Category Archives: Games

Introduction to the 6 Activity Modes

Leave a reply

A few years ago I was working on some research that required me to analyze the game playing preferences of different children. I started off trying to use the existing game taxonomies to categorize their preferences, but found that they weren’t descriptive enough. Two games might both be puzzles, but have vastly different feel of play. After meditating on it for a while, analyzing a bunch of games, and looking back at the preferences of the students. I came up with the following 6 activity modes to describe the play that takes place within games. Multiple activity modes can appear simultaneously or sequentially in a single game.

  • Active Play

The gameplay mode most often thought of in connection with computer and video games is the active mode. In this mode, the player must respond quickly, using rapid-fire techniques, “twitch” speed, and combinations of keys or buttons to achieve the goals of the game. The game clock and/or threat of character “death” often provide structure and consequences. In games that shape play around action, the story lines frequently emphasize dichotomous conflict where the player embodies good against an evil opponent. Many of the most popular commercial games, including “shooters”, arcade-style games, and puzzles incorporate active modes into their game play.

  • Creative Play

Creative play offers the opportunity to create elements during play.  Some games provide opportunities to develop characters’ skills or appearance or to build or modify aspects of the environment. SimCity and the Tycoon games allow players to determine the components, layout and palette of cities, golf courses, roller coasters, and theme parks, while other games allow selection of character powers and appearance. Other creative elements in games can include free-form drawing, or the use of stamps to design printable or email-able documents that the player can use during or outside of game play.

  • Explorative Play

Another activity mode widely experienced in games is explorative play, where physical space and travel is simulated through the layout of the game arena. By hiding certain areas from view, the player is allowed to discover new areas and challenges in turn. Explorative play can be easily modified by the addition of other activity modes. Many three-dimensional “shooters” combine active and explorative play, where players find their way through virtual buildings or cities while dodging bullets and shooting enemies. Slower-paced educational games often pair exploration of an area with problem-solving activities.

  • Problem-Solving Play

Problem-Solving play is commonly encouraged via inclusion of puzzles, both in educational games and in commercial titles such as Myst. Here, there are specific rules for the activity sequence and the solution to the challenges. Even if there are a number of challenges within a given game, they are generally well defined, and undertaken independently. The problems may be hierarchical, requiring one problem to be solved before moving on to another, or the problems may be parallel and unrelated. Problem-solving may be fast-paced and reliant upon hand-eye coordination, or it can take a slower form where logic prevails.

  • Social Play

Social play can take a number of different forms. It can be the interactions between players and game characters or between the players themselves. This mode often provides the opportunity to manipulate the behavior of game characters, providing a god-like level of power. Interacting in a multi-player mode allows interaction between players in whatever manner the game allows, be it fighting, cooperating or romancing. Another form of player interaction takes place when two individuals use the same computer and station to control characters or action, when they must cooperate to some degree. This activity provides players with support, camaraderie, and/or help.

  • Strategic Play

Strategic play emphasizes the manipulation of resources–military, financial, or “human”–over a longer term. In games that emphasize problem-solving, achieving pre-set goals determines progress, while games that encourage a strategic mode of play often enable players to select their own or the computer’s benchmarks. Games that can include strategic activities include The Sims, titles in the Tycoon series, Civilization, and the Age of Empires. Few educational titles have incorporated this play mode into their games.

Creating Losing Designs

Leave a reply
We spend a great deal of time planning for learner success. Do we ever create the ability for learners to lose? Should we?Our society puts a premium on “winning” — nowadays it seems like every team gets a trophy — not just the winner. Americans are culturally bound to the ideal of winning. However, in the real world people lose all of the time: athletes lose games and tournaments, politicians lose elections. In high stakes situations like these, losing has a real consequence. How does this affect learning?Low stakes losing occurs every day. When we lose, we tend to either give up, or continue to practice to overcome the failure. Any casual gamer is familiar with losing and attempting to overcome the loss by quickly replaying the game. Losing, in this context, can be a big motivator, driving the will to practice, which can lead to increased skill. Learning to lose effectively is actually a skill in itself. Resiliency in the face of losing and using strategies to improve is an important life lesson and professional skill. If losing always equates to complete failure, then learners stop striving, stop attempting creative solutions, and see themselves as incapable.In learning design, a primary goal should be to create an atmosphere where losing is acceptable and intrinsically motivates the learner to try again. The potential learning value from this type of experience is measured not by how often the player loses, but by how much they improve through repeated practice.

In your training design include opportunities for low stakes losing before learners are thrust into their high stakes, real-world situations — be it a qualifying exam or on the job performance.

