Mindtrek 2018

The first day was about game research for me, so I went to see the presentations about gamification, then games 1 and 2.

The first presentation of gamification was a study about concepts of bottom-up development where the users can gamify a system. It was also something about comparing different game elements that the users wanted in their games and how those elements could work together and what combinations might not. I'm sorry to say that I don't remember much about it since the presenter spoke so fast and my very, very slow brain just couldn't follow.

The second study was about tangible vs. intangible rewards in games. I think it was an app for a shop that gave you things like points (intangible) or discount coupons (tangible) based on how much you used it in a certain way. That app was used by thousands of people during the testing phase. They did come to a conclusion that, unsurprisingly, the intangible rewards don't really interest people. I guess it would also depend on how the whole app is designed. I feel like intangible rewards might be very hard to design.

Third study was about having a gamified fitness app with a public display to encourage walking. You would be able to see other users stats from a display. The test group was already very athletic, but it did increase their daily step count. I'm personally more interested in seeing solutions to get less athletic people move more through different kinds of apps. But if no one feels pressurized to perform too much because of a public display then it's a positive thing for everyone I think.

An app called "Zombies, run!" actually got me into running (slowly). And I'm not the only one, it has encouraged a lot of people based on the reviews it's gotten. They don't update it anymore though I think. You get to hear a part of a bigger story every time you run a mission. And you're also collecting items for building your base and running away from zombies. Luckily no one can see how slowly I run so I can enjoy it in peace. I love stories (duh!) and collecting items and upgrading things in games in general, so this app was great for me.


I don't have much to say about Games 1. First study was about game jams and how that kind of design experience could be used in a workplace setting. It was a little vague as a presentation I think. I would like to read the whole research though, since game jams are an interesting phenomenon and it seems like people either love them or hate them in a way.

Second study was a longitudinal study about video game retention mechanics. It was about how the player engagement changes during the playtime. A small group of people played the same brand new AAA game and wrote a journal about it. Could be an interesting topic, but it didn't feel that convincing as a paper. The presenter ran out of time and it was overall a bit disorganized as a presentation.

Third one was an interview study about free-to-play games and purchases in them. What kind of possible ethical problems there are when designing a system for using real money in a F2P game and what kind of models are looked upon as more favorable. Also what types of items people like to spend their money on, like cosmetics. Nice and important topic about how to keep players feeling good while playing a F2P game.

Games 2. First presentation was about livestreaming and what kind of elements viewers enjoy seeing in streams. Not about the subject of the stream itself, but things like interactions with the streamer and UI content. I don't watch many livestreams and it really seems to be a world of its own that's also quickly evolving.

Second study was about harassment in DOTA2. There were over 340 participants and about 30 were under 18 (young people) The research dealt with the difference in harassment between adults and young people. Apparently younger people don't feel like they are getting harassed as much as older people. But I also think that the young people target group could've been bigger in this case since it was such an important part of the study. Also I don't think voice chat was considered at all in this study. Or how the participants were acting themselves. It's an interesting and important topic, but also very complicated.

Some of the game studies seem very straightforward in their results. Like something that really isn't that surprising. But even in those cases it's important data in my opinion. To be taken seriously as a media games need to have reliable data and studies to back things up, even about the simplest things.

The second day started for me with the Liberland presentation. Let's just say that secondhand embarrassment is one of the worst feelings in this world.

Then after lunch I needed to kill some time and went to see "Immersive Imaging Research: Challenges and Partnership Opportunities" I mean it sounded like it could be interesting, but there were just too many scientific equations and charts about how light works. And then just advertising the CIVIT which is TUT's facility to study and use emerging visual technologies and to use those in industrial applications. I guess that was my own fault, it did say "Partnership Opportunities" right there.

Then before the last games-related thing I listened to the speech about learning and AI "An intro to non-techies" It was quite nice so hear how future AI's could help students by paying attention to them when a teacher can't and noticing people who need help etc. There were some good questions about information privacy regarding these kinds for technologies too. Overall it was short but nice.

Last thing for me was "Games - Today's most potent learning media". The speaker was really good and informative. He talked about games like Minecraft and Cities Skylines that can teach children a lot of different skills from counting to city planning. He also mentioned that Kerbal Space Program, a game where you build your own space rockets (it's really complicated), has increased people's interest in studying science. There were also some parents asking questions about what kind of games are suitable for children and for teaching. I really liked how practical the presenter was when talking about kids and playing games. He encouraged parents to ask and talk with their children about the games they are playing. They should know what the children are doing in the games and be interested. That will surely decrease miscommunication and frustration on both sides.

How playing Kerbal Space Program makes me feel. Hint: not educated.

I feel like the overall quality of the presentations was a bit unbalanced. You could have such a different experience depending on what you happened to listen to. I did expect it to be a lot about networking and it really seemed to be so, since all the presentations were quite short and some felt just advertisements for something else. Some of the things that could've been interestingly presented just lacked thought for the audience.

Overall I really enjoyed the whole Mindtrek experience, even if a lot of it wasn't directly related to our studies. Especially the academic part with game research presentations was great. I've been interested in game research for a while now so it was a nice opportunity to see and hear a bit more about what's going on there.

(For real, though, I was there for the free food (very nice) and kaffe & kaka (very nice). Everything else was just a pleasant extra).