ACE 2013 University of Twente
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•360 vistas
presentation
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Similar a ACE 2013 University of Twente
Similar a ACE 2013 University of Twente (20)
Más de Valentina Rao
Más de Valentina Rao (12)
Último
Último (20)
ACE 2013 University of Twente
- 1. Designing behavior change interventions through gaming: a framework a framework v@playfulpandas.org Valentina Rao partially developed within GATE project/Utrecht University 2009-2012
- 2. “persuasive games” for some means: for some means:
- 4. “Procedurality is the computer’s ability to model situations and ideas through the use of computational process. It is a type of representation that differs from other, more familiar forms, such as speech, writing, or images.” Ian Bogost
- 5. for others instead “persuasive games” means: means:
- 6. gamification, serious games, systems that facilitate actions and behaviors
- 7. Psychology of persuasion/ persuasive technology
- 11. Representation
- 13. 2) Dialogue
- 16. Elaboration Likelihood Model Central Route Peripheral Route Two Routes to persuasion
- 17. Who is this distinction relevant to? Game researchers Game designers Stakeholders Persuasion designers Researchers psychology of persuasion
- 18. Thank you for listening! Questions? For all inquiries,, write to v@playfulpandas.org Twitter:@Playfulpanda1
Notas del editor
- I am going to talk about a divide in the discussion surrounding persuasive games - a divide in theories that is affecting the development of a specific design field, persuasive design through games I am going to use the lenses of communication studies to create a bridge between scientific view of persuasive design. like that made popular by persuasive technology, and a predominant approach in game research that derives from a literary background
- Snow in an influential talk from 1959 entitled “the two cultures and the scientific revolution” describes how in early 19th century when arts and sciences went their separate ways the incommunicability between the “persuasive games” model predominant in game research theory and other approaches like persuasive technology can be overcome
- to go beyond the disciplinary divide and ideological differences, we need to find a theoretical model that includes instead of excluding the theoretical model will be very clear if we understand that these two approaches in fact are just two different modes of communication:
- interactive at the level of gameplay but not at the level of communication
- also the other one is HCI, but this HCI takes a dialogic mode that is open, while the other is directed towards the rhetorical goal
- player’s data is what makes the game meaningful NOT a rhetorical argument - there can be an argument here too, but it’s within a dialogue, not a one-way communication
- which approach is more effective is another discussion, what I hope that you bring home with you is the conviction that there are different options for persuasion, and the only thing that doesn’t make them visible as a whole is disciplinary separation