Postcards from the Id

Research Review: Article Investigating Factors That Impact Appeal of Board Games

This is a review of an article published in the Journal of Consumer Marketing (2007). It is entitled, "An inquiry into the factors that impact on consumer appreciation of a board game." It was authored by Alain d’Astous and Karine Gagnon, both of Montreal, Canada. Normally I review articles that have more direct relevance to psychology, specifically clinical or forensic. However, as you can tell from this blog, I have an interest in blogging about other things (when I blog at all!), and that includes games. I figured I’d see what kind of research was out there about board games, rather than the usual things, such as examining whether video games lead to violence. Thus, one literature search later, I was able to identify a few articles addressing various aspects of board games that I thought might be interesting, including this one. However, this article is much more of a business analysis of board games, rather than a straight examination of the psychology of board games, so to the extent my understanding of particular business terms and concepts is lacking, I apologize.

As is typical with journal articles, the authors lead with an introduction to their study, to include a review of past research that leads to their particular question. Here, the authors note that certain board games enjoy significant popularity among large groups of people, and personally I was encouraged by the identification of Settlers of Catan in this opening sentence, alongside of Scrabble and Monopoly. The authors go on to note that while researchers have examined the reasons behind consumer preferences for many different leisure products, little research has explored preferences for board games. Basically, the authors posit the question of what features explain the popularity of certain board games?

The authors do cite several prior studies into playing games, and they note a particular description of the theories of game playing that was offered in the 1973 book Why People Play, by M.J. Ellis:

1) Classical Theories - playing games is seen as a human instinct

2) Modern Theories - games represent a means to fulfill some unsatisfied psychological or emotional need

3) Contemporaneous Theories - games are conceived as activities that are performed to maintain an optimal level of stimulation and to avoid boredom

Another categorization was identified, from the 1981 article "Play: a ludic behavior," by H.I. Day:

1) Exploratory games - associated with discovery

2) Creative games - associated with imagination

3) Entertaining games - associated with mere enjoyment

4) Mimetic games - role playing

5) Cathartic games - play as a form of therapy

The current authors note that Day also identified three fundamental dimensions a game can be identified on, regardless of which category the game fell into: the level of internal control it offers, the intrinsic and extrinsic forces that motivate the player, and the affect (or pleasure) that ensues. Together, these three dimensions equate with the "playfulness" of the game, which is the uniqueness of the game experience.

The authors move on to note that game-playing is seen as a form of leisure activity, and then review some of the theoretical considerations associated with leisure choice in general. Primary among these are intrinsic satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, and even the perception of freedom associated with certain leisure activities. The authors also review a theory of board game-playing by Vinacke ("Variables in experimental games: toward a field theory," 1969) that discusses the various aspects of playing a board game (such as knowing the rules, considering specific situational variables, etc.), but note this in the context of why certain games may be more appealing.

Another view is reviewed by the authors, as offered by Orbanes in 2002 ("Everything I know about business I learned from Monopoly," Harvard Business Review). Here, the authors outline Orbanes’s six basic principles for creating a successful board game:

1) having rules that are simple and clear

2) making the game comprehensible and accessible to all kinds of players

3) establishing a rhythm so that players can easily follow the evolution of the game

4) giving all players the possibility to influence the game outcomes, notably by having a game based on chance and strategy

5) allowing the players to live a truly unique experience

6) creating an off-the-board stimulating social experience

The authors then get to their research. They note that they first needed to define a "board game" for the purpose of the research, and did so: "For the purpose of this research, a board game was defined as having the following characteristics: it could be played by two or more players, around a board (or a physical support), with a set of rules, and a clear objective." The authors acknowledge that this definition limits the inclusion of many forms of games, to include chess and checkers.

