Author and designer Jane McGonigal spoke during her keynote at PAX East 2011 in Boston, reaffirming her stance on the power of video games to enrich the lives of gamers and the people around them.
At over 60,000 total attendees, it was the largest PAX ever on either coast, and McGonigal kicked off the keynote by leading the packed expo hall in a massive scream of elation to illustrate the concept of Fiero: “that feeling you get when you’re about to tackle some incredibly daunting obstacle,” and the quality she believed was most positive in gamers.
“Playing games is the single most productive thing we can do with our time,” she said, suggesting that far from limiting our time spent, we should increase the time people collectively spend playing games from 3 billion hours a week to 21 billion.
Her formal title for the keynote was “The Discrete Science of Why Games Make You a CONTAGIOUS VECTOR of Awesome 101.” The media hasn’t shared this "science", she said, and she encouraged gamers to go out and tell their friends about it.
She began her lecture with a few caveats about gaming, and a plea for the audience to not hate her for saying them. The science she believes will make gamers awesome doesn’t work if they play games more than 28 hours a week, if they’re an asshole to other players, or they’re playing with a bunch of assholes.
Her leading example was a study of students from ages 16 to college that showed that only a half an hour a day spent on pro-social games increased their real life time spent helping others by a factor of three. She described it as developing a cooperation radar, because the video games put a cognitive framework in the minds of gamers.
“For years we’ve been told games bring out the worst of us, but is it possible what’s actually happening is that that games are bringing out the best in us?” said McGonigal.
She segued with a quote from Brian Sutton-Smith: “The opposite of play isn’t work - it’s depression.” In quoting the clinical definition of depression—a pessimistic sense of our own capabilities, and a lost of energy—she thereby determined that the opposite state would be an optimistic sense of personal capabilities, and rush of enthusiastic energy—which is what it is like to play a game.
Jane McGonigal identified this feeling as 'eustress', as opposed to negative stress. In both cases, human bodies change in response to the stress, sharpening enthusiasm and focus. But in eustress we gain both the focus and energy, as well as enthusiasm and optimism. Which according to McGonigal is “an optimal state of human beings.”
Being happy makes us successful and not the other way around, she continued. Far from the American Dream’s vision of work for eventual happiness, McGonigal sited studies showing that people who start out happy are much more likely to succeed.
Scientists will tell you, she said, that it doesn’t matter where you get your emotions; anything that you get counts. Emotions are also contagious, both positive and negative. She told the audience that the emotions they have are indirectly affecting 250 people a day, “Gamers are out there every day being contagious vectors for positive emotions,” said McGonigal.
But with great gaming comes great responsibility. While gamers have these “super powers,” McGonigal is concerned that they, and the video game community at large, haven’t quite figured out how to use them in the real world. She stressed that we need to do something with these emotions outside of virtual environments. She called for gamers to take this into the real world, saying that “games have been training us to do something extraordinary.”
Jane McGonigal illustrated her theory in describing her experience of the terrible concussion she suffered while writing her book Reality is Broken. He injury did not heal correctly, and she suffered from constant nausea and an inability to write, play video games or think.
To cope, she created a game game that she hoped would promote optimism, curiosity, agency, awe, wonder in herself. Instead of talking about her problem, she wanted to play a game with my friends and caretakers, finding ways for them to engage with her in positive ways.
“If there’s one thing that I want you to remember, it’s that gaming is unleashing our natural ability to be the best version of ourselves,” she concluded. She believes that the 3 billion hours spent on games each week is more than worth it. She urged gamers to springboard their new abilities into the real world, and achieve extraordinary things with them.
Oh Jane, I love your enthusiasm but what you lack is the understanding of the fundamental values that should - or at least could - go into one's daily life. The opposite of gaming is NOT depression, but rather going outside and doing something with your life rather than sitting in front of the tv/monitor. You get these emotions by not just interacting with people through games, but also by being a part of a support group, having higher standards, staying physically active, etc etc. I do appreciate and understand what she's saying, but my point is that gaming is NOT enough to make a person happy - well, not for everyone, I should say.
Yes, gaming alone is not enough to change people or anything.
But I think Jane's talks are awesome for inspiring passionate gamers to use their passions and positive emotions for good.
There are some practical ways or examples of how gamers can make a better world, check out this editorial: http://www.spawnpoint.com/news/29667/FundbyGamers_Empowering_gamers_to_ma ke_a_be tter_world Basically we are making a fundraising platform where gamers can earn money to fund causes and projects by playing their favorite games
When she segued with a quote from Brian, “The opposite of play isn’t work - it’s depression,” I think she meant games can be a part of play. You can play indoors or outdoors, alone or with friends, and sometimes you can play video-games, which I see many people do on their phones when I'm out and about.
Actually, she meant that gaming is play that also requires work. If you were at the keynote, she made this very clear. She also made a point to emphasize that her research showed positive outcomes as a result of no more than 4 hours of gaming per day.
Eric, you seem to be under the misconception that she is speaking about video games exclusively, which is not the case. During the keynote, she proposed game ideas that required physical activities and also included family and friends. Your kind of mentality about who and what gamers are is the kind that she and many others wish to abolish.
When life pushes you, what do you do? Are you the kind of person who cries for help? Are you the kind of person who stands there like the deer in the headlights and hopes for a bailout that isn't coming? Or are you the kind of person who takes a deep breath and then pushes life right back?
For many people obstacles in their life prevent them from being able to complete certain task. Those people who play computer games however tend to look at problems not so much as obstacles but as challenges! Strategy games by their very nature regularly put obstacles somewhat similar to real life issues and players have to take decisions, create relationships, deal diplomatically, work in a team hence making them accept that they will regularly face problems which they will need to overcome in order to progress through the rest of the game.
It is this alternative way of looking at problems as challenges rather than as obstacles which has led many people to believe that playing such computer games actually provides valuable opportunities for online gamers to develop their life skills for the real world, and become people better adapted at dealing with the inevitable flood of obstacles and issues in their way.
ofcourse, nothing can be compared to good parenting. However, there is a time when a child learns and understands better from exposure and his own experiences. Strategy games do expose issues akin to real life to a certain level.
Don't flatter yourself. A lot of life is chance. I know wonderful parents that have children in prison (or headed there!) I also know plenty of wonderful people from horrible families. Try not to oversimplify gigantic philosophical topics, that's exactly what she did.
