game-like contexts is to capture the audience

with enticing means, exploiting them in a way.

Bogost argues that gamification is being used to

achieve marketing goals by manipulating the

consumers into doing certain activities desired by

the producers (Hunter et al, 2011).

Zichermann counters this with personal anecdotes

and results of such gamification projects which,

according to Zichermann himself, have enriched

the lives of many (Hunter et al, 2011). For example,

you didn't go to the gym before? Your boss makes

it enticing for you to do so by offering a reward of

some sort. You might go now. Some will say that

this is exploiting the 'victims'; others will say it

helps them live a more enriched life.

With these three perspectives of Zichermann,

Deterding and Bogost I have briefly illustrated the

contested state of gamification. This contested

state is seemingly steering the discussion towards

a normative debate of whether gamification is

good or bad. This normative debate does not serve

the goal of determining what gamification entails

as it nearly digresses into a tug of war. I hope to

move away from this normative debate and focus

on a more formal discussion to construct an

understanding of gamification. The key authors I

apply to this approach are, once again, Deterding

as well as Michael Wu. The following paragraphs

will explore these authors, resulting in a proposed

definition of gamification.

Deterding and co-authors (2011b, 2011c) propose

the following definition of gamification:

"Gamification is the use of game design elements

in non-game contexts" (2011b, 2). This definition

does not make gamified design equal to full-

fledged games, as gamification here entails the

introduction of elements of game design. Popular

examples of these elements are point systems,

4

leaderboards and achievements. These elements

are then applied to non-game contexts. As such,

this definition details the method (the use of game

design elements) and field of application (or simply

put the context) of gamification.

A similar definition was fashioned into being by the

scholar Michael Wu. According to Wu gamification

is "the use of game mechanics/dynamics to drive

game-like engagement and actions in non-game

environments" (2011). Similarly to Deterding's

definition, this definition signifies a method and a

context. However the method slightly differs as

there is a difference in using the more

encompassing term "game elements" and the

more restrictive use of "game

mechanics/dynamics". The latter excludes the

aspect of aesthetics which I find to be an important

element in gamification design for reasons I will

explain in the next section. The wording regarding

the context is also slightly different. I would

personally prefer to use "context" instead of

"environment", as the latter has a slight

connotation of a physical space, while this is not

necessarily always the case with gamified

applications. A strong part in Wu's definition is the

goal of gamification: "to drive game-like

engagement and actions". However, there is a

problem with the term "game-like". What does this

mean? Does this indicate some form of having fun,

mastery or learning? It is like games, but on what

grounds does it differ then? Also, it should be clear

that it will involve some form of engagement

similar to games due to the fact that the definition

itself already mentions this by stating that the

method of achieving gamification is through using

certain game elements. I would simply replace

"game-like" with "user" to avoid being vague and

obsolete and to add the aspect of an audience to

the definition: the users.

Based on the above arguments I would define

gamification as:

The use of elements of game design to drive user

engagement and actions in non-game contexts.

This definition entails the method (use of game

elements), goal (to drive user engagement and

actions), audience (users) and context (non-game

contexts) of gamification processes. As mentioned

before the goal aspect will receive the most

detailed attention.

3. METHOD

"The use of elements of game design"

As I argued in the previous section I made the

decision to use Deterding’s phrasing of “game

elements” instead of Wu’s “game

mechanics/dynamics”. In this section it will

become clear why.

I interpret game elements as the umbrella term for

three specific elements. Following the MDA-

framework as described by Hunicke et al (2004)

these are the mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.

Image 1. The designer and player’s perspective on the MDA-framework.

5

Mechanics entail the "particular components of

the game, at the level of data representation and

algorithms" which encompasses “the various

actions, behaviors and control mechanisms

afforded to the player within a game context”.

Dynamics describe "the run-time behavior of the

mechanics acting on player inputs and each others'

outputs over time". The mechanics support the

dynamics. Without the player initiating an action

through a mechanic, a dynamic can’t let its

influence count in the game. These dynamics work

in order to create aesthetic experiences which

signify "the desirable emotional responses evoked

in the player, when she interacts with the game

system".

