某位精英學(xué)生Rhett Bradbury向我推薦了Jane McGonigal的作品，Jane McGonigal是一名游戲設(shè)計(jì)師兼擁護(hù)游戲可以拯救世界的傳道者。Rhett認(rèn)為，McGonigal的作品對(duì)他的平面設(shè)計(jì)碩士論文具有十分重要的影響，因?yàn)樗紤]如何突破游戲領(lǐng)域的常規(guī)目標(biāo)（銷售物品），追求更崇高的目標(biāo)（賦予人類力量，實(shí)現(xiàn)自由）。在我看來(lái)，McGonigal作品的突出之處在于，它間接地重新定義了個(gè)人及所有社交圈中人類健康的重要性。如果游戲有助于保持個(gè)人與社會(huì)健康，那表明玩樂(lè)在我們進(jìn)化過(guò)程中發(fā)揮了重要作用。

McGonigal在TED大會(huì)上發(fā)表了兩次演講，這也是我寫下此文的基礎(chǔ)。我并未涉略她所撰寫的書籍《Reality is Broken》，也沒(méi)有時(shí)間研究她所制作的項(xiàng)目。因此我只能依據(jù)這兩篇演講。她的首次演講見于2010年，標(biāo)題為《Gaming can make a better world》：

Jane_McGonigal(from fr.wikipedia.org)

我通過(guò)她的演講發(fā)現(xiàn)：McGonigal并不擔(dān)心自己的想法過(guò)于大膽與樂(lè)觀。這似乎是在TED大會(huì)上發(fā)表演講的先決條件——即你的想法必須脫離傳統(tǒng)，且思路明確，然而她所聲稱的“拯救真實(shí)世界十分簡(jiǎn)單”真像拯救虛擬世界那么容易嗎？

McGonigal大膽地設(shè)想，我們可以利用游戲的力量與魅力，創(chuàng)造出更加美好的世界。她指出，目前，人們每周投入在各種網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲上的時(shí)間為30億小時(shí)。由于全球共有70億人口，那么每人每周平均的游戲時(shí)間為半個(gè)小時(shí)。雖然這是較小數(shù)據(jù)，但考慮到鮮少有用戶擁有訪問(wèn)游戲的權(quán)限（游戲邦注：比如工作之余的空閑時(shí)間、訪問(wèn)技術(shù)），這意味著有些玩家投入的游戲體驗(yàn)時(shí)間足以彌補(bǔ)其他普通人士。因此，雖然人們耗費(fèi)的游戲時(shí)間分配并不均勻，但其數(shù)值仍然十分龐大。那這種活動(dòng)算得上是一種浪費(fèi)時(shí)間的行為嗎？它有利于營(yíng)造一個(gè)更加美好的世界嗎？

而這項(xiàng)研究的主要問(wèn)題便是游戲是否屬于浪費(fèi)時(shí)間的一種行為。在某些情況下，答案是肯定的，因?yàn)橛螒虻幕径x是它不具備即時(shí)或直接功能?？赡芡瓿赡承┤蝿?wù)十分“有趣”，但如果任務(wù)“已經(jīng)完成”，并產(chǎn)生直接效益，那它就無(wú)法定義為游戲（游戲邦注：人們普遍誤認(rèn)為充滿‘樂(lè)趣’的體驗(yàn)均屬游戲范疇）。所以，如果游戲產(chǎn)生間接效益，那么一定情況下，這些效益恰好等同玩家投入的精力。但一般情況是：如果我用那些時(shí)間玩游戲，而不是外出從事既可以滿足自己的衣食住行，又能養(yǎng)育家人的工作，那么玩游戲并不能滿足我的生存條件。這也是為何我們認(rèn)為游戲應(yīng)在“輕松領(lǐng)域”（Burghardt，2005），即滿足所有基本需求，也無(wú)任何潛在危險(xiǎn)的情況下進(jìn)行。“輕松領(lǐng)域”是了解誰(shuí)能夠花時(shí)間玩游戲的重要概念：那些在基本需求方面苦苦掙扎或無(wú)能為力的人們是不可能在游戲上投入大量時(shí)間。這也是為何典型的游戲玩家住在所謂的‘發(fā)達(dá)世界’中，那里除了最貧困的人群，其它人均有額外的時(shí)間與精力用于體驗(yàn)游戲。大多數(shù)研究游戲的生物學(xué)家紛紛贊同游戲是剩余價(jià)值的產(chǎn)物：只有擁有額外時(shí)間、食物與安全條件的生物體才會(huì)演變出玩這種行為。有趣的是，人們養(yǎng)育孩子的一個(gè)普遍特征便是為他們提供一個(gè)“輕松領(lǐng)域”：一定程度上，父母可以滿足孩子的所有需求，支持他們度過(guò)一個(gè)愉快的童年。實(shí)際上，人們通過(guò)童年進(jìn)展的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況便可知曉“輕松領(lǐng)域”的動(dòng)態(tài)：那些在社會(huì)中擁有最高權(quán)力的人們可以延長(zhǎng)孩子的童年期，甚至逾越青春期，而窮人面臨的生活壓力可能會(huì)減少孩子的娛樂(lè)時(shí)間，提升工作時(shí)長(zhǎng)。