Do you know what the single (very weak) predictive environmental feature of child personality development is? Birth order. "Parenting," whatever that means, has exactly zero effect. What you are is in your genes. Source: Pinker, The Blank Slate.
This is not to say that you cannot seriously harm a child by removing things like food, love, and parental interaction. Just that these interactions do not shape the child's resulting personality. At all.
I can think of something that might be harmful to young children though. The idea that we can mold them into our imagined ideal selves.
I haven't read her book, so I'm sorry. But I just don't get what she's saying that's new or worth writing a book about. Can games be good for you? Yes, of course. We've understood this as a society for quite a while. Sports, chess, puzzles, children's games, team-building exercises - all of these things are games and they have some undeniable benefits. Some of them involve video games, some of them don't. Whatever. They all have some value. This is nothing new at all!
The message we should be spreading is moderation. That doesn't really come through in her rhetoric, which is probably imprecise on purpose for the purpose of creating controversy for her book. So, congratulations, Jane, on exploiting the gaming industry for your own profit. Epic win for you.
example: a Walmart bathroom vs a Target bathroom. If you don't know the difference, I apologize, but I happen to come from a part of the US that has both. Let's just say the difference is smellable. Disclaimer: I am not an employee of either company, just a carefully observant shopper.
What is the reason for this? Are Walmart employees just lazy slackers? Nope. The reason is that at Target they have the walky talky game. Every hour or so, the nice computer lady comes over the walky and announces the latest bathroom checkup. The store is then receives a score based on how long it takes to complete this checkup. This score is then posted, and competition between stores results. Many many other activities are also scored. This is a direct application of game design into the workplace with a doubly positive benefit. It challenges employees to be more efficient while at the same time making the workplace more fun.
This is the kind of application McGonigal is referring to. Tell a human that they're playing a game, offer a reward based on points, a system for comparing point totals to others, and they'll do almost anything. Including hoping around ancient cities for hours, looking for little flags. Not only will they do almost anything . . . they'll have fun doing it! This is so obvious and so incredibly applicable to the workplace, that I continue to be drop dead shocked every single year my place of employment does not introduce an achievement system.
“Gamers are out there every day being contagious vectors for positive emotions,”
Sometimes I'm not sure about this. I've played many of online multiplayer games that are generally not "Positive" and I am speaking of language, in game actions, demeanor, etc. It's a great hope that all would be positive..but I think I either do not use my mic or have it on mute 75% of the time that I am playing with other people...if they are not friends.
Anyway, I don't know how to put this, so forgive me if it comes out oddly.
Basically, I definitely see how games can have a postive force. Games such as Fallout 3 and BioShock got me into a whole genre of music I never thought of listening to. I've already iterated about how Assassin's Creed was a great example of what the Crusades and Renaissance was like (minus the flying Assasins and some historical tamperings). If I want to become a better person from games, introduce me to ideas that I want to go out and research at the library or look up on Wikipedia.
Also, being happy doesn't mean we are successful. I see where she is coming from, wanting to basically be this Charles Xavier-esque person wanting to have games be an everyday thing and solve the world's problems. She's been around before in the industry, and she happens to appear right when "gamification" and the social gaming boom (each of which have their place, I'm still undecided about gamification) spring up. Video games, like other art forms, are not going to solve world problems. Movies like Avatar don't save the Earth from pollution or whatever, music such as Disturbed's "Into The Fire" isn't going to stop suicides. But they don't have to. They make people aware of the situation while simultaneously creating an enjoyable experience. I'm sorry, but you're not going to end poverty with Half-Life. I wish it could. I really do.
We create games for the players, so we can communicate our worlds (or games that our pure gameplay like Peggle, etc), a sense of place, and generally a story. But if we forget that our games have to be FUN, than we our truly losing ourselves.
I want to play one of McGonigal's games, because frankly I'm tired of her talking about "change" and basically educational games. Let's see her make a game and mass produce/distribute it to the public. When I play it and can take away something while it still being a fun experience, I'll back her up.
".. But they don't have to. They make people aware of the situation while simultaneously creating an enjoyable experience..."
This is at the heart of every medium of art and its communication reasoning. It makes people aware...does it change things? not particularly...but if the communication moves enough people...those people might change something.
This made me think that there should be a sector of gaming that isn't particularly fun...lets call it a video experience. Maybe we can address uncomfortable or historical events or situations in this sector...it may not be enjoyable the same way a typical video game is...but it would be an experience that would be used to portray a particular event or series of events in history(perhaps the holocaust) or perhaps a social issue(perhaps civil rights or womens rights)--
If books/movies can be categorized in different genre..why can't video games---why can't gaming tackle difficult subjects...yes they would have do be moderated and rated...but I think video games have a unique way to present these issues. I want a video game(experience) that will make me feel remorse, fill with emotion, and make me cry---there are movies, books, tv shows that can do that...but when will games get there??
Well there are a few games out there that tried to tackle difficult subjects such as the holocaust. Ex. Brathwaite's Train. The problem is that these games are always buried under all the AAA commercial games...
She seems to have made quite a few games. http://janemcgonigal.com/play-me/
I can't see any of them have mass production or distribution although that would depend on what you define as mass I guess.
Maybe the issue and arguments seem to be in part caused by confusion on what the definition of a game is? On many boards and comments the people who flame out on the gamification and social gaming trends seem to be defining video games as what Jane McGonigal and others are speaking about when the reality is they are often speaking about games in a much more general categorization.
It might be news but games do pre date computers and gaming platforms. Few people argue about games that aren't computer based anymore. For example card games like bridge and competitive sports. But I am sure when some of them first launched they were considered time wasters and useless activities.
I've read most of her book but haven't finished it. I love the idea that she is evangelical about. That games can be used to improve peoples lives and change the world. That they can be used to fix those areas of our lives where we're struggling either as individuals, communities or as a species.
That's because like many gamers I've had plenty of gamers regret over the years on the amount of time I've poured away on entertainment without tangible real world results. If I could combine the two by changing the world for the better and having fun at the same time why wouldn't I?
The devil is in the details and the execution. The concept is sound it just takes designers and teams who can build it out.
It's not that I'm flaming her (though I can see why it would seem like I am).
But it's not going to happen. You can educate people on an ideal, but just like going to the bar and getting drunk, gaming is not the most productive thing you can be doing with your time.
Sure, if we could get real world results, it'd be great. But let's take a healthy dose of reality and step back a little: It's not going to happen.
I'm not flaming the idea of "gamification" either, as I said I'm currently undecided on it.