Amy Kim (2011), CEO at Shufflebrain where

gamification is taken to the practical level,

describes mechanics as, for example, levels, points,

leaderboards, badges, missions or virtual goods.

Dynamics are about the pacing, appointments,

progressive unlocks, reward schedules and

dynamic systems. Aesthetics can be described with

key terms as curiosity, satisfaction, surprise,

delight, fun, envy, pride or connection. I would not

consider this to be an exclusive list, but it serves

the function to give the definitions of these specific

elements a more tangible inclination.

These three elements should be seen as separate,

but nonetheless inherently related. It is paramount

to include all three elements as they are mutually

dependent. This also becomes clear in the

interpretation Hunicke et al (2004) give regarding

the relationship between these elements. In their

article these elements can be appropriated from

two perspectives: the designer and the player (or

user). The designer has a lens of interpretation on

in which "the mechanics give rise to dynamic

system behavior, which in turn leads to particular

aesthetic experiences". From the player's point of

view this direction is reversed: "aesthetics set the

out in observable dynamics and eventually,

operable mechanics". This perspective on the

MDA-framework can be illustrated with a linear

line of progression where each individual element

is dependent on the other. Without mechanics,

dynamics can't come into being. Without an

appealing aesthetic the system is not relevant to

the player.

However, I do not fully agree with this model. For

example, regarding the player's perspective, I

would not say that it represents a linear line of

interpretation, but something more akin to a

feedback loop where each element is not fixed in a

line of succession, but is instead tossed in big

Image 2. A visual representation of the feedback loop concerning the MDA-framework.

6

stirring pot and the order where these elements

are eventually placed in is dependent on the

specific design and the player's personal

experience. For example, a player approaches a

game because it piques her initial curiosity

(aesthetic). When she dives into the game she

finds out that she is not dumped in the middle of

the game not knowing what is up or down, but is

instead firstly guided along a tutorial to explain her

ins and outs. She appreciates (aesthetic) this

pacing (dynamic). Consequently, when she starts

the first level after the tutorial she is able to aptly

coordinate jumping, dodging and shooting fireballs

(mechanics) to great satisfaction (aesthetic) and

she is able to beat the various, increasingly

stronger enemies that are tossed at her based on

her performance (dynamic). This in turn fuels the

desire to continue playing and employ various new

skills as flying and shooting lasers (mechanics)

which are given to her according to the game's

reward schedule (dynamic). Unlocking these skills

maintains her curiosity (aesthetic) as she wants to

find out what the next possible skill could be. And

so on. This can be easily translated in various

gamification applications, such as gamifying a

digital forum by implementing a points system

based on the user's activity and rewarding this with

more permissions for the user on the respective

forum.

These game elements are reliant on each other,

but in order to actually sustain this feedback loop

there is an important ingredient that needs to be

recognized. This ingredient is the key to the

sustenance of this feedback loop and is something

I would refer to as ‘meaning’ (which will be

explored in the next section). This is a crucial

aspect, like gravity for physics, which makes these

elements gravitate towards each other and which

consequently aids in formalizing these elements

into a meaningful whole from the player's

perspective. When this loop is sustained you

achieve the coveted engagement and create the

consequent incentive to continue action. And

when we look back at our definition of

gamification, this is the goal.

4. GOAL

"To drive user engagement and actions"

In the previous section it was argued that

‘meaning’ is the key to achieving this goal. But

what is ‘meaning’ then?

This is a concept that is derived from ‘meaningful

play’ which I would like to borrow from digital

game theory. Game researchers Katie Salen and

Eric Zimmerman have defined and explored this

concept in their work 'Rules of Play' (2004).

According to Salen and Zimmerman meaningful

play occurs "when the relationships between

actions and outcomes in a game are both

discernable and integrated into the larger context

of the game" throughout which "creating

meaningful play is the goal of successful game

design" (2004). The second part of this definition,

"creating meaningful play is the goal of successful

game design", relates to the goal in our

gamification definition. In this sense successful

game design can be interpreted as gamification

design that drives user engagement and actions

which hold meaning for the user.