McGonigal對(duì)“輕松領(lǐng)域”的看法（其實(shí)她并未明確談到）十分有趣。她以古呂底亞人作為試驗(yàn)對(duì)象，他們每隔一天玩一次游戲，以此分散對(duì)饑荒減少食物供給這一事實(shí)的注意力。在游戲之日，雖然無(wú)人吃飯，但游戲卻轉(zhuǎn)移他們的饑餓感。由于Herotodus故事的存在，人們認(rèn)為上述故事可能出自杜撰（雖然McGonigal已提供充分的證據(jù)證實(shí)該故事的真實(shí)性），但無(wú)論該故事是真是假已無(wú)多大關(guān)系。如故事所述，這些呂底亞人是生活在“輕松領(lǐng)域”嗎？按照基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的話，顯然如此，因?yàn)樗麄兡軌蛐颐庥陴嚮?。雖然饑餓會(huì)令人不快，但卻不是主要致命因素。McGonigal認(rèn)為，她從呂底亞人的例子中受到啟發(fā)，因?yàn)楫?dāng)面對(duì)這個(gè)不太理想的世界時(shí)，玩游戲確實(shí)可以逃避殘酷的現(xiàn)實(shí)生活。這也是她認(rèn)為目前人們玩游戲的目的：用于逃避殘酷的“現(xiàn)實(shí)世界”。在這次調(diào)查分析中，她的看法與批判玩游戲?qū)儆诶速M(fèi)時(shí)間的人們并無(wú)兩樣，即使她抱以游戲玩家更多的同情之心。雖然我們所創(chuàng)造的世界可以滿足且已超過(guò)我們的物質(zhì)需求，但卻讓我們陷入焦慮狀態(tài)，迫使我們將玩游戲當(dāng)作一種逃避手段。

當(dāng)然，網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲并非唯一支持我們逃脫社會(huì)孤立感以及來(lái)自發(fā)達(dá)世界壓力的活動(dòng)。我可能不會(huì)玩網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲，我可能對(duì)這種做法持矛盾態(tài)度，但我不會(huì)斷言自己從來(lái)沒(méi)有為了逃避現(xiàn)狀而進(jìn)行某些活動(dòng)。如果我不能溜冰、騎山地車，或者每周在攀巖館里耗上幾個(gè)小時(shí)，那我定會(huì)抓狂。為什么？因?yàn)槲疑畹氖澜绯錆M了壓抑與束縛，這種不確定性與壓力感形成一種焦慮情緒。我需要通過(guò)一種與眾不同的娛樂(lè)形式舒緩這種情緒，它不一定具有意義。但重要的是，它們不會(huì)產(chǎn)生明確的直接效益：它們所消磨的時(shí)間足以供給我完成另一篇博文，或者發(fā)表另一篇科技論文，總之，這些事情給我?guī)?lái)更棒的感覺(jué)。因此，為什么我得通過(guò)游戲舒緩焦慮感呢？對(duì)此我會(huì)爭(zhēng)辯道，游戲可以改善我們的心理與身體健康（記住游戲的普遍主題為運(yùn)用肢體），基本上有助于克服壓力與焦慮，并且不再影響工作。所以，適度地體驗(yàn)游戲，緩解情緒，其效果不容小覷。

