The ludic production of space: gamification and spatial experience

(1)

THE LUDIC PRODUCTION OF SPACE: GAMIFICATION AND SPATIAL EXPERIENCE

A Master’s Thesis

by

FATMA NUR MURAT

Department of

Political Science and Public Administration İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

Ankara July 2019 F A T MA NU R MU R A T T H E L UD IC P R O D U C TI ON OF S P A C E : GA MI F IC A TI ON AND S P A TI AL E X P E R IE N C E B ilk en t U n iv er sit y 2019

(2)

(3)

(4)

THE LUDIC PRODUCTION OF SPACE: GAMIFICATION AND SPATIAL EXPERIENCE

The Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of

İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

by

FATMA NUR MURAT

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS

THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY

(5)

(6)

ABSTRACT

The Ludic Production of Space: Gamification and Spatial Experience

Murat, Fatma Nur

M.A., Depertment of Political Science and Public Administration Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatma Tahire Erman

July 2019

This thesis traces the changes in the spatiality of play with a focus on conceptual and structural transformations play has undergone in the modern times. These transformations lead to the dissolution of the boundaries between play space and physical space. Later, the emergence of gamification brings to the completion the fusion between play and life. With the development of location based social networks, gamification turns the spatial experience into a part of play. In order to understand the implications of this transformation, Lefebvre’s conception of the production of space is used as a conceptual tool. It is argued that play seeps into each element of the spatial triad and becomes a part of the production of space. The possibility of the creation of the differential space through gamification is discussed.

Keywords: Gamification, Space, Spatial Experience, Play, The Production of Space

(7)

ÖZET

Mekânın Oyunla Üretimi: Oyunlaşma ve Mekân Deneyimi

Murat, Fatma Nur

Yüksek Lisans, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü Danışman: Doçent Dr. Fatma Tahire Erman

Temmuz 2019

Bu tez oyun kavramının mekânsallığının modern zamanlarda geçirdiği kavramsal ve yapısal dönüşümün izini surer Bu dönüşümler oyun mekânı ve fızıksel mekân arasındaki sınırların yok olmasına neden olurlar. Oyunlaşma kavramının ortaya çıkışı da oyun ve hayat arasındaki birleşmeyi tamama erdirir. Konum tabanlı sosyal ağların ortaya çıkışıyla, oyunlaşma mekânsal deneyimi oyunun bir parçası haline getirir. Lefebvre’in mekânın üretimine yaklaşımı, u dönüşümün etkilerini anlamak için kavramsal bir araç olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu tezde, oyunun mekânsal üçlemenin bütün elemanlarının içine sızdığı ve mekânın üretiminin bir parçası haline geldiği argümanı ortaya konmaktadır. Ayrıca, oyunlaşma aracılığıyla ayrımsal mekânın üretilme ihtimali de tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Mekân, Mekânsal Deneyim, Mekânın Üretimi, Oyun, Oyunlaşma

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tahire Erman for her guidance and insightful advices. During the writing of this thesis, I felt her support whenever I needed the most. I also would like to express my gratitude to jury members, Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger Tılıç and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Batuman. Their valuable recommendations helped me a lot to finalize the thesis. Without their suggestions, I would not be able to clarify my

arguments in the thesis.

I have always been lucky to be surrounded with great friends in my life. As a proof of that, during the MA program, I got the chance to be friends with Ayşe Durakoğlu, Kadir Yavuz Emiroğlu, and Hakkı Ozan Karayiğit. I am thankful for their support and I will definitely miss our inspiring conversations. My dear friends from high school, Büşra Karatay, Kübra Keskin and Büşra Yüzgenç supported me wholeheartedly as they have done in every other step in my life in the last ten years. Ayşenur Ongan and Nuray Ayten, my friends from Boğaziçi University, made my life more enjoyable with their kindness and care. I am most thankful to Özgür Elmacıoğlu for believing in me even when I am in doubt and bringing joy to my life with his love.

Beyond everything, I am eternally grateful to my parents and my brothers for their endless support and unconditional affection.

(9)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: PLAY AND GAMIFICATION

In 1971, Csikszentmihalyi and Bennett published their article presenting a model of play in American Anthropologist. The article was a call for social scientists to explore the nature of play and ended with a very short and effective warning: “Play is coming” (Csikszentmihalyi & Bennett, 1971, p. 57). Looking back from our time, this might be seen as quite an obvious situation. Yet, it was an early awakening for its time.

Considering the level of playfulness in today’s life, one can only say that “play has come”.

Yes, play has come. However, the form, function and the structure of play have changed fundamentally over time. Technological advancements have changed the spatial dynamics of play activity, especially the development of mobile technologies has removed the distinction between the space of play and non-play. However, the biggest change in the structure of play has yet to come. The emergence of the concept of gamification has changed the experience of play completely. This concept is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon,

(12)

that we engage with a gameful design on a daily basis. One of the outcome of this engagement, when combined with the fact that play has no designated space anymore because of mobile technologies, is the increasing influence of gamification over the spatial experience. This thesis investigates the role of gamification in the production of space, using Lefebvre’s spatial triad as a conceptual framework of analysis.

The existing body of literature on gamification approaches this concept either as an educational tool or a business strategy (Hofacker, de Ruyter, Lurie, Manchanda, & Donaldson, 2016; Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Lee & Hammer, 2011; Rice, 2012; Morschheuser, Hamari, & Koivisto, 2016). These approaches overlook the playful nature of gamification by focusing solely on its functional properties. Yet, this thesis tries to maintain the conceptual connection between play and gamification. Overall, it is a rewarding effort since it enables to discover the relationship between gamification and the concepts, such as space and time that constitute the fundamental aspects of everyday life.

The following chapter provides an account of the conceptual transformation of play in the modern times. For decades, play was defined as the direct opposite of work and viewed as an activity without an external purpose. Such a conceptualization has hindered the growth of academic interest in play as social sciences were predominantly occupied with work and its implications. However, social and economic changes rendered the boundary between play and work meaningless over time. Besides, the spatiality of play has also changed drastically. Play had its own space with clear boundaries, it was pretty obvious where play begins and ends. As play starts to merge with work, the space of play becomes more porous, leaving the question of the spatiality of play hanging.

(13)

The third chapter explores the structural transformation of play. The outdoor nature of play has challenged with the rapid urbanization since the early urban design approaches do not accommodate play. Still, people continued to engage in playful activities in the corners and back alleys of the cities. The development of video games, however, managed to confine play within the domestic sphere for a certain period of time. Nevertheless, the development of mobile technologies broke the walls and play moved back into the streets. Later, the emergence of the location based social networks incorporated the real-time location into the the dynamics of play activity, and opened a new era in the spatiality of play.

