Insignificant Wranglings

Today’s Plan:

• Explore ARG Research Possibilities
• Homework

Alternate Reality Games

For our third and final project this semester, I would like to focus attention on ARGs, or Alternate Reality Games. Wikipedia offers a concise and substantive definition:

An alternate reality game (ARG) is an interactive networked narrative that uses the real world as a platform and employs transmedia storytelling to deliver a story that may be altered by players’ ideas or actions.

The form is defined by intense player involvement with a story that takes place in real time and evolves according to players’ responses. Subsequently, it is shaped by characters that are actively controlled by the game’s designers, as opposed to being controlled by artificial intelligence as in a computer or console video game. Players interact directly with characters in the game, solve plot-based challenges and puzzles, and collaborate as a community to analyze the story and coordinate real-life and online activities. ARGs generally use multimedia, such as telephones, email and mail but rely on the Internet as the central binding medium.

While I appreciate that definition, I also want to push back on the idea that an ARG necessarily requires a story. To me, SuperBetter is an ARG. Any experience that maps a game structure over/onto the real world is an ARG. What matters isn’t the presence of a story, but the presence of a game. As Jaakko Stenros (2017) showed, it can be quite hard to pin down exactly what makes a game a game (or, more narrowly, how to define “game”). Stenros offers ten criteria to think about; I’d like to gloss five of them:

• Rules
• Players (decision makers)
• Competition or Conflict
• End/Goals
• Un/Productivity

I think ARGs, or at least a particular version of ARGs that I am thinking of, challenge that 5th criteria. Let me put the question another way: is SuperBetter a game? Or is it a (exemplary?) example of gamification. Ian Bogost, in his widely read essay “Gamification is Bullshit” (2011), dismisses the trend to take an unpleasant activity and slap a game structure on top of it. Its like doing the dishes, but with fun! Bogost writes:

Game developers and players have critiqued gamification on the grounds that it gets games wrong, mistaking incidental properties like points and levels for primary features like interactions with behavioral complexity. That may be true, but truth doesn’t matter for bullshitters. Indeed, the very point of gamification is to make the sale as easy as possible.

I’ve suggested the term “exploitationware” as a more accurate name for gamification’s true purpose, for those of us still interested in truth. Exploitationware captures gamifiers’ real intentions: a grifter’s game, pursued to capitalize on a cultural moment, through services about which they have questionable expertise, to bring about results meant to last only long enough to pad their bank accounts before the next bullshit trend comes along.

I want to hold onto Bogost’s phrase “interactions with behavioral complexity.” That’s the real meat for Bogost–what games do. His seminal book, Persuasive Games, details a theory of procedural rhetoric–a third form of rhetoric. We have oral/written rhetoric (words that affect us, move us, challenge us). We have visual rhetoric (images that affect us, move, us, challenge us). Bogost sees video games as more than just an amalgam of the two: they present us with choices/mechanics/rules that affect us, move us, or challenge us. We aren’t necessarily consciously aware of how the “choices” do this. Take the game Sim City. I like Sim City. Sim City includes a mechanic through which you set your taxes. The game proceduralizes a neoliberal/fiscal conservative logic of taxation: if you raise taxes, then businesses will suffer and your commercial districts will diminish. Less commercial districts means less job opportunities and more unemployment. Now some of you might say “yeah, that sounds right, that’s how the world works.” You likely wouldn’t experience any cognitive dissonance playing SimCity since it matches your ideology. Some of you might be of a different ideological bent and challenge the assumption that lower taxes creates jobs. In that case, the game would fail to be procedurally persuasive, since the rules of the game contradict your ideological frame. Many of you might not even think about this. It just passes through you–but that’s Bogost’s exactly point about the persuasive power of simulations: you play the game, you tacitly (unconsciously) accept the rules, you interiorize the principles, those interiorized principles shape the way you navigate the real world. This is what Bogost means by interactions that have “interactions with behavioral complexity.”