McGonigal認(rèn)識(shí)到，實(shí)際上我們僅將玩游戲作為逃避手段。她希望我們可以更有效地利用游戲解決個(gè)人與社會(huì)問(wèn)題。鑒于此，我們轉(zhuǎn)換了研究角度，將家養(yǎng)動(dòng)物引入到動(dòng)物世界的游戲中。我們通過(guò)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，動(dòng)物主要利用游戲優(yōu)化自身能力，及其棲身的世界，并非作為純粹的逃避手段。尤其是，幼崽參加游戲是為了了解它們棲息的物質(zhì)與社會(huì)世界，通過(guò)游戲的不斷練習(xí)學(xué)習(xí)技能，而從基因的角度上看，它們一般能夠掌握這些技能（Spinka et al. 2001）。如果我們也在游戲上投入大量時(shí)間，那么產(chǎn)生的結(jié)果應(yīng)與動(dòng)物類似：也許，純粹利用游戲逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)并非浪費(fèi)時(shí)間，但我們應(yīng)利用游戲潛在的豐富價(jià)值。

McGonigal還在演講中粗略地提到“進(jìn)化”一詞。同大多數(shù)人一樣，她認(rèn)為我們屬于一個(gè)物種進(jìn)化，但她所說(shuō)的‘進(jìn)化’僅指稀有物種的演變。作為進(jìn)化生物學(xué)家，我對(duì)“進(jìn)化”一詞尤為敏感，但那不是我的本意：其實(shí)，進(jìn)化與McGonigal想要解決的問(wèn)題密切相關(guān)，因此我們應(yīng)花些時(shí)間布置進(jìn)化環(huán)境，借此游戲可能會(huì)發(fā)生更具成效的改變。人類進(jìn)化分為兩種形式：生物與文化。大多數(shù)人都基本了解我們的生物進(jìn)化，這起源于上百萬(wàn)年前的祖宗環(huán)境。就McGonigal的“追求”方面，我們應(yīng)考慮到生物進(jìn)化遺傳的兩大特征。一方面為生物進(jìn)化的速度：由于人類是自然選擇可以長(zhǎng)期存在的物種，他們?cè)谶B續(xù)幾代的進(jìn)化中僅僅改變了整個(gè)‘基因庫(kù)’，因此我們的生物進(jìn)化速度十分緩慢。如果我們這一代發(fā)生顯著‘進(jìn)化’，那就不是生物進(jìn)化（雖然某些嚴(yán)重的瘟疫會(huì)摧毀整個(gè)人類，這可能會(huì)引起重大進(jìn)化）。另一方面，由于基因遺傳的作用，我們會(huì)傾向選擇某些特征。其中一種便是從游戲中獲得快樂(lè)：我們確實(shí)屬于好玩物種，而游戲顯然有助于我們祖先適應(yīng)自己的生存環(huán)境，因?yàn)橄硎苡螒蛩坪跏侨祟惿鐣?huì)的普遍現(xiàn)象。雖然上沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定‘人性’的條文，但我們具備基于生物遺傳的傾向性與特定潛能。

另一傾向性便是文化方面?！幕锓N’有何寓意呢？借此，人類（是其它物種中為數(shù)不多能夠以‘文化’定義的種類）可以交換有關(guān)行為舉止方面的大量信息。有些行為允許我們改變周圍環(huán)境，從而大量增加‘思想文化’與‘物質(zhì)文化’。網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲便是物質(zhì)文化的最終產(chǎn)物，而且有趣的是：我們具備控制物質(zhì)世界的先進(jìn)能力，我們有能力在大腦（想象是我們模擬虛擬世界的最初思維方式）之外構(gòu)造虛擬世界。這便是文化演變的結(jié)果。雖然文化進(jìn)化存在爭(zhēng)議，但事實(shí)上，它正以十分快速、明顯的方式進(jìn)行。作為人類進(jìn)化的第二種形式，文化進(jìn)化展示了人類的發(fā)展前景與潛在危險(xiǎn)。雖然同比其它物種，我們可以通過(guò)操控環(huán)境更大限度地滿足基本要求，但它也給我們帶來(lái)了兩難境地。隨著文化日益凌駕于我們生活的環(huán)境，它很有可能從我們祖先進(jìn)化而來(lái)的環(huán)境中消逝。我們的生物進(jìn)化已無(wú)法趕上快速進(jìn)展的文化環(huán)境，所以我們極有可能與自己生存的環(huán)境‘脫離’。

