Where's the game (part deux)

Darius raises some good points in his response to my issues with Sheppard Software's games.  Upon reading his post two things became obvious to me - we were talking about different games that we had tried (world, place 8 items vs US geography, place 50 items) and that that we were both ultimately on the same page. 

The problem was I framed my rant about the software by colloquializing it as lacking the structure of a game.  Darius's response (correctly) deconstructed  the interaction in the software and demonstrated that it fits within the framework of a definition of a game.  Thankfully, he was able to say at the end of his rant what I was attempting to say - let's move beyond the "flash card phase" and elevate educational games to a point where the processing power is used to code interesting, interactive systems that challenge the player , to poke and to prod, to construct and test hypotheses, to integrate knowledge and synthesize a response.  You know, what most excellent games are doing.

Finally, I think I need to spend a little more time with the Sheppard Software puzzles and quizzes.  The expert level ones were quite challenging and address some of the issues of finer grained geographic literacy I raised in my first response.  And I'm not sure that all of them are functioning 100% accurately, but that could have been a glitch in the scaling code.

Comments

[Craig]

No, I don't think they ARE games, assuming they're all pretty much like the advanced states game. Darius is using a very inclusive definition of games (I'll post something to him about that subject), but to make a long story short, there's no FEEDBACK loop. The game does not adjust to your actions, save by racking up a 'score'. it resets after every attempt, and each attempt affects the next attempt in no way.

Even the first games - such as Pong - had a REACTIVE SYSTEM. These games DO NOT.

[Bill]

Craig, welcome to the kvetch.

Good point that you raise. If you are taking issue, it is with the definition that Darius has chosen which is in Rules of Play. Darius does mention that he likes its inclusiveness. But the question is "is it too inclusive?"

For example - are the GRE's a game?

Am I overreaching when I say that according to these criteria:

"Salen/Zimmerman's definition of game:

A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."

that the GRE's fit as a game.

The GRE's are a
system [phases, individual questions, interface to test controls what can be seen, questions chosen based upon previous answer]

in which players engage in an artificial conflict [true import of test has no bearing on real world, must rely entirely upon own skill, knowledge, can not use resources that you will expect to be able to use in school]

defined by rules,
[must complete each question before next will be shown, can not go back to change answer, can not talk in testing facility, scratch paper must be left at facility]

that results in a quantifiable outcome
[not much more quantifiable than the score, results could determine admittance to instituion of higher education, which is a whole other gaming system].

And it has the advantage of fitting your definition of a reactive system.

A good definition should be broad enough to be inclusive while allowing for meaningful exclusions.

On the other hand... standardized tests really are more of a game than anything meaningful.

[Craig]

Oh, I agree that within that definition they are definitely games. But that definition is including a lot of things that use a wholly different approach to entertainment than a game usually does.

Including the GREs.

I blogged about this on my blog, to make my position clearer. :)

[Angelo]

Alright this is my first post here but I suppose I can get my feet wet so to speak.

As someone who has pretty much devoted my entire educational carrer to games and how they are seen in today's society, I can honestly say I find two major problems with educational gaming.

Problem 1
When does a task cease being a "problem" or "exercise" in the socially accepted sense of the word, and become a "game" in the socially accepted sense of the word?

Problem 2
When does an already socially accepted "game" cease being educational?

First problem 1. It is true the GRE's are a game. The problem is, no one looks at them as a game. In fact, just about everyone looks at them as this gigantic mythical test of epic proportions that breaks your very spirit and soul. Not very fun... right? The same goes for quizzes and multiple choice tests. Not many students would say they would take a multiple choice test for run... right?

BUT, take that same group of kids, and ask them, would you rather like to take this multiple choice test? Or play a game of You Don't Know Jack? Obviously most students would choose You Don't Know Jack even if the questions asked in both settings are exactly the same. (For those of you who don't know, YDKJ is a quiz show videogame that asks Multiple choice, fill in the blank, and fast response questions in a variety of topics ranging from stupidly easy to mind breaking hard (expert editions). The key difference between this and any other college test? They throw in funny announcers and pop culture references) Something that most educational game developers forget is ENJOYABILITY! I saw my brother and sister grow up on "educational" games, and all that they were, were the same "masked" math problems thrown at the multiple times with different numbers and variables. Solve the obvious math problem and flashy lights go off. Thats pretty much what educational games of today are. That's not variety, that's not enjoyability. Several students day after day struggle in even basic algebra classes, however when put into the context of how many villians spiderman can fight or interns bill clinton can... well you get the idea, students simply respond better and think faster.

This is where the two most enjoyable parts of a game come into play. One, competativeness. Even if you just get to say HA and stick it to your friends your going to try harder. Most educational games of today are simply, not, competative. They are boring, they consist of repetative drills that any study session would consist of, masked with the pretense of "gaming" without any effort really given to make them seem enjoyable. Students study in groups? Why can't educational games be played in groups? When you work against someone, you push yourself to overcome that someone. Though it is an agressive way to look at things, it IS a motivator that cannot be overlooked.

Two, the game has to be fun in and of itself, by the sheer virtue that it is a game. The gamer playing the game has to enjoy the game, FOR the game. Most educational games as I said before are educational drills with a game pretense. I want to see the opposite. I want to see a game with education integrated, instead of education with a game integrated. I want to see a cinematic or thiller game in which the main character, a hacker, has to use actual computer programming to progress. I want to see a survival horror game where your locked in a chem lab, and have to actually mix solutions correctly via the laws of chemistry to produce desired effects. I want to see a space shooter or flight sim, where you have to build your plane in accordance to the actual laws of physics. I want to see an RPG that spans the entire history of the world and actually USES that history in the gameplay. I want to see games where the ultimate reward dosen't come from completing your educational drills, but from completing the game, by using elements of education that you didn't even necessarily know you were learning. Until this mindset is realized, I doubt that educational games will get very far. Unfortunatley, they are still just learning aids. I think to make the games effective, we have to make students WANT to buy them.

It is now 4:21 AM and I am tired.... I NEED to sleep so I will continue my schpiel on problem two when I am more lucid.

Stay way past cool and keep gaming.

[Bill]

Angelo, welcome to the kvetch! I think you hit on some really important factors in your post, and I'm happy to report that there are some educators (*some*) that are embracing games for the 'gameness'. I am also sad to report that I am seeing a lot of dreck at the educational confrences that I am attending where people are taking the surface elements, the glitz and flash, without understanding the deep elements of gameplay that are truly meaningful to the player.

At last week's Games4Change conference in NYC Clay Shirley noted that what we should be looking for is not just playability, but want-to-play-ability in the games that are put forth. I hear you putting forth some very similar ideas. Hopefully my collaborator, Jessica Hammer, and I can continue to push the notion of a proper respect for games and game mechanics at the conferences we attend. (Jess is a professional game developer turned doctoral student. You can read some of her work at www.eggplantlab.org/blog)

Looking forward to reading more of your post and responding more fully.