I fear I have gotten off track a bit here–but I thought it important to give you a sense of procedural rhetoric and the ways that it gets discussed/applied in scholarship. Because at its core, SuperBetter is McGonigal’s attempt to “gamify” or “proceduralize” positive psychology.

All of this is meant to provide some context and backdrop for your final project this semester. Let me first layout the requirements of the project. Your final paper should be 1800-2500 words (roughly 7-10 pages double-spaced). The final paper must contain at least 8 sources. 5 of these sources need to be academic, peer-reviewed journal articles. The final paper must be written in a format suitable to your major.

In terms of subject, I leave you room to design your own research question. But let me offer a few suggestions. The default option is to compose a paper that centers around evaluating SuperBetter. Such a paper would need to begin by exploring the secondary literature on the game, and using that literature to evaluate your own and the class’s experience.

• Roepke et al.”Randomized controlled trial of SuperBetter, a smartphone-based/internet-based self-help tool to reduce depressive symptoms“
• Chou et al. Multimedia Field Test: Evaluating the Creative Ambitions of SuperBetter and Its Quest to Gamify Mental Health
• Want and Singhal. Digital Games: The SECRET of Alternative Health Realities

Another possibility might concern looking into the critiques of wearable devices and fitness tracking apps (as ARGs(?)). Another possibility might be designing a game to help freshmen learn their way around UNC and Greeley. Another paper might explore and argue for adopting HumansvsZombies at UNC (as far as I know, we don’t currently play this?). You might also have an interesting question about gamification and education. Or perhaps you are interested in procedural rhetoric.

To Google Docs.

Homework

Re-submit a link to your gaming journal (Gaming Journal ReSubmission
). I will use this space to check in on reading responses and to see research progress.

Create an account with SuperBetter if you haven’t already.

Read McGonigal 29-52

Reading Questions (address 2 of these in your gaming journal):

• How/why can games help block pain or anxiety? What scientific concept does McGonigal introduce to support this claim?
• What is flow? What conditions have to be in place to achieve it?
• Why are games “better” at managing pain/anxiety than books or movies?
• What is the relation between casual games and mindfulness?

Read McGonigal 77-130; address 4 of these in your gaming journal:

• What happens when we play together?
• What is “theory of mind”?
• Tell me about social empathy
• What is the “equalizing nature of games”?
• What are the 3 dimensions of social online games?
• What should we know about First-person shooters?

Today’s Plan:

• Refreshing the ARC Projects
• Homework

Refreshing the ARC Projects

I met with Amelia and Larry over the break. Today, we are still caught in something of a holding pattern as I am waiting for two things from Amelia–a jump drive containing images that we can use in any flyers, tweets, or promotional materials and a detailed annual calendar of events. I should have both of those things soon. Grant writing folks–I do have the 501(c)3 identification number; I’ll email that out to the group.

Let me write brief updates for each group.

Grant Writing: We have the 501(c)3. I want the preliminary grant writing grid to be completed by the start of Wednesday’s class. Include a link to the grid in today’s memo and let me know how is finished and who has work to complete by Wednesday. Once the grid is complete, I see three or four tasks for this group.

• First, I’d like you to develop a better sense of the kinds of proposal Amelia writes. I’d like everyone in the team to read and evaluate the 4 completed grant applications Amelia has provided us. Use Lesson 6 of the Grant Writing Book (“Writing Proposal with Style: 12 Basic Rules”) to develop your evaluation. This evaluation should produce some kind of report; perhaps a recommendation report to Amelia? Or a memo to me detailing the assets? Both? I don’t know exactly what the evaluative criteria in the Grant Writing book will say about Amelia’s writing. But I do know that I would like all of you to examine every grant, have some way of collaborating your findings, and then report them to me/Amelia
• Second, we need to go through our initial list of 28 grants and figure out which ones are strong potential candidates for ARC. You’ve started this work with the grid. Now that we have the 501(c)3, we can take a closer look at those applications
• Third, once we identify candidates, we need to complete as much of the grant application as we can. We can create a Google Doc for each application. Go through the application, and copy/paste the different sections into a Google Doc. Go through Amelia’s completed grants and use her copy as needed
• The possible fourth step will be determined based on whether those first 28 grants provide us with suitable candidates. If we adjust our search criteria, we get a list of 80 grants. There might be a diamond in the rough there. We’ll see