我認(rèn)為，McGonigal所提及的推動(dòng)我們逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)的某些問(wèn)題實(shí)則是與環(huán)境脫離的結(jié)果。在最近的進(jìn)化歷程中，我們從來(lái)沒(méi)有在室內(nèi)、孤立他人或從事高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)性的思維活動(dòng)中耗費(fèi)大量時(shí)間。由于McGonigal擅長(zhǎng)刻畫，我們也對(duì)這個(gè)相對(duì)新穎的真實(shí)世界表示失落（而諷刺的是，是我們親手創(chuàng)造了這個(gè)世界），因此我們會(huì)逃向可以感受到“歷史性勝利”的世界中，而在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中已無(wú)法體會(huì)到這種感受。也許我們祖先在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中體驗(yàn)過(guò)“歷史性勝利”的時(shí)刻，但我們已經(jīng)錯(cuò)過(guò)，或者再也不會(huì)體會(huì)到。在祖先看來(lái)，消滅一個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)部落，或者追捕一只危險(xiǎn)兇殘的貓可能就是“歷史性勝利”的時(shí)刻。因此，回到我們?cè)缙谏畹沫h(huán)境并不是不可能，或者是不可取的行為。而我們所要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造的世界應(yīng)該是讓祖先感到安全與滿足的“歷史性勝利”，比如在我們?nèi)碌奈幕h(huán)境中重新創(chuàng)造大豐收的喜悅之情。我們應(yīng)自主掌控文化的進(jìn)化過(guò)程，確保自己可以融入我們創(chuàng)造的世界。

McGonigal就游戲能夠挖掘我們的好玩潛能，創(chuàng)造更加美好的文化世界方面擁有一些不錯(cuò)的創(chuàng)意。她也在視頻中清晰完整地闡述了這些內(nèi)容，在此我不再重復(fù)。我打算調(diào)查McGonigal是如何努力地把游戲作為逃避工具轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)檗D(zhuǎn)化手段。她在演講中提到三款游戲：分別為《World Without Oil》、《Global Extinction Awareness Program》和《Evoke》。她試圖在這些作品中探尋游戲的主要優(yōu)勢(shì)：支持個(gè)人與社會(huì)團(tuán)隊(duì)通過(guò)想象、練習(xí)與即興表演優(yōu)化自己?！皟?yōu)化自己”有何含義？這取決于游戲及相應(yīng)目標(biāo)。似乎每款游戲都支持玩家改變他們?cè)谌蛱魬?zhàn)上的文化觀：這是通過(guò)游戲進(jìn)行的個(gè)人轉(zhuǎn)化。然而，這些游戲還存在一個(gè)有趣的潛在社交維度：由于它們具有互動(dòng)性，且需要就社交方面的大規(guī)模解決方案，它們也能孕育一些全新的文化理念。而這些理念不僅可能會(huì)改變個(gè)人，還可能改變整個(gè)社會(huì)。

我真心希望這些項(xiàng)目（游戲邦注：其中某些已停止運(yùn)行）能出色地證明與挖掘數(shù)據(jù)。為了支持游戲具備轉(zhuǎn)化性這一想法，McGonigal與其合作者至少需要可以證明這種潛在性的結(jié)果。我個(gè)人更傾向于相信游戲具有個(gè)人轉(zhuǎn)化潛能，并未過(guò)多寄希望于它們能產(chǎn)生大量創(chuàng)新型的社交解決方案。該觀點(diǎn)反映出我的設(shè)想，即世界并不缺少相關(guān)問(wèn)題的清晰解決方案，只有團(tuán)隊(duì)可以解決應(yīng)用方面的問(wèn)題。當(dāng)然，正確的個(gè)人轉(zhuǎn)化可能會(huì)改變團(tuán)隊(duì)意志。McGonigal應(yīng)明確承認(rèn)，她正嘗試大規(guī)模地影響文化進(jìn)化，我佩服這種抱負(fù)。也只有大規(guī)模地轉(zhuǎn)變文化，才能保護(hù)文明的優(yōu)勢(shì)，我們也能最先享受到這些游戲。

在2012年的最新演講中，McGonigal展示出其作品理念的有趣轉(zhuǎn)變。

Jane McGonigal(from photos.siggraph.org)