I completely agree with you once again it seems. I listened to her TED talk, and have watched a few of her interviews, and I like her message, but it doesn't look at video games as an art form. Part of me felt like she took video games as a method of brainwashing by making everything a game... Also at one point she stated something along the lines that video games are the best way one could spend one's time, which is complete BS. There is no best way to spend one's time. I love her positive message, it's a nice change of pace, but I think she takes things a bit to far....
I love the message she is trying to put forth (that gaming can have a positive societal, and personal, impact), but I'm not seeing a lot of substance to her message now nor when she started getting publicity a couple years back. I'm pretty confident that anyone with knowledge about how games work and how people interact to accomplish game tasks agree with what she is trying to say. It feels that she is simply a highly public liaison for the games research community, and not an actual game designer/developer.
What I have yet to see from her is an actual demonstration of a high impact game that benefits society in some manner. Games research is great, and we certainly need people to communicate the games research to those not actively involved in that community. But given the value people are applying to her talks, it would be really nice to see a substantive game, designed around all of the points she consistently brings up, to back up her claims. If such a game does exist, or is being developed, then what is it and why are we not hearing about it?
Jane explains all of her thoughts in her book Broken Reality. It is a fantastic read that makes you think about games on a whole new level - why people play them, and what they get out of the experience.
For the people that says parenting is still most important, I agree. However, video games can serve as a good augmentation of developing skills and tendencies that carry over to real life.
I totally agree. She also made an appearance on The Colbert Report, which I thought went really well, and I think many people posting here would really benefit from seeing it.
I'm really stunned to see such negative comments here. Jane McGonigal is wicked smart and has some really great projects to share. No one even bothered to research what she has done!
I wouldn't consider these comments negative, so much as critical. She gets a lot of face time talking about game design in general, but her focus in on ARGs. Further, she hasn't produced anything with the same mass appeal that "I Love Bees" had. Her other ARG projects don't get much in the way of press, even by her. We live in a world of "what have you designed for me lately."
Now, if she were simply talking about how ARGs could be useful games for social change, then she certainly is worth listening to. She clearly knows how to design ARGs. But the rules governing ARGs are different than other genres. I don't hear her make any delineation between the two, which is the crux of the criticism she is receiving.
Read her book. McGonigal's work summarizes very, very poorly. I'll try to address some of the points you guys are asking in my response, but seriously, just read it. It's much faster and more thorough.
@McVinney: "The opposite of gaming is NOT depression, but rather going outside and doing something with your life..." I'm sorry, but this is a unsubstantiated argument and the exact kind of argument that non-gamers blindly make. Can you please point to a survey or study that shows that gaming leads to people doing less with their lives? Because McGonigal's entire book contains surveys, studies (and one too many anecdotes as well) showing the opposite. Plus, this argument misses the point of Brian Sutton-Smith's original quote. Sutton-Smith's point is that the opposite of doing something is doing nothing. Clinically, part of depression is the lack of will to do anything. Play is the purest form of doing something because it is completely voluntary and offers no economic reward to the player. Hence, voluntarily playing (doing something for no real reason) is the opposite of depression (doing nothing and not wanting to do anything.)
@Steven An: Actually, she's not just arguing for moderation. I took away that she's arguing for a couple of things: 0) More gameplay! 1) More gameplay styles to address different types of issues (for example, she came up with a game that helped to overcome a concussion.) 2) More acceptance for gameplay as a useful thing. 3) A better understanding of gameplay that leads to positive outcomes (and obviously, games that implement these ideas.)
@Robert Gill: "Also, being happy doesn't mean we are successful" Ok, I've got to address this on my own: Would you rather be happy or successful? I'd rather be happy. Ok, back to McGonigal: 1) Her book argues that games can make people more successful AND happy. A lot of her book is based on Positive Psychology. Positive Psych has two goals: "to find and nurture genius and talent", and "to make normal life more fulfilling" I read that as being BOTH successful and happy. So, for example, she talks about Chorequest a game designed to get chores done in a fun way. That's real life success (clean house) mixed with happiness.
@Anthony Taylor: "If gaming brings out the best of us, why do I hear the most vile things possible everytime I go online?" While she doesn't address this specifically, she does mention the example of many, many gamers getting closers to their relatives through games of Scrabulous. So yeah, Xbox Live can be pretty vicious, but it can also be wonderful at strengthening relationships.
@Dustin Chertoff: I agree she can be a little bit far reaching with her ideas. However, I think she's trying to encourage game designers to reach for the sky! I found myself inspired even if I didn't think I could currently do a lot of what she calls for. Her idea of ARG is pretty broad and genre busting. The best example she mentions is NikePlus. It's very traditional game like, but also very real world and ARG.
Overall, I read the book as an inspirational book, of McGonigal giving some examples (some hers, most other's) backed by psychological studies. It's a good read and breaks the mold of how we traditionally think about games.
I admit I've only read her news articles and saw her TED talk. I suppose the points she brings up, I would generally agree with. And I suppose I'm glad there is someone championing these ideas in a book.
But what I absolutely disagree with is her batshit insane sound bites. When she says things like, "Gaming is the most productive way we can spend our time!" that makes her look like a wild eyed lunatic that has completely lost touch with reality. And it doesn't reflect well on us gamers either. I know, I know, it sounds good and it causes controversy and discussion about her book (as we are doing now). But it makes me not want to associate myself with her as a gamer. The truth of the matter is far more tempered and reasonable, but her publicity stunts are not contributing positively to the dialogue.
So is she really arguing for something other than the "gamification" Jesse Schell talks about? The real idea behind this "gamification" thing is to take the motivational aspects of gaming and apply them to non-fantasy settings, or the reverse, to utilize elements of fantasy to make normal tasks more interesting. For example, leveling up your dev team by tackling a milestone boss.
Unfortunately, "gamification" seems to completely miss this idea, especially in education/training. I can't recount the number of times I've seen "3D environment" used to brand something as a "game," when there is nothing game-like in that environment.
I'm all for reaching for the sky and trying to really sell the idea that games can be more than entertainment. They have incredible value beyond the simple fun they provide. But I'd rather that Jane stopped producing PR snippets, and actually designed these "reach for the stars to create world peace" games. Just like everyone in the movie industry has a movie script, everyone in the game industry has a game design. Stop telling me about how great the game based on the design will be, and show me the working game.
Then again, I develop educational games, so I've already bought into this games for change stuff. I'm not really her intended audience anyway.