This term attempts to steer away from

conceptualizations as 'fun' or 'enjoyment' as goals

of play. It instead proposes a more dynamic

interpretation of why people engage with games

which also, for example, accounts for non-fun

interactions. Playing a game is not always

necessarily fun, but can still be meaningful to the

player. Most player's will not consider the act of

repeatedly killing the same monsters over and over

again (also known as grinding) a fun activity, but to

unlock that shiny reward some are willing to do

just that.

This concept is translatable to gamification.

Although gamification does not specifically signify

actual video games, it does play into the

psychological state of attributing meaning to

certain actions. Whether these actions are purely

performed in the digital planes is not relevant. It is

relevant however that these actions are

meaningful to the user. Be it checking in on

Foursquare to notify your friends and family of a

cafe which serves the best coffee ever conceived in

the history of man, or not stepping on the lines

between tiles on your way to school; these actions

7

hold meaning to you. Maybe it is to kill time,

maybe it is to socially engage.

I refer to ‘meaning’ instead of ‘meaningful play’ as

gamification is not inherently related to 'play'. This

term can be treacherous as it leans on

connotations as 'playful' or, once again, 'fun'.

Gamification does not necessarily has to be limited

to being playful as the gamified application might

as well serve, for example, an instrumental

purpose. An example is when you are looking for a

certain kind of information, for example taxes, and

you come across an application which is gamified

to the extent that it keeps you interested in

learning more about taxes. At that point you aren't

'playing' with the application, but you are using it

for a specific purpose, which is gaining information

about taxes. The game elements are then

implemented to make it more enticing for you to

continue learning and keep you engaged. It is not

necessarily to make learning about taxes playful.

Of course, it is very likely that most gamified

applications are playful at least to some extent, but

it is important to recognize that they are not

limited to this. I will briefly return to this point later

on when considering the context of a gamified

application.

As mentioned previously successful gamification

design is achieved when it establishes a sense of

meaning from the user and engages the user into

taking further actions. These actions are governed

between a frame of the user’s ability and

motivation and are activated through certain

triggers. Bluntly said: if you can proficiently do it,

have the adequate motivation and are compelled

to do it, then it is likely that you will do it. This is

what constitutes Fogg's Behavior Model (FBM).

The framework of FBM (Fogg, 2009) proposes a

method from a psychological and design oriented

perspective to understand persuasion and

behavioral change. This adheres to the goal of

achieving engagement with your users as achieving

this goal will very likely involve some form of

persuasion and/or behavioral change to gain a user

base for your gamified application. FBM is made of

three key components: motivation, ability and a

trigger. These components need to be present

simultaneously in order to achieve the desired

behavior. However, as you can see there is also the

presence of a curve, which is the activation

threshold. This curve indicates the border between

successful and unsuccessful triggers. The variables

'motivation' and 'ability' both range from high to

Image 3. Fogg’s Behavior Model.

8

low while the placement of the trigger is

dependent on specific circumstances. For example,

if a person has a high motivation and low ability

her behavior will be placed in the top left regions

of the framework. Depending on whether the low

ability is not too low to fall under the activation

threshold, the trigger, when initiated at this

moment where motivation and ability meet, will

either be successful or unsuccessful. Let's explore

this framework with a basic example of an

unsuccessful and a successful trigger.

A Windows update notification pops up on your

desktop, which serves as the trigger. You have the

ability to execute the update as it’s not that hard

to click on it and you have the time for it. However,

the motivation is lacking as it’s not important to

you. Consequently, the combined moment of

motivation, skill and trigger does not reach the

behavior activation threshold and the pop-up

comes off as annoying.

You receive an email notification from Facebook

that you were tagged in a friends’ picture. This

trigger motivates you to go to Facebook and as you

are a frequent user you don't mind paying the

website a visit (ability). The behavior is activated.

This model does not only serve as the theoretical

backbone to understand the user's behavior, but is

also suited for practical usage in assessing the

flaws and strengths of a gamification design. As BJ

Fogg, expert on systems to change human

behavior (which he dubs behavior design), himself

states: "Using my FBM as a guide, designers can

identify what stops people from performing

behaviors that designers seek. For example, if

users are not performing a target behavior, such as

rating hotels on a travel web site, the FBM helps

designers see what psychological element is

lacking" (2011). This psychological element can

then be either motivation, ability or the

misplacement of a trigger and the consequences of

this. However, there is a problem with this

framework. The FBM does not give a complete

picture of behavior. It describes how behavior is

initiated through the combined effort of

motivation, ability and a trigger, but it does not

describe how certain behavior is consequently

sustained. To understand this aspect of sustenance

we need to dive into the concept of 'flow'.