Sampling and Data Collection: First, the authors interviewed 13 board game players and 13 board game professionals, in order to identify the factors of board games that would be worth examining. The players were divided fairly evenly along gender, education, and playing intensity. The professionals were identified through the help of a private firm. Nine of the professionals were male, and the work experience ranged from 5-35 years. The sample included game creators, distributors, and a manufacturer.

Among the findings of the author’s interviews with this sample were the following:

1) The participants agreed the rules must be clear and understandable

2) Many participants noted a quality game is organized around a relevant theme that is original, not too complex, and actualized to the social context of the players. In part, theme was noted to allow for stimulation of one’s imagination, consistent with the earlier theories noted above.

3) All participants noted the game should provide stimulation, entertainment, and ought to be fun. Passive moments, where player’s had to wait, were discouraged. Some creators indicated a belief a board game should be conceived with the idea that it will provoke discussion, arguments, and jokes.

4) Games should be dynamic, and not redundant. Occasional surprises were also encouraged. That is, even though players ought to have an idea of how they are doing, they should also be aware of possibilities that might occur, which lends itself to tension.

5) Too much chance was discouraged, and it was noted this would interfere with the theory that games are played in part to provide a sense of accomplishment. Decision-making lends itself to a feeling of competence.

6) length was identified as an important variable.

7) Number of players and type of game were also cited. That is, certain issues (such as game length) mattered more with certain types of games (for example, length of a game as related to a strategy game versus a humor or "party" game).

Research Hypothesis: The researchers hypothesized that the potential determinants of the appreciation of a board game could be found among these seven ares:

1) the comprehensibility of the game

2) the entertainment that comes along with playing it

3) its rhythm (i.e. it is dynamic, not redundant)

4) elements of unexpectedness

5) the level of control players have

6) the level of challenge

7) its potential to create fantasies (i.e. the extent to which it leads players to have a unique/uncommon experience).

Survey: Data was collected via survey from 169 adult Canadian boardgamers. Participants were asked to think of a board game with which they were familiar, and answer a series of questions about it. Following that, they could repeat the exercise with a different, but also familiar, board game. The survey asked participants questions in all hypothesized areas, as well as various demographic questions. Interestingly, female respondents outnumbered male respondents 2:1. Most responders were under 55-years old. Education was pretty evenly distributed. Monopoly was chosen by the most participants (24.9%), followed by Scrabble (17.1%). Overall, Cranium was the game identified as most appreciated (though the category "Other" included 28.8% of games chosen), while Monopoly was least appreciated. Here are some of the relevant comparisons:

1) Appreciated Overall: Most - Cranium; Least - Monopoly

2) Comprehensibility: Most - Scrabble; Least - Risk

3) Entertaining: Most - Cranium; Least - the others (Cranium was statistically ahead of all others)

4) Rhythm: Most - Scattergories; Least - Monopoly

5) Chance: Most Chance - Scattergories; Least Chance - Monopoly

6) Challenging: Most - Risk; Least - Clue

7) Fantasy Stimulation: Most - Cranium; Least - Monopoly

Other findings: First, the findings that were in agreement with prior literature. Statistical analyses examined the rating by players on the various games, and why those games appealed to them. The authors found that games that allow for fantasy and uncommon experience were significantly more appreciated. Among all of the factors measured, this factor had the strongest impact.

The second important factor was overall experience of being entertained. The games that allowed for interaction, having fun, arguing, etc. rated higher. Another finding was that the element of surprise in a game was found to be significant, but only among males players - female players did not rate games with this element as any better. The authors note prior research on gender-based risk-aversion, as well as studies into gambling, that might account for this. Rhythm, conversely, impacted women more than men.

The authors note that one limitation of the study was the game’s self-selection by the participants. This was done in order to avoid participants being asked to rated unfamiliar games. Unfortunately, this resulted in participants choosing games that were very familiar with, and generally had high opinions of. The first game selected by participants was preferred to the second game chosen by a statistically significant margin. This was offered as a reason why comprehensibility may not have achieved a prominent place in the factoring; people chose games they already knew and understood.