@Alex - Yea, actually, I can. It's something called having kids and making sure that they lead a healthy life style with being told that they can achieve their goals by being productive and always showing good faith. Sure, it's OK to let your kids play games but don't let that be their only outlet to being social and creative. Have them take up art classes, learn a new language... BE A GOOD PARENT. If it turns out that your kids are doing nothing but playing games - no matter the platform and genre - then they will never learn or adapt to real life or the situations in them by doing just that. Games don't bring out the best in us, it's our morals and standards that we have do that.
Besides, I was attacking her ideals and speech from the GDC panel, not her book. As for being called a "non-gamer"... lol... I'm about as non-gamer as the pope is not being catholic. Want some dessert with that serving?
@Eric: I don't think Mc Gonigal or anyone is arguing that games can replace parenting. Rather, Mc Gonigal argues that games can help make people more self-fulfilled, smarter, more self confident and even more creative. It's not a mutually exclusive argument -- you can take both art classes AND play games. The question is, what affect will games have on players in comparison to an art class? Mc Gonigal is arguing that a well designed game can have just as much (though possibly different) positive affect on gamers as, say, an art class.
Mc Gonigal talks about Nike Plus, a "game" that encourages people to go outside and run. That's a perfect example of how games can actually encourage people to go outside and do something. It's not mutually exclusive.
And I was not accusing you of being a non-gamer. I was suggesting that your arguments sounded like the "non-gamer" mainstream press, which often uses "common sense" arguments in place of psychological or scientific research (For example: Mainstream Press: "Well of course violent games make gamers more violent!" Psychological Research: "Uh, not sure if violent games make gamers more violent.")
I understand being critical of Gamasutra's summary of Mc Gonigal's summary of her book. Like Steven, I agree that her short explanations can come across as a little bit sound bitey and unsubstantiated. However, that's why I'm trying to bring some of the info from her book into this discussion and encourage others to read it.
@Dustin: Schell and Mc Gonigal are proposing similar things. However, Schell appears to be warning of the dangers of gamification, while Mc Gonigal presents the advantages. No doubt, both have merit.
To understand Mc Gonigal's perspective requires understanding the new field of Positive Psychology. Basically, it's happiness research. The idea is to apply scientific principles to understanding what makes people happy. (The vision is a little more broad -- at it's broadest, it examines what makes societies and individuals "thrive.") For example, a positive psychologist would push for Bhutan's "Gross National Happiness" as opposed to "Gross Domestice Product" as a measure of a country's success. It subverts traditional ideas of success for overall societal and personal well-being.
Mc Gonigal does a good job of linking Positive Psychology to gamification. The validity of her argument therefore rests on the validity of Positive Psychology. It's a new psychological field. While it has roots in early humanist psychological movements, it wasn't coined as a term until 2000.
You did a nice job on your response. I was at the keynote at PaxEast and I have started reading the book. Its very positive and is looking to inspire future gamers and game developers. The game industry is young. I found the talk great, as a student of game art and design. Thanks
I would never use the comment section in Gamasutras articles as a basis of how gamers are.... Ive seen some of the stupidest arguments and hypocritical statements ever typed some days.... other days i see a good conversation that everyone can take something good away from. I think it just depends on the subject and day of the week.
She is saying that gaming is going to solve society's problems. Can you honestly say that, think of all the implications of that statement, and still believe it? You can inspire ideas and messages, but you are not going to stop wars or end poverty with gaming.
I wish you could. Really I do. Because if there was a game for it, I'd have pre-ordered it, sent it back in time and stopped a million things from happening.
That's not what she is saying at all. She is not trying to imply that playing Call of Duty will somehow turn us into a group of people that eagerly helps strangers. It can certainly be argued though that amongst CoD clans things such as leadership, discipline, and teamwork are learned. But that doesn't mean that all CoD players will learn these things - most won't. And even the ones that do, that doesn't mean it will translate into the real world in a beneficial manner.
What she and other researchers are saying, is that if you combine a game with the motivational aspects and fun core game play found in many AAA titles, with a narrative and design DIRECTLY related to some social/educational issue, you can effect profound changes upon the player.
They are talking about developing new games that allow us to explore serious issues through a fun, motivational medium. By exploring solutions to these issues in a game environment modeled off of the real world, we can learn about how those solutions might work in a safe manner.
Right. Hang on...aren't these called educational games?
We can already do this. Note how we have been driving story telling and atmosphere.
I agree, certain things can be done. Surgery practice would be neat to do this in, and other specific things. However, cancer? Sorry, we're not curing that games.
Society problems we could do. You can't FIX these problems with games, but you can introduce IDEAS.
This is her thing: She believes you can substitute games for certain things. Let's see a enviromental game that is really fun, DIRECTLY related to global warming. Also, how about another game DIRECTLY related to landmines in Vietnam and the Middle East. Or even the recession we are in. I would like to see a game fix that too.
I'll be the first to buy when she, or anyone else, solves those problems with games.
Yeah, a COD lobby can be pretty harsh. Mc Gonigal however, presents a counter-example in her book: She talks about the thousands of Scrabulous screen shots that can be found online. Turns out, people like playing Scrabulous with their moms -- and people write the sweetest things to their moms in the chat window and in image captions.
Yeah, both example are only anecdotal but we can't only focus on the negative!
She doesn't present actual facts or work of her own though.
Again, it boils down to the fact that she has yet to widely publish a game to the public (having it on her own website doesn't count, as how many people know about that website?). It's not just the CoD lobby that Achilles refers to: It's the entire online experience. Gears, Halo, CoD, Madden, Warcraft, etc.
Actually, she has a number of successful "games" under her belt -- it's just that most of them are not actually played on the computer/console. I don't actually have her book in hand, but her game Cruel 2 Be Kind jumps to mind. While it wasn't Halo successful, many people have definitely played it.
I don't feel it's fair to judge a cutting edge game/film/novel/etc. by it's wide public acceptance. I can't think of many cutting edge products that immediately gained public acceptance. Hell, even the humble shopping cart had a very slow start (nobody wanted to be seen pushing a cart around -- the inventor had to hire actors to use them to encourage others to follow!)
Finally, her book is a compilation of both her works and the works of others that all advance a similar theme -- in fact, she even analyzes Halo from the view of a Positive Psychologist! So, part of the idea is to think about games through a different lens as much as it is to create new and different games.
