In the beginning of November, we visited the CoSa Museum in the Joanneumsviertel Graz with the whole study program to get inspiration for our own gamification approach. But I would like to use it as a topic for one of my Impulse posts as well as I found the different approach for a museum very interesting and even within the exhibition there were some interesting differences.
I saw two of the exhibitions, there are way more, but it takes a while to even go through one of them. The first exhibition was about finances – the history of it, how to handle it and how our world is managed by it. The exhibition started by handing each visitor a small card that could be used for quizzes throughout all the rooms that would save your points etc. Therefore, visitors would be more interested and hooked to actually go through all the rooms and do the tasks to – then in the end – do a checkout and get a receipt with your score. I think the Concept and approach was interesting and a good idea, on me it did not work at all, because the reward in the end was not enough fore me; for a friend on the other hand it worked really well, and she really wanted to do all the tasks because it was enough for her to gather a very high score. I found this observation very interesting, because it showed how different our rewardsystems in our brain work and how that plays with our motivation for a (rather dry) topic. Another reason why I did not like the exhibition that much was the fact that it was all just pretended gamification. What do I mean with that? One game was for example to steer a containership from Europe to South America (on a screen obviously) But after 2 seconds it was clear that you didn’t actually do anything for the movement and the controller were just fake for you to think that you have an impact on the game. And basically all of the games were like that, and I lost interest very fast and almost did not finish any of those games. Of course, you have to keep in mind that the normal target group for the exhibition is children or young people that are still in school, but I would guess that they are even less concentrated or have the attention for a non-working game.
The second exhibition was way more interesting, it was not specifically about one topic but covered things like optical illusions, illness and lab diagnoses, AI content or how a car is built. And from the second I stepped into the room; I immediately understood that this is actually gamified and not like the other exhibition. Even the rooms were designed in a way more intuitive and natural way, it was more chaotic but then way more interesting to discover the different areas of it. Even though there were no reward systems or anything that would hook you until the end. And it was very touch and do- based, a lot of buttons, cranks or shadows to play with. They built and actual hospital room were you could get “blood” from the patients and analyse them in the lab next to it – and also be wrong about things. I think thats actually a main and important factor about gamification – that you can fail or lose and have to try again. Therefore it feels more important and interesting.
Connecetion to communication design:
The visit made me think about how strongly spatial communication influences user experience and engagement. The first exhibition felt extremely flat because the space was designed in a very sterile, minimal and almost liminal way, it had clean colours and no real sense of discovery. It communicated education rather than interaction, and because of that, even the attempts at gamification felt forced. The second exhibition in comparison used space almost like a narrative tool. It allowed visitors to explore, wander, and follow their own curiosity. For communication design, this highlights how important the design of an experience is: gamification is not only about scores or tasks but about creating an atmosphere that encourages participation. Gamification depends on emotional involvement, and emotional involvement depends heavily on how a space (off or online) is constructed.
It also raised the question of how communication designers can intentionally build environments that support learning, experimentation and play without feeling manipulative or superficial. Good gamification is a form of communication design, and it works best when it creates meaning not just motivation.
How can I use this for a potential master topic?
One idea I had is to connect this experience to my thoughts around design and globalization, especially how information is communicated across cultures, languages, or contexts. Gamification could be a meethod to make complex global systems, such as supply chains, political structures or gendered spaces more understandable through interaction and embodied experience. Another direction could be to explore how gamification can support or challenge feminist or activist communication. For example: How can playful interaction be used to reveal power structures? Or how can spatial or digital gamification become a tool for subtle protest?
Links:
CoSa Joanneumsviertel Graz
How Gamification Motivates
Social Interactions and the Dynamics of Protest Movements
