...still ambiguous?

Before I continue designing, I wanted to re-examine previous ideas on gaming, digital, play, and social interactions - to define an unambiguous problem and position...

Problem:

With rise of the Internet and ubiquitous technologies, videogames are gaining popularity with people of all ages today. Sociological and psychological explanations of this shift suggests that there are issues in reality where only virtual worlds can satisfy, and thus, a need to escape reality. It suggests a broken reality where the physical world is unsatisfying (McGonigal, 2011). This is a very dystopian view on the need for games. As children, we are encouraged to play. We explore, investigate, and learn through play and imagination. However, this curiosity and imagination is lost as we grow older. Maybe we as humans simply crave play and our physical world doesn’t provide it. As an object of the physical world which accommodates all human activity, contemporary architecture fails in addressing the basic human needs for play and engagement.  

Contemporary social spaces are often large spaces open to manipulation and definition by the end user. The architect is relieved of his/her role as a designer of space, allowing flexible spaces to transform on their own based on various programmatic needs. Architecture becomes a homogenous empty playground with completely flexible, modular interiors (E.g. Convention Centres, Community Centre, Multi-purpose spaces, public spaces). Although flexible spaces has its advantages, Architecture should not be a bystander to its internal activities.

Position:

Thus, instead of designing for flexibility, Architecture should be a ludic activity or facilitate ludic activities for play using social dynamics and culture of gaming to satisfy the human needs of play and engagement.

Strategies are determined by notions of gaming and play:

The design of architecture should:

1. Provide physically and visually engaging productive spaces - using architectural form to facilitate play and games (user-architecture interaction)

2. Create social spaces - using play and games as a means of ludic collaboration and social interactions (user-user interaction) - promote socialization 

3. Operate in open-ended experience space - provide non-linear experiences through navigation, exploration, and adventure - promote curiosity (self-driven)

Ludic - spontaneous and undirected playfulness 

Play is harder to define, because it is subjective and relative... but... some define it as an activity that is fun, voluntary, intrinsically motivated, incorporating free choices/free will, offers escape, and is fundamentally exciting (Smith, 2009). These actions can be: competitive, socially bonding, skill-training, or simply for fun (no reason other than for enjoyment).

Game is then simply defined as "constructed play scenarios" - applying some rules that manage play and define play spaces. Games are action-based - so engagement is defined by a user action (active engagement over passive engagement)

As an opposition to completely flexible open space, "rules" define the game of architecture where programmed spaces are fixed entities and movement from one space to another becomes the goal of the game. Transition spaces become opportunities for play.