Anyway, it's obvious that we won't be able to convince each other through this forum. I appreciate your skepticism, so I guess we'll just have to go out and do it! If the trend ends up working out, I want to be proud to say I contributed a small part from the leading edge. If it doesn't I can be proud to say I tried something I believed in. Either way, I hope it makes "gaming" better.
"Actually, she has a number of successful "games" under her belt -- it's just that most of them are not actually played on the computer/console."
So, she hasn't created a video game? (Read: she has).
And hey, I see your point Alexander. We should be pushing gaming. But, at least to me, it seems that she is basically making a scape goat out of gaming.
But, you're right. No matter what, we should be pushing gaming, even if it does fail.
Just careful where we push it I suppose. Thanks for the genuinely awesome comments Alex.
She has, which is why she said, "The science she believes will make gamers awesome DOESN'T work if they play games more than 28 hours a week, if they’re an asshole to other players, or they’re playing with a bunch of assholes."
Yes, again, I pretty much agree with most of the things she's ACTUALLY saying (at least as far as I can tell without having read her book). I just don't think they're all that new and I think the way she presents these ideas in the public are less than favorable.
I was not at the actual talk, but I do notice that the Gamasutra article gives Mc Gonigal a lot of credit for the idea's presented in her talk. In her book, Mc Gonigal gives a lot of credit to the researchers who originally created or studied the concepts -- each chapter has about a dozen citations to other works. So while Mc Gonigal has been the lighting rod, bringing these ideas together in a coherent way, it should be noted that her ideas are based heavily on the ideas of others.
I don't say this to subtract from her work, but rather to point out that the book is well researched and the ideas she presents have been considered by others. Footnotes and citations don't work well in speeches, yet are key for understanding how substantiated a given idea actually is.
Alchemy is well researched, however, do we use it on a wide basis? No. We use physics and chemistry.
Point is, anybody can make footnotes and citations. Doesn't add a single thing to her research. And the comments here are not necessarily negative. We who frequent Gamasutra like to examine all sides of a debate/issue. It's called being objective.
The amazing thing people seem to be missing here - and something, I have to admit, Ms. McGonigal doesn't put forward that well herself - is that we're not necessarily talking about games as we know it. McGonigal is focussed on one aspect of the argument - that our work life should be more like our game life in order to be more engaging - but that's not to say there isn't the flip-side, that we should be looking to games as things that engage us in ways that are beneficial to our work life.
There's a lot of very narrow-minded thinking here about what games actually are, and what it means to "succeed" in life. If you'll excuse a personal diatribe, I blame the industrial revolution, and the idea that we need to teach children to be quiet and pay attention and follow orders from their boss blindly.
The, as McGonigal puts it, "mass exodus to virtual worlds" is seen by people as some great evil where games are stealing people away from "serious" life, but this argument is like saying that people turning to drugs or crime do so because they're all "bad people". People turn to what makes them happy and engages them. McGonigal maybe didn't put this across properly at this talk, but her point in the book is that we should embrace this and look at it as a defiant statement of what we want in our lives - more engagement, more reward - and think how we can apply this to "real world" scenarios.
Like it or not, hate the term or love it, what we need is to "gamify" those scenarios in life we find unengaging and depressing, and turn them into engaging and exciting scenarios that inspire us to "play" to "succeed" rather than forcing us to work.
I'm sorry but this girl is a bit of a quack. What she's really talking about is computers ability to model, animate and immerse people in data. But this is just exploiting interactivity and rendering technologies for good uses.
Scientists already have been working on similar things, you should all check out immune attack.
http://www.fas.org/immuneattack/
The power of "games" is really the power of being able to translate and model things and make them easier to grasp/understand in many contexts.
As Alan points out, many of Mc Gonigal's example games go well beyond the traditional computer game. Some don't use "rendering technologies" or even a computer at all! Many are more like party games, ARGs or Flash Mob style "games." Some are just small social networks done over the telephone or in person. Mc Gonigal's vision of "game" is much larger than most people assume, and that's part of the reason the book is so inspirational for me.
You folks sure aren't acting like contagious vectors of awesome. For those who attended the keynote you will remember the rules that exempt things like Call of Duty and XBL. One you can't play more 28 hours a week, two you can't be an @$$hole, three you can't play in communities full of @$$Holes because this negates the effects.
I'm appalled at the assault on her work we have enough enemies in the Media, Social Science, and on Capital Hill. Jane has composed portions of research conducted by credible institutions in a attempt help combat the negative stigma from the institutions listed above perpetuate and change the cultural view of gaming.
I don't agree with everything she has to say, but at-least she is working towards a positive goal while you folks some I would speculate have never read her book or even attended the keynote and are merely reacting to the article above. Before we set fire to her name with our "Objective" and "Critical" perhaps we should step back, read the work, not the opinion and then make insightful comments that offer solutions not just the condemnation of someone trying to make a positive image for a community that's gotten a lot of cultural bad press.
You can't dictate what a community is going to be like. And we're going to exclude now the most successful franchises this generation? On the online service that most console users use?
Hopefully you can narrow it down from there, also by alienating nice portion of gamers (regardless if you like the games they play).
What a lot of the users have a problem with is HOW she wants to use games. She is basically proposing to use them as a substitute for doing things out of your own will (i.e. in the work place, working to "win" or "achieve" a game, instead of doing it because it's your JOB and to put food on the table).
There are ways we can put culture in our games other than this one. I'd like to direct you to BioShock, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect. You take something away from those games, ideas that make you think about similar real world issues. From there, it's up to you. That's the beauty of these games; you and I could gather something completely different from these games.
Her book was actually good, especially the later half ;)
Just throwing this out there as an observation, but one issue I take with Dr. McGonigal's presentation of her research is this: it is agenda driven. Yes, I know that their is always going to be bias when humans are involved in research, but she appears to have negotiated her results to what she wanted them to say. It may not be the case, but that is how it feels. (I guess I am calling the kettle black a little since I too am making a intuitive leap instead of a rational one- opinions are a wonderful dangerous thing).
My other issue is that she acts as the self appointed cheerleader of gaming, throwing out sound bytes and keeping herself visible in the media for self promotion. I am sure this act has done very well for her to sell some books. I am also sure, she actually feels that she is speaking in truths. The problem is that it appears that she is more speaking in assumptions and assumptive leaps to promote her agenda. For some, who see her in this light, it will leave a bad taste in their mouths.
To her credit, she sure is getting people talking. Unfortunately for her, to be a lightning rod for debate at times leads to getting burnt.
