Enthusiasm has grown, in recent years, for a movement that is best summed up by the term ‘Gamification’. At its best, gamification seeks to make the world a better place by making life more engaging, more fun and more rewarding. At its worst, it is a cynical papering over of harsh realities with shallow game mechanics.

In “Reality Is Broken”, game evangelist Jane McGonigal passionately explores possibilities for improving a failing real world by learning from games. Games are not idle distractions or escapist fantasies, says McGonigal, rather, they are our best hope for solving humanity’s most complex and vexing problems. (You can get a taste of her enthusiasm in this TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM )

What makes games so great? They are designed to create positive emotional states: flow (when we are so absorbed in an activity we lose track of time), fiero (pride in learning and accomplishment) and connection with others. Games make it easy to fail, but also to persevere and learn, harnessing the energy and attention of individuals and focusing them on clearly defined goals.

Life should be more like a game. We could motivate ourselves to accomplish real and valuable goals, like exercise and eating well, through point systems and overlaying our day-to-day existence with more imaginative and exciting narratives, aiming for an ‘epic win’. Beyond enhancing our own personal happiness, we could apply the same techniques to larger real-world problems like global warming, disease and poverty.

In my opinion, points and levels are a bit too extrinsic a motivator to be of enduring value, but they are a reasonable effort to break down larger challenges into manageable chunks. More interesting is the use of creative narrative and newer communication technology (read: The Internet) to nurture highly motivated communities that share a common purpose. Online games like “World of Warcraft” are leading the charge in this new community collaboration technology, enabling people all over the world to pursue shared quests in a fictional universe. How long before we shift our focus from accumulating make-believe gold to finding a cure for cancer?

Actually, there are already ‘games’ where players are given real-world puzzles involving the folding of proteins and RNA, further advancing (hopefully) our knowledge of the building blocks of life, and leading (hopefully) to new understanding and treatments for disease. (Check out a related New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11rna.html )

It’s hard to disagree with the thesis that life should be a lot more fun and fulfilling. Every moment should be imbued with a sense of deep purpose, tied to a meaningful narrative. That so many of us are bored, anxious or depressed (or poor, sick and starving) is a challenge to how we organize civilization. But can we really look to games for our salvation?

It helps to acknowledge that the technology of games has changed dramatically even in the last decade, and that cultural perceptions may still be lagging behind. It’s fair to say that “This ain’t your grampa’s Monopoly”, or “This ain’t your daddy’s Pac Man”. Today’s games are increasingly immersive, social activities that bear little resemblance to their predecessors. In the same way that television was both a distraction and a source of news and information, today’s games can suck up vast amounts of time, but also have an immense potential to engage players in real-world issues.

As more of us plug in to the connected world, through computers and mobile devices, there is a growing momentum to make this interaction more engaging and more productive. Whether we call it ‘gamification’ or ‘user experience design’, this new focus might just nudge us towards a world we would rather live in. Adopting a game-designer mindset may not solve every human problem, but it is an intriguing step toward a more connected world and a ‘funner’ experience of a reality that can come across as, if not broken, at least somewhat sub-optimal.