Promotions Group: I think y’all are in the biggest holding pattern right now, since we are waiting on both the calendar and the images. But I do think we can get a sense of what can be accomplished. Try to brainstorm a calendar from what we know (Colorado Gives Day, Families in Action, Movie thing).

Organizational History Group: Where are we on getting call backs on interviews? Do we have any scheduled? Amelia said Margaret Brown is waiting for a call, so let’s double-check that we are calling the right number. Also, let’s confirm who is/n’t available for the Cathy Orosz interview on Friday, March 22nd.

I’d like your memo to include a list of potential interview questions. Writing good interview questions can be trickier than you think. You want them to be open-ended enough to give the interviewee a sense of freedom in their answers. But you also want to have some specific questions to ask–events, people, etc. in case the interview stalls.

Today I would like each group to write me a memo. The memo should have a few sections. First, pin down what tasks need to be performed and who will be responsible for each task. Let me know if you have subteams. I also need to know when these tasks will be completed. I’ve got some information down below for you to incorporate into this section. I’ll respond to the memos before Wednesday’s class, in which I’ll have each team produce a gantt chart to help me keep track of progress and deliverables. Finally, remind me if you need something from Amelia (promotions group: I know you need the calendar and images).

Homework

This will vary by group. Some of you have things to do by Wednesday.

Today’s Plan:

• LAC Videos
• Just One Thing Handouts
• Editing Audio

LAC Videos

I’ve heard back from Dr. Kraver and we have at least three classes to video and include in our promotional video project. We have confirmations from:

• Wendilyn Flynn MET 205–meets M/W/F from 9:05 to 9:55 in CAND 1220 and 12:30-02:20 on T (I’m assuming that’s the lab)
• Sharon Bywater-Reyes GEOL 110 [online]
• Byron Straw GEOL 100 / GEOL 110 [online] / MET 110

It is time to draft some emails. Let’s brainstorm ideas and then draft here.

Just One Thing Handouts and Surveys

I presented the two projects to my other classes this morning and got some interest–I will beat the drum again on Friday.

For “Do Nothing”–I have a link to your Pre-Survey and have your IRB. I need links to your 3 “in progress” update surveys and your participant handout (covering meditative strategies).

For Journaling–I need links to everything.

Today’s plan:

• Review criteria
• Williams on Characters
• Homework

Review Criteria: Final Job Report

We are nearing the completion of the project two, the Personal Learning Project. I’d like you to compose a brief report that contains the following sections:

• Summary: (800 characters)
• Gantt Chart Review: include the gantt chart and 800 characters on how it went. Give me a self-evaluation–how did the time management go? Were you able to stay on schedule?
• Deliverables: 1000 characters, Provide some description, what went right and what you’d change/do next. Tell me about the work–what should I see? What might I not see?
• Tutorial Evaluation (800 characters): Was the tutorial useful? Too easy? Too hard? Would you recommend using it again? That is one or two concrete ideas/skills you’ll always remember?

I’ve included character counts because the goal for this assignment is concision. You have to make the prose very tight without making it feel stilted. This is harder than it sounds.

This will be a hypertext document. Include links to tutorials, social media accounts, or wordpress sites as required. Insert screenshots of deliverables as needed.