Flow is a concept that was brought into being by

Mihály Csíkszentmihály, a positive psychology

professor, in the 70s of the previous century. Flow

Image 4. Flow.

9

describes a certain state of mind that you reach

when you are positively engaged with what you

are doing. This can, for example, be achieved on

the basis of tackling a challenging activity which

requires some amount of skill, by receiving direct,

immediate feedback, by being concentrated on the

task at hand, having a sense of control,

experiencing a loss of-consciousness or an altered

sense of time (1990). You can experience this flow

while shooting around in Call of Duty, watching

your favorite movie, reading a book, while doing

the laundry or the daily groceries and also, of

course, while learning about taxes in a gamified

application. A 'flowing' experience is regulated

through two factors: challenge and ability. As

Jenova Chen, theorist and game designer of the

successful 'zen' games as Flow(er) and Journey,

puts it: "In order to maintain a user's flow

experience, the activity must balance the inherent

challenge of the activity and the player's ability to

address and overcome it" (2007). If this balance is

not achieved then it might either lead to a sense of

anxiety when the challenge is too high in relation

to the user's ability, or a sense of boredom when

the user's ability exceeds the offered challenges.

An example. During my internship at Flight 13371, a

company specialized in engagement design, I

worked on a project to enhance a pension

application to increase engagement. This

application has two purposes: delivering

information about the pension system and raising

the awareness of the importance of managing your

pension accordingly to live a future life fitting to

your desires. Initially, this application suffered

from an inefficient design which made it difficult to

reach its goals. For example, the information

regarding the pension system was hidden away

and stacked up to such amounts that it was hardly

enticing to read it. Not to mention that there were

a variety of bugs which obstructed the user from

using the application in the way it was intended to.

This made the user unable to continue using the

application, leading to forms of anxiety which

resulted in a high drop-off rate: the users were not

achieving a state of flow to stay committed. An

1 For the full philosophy of Flight 1337 I recommend to

pay the website www.flight1337.com a visit.

example of what the application did do well was

that it did not ask for a plethora of economic

details as the expected rate of inflation, current

fund value, the different subsections of such,

amount of tax free cash, personal and employer's

contribution to your pension fund, et cetera. It just

asked for your personal income. And even if you

did not want to enter that, it could create an

estimate of your income based on where you live

with a function through Google Maps and a

database listing various housing values. This makes

it less challenging to engage with the application

which in turn promotes reaching a state of flow.

However, right after processing this information

the application threw the user in the deep end by

not offering an indication on what steps the user

could or should take. With the relative unintuitive

interface it could be difficult for the user to figure

out how to use the application, again resulting in a

state of anxiety.

Taking the above example, if you would draw a line

(representing the user’s experience) in the above

image, starting at the bottom left and moving

towards the top right, the line would very rarely be

in the flow zone. It would instead linger around the

top left regions. What we did at Flight 1337 was

carefully balance the aspects of the challenges of

the application and the abilities of the user to fix

the inefficient design. In this way a suitable

environment was created where the goals of the

application itself are sufficiently represented and

where the user is guided to a state of flow to

increase engagement and consequently decrease

the user drop off rates.

With flow we then have identified a concept with

which we can understand the continuation of an

action leading to engagement, while Fogg's

Behavior Model gives a framework to understand

the initiation of an action. These two frameworks,

both based on psychological processes, can be

applied in joint forces to create an understanding

of the goal of gamification: engagement and

action. The following example will demonstrate the

combined forces of these two frameworks.

Throughout this example you will also find a

variety of instances where the MDA-framework is

applied. Do note that this is not a complete

overview of the workings of this application, but

10

merely a reflection of some of the designed

functionalities.

Let's use the example of the pension application

again, only after Flight 1337 intervention. A user is

looking for digestible information regarding

pensions. She has come across multiple sites

where walls of text were obscuring her sight as she

could no longer see the forest for the trees.

