Reference no: EM132174681

Please check the Sources in the attachment:

In the video, Bogost recasts "fun" as finding ways to survive in wretched systems, believing that these systems and a players explorations of them are the heart of gaming.

With this defined as the heart of gaming, in the article, Gamification is Bullshit, he states that adding rewards systems from games does not make that activity suddenly a game and takes issue with the use of the label "gamification."

1. As Bogost claims in his video, "When designing a game, the question is not how to make it taste sweet, but ‘what sort of structure it ought to be?'" How do you interpret this?

2. Bogost focuses on mislabeling non-games games with the term gamification. What are other things that you can think of that appropriate a term or label to make it appear something it's not?

(Note that most readings for this course are meant to expand you as people beyond this one course... Both of these Bogost readings are meant to get you thinking about structures and our place in them.

Bogost's statement about trying to find fun in dealing with oppressive systems can be used as a guideline for life, not just games.

Wark's concept of us being NPCs in corporation's meta-game asks us to be critical of our media consumption and why someone else would want us to consume it. Everything is political and almost everything has monetary agendas.)

Reading Source :

Bogost, Ian. (2013). Persuasive Games. UX Week 2013 [video].
and
Bogost, Ian. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. The Atlantic (Aug 11, 2011).