The authors also noted that the challenge of a game did not rate significantly. No real explanation was offered, though they did note that board games may simply rely less of its challenge as opposed to its social aspect, than, say, video games. That is, board games don’t rely on their degree of challenge to still be considered good, as compared to video games, which don’t offer other aspects to make them appealing. As usual, the article ends with the usual emphasis on how further research into this area would be great. In this case, I agree! However, the authors also offer an addendum to their article entitled "Managerial Implications, " and another entitled, "Executive Summary and Implications for Managers and Executives." The first addresses the business side of board games, with these findings in mind. The second is a brief overall of the findings of the article.

My own thoughts:  I enjoyed the article, though I think there is a divergence between the initial theories, which were generated in part through the aid of more serious board game players, and the findings, which appear to be based on the opinions of causal board game players.  There is nothing wrong with getting data from the causal gamer group, but I really think that their preferences are a different animal than what the more dedicated gamers look for.  the other problem is availability - many games that are consistently ranked much higher by people who play board games as a hobby aren't available mass market; you have to seek them out.  This is improving (I've seen Settlers of Catan at Target, and the big book stores are starting to carry what used to be considered niche games, such as Dominion and Puerto Rico).  However, I just don't know, especially with the self-selection of the game preferences by the participants, how useful the data ultimately is.  As usual, though, i'm encouraged simply by people taking a look at this stuff - it's fun and interesting to read about.

 

 

A Few "Wired" Pop-Culture Links

Here are several fun links over at Wired:

1) This post addresses the question: "Who is the best Batman of all-time?'  Voice portrayals are included.  Amazingly, George Clooney is not ranked first.

2) The kids of the Geekdads made their picks for "Best of the Decade" in categories such as movies, books, comics, and games.  A good list for anyone with kids, as there are a few items I know my kids would like, but I had not heard of them.  Also, lots of Lego-love!!!

3) Here is a list of the top 5 PS3 games of 2009, including downloadables.  I haven't played with my PS3 much (I use it mostly for the Blu-Ray), but I did download Comet Crash, and I've really enjoyed it.

4) This is a really nice review of the game Carcassonne, a game I've been eyeing for quite awhile, but I've yet to pull the trigger on.  Sounds like I need to get it.

Geek Updates

For all those interested in various issues related to Geekdom:

1) An effort is underway to honor the late Gary Gygax with a statue in his hometown of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.  If you have to ask, “Who is Gary Gygax?” you are probably wasting your time reading this post.  The truly pertinent question would be, “Will there be any features that allow for animation, and a potential destructive rampage?”

2) Star Wars versus Star Trek - Which one to choose on a desert isle?  Despite the fact that the poll question posed is not the same as the question many are answering (from a look at the comments), it is a fun debate that was portrayed rather humorously in Fan Boys.  My vote?  Star Wars, of course!

3) As recently noted, I pulled out an old microgame called Saga, and played it with my seven-year old last weekend.  He enjoyed the game, but it is a by-the-numbers game, very little imagination involved.  I’ve often wondered when my kids can start to tackle the more complex and/or more imaginative stuff.  Based on a review by Paul Tevis and reviews at RPG.com, I’ve decided to order Faery's Tale, a role-playing game for children.  From the sound of it, the game allows for a fair bit of imagination, the use of magic, and emphasizes problem-solving skills (instead of just hacking away at everything).  Looks good!  Once I’ve played it with the kids, I’ll post my impressions.

4) If you want to raise your daughters to be just as geeky as you and your sons, here is a helpful guide.

5) Lileks posts about all sorts of nostalgia, and he has a recurring post regarding “out-of context” advertisements.  This one is pretty funny.  Today’s newspaper carriers are tomorrow’s leaders!  I’m proof-positive that this is not necessarily the case...

6) Oops!  Looks like I ruined Facebook for the cool kids.

