“I establish my lucidity in the midst of what negates it. I exalt man before what crushes him, and my freedom, my revolt, and my passion come together then in that tension, that lucidity, and that vast repetition.”
New post from Ludic. Was wondering where he’d gone.
It’s disturbing and comfortable to know that the boredom never leaves you, nor the terrifying scope of the fixable problems in (nearly every) industry, even for a genius like him.
مقالين سَيُريحان قلبك في حال كَرِهت سماع وقراءة عبارة "الذكاء الاصطناعي" 🚫🤖
ما هذه المجموعة من المختارات تسألني؟ إنّها عددٌ من أعداد نشرة “صيد الشابكة” اِعرف أكثر عن النشرة هنا: ما هي نشرة “صيد الشابكة” ما مصادرها، وما غرضها؛ وما معنى الشابكة أصلًا؟! 🎣🌐
🎣🌐 صيد الشابكة العدد #91
يومكم زين؛ والسلام عليكم؛ بسم الله.
🎣🌐 صيد الشابكة العدد #91🎙️🗣️ حوار مع خبيرة المبيعات نهى جابر✨ مُبشِّر💵 شاهد هذا قبل أن تصدق أرقام المؤثرين “المشاهير”🔌🧠 جدير بالاطلاع🗂️ من الأرشيف🔧 أُجرِّب…
Pacing is a dynamic which is a strong determinant for design choices. As a cousin to the previously discussed matter of balance, realizing the importance of properly pacing content, patterns of mechanics and, what we will come to call emergent pacing to nurture autonomy is crucial to be able to get most out of gamification. Let’s take a closer look at what role pacing and autonomy play in gamification related design.
A familiar approach in gamification by Amy Jo Kim is about designing an application around a three-step structure which indicates an increase of ability, or mastery. It starts with onboarding the newcomers by grabbing their initial interest and giving them an enticing context to stick around in. After this the newcomers can progress to regular users, which relates to habit building. The users come back to the application and make doing so a regular pattern in their behavior. After this users are able to reach a stage of mastery which predominantly appeals to the enthusiasts. The users in each of these stages require different approaches to appeal to. Kim for instance argues that “regulars need fresh content/activities/challenges”, while enthusiasts desire “exclusivity, recognition, impact” (source). But besides that each stage requires a different approach, the way a user progresses through these stages and have a meaningful experience is designed by pacing.
A simple example to start us of: teaching. Let’s say that assignments and exams are motivators for learning and serve as a stepping stone for subsequent assignments and exams. When these tests are given out is a matter of pacing and the difficulty of these tests concerns questions of balance. Addressing matters as to when to give an assignment or exam are then of importance for reaching a desired rate of progression through the course and maintain tests as a source of motivation for the students.
When you look at this example of teaching you could interpret pacing as simply offering triggers at a certain rate to motivate behavior and maintain interest. Pacing as such can be interpreted as creating a predefined narrative structure which is dramatic in one way or another. It’s almost as if you would be on a train, following a fixed railroad, passing by various stations. It’s also similar to a cinematic experience with what you could describe as a mounting wave pattern with tense situations leading to a cooldown which then leads to an even tenser situation with again a cooldown, and so on. But this ignores one hugely important aspect: autonomy. And this is an aspect which is especially interesting when considering design relating to games and interactive applications.
When we take a look at Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs we can see that at the very top lies the need of self-actualization. In short this refers to having the freedom to express and develop your own specific desires. This closely relates to what Dan Pink describes in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Bluntly said, Pink argues that throughout our current personal and cultural development we are becoming more satisfied in our base needs which are on the lower end of the hierarchy of needs. Resulting this we are becoming more and more intrinsically motivated to fulfill self-actualization. This concerns three sources for motivation: to gain mastery, have a purpose and, finally and most interestingly at this point, reach autonomy. It’s in no way possibly to completely dive into this matter in just a short write-up like this here, but let’s do some surface scratching on autonomy, pacing and gamification.
As illustrated with the example of teaching, pacing can be approached as a static structure. But pacing can also be seen in a more dynamic context. In game design a dynamic which is valued greatly is creating the possibility for emergent gameplay. This is gameplay which is not necessarily dependent on a set narrative structure, but is made able through just the presence of game mechanics. This is predominantly present in sandbox type games where a core goal of the mechanics is to allow for emergent gameplay; to allow for simply messing about (as in an actual sandbox). How the player or user goes around playing in such a ‘free’ and dynamic context with the available means leads to what you could call emergent pacing. There is no narrative pushing progression into a certain direction; you actually evolve your own narrative and make it emerge from your own interactions with the available mechanics and the context they are placed in.
This approach to gameplay reinforces my stance that gamification should not be focused on rewards. If we look at the above, rewards such as badges, points or experience create a mostly static structure with fixed pacing, while a dynamic structure which nurtures the opportunity for emergent pacing by allowing autonomy can appeal to the most valuable intrinsic motivation. A great example of this is figure running, which involves using a mobile app like Nike+ to track a runner’s course with GPS data in order to draw figures on maps.
