Exploration of game design for social networking application. Process of planning and playing.

1. Dames Making Games
NoJam
A weekend in game-making

3. Idea 1.0
To design a game
That helps people network more effectively…, with
community validated chemistry to avoid players
manipulating their own profiles and scores.
That encourages people to move beyond their immediate
circles and disciplines
That rewards players on networking beyond numbers
Connects people through chemistry as well as industry
Gives points that rewards people for checking in with
people, rather than places

4. Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems - the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group
collaboration environments.pdf
According to Driskell et al. (1987, see also Woodman et al. 1993), a team’s performance potential is influenced by (1) individual-level
factors, such as personalities, skills, and knowledge of team members; (2) group- level factors, such as size, structure, or
cohesiveness; and (3) environmental-level factors, such as reward structure or the nature of the task. These ―input‖ vari- ables
influence the group interaction process, leading to process gains and losses that determine the extent to which the group’s potential
performance trans- lates into actual performance outcomes (McGrath 1984).
Early research in the area of idea generation focused on identifying various techniques for enhanc- ing group creativity and performance
Must be more interesting ways to network
(Osborn 1957, Van de Ven and Delbecq 1974). However, studies attempting to empirically evaluate the efficacy of such methods consistently
found that noninteracting individuals whose ideas are pooled (i.e., individuals working as nominal groups) outperformed interact- ing
groups (McGrath 1984, Mullen et al. 1991). Pro- cess losses such as production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and free riding have
been identified as the main cause of poor performance in interact- ing groups (Diehl and Stroebe 1987). In more recent work, computer-
mediated idea generation has been found to help overcome some of these process losses by providing features such as parallel communica-
tion, group memory, and anonymity (e.g., Connolly et al. 1990, Valacich et al. 1994).
Prior research suggests that both intrinsic and extrin- sic motivations are important factors in information systems success. Whereas
More creative ways to meet people
intrinsic motivation ―refers to the pleasure and inherent satisfaction derived from a specific activity,‖ extrinsic motivation
―emphasizes performing a behavior because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes that are distinct from the
activity‖ (Venkatesh and Speier 1999, p2).
Venkatesh (1999) demonstrates that training aimed at intrinsic motivation can aid in creating a posi- tive experience for the user.
Venkatesh (2000) fur- ther demonstrates that computer playfulness can be regarded as an antecedent to the perceived ease of use of an
information system, which, in turn, influ- ences a user’s intention to use the system. In addition to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation (such as the perceived usefulness of a system or the instru- mentality in providing rewards, Davis et al. 1989) can also
More engaging forms of reward
influence the intention to use a system. Related to idea generation, prior research has suggested that intrinsic motivation is a key
element in creativ- ity (e.g., Amabile 1983, Cacioppo and Petty 1982), influencing the quality of ideas generated and thus the overall
effectiveness of idea generation groups (Chidambaram and Tung 2005).
Because group idea generation is sometimes regarded as ―practically effortless‖ (Diehl and Stroebe 1987, p. 502), social loafing has been
considered to be only a minor element contributing to productivity losses in group idea generation, and has therefore received only
modest attention by prior research (with Chidambaram and Tung 2005 being a notable exception). Traditionally, idea generation studies
have used variants of Osborn’s (1957) proce- dural rules—not to criticize others, to build on the ideas of others, and to suggest any
Creative on individual &group level
idea regardless of its quality or feasibility—to mitigate various pro- cess losses. However, these rules cannot offset the ten- dency of
individuals to engage in social loafing and negative productivity matching (i.e., the tendency of individuals to match their efforts to
low performing members of their group); thus, researchers have sug- gested stronger (external) interventions for behavioral modification
(Hackman and Morris 1975, Parks and Sanna 1999, Paulus and Brown 2003)
Rather, to leverage the motivation and strengths of users when designing informa- tion systems, Zhang (2008b) advocates the use of a
―positive lens,‖ arguing that people tend to use and continue to use information systems to fulfill var- ious psychological, cognitive,
social, and emotional needs. Hence, an object’s (or technology’s) properties that support these motivational needs (i.e., the object’s
―motivational affordance,‖ Zhang 2008a, p. 145) can influence whether, how, and how much the object (or technology) will be used. To
design a system high in motivational affordance, Zhang (2008a) proposed 10 design principles related to five different motiva- tional
sources. Specifically, these principles are aimed at fulfilling the users’ (1) psychological (autonomy and self); (2) cognitive
(competence and achievement); (3) social, psychological (relatedness); (4) social, psy- chological (power, leadership, and followership);
and (5) emotional (emotion and affect) needs.
People have an inherent need to accomplish tasks and aspire to excel as compared to a standard of excel- lence. This comparison can take
the form of compe- tition with one’s self, or against others (Heckhausen 1967). Fulfilling this need, however, necessitates that people

