I am officially a victim of the digital age. Let's look at interfaces:
1. Universal Paperclips is a text-based clicker with minor animated elements. It is a 2D game that you interface with by clicking a mouse, a physical gesture that manifests itself as an increase of numbers o the screen (or with the aim of eventually increasing the numbers on the screen). The entire purpose of this elaborate automation is to decrease energy expended by the player (amount of time spent clicking) while still receiving the satisfaction of increasing numbers. The metric for success rests solely in watching those numbers increase like hell.
2. The laundryview web system is a live digital representation of laundry machines with minor animated elements. It is a 3D game that directly simulates a simultaneous reality, allowing you to interface with it by checking time remaining either by means of the web app or by checking on the machines in real life. The entire purpose of this program is to decrease energy expended by the player (amount of time it takes to walk to the laundry room) and decrease mental load (not having to keep track of time remaining) while removing the doubt that comes from the asynchrony of laundry machine time and real time. The metric for success thus results in watching those numbers decrease at an appreciable rate.
3. The Bartlett dining hall milk dispensers are mechanical liquid containers with no simulated elements. They are an entirely 3D game that you interface with by pressing a plastic cup against a metallic bar, a self-manifest physical gesture that results in the outpouring of calcium-rich liquid. The entire purpose of this exertion is to produce sustenance for the sake of producing energy in turn, though it may be exhausting to sit through the ~5 seconds required to fill that glass. The barometric for success rests solely in the glass being filled.
Call this a satire, but a slew of reports suggest that modern Western society is reveling in essentially the gamification of social processes, where we receive dopamine from watching numbers rise and achieve social success by a number of hearts or romantic matches. The numbers game is perfectly captured by Universal Paperclips, though it still encourages that voracious consumptive impulse. Nothing that I'm saying here is new: the debate lies in two areas:
1. Is this a bad thing or even a new thing? We are driven by the pursuit of goals so is the advent of gratifying digital media even detrimental to our behavior?
2. Who is responsible? If it is a new, bad thing, then game and app developers are the ones profiting from these digital addictions and must be held responsible, right?
I think games are specifically accountable here because of interfaces. The interface of a paperclip increase is easily translatable to the interface of writing a paper or finishing a test, but becomes even more convoluted when we try to apply these metrics to qualitative experiences like romance or friendship or even mental health. We are encouraged to optimize, quantify, and expect success, regardless of the metrics we used to use because an interface for new metrics has been introduced in both games and social media. My question is:
Is it possible to create games a la Proteus that reverse this trend, that encourage passivity and a slow pace, or are they innately against our instincts?