Eventually, she happens to come across the

website on which the gamified pension application

is displayed. With a visually appealing aesthetic she

is initially piqued in what this website about

pension matters is about. She decides to stick

around for a while longer to give the application a

shot. The introductory page asks her for some

basic information regarding her persona, living

situation and pension situation. This is done with

an accompanying digital guide who prompts or

triggers the user into certain actions. This guide

asks the questions in a witty manner as well as

providing the required information so the user is

able to fluently progress through the initial steps.

This tutorial lowers the required ability and makes

it easier to reach the behavior activation threshold

and initiate the behavior. She does not have any

problems with filling in the information as the

questions aren’t reliant on having a degree in

economics. On the basis of this information of her

current status a visualization is presented giving

the user an aesthetically pleasing overview of how

her income during her pension could look like and

what she can afford regarding stuff like vacations,

transportation and housing. The user can then

alter this overview to fit her desirable pension

income. Offering a wide range of possibilities adds

to the motivational factors to continue using the

application as this variety gives the user the option

to add a personal touch to the experience. With

this overview the user has then created her

personal goal within the application. The user will

work towards achieving this goal. This goal is

achieved through a three-staged narrative in the

form of a lifeline. This narrative will aid the user in

giving her a meaningful interaction and keep her

engaged throughout. During these stages the user

is asked to apply certain events to her lifeline, such

as a divorce, an income raise or receiving a

heritage. These events influence the future

pension income in a positive, neutral or negative

way depending on what specific event is applied.

The user can make the choice to mirror these

events to her experiences or to try some ‘what if’

situations. With this dynamic system the user

herself has the choice on what challenge she wants

to overcome. During all this the guide is still

present with his remarks and guidance. When the

user has added such an event she is informed

about the consequences this event has to her

pension income. This makes it so that she is not

overwhelmed with disjointed information but still

receives the required information to meet the

goals of the application. At the end of this three-

staged narrative she is displayed a clear overview

of all the added events, the consequences, the

choices, if she met the goal of her desired pension

income and how she could adjust her desires to fit

the outcome.

To conclude this section we can say that achieving

meaning is essential to reach the goal of

gamification which is to engage users and entice

further actions within the application. Through the

frameworks of flow and FBM we have then created

a platform to further understand the intricacies of

how actions are initiated and how engagement is

maintained.

As we have now explored the 'how' (method) and

'what' (goal) we can now take a look at the 'who'

(audience). Who are our users? This is important to

consider in regards to gamification as gamification

concerns a product, and a product has an audience

you wish to target. Recognizing this audience is

vital to the quality and success of this product.

5. AUDIENCE

“User”

The question to answer here is who the

gamification applications target. What behavior

types can we then identify that are of importance

when considering gamification?

Throughout the brief history of gamification

discourse a variety of attempts have been made to

create or apply a taxonomy of user types. For

example, Gabe Zichermann (2010) and Michael Wu

(2011) apply Richard Bartles’ player types of

11

achievers, socializers, explorers and killers (1996)

to gamification. Much other research has

expanded this classification, such as the addition of

cheaters by Espen Aarseth (2003). However, it is

difficult to apply this classification to the concept

of gamification. First off, Bartles' research is

focused on MUDs2, hence a generalization towards

non-MUD concepts is treacherous. Secondly,

Bartles' research has a lack of empirical grounding,

which threatens the external validity also. There

are other comparable classifications which do have

an empirical grounding and stronger external

validity, such as the classification Kallio, Märyä and

Kaipainen developed of gamer mentalities (2011).

However, also this approach has its shortcomings.

Even though the research is empirically grounded,

it is still limited to video games, which gamification

is not. What about gamified services that deliver

information in a 'playful' manner, or services which

raise awareness? Would you dive into a gamified

pension service to kill time, play with friends or to

be immersed? Probably not as these services are

not necessarily games in the sense of video games,

as was argued previously.

The currently available and closely related research

is focused on video games. There is a need for

empirical research to determine user types of

gamified applications. It is possible to extrapolate

certain types or behaviors from, for example, the

previously mentioned frameworks. However, there

is a risk as the audience of video games is simply

not the same. It is not advisable to incorporate

research from a different context into your

gamification design. It could very well lead to

misunderstandings and eventually an unsuccessful

design (Dixon, 2011).

