Oh me too, Scott. Gamification is such a problematic term. I still use it, because people do kind of understand what you are talking about when you use it. But I do sometimes wonder, with all the misconceptions about what it means, and the bad rep it has in some quarters whether I would be better just sticking to ‘human-focused desing (Yu-kai Chou’s favoured term) and then having to explain a little. I remember having a gamification project hijacked from me (someone who knows a thing or two about it) by the IT guy at my work (who really had no idea), simply because he had the technical capability to implement the badges and leaderboards. Therefore, so the logic went, he could ‘do’ gamification. As I tried to explain to him why creating the website first and then simply adding points and badges later was not the approach to take, he actually asked me ‘What about people who don’t get motivated by gamification?’ – which if you take the human-focused design approach (rather than thinking that ‘gamification’ is a plugin which creates badges and leaderboards for you), is a bit like asking ‘What if people aren’t motivated by what motivates them?’

Ugh! Beyond frustrating.

Nice article around active involvement. But the words we use sure do seem to gum things up. I have been selling business improvement simulations like, “The Search for The Lost Dutchman’s Gold Mine” for more than 25 years. But I don’t really like to call it a simulation because it really isn’t. It is a team building GAME focused on collaboration. But “game” loses some people who prefer “simulation” simply because it sounds more “professional.” Often, I compromise with “EXERCISE.”

Why can’t we just admit that games are FUN and that learning and development SHOULD be fun and does not have to be deadly serious in order for it to be effective. As I said in my contribution to Ludogogy, “Caterpillars CAN fly if they just lighten up!”