Just my 2 cents... :|
But I think Jane's talks are awesome for inspiring passionate gamers to use their passions and positive emotions for good.
There are some practical ways or examples of how gamers can make a better world, check out this editorial: http://www.spawnpoint.com/news/29667/FundbyGamers_Empowering_gamers_to_ma ke_a_be
tter_world Basically we are making a fundraising platform where gamers can earn money to fund causes and projects by playing their favorite games
Eric, you seem to be under the misconception that she is speaking about video games exclusively, which is not the case. During the keynote, she proposed game ideas that required physical activities and also included family and friends. Your kind of mentality about who and what gamers are is the kind that she and many others wish to abolish.
For many people obstacles in their life prevent them from being able to complete certain task. Those people who play computer games however tend to look at problems not so much as obstacles but as challenges! Strategy games by their very nature regularly put obstacles somewhat similar to real life issues and players have to take decisions, create relationships, deal diplomatically, work in a team hence making them accept that they will regularly face problems which they will need to overcome in order to progress through the rest of the game.
It is this alternative way of looking at problems as challenges rather than as obstacles which has led many people to believe that playing such computer games actually provides valuable opportunities for online gamers to develop their life skills for the real world, and become people better adapted at dealing with the inevitable flood of obstacles and issues in their way.
http://httprealmofempiresblogspotcom.blogspot.com/
This is not to say that you cannot seriously harm a child by removing things like food, love, and parental interaction. Just that these interactions do not shape the child's resulting personality. At all.
I can think of something that might be harmful to young children though. The idea that we can mold them into our imagined ideal selves.
The message we should be spreading is moderation. That doesn't really come through in her rhetoric, which is probably imprecise on purpose for the purpose of creating controversy for her book. So, congratulations, Jane, on exploiting the gaming industry for your own profit. Epic win for you.
example: a Walmart bathroom vs a Target bathroom. If you don't know the difference, I apologize, but I happen to come from a part of the US that has both. Let's just say the difference is smellable. Disclaimer: I am not an employee of either company, just a carefully observant shopper.
What is the reason for this? Are Walmart employees just lazy slackers? Nope. The reason is that at Target they have the walky talky game. Every hour or so, the nice computer lady comes over the walky and announces the latest bathroom checkup. The store is then receives a score based on how long it takes to complete this checkup. This score is then posted, and competition between stores results. Many many other activities are also scored. This is a direct application of game design into the workplace with a doubly positive benefit. It challenges employees to be more efficient while at the same time making the workplace more fun.
This is the kind of application McGonigal is referring to. Tell a human that they're playing a game, offer a reward based on points, a system for comparing point totals to others, and they'll do almost anything. Including hoping around ancient cities for hours, looking for little flags. Not only will they do almost anything . . . they'll have fun doing it! This is so obvious and so incredibly applicable to the workplace, that I continue to be drop dead shocked every single year my place of employment does not introduce an achievement system.
Sometimes I'm not sure about this. I've played many of online multiplayer games that are generally not "Positive" and I am speaking of language, in game actions, demeanor, etc. It's a great hope that all would be positive..but I think I either do not use my mic or have it on mute 75% of the time that I am playing with other people...if they are not friends.
Anyway, I don't know how to put this, so forgive me if it comes out oddly.
Basically, I definitely see how games can have a postive force. Games such as Fallout 3 and BioShock got me into a whole genre of music I never thought of listening to. I've already iterated about how Assassin's Creed was a great example of what the Crusades and Renaissance was like (minus the flying Assasins and some historical tamperings). If I want to become a better person from games, introduce me to ideas that I want to go out and research at the library or look up on Wikipedia.
Also, being happy doesn't mean we are successful. I see where she is coming from, wanting to basically be this Charles Xavier-esque person wanting to have games be an everyday thing and solve the world's problems. She's been around before in the industry, and she happens to appear right when "gamification" and the social gaming boom (each of which have their place, I'm still undecided about gamification) spring up. Video games, like other art forms, are not going to solve world problems. Movies like Avatar don't save the Earth from pollution or whatever, music such as Disturbed's "Into The Fire" isn't going to stop suicides. But they don't have to. They make people aware of the situation while simultaneously creating an enjoyable experience. I'm sorry, but you're not going to end poverty with Half-Life. I wish it could. I really do.
We create games for the players, so we can communicate our worlds (or games that our pure gameplay like Peggle, etc), a sense of place, and generally a story. But if we forget that our games have to be FUN, than we our truly losing ourselves.
I want to play one of McGonigal's games, because frankly I'm tired of her talking about "change" and basically educational games. Let's see her make a game and mass produce/distribute it to the public. When I play it and can take away something while it still being a fun experience, I'll back her up.
Feel free to flame, btw.
This is at the heart of every medium of art and its communication reasoning. It makes people aware...does it change things? not particularly...but if the communication moves enough people...those people might change something.
This made me think that there should be a sector of gaming that isn't particularly fun...lets call it a video experience. Maybe we can address uncomfortable or historical events or situations in this sector...it may not be enjoyable the same way a typical video game is...but it would be an experience that would be used to portray a particular event or series of events in history(perhaps the holocaust) or perhaps a social issue(perhaps civil rights or womens rights)--
If books/movies can be categorized in different genre..why can't video games---why can't gaming tackle difficult subjects...yes they would have do be moderated and rated...but I think video games have a unique way to present these issues. I want a video game(experience) that will make me feel remorse, fill with emotion, and make me cry---there are movies, books, tv shows that can do that...but when will games get there??
Well there are a few games out there that tried to tackle difficult subjects such as the holocaust. Ex. Brathwaite's Train. The problem is that these games are always buried under all the AAA commercial games...
I can't see any of them have mass production or distribution although that would depend on what you define as mass I guess.
Maybe the issue and arguments seem to be in part caused by confusion on what the definition of a game is? On many boards and comments the people who flame out on the gamification and social gaming trends seem to be defining video games as what Jane McGonigal and others are speaking about when the reality is they are often speaking about games in a much more general categorization.
It might be news but games do pre date computers and gaming platforms. Few people argue about games that aren't computer based anymore. For example card games like bridge and competitive sports. But I am sure when some of them first launched they were considered time wasters and useless activities.
I've read most of her book but haven't finished it. I love the idea that she is evangelical about. That games can be used to improve peoples lives and change the world. That they can be used to fix those areas of our lives where we're struggling either as individuals, communities or as a species.
That's because like many gamers I've had plenty of gamers regret over the years on the amount of time I've poured away on entertainment without tangible real world results. If I could combine the two by changing the world for the better and having fun at the same time why wouldn't I?
