Content uploaded by Benjamin Stokes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamin Stokes on Apr 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page 1
Games for Direct Action: Local Scale and Social Impact
by Benjamin Stokes and Jeff Watson, University of Southern California, February 2012
http://benjaminstokes.net, http://remotedevice.net/
Games are beginning to show a capacity for real impact and civic engagement.1
Consequently, there is a temptation to seek out game designs that can be deployed on a
national scale. This is a completely natural impulse: if games can bring about change,
why not do it in a big way, and maximize economies of scale? But this impulse hides an
important truth: change is often most profound at the city and neighborhood level,
between real friends, and with local businesses. For countless civic issues, engagement
is best when local -- and more games should be too.
We argue for direct action games -- which are played in the real world, where actual
people, places, and local organizations are the constituent elements. These games are
profoundly regional. They are played not only on screens but also on real streets, and in
real-time. They can be digital, and often make use of mobile media platforms like smart
phones. But regardless of the technology, what makes these games work is how they
are designed to fit the constraints and opportunities unique to a specific locality. In this
paper, we identify two early models of direct action games, including Macon Money in
Georgia (from the Knight Foundation), and the Commons game in NYC.
Macon Money is a direct action game targeting businesses and consumers in the city of
Macon, Georgia. Launched in 2010, the game featured $65,000 worth of paper bonds,
which were distributed to residents of the city. The bonds could be exchanged at local
businesses for real goods and services -- up to the equivalent of $100. The catch was
that the bonds came in two halves, and could only be cashed if players found someone
with a matching half. This playful limitation drove participants to venture across lines of
socio-economic segregation.
The immediate impact of Macon Money was the fresh flow of commerce into targeted
business sectors. In this sense, the game functioned something like a tax incentive,
stimulating economic growth and exchange in a previously stagnant and fragmented
region. Just as importantly, the game brought players into face-to-face contact,
establishing and strengthening social bonds and building community identity. An ongoing
evaluation of the project will continue to review these outcomes in the months and years
to come.
1 The impact of games for change is demonstrated in white papers elsewhere in this series,
including their powerful capacity to engage, to teach deep systems thinking, to support real
economies that follow macroeconomic law (Castronova et al., 2009) and the complex dynamics
of “third places” that build social capital (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006), and to support direct
civic action (Thomas & Brown, 2009).
Page 2
Localization was essential to the Macon Money design. It enabled the game to catalyze
very specific behavior, such as guiding participants toward targeted organizations and
personal connections. The game aligned closely with the master plan for the College
Hill Corridor that had begun five years prior, and included block-by-block strategies for
integration with Mercer University. Game designers used this plan and its underlying
research to optimize the Macon Money experience. More than 3,000 people participated
from target neighborhoods, building ties to 41 particular businesses.
Some elements of Macon Money could conceivably work in other contexts. However,
significant adaptation would likely be necessary, just to fit new demographic and
geographic realities. Even more importantly, redesign would require the development of
fresh relationships with local partners, since on-the-ground distribution of the paper
bonds depends on local networks. And securing these relationships is no easy task, as it
may necessitate matching cultural reference points and even graphic design.
Pressure for “national scale” can damage the design of direct action games. For Macon
Money, seeking national scale in the initial design would have forced it to generalize
across a wide range of communities facing socio-economic segregation. This would
have resulted in a flattened “average” design with none of the local flair or partnership
that made it appealing to players in the first place. Further, without buy-in from local
partners, the game would have turned into a generic coupon system. Indeed, for Macon
Money, the “bonds” were just a starting point, and the game’s greatest returns were in
the social networks it generated and the revitalization it brought to the city’s brand.
Mobile media has significantly expanded the possibilities for direct action games.
Smartphones can detect our location on a street and bring about face-to-face
conversations by linking us to other players in our proximity. Such games can push far
beyond delivering messages or simulating discussion. Direct action games, whether
they are technologically-mediated or not, approach impact from a more structural point
of view, creating play experiences that affect the shape of the community itself rather
than simply deliver content.
Consider the game Commons, designed specifically for the city of New York. In
Commons, small teams of 3-4 players compete for an afternoon, playing the role of
citizen journalists in service to their city. Using an iPhone app with an interactive map of
the city, each team’s mission is to photograph and label what they see at specific street
addresses -- from problems like potholes, to successful public art for tourism. Players
then compete to find and articulate the most urgent issues and opportunities for their
community, unlocking new missions as they go.
The game side of Commons is what sets it apart from other crowd-sourced urban apps.
It is a genuine social competition, not just another well-meaning opportunity to help the
city. Players who tested the game in 2011 described how they found themselves
Page 3
exploring new streets and new relationships with other members of their community.
This social dynamic sparked fresh conversations between players on the challenges of
handicap accessibility, mixed-used housing, graffiti and controversial public art.
It is hard work to design a good direct action game. Designers must fine-tune their
experience to engage exactly the right people, in the right place, and at the right time.
The game must often address specific local issues, rather than more global or national
challenges. But done right, these games have the potential to catalyze local economic
and social development.
Some implications, especially for policy and funding:
1. Recognize two models for scaling. While some games do thrive at national
scale, certain games achieve impact only when they are local. Wise funders and
policy analysts may ultimately need two models for funding impact games: one to
develop games for wide distribution and standardization, and one to focus on
developing local social capital and innovation. In the longer term, the two
investments can increasingly connect.
2. Reach streets, not screens. Mobile media technologies can help designers to
spur face-to-face interaction and street-side explorations. But the most important
concern in designing direct action games is achieving careful alignment with
existing networks and community-based organizations. Consequently, smaller
budgets (under $500,000) can often be preferable for direct action games,
especially if the budget is allocated less to technology and graphics, and more to
social design for community fit.
3. Structure engagement, not content. It takes incredible restraint to stay focused
on player motivation, rather than teaching content and facts. The best games
are systems of cause-and-effect, teaching through play not heavy text or long
speeches. Especially with civic games, the real opportunity is in the structuring
and catalyzing of direct action. The best design teams will show restraint with
content, and optimize for sustained and engaged play.
In a globalizing world, we need strategies and games for regional impact. We assert
that a constellation of direct action games (targeted, high-impact/low-budget) may
deliver some outcomes better than big-budget games that are designed for national
scale. By directing a share of the funding to locally-tuned games, policy makers can
reach targeted communities, and spur new models for social impact across the country.
Page 4
REFERENCES AND RELATED READING
Edward Castronova et al. "As Real as Real? Macroeconomic Behavior in a Large-scale
Virtual World." New Media & Society 11.5 (2009): 685-707.
Commons game website: http://www.commonsthegame.com/
Richard Florida. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Civitas Books. (2002)
Games for Change website of games and annual festival: http://gamesforchange.org
Eric Gordon and Adriana de Souza e Silva. Net Locality: Why Location Matters in a
Networked World. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Macon Money game website: http://www.maconmoney.org/
Constance Steinkuehler and Dmitri Williams. "Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen)
Name: Online Games as Third Places." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
11 (2006): 885-909.
Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. "Why Virtual Worlds Can Matter." International
Journal of Learning and Media 1.1 (2009): 37-49.
