Jane McGonigal on How Computer Games Make You Smarter
The "alternate reality game" designer looks to develop ways in which people can combine play with problem-solving
- By Amanda Bensen
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2011, Subscribe
Far from rotting your brain, computer games can make people smarter and help humanity, says Jane McGonigal, 33, who creates “alternate reality games,” which take place in virtual environments yet encourage players to take real actions. She makes her unconventional case in a new book, Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World (Penguin Press). She spoke with assistant editor Amanda Bensen.
How do you describe what you do?
I make games that try to improve people’s lives or solve real problems. I take play very seriously.
You recently created a social network called Gameful. What’s that?
It’s a network for game developers. “Gameful” is a word I coined to describe what it feels like to have the heart of a gamer, as opposed to just “playful,” which sounds like you’re not taking something seriously. When you’re gameful, your creativity is sparked, your curiosity is sparked and you’re more likely to collaborate with others. You’re more likely to stick with a tough problem, even if you fail at first. The network has about 1,100 game developers looking at questions like: How could you make education, museums, hospitals, airports or even caregiving more gameful?
How could education be more gameful?
With the World Bank Institute last year, we created a ten-week crash course in changing the world, called Evoke. It was an online game that taught people social entrepreneurship. It used an interactive graphic novel instead of a textbook, and instead of assignments, there were missions and quests. We enrolled just under 20,000 students from 130 countries. We had about 50 new businesses started directly by the gamers to address poverty, hunger and access to clean water and clean energy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa but also in India, the Philippines, China. It’s still online—we’re getting ready to play again in the spring.
When many of us think of gaming, we think of someone alone in a room, staring at a screen. That doesn’t always seem socially healthy.
The idea of the “lone gamer” is really not true anymore. Up to 65 percent of gaming now is social, played either online or in the same room with people we know in real life. There’s a ton of research that shows playing games with people actually improves relationships with them. You feel more positive about them, you trust them more, and you have a better sense of their strengths and weaknesses, so you’re better able to work and collaborate with them in the future.
How has gaming had a positive effect on the world?
There are newspapers that have used games to get readers to help analyze government documents. There was a [British] game called “Investigate your MP’s expenses,” where readers were able to uncover so much stuff that people actually resigned from Parliament and new laws were passed as a result of this game.
As games blend our real and virtual environments, should there be concern that some people will be less able to distinguish between the two?
There are two potential dangers. One is when gamers can’t tell the difference between a game and reality, and spend too much time gaming. Games are good for you in moderation, up to 20 hours a week. More than that and you start to get quite negative impacts. The other danger involves people who make games. You can pretty much ask a gamer to do anything and they’ll do it for the sake of the game. I worry a lot about people using games just for marketing, to get people to buy more stuff, which I think would be the worst possible use.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (12)
This debate is interesting all in itself. You have the true believers and the entrenched non-believers. I suspect that most people don't want any facts to muddy the clarity of their vision, but there's much to recommend gaming, if simply to make people comfortable with computers. The value of gaming is what you make out of the experience. Some people can take advantage of the virtual environment to improve themselves. Other people only vege-out in front of a screen. The truth is somewhere in-between. As an early avid gamer, I found my self learning everything I could about computers, sometimes scanning through pages of code I could hardely understand, simply to learn how a game worked. Ultimately, I discovered that I may not be a coder, but I still became a tech nerd. Alas, lots of people who play games have no intention of trying to better themselves and I think that's where the rub is. I liken it to my failure with languages because I have no ear and no auditory memory. I can readily pick up on visual cues and once I see the word written, I can better learn the language. The same is true with any learning experience. A particular method can prevent you from getting the most out of an experience. Those that don't like games will never believe games are good for you. But I've watched kids quickly learn how to use computers because they first started playing games. Any look at how kids have adapted to social networking and technology will tell you that gaming isn't an impediment to learning. Like anything, moderation. Too much gaming might rob you of other learning experiences, but too little can leave out in the cold with both your social peers and the next wave of much needed job skills.
Posted by JJayJ on January 30,2012 | 12:38 PM
Ok. To me this is just plain and simply stupid. Video games don't make any changes to a person. I would know considering my boys play modern warefare and other games. They haven't had any atitudes towards me and it hasn't made them any smarter than they are. This whole:''does video games make people smarter?'' thing needs to end. My cousin's play violent games and they are just fine. It doesn't make you smart or dumb.
Posted by Kayla on January 11,2012 | 04:58 PM
The computer games are really interesting idea. Because one it makes you use your brain and also passes your idle time. Thats why you see that the most people aka nerds have more brains than other non tech people. The points in this are true facts and i agreed to these points.
Posted by Mathew Leonard on July 13,2011 | 09:28 AM
The main thing - it's the game will not replace real life
Posted by Tibetus on June 28,2011 | 05:31 AM
In response to Rick Robinson, I think the comparison with crossword puzzles is unfair. Any activity that involves the brain has the potential to improve brain function, and games are much more complex and varied than crossword puzzles. Games involve problem solving, interactive teamwork, hand-eye coordination and reflexes, creativity and much more, depending on the game. As with anything, do it in moderation but the benefits are clear.
Posted by Clompio Nimbus on May 2,2011 | 12:49 PM
what about violent games
Posted by loe whitney on March 11,2011 | 10:36 AM
I think you should bear in mind (or if you prefer, Andrew, you can bare in mind) that all we have here is the briefest of interviews. McGonigal has recently published a book, Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, which will give you a much fuller explanation of her theories and the scholarship which supports them. Unlike Rick, I am pleased that Smithsonian has opened this subject to its readers and hope it will explore it further. In NYC, The Quest 2 Learn school has been using gaming and game theory to structure systems for learning (they don't necessarily play games, but they use game-like systems to help students engage in their learning). Since games are systems, playing them can dispose learners to think in systematic ways. This is exciting stuff even for an old guy like me (started teaching in 1971).
Posted by Joe Bellacero on February 16,2011 | 06:39 PM
So, if I understand, two of the biggest "potential" dangers of gaming are playing too much and unscrupulous gamers using games just for marketing to get people to buy more stuff? Incredible! The whole interview struck me as narcissitic and self-serving.
Posted by Jim O'Toole on February 13,2011 | 10:03 AM
Bare in mind that the advent of statistics was based on game theory in regard to card play.
Posted by andrew friend on February 9,2011 | 07:54 PM
to rick robinson
yes there is no scientific or medical evidence saying games help the brain but there also is no evidence saying it does not help the brain. The most games can do to someones health is maybe getting carpal tunnel from overplaying or obesity you are thinking to general about the subject. Take into consideration the type of game, the time spent playing that game,and whether or not the person playing the game is social or not
Posted by jay ramos on February 8,2011 | 02:39 PM
There is no scientific or medical evidence that playing computer games help the brain, improve memory or aid individuals in keeping mentally fit. I am really disappointed at Smithsonian for publishing an article that is misleading and encourages people to play computer games to be smarter. The old myth that leaning how to do crossword puzzles makes you smarter is wrong. It only makes you better at doing crossword puzzles.
I also suggest that Smithsonian undertake a project that will provide sound medical and scientific advice on improving brain fitness. The evidence is there and has recently been reported in many leading medical journals.
Posted by rick robinson on February 8,2011 | 08:24 AM
The UK example is incorrect. It was not a game and did not itself lead to any legal change.
Posted by Adrian on February 3,2011 | 05:51 PM