The devil is in the details and the execution. The concept is sound it just takes designers and teams who can build it out.
But it's not going to happen. You can educate people on an ideal, but just like going to the bar and getting drunk, gaming is not the most productive thing you can be doing with your time.
Sure, if we could get real world results, it'd be great. But let's take a healthy dose of reality and step back a little: It's not going to happen.
I'm not flaming the idea of "gamification" either, as I said I'm currently undecided on it.
What I have yet to see from her is an actual demonstration of a high impact game that benefits society in some manner. Games research is great, and we certainly need people to communicate the games research to those not actively involved in that community. But given the value people are applying to her talks, it would be really nice to see a substantive game, designed around all of the points she consistently brings up, to back up her claims. If such a game does exist, or is being developed, then what is it and why are we not hearing about it?
For the people that says parenting is still most important, I agree. However, video games can serve as a good augmentation of developing skills and tendencies that carry over to real life.
Now, if she were simply talking about how ARGs could be useful games for social change, then she certainly is worth listening to. She clearly knows how to design ARGs. But the rules governing ARGs are different than other genres. I don't hear her make any delineation between the two, which is the crux of the criticism she is receiving.
@McVinney: "The opposite of gaming is NOT depression, but rather going outside and doing something with your life..." I'm sorry, but this is a unsubstantiated argument and the exact kind of argument that non-gamers blindly make. Can you please point to a survey or study that shows that gaming leads to people doing less with their lives? Because McGonigal's entire book contains surveys, studies (and one too many anecdotes as well) showing the opposite. Plus, this argument misses the point of Brian Sutton-Smith's original quote. Sutton-Smith's point is that the opposite of doing something is doing nothing. Clinically, part of depression is the lack of will to do anything. Play is the purest form of doing something because it is completely voluntary and offers no economic reward to the player. Hence, voluntarily playing (doing something for no real reason) is the opposite of depression (doing nothing and not wanting to do anything.)
@Steven An: Actually, she's not just arguing for moderation. I took away that she's arguing for a couple of things: 0) More gameplay! 1) More gameplay styles to address different types of issues (for example, she came up with a game that helped to overcome a concussion.) 2) More acceptance for gameplay as a useful thing. 3) A better understanding of gameplay that leads to positive outcomes (and obviously, games that implement these ideas.)
@Robert Gill: "Also, being happy doesn't mean we are successful" Ok, I've got to address this on my own: Would you rather be happy or successful? I'd rather be happy. Ok, back to McGonigal: 1) Her book argues that games can make people more successful AND happy. A lot of her book is based on Positive Psychology. Positive Psych has two goals: "to find and nurture genius and talent", and "to make normal life more fulfilling" I read that as being BOTH successful and happy. So, for example, she talks about Chorequest a game designed to get chores done in a fun way. That's real life success (clean house) mixed with happiness.
@Anthony Taylor: "If gaming brings out the best of us, why do I hear the most vile things possible everytime I go online?" While she doesn't address this specifically, she does mention the example of many, many gamers getting closers to their relatives through games of Scrabulous. So yeah, Xbox Live can be pretty vicious, but it can also be wonderful at strengthening relationships.
@Dustin Chertoff: I agree she can be a little bit far reaching with her ideas. However, I think she's trying to encourage game designers to reach for the sky! I found myself inspired even if I didn't think I could currently do a lot of what she calls for. Her idea of ARG is pretty broad and genre busting. The best example she mentions is NikePlus. It's very traditional game like, but also very real world and ARG.
Overall, I read the book as an inspirational book, of McGonigal giving some examples (some hers, most other's) backed by psychological studies. It's a good read and breaks the mold of how we traditionally think about games.
But what I absolutely disagree with is her batshit insane sound bites. When she says things like, "Gaming is the most productive way we can spend our time!" that makes her look like a wild eyed lunatic that has completely lost touch with reality. And it doesn't reflect well on us gamers either. I know, I know, it sounds good and it causes controversy and discussion about her book (as we are doing now). But it makes me not want to associate myself with her as a gamer. The truth of the matter is far more tempered and reasonable, but her publicity stunts are not contributing positively to the dialogue.
Unfortunately, "gamification" seems to completely miss this idea, especially in education/training. I can't recount the number of times I've seen "3D environment" used to brand something as a "game," when there is nothing game-like in that environment.
I'm all for reaching for the sky and trying to really sell the idea that games can be more than entertainment. They have incredible value beyond the simple fun they provide. But I'd rather that Jane stopped producing PR snippets, and actually designed these "reach for the stars to create world peace" games. Just like everyone in the movie industry has a movie script, everyone in the game industry has a game design. Stop telling me about how great the game based on the design will be, and show me the working game.
Then again, I develop educational games, so I've already bought into this games for change stuff. I'm not really her intended audience anyway.
Besides, I was attacking her ideals and speech from the GDC panel, not her book. As for being called a "non-gamer"... lol... I'm about as non-gamer as the pope is not being catholic. Want some dessert with that serving?
Mc Gonigal talks about Nike Plus, a "game" that encourages people to go outside and run. That's a perfect example of how games can actually encourage people to go outside and do something. It's not mutually exclusive.
And I was not accusing you of being a non-gamer. I was suggesting that your arguments sounded like the "non-gamer" mainstream press, which often uses "common sense" arguments in place of psychological or scientific research (For example: Mainstream Press: "Well of course violent games make gamers more violent!" Psychological Research: "Uh, not sure if violent games make gamers more violent.")
I understand being critical of Gamasutra's summary of Mc Gonigal's summary of her book. Like Steven, I agree that her short explanations can come across as a little bit sound bitey and unsubstantiated. However, that's why I'm trying to bring some of the info from her book into this discussion and encourage others to read it.
To understand Mc Gonigal's perspective requires understanding the new field of Positive Psychology. Basically, it's happiness research. The idea is to apply scientific principles to understanding what makes people happy. (The vision is a little more broad -- at it's broadest, it examines what makes societies and individuals "thrive.") For example, a positive psychologist would push for Bhutan's "Gross National Happiness" as opposed to "Gross Domestice Product" as a measure of a country's success. It subverts traditional ideas of success for overall societal and personal well-being.
Mc Gonigal does a good job of linking Positive Psychology to gamification. The validity of her argument therefore rests on the validity of Positive Psychology. It's a new psychological field. While it has roots in early humanist psychological movements, it wasn't coined as a term until 2000.
You did a nice job on your response. I was at the keynote at PaxEast and I have started reading the book. Its very positive and is looking to inspire future gamers and game developers. The game industry is young. I found the talk great, as a student of game art and design. Thanks
Based on the comments here, gamers appear to dislike individuals praising gaming as something that is good for society.
Odd.
She is saying that gaming is going to solve society's problems. Can you honestly say that, think of all the implications of that statement, and still believe it? You can inspire ideas and messages, but you are not going to stop wars or end poverty with gaming.
I wish you could. Really I do. Because if there was a game for it, I'd have pre-ordered it, sent it back in time and stopped a million things from happening.
What she and other researchers are saying, is that if you combine a game with the motivational aspects and fun core game play found in many AAA titles, with a narrative and design DIRECTLY related to some social/educational issue, you can effect profound changes upon the player.
They are talking about developing new games that allow us to explore serious issues through a fun, motivational medium. By exploring solutions to these issues in a game environment modeled off of the real world, we can learn about how those solutions might work in a safe manner.
We can already do this. Note how we have been driving story telling and atmosphere.
I agree, certain things can be done. Surgery practice would be neat to do this in, and other specific things. However, cancer? Sorry, we're not curing that games.
Society problems we could do. You can't FIX these problems with games, but you can introduce IDEAS.
This is her thing: She believes you can substitute games for certain things. Let's see a enviromental game that is really fun, DIRECTLY related to global warming. Also, how about another game DIRECTLY related to landmines in Vietnam and the Middle East. Or even the recession we are in. I would like to see a game fix that too.
I'll be the first to buy when she, or anyone else, solves those problems with games.
Has she put on a head set and sat in a Call of Duty lobby?
Yeah, both example are only anecdotal but we can't only focus on the negative!
Again, it boils down to the fact that she has yet to widely publish a game to the public (having it on her own website doesn't count, as how many people know about that website?). It's not just the CoD lobby that Achilles refers to: It's the entire online experience. Gears, Halo, CoD, Madden, Warcraft, etc.
I don't feel it's fair to judge a cutting edge game/film/novel/etc. by it's wide public acceptance. I can't think of many cutting edge products that immediately gained public acceptance. Hell, even the humble shopping cart had a very slow start (nobody wanted to be seen pushing a cart around -- the inventor had to hire actors to use them to encourage others to follow!)
Finally, her book is a compilation of both her works and the works of others that all advance a similar theme -- in fact, she even analyzes Halo from the view of a Positive Psychologist! So, part of the idea is to think about games through a different lens as much as it is to create new and different games.
Anyway, it's obvious that we won't be able to convince each other through this forum. I appreciate your skepticism, so I guess we'll just have to go out and do it! If the trend ends up working out, I want to be proud to say I contributed a small part from the leading edge. If it doesn't I can be proud to say I tried something I believed in. Either way, I hope it makes "gaming" better.
So, she hasn't created a video game? (Read: she has).
And hey, I see your point Alexander. We should be pushing gaming. But, at least to me, it seems that she is basically making a scape goat out of gaming.
But, you're right. No matter what, we should be pushing gaming, even if it does fail.
Just careful where we push it I suppose. Thanks for the genuinely awesome comments Alex.
I don't say this to subtract from her work, but rather to point out that the book is well researched and the ideas she presents have been considered by others. Footnotes and citations don't work well in speeches, yet are key for understanding how substantiated a given idea actually is.
Point is, anybody can make footnotes and citations. Doesn't add a single thing to her research. And the comments here are not necessarily negative. We who frequent Gamasutra like to examine all sides of a debate/issue. It's called being objective.
There's a lot of very narrow-minded thinking here about what games actually are, and what it means to "succeed" in life. If you'll excuse a personal diatribe, I blame the industrial revolution, and the idea that we need to teach children to be quiet and pay attention and follow orders from their boss blindly.
The, as McGonigal puts it, "mass exodus to virtual worlds" is seen by people as some great evil where games are stealing people away from "serious" life, but this argument is like saying that people turning to drugs or crime do so because they're all "bad people". People turn to what makes them happy and engages them. McGonigal maybe didn't put this across properly at this talk, but her point in the book is that we should embrace this and look at it as a defiant statement of what we want in our lives - more engagement, more reward - and think how we can apply this to "real world" scenarios.
Like it or not, hate the term or love it, what we need is to "gamify" those scenarios in life we find unengaging and depressing, and turn them into engaging and exciting scenarios that inspire us to "play" to "succeed" rather than forcing us to work.
Scientists already have been working on similar things, you should all check out immune attack.
http://www.fas.org/immuneattack/
The power of "games" is really the power of being able to translate and model things and make them easier to grasp/understand in many contexts.
I'm appalled at the assault on her work we have enough enemies in the Media, Social Science, and on Capital Hill. Jane has composed portions of research conducted by credible institutions in a attempt help combat the negative stigma from the institutions listed above perpetuate and change the cultural view of gaming.
I don't agree with everything she has to say, but at-least she is working towards a positive goal while you folks some I would speculate have never read her book or even attended the keynote and are merely reacting to the article above. Before we set fire to her name with our "Objective" and "Critical" perhaps we should step back, read the work, not the opinion and then make insightful comments that offer solutions not just the condemnation of someone trying to make a positive image for a community that's gotten a lot of cultural bad press.
Hopefully you can narrow it down from there, also by alienating nice portion of gamers (regardless if you like the games they play).
What a lot of the users have a problem with is HOW she wants to use games. She is basically proposing to use them as a substitute for doing things out of your own will (i.e. in the work place, working to "win" or "achieve" a game, instead of doing it because it's your JOB and to put food on the table).
There are ways we can put culture in our games other than this one. I'd like to direct you to BioShock, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect. You take something away from those games, ideas that make you think about similar real world issues. From there, it's up to you. That's the beauty of these games; you and I could gather something completely different from these games.
Her book was actually good, especially the later half ;)
My other issue is that she acts as the self appointed cheerleader of gaming, throwing out sound bytes and keeping herself visible in the media for self promotion. I am sure this act has done very well for her to sell some books. I am also sure, she actually feels that she is speaking in truths. The problem is that it appears that she is more speaking in assumptions and assumptive leaps to promote her agenda. For some, who see her in this light, it will leave a bad taste in their mouths.
To her credit, she sure is getting people talking. Unfortunately for her, to be a lightning rod for debate at times leads to getting burnt.