7. Attempting Focus

9. Exploring mechanics – idea 1
Each player is allocated
points relative to a
position and every other
player in the game
A player must collect the
most points in the
shortest period of time
and does so by connecting
with other players in the
game. The further away
other players are from
you, the higher their
points value.

10. More ideas
2) A similar mechanic to the one
above, but upon arriving at an event,
each player is served several quests
that involve connecting with
different people at an event in
different ways.
3) Find and seek mechanic. Player is
served a symbol upon arriving at an
event / checking in and must find the
other person at the event with the
same symbol. As he makes his way
around a group, he collects other
symbols. Other players can declare
their symbol and ask if he has met
this person already, but they can
only ask with yes or no questions.

11. More ideas
Describe your interest in the event in three words.
Network around the event to find someone else with the
same trait. The first person to collect all three
traits wins the game.
As we move through the year and go to different events,
existing words that have already been banked, decrease
in points value so there’s more emphasis on being
creative with your words.
Would people manipulate the mechanic by arranging word
selection before an event? Would you have multiple
rounds, with different questions and sets of three
answers.

15. Word In The Meet

16. Word In The Meet
My word by me
Your word by me
Your word by me
Your word by me

18. “Winner”?
Least consistent feedback Very strong consistency in Fairly strong consistency in feedback
feedback
About Rachel About Alex About Henry About Cale
Inconsistent
(formatting in
Rachel on others writing)
Broke own rules
Cale on others Sometimes
inconsistent
Old school / Questioned rules
knowledgeable
Alex on others Mostly consistent
Relaxed about
rules
Ambitious Erudite
Consistent
Followed rules
Henry on others
Inquisitive
Are people manipulating conversation towards their own word? Should people assign themselves a word AFTER they’ve assigned everyone else in the group a word?

19. "Rachel's game is an excellent icebreaker with visible teambuilding results, which allow
her to quickly sort both the impressions group members give to each other, and capture
something of how they think of themselves.
Try a bigger dataset - at least 10 people. I want to see you play it with a huge number of
people and make a big grid. It's a really great game of first impressions. It's a good
tool for helping people learn how to give better first impressions."
Alex
Think about how you're evaluating the criteria for the "winner": how people offer these
words in terms of formatting/presentation, thematic suggestion etc. These attributes become
the basis of the scoring system. Make sure you time the game and perhaps if you use a
larger group, assign less time to the conversation. Perhaps three minutes would be good,
with a timer. Work out criteria, work out process and then you can make it digital really
quickly. Once you work out the mechanics and you've done enough play testing with your
"minimal viable product", you can then scale it and test different ideas with other people
- they'll get this framework.
Henry
This isn't a game that you try to win. It's a non-competitive game which put me off a bit,
but once I got over that, it was a really good way to learn things about people that I
didn't know and of course those were people that I knew already! And better cards - these
ones were kinda uneven. It didn't seem like so much of a game - it was more a social
activity, but I really enjoyed playing.
Cale