The fourth chapter focuses on the relationship between gamification and space. In order to avoid to employ a reductionist approach that views space as a mere

container, Lefebvre’s work on the production of space is utilized as a conceptual tool. The influence of gamification on the each pillar of the spatial triad is examined individually. This analysis clarifies the main question of the thesis. The question is whether the incorporation of ludic elements into the production of space opens a way to transform the spatial experience by creating a differential space. Although there is no way to answer this question with a simple yes or no, it opens up the discussion to understand the social implications of gamification.

Finally, the last chapter, in addition to providing a summary of the analysis in this thesis, points out the possible directions of future research

(14)

CHAPTER II

THE TRANSFORMATION OF PLAY

AND ITS SPATIALITY

This chapter aims to explore the conceptual transformation of play in the modern times. This transformation takes a big part in the development of the current form of the play. The dissolution of the boundary between work and play is the first

breaking point in this process. Secondly, the boundary of play space is also abolished, and play becomes everywhere.The review of the existing literature on the spatiality of play will reveal the gap regarding the relationship between the concept of gamification and space.

2.1 The False Dichotomy between Work and Play

Work and work-related activities have been considered as the fundamental forms of human activity and have constituted the primary concern of the social sciences for centuries. The seminal works of Weber, Hegel and Marx, despite the differences in their approach to the concept of work, have played a major part in making work central to the social sciences, and the later studies have built upon the premise of the centrality of work. To mention very briefly, Weberian approach has viewed work as a secular salvation from one’s own immediate desires and a means to achieve a

(15)

meaningful life through accumulation. Hegelian understanding of work, on the other hand, has focused on the act of intervening and manipulating nature. In doing so, human beings have distinguished themselves from animals, and work has become a defining part of their existence. Marxist approach is not very different from this line of thought and embraces work as the fundamental form of human activity, but is significantly more interested in the actual processes of material production. With a genealogical approach to the work, Just (2017) examined the writings of these three major names and concluded by pointing out that work is an invention that reorganizes social life based on the principles of efficiency and predominates over all other human activities.

Being founded on this basis, social sciences have majorly dealt with work and its implications. In fact, this interest in work has gone so far that other forms of human activity have been neglected or have been paid attention only if they are somehow linked to the work. This obsession with work, as I call, has especially overshadowed the playful nature of human beings since the earlier approaches viewed play as the almost exact opposite of work and labor. The contrast between these concepts has been overplayed to an extent that Marcuse (1973/2005) began to elaborate on the concept of labor by explaining play, the counterconcept of labor, as he called it (p. 127). In a similar fashion, instead of an immediate literature review on play, this chapter begins with a brief discussion of work in order to put an emphasis on long-lived conceptual barrier between work and play. For Marcuse (1973/2005), one of the key factors marking the realm of play and distinguishing it from labor is the nature of the relation between a person and objects; in play, the reality of objective world ceases to exist and is replaced by the rules of the game. By doing so, play offers a distraction from labor, a

(16)

moment of relaxation and fulfills its function as the counter phenomenon of labor through preparing people for more labor activity (Marcuse, 1973/2005, p. 128).

While Marcuse attributed regenerative purposes to play, the common view used to be that play has no external purpose or objective. Work, on the other hand, is a goal-oriented activity by its very nature and this difference is another important criterion separating work and play. In Critique of Judgement, Kant (1790/2007) considered play as an activity “with no further interest than that of making the time pass by unheeded” (p. 135). One exception, for Kant, is that play can be helpful to understand and

appreciate aesthetic experience as it frees the cognitive abilities. (Connor, 2005, p. 3). Kantian understanding of play was quite persistent in the literature that one can find its traces many years later in the pioneering works of Johan Huizinga on play.

Huizinga viewed play as a vital element of culture and opened up opportunities for further discussion by providing a thought-provoking definition and building the theory of play. Although almost every word of his definition of play is challenged and contested by later studies, it is quite impossible to start a discussion of play without referencing his work. Right after drawing a border between ordinary life and play and labeling play as a not serious activity, Huizinga (1938/2002) wrote that play is “an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it” (p. 13). This time, the border between play and work was fortified from the other side - by someone working on play- but again with an emphasis on purposefulness. Presenting an interpretation of play that is incompatible with work, Huizinga (1938/2002) viewed the Industrial Revolution as the starting point of the demise of play (pp. 191-192). He was utterly disappointed with the amount of attention given to the economic forces that, in turn, crucially undermined the relevance of the play-factor in social life. The

(17)

decline of play did not stop after the heydays of the Industrial Revolution even though the initial amusement with the ease of production has faded away to some extent. Huizinga did not foresee a change in the fate of play in his own time either. The “over-seriousness” triumphing in the 20th century has eroded the spontaneity of play and a professional approach that turns play into business took over (Huizinga, 1938/2002, pp. 195-200). Contrary to Huizinga’s predictions, play seems to make a comeback in the 21st century with a growing influence on the social processes. Before moving on to the details of this once unexpected turn, I will elaborate more on the studies following the steps of Huizinga to demonstrate the gradual change in the understanding of play.

Roger Caillois was among the first who reflected on the theory of play constructed by Huizinga. His work was based on the foundations of Huizinga’s approach but he aimed to crystallize the definition of play that has been left with some blurry edges by Huizinga. First, the relationship between mystery and play was

tackled; Caillois (1958/2001) argued that play, by its nature, dispels the sense of mystery by making it obvious, unlike Huizinga who viewed secrecy and mystery as a definitive part of play. Secondly and more importantly for the ongoing discussion in this chapter, Caillois (1958/2001) expanded the realm of play by including bets and games of chance into his analysis. This expansion, as a result, brought material interests and play together for the first time in the literature. Yet again, it was only limited with the exchange of goods and the production of value remained to be

considered out of the sphere of play. In fact, Caillois was particularly adamant to keep play and the production of value separate since for him “a characteristic of play, in fact, is that it creates no wealth or goods, thus differing from work or art” (p. 5). Other than these two minor touches to the understanding of play, his work advanced the

(18)

theory of play by providing a classification based on four different elements of play, i.e. competition, simulation, chance, and vertigo (Caillois, 1958/2001, p.12). Apart from this classification, which was quite comprehensive and helpful to understand the features of different forms of play, Caillois did not distinguish his approach to play from Huizinga’s work. For both scholars, play was an element of culture with a civilizing role and the theory of play was assumed to bridge the gap between nature and culture (Minnema, 1998, pp. 32-33).