What to do? I can only give one piece of practical

advice: research. When you undertake the task of

implementing game elements in a non-game

context you should research your target audience.

Ask yourself what the demographic is that you

want to target. Research will give a focus to your

design and will prevent it from becoming a muddle

2 Multi-User Dungeons are virtual worlds shared with

other players. Usually they are similar to Role Playing

Games and are mostly based on text-based interaction.

of poorly implemented game elements forced into

your design. Of course, there is a balance between

academic responsibility (for example in regards to

reliable, valid research) and the professional's

desire for practical usability. But this is a balance

that is negotiable as academia does not adhere to

the same standards as is required for practical

applications. To conclude this slight tangent then:

research your target audience; don't design for

people you do not target.

The question asked at the beginning of this section

is unfortunately not yet answerable. Empirical

research will need to be performed in order to

reach a valid and reliable answer which can then

be used to further understand gamification and its

users. As stated before, knowing these users is

essential to the quality of your product. A

classification will aid in so far that a certain user

type might have a preference for a certain

approach, for example, regarding which game

elements to use and which not to use. This helps in

giving an initial focus to your design, which should

aid in improving the quality of your gamified

application.

6. CONTEXT

"In non-game contexts"

It is important to ask the correct question

concerning this part of our definition. Do we want

to ask what you can and what you can't gamify? Do

we want to create a taxonomy of possible

gamifiable applications? Perhaps we want to ask

ourselves how gamification contexts differ from

other contexts.

It is dangerous to attempt to create an as-

complete-as-possible taxonomy of what you can

and what you can’t gamify. As a consequence you

might limit yourself to this classification, making it

harder to think outside the box and thus risking

progression. Besides serving as a restriction it

might also simply be futile as it could possibly be

that in theory you can gamify everything

(unrelated to whether the gamification project will

be practically rewarding or not), as it might just

matter on the approach you take towards the case.

I would argue that it is too soon to already

12

predestine the fate of such a youngling as

gamification currently still is. A safer and possibly

more fruitful approach would be to firstly discuss

the relation gamification has to other related

concepts and contexts.

It should be clear by now that we aren't talking

about full-fledged games, hence the non-game

contexts. But in relation to other cases it is not that

clear cut. Take for example Foursquare, a social

networking application that can communicate

locations to other users and offer consequent

rewards. Is Foursquare a pervasive game, is it a

gamified application, or perhaps both? These are

difficult questions to answer. The same can be said

of the concept of ‘play’ which entails different

connotations, tracking back to our existence as

homo ludens, or playful man, as philosopher Johan

Huizinga describes it (1995). An example is the

Volkswagen project of the trashcans which are

seemingly depthless through the smart application

of a sensor which activates when a piece of trash is

tossed in the bin. The sensor feeds the signal to a

speaker hidden in the bin which makes a whistling

sound as if the thrash falls down a couple of

hundred feet before it finally lands. Is this play,

gamification, both? Is a tool which explains the

intricate details of a pension system of your

respective country to you in a way that it

incorporates a narrative and achievements still a

tool, is it a playful application, or is it a gamified

application?

I would argue that it can be all of those.

What it depends on is the mode of engagement. As

Deterding and colleagues argue in a recent article:

"(...) in comparison to games on the one hand and

utility software on the other, a distinct quality of

gamified applications is their relative openness to

varying situational modes of engagement -

gameful, playful, and instrumental." (2011c, 6)

Deterding and colleagues don't necessarily put

such an emphasis on this aspect, it's merely

mentioned in the last few lines of their paper, but

nonetheless these three modes of engagement,

gameful, playful and instrumental, are important

to illustrate the various situational contexts of a

gamified application. Exploring these three modes

in detail is out of reach for this analysis as one

could easily fill up a book on this. As such, the

question on how these modes relate to each other

and whether this distinction is accurate is one that

I will have to leave unanswered for the moment.

However, for now it is usable to illustrate the

situational dependence of how a gamification

application is perceived.