Recommendations for a “losing” design:

  • Make content available on demand so that learners can review material as needed
    • A common mistake is being overly controlling with content. If the goal is for learners to gain knowledge and skills, shouldn’t they have free access to the tools that can make that happen?
  • Communicate how the learner is performing relative to passing scores or via peer-to-peer review as appropriate
    • By communicating how comparatively well they are doing, learners can better sense where they can improve. This also gets their competitive juices flowing.
  • Allow plenty of practice opportunities before the final assessment occurs
    • If the only time that learners can demonstrate knowledge is a final graded test, their opportunities to “lose” are reduced to one high stakes moment. Build in low stakes assessment opportunities that prepare learners for the one that counts.

This post originally appeared in July 2011 on The Total Learner Experience.

Word Vine

Leave a reply

While there are plenty of games that get it wrong, I thought I might review a couple of games that get it right. Word Vine is one such game. It’s premise is simple: link words to create inter-connected compound words on branching relationship. An easy level uses tree, sauce, apple, trunk. I’m stuck on a hard level with time, tower, prime, bell, cow, cash, machine, gun, minister, ivory, tower, zone. So what do I like about this game this morning (and last night, for a really long time)?

  • Simple task– It is well within my skill set to make compound words and to click and drag small icons onto a hotspot.
  • “Educational”– I’m not shooting stuff. I wouldn’t be anyway, but I like figuring out this little verbal puzzle.
  • Visual– Solving the harder puzzles requires tapping into some region of the brain that handles visual relationships; it’s difficult to solve the harder puzzle (at least for me) without physically (virtually) dragging the word shapes onto some of the twining branches.
  • Aesthetics– It’s pretty. I like the soft greens.

I’m always trying to figure out how to combine content and gameplay. I can envision a social studies content game which links concepts, dates, and historical figures. How about a branching vine of German philosophers or early 20th Century artists?

 

Pixelvader

Leave a reply

As usual I am curious how to merge the worlds of voluntary online activity with educational outcomes. I just voluntarily spent hours playing Pixelvader for no good reason. When I get caught up in a game or other online activity like that I ask myself several questions:

  • What kept me engaged?
  • What did I learn and how will I use it?
  • And, of course, What am I going to take away for future design?

What kept me engaged?

This game isn’t rocket science (although it did have a rocket ship). You shoot stuff. Typically I am not a huge fan of shooting stuff. I have poor reaction time and seemingly no motor skills. This equals no “twitch” speed which is required by most shooting video games. However this game incorporated strategic purchasing of rocket ship accessories. Once you equipped your rocket with further weaponry, defensive gear or speed, you played a quick shooter with simple arrow key controls (no keyboard combos which I can’t memorize or implement). At the each of the 10 levels you got to buy stuff.  I love buying stuff. You could go down a level and generate quick cash to earn more gear. If after a certain point you realized that your gear strategy was flawed you could reset with no penalty and try another tactic by purchasing differently.

So for a player like meTM the engagement factors are:

  • Multiple modes of play– There’s some strategy and action.
  • Low risk– It’s easy to practice at the lower levels, The game never ends until you choose, If a strategy doesn’t work, it’s very easy to try another one.
  • Low learning curve– There’s not a big story, Gameplay was understandable and predictable.
  • High feeling of success– I beat a good numbers of levels, I understood what I needed to do in order to win when I did not, Consequences were predictable and avoidable.
  • Low brain power– I was tired and wanted to unwind, this game didn’t necessitate huge thinking, but just enough to make me feel smart during late night play.

What did I learn and how will I use it?

Within the game, I remembered that sometimes it’s better to be close to a large object to hit it quickly, but if it has a particular offense, it’s best to step back to have greater maneuverability. Somehow that seems important as a life lesson to me this afternoon. I also determined that personally, avoidance is a more native strategy than aggression. I wish that there was some grand content takeaway that i could reference, but sadly, I haven’t yet thought of a productivity correlation, but I am thinking on it and will update when I think of it.

What am I going to take away for future design?

Obviously I will consider all of the things that makes a player like meTM remain engaged. I also rememembered that not all players are like me. But I think my biggest takeaway is this: Any game that keeps a player playing is successful. We can argue points about genres, playability, modes, all those various game-geek issues players like to argue. But, despite the fact that this game is likely no more than a 3 on imagination, innovation and creativity, I kept playing.

keep playing

What’s the Difference Between a Game and an Educational Game?

Leave a reply

Back in 2009, Google Wave was the next big thing.  