I'm A 12th Level Warrior/Therapist, And I'm Here To Help

Within the overarching topic of whether Internet and gaming addictions are, in fact, addictions in the psychiatric sense of the word (which I don't know enough about to render a meaningful opinion), I saw this article.  According to the post, a psychiatrist in England is discussing the possibility of offering game addiction treatment to people who play World of Warcraft excessively.  His idea is to have mental health professionals available in the game setting, and potentially work with the peer supervisors to identify individuals who may need assistance.  Going into the game is a way of reaching the group who might not otherwise surface much into the real world, thereby slipping through the cracks.

I have no idea of how prevalent excessive game play is, whether players would even respond to any sort of outreach, etc.  I don't think it's ever a bad idea to have suggested guidelines or recommendations for any activity, and certainly if someone isn't paying bills or going to work because they are playing a game 15 hours a day, they need to get theri priorities in order.  I just think that the idea of mental health professionals roaming through multi-player game scenarios sounds funny, even if the effort is serious and legitimate.  In fact, my first thought was of the "Angel" in the movie Disclosure, the all-knowing Internet guide...

The Settlers of Catan - Wired Article and Pre-Review

Ok, I admit it - pre-reviewing a game one has bought, but not played, sounds really stupid. It may, in fact, be stupid. But I don’t care (not much, anyway); I’m plowing ahead with my pre-review of The Settlers of Catan, as fate (or the most recent issue of Wired) has forced my hand.

You see, I had been planning to write a personal review of Ticket to Ride for some time, my first soiree into gaming in a long, long time, and my first “German style” game ever. I’ve always loved games, but hadn’t really played much except computer games since my teens, and not even much of that since my 20s. Job, house, marriage, and kids tend to get in the way. Now that the kids are getting a bit older, I’ve become more interested in potential games to play with them. First, I started listening to a couple of podcasts, just to get my feet wet. In addition, I read some reviews of various games on BoardGameGeek, a fantastic site on boardgames, just chock-full of information.  Then, I decided to buy a game I figured would have an appeal beyond just someone who’s into intricate games, something that my wife, family, and friends would enjoy, and I settled on Ticket to Ride. I’ll save a review of that game for later, but suffice to say, Ticket to Ride does hold a mass appeal that is often noted regarding the German-style games.

Given this, I then decided to buy a game with a more selective appeal( I.e. it appealed to me): Arkham Horror. Lots of rules, variations, etc. the game does appeal to me, but not as much to others. However, the bonus is that, as a system game (i.e. the players play against the system, rather than against each other, also known as a "cooperative game"), it has the perfect feature - solo play! A review of this game will eventually be written as well.

So, with these recent experiences in mind, I decided to go get the game that always comes up in the conversations regarding the “new games:” The Settlers of Catan. I’d been mulling its purchase for awhile, and I was ultimately pushed into the decision to go get it when another couple brought it up, said they played it at another couple’s house, and they enjoyed it very much.

So, I went and bought it. I come home later that day, placed it on the table, and answered the phone. Coincidence alert! Another friend who overheard the conversation about Settlers called me to ask if I’d bought it yet, and if so, did I have an opinion? He noted he was at Barnes and Noble, and was considering buying it as well.

“Barnes and Noble?” I thought, not realizing they were carrying a game like Settlers. Irony Alert! My friend told me he had read in Wired magazine about Settlers, and that it was available there. I looked in the mail, and lo and behold! The new issue of Wired was in the pile. I had purchased Settlers of Catan in a nick of time; a few more hours, and I’d have been a poseur…

So, that leads to my current status, which is that I bought Settlers, and have read the directions, but have yet to play. Looking forward to it, and hoping it holds a broader appeal, similar to Ticket to Ride.

Incidentally, the Wired article is great. Here are a few highlights:

* Germans are game fanatics, and spend more on games than any other country, per capita. In addition, games as a hobby are afforded more respect than in other countries, such as America (for example, games are reviewed in newspapers in the same fashion as books, movies, etc.)

* The creator of The Settlers of Catan, Klaus Teuber (is that a German name?) ’ is a legend in Germany, and in the gaming world in general. He played the game with his family in order to assess which parts were working, and which weren’t. In fact, he initially became involved in games to entertain himself and his wife; he then began authoring his own games.

* Settlers of Catan has been translated into 30 languages, and has sold 15 million copies. Not bad for a game you won’t find in Toys R Us.

* A ludologist is a game expert - pretty cool.

* German-style games are a description for the new style of gaming that avoids long, tedious play and grinding your opponents down, a la Monopoly. I like Monopoly, but good luck finding a group of people with kids and jobs who have three hours to spend on one game, where if you are eliminated, you’ve got nothing to do for the next 90 minutes. These new games are tighter, quicker (30-60 minutes), have more for people to do during the game (not make a move, then wait ten minutes), and rely less on battering people down. In short, they offer much to appeal to many.

* Chess has 10 to the 120 power number of possible moves, or far more than the number of atoms in the universe - again, pretty cool.

I recommend you read the Wired article, and in the meantime, I will review the game once I’ve had a chance to play it!

Atari - Back From the Dead?

For people my age, there is a soft spot in the heart for Atari, who pushed the initial frontier of video games back in the late 70s and early 80s.  For years, they set the standard, and even when Intellivision (which I loved) and Colecovision came out, Atari was always the cheap alternative with the widest range of games.  Activision games made for Atari helped to extend their dominance; for example, I remember Activision's football game being a reasonable facisimile of Intellivision's football, and a significant upgrade over the original Atari football, which was more like 3-on-3 pudding battles, with a football you could steer in the air!  However, I don't recall Atari being relevant since, well, Nintendo.

Well, Atari may be "Back in business, baby!" according to this article.  It looks like they are aiming at rekindling their relevance by making games for other systems, as well as entering the online multiplayer genre.  It'll be interesting to see if they can come back from the dead. 

Battle of the Gaming Consoles

Interesting article reviewing the sales performance of the three big gaming consoles: the Playstation, the X-Box, and the Wii.  It appears Nintendo (who makes the Wii) continues to drub the competition by maintaining its focus on non-traditional gamers (smaller kids, moms, etc.), while the other two companies battle it out for the hardcore gamers.   What is interesting is that Playstation's Blu-Ray capacity hasn't given it the lift one would expect, apparently because most consumers think Blu-Ray will go the route of Laser Disc rather than DVD.

We own a Wii, a gift from Grandma for the kids.  I have to say, it's perfect for smaller children - the games are kid-friendly, the mechanics are easier, and they do require some degree of movement (which allows a parent like me to feel slightly better about my kids being in front of the TV, rationalization though it may be).  I have to say, though, that thus far it has had only a limited appeal for me, primarily due to the reasons cited in the article - few games that interest me.  On the other hand, I don't have much time for that stuff anymore anyway, and with more limited time, I prefer to spend it doing other things. 

I hope to significantly upgrade my television/entertainment system at some point in the near future (though since I've been thinking about it for over a year, the "near future" could well mean within the next 5-10 years), and as part of the upgrade, I might pursue the Playstation route, in lieu of a stand-alone Blu-Ray player.  However, I'm not sold on that yet, and that may be Sony's problem - if they can't get a guy like me to pay a little more for a Blu-Ray player that also offers gaming, it's no wonder they are struggling in third place.

Book Review: “The Elfish Gene” Reflects on a Childhood Spent Playing Dungeons and Dragons

Michael Harrison over at the Wired Blog provides an interesting review of a book that sounds, at least by its marketing, as a must-read for any adult who delved into role-playing as a kid. However, while I will still most likely take a stab at reading this book, it’ll probably be for a very different reason than I (and Harrison, as he notes in his review) would have expected.