The relative openness of gamification paves the

way for these modes to be incorporated within the

concept of gamification. In essence, gamification is

an overlay of these modes and can be interpreted

either way accordingly to the user's perspective on

the application. A person active in using

Foursquare might consider it a pervasive game

which serves as a gameful layer over his daily social

activities. Another person might find it to be a

most suited tool to look for the best daily, freshly

baked buns of her town. A young kid might enjoy

himself richly with tossing as much garbage as he

can find in the bin and hearing the rewarding

audible feedback of the illusory depthless bin.

Somebody else might just find it an inventive little

method of giving a slight amount of enjoyment

while disposing himself of an empty soda can.

Somebody who is looking around for information

to make sure his pension is arranged properly will

use the pension application for its instrumental

use. Another person who is not really aware of

how pensions work and is only slightly interested

might get hooked on it because of the appealing

narrative and to impress his friends with posting

his achievements on Facebook, displaying his

newly found expertise on pensions. It might sound

like a cheap reliance on perspectivism, but

nonetheless, it is a matter of perspective. This

dependence on the point of view of the user also

links back to the explored concept of meaning in a

previous section. Naturally, whatever meaning a

person takes home from an experience depends on

that person’s interpretation.

This approach on gamification does not aim to

figure out what can or what can't be gamified, but

instead focuses on the situational context in

regards to the user's interpretation of the

application he or she is using. I choose to refer

here to the user's interpretation instead of the

13

designer's intention to stay consistent and in sync

in regards to the previous psychological

frameworks of flow and FBM which are based

around the user's perspective and effect on that

user.

In this section it was noted that it currently is

dangerous to create a taxonomy of possible

applications of gamification as it can be limiting.

Instead the approach was taken to analyze and

propose a perspective on how gamification relates

to other neighboring concepts. Depending on the

user’s perspective gamification can, for example,

be playful, gameful and/or instrumental.

7. CONCLUSION

As we have seen in the discussion surrounding

gamification it is a contested concept. This is

mainly because it is a young concept which is

already being pushed and pulled in a variety of

directions, ranging from marketers to scholars. It

was argued that this discussion is leaning towards

a normative debate. I attempted to steer away

from this direction and take a more formal

approach. Consequently, two definitions of

gamification were explored which were then

merged and slightly adjusted to propose a formal

definition of gamification:

Gamification is the use of game elements to drive

user engagement and actions in non-game

contexts.

This definition was divided in four sections

detailing the method, goal, audience and context

of gamification applications. These sections served

the purpose of exploring this young concept and

asking critical questions regarding the nature of it.

Firstly, regarding the method, the different game

elements were understood through the framework

of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics. It was

argued that these elements give rise to a feedback

loop which is glued together by meaning giving

processes. When this loop is consequently

sustained you achieve engagement and create the

incentive for actions. This was explored in the

second section detailing the goal of gamification.

With the aid of Fogg’s Behavior Model and the

concept of flow a framework was given to

respectively understand how these actions are

initiated and how a continued form of engagement

can be understood. In the section following this,

regarding the audience, the question of what user

types are of importance when considering

gamification was asked. Unfortunately, this

question remained unanswered due to a lack of

valid empirical research as it is difficult to apply

video game related classifications to gamification

as others have done. The final section detailed the

context of gamification applications. Instead of

creating a taxonomy of eligible gamification

applications an approach was taken to analyze how

gamification relates to other concepts and

contexts. With the aid of three modes of

engagement – playful, gameful and instrumental –

it was illustrated how gamification is a relative

open concept as it can, depending on the user’s

perspective, variably involve all three modes. This

was related back to the key concept of meaning as

the experience a user can have with a gamified

application is dependent on the user’s

interpretation and related meaning giving

processes.

Gamification is a relatively new concept with still

many questions to answer. Throughout this paper

some of these questions were given an answer,

while some of them remained unanswered.

However, I do hope that the incentive was given to

look for these missing answers and further develop

the concept of gamification.

8. REFLECTION

The research as presented above was written

during my internship at Flight 1337. It is a

reflection of both my theoretical background and

experience in the practical field. When I look back

at the couple of months I have spend so far at

Flight 1337 I must say that the experience has

aided me a great deal in formulating a perspective

on how to approach certain problems, such as

gamification.

When working on a project such as the pension

application I for example learned how to apply my

knowledge to construct a viable audience typology.

