Endgame Notes: Gaming the Future of Museums
Posted in Individualism, Museum Expansionism, Presentism, Technology on 28. Jan, 2009
Just some notes after the webcast by the AAM about Gaming AND museums. I’ll make some more detailed posts when the chat logs are available. Here’s just some fallout from the “Brain Grenades”.
- Firstly, I find this topic exciting. There’s a lot to be thought about as this isn’t a fully fleshed out idea.
- Have to applaud the way the future is being approached by the AAM. The focus isn’t on predictions but more building towards a future we want, not reacting to a future we don’t know.
- There was a lot of comments about this idea of “Happiness” and that games are successful by making people happy. It seems that people took this as a replacement for current museum objectives, not an extra layer to be explored.
- I have to say, I’m rather shocked at how resistive a lot of people sounded to these ideas.
- “Happiness Engineers” is an odd concept and one that I wouldn’t be willing to give to all game designers. Anyone who has played a poorly designed game experiences frustration and a sense of being ripped off. This is something to watch out for: Not everyone gets happy with games, but the best games do encourage happiness. What is the ratio between good and bad games? Would a museum allow an unsuccessful experiment?
- I think World of Warcraft isn’t the best example to use as many started talking about addiction rather than happiness. Not that the addiction to museums would be a bad thing.
- I suggest a better model would be Half-Life 2. Some of the best plotlines and story telling in single player but also a very large multiplayer community, as well as hundreds of modifications using the same engine.
- Not enough is being said about story and plot yet. Early days. I think this has more to do with Dr McGonigal style of games she’s involved with (ARGs) that seem to have motivation based around puzzles.
- Someone asked about curatorial involvment in a game, be it heavily involved or not at all. Depending on the kind of game, I suppose. It could be an open-ended sandbox game or a linear narrative. Both work in the video game world despite vogues for one or the other.
- Games are not all about killing people and with no morality so are just escapism. The Nintendo DS and Wii have sold millions of unit and they have about five games involving guns.
- Seriously, guys, drop the “scavenger hunt” idea. It seems to dominate these kind of discussions and it is not the be-all-and-end-all of what could be achieved.
- Not sure about the idea of “goals” and “achievements” and “leveling up” yet. It seems linked to the idea of gaining badges to show accomplishment and I feel that’s a bit too much like Boy Scouts. Certainly should be involved, but not the sole reason for this.
- Calling it “gaming” sounds like it gave the wrong idea to people. Maybe a different title is needed. I put forward Role-Museum-Games, RMGs, that some seemed to like. It gives it genre and definition different that current video games and maybe put forward the idea that the whole thing needs to be created before being dismissed.
- “People running around the museum disturbing others” is a worry, it seems. Well… Don’t design your game like that.
- Design it to be played in a group or on your own. Design it to involve stealth. Design it for an age range. Design it with a difficulty curve. Design it to be linear or not. The point is that the design will serve the function.
Some more structed posts will follow on this topic in the future.
I enjoyed the ideas spun out by the presentation – seem easier to adapt to a children’s museum or science museum than a history museum like mine, but I came away with some ideas that I’m going to try (try. fail. fail better). People did seem a bit negative in comments. I don’t play video games myself but my son (who has “learning differences”) is devoted, and I see the potential in the best games to be much more than they are now in term of learning and social relevance. In fact I had to leave the chat area to go admire a new level that my son had built in Little Big Planet (GREAT game!) that he had to show me immediately. (today’s a snow day, working from home)
I, unfortunately, was unable to participate in the conversation, but having come to museums after working in online roleplaying things and educational technology, I want to warn people away from thinking that gaming is The Answer. I feel like educational software decided that gaming was the way to go — hence the “win a sticker” (/gold star/levels/achievements/boy scout patches) view of the world. It’s pretty depressing when you’re designing ways for kids to learn social studies or reading, and it’s REALLY depressing if you’re thinking about designing ways for adults to find ways in to experiencing art. Must we go down this road? And, are we really this behind the Ed world?? (For me, this concept already felt like a forced cliche of “engagement” nine years ago….)
@Carol
Not much to add ‘cept.. Yes.>Firstly, I find this topic exciting.Me too, definitely. Think the fact that we are having the conversation is great.>Have to applaud the way the future is being approached by the AAM…Yes, great job, AAM.>Seriously, guys, drop the “scavenger hunt” idea…Sigh. Yes. Would like us to move away from that and focus on the “relationship thing” on the museum floor. If we’re going to have them, then shared goals, shared achievements, etc.>The point is that the design will serve the function.Yup. Great post, summed it up in a funny way. Thank you for that.