This project is due Monday, March 4th. I am concerned as to the low amount of job memos I have received. Many of you are not failing to keep up with the reading assignments. This course is designed as more of a workshop: if you simply turn in all the projects on time, then you are really likely to get an A. Last semester 10 out of 13 students got an A. This semester, only 9 out of 20 students are on that pace. Get those memo updates to me. And, for the love of pizza, turn in the fracking PLP report on time.

Homework

Three things:

• Finish the report
• For next Wednesday, March 6th, read Kramer and Bernhardt (1996) “Teaching Text Design.” There will be a quick reading quiz on Wednesday, and then we will use the principles in the article to redesign a print document
• On Monday I’m going to have groups map out what work needs to be done for The Arc. I’ve asked you to read one document in your group’s current corpus. Do that. I’ll ask you what you’ve read and what trajectories/possibilities it opens.

Today’s Plan:

• Review Research Report Expectations
• Group Time
• Homework

Calendar Update

Here’s what I wrote when we began the project:

You will work together in groups of 3 to analyze representations of gender, race, or sexuality in a specific genre of video games. You will develop a paper of around 2000 words and then transform the paper into a 10 minute video (similar to Sarkeesian’s). Papers will be due on March 4th. Videos will be due on March 22nd.

Here’s the update:

• Monday, February 25th: That’s today! Report Expectations
• Wednesday, February 27th: Work day in the lab
• Friday, March 1st: Williams and Bizup on Characters
• Monday, March 4th: Reports will be due in class for peer review.
• Wednesday, March 6th: Crash Course on shooting video and recording audio
• Friday, March 8th: What the hell is SuperBetter? Final Project 2 papers are due

The final videos will still be due on March 22nd.

Project Two Research Report Expectations

Your focus this week should be on finishing your games research. Different groups are at different stages of this process. But it has to get done.

The structure of the report will follow the standard research format:

• Introduction
• Methodology
  • How you developed your corpus
  • How you analyzed your corpus
• Findings (tables are acceptable, but keep them clean)
• Discussion
• Conclusion

It is hard for me to predict the word count for a project like this. But I am guessing something like this:

• Introduction: 300 words
• Methodology: 500-800 words (depending on how complex each system is)
• Findings: This section shares the “raw” data. Present that data in a form that makes sense–a concise table, bar graph, pie chart. Here’s where you tell me what you found.
• Discussion: Hopefully you can tell me 4 smart things about your research. Let’s say that each smart thing takes 400 words. So that’s about 1600 words. Here’s where you tell me about what you found–how it compares to previous research, what was un/expected, etc.
• Conclusion: These are tricky to write, but I am guessing around 200 words

So, altogether, that’s 2600 words. So that’s about 10 pages double-spaced. I originally said 2000 words (8 pages).

What makes this incredibly tricky is that some of you are working alone. Some of you are writing in groups. I am a bit unsure how to negotiate this. I’m going to go group-by-group.

• Cover Project: There’s four of you. So 1600 words for the discussion section feels right
• Double Trouble: There’s only two of you. Let’s aim for 2-3 smart things, so somewhere around 800-1200 words in discussion section
• Fight Club: Four people, 1600 words.
• Rated G: There’s 6 of you. SIX. Rather than increase the number of findings, I’d rather see you develop them further. So 3-4 findings and 2000 words. When you’ve finished your data collection, do some brainstorming and figure out what you have to say. Divide into teams. Conquer.
• The Absent Wonders: 3 people, 800-1200 words
• The Lone Ranger. Let’s be realistic and say 600-800 words. My guess is that you can come up with two clear findings

A final note: the length of paper isn’t really important. I am more interested in the rigor of your methodology, the quality of your findings, and the depth of your insight. Those are harder things to evaluate.

Early I indicated that I would develop gantt charts for the project to make sure that everyone pulled their weight and contributed to the group. That didn’t happen. But I did take the time to put together a feedback form. The feedback form provides me insight into the project.

Homework

Two things:

• Obviously, complete and submit the report
• Complete your feedback form
• Make sure you have a copy of SuperBetter