This could then be used to improve the eventual

design. This specific experience then constructed

14

my view on audiences and that there is the

requirement to conduct project related research in

order to give a solid foundation to a design, as was

depicted in the respective audience section above.

Another example is how I can now approach the

pension application with the discussed frameworks

of flow and Fogg’s Behavior Model and understand

in retrospect, as I was not aware of these models

during this project, how certain key aspects of

these frameworks were already being incorporated

into the design. By researching these frameworks I

now have gained a greater understanding of why

these key aspects were incorporated and what

relation they have to each other, to the overall

design and to the users.

This form of back-and-forth feedback between

practical applicability and various theoretical

perspectives has aided me in creating a further

understanding of the subject at hand: gamification.

And hopefully, this understanding will also hold

some value to you, the reader. Perhaps it in turn

triggered, motivated or made you able to

constructively discuss gamification.

REFERENCES

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing Research:

Methodological approaches to game analysis.

GameApproaches / Spil-veje, papers from

spilforskning.dk Conference.

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades:

Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research,

Volume 1, Issue 1.

Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive Games:

Exploitationware. Gamasutra. Retrieved online 28

September 2011, from <http://www.gamasutra

.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploi

tationware.php>

Chen, J. (2007). Flow in Games (and Everything

Else). Communications of the ACM, Volume 50,

Issue 4.

Csíkszentmihály, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology

of Optimal Experience. United States, NY: Harper &

Row.

Deterding, S. (2011a). A Quick Buck by Copy and

Paste. A Review of “Gamification by Design”.

Gamification Research Network. Retrieved online

28 September 2011, from <http://gamification-

research.org/2011/09/a-quick-buck-by-copy-and-

paste>

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.E., Dixon, D.

(2011b). Gamification: Toward a Definition. In CHI

2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings. Canada,

BC.

Deterding, S. (2011c). From Game Design Elements

to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. Paper of

presentation at Mindtrek 2011. Tampere, Finland.

Retrieved online at 26 September 2011 from

<http://codingconduct.cc/189099/Presentations>

Dixon, D. (2011). Player Types and Gamification.

In CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings.

Canada: BC.

Fogg, BJ. (2009). A Behavior Model for Persuasive

Design. Proceedings of the 4th International

Conference on Persuasive Technology. United

States: CA.

Fogg, BJ. (2011). BJ Fogg’s Behavior Model. What

Causes Behavior Change? Behaviormodel.org.

Retrieved online at 29 September 2011 from

<http://behaviormodel.org>

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: a Study of the Play-

Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995.

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A

Formal Approach to Game Design and Game

Research. Proceedings of the Challenges in Game

AI Workshop, 19th National Conference on

Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ’04). United States, CA.

Hunter, D., Bogost, I., Schell, J., Zichermann, G.

(2011). Video: Opening Debate at For The Win. For

The Win. Serious Gamification. Retrieved online 28

September 2011, from <http://gamifyforthewin

.com/2011/09/video-opening-debate-at-for-the-

win>

15

Kallio, K., Märyä, F., Kaipained, K. (2011). At Least

Nine Ways to Play: Approaching Gamer

Mentalities. Games and Culture. Volume 6, Issue 4.

Kim. A. (2011). Smart Gamification. How to Build

Sustainable Social Systems. Presentation. Retrieved

online at 29 September 2011 from

<http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/smart-

gamification>

Schell, J. (2010). Visions of the Gamepocalypse.

Presentation at The Long Now Foundation.

Retrieved online at 8 October 2011 from

<http://fora.tv/2010/07/27/Jesse_Schell_Visions_o

f_the_Gamepocalypse>

Salen, K., Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play:

Game Design Fundamentals. United States, MA:

MIT Press.

Zichermann, G., Cunningham. C.

(2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing

Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. United

States, CA: O'Reilly Media.

Wu, M. (2011). The Science of Gamification.

Presentation. Retrieved online at 29 September

2011 from <http://www.slideshare.net/

mich8elwu/2011-0526-digtali-surrey-science-of-

gamificationv03>

Zichermann, G., Linder, J. (2010). Game-Based

Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through

Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. United States,

NJ: Wiley.