Playful or Gameful?: creating delightful user experiences

Abstract

Experts state that research on playfulness and gamification has looked at video games to create better user experiences from user interfaces. Researchers are making efforts to understand how playfulness can be employed in creating meaningful and memorable experiences for users. Playfulness is an important, but neglected design quality for all kinds of products. Features that make games and play engaging can also make other kinds of products more enjoyable, elicit more meaningful experiences from them and increase the quality of the overall user experience along with market value of a product. Playfulness can be a positive feature in products that goes beyond pure entertainment. Gamification has been looking at the use of game-design elements, including points, levels, achievements, leaderboards, and rewards in non-game contexts to motivate and increase user activity and retention.

Full text

Over the years, games scholars have
been studying some of these issues [1].
But could some of the power behind
video games be channeled to motivate
people and help them achieve their
goals? Could playful designs inspired by
what makes games fun and entertaining
help create better user experiences?
In our work we have been trying
to understand how playfulness can
be employed in creating meaningful
and memorable experiences for users.
Playfulness is an important but often
neglected design quality for all kinds
of products. Features that make games
and play engaging can also make other
kinds of products more enjoyable,
For many of us non-digital-natives over
30, our rst contact with interactive
technology came about through
playing video games. Long before
personal computers and mobile phones
became part of our daily lives, we were
already hooked on these games. In
places as diverse as Chile, Greece, and
Finland, at the arcade or at home (for
example, with the Atari 2600), there
was something powerful about these
games that had us captivated from the
very rst moment we played Donkey
Kong, Centipede, or Pole Position.
But what made them so interesting
and intriguing? What made us go back
regularly (even daily) to the arcade?
F
Insights
→ Research on playfulness
and gamification has
looked at video games
to create better user
experiences.
→ The Playful Experiences
(PLEX) framework
advances our inquir y
of UX through
providing a fine-
grained understanding
of pleasurable user
experiences.
Playful or Gameful?
Creating
Delightful
User
Experiences
Andrés Lucero, Nokia Research Center
Evangelos Karapanos, Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute
Juha Arrasvuori, University of Vaasa
Hannu Korhonen, University of Tampere
MAYJUNE 2 014 INTE RAC TION S 35INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG
ph o t o g r a p h b y j o h n -p a u l b i c h a r d

play, bound by rules and arbitrary
obstacles, that denes winners and
losers and commonly manifests itself
in board games and video games.
Recent research on playfulness and
gamication (or gamefulness [3]) has
been looking at these complementary
roles of play. Simply put, while
playfulness relates to paidia-type
activities, gamication relates to ludus-
type activities [4].
Playfulness is a mindset whereby
people approach ever yday, even
mundane, activities with an attitude
similar to that of paidia—as something
not serious, with neither a clear goal
nor real-world consequences. Playful
experiences are realized when people
take a playful approach to activities
or how they look at the world. Prime
examples of playful experiences include
carefree jumping between piles of fallen
leaves in autumn (Figure 1), mindless
swiping between home screens on our
smartphone (Figure 2), or mischievous
drawing on the hood of a dirty car with
a nger (Figure 3). These activities can
be highly pleasurable and motivating.
The piano stairs at the Odenplan metro
station in Stockholm are a good example
of using playfulness in an attempt
to motivate people to take the stairs
instead of the escalator.
Over the past three years,
gamication has been looking at
the use of game-design elements,
including points, levels, achievements,
leaderboards, and (intrinsic) rewards,
in non-game contexts to motivate and
increase user activity and retention. The
resulting experiences lean toward the
more formal play of ludus, using design
elements that focus heavily on rule-
bound and goal-oriented play. Examples
of gameful applications include
Chore Wars, a competition between
roommates to get the housework done,
JetSet, a simulation that makes going
through security lines at airports
feel rewarding and productive, and
Nike+, which provides an added
layer of intrinsic motivation during
workouts. Gamication is a systematic
complement to playfulness [4].
Although playfulness and
gamication are located at dierent
ends of the play continuum, recent
research on both topics shares
a common origin: video games.
Gamication takes atomized design
elements from video games and
applies them to non-game contexts in
in “let’s play a game.” Roger Caillois
[2] was the rst to make a distinction
between play and games by placing the
terms paidia and ludus at opposite ends
of a play continuum. Paidia (or playing)
is the primary power of improvisation,
expressiveness, spontaneity, and joy
that is often present in children’s
free-form play. Ludus (or gaming),
on the other hand, consists of formal
elicit more meaningful experiences
from them, and ultimately increase the
quality of the overall user experience
and, respectively, the market value of
a product. Playfulness, in other words,
can be a positive feature in products that
goes beyond pure entertainment.
In common language, the
terms play and game are often used
interchangeably, and even together, as
Figure 2 . Mindless swiping bet ween home screens on our smartphone or tablet.
Figure 1. Carefree jumping between piles of fallen leaves in autumn.
Figure 3. Mischievously writing a message on a dirty car’s hood with your finger.
INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG36 INTE RACT IONS M AYJUNE 2014
fi g u r e 3 p h o t o g r a p h b y m a r í a g r a z i a p r a t o

