I'm planning to blog bits of my dissertation as I write it up so there'll be more posts over the next month, but for now I wanted to contextualise the two games I'm evaluating at the moment. In the next post I'll talk about the changes I made after the first solid round of evaluation.
The two games, nicknamed 'Dora' and 'Donald' are designed as casual games - something you can pick up and play for five minutes at a time. Design goals included: an instantly playable game that provides stress relief, supports a competitive spirit (but not necessarily against other people), inherently rewarding experience, simple game play and puts 'fun before do-gooding'. The games were designed around a specific research-based persona ('Meet Janet', pdf link) - hopefully it's exactly right for some people who are close to the persona in various ways, and quite fun for a wider group. It won't suit everyone, not least because definitions of 'fun' and expectations around 'games' can be deeply individual.
The games are also designed to test ideas about the types of objects and records that can be used successfully, and the types of content people would be able to contribute about the less charismatic and emotionally accessible reaches of science, technology and social history collections - this means that some of the objects I've used are quite technical, not all the images are great and small variations on object records are repeated (risking 'not another bloody telescope'). While this might match the reality of museum catalogues, would it still allow for a fun game?
The realities of a project I was building in my free time and my lack of graphic design and illustration skills also provided constraints - it had to be browser-based, it couldn't rely on a critical mass of concurrent players to validate actions or content, it had to help the player dive straight into playing and overcome any fears about creating content about museum objects, and it had to use objects ingested through available museum APIs (I selected broad subjects for testing but didn't individually select any objects).
I then added a few extra constraints by deciding to build it as a WordPress plugin - I wanted to take advantage of the CMS-like framework for user logins, navigation and page layout, and I wanted the code I wrote to be usable by others without too much programming overhead. I'll need to tidy up the code at the end, but once that's done you should be able to install it on any hosted WordPress installation. I'm making a related plugin to help you populate the database with objects (also part of an experiment in the effectiveness of letting people choose their own subject areas or terms to select playable objects). I'll talk more about how I worked with those constraints and how they informed the changes I made after evaluation in a later post.
Different games for different purposes
I've been thinking about a museum metadata game typology, which not only considers different types of fun, but also design constraints like:
- the type and state of the collection (e.g. art works, technical/specialist and social history objects; photographs and other media vs objects; reference collections vs selected highlights; 'tombstone' vs general vs interpretative records)
- the type of data sought including information curators could add if they had infinite time (detail on the significance of the object, links to other subjects, people, events, objects, collections, etc); information that can be extrapolated from the existing catalogue record; things curators couldn't know (personal history, experiential accounts about the design, manufacture, use, disposal etc of objects); emotional responses; external specialist knowledge; amateur/hobbyist specialist knowledge; synonyms in every day language; terms in other spoken languages
So, all that said, if you'd like to play (and help with my evaluation), the two games are:
Donald's detective puzzle - find a fact about an object
Dora's lost data - a simpler tagging game