你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，該作更加注重為了自身利益的個(gè)人轉(zhuǎn)化（而不是更大范圍地影響社會(huì)）。而這也清晰地反映在McGonigal部分生活的轉(zhuǎn)變：為了解決外傷性腦損傷留下的極具挑戰(zhàn)的后遺癥，她將玩游戲當(dāng)作康復(fù)工具。這是一篇十分明智的演講：我發(fā)現(xiàn)，她就臨終悔恨與意識(shí)到游戲潛能的聯(lián)系闡述得十分貼切，她用“時(shí)常說(shuō)出愿望”的方法在游戲體驗(yàn)上耗費(fèi)大量時(shí)間，但確實(shí)可以時(shí)時(shí)刻刻避免自己沉迷其中。

無(wú)論人們能否通過(guò)《SuperBetter》這類游戲轉(zhuǎn)化為我們拯救世界所需的更大規(guī)模的文化變革，這仍是個(gè)疑惑，但也許這不是該作品的寓意所在。我也不能錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為McGonigal可以分別同時(shí)承擔(dān)這兩個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)。

通過(guò)McGonigal的作品，我看到了自己的積極面與消極面。我認(rèn)為，她通過(guò)強(qiáng)調(diào)游戲在我們進(jìn)化本質(zhì)的生物與文化層面上的價(jià)值，突顯某些事物的重要性。我贊同可玩性的‘游戲類’方案可以解決許多社交問(wèn)題。我認(rèn)為完全有可能通過(guò)游戲改變?nèi)藗兊挠^念與身份。也許，我倆態(tài)度的不同之處在于體驗(yàn)的游戲類型不同。我十分疑惑虛擬世界的潛能（游戲邦注：比如《魔獸世界》、《第二人生》以各種Will Wright模擬游戲產(chǎn)生的潛能）可以解決現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中的問(wèn)題。我樂(lè)觀地認(rèn)為玩家可以通過(guò)解決‘虛擬版的現(xiàn)實(shí)世界’問(wèn)題來(lái)面對(duì)真實(shí)世界：1）在游戲環(huán)境中解決問(wèn)題似乎不見奏效；2）互動(dòng)性游戲利于社會(huì)團(tuán)結(jié)，團(tuán)隊(duì)可以集體解決問(wèn)題；3）上百萬(wàn)名玩家樂(lè)意耗費(fèi)數(shù)十億小時(shí)體驗(yàn)這些游戲。但我認(rèn)為McGonigal并未過(guò)多關(guān)注虛擬世界的固有本質(zhì)。如她所言，這些游戲極具吸引力，因?yàn)樗鼈儠?huì)不斷地向玩家呈現(xiàn)難度極小的問(wèn)題。它們是為迎合玩家的內(nèi)心喜悅而設(shè)計(jì)，只有這些充滿樂(lè)趣的游戲才能在充滿競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的游戲市場(chǎng)中生存。真實(shí)世界的真正問(wèn)題并不是它無(wú)法提供快樂(lè)，或是并未逐漸體現(xiàn)出更具難度的挑戰(zhàn)：這種難度是由我們的文化演變，而不是由游戲設(shè)計(jì)師所決定的。

玩游戲可以改變我們的思考方式？我表示認(rèn)同。

轉(zhuǎn)變視角可能會(huì)改變我們的集體意志？也許吧，雖然不少其它類型的游戲已向相反方向發(fā)展（對(duì)抗氣候變化的游戲比對(duì)抗怪獸的游戲更具吸引力嗎？）。

通過(guò)虛擬世界產(chǎn)生的新想法解決現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的問(wèn)題？我認(rèn)為這可能有點(diǎn)過(guò)于樂(lè)觀。（本文為游戲邦/gamerboom.com編譯，拒絕任何不保留版權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)載，如需轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)聯(lián)系：游戲邦）

Can playing games make the world a better place?

by Chris Jensen

One of the very talented students I work with in the Envirolutions club, Rhett Bradbury, pointed me towards the work of Jane McGonigal, a game designer and evangelist for the idea that games can save the world. For Rhett, her work is important to his Master’s thesis in graphic design, as he is considering how to move beyond the usual goal of his field (selling stuff) to more lofty goals (empowering people, making our democracy function better). For me, McGonigal’s work is salient because it addresses indirectly the role of play in human health, both as individuals and within our various scales of social grouping. If play is important for maintaining our personal and social health, that tells us something about the role of play in our evolution.

McGonigal has two talks on TED, which are what I am basing this post on. I have not read her book, Reality is Broken, nor have I had time to check out any of the game projects she has been involved in creating, so I am only working with these two talks. The first talk was given in 2010:

TED Talks “Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world”

Watching this video, one thing becomes clear: McGonigal is not afraid to be bold and extremely optimistic about her ideas. This is seemingly the prerequisite for a TED talk — your ideas need to be unconventional and unequivocal — but does her claim that it is “as easy to save the real world” as it is to save virtual worlds hold up?

McGonigal’s big idea is that we can leverage the power and allure of games to make the world a better place. She points out that currently humans play various forms of computer games for an astounding three billion hours per week. With seven billion people on the earth, that is nearly half an hour per week per person. That may not seem like much, but given how few people have access to the privileges that are still the prerequisite for most gaming (spare time beyond subsistence work, access to electricity, access to technology), this suggests that some people are spending enough time playing games to make up for the rest of the population that cannot or will not spend time on these games. I know someone out there must be counterbalancing the zero hours I spend on computer games every week. So while the amount of time being spent on gaming is not evenly distributed throughout the population, it is substantial. Is this time a waste, and can it be better leveraged for a better world?

The question of whether or not play is wasteful is central to the study of play. The answer has to be “yes” in some contexts, because the fundamental definition of play is that it is not immediately or directly functional. It may be ‘fun’ to accomplish some task, but if that task is ‘work’ — if it directly produces a benefit — it cannot be considered play (it is a common misconception that anything experienced as ‘fun’ should be considered play). So if play only produces indirect benefits, those benefits will only be worth the cost of play under certain conditions. Some of these conditions are obvious: if I spend my time playing instead of going out to do the work that is required to feed, cloth, and house myself and any dependents I might support, play is a maladaptive behavioral response to the conditions in which I live. This is why we say that play must occur in a “relaxed field” (Burghardt 2005), where all basic needs have been met and there are no imminent dangers. The concept of the “relaxed field” is important to understanding who can spend time playing games: people who find meeting their basic needs arduous or impossible are not predicted to spend much time in play. This is why the archetypal game player lives in the so-called ‘developed world’, where all but the most impoverished find that they have extra time and resources to spend playing. Most biologists who study play agree that it is the product of surplus: only organisms that have extra time, food, and safety can evolve play behaviors. Interestingly, a common feature of human parenting is the provision of a “relaxed field” for our children: up to a point, parents meet all of their childrens’ needs, allowing human childhood to be an exceptionally playful period. In fact, one can see the dynamics of the “relaxed field” by looking at the economics of childhood development: those who are most privileged in our society can extend the play of childhood well beyond adolescence, whereas a defining feature of poverty is that its stresses reduce the time period during which children can play instead of working.

McGonigal’s take on the idea of the “relaxed field” — which she does not explicitly mention — is interesting. Her paradigmatic game was played by the ancient Lydians, who spent every other day playing games in order to distract themselves from the fact that famine had reduced their supply of food. On game days no one ate, but the games helped distract them from their hunger. Attributed to Herotodus, the story may be apocryphal (although McGonigal points to evidence that corroborates the story), but whether or not it is true is not really important. As described in the story, were the Lydians in the “relaxed field”? Well, by basic standards they apparently were, because they survived the famine. Hunger may have been unpleasant, but it was not predominantly deadly. For McGonigal, the parable of the Lydians is instructive because in the face of a less-than-ideal world, games were used as an escape from the harsh realities of life. This is how she conceives of most gaming as practiced today: as an escape from the harsh realities of the ‘real world’. In this diagnosis she is not different from those who criticize games as a waste of time, although she is far more sympathetic to game players. We have created a world that meets and exceeds our material needs, but leaves us with anxieties that push us into the realm of play to escape.

Computer games are certainly not the only form of play designed to allow us to escape the social isolation and stress of the developed world we have created. I may not play computer games, and I might even be proud and snarky about that, but I certainly cannot claim that I never engage in play activities that provide an escape. If I cannot go to the skatepark, ride my mountain bike, or spend a few hours in the climbing gym each week, I begin to feel crazy. Why do I feel crazy? Because the world I live in is so stressful and demanding, and uncertainty and pressure create anxiety. That I salve this anxiety with a different form of play than others is not necessarily all that significant. What is significant is that these forms of play provide no clear immediate benefit: they cost me time I could have spent writing another blog post or publishing another scientific paper, and all they do at the time is make me feel better. So why do I salve my anxieties with play? Well, I would argue that the games I play improve my mental and physical health (notice their common theme of physical exertion), and basically keep me from becoming so overcome by anxiety and stress that I cannot be productive when I am working. So the salve may have value so long as ‘play as a salve’ is done in moderation.

McGonigal identifies the fact that we play solely for escape as a major problem. She would like to see us turn play into a more productive exercise by using play to tackle both personal and social problems. In suggesting that we take this turn, she is in some ways bringing the human animal back towards the kinds of play displayed by other animals. From what play research suggests, it appears that animals use play to better themselves and the world they inhabit rather than simply to escape. In particular, juvenile animals engage in play in order to learn about the physical and social world they inhabit, developing skills through the practice of play that would not be possible to ‘hard wire’ genetically (Spinka et al. 2001). If we are spending a lot of time playing, we should be producing outcomes that provide the same later benefits realized by animals: simply using play to escape is perhaps not wasteful, but under-utilizes the rich potential of play.

McGonigal does use the word “evolution” in this talk, but she uses it in a very sloppy manner. Like a lot of other people, she suggests that we are as a species evolving, but her use of the word just suggests poorly-specified change. It is easy for me to nitpick as an evolutionary biologist about how the term “evolution” is used, but that is not my goal: evolution has tremendous bearing on the problems that McGonigal wants to tackle, so it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out the evolutionary environment in which games might be more productively harnessed for change. There are two forms of evolution that are relevant to human beings: biological and cultural. Most people have a basic understanding of our biological evolution, which results from millions of years in a variety of ancestral environments. Two features of our biological evolutionary heritage are important to consider in light of McGonigal’s “quest”. The first has to do with the speed at which biological evolution occurs: because humans are a long-lived species and natural selection can only change our overall ‘gene pool’ over successive generations, we evolve biologically very slowly. If we are ‘evolving’ significantly in this generation, it cannot be biological evolution that is producing that change (although if some horrible plague overcame our species, that might come close). The other aspect of our biological evolution to consider is that we come predisposed to certain characteristics because of our genetic heritage. One such predisposition is joy in play: we are an extremely playful species, and apparently play served our ancestors well in their environment because an enjoyment of some form of play seems to be a human universal. There is no such thing as ‘human nature’ writ specifically, but we have predispositions and particular potentials based on our biological heritage.

Another predisposition is to be extremely cultural. What does it mean to be a ‘cultural species’? Well, humans (more than any of the few other species that can be considered ‘cultural’) exchange immense amounts of information about how to behave. Some behaviors allow us to modify the environment around us, leading to the immense proliferation of not just ‘idea culture’ but also ‘material culture’. Computer games are an end product of this material culture, and an interesting one at that: we are so advanced in our ability to manipulate the material world that we have gained the ability to build virtual worlds that are external to our brains (which — via imagination — are the original vessel for our virtual simulations). Culture evolves. How and why culture evolves is controversial, but the fact that it evolves, and evolves at an incredible pace, is obvious. As the second form of human evolution, cultural evolution presents both promise and peril. While being able to manipulate our environment has allowed us to meet our basic needs with a facility greater than any other species, it has also created a dilemma. As culture increasingly defines our environment, it also has the potential to drift significantly from the environment in which our ancestors evolved. Our biology cannot keep up with this rapidly-evolving cultural environment, and so there is the potential that we can become ‘mismatched’ to our environment.

I would suggest that some of the problems that McGonigal identifies as pushing us to escape from reality are the result of such mismatches. In our very recent evolutionary past we never spent so many hours indoors, so many hours isolated from others, or so many hours doing high-stakes mentally-demanding activities. As McGonigal does a good job of portraying, we are frustrated by this relatively novel real world (that — ironically — we in fact created), so we escape into worlds that allow us to experience “epic wins” that we can no longer gain in the real world. Perhaps our ancestors experienced “epic win” moments in their real world that we somehow miss but might also be better off missing. It is likely that the slaughter of a competing tribe or the hunting down of a dangerous predatory cat would have been “epic win” moments for our ancestors. So going back to our early environment is not necessarily just impossible, it is also undesirable. What we need to create is a world in which “epic wins” that would have been both safe and satisfying to our ancestors — say the joy at a bountiful harvest — are recreated in our new cultural environment. We need to grasp the reins of our own cultural evolution to ensure that the world we create is hospitable to our biological selves.

McGonigal has some great ideas as to why games might allow us to tap into our playful potential to make a better cultural world. They are clearly and nicely elaborated in the video, so I won’t outline them here. What I do want to look at are her attempts to convert games from tools of escape into tools of transformation. In her talk she describes three games: World Without Oil, the Global Extinction Awareness Program, and Evoke. Each of these games attempts to exploit the major benefit of play: they allow individuals and social groups to use imagination, practice, and improvisation to better themselves. What does it mean to “better themselves”? Well, this depends on the game and its goals. It seems as though each of these games will allow players to change their cultural perspective on global challenges: this is personal transformation through play. But there is also an interesting potential social dimension to these games: because they are interactive and require large-scale solutions to social problems, they also could serve as an incubator for new cultural ideas. These ideas have the potential to change not just individuals, but the whole of society.

I really hope that these projects — several of which are no longer up and running — have been well-documented and mined for data. In order to support the idea that games can be transformative, McGonigal and her collaborators need to produce results that at least suggest this potential. Personally I am more convinced by the personal transformative potential of these games than I am hopeful that they will produce massively innovative social solutions. This opinion reflects my assumption that the world does not lack clear solutions to its problems, only the collective will to address these apply these solutions. Undoubtedly personal transformation of the right type could produce a shift in collective will. What should be clearly acknowledged is that McGonigal is attempting to affect cultural evolution at a massive scale, and I appreciate this aspiration. Only cultural shift on a massive scale will preserve the benefits of civilization which allowed us to enjoy so much play in the first place.

The more recent talk, from this year 2012, presents an interesting shift in McGonigal’s work:

TED Talks “Jane McGonigal: The game that can give you 10 extra years of life”

As you can tell, this work is much more centered around personal transformation for its own sake (as opposed to for its impact on the larger society). Clearly this reflects in part a shift in McGonigal’s own life: dealing with the very challenging aftermath of a traumatic brain injury, she turned her game solutions towards personal health. This is a very smart talk: I found her connection between deathbed regrets and the under-realized potential of play to be really compelling, and her “Genie’s wish” approach to taking time out to play is a very powerful rationale for avoiding the temptation to be directly productive all of the time.

Whether the kind of transformations people can make via games like SuperBetter will translate into the kinds of larger cultural changes we require to save the world is questionable, but perhaps this is not the goal of this particular work. I cannot fault McGonigal for taking on both challenges separately.

McGonigal’s work intrigues me, bringing out both my optimistic and pessimistic sides. I think that she is onto something profoundly important by emphasizing the value of play in both the biological and cultural realms of our evolved nature. I agree that playful ‘game-like’ solutions to social problems have a lot of promise. I think that changing people’s ideas and identities through play is entirely possible. Perhaps where I depart from her optimism is in the form these games will take. I am very skeptical of the potential of virtual worlds (such as those produced by World of Warcraft, Second Life, and various Will Wright simulation games) to be converted into problem-solving exercises in the real world. I get the major assumptions that underly this optimistic hope to shift gamers over to solving ‘virtual real-world’ problems: 1) that solving problems in a gaming context does not feel like work; 2) that interactive games build social solidarity and allow for collaborative problem-solving; and 3) that millions of people are willing to spend billions of hours playing these games. But what I think McGonigal pays too little attention to is the very canned nature of virtual worlds. All of these games are appealing — as she points out — because they constantly dangle the player in front of a problem that is just a little bit harder to solve. They are designed with the player’s enjoyment in mind, and only those games that are enjoyable survive in the very competitive game market. The real problems of the real world are not enjoyable, and they do not present themselves in progressively-more-challenging increments: they are here, and they are at the level of difficulty dictated by our cultural evolution, not some game designer.

Change our way of thinking through playing games? That I will buy.

Transform perspectives to potentially change our collective will? Maybe, although there are many other forms of play pushing in the opposite direction (will playing against climate change really ever be more appealing than playing agains ogres?).

Solve the world’s problems by producing new ideas within a virtual world? That might be a bit too optimistic.(source:christopherxjjensen)