an attempt to make technology and
services more inviting. In our work on
playful experiences, we have combined
theoretical work and user studies on
video game play to rst identify atomic
user experiences that these games elicit
and then apply them as building blocks
to delight users.
TOWARD PLAYFUL
EXPERIENCES
For the past ve years, we have been
looking into playfulness and its
potential role in creating delightful
user experiences. The Playful
Experiences (PLEX) framework is a
categorization of playful experiences
based on previous theoretical work
on pleasurable experiences, game
experiences, emotions, elements of
F
play, and the reasons why people
play. As a result of this analysis, we
examined the wide range of experiences
elicited by interactive products when
they are used in a playful manner. To
validate the initial PLEX framework,
we looked at video games to see which
of the categories were elicited, as well
as to identify potential gaps in the
framework.
Three video games were chosen:
Spore, a god game where you have to
design a universe starting from a single-
cell creature; Grand Theft Auto IV, an
open-world action and adventure game
that combines driving and shooting;
and The Sims 2, an open-ended
simulation game where you control
the life of virtual characters. These
three games were chosen for their high
popularity, for being large games that
require players to spend a signicant
amount of time playing them, and
for representing three dierent game
genres. Interviews with 13 players were
conducted; the results showed that all
categories were mentioned on numerous
occasions in the interviews and in the
context of at least two dierent games.
Thus, the dierent ways in which
players experienced the games could
be partially explained through the
PLEX categories. Our PLEX framework
validation eorts also included a study
of everyday gadget use, such as digital
cameras, mobile phones, and music
players, to see what experiences those
devices prompted in users. As a result,
22 categories were included in the PLEX
framework (Table 1).
Figure 4 . The 22
Playful Experiences
(PLEX) cards.
MAYJUNE 2 014 INTE RAC TION S 37INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG

DESIGNING FOR PLAYFUL
EXPERIENCES
The PLEX framework was subsequently
put to practical use in design-related
activities. From a design point of
view, we explored whether the PLEX
framework could be used to design for
playfulness beyond video games.
Several workshops were organized
in which individual PLEX categories,
or a combination of them, served as a
starting point for design. Workshop
participants initially had a hard time
grasping the meaning behind the PLEX
categories from the PowerPoint slides
and posters we presented them with. It
was in this context that the rst design
tool, the PLEX Cards [5] (Figure 4),
was created. We chose physical cards,
a low-tech and approachable medium
that ts nicely within the dynamics
of a design discussion, to clearly
communicate the dierent framework
categories, thus assisting designers and
other stakeholders in thinking about
playfulness. Two associated idea-
generation techniques—namely PLEX
Brainstorming (Figure 5) and PLEX
Scenario—were also devised to guide
and provide structure when using the
PLEX Cards.
Another practical tool developed in
the context of design activities is the
PLEX Design Patterns. The patterns
are an example of a design language that
lets those involved in the design process
ponder and consider the implications of
their design choices toward reaching a
nal design. The PLEX Design Patterns
consist of causes-consequences pairs
that describe the occurrence of a given
pattern in interaction design and how it
aects the overall user experience.
EVALUATING PLAYFUL
EXPERIENCES
More recently, we investigated the
use of the PLEX framework in the
evaluation of interactive products
and services [6]. Our aim was to study
whether PLEX could both help conduct
expert evaluations and ultimately be
used as a checklist when assessing
dierent aspects of playfulness.
Three interrelated studies of two
mobile phone games called Snow
and Veggie were conducted. In the
rst study, researchers actively used
the PLEX framework to conduct an
expert evaluation of the two games.
The second and third studies were
conducted without using the PLEX
T
M
framework to verify the ndings
from the previous expert evaluations.
These last two studies consisted of
interviews with professional game
designers from Rovio, the makers of
Angry Birds, and with the developers
of the aforementioned Snow and
Veggie games from the Finnish gaming
company Kuuasema. Triangulating
these studies allowed us to reect
on and identify the strengths (e.g.,
simplicity) and weaknesses (e.g.,
rigidity) of the PLEX framework as a
tool for evaluation. To assist everyday
people in evaluating concepts and
designs on playfulness, we propose
further specifying each PLEX category
into sub-items or -attributes so that the
dierent components of a category can
be more easily identied.
We have so far identied and
discussed the relationship between
research on gamication (or
gamefulness) and playfulness, and
described how the PLEX framework
came about and how it has been used in
practice during design and evaluation
activities. We will now explore the
larger relationship between playfulness
and user experience (UX) research.
PLEX AND USER EXPERIENCE
Understanding pleasure has been
at the core of the UX community
for more than a decade now. Patrick
Jordan, for instance, in his book on
designing pleasurable products [7],
employed Lionel Tiger’s framework to
dierentiate four sources of pleasure:
socio-pleasure, the “enjoyment derived
from the company of others,” psycho-
pleasure, the type of pleasure “that is
gained from accomplishing a task,”
ideo-pleasure, the “pleasure derived
from ‘theoretical’ entities such as the
aesthetics of a product and the values
it embodies,” and physio-pleasure,
the “sensual pleasure that is derived
from touching, smelling, hearing,
and tasting something.” Similarly,
Marc Hassenzahl distinguished
between dierent forms of what he
termed hedonic quality: stimulation,
the product’s ability to stimulate and
enable personal growth; identication,
the product’s ability to address the
need of expressing one’s self through
objects one owns; and evocation, the
product’s ability to evoke memories.
We believe that the PLEX framework
further advances our inquiry through
providing a more ne-grained
U
EXPERIENCE DESCRIPTION
Captivation Forgetting one’s
surroundings
Challenge Testing abilities in a
demanding task
Competition Contest with oneself
or an opponent
Completion Finishing a major
task, closure
Control Dominating,
commanding,
regulating
Cruelty Causing mental or
physical pain
Discovery Finding something
new or unknown
Eroticism A sexually arousing
experience
Exploration Investigating an
object or situation
Expression Manifesting oneself
creati vely
Fantasy An imagined
experience
Fellowship Friendship,
communality, or
intimacy
Humor Fun, joy, amusement,
jokes, gags
Nurture Taking care of oneself
or others
Relaxation Relief from bodily or
mental work
Sensation Excitement by
stimulating senses
Simulation An imitation of
everyday life
Submission Being part of a larger
structure
Subversion Breaking social rules
and norms
Suffering Experience of loss,
frustration, anger
Sympathy Sharing emotional
feelings
Thrill Excitement derived
from risk, danger
→ Table 1. The Playful Experiences (PLEX )
framework, consisting of 22 categories.
INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG38 INTERACT IONS M AYJUNE 2014

in physically or mentally demanding
tasks; to the interrelated experiences
of exploration and discovery and even
humor, when products perform an
action in a surprising way, such as a
toaster that burns a gure on a slice of
bread.
Next to this, we nd dierent
PLEX categories that force us to
think of users’ interactions at a
dierent timescale. Some draw the
focus to the momentary experiencing
of playfulness—for instance when
designing for the experience of
captivation, when individuals lose
track of time and awareness of their
surroundings. Others emphasize the
episodic—for instance when designing
for the experience of completion
that occurs when individuals reach
closure on an earlier tension, which is
associated with feelings of satisfaction
and achievement. Still others
emphasize the long-term—such as
when designing for fellowship, the
experience of a long-lasting emotional
bond that is often tied with feelings
of intimacy. In doing so, we believe
that the PLEX framework not only
advances our understanding of
pleasurable experiences, but also
guides us more eectively in designing
for pleasurable experiences.
BEYOND PLAYFULNESS
AND GAMEFULNESS
Returning to the initial question of
whether video games could serve
as inspiration to engage people and
help them achieve their goals, both
our PLEX work and gamication
are showing the way to create better
user experiences, albeit from their
slightly dierent yet complementary
perspectives—namely, those of
paidia and ludus, respectively. More
companies are deciding to take the leap
and include aspects of playfulness and
gamication (or gamefulness) as part
of their business strategies, based on
some successful real-world examples
mentioned earlier. However, PLEX (and
to some extent gamication) is biased
toward positive experiences, with only
three of its categories—namely cruelty,
subversion, and suering—exploring
negative aspects of playfulness. Other
experiences, such as disgust, tragedy,
or shame, can at least partly be
experienced as some sort of play and
R
understanding of pleasurable user
experiences. Take, for instance, social
experiences. Jordan dened socio-
pleasure broadly as the “enjoyment
derived from the company of others,”
while more recent models have
emphasized a distinction between
popularity and relatedness. The PLEX
framework identies nine distinct
manifestations of socio-pleasure: from
the experiences of sympathy, nurture,
and eroticism, when individuals share
their emotional feelings with, take care
of, or feel sexually attracted to others;
to the experiences of submission and
fellowship, when individuals conform
to the rules of a larger structure
or community, inducing a sense
of partnership with others; to the
seemingly opposing experiences of
subversion, competition, expression, and
even cruelty, when individuals derive
pleasure from breaking social rules
and norms, competing with others,
expressing their selves in a creative
manner, or causing mental or physical
pain in others.
Similarly, while Jordan dened
psycho-pleasure as the type of pleasure
“that is gained from accomplishing
a task,” and later models attempted
to distinguish competence from
stimulation, the PLEX framework
identies seven facets of psycho-
pleasure: from captivation, the
experience of losing track of time
and awareness of our surroundings
as we increasingly engage with an
activity; to the experiences of challenge,
control, and completion, as individuals
engage with and become competent
thus have at one point been considered
for inclusion in the PLEX framework. A
broader understanding of both positive
and negative playful and gameful
experiences could provide richer, more
profound, and perhaps more meaningful
experiences to people, ones that feel
closer to their everyday lives.
Endnotes:
1. Boyle, E.A., Connolly, T.M., Ha iney, T.
and Boyle, J.M. Engagement in d igital
entert ainment games: A systematic rev iew.
Computers in Human Behavior 28, 3 (2012),
77 1–780 .
2. Caillois, R . Man, Play, and Game s.
University of Ill inois Press, 1961.
3. McGonigal, J. R eality Is Broken : Why
Games Mak e Us Better and How T hey Can
Change the Worl d. Penguin, 2011.
4. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., K haled, R. a nd
Nacke, L. From game design elements to
gamef ulness: Dening “gamication”.
Proc. o f the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Confere nce. ACM, 2011, 9–15.
5. Lucero, A . and Arrasvuori, J. The PLEX
Cards and its techniques as sources of
inspiration when designing for playfulness.
International Journal of Arts and
Tec hn olo g y 6, 1 (2013), 22–43.
6. Lucero, A ., Holopainen, J., Ollila, E.,
Suomela, R . and Karapanos, E . The
Playful Experiences (PLEX) framework as
a guide for expert evaluat ion. Proc. of the
2013 Conference on D esigning Ple asurable
Products and Interfaces. ACM, 2013,
221–230.
7. Jordan, P. Desi gning Pleasu rable Produc ts.
Taylor & Francis, London, 2000.
Andrés Lucero is a senior researcher
at Nokia in Tampere, Finland. His interests
lie in human-computer interaction (HCI),
user-centered design, and design research.
For more about Nokia’s research work, see
research.nokia.com.
→lucero@acm.org
Evangelos Karapanos is an assistant
professor at Madeira Interactive Technologies
Institute, Por tugal. His interests lie in human-
computer interaction, user experience, and
ubiquitous computing. For more about the lab,
see www.m-iti.org.
→ekarapanos@uma.pt
Juha Arrasvuori is a senior researcher at
the SC-Research group at University of Vaasa,
Finland. His current research interests include
innovation methods and processes. For more
about the research group, see www.scr.fi.
→juha.arrasvuori@uva.fi
Hannu Korhonen is a senior researcher at
TAUCHI, University of Tampere, Finland. His
primary research interests include usability
and user experience on mobile devices. For
more about the unit, see www.uta.fi/sis/tauchi.
→hannu.juhani.korhonen@uta.fi
DOI: 10.1145/2590973 COPYRIGHT HELD BY AUTHORS. PUBLICATION RIGHTS L ICENSED TO ACM. $15.00
Figure 5. The PLEX Brainstorming
technique in action.
MAYJUNE 2 014 INTE RAC TION S 39INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG