How To Break Anything

Innovation + experience-minded design strategy. The pieces of a working model for understanding culture + change in an increasingly complex world.

  • About
  • Weak Signals
  • nanotrends & links
    • 0
      18 Dec 2010

      Decision-making study cleverly built into a Facebook game

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Screen_shot_2010-12-18_at_10
      Dan Ariely and the team over at Duke's behavioral economics program have just launched a game on Facebook called Friend Measure. From what I gather the idea of the game is to answer one question a week about how you would act in certain situations, and then see if you can correctly guess how your friends would act in the same. 

      Simple enough, and it draws on the quiz-like appeal of being able to expose tiny details about yourself to your friends and capture the same of others, sort of a staple in this category of Facebook games. 

      Coming from the Duke team it's almost certainly more than a game, it's more likely a clever disguise for research into decision-making. Which is an interesting development in academic research - the notion of using natural social behaviors on digital networks to fuel data points for a study. Quite resourceful, no?

       

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      13 Dec 2010

      Defining 'epic' through the idea of the Epic Win, points vs strategies

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      I was recently asked to describe and define the concept of "epic." While there are many ways to approach this idea, I first thought of the notion of the Epic Win, likely because of my background playing online games on Xbox Live. I spent a lot of time doing this. Before long, it was crystal clear that what I liked most about online gaming was simply that it gives plenty of opportunites to completly and intelligently outsmart another human. There were certainly ranks and leaderboards and all the classic mechanics in games like Halo, the Splinter Cell series and Rainbow Six 3. But all of that was just filler around the core prospect of facing another thinking being that is constrained by the same set of rules, and understanding the rules (and their implications) deeply enough that victory over opponents became a triumph of wit and resourcefulness.

      An Epic Win coincided often but not always with what the game developers had defined as wins and losses, and was even less related to any visible system of points and rewards. This was most evident in my favorite of the series of games mentioned above - Splinter Cell. The multiplayer element of Splinter Cell (when I was most interested in it) was played between two teams of two players, each side with conflicting goals and related but counterbalanced stregnths/weaknessess. Think of it like "gun-toting brute mercanaries" vs "stealthy, ninja-like spies." This counterbalance took shape in the use of different tools that each side had at it's disposal - environments were almost always very dark and the spies could activate nightvision goggles, but the mercenaries could switch to goggles that visualized electromagnetic frequencies (making any spy using their goggles or any other quipment look like a christmas tree). Mercenaries had sonar equipment running in the background of their heads-up display that notified them of any noise or movement, but spies could employ devices that made artificial noise to throw them off. Spies were fast, but the mercenaries had guns. And so forth.

      Because of this defined complexity, wins in Splinter Cell were almost always epic. In order to reach your goal you had to genuinely outsmart your opponent. The game was built so that each player had many different tools to use along the many routes to the multiple goals; no one combination of the above was ever best in more than one or two conditional permutations. By 'conditional permutations' I mean to express a fundamental truth about what makes a game worth playing:

      Games are about strategies, not points. Strategies lead to points, but points are just the tangible representation of one's choice in strategies. Strategies exist when one has multiple methods with which to collect points, and must choose what they assess will result in the greatest reward. Thus what makes competition fun is not necessarily that you have more points than another player; a competition is fun because you have chosen a strategy that is better than another player's strategy.

      Consider a path where at certain points you are asked a trivia question, which if you get correct you earn 5 points. You could call it a game if you had many people go down this path, and at the end the winner was whoever had the most points, but this doesn't feel much like a game.

      Consider now that at the halfway point there is a fork that splits the path into three, and each of these new options has the potential to win you more or fewer points, depending on various conditions that could be assessed with a little thinking beforehand. This feels more like a game. Winning is no longer about just collecting stuff (points), rather it is now more about assessing conditions and making better decisions accordingly.

      I used to joke about it a lot when playing online games, but what makes a win epic is that it allows you to prove you are smarter than others. This is probably one of those points where you shouldn't get your game design/motivation advice from the self-centered, but it's a deeply satisfying and validating feeling. The ability to collect stuff does not satisfy this; in fact this is one of the reasons leaderboards are only motivating in a very specific, non-epic way.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 3
      6 Oct 2010

      Play and exploration: the value of measurement vs the value of gaming

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      The video above is Dan Hon of Weiden+Kennedy London, speaking at the PSFK Conference London last month on the state of gaming and the spread of game mechanics. 

      To paraphrase, Dan notes that we're at a point where we've stumbled onto game mechanics as a way to potentially motivate behavior, and there's a lot of people rushing to implement them as the next layer over reality. But it's not necessarily game mechanics that make a game - what makes something a game is that it is playful and moreover it's fun. Game mechanics layered on top of anything else is gimmicky at best, and distracting/cluttering/dull otherwise.

      In the following, I posit that for as many people are rushing to turn everything into a game, there aren't nearly enough who are comfortable with what it requires to make something playful and fun. 

      Let me being with a couple thoughts on play. The first is a classic definition crafted by Mark Twain, as he explains Tom Sawyer's memorable fence-painting episode:  

      "If [Tom] had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign."

      The second is a thought brought up by Matt Jones at another PSFK Conference London talk, speaking on his experience with interaction design firm BERG and their involvement in projects like Making Future Magic below:

      Making Future Magic: iPad light painting from Dentsu London on Vimeo.

      Matt noted simply that the goal of many of their projects is merely to explore. Just to tinker around with ideas and see what happens. This thought resonates with me as an excellent way to think of play. Taking the thoughts we have so far, we arrive at the conclusion that: 

      1) Games can indeed be motivating 
      2) Motivating games are characterized by playfulness
      3) Play is the freedom from obligation - the freedom to explore without any set goal in mind

      This prospect requires the ability to act without being able to intuitively measure the value of your action, and this is not a talent suited to everyone. Indeed, it's a method many actively oppose. It's easy enough to think of how this applies on the individual level - many people advocate the idea that if you're not actively working towards a goal, then you're wasting your time.

      But it's even more pervasive on the organizational level - how often do you hear of money budgeted to a project with no measurable metrics of success, just because? Organizations like BERG are rare indeed. 

      Measurement is obviously a valuable tool, but it's important to note that it necessarily obligates you to short-term success. I say short-term because measurement is by necessity defined by our ability to intuitively perceive meaningful change, which humans are notoriously unequipped to do.

      In other words, by calculating interest I can easily measure the effect of putting $50 into the bank for 10 years, and say that taking that action was good for me by pointing to those numbers. However, I have a limited cognitive capacity for understanding how using that $50 to buy an insightful book seeds many ideas over 10 years, so I can't say that I can measure the "goodness" of that action. I can look back in retrospect and say that I created groundbreaking change because of being inspired by ideas in that book, but I can't intuitively measure the value of that original $50 purchase.

      If reading a book seems more "playful" than putting money into a bank, it's because it is. Just as institutions of higher education help us understand that reading books that seem to have no practical use do indeed deliver long-term, nebulous value (what we call "education"), games are helping us understand that wonder and exploration unlock goods that are uncovered only in the unmeasurable long-term as well.

      IBM, Jane McGonigal, and plenty of others are helping to bring these ideas to the public mind, as well as a recent favorite: Jessie Schell on The Long Now, talking first on his idea of the Gamepocalypse but later getting into great thoughts on creativity and innovation. 

      Hopefully it's clear that measurement and obligation can be very useful tools. And hopefully it's also clear that gaming, play, and undirected, exploratory behavior can be very useful tools as well. Hopefully with this understanding you're better equipped to think about which is more valuable to you, and when. 
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • Search

    • Tags

      • perspective
      • value
      • metasocioculture
      • culture
      • long-term thinking
      • decisionmaking
      • offline inspiration
      • cognitive fallacies
      • future
      • time-orientation
      • limitation
      • perception
      • causality
      • definition
      • irrationality
      • art
      • behavioral economics
      • game mechanics
      • emergence
      • experience
      • exposure
      • observe everything
      • philosophy
      • programming
      • human insight
      • illusion
      • paradox
      • privacy
      • reactionary
      • want
      • worry
      • adaptation
      • advertising
      • behavior
      • design strategy
      • evolution
      • identity
      • metaphors
      • networks
      • optimization
      • shortsightedness
      • social interactions
      • weak signals
      • connections
      • counterintuitive
      • doomsday
      • feedback loops
      • indirect
      • meaning
      • tangible data
      • context
      • glanceable
      • memory
      • motivation
      • seeming
      • trends
      • utopia
      • chronological proportionality
      • cognitive environments
      • complexity
      • control
      • cyborg anthropology
      • happiness
      • human programming
      • information art
      • nostalgia
      • rationality
      • scarcity
      • technosocial
      • time
      • timeline
      • Entrepreneur
      • PSEA
      • asking the right questions
      • classification
      • cultural narratives
      • data
      • deception
      • design thinking
      • filter theory
      • games
      • habitat media
      • historical context
      • information theory
      • intelligence
      • levels of abstraction
      • linguistic programming
      • metaphysics
      • nonlinear
      • optimaization
      • organization
      • patina
      • pattern recognition
      • reactive culture
      • serendipity filters
      • truth
      • wisdom
      • wonder
      • youth
    • Archive

      • 2012 (58)
        • May (9)
        • April (14)
        • March (9)
        • February (13)
        • January (13)
      • 2011 (188)
        • December (14)
        • November (6)
        • October (6)
        • September (9)
        • August (9)
        • July (26)
        • June (21)
        • May (12)
        • April (17)
        • March (21)
        • February (25)
        • January (22)
      • 2010 (214)
        • December (22)
        • November (14)
        • October (8)
        • September (7)
        • August (13)
        • July (17)
        • June (16)
        • May (16)
        • April (22)
        • March (36)
        • February (31)
        • January (12)
      • 2009 (95)
        • December (6)
        • November (9)
        • October (9)
        • September (8)
        • August (6)
        • July (2)
        • June (9)
        • May (17)
        • April (7)
        • March (8)
        • February (7)
        • January (7)
      • 2008 (47)
        • December (10)
        • November (12)
        • October (7)
        • September (7)
        • August (4)
        • July (3)
        • May (1)
        • April (1)
        • March (1)
        • January (1)
      • 2007 (4)
        • October (1)
        • September (3)
    • Contributors

      Kyle Cameron Studstill
    • Obox Design
  • How To Break Anything

    Hello friends and collaborators. I deal in innovation, working to build fantastic experiences enabled by the digital world. As part of this I track cultural change, primarily through observations guided by models and filters calibrated over years to sort out the cream.

    These pieces of thoughts here reflect concepts that are elements of those models: ecosystem thinking, long-term value, information filters, and pattern recognition.

    ("How to break anything" is an abstract notion that reflects my background in observation and analysis. Rules are meant to be broken, but only through understanding the rules - observing them with an empathetic eye - can they be broken constructively.

    So how to break anything? Observe everything.

    [You can't observe everything so how do you know what to observe? That's another project that I call Filter Theory - see the About link above.])

    267086 Views
  • Get Updates

    Follow this Space »
    You're following this Space (Edit)
    You're a contributor here (Edit)
    This is your Space (Edit)
    Follow by email »
    Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
    Loading...
    Subscribe via RSS
    TwitterFacebook