Harrison’s review of Mark Barrowcliffe’s The Elfish Gene: Dungeons, Dragons, and Growing Up Strange correctly notes that the book, its cover, and its pitch all point to a whimsical, nostalgic reflection of a childhood where, through certain awkward stage’s in many boy’s life development, they participate in role playing. However, Harrison reports that Barrowcliffe’s book, while a fascinating read, is much more consistent with a memoir of an individual who has yet to come to terms with his past, and instead blames the messenger. Of course, I’ll have to read the book myself in order to form an informed opinion, but on the face of it, I would have to agree with Harrison’s take: to the extent that someone’s childhood was so negatively impacted by various difficulties (including bullying), one can hardly blame Dungeons and Dragons for any excess a child or adolescent shows towards gaming. Fact is, most kids who do play role-playing games (or any other game, for that matter), play it with a healthy moderation. Of those who once went too far, most will, with adulthood, be able to look back on their period of uber-geekdom with at least some degree of humorous self-deprecation. If an adult has not, and does not feel they can, come to terms with any painful experiences of their past, the thing to do is to work through it, not dump on the available coping mechanism at the time, which was overused. Short form: If you are an adult and obsessively playing a role-play game (or anything else obsessively), that is “the messenger;” take a look at whether you are living the life you want. If not, figure out what you need to do to improve it

If Harrison’s portrayal of Barrowcliffe’s take on gaming is accurate, then my take is not to indict D & D for the difficulties Mr. Barrowcliffe experienced, but rather to hope that Mr. Barrowcliffe (and anyone else who retreats into gaming or any other activity excessively) learns to deal with their past experiences in a way that allows them to moderate their activities, and achieve a healthy, functional balance in life. On the other hand, as Harrison notes, this simply proves too difficult, it may be that certain obsessive types need to avoid the obsessive material. Most kids who play role-playing games, even if socially awkward at some point, eventually develop those skills necessary to interact with the world in a more functional manner. That someone doesn’t is not an indictment of the game, but rather an indication of the difficulties being experienced by the person. Cutting oneself off from their avenue of escapism may be most effective for those most struggling in this manner, much like the alcoholic having to give up alcohol completely in order to allow other parts of their life to emerge. However, switching escapist avenues, which is what the author apparently did (into heavy metal music) actually reinforces the avoidant behavior.

This book certainly, at the very least, sounds like a great read. I like Harrison’s take on this book in the context of Nick Hornby’sHigh Fidelity, another work that examines how a man can avoid maturity, difficult situations, etc. through a retreat into obsessive interest in a certain, comforting activity. In High Fidelity, the protagonist ultimately demonstrated some insight into his reluctance to engage the world on its terms, and to start taking chances, be proactive, and, basically, live. It doesn’t sound as if Barrowcliffe has reached that point. If Barrowcliffe had written High Fidelity, it sounds like the end of the book would have blamed music for Rob Fleming’s difficulties in relationships and in life, rather than Fleming’s own unwillingness to take the steps necessary to address those problems. On the other hand, maybe Harrison's got it wrong; it's possible Barrowcliffe has worked through this stuff, and it is Harrison who is overreacting.  I know one way to find out for sure - stop typing about it, and read the dang thing!

This is a post I may have to revisit once I read this book, which is now on my “To Read List,” currently at approximately 28,246 books at last count...

Oh, and here is a link to Barrowcliffe's blog, if you are interested.  Some fun posts, particularly about "most Fantasy Song Ever."  Yes, Rush would have to be on that list somewhere...

Dungeons and Dragons - An “Everything Old is New Again” Moment!

I can be a bit of a nostalgia guy, and boy did this article take me back to my days of geekdom. A new version of the D&D Player’s Handbook! A fourth edition?! Am I getting old or what...

Yep, I played a bit of D&D back in the day. However, the idea of the game - the rules, the worlds, the lay-outs, the theory, if you will - was always of more interest to me than the actual game. Prior to stumbling upon the game for the first time around the age of 10, the most sophisticated games I had come in touch with were some old Avalon Hill games my Dad had, from his days of youth. The idea that a form of entertainment could be so rich in detail drew me to D&D, as well as triggered a long period of reading speculative fiction. One of my favorite parts of D&D was character creation - generating attributes, choosing races and classes, etc. Whatever else, role-playing games definitely allow people to flex their creative muscle. 

Anyway, I really enjoyed this article (and this one too, which compares the old and new versions). Like the author, my game-playing steadily dropped off as more and more responsibilities have built up in my life, to the point where, aside from an occasional poker night, I hardly play anything at all that doesn’t involve my young children. I still like the idea of playing, though, even if I never do so, and I’ve had urges to buy certain games I’ve seen for sale, even if, deep down, I doubt I’ll ever play them against another person. I don’t know, maybe I should try to play a game or two here and there. It is just so hard to do so when you have such a limited amount of free time. The other possibility, much more likely, is that as my kids reach double digits in age, they will want to play. Guess what? They’ll have a ready partner in their dad...

BTW, in case you were wondering, I loved playing a Ranger as a kid...

Wii Fit - Thoughts...

In a couple of previous posts, I had linked to articles documenting the use of the Wii for improved fitness and physical rehabilitation.  Here is a linkto an article in Slate that sums up Wii's latest effort to mix fun and exercise, Wii Fit.  The author discusses the main areas of fitness covered, and describes the "personal trainer" elements that will likely be motivating to the user to continue to practice, improve, etc.  Intellectually, similar items such as Brain Age are blurring the lines between fun and intellectual development (Wired has a blurb about this in the most recent issue).

I recently had the opportunity to sample the Wii for the first time.  My sense of the technology was that one would not develop fine motor skills compatible with those necessary to perform better at a sport in vivo (i.e. improving your bowling on Wii won't make you a better bowler), but I did sense that, like other games,people would become hooked on the reinforcement schedule.  The benefit to this, on Wii, is that you are moving.  Do I think that playing tennis on the Wii is as healthy as playing tennis on the court?  Not even close.  However, this is just the beginning of this sort of technology - as it improves, the physical benefits will likely develop right along with the realism.  In addition, the movement required for many of these activites is certainly better than simply sitting and using a joystick all day - if someone is going to play these games for significant periods of time, or for whatever other reason may be limited by when or where they can exercise, using a Wii is certainly better than doing nothing.

What will be interesting to see is just how this technology expands, and in what directions.  According to the Slate article, Wii Fit is already obtaining certain personal characteristics of the user (weight, BMI, etc.) in order to chart progress.  I've often imagined that one day, one's personal characteristics could be utilized in the formation of characters for activities such as role-playing games.  Rather than rolling dice, or randomly generating numbers, for the attributes of player characters, an individual's actual ratings could be used in the game.  These could be raw attributes, such as strength, as well as skill sets developed over time (such as sword wielding).  How a game system would measure all of these attributes remains to be seen, but certain ones, such as strength, dexterity, and IQ would seem to relatively easy, at least.  Who knows, maybe in ten years, your constitution would be measured by linking your system to your medical records via Google, and your physical appearance could be rated by getting votes from a social networking site.  Some areas would be more easily improved than others, though some people would always be at an advantage.

Of course, the problem with this type of set up would be the inevitable whining that would accompany the rating system.  Cries of bias would likely come from all corners, regardless of how objective the measures.  I've thought about several short story ideas chronicling the development of this sort of system, and the sociological impact thereof.  One would be a gaming company's efforts to account for differences in things such as strength, based on age, gender, etc.  Would the game's difficulty shift depending on age, for example, or would the player be expected to simply take longer to develop the strength necessary to complete the task (or find an alternative, if the strength required proved impossible for that particular individual)?  Perhaps, given the progress of this technology, we'll find out the answer sooner than I had expected.