crankyoldman (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
crankyoldman) wrote2010-04-30 03:22 pm
crankyoldman) wrote2010-04-30 03:22 pm
Entry tags:
Edutainment Vs. Commercial Games (or why it's so darn hard to design somthing in the middle)
As expected, I get into a lot of bar conversations with dudes about games. Some are awesome, some make me want to throttle them. It's like any sort of conversation you have with semi-drunk or drunk people over any semi-serious topic. Full of bullshit, but with a kernel of truth deep down. It's more pertinent to me than a discussion about communism or philosophy, because it relates back to my job.
Of course, then I have to deal with the flip side; educators that have a very narrow idea on what a game is.
I think there is something problematic when you leave all the game design of a educationally aimed game in the hands of standard game developers; they have internalized biases that they're often not aware of ("well if we change that character to female, the boys will complain", "what do you mean Calcium is not a mineral?"). Sure, it'll look cool, but they may rely too much on the idea of peripheral learning; that kids will want to look up stuff because it looks cool. While this will work on some (I was that kind of kid) it's not going to reach the majority. There has to be a conscious effort to teach something and use the gameplay as the vehicle and tool for that.
You also can't leave it solely up to educators. Now, I really love inventive and caring teachers that can make a rubberband into an interesting lesson. But very few (I'm sure there are exceptions) can step into a video game scenario. Hell, even I couldn't design a whole fun game on my own. Educators have their own biases and methods, which are slowly becoming diversified (if the existence of STEM schools is any indication) but fail to look broadly enough. Repetitive tasks and memorization? Don't a good video game make. In fact, they tend to make a lousy game (unless you are properly equating repetitions to grinding, which doesn't always translate well).
Of course, I have to go on the record saying I really really hated Oregon Trail. And I was the age that they were starting to use that in schools (my "honors" class spent far too much time playing that game). And you'll still read in educational journals how awesome that game was.
Maybe at the time, but we've advanced in gaming and in educational focus as well.
I don't have all the answers, and I'm really not that far up on the totem pole to even pretend like I am the authority on this sort of thing. But there are a few things that I think have worked and are working and should continue to be explored, based on my readings and experience.
- Drilling (which I mean to say, things like multiplication tables and vocabulary lessons) makes a good webapp, but a poor game. I've heard again and again in our surveys that kids like the idea of games for school, but "please not math, because those games are boring". I would love LOVE to design a game that uses math as a mechanism for something like spellcasting as a part of a larger narrative--but I'm getting ahead of myself. XD Point is, a little drilling as a part of something larger is interesting; drilling itself is mind numbing. Besides, kids get enough of that in their classes already.
- More robust and complex problems are basically at the heart of a good video game. And the heart of a good lesson! Years later we may not remember all the state capitols (or maybe I just forgot, heh) but things like mock trials and field trips stick with you. It is a long process getting people to the point they can solve problems (and some people never fully reach that), and if there's one thing about America in particular, it's that this is a nation of invention. It's very hard be inventive when you're spending all your time on rote memorization and regurgitation.
- Gamer designers don't have to fall back on commercial tropes to make it fun. You don't have to be shooting aliens to have fun. You don't have to have an action hero guy at the center of the story. This takes a lot more work, a lot more paying attention to find things that appeal past the very narrow Gamer Dude that the commercial market falls back on (and why they were shocked as hell that the Wii did well!). Fun is very dependent on engagement. Why simple games have endured so long is that people find them engaging. Sure fire way to disengagement? Making someone feel left out or objectified.
- Most of all, there has to be an open dialogue between both sides. Educators know what is expected in classrooms, game developers know what's feasible in games. Maybe more people will become interdisciplinary themselves in order to accommodate this. Maybe not. Point is to talk to each other! The weirdo engineer will thank you.
Of course, then I have to deal with the flip side; educators that have a very narrow idea on what a game is.
I think there is something problematic when you leave all the game design of a educationally aimed game in the hands of standard game developers; they have internalized biases that they're often not aware of ("well if we change that character to female, the boys will complain", "what do you mean Calcium is not a mineral?"). Sure, it'll look cool, but they may rely too much on the idea of peripheral learning; that kids will want to look up stuff because it looks cool. While this will work on some (I was that kind of kid) it's not going to reach the majority. There has to be a conscious effort to teach something and use the gameplay as the vehicle and tool for that.
You also can't leave it solely up to educators. Now, I really love inventive and caring teachers that can make a rubberband into an interesting lesson. But very few (I'm sure there are exceptions) can step into a video game scenario. Hell, even I couldn't design a whole fun game on my own. Educators have their own biases and methods, which are slowly becoming diversified (if the existence of STEM schools is any indication) but fail to look broadly enough. Repetitive tasks and memorization? Don't a good video game make. In fact, they tend to make a lousy game (unless you are properly equating repetitions to grinding, which doesn't always translate well).
Of course, I have to go on the record saying I really really hated Oregon Trail. And I was the age that they were starting to use that in schools (my "honors" class spent far too much time playing that game). And you'll still read in educational journals how awesome that game was.
Maybe at the time, but we've advanced in gaming and in educational focus as well.
I don't have all the answers, and I'm really not that far up on the totem pole to even pretend like I am the authority on this sort of thing. But there are a few things that I think have worked and are working and should continue to be explored, based on my readings and experience.
- Drilling (which I mean to say, things like multiplication tables and vocabulary lessons) makes a good webapp, but a poor game. I've heard again and again in our surveys that kids like the idea of games for school, but "please not math, because those games are boring". I would love LOVE to design a game that uses math as a mechanism for something like spellcasting as a part of a larger narrative--but I'm getting ahead of myself. XD Point is, a little drilling as a part of something larger is interesting; drilling itself is mind numbing. Besides, kids get enough of that in their classes already.
- More robust and complex problems are basically at the heart of a good video game. And the heart of a good lesson! Years later we may not remember all the state capitols (or maybe I just forgot, heh) but things like mock trials and field trips stick with you. It is a long process getting people to the point they can solve problems (and some people never fully reach that), and if there's one thing about America in particular, it's that this is a nation of invention. It's very hard be inventive when you're spending all your time on rote memorization and regurgitation.
- Gamer designers don't have to fall back on commercial tropes to make it fun. You don't have to be shooting aliens to have fun. You don't have to have an action hero guy at the center of the story. This takes a lot more work, a lot more paying attention to find things that appeal past the very narrow Gamer Dude that the commercial market falls back on (and why they were shocked as hell that the Wii did well!). Fun is very dependent on engagement. Why simple games have endured so long is that people find them engaging. Sure fire way to disengagement? Making someone feel left out or objectified.
- Most of all, there has to be an open dialogue between both sides. Educators know what is expected in classrooms, game developers know what's feasible in games. Maybe more people will become interdisciplinary themselves in order to accommodate this. Maybe not. Point is to talk to each other! The weirdo engineer will thank you.
no subject
I guess I'm more familiar with older games so for me repetitive task and memorization have always be a huge part of gaming for me. Even after all these years I can sit down and play Super Mario Brothers pratical blind folded.
Then my opinion on educational games is far to dated to be relevant to any discussion on them.