The sacralization of play through attributing these type of roles and stripping it of productive capabilities set the tone for the succeeding studies. Gadamer (1975/2004) embraced this understanding and took it one step ahead by writing that “it is part of play that the movement is not only without goal or purpose but also without effort” (p. 105). When the effort also is taken out of the scene, play becomes a subjective

experience through which one finds relief from the continuous struggle of life to fulfill a duty. A predating ontological study on play perfectly captured Gadamer’s point with its title: The Oasis of Happiness (Fink, Saine, & Saine, 1968). Giving up on finding an external purpose of play, Fink et al. (1968) turned their attention to the sense of

liberation that play offers by interrupting the routine pace of life and creating an oasis where play-work dichotomy is no longer meaningful. Here, following Huizinga’s work, the discussion on the nature of play came to the point where play was assumed a special position among other human activities. Although the aim was to put a spotlight on the concept of play, this approach, in a way, justified the lack of interest in play by labeling it as an exceptional state.

At the turn of the 21st century, the discussion on the relationship between play and work has taken a completely different route. With the help of technological

(19)

advancements, play is finding new outlets and becoming more visible in daily life. Brian Sutton-Smith assumes a leading role in responding the changing nature of play with his multidisciplinary approach. In The Ambiguity of Play (1997), he examines different cultural rhetorics employed in the theory of play, one being the rhetorics of frivolity. Although Sutton-Smith (1997) gives much credit to

Huizinga’s efforts to revive interest in play by going beyond the limitations of the Puritan work ethic and presenting play as one of the key elements of culture, he insists on the seriousness of play. Considering both the amount of effort that has shown by players and the individual and social impacts of play, labeling play as a frivolous activity is an obvious misconception (Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 202).

Taking play seriously is a crucial step in understanding what play has become in the last decades. The use of word ‘ambiguity’, however, does much more than just acknowledging the seriousness of play, it encourages social scientists to rethink the nature of play with a critical lens. Conceptualizing play as something

ambiguous by definition underlines both the dissolution of the boundaries of play and the increasing pervasiveness of play. It is no longer clear where play starts and ends. The neoliberal restructuring of economy in the last couple of decades has also a huge role in the formation of this blurriness as it has challenged the conventional understanding of labor and created many different forms of value production. As one of these forms, the term playbour has emerged and represented the eventual merge of play and labor (Kücklich, 2005). This hybrid term is first used specifically to refer to the practice of modding, that is the modification of software, in most of the cases of video games, by its users. However, in time, the term becomes the trigger of a wider discussion on the convergence of production and consumption

(20)

activities and revives interest in play by placing it at the intersection of these two sets of activities. Demonstrating the complete change in the approach to play, later studies on the term playbour start to question whether play can be considered separate from work and how to categorize these newly emerging forms of value production (Goggin, 2011; Hong, 2013; Lund, 2014; Lund, 2015).

The dissolution of the boundaries between work and play, represented with the emergence of this hybrid term, is just one indicator of the ambiguous nature of play. As play becomes more pervasive than before, it gets harder to differentiate play and non-play. One of the key factors contributing in the increase of the

pervasiveness of play is the development of ubiquitous computing. This term refers to the possibility that one can encounter and interact with a computing mechanism at anytime and anywhere. McGonigal (2006) builds the main argument of her thesis on the implications of this possibility positing that play now can be in any form and anywhere thanks to the ubiquitous computing. Mcgonigal titles her thesis as This Might Be a Game and the title serves two functions; first, it spotlights the spread of playful design and secondly, it warns us against the increasing invisibility of games as they get hidden behind the lines of computer code. The thesis problematizes the potential of ubiquitous computing to eradicate “the distinction between our own subjectivity and the performance of external technologies, as well as the distinction between interpersonal relations and the social life of digital network itself”

(McGonigal, 2006, pp. 34-35). As ubiquitous computing is utilized more and more, this potential becomes a reality. The design of social network becomes an

embedded factor influencing the dynamics of social relations and gets more attention from social scientists.

(21)

Similar to the emergence of the concept of playbour, a hybrid term is coined recently in order to represent the blending of software and everyday life. Kitchin and Dodge (2011) establish a dyadic relationship between code and space arguing that software and the spatiality of everyday life are produced through one another and refer to this hybrid form as code/space (p. 16). This approach does not attribute a determining role to software, instead, emphasizes the reciprocal nature of the relationship and acknowledges that space provides context and meaning. Moreover, it is stated that software is also a social product; there are many solutions to coding problems and the end result is a product of a series of deliberative choices (Kitchin and Dodge, 2011, p. 34). Viewing the relationship between code and space in this way provides an even more comprehensive account than the concept of ubiquitous computing on the spatiality of software. Among many other alternatives, playful design takes over the lead in the development of digital networks as a result of deliberative social process.

2.2 The Spatiality of Play

So far, there has been an effort to demonstrate how the approaches to play have changed over the decades. This inquiry is mostly limited to the conceptual aspects of play and avoids delving into the developmental and anthropological significance of play. Although the state of play is discussed in quite broad terms, it becomes evident that there is a common element about play recurring in different studies, that is play now has no boundaries both in terms of a boundary separating it from other human activities and in terms of a spatial boundary. The changing

(22)

working on the political economy of games and labor economics, puts play at the very center of everyday life. Being encouraged with this change, in the rest of this chapter, I will explore the spatiality of play in the existing literature.

If we return back to the foundations of play to investigate its spatiality, we would come across Huizinga’s (1938/2002) magic circle, a concept explicating the characteristics of a play-ground. It is a very clever concept because it manages to encapsulate Huizinga’s view on the spatiality of play only in two words. First, the word magic suggests that the rules of ordinary life cease to make sense and a new set of rules that is bending and challenging the established order and hierarchies takes over. The make-believe element of play is also represented explicitly by the word magic as it implies a creation of something out of nothing. Secondly, circle embodies a sense of a special place for play and, as a closed figure, insinuates the immediate establishment of an impermeable boundary between play and ordinary life. For decades, the magic circle of play has been accounted as a conceptual tool to understand how play constructs an alternative to the reality and defies the limits of built environment. It has also sparked a further interest in the field of game studies toward the features and affordances of game space.

Especially after 2000s, digital games have been studied vigorously to lay out a detailed understanding of the spatiality of games. Although the theme, genre and mechanics of games are on the forefront of many studies, Aarseth (2001) argues that “the defining element in computer games is spatiality” (p. 152). Following this line of thought, one of the most comprehensive studies investigating the modalities of game space introduces a five dimensional classification: user space, narrative space, rule space, audiovisual representational space, kinesthetic space

(23)

(Stockburger, 2006). This multi-layered classification reflects the hybrid nature of game space and necessitates the development of an elaborate theoretical framework to study the intricacies of different modalities. In order to answer this need,

Stockburger (2006) employs Lefebvre’s spatial triad along with Foucault’s notion of heterotopia and concludes that game space is a highly dynamic medium

changing its structure with the interplay between these different spatial modalities (p. 174). Another study focusing on how hybrid reality games reframe space also uses Lefebvre’s spatial trialectics as a conceptual tool to analyze the interaction between game space and physical space (de Souza e Silva & Sutko, 2008).

Although inspired by the Huizinga’s notion of magic circle to study the spatiality of games, de Souza e Silva and Sutko (2008) reject this traditional approach

demarcating a special space for play and argue that hybrid reality games erases the boundary between game space and urban space.

While there is a strong trend defying the conventional understanding of the spatiality of games, the state of body in actively merging and overlapping spaces constitutes a curious topic. Stockburger’s (2006) notion of user space opens up opportunities to discuss the effects of bodily activity over both game space and physical space. Delving into the characteristics of this duality, Ash (2009) focuses on the reconfiguration of corporeal movement in the space of video games and asserts that the creation of game space through images alters the spatial awareness of players and challenges the spatiotemporal limits that play used to be bounded.

After all these studies questioning the strict boundaries of Huizinga’s magic circle, the final blow to his approach of the spatiality of games comes from

(24)

rejects the idea to draw a line between gameplay and the acts of players that are bounded by their prior knowledge, expectations and desires. Given the multiplicity and fluidity of the modalities of game space, the notion of the magic circle fails to represent the dynamic nature of play and becomes an overly static idea (Consalvo, 2009, p. 415). The collapse of the magic circle does not only bear implications for the field of game studies, but also affects the dynamics of the production of space.

It is no surprise that play has not found a place in the discourse of the production of space considering the preoccupation of social scientists with the predicaments of production, work and structure (Lash & Urry, 1994, p. 254). This lack of interest in play could be justified by bringing forward its differences from work and attributing play an extraordinary status among other human activities. Yet, these arguments are no longer valid especially after the eradication of the boundaries both between work and play and between game space and physical space. Therefore, there is a need to bridge the discourse of the production of space with play. The field of game studies has already acknowledged the constructive power of play and, since the very beginning, defined play with its spatiality. The aforementioned studies (Stockburger, 2006; de Souza e Silva and Sutko, 2008; Ash, 2009; Consalvo, 2009) do not refrain from utilizing certain conceptual tools

introduced by Lefebvre, Foucault, Deleuze, and Simmel to conceptualize game space and incorporate it with social space. Yet, naturally, the field of game studies is still mostly concerned with the formal games. However, we are witnessing the spread of game logic to every other activity through gamification and, therefore, the spatiality of play needs to be reconsidered by not only focusing on games but also all other forms of human activity.

(25)

Overall, there is an asymmetry in the literature regarding the relation between play and space; and the role of play in the production of space has to be

acknowledged with a meticulous attention to what play has become given the technological advancements. To address this asymmetry, this thesis focuses on the notion of gamification and its potential to transform spatial experience.

(26)

CHAPTER III

THE JOURNEY OF PLAY

The conceptual transformation of play, discussed in the previous chapter, is accompanied with its structural evolution. This chapter explores how the

technological advancements and social changes alter the form of play and games. Starting with a very primordial form of play, the play-mood is defined as “one of rapture and enthusiasm, and is sacred or festive in accordance with the occasion” (Huizinga, 1938/2002, p. 132). In other words, according to this approach, play creates a moment of extraordinariness. This breaking of routine leads to a temporary tension but it is eventually followed by a period of relaxation. Play, through this process, enables people to interact and bond with each other. Although this basic approach fails to reflect the diversity and complexity of the contemporary state of play, it is this key function of play that makes it an essential part of human life. For this reason, play has accompanied human beings in every step of their life and has been affected and transformed by the changes in the dynamics of social life. It is quite necessary to have a grasp of the history of play in order to understand what play has become over time. Yet, it would be an extremely ambitious endeavor to lay out all the different phases in the transformation of play since such a study has to

(27)

span all across the globe and start from the beginning of time. Besides the

tremendous amount of labor it needs, such study would not yield much information for the ongoing discussion in this thesis. Therefore, the scope of this chapter is only limited with the modern era and there is a particular focus on the developments that affect the spatial characteristics of play. This chapter is a parade of different forms of play that eventually yield to the emergence of the concept of gamification.

3.1 Urban Play

Play used to be an activity mostly performed outdoors. Small towns and rural environments had open fields where play can take place. The festive mood sparkled by play helped to bring people together in these small communities and to keep alive the spirit of community. Overall, play performed a crucial role in the continuation of social and pedological customs. These general remarks on the nature of play had hard time to maintain its validity after the majority of the world’s population moved in to the cities. The big cities emerged as economic machines that are responsible for the running of the mechanism of production and consumption. There was little to no room for play in such an environment. Play was perceived as a childish activity that is not serious enough to find itself a place in the city. In order to tackle the over seriousness of cities that sidelined the play activities in favor of production and consumption, a new type of urbanist had to be born. Observing the drastic changes in the urban setting in Paris in the 19th century, Walter Benjamin (1973) introduced a new typology: the flâneur. This new type of urbanist had time to stroll around the city and to enjoy the labyrinthine structure and the colorful world of passageways

(28)

idleness was turned into an aesthetic and playful experience. Also, it showed that play can find its way into the big cities. Yet, the urban landscape has changed with the developments in the technology of transportation and communication, and the Paris of the 19th century became a thing of past. Featherstone (1998) questioned whether the flânerie is still alive in the time of virtual space, and reached the

conclusion that the flâneur of the late 20th century has the chance to stroll around the virtual world with a completely new sense of mobility. Therefore, it can be said that the flâneur survived the changes in the built environment and in the virtual world. To Featherstone (1998), one thing is to be cautious about is that the electronic flâneur, as Featherstone calls the flâneur of his time, has to face with more challenges regarding the legibility of the space “as the boundaries of time and space become flexible and mutable as we move in and across virtual worlds” (p. 923). As a side note, this warning is an encouragement to think on gamification and spatial experience.

The Situationist International, an intellectual movement critiquing advanced capitalism, has also strongly disagreed with the idea that play has no place in the city. In The Situationist City, Sadler (1998) states that capitalism “did little to satisfy the human needs for spontaneity, play, and creativity” (p. 36). Amin and Thrift (2008) interprets the Situationist movement as “the production of new modes of play and correspondingly playful spaces within which the imagination could roam free” (p. 115). Guy Debord, one of the leading figures of the Situationist International, developed the concept of derivé to reintroduce play into the urban space. Debord (1958) defines this practice as “a technique of rapid passage through varied

(29)

is that they “involve playful-constructive behavior and awareness of

psychogeographical effects” (Debord, 1958, p.1). This awareness breaks the monotonous routine of a capitalist society and kindles a playful spirit.

In addition to the theoretical work to bring together play and the city, there have been various attempts of public to open a space for play in the city. Despite the high level of density and the heavy traffic that has turned certain parts of the cities to a hostile environment for play, people generally have found ways to circumvent these obstacles and managed to create a nook for play. For example, Jane Jacobs (1961) gives a detailed account of the children’s play on sidewalks in New York City. Unlike the playgrounds, the sidewalks offer an unsupervised environment where the incidental play can occur (Jacobs, 1961, p. 83). Similarly, parkour and skateboarding are other exemplary forms of urban play activities through which people integrate play into the city in an unexpected way. The wide spread of these two activities has caused a sensation in the field of urban studies because the performers have challenged the city planners’ perception of the urban space. For instance, a bench in the street for a skateboarder is not only for sitting for a short period of time, it also functions as an obstacle to jump over to show off their talent.

The increasing demand for play in the cities has compelled the urban planners to change their design approach to accommodate play in urban space. The global cities took the lead in this trend and many other cities around the world followed. For instance, based on his observations in urban public spaces in New York City and Tokyo, Cybriwski (1999) arrives the conclusion that “the design of many public spaces has come to be more playful, often employing ‘theme park’ simulations and breaking connections with local history and geography” (pp. 224-225). This rupture

(30)

has incorporated playful elements into the dynamics of the relationship between people and the built environment. In The Ludic City, Stevens (2007) explores the design of urban public space that encourages the development of the

non-instrumental interactions among people and stimulates the occurrence of playful events. Yet, incorporating play into the urban space is not an easy task for the urban planners trained to prioritize functionality and order over playfulness. There is a need for a new design approach to overcome this mental barrier. As a result of this quest, a new type of design practices named ludic urban interventions is emerged. Donoff (2014) describes these interventions as “a design or addition to the urban form that provides an alternative to adult pedestrian conventions by inspiring happiness and playful interaction with the urban environment” (p.66). With the increasing

application of these new design principles, play transforms into an urban design tool from a hidden and almost forbidden activity of urban life.

3.2 Domesticating Play

While the contestation over whether and how to incorporate play into urban public space continues, there is another line of developments affecting the spatiality of play. The growth of video games industry brings play from streets into the privacy of homes. The impact of this change is much bigger than the usual complaints about how the kids these days do not play on the street and they are always on their computers. First of all, the advent of video games challenges to the public nature of play and confines play activity within the domestic sphere. The space of the player becomes privatized and separated from other players. Although the arcade rooms and the LAN (local area network) gaming parties constitute exceptions by bringing

(31)

players into the same physical space, these practices are far from being the mainstream gaming style. On the other side of the coin, the domestication of play also alters the social and spatial organization of the home. Conducting an

ethnographic study to explore the spatial implications of the console based video games, Flynn (2003) argues that game consoles in the living room act as the heart of social interaction and make the geographic base of social interactions private.

Secondly, video games turn play into a screen-based activity. All the objects and the characters, everything the player engages with during the gameplay are represented on the screen. Moving all the elements of play from physical space to a two dimensional surface changes the dynamics of the spatial engagement. Returning back to Stockburger’s (2006) work on the modalities of game space discussed in the previous chapter, this audiovisual representational space offers many alternatives to construct the spatial narrative of the game. The movements of the player and the objects, their relational position, the viewpoint of the player, the depth and the spatial limits of the game space are all variables playing a role in determining the nature of the spatial engagement. In addition to these variables, the rules of physics do not necessarily apply in the world of video games, allowing many more spatial configurations. Yet, the screen does not fully free the player from the binds of physical space, as Flynn (2004) argues “playing the game is conditioned by the player’s lived in bodily experience as well as the player’s subjective viewpoint” (p. 57).

Thirdly, the development of networked video games enables players to interact with each other by creating a social space mediated by the rules of the game.

(32)

interaction among the players, the epitome of networked games is massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). MMORPGs take the experience of gameplay to another level by constructing extremely detailed and immersive game worlds, there are almost endless ways the players can interact with each other. When considered with the two aforementioned changes in the spatial nature of play, MMORPGs compress whole world to fit into a screen and bring it into the privacy of one’s room. Naturally, such a phenomenon has received great amount of scholarly attention from different disciplines. The anthropological studies make evident how successful these type of games are to create a sense of worldness in a virtual environment (Nardi, 2010; Taylor, 2006).

3.3 Play Reclaims the Streets

The confinement of play within the privacy of homes did not last long. Ironically, the factors contributing to the domestication of play constituted the foundations of later technological advancements that brought play back into the streets. First of all, screens got smaller and the mobile devices proliferated everywhere along with the mobile games. A cult example of mobile games is Snake programmed by Taneli Armonto for Nokia mobile phones in 1997. After the huge success of this game, the mobile games got extremely sophisticated and constituted a notable share of the games market (Coulton, 2014). The practice of mobile gaming revolutionized gaming activity by removing almost all spatial limitations. Now, one can play while commuting in a crowded subway car, sitting on the toilet, waiting for a friend in a café or during a boring business meeting. Mobile gaming creates “a hybrid mode of being where the boundary between imaginary and real life collapses, and the

(33)

containment attributes of both screen and game-spaces are effectively disassembled” (Richardson, 2011, p. 428).

At the first sight, one can think that the link between the play space and the physical space is completely broken with the proliferation of the idea of mobility and mobile gaming. However, the advent of location aware mobile technologies even strengthens this link further by incorporating the real-time location of the player into the game dynamics. This development leads to the emergence of a new category of games called pervasive games. Montola, Stenros and Wærn (2009) provide a broad definition stating that “ a pervasive game is a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of spatially, temporally, or socially” (p.12). The design of pervasive games is based on the principle of interactiveness through which game logic seeps into the dynamics of everyday life. The public nature of play becomes more prominent again as pervasive games break down the boundaries around play activity. The physical space and digital space overlap and merge into one entity where a hybrid reality is created through gaming experience (Benford, Magerkurth, & Ljungstrand, 2005).

There are notable examples of pervasive games taking a pioneering role in the prevalence of this genre. Also, they have an experimental nature testing the limits of the existing technology. A brief description of these games can be helpful to provide a more concrete picture of pervasive games. The first game I would like to introduce is a product of collaboration between Blast Theory, a UK-based company creating interactive art, and Mixed Reality Lab of University of Nottingham, and named as Can You See Me Now?. It is basically a tag game with a curious twist. There are two sets of players, one chasing the other. The twist is that these two groups do not share

(34)

the same physical space. While one group is running in the streets, the other group is on their computers moving on a virtual game map. The runners trace the movement of the online players with hand-held devices while the online players get the-real time location data of the runners thanks to the global positioning system (GPS) and wifi connection. This game turns the concepts of distance and proximity upside-down, one catches the other when two dots on a virtual map overlaps. Despite its simplistic design and game mechanics, Can You See Me Now? has caused

tremendous excitement among the scholars in the field of game studies. It is viewed as a milestone in the changing relationship between play and space. Yet, this game has a low level of iterability; since its premiere in 2001 in Sheffield, the game has only been played in a couple of times in several other cities. The next example is, on the other hand, extremely different from Can You See Me Now? in terms of

iterability.

Pokémon GO is an augmented reality mobile game launched in the summer of 2016. It is developed by Nintendo for iOS and Android users, and based on the Pokémon franchise. The players are expected to catch Pokémons (pocket monsters), train them, and join battles with their creatures; just like Ash Ketchum, the main protagonist of the franchise. In just a couple of days after its release, Pokémon GO became a world-wide phenomenon. It was downloaded by millions of people all around the world. The game mechanics of Pokémon GO require the players to go out and walk in public places as the items necessary for game play can only be obtained by walking a certain distance or being in the proximity of designated spots. Just as Can You See Me Now? has exacerbated a lively discussion among the scholars working on the spatiality of play, Pokémon GO did the same thing but this time

(35)

almost everyone was interested in the topic. The game experience is compared to the Situationist practice derivé as the game encourages the players to explore

surrounding areas in a playful manner (Paavilainen et al., 2017). On the other hand, the movement patterns of people during the game play reveal highly valuable information about how different demographic groups perceive and use the different parts of the city (Colley et al., 2017). This information can be used to improve urban design practices to encourage sociability. (Potts, Jacka, & Yee, 2017). Although there are many other examples of pervasive games, I believe Can You See Me Now? and Pokémon GO are great examples to demonstrate the revolutionary change in the spatiality of play. One thing to notice is that despite the increasing pervasiveness, these examples are still formal games. However, the next section discusses the instances where game logic exceeds its boundaries and the category of the formal games becomes an empty signifier.

3.4 Conquering the Life

In the previous parts of this chapter, it has been discussed that play starts to permeate into other aspects of life with every new technological advancement. The argument of the erosion of the boundaries of play has been mentioned several times. Yet, there would be one thing that draws a line between play and non-play. Considering the previous examples of pervasive games, it is the fact that the players still know that they are playing. Yet, even this fact that can be seen as simply a matter of self-awareness, is challenged with the marriage between the game principles and the location based social networks (LBSNs). Location based social networking is a

(36)

users to interact with each other and the environment based on their location. The use of game elements in the LBSNs has led to the development of a vast range of playful networking services whose users may not be aware of that they are indeed playing. The almost complete fusion of play and non-play is the fundamental promise of the concept of gamification.

It might be helpful to have a closer look into the design of these playful networking services in order to explore the spatial dynamics of gamification. One of the most prominent examples of the location based social networking services is Foursquare. The application promises its users a new way of experiencing the city as in the following excerpt from the website demonstrates: “We’re all about helping you find new ways to explore the city. We’ll help you meet up with your friends and let you earn points and unlock badges for discovering new places, doing new things and meeting new people” (Foursquare, 2019). Foursquare allows its users to share their location with friends and award them with points and badges for doing certain activities like dining out or visiting a historical site. The crucial point here is that the encouraged activities are no longer play activities like visiting a Pokéstop, as in the case of Pokémon GO, but non-play activities. I have pointed out before that one can play while commuting or eating out with the development of mobile games. Now, the commuting or eating out is the play itself.

Basically, the game logic conquers the life and transforms the relationship between people and space. Based on the data from interviews with the users of Foursquare, Frith (2013) argues that Foursquare impacts spatial legibility by changing how people view their surroundings; “a local bar can be read as a prize to be won; a new Mexican restaurant can become a location to be collected to achieve

(37)

the Level 2 Hot Tamale badge; a nearby town can be the last piece one needs to collect to earn a tourism badge” (p. 257). In addition to the its effects on spatial legibility, Foursquare attracts the attention of scholars working on the field of big data because it reveals a huge amount of information on the movement patterns of people and their practices in the city (Abdulazim, Abdelgawad, Nurul Habib, & Abdulhai, 2015; Pontes, Vasconcelos, Almeida, Kumaraguru, & Almeida, 2012; Quercia & Saez, 2014; Silva, de Melo, Almeida, Musoles, & Loureiro, 2014).

TripAdvisor is another application that turns the spatial experience into a game. It is basically an online travel portal with gameful features. It rewards users with badges and points for writing hotel and restaurant reviews and sharing pictures of a venue or an attraction. Through examining user-generated content, Sigala (2015) displays the effectiveness of this gameful design features in affecting the travel decisions. Beside the highly obvious game elements like badges and points, TripAdvisor has a special section called ‘things to do’, this section offers travelers lists of activities to do in different destinations. As the travelers would like to avoid missing a top attraction, they try to complete these lists and this turns the experience of traveling into a scavenger hunt.

This scavenger hunt went to extreme lengths once in London. Oobah Butler (2017), a content creator for Vice News, enlisted his home address as a reservation-only restaurant named The Shed at Dulwich on TripAdvisor in April, 2017. Oobah posted reviews from different accounts praising the restaurant and it started to climb up the ranks. At the end of the summer, The Shed at Dulwich was listed among the 30 best restaurants on Tripadvisor in London without even existing. Butler’s telephone was buzzing day and night with reservation requests, he turned all down

(38)

claiming that they are completely booked. However, this was not enough to kill the hype, the restaurant became the number one restaurant in London in November, 2017. Realizing that things are getting out of hand, Butler decided to end this

adventure but not without hosting a dinner once. He accepted a couple of reservation requests and turned his backyard into a restaurant with the help of his friends. He served microwaved meals and asked the guests to write reviews before leaving. It turned out that people were extremely pleased with the experience and totally convinced that they were dined at the best restaurant in London.

I have given a detailed of this incident for a couple of reasons. First of all, it shows how cheating is an inherent part of play. One may think of that the cheater ruins the game by disrespecting the rules, however it is ruined by “the nihilist who denounces the rules as absurd and conventional, who refuses to play because the game is meaningless” (Caillois, 1958/2001, p. 7). Secondly, although this incident might be considered as a counterexample to the general argument in this thesis as it kind of abuses the idea of playfulness, it perfectly demonstrates the strong influence of game logic on the spatial practices. Lastly, on a personal note, reading about this incident two years ago made me contemplate on the relationship between the spread of game logic and the production of space which will be discussed in the next chapter.

(39)

CHAPTER IV

GAMIFICATION AND

THE PRODUCTION OF SPACE

The conceptual and structural transformation of play results in a puzzle regarding the relationship between gamification and space. This chapter aims to present a

theoretical discussion that can be helpful to unravel this puzzle. In order to understand the social implications of gamification, it is particularly important to tackle its relationship with space, as David Harvey (1989) suggests “the history of social change is in part captured by the history of the conceptions of space and time” (p. 218). For decades, the concept of play has been denied a role in the production of space. The predicaments of land, labor and capital were overwhelmingly dominant in the literature, rendering play an insubstantial activity in the production of space. However, it is no longer possible to dismiss its role as gamification turns everyday practices, the fundamental element of the production of space, into an act of play. After the role of play in the production of space is examined, this chapter delves into

(40)

opportunities to foster a liberating environment from the pressures of the daily routine. Lefebvre viewed the colonization of everyday life and the homogenization of space as the most pressing problems of the capitalism. The solution, for Lefebvre, is to resort to the moments of festivity in order to encourage spontaneity in everyday life and to awaken a transformative spirit (Merrifield, 2006, p. 51). Yet, the ludic elements of gamification does not directly assure that the spatial experience becomes free from repetitiveness and the consumerist concerns. The cases of Florence and Venice, as discussed by Lefebvre himself, exemplify the transformation of the festive qualities of a city into a commodity (Lefebvre, 1974/1991). Learning from these examples, it is necessary to be cautious about the playful nature of gamification before declaring it as the trigger of a revolution regarding the spatial experience. Therefore, the third part of this section is devoted to this discussion.

4.1 The Production of Space

Considering the conceptual history of space, one of the breaking points is the acknowledgement of space as a social product rather than a mere container. It was a transformative moment for all the branches of social sciences. Although David Harvey (1990) traces the emergence of this idea to Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, it was Henri Lefebvre (1974/1991) who elaborated it by developing a triadic model consisting of spatial practice, representations of space and representational space. Before moving on the details of the elements of the triad, it would be helpful to unpack the concept of the production of space itself.

(41)

Harvey Molotch (1993) begins his review of Lefebvre’s book, The Production of Space, by dissecting the title. While the word production implies that space is an outcome of human intentions just like other economic goods, space also bears a broader meaning as “an interlinkage of geographic form, built environment, symbolic meanings, and routines of life” (Molotch, 1993, p. 2). Even just bringing these two words together challenges the conventional understanding which views space as a neutral setting and evokes a lively discussion about the relationship between society and space by presenting a dualistic nature of space. Gottdiener summarizes Lefebvre’s point on the duality of space stating that “space is both a medium of social relations and a material product that can affect social relations” (p. 132).

This dialectical relationship is rendered possible through the interaction among the components of the triad. Lefebvre (1974/1991) builds his analysis on the trio of physical, mental and social aspects of space as he points out that “relations with two elements boil down to oppositions, contrasts or antagonisms” (p. 39). Unlike the Hegelian dialectical thought, Lefebvre’s approach does not fit the general schema of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Each component of the triad is of same value and as Schmid (2008) points out “each of these can be understood as a thesis and each one refers to the other two and would remain a mere abstraction without the others” (p. 33).

After this brief introduction to Lefebvre’s approach to the concept of space in general, it would be helpful to give a more detailed account of the spatial triad. First of all, spatial practice refers to the urban reality and the material formation of the city. Lefebvre (1974/1991) defines spatial practice as “the routes and networks which

(42)

link up the places set aside or work, private life and leisure” (p. 38). Prigge (2008) offers an explanation that can be useful to conceptualize spatial practice more easily stating that it is “the process by which individual spaces of action become objectified in spatial structures” (p. 53). On a semiotic level, spatial practice constitutes the perceived space.

The second pillar of Lefebvre’s triad is called as representations of space. It refers to the conceptual realm where urban planners, scientists and technocrats discuss and conceive a spatial abstraction. In addition to the verbal outcomes like definitions and descriptions, Lefebvre includes maps, plans and signs to this category (Schmid, 2008). The technical knowledge embedded into the production of such an abstraction demonstrates the role of power and knowledge in the production of space. The representation of space provides a model to direct spatial practice. Lastly, representational space, in other words, the lived space is the space of inhabitants. It is the space of non-verbal signs and symbols built upon the physical space. The lived space, as the name suggests, is a fluid and dynamic space; therefore, it does not have a coherent structure. The production of space is, then, the result of the dialectical relationship among the conceived, perceived and lived space.

Overall, Lefebvre’s approach to the production of space presents an innovative account on how the modalities of form, structure and function interact with each other during the dialectical process of the production of space. Employing this analytical lens to unravel the dynamics of the relationship between gamification and space can generate a fruitful discussion. Yet, a superficial approach to Lefebvre’s work can have difficulties to make sense of utilizing his concepts in understanding a ludic phenomenon. In general, the Marxist thought has been overly associated with

(43)

work and labor, overshadowing the emphasis put by the thinkers on leisure and desire. This kind of a shallow generalization would be even more misleading when Lefebvre’s work is in question. Being strongly influenced by the movements of Dada and Surrealism, Lefebvre became one of the most prominent names of unorthodox Marxism and spotlighted the role of desire and spontaneity in the making of a revolutionary momentum (Shields, 1999, p. 186). His engagement with the

intellectual and social affairs of his time also validates this point. The experience of the May Day protests in 1968 in France perfectly exemplifies this interaction. Only after the protests, Lefebvre put together his approach regarding the production of space in 1970s. During the protests, the contestation over space was exceptionally visible on every corner of the city. The walls were covered with layers of slogans, the barricades were being built and demolished over and over again, demarcating the space of the protestors. As an influential scholar of the time, Lefebvre has played an active role in the protests and highly valued the festive spirit and spontaneous spark of the protests. Reciprocally, his later writings were influenced by the experience of the protests.

Beside the historical and ideological implications of Lefebvre’s work, there are a couple of other factors making his approach to the concept of space an extremely useful tool to puzzle out the relationship between gamification and space. First of all, Andy Merrifield (2000), an urban theorist known for his work on Lefebvre,

concludes his analysis on the spatial triad by stating that Lefebvre provides only a sketch of the spatial triad and does not develop his idea to the completion, giving more freedom to scholars to develop their own research agenda. Merrifield (2000) continues his review with a remark on the nature of the spatial triad that it is “a

(44)

dialectical simplification, fluid and alive, and each moment messily blurs into other moments in the real life contexts” (p. 173). This statement is an encouragement to utilize Lefebvre’s spatial triad as a conceptual tool.

Moreover, Lefebvre has not only challenged the traditional approach to the concept of space by his strong emphasis on social factors, but he has also mentioned play directly as an agent in the production of space. These moments can be seen as the result of the interaction between the Situationists and Lefebvre. The practice of derivé, as mentioned before, put the concept of play on the agenda of the theorists working on the spatial experience. Lefevbre (1974/1991) writes that:

Empty space in the sense of a mental and social void which facilitates the socialization of a not-yet social realm is actually merely a representation of space. Space is conceived of as being transformed into 'lived experience' by a social 'subject', and is governed by determinants which may be practical (work, play) or biosocial (young people, children, women, active people) in

character.(p. 190)

Here, play is mentioned right next to work in the act of transforming empty space into the lived space. In this way, play is given an active role in the production of space.

Another excerpt from The Production of Space demonstrates the unorthodox approach of Lefebvre to the concept of work. Lefebvre (1974/1991) states that:

The concept of production is thus sharpened and revived without becoming so broad as to lose all meaning: we see that a game may qualify as a piece of work, or as work in the strong sense of the word, while a space is designed for playful activity may legitimately be deemed a product in that it is the outcome of an activity which regulates itself (lays down rules for itself) as it unfolds. (p. 179)

Here, it is acknowledged that a game, with its rules and internal structure, has the potential to construct a space for itself. As this is a refreshing approach to the concept of production, it also points out the necessity to find a middle ground

(45)

regarding the scope of certain concepts. As in the case of addition of game into the domain of production, social sciences should be able to revise the definition of the key concepts to be receptive to the changes in social life.

Being encouraged with Merrifield’s analysis of the spatial triad and Lefebvre’s endorsement of play as a factor in the production of space, in the rest of this chapter, I will explore the influence of gamification on the production of space.

4.2 Gamification and the Spatial Triad

Gamification, by transforming the spatial experience into an act of play, takes part in the evolution of spatial form, function and structure. Focusing on the nature of this involvement would shade light into the the puzzling relationship between

gamification and space. In order to be able to present the overall effect of

gamification on the production of space, I will tackle the question of how the spread of game logic alters the elements of the spatial triad individually.

4.2.1. Spatial practice

As discussed before, the spatial practice refers to the daily routine and the urban materiality. In order to trace the influence of gamification on the spatial practice, one must focus on the design features of gameful products aiming to alter everyday practices of the users. Among all three pillars of the spatial triad, examining the change in the spatial practice is the most tricky one because gamification does not change the material structure of the city immediately. Yet, it completely alters how people perceive the physical space through utilizing certain motivational

(46)

mechanisms. In Loyalty 3.0, Rajat Paharia (2013) defines gamification basically as a mechanism for “motivating people through data” (p. 68).

But how does gamification do this? First of all, the psychological aspect of gamification needs to be clarified. Rigby (2014) explains the relationship between gamification and motivation based upon the principles of the self-determination theory and concludes that the use of game elements satiates basic psychological needs such as mastery, autonomy, and relatedness to a certain degree. On the other hand, Linehan, Kirman and Roche (2014) examine the concept of gamification from the perspective of behavioral psychology, and point out that the behavior

measurement systems and reward mechanisms embedded into the gameful design lead to the behavioral modification. The combination of these two approaches yields a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between gamification and

motivation. The behavior measurement systems provide the necessary feedback for achieving mastery and as the players become more competent, they gain more rewards and feel more in control. As this process continues, they feel more related with the game and the other players, encouraging them to play more. At the end, it turns into a cycle. This is how gamification works as a motivational mechanism. Secondly, in order to concretize the dynamics of this relationship, let us think of the design features of the location-based social networks again. As in the example of Foursquare and TripAdvisor, discussed in the previous chapter, the LBSNs employ gameful elements to increase user engagement. Although this is a business strategy in the first place, it has resulted in a change in the dynamics of the spatial practice by incorporating the daily routine into the play activity. The users earn points and badges, unlock new challenges and climb the ranks in the leaderboard by

(47)

completing everyday activities, such as walking a certain distance, checking-in at a certain place, dining at a restaurant, or attending a concert. So, the users do not visit a restaurant only for the sake of a good meal but also for getting better at the game just like the relationship between gamification and motivation suggests. Eventually, the activity of dining out becomes the play, whereas the restaurant is the playground. As the game logic spreads, the daily routine in the city becomes comparable to

movement of meeples, small figurines used in boardgames, on the game board. Following this logic, although physical structure does not change; the work place, the road from work the home, the grocery store on the corner, in short every spot in the city gains a new, playful meaning as people perceive them in a different way.

4.2.2 Representations of Space

The concept of gamification also alters the second pillar of Lefebvre’s triad, the representations of space. This abstract realm used to be “the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers” (Lefebvre, 1974/1991, p. 38). Yet, gamification makes this list longer by adding game developers and software programmers. As the boundary between game space and physical space is no longer exist, the conceptions of game designers also become a part of the abstractions of the space. For instance, the maps embedded into the gameful products reflect the spatial conceptions of the developers. The scope of the map, the tags on it, what is shown and what is not, all these reflect the conception of the developers and contribute into the production of space. Another telling example is the structure of the reward mechanisms, the developers are in a position to decide

(48)

Moreover, as the game logic spreads, urban planners also embrace a more playful approach. As a sign of this development, we witness the emergence of the concepts like the ludic city, the gameful city, and the playful city. Stevens (2007) explores the playful uses of urban public space in different cities around the world, and suggests to view play as a function of the built environment. Similarly, Alfrink (2014) brings forward the concept of the gameful city, and states that “a city that allows for play and perhaps even encourages a gaming frame of mind is a humane city — a city that is tolerant and flexible enough to let inhabitants pursue their dreams and desires, in public if they wish” (p. 527). This is completely a fresh approach as it views gamefulness as a measure of a city’s livability.

4.2.3 Representational Space

Lastly, the impact of gamification on representational space is perhaps the most curious one. Gamification opens up a realm engendering playful spatial

performances. Through these performances, the ideas and imaginations of people regarding the space are reproduced in a constant fashion. Yet, without a concrete example, it is difficult to notice what is new about gamification regarding the production of the lived space. So, let us consider the example of Foursquare again. Here, in this application, the meaning of a certain space is constructed through the interactions among the users. People write reviews about places, make comparisons, and grade their experience there. All these actions contribute the formation of the lived space by influencing the opinions of people about a certain place. The key words reflecting the novelty in these practices are distance and multiplicity. Gamification renders physical proximity unnecessary for being a part of the