Gamification in the Public Sphere

Those in the community of gaming theory and practice have pigeonholed gamification as a term. It is generally considered that it means applying gaming principles to non-gaming environments. Gaming theorists like Richard Bartle, wedded to his dated MUD model of gamers, speak out against gamification with passion, setting out why it never works and how videogames stand in their own right. Those in the area of Serious Games, often try to make themselves appear different to those in the area of gamification. In reality, Serious Games should be called serious gamification, if one sees Serious Games as a practical application of gaining principles to mundane or otherwise serious activities training + gamification. Serious Games are important, yet they are essentially gamified systems with a practical purpose that has been gamified. That is why they are in this book, which presents chapters on issues affected by gamification. This is evident in the first chapter of the second section (chapter 6), which shows how designing Serious Games for people with disabilities is basically dependent on the video game theories that people like Richard Bartle try to claim as their own and distinct from the topic. On this basis, in addition to its more traditional meaning, one might further extend the definition of gamification to be the intentional application of gaming principles to an environment in such a way that participation within it is more enjoyable so that greater gratification and less discomfort is achieved for the greater good of those that form part of that environment. It is this definition that has led to the specific concentration of chapters for this book.