Welcome to a Question of Gamification. My name is An Coppens. I'm the show host, and also the chief Game Changer at Gamification Nation. And today's question is: how does a gamification or serious game project stand up in cost, benefits and impact in comparison to a big name game like a World of Warcraft, FIFA,`Grand Theft Auto, Fortnite, you name it, any popular game that people are playing these days? The first answer to this question is that it is a question of budget and resources. Typically, the bigger name games have more budget available than most corporates are willing to pay us for a gamified process or gamification or a serious game, which is the first given. Most budgets in the corporate sector are relatively limited. And the second part is the resources available. So in gamification studios, the majority of us work in quite a lean production team, and we adopt quite a lean methodology to get to the end results. In the larger studios like Blizzard and EA who produced some of the fantastic games that we all love and would love to aspire to create someday. They work with bigger teams. They have many more stages of inputs. We, for example, have a game designer, a graphic designer and a developer at the core of what we do. We don't necessarily have a story writer, a narrative writer, a level designer, several versions of graphical asset designers, several developers and in-house access to a wider skill set. So whilst it is something we'd love to aspire to, realistically, the budgets that we are given to work with don't allow us to get us there. Does that mean that the benefits of what we create are compromised? Well, actually, not always. First of all the bigger studios are creating for fun and for lasting engagement and to commercially making the most out of any given game that they dream up and create. Whereas for us, the measures of success are different. Yes, it should be fun to engage in, if it is a serious game. In gamification, the purpose is always the business objective first. The benefits of a serious game and gamification is typically whether it has hit the objective that it was designed for. And the first objective is usually not, it has to be super fun. In most cases, well, it has to attract people to join the organisation if it's for recruitment, it has to improve sales numbers if its sales related, it has to improve skills if it's training related. So that's the first thing, so the objective is different. It should still in terms of fun aspects, and levels of wanting to play again be engaging enough. But some games, you will not replay over and over in a gamified setting. For example, if you're dealing with a game for recruitment, then obviously this is not going to be repeated over and over again by the same person. The intention would be there that the person may play it for a number of times, over a short space of time, even a week, or to gain access to the highest level so that they gained interview or they gain the skills that they need to prove to deliver. In some sense, the purpose is different. So the reusability for any one player is limited. Can it be reused for many more players? Yes, of course. That's a given. The other thing, if, for example, and I'm thinking about recruitment games that are built for competency testing, for example, once you have the result, would you go back again, it's different, it's a different kind of game than a game of Fortnite, a game of FIFA or where you have levels and other types of things that you may want to create. They actually are so much harder, there's much more to earn for so many more levels, so many more interactions and the multiplayer experience. For us, it's back to that question: does this make sense for the purpose that we're building? For some learning related experience it may make sense.
No transcript available.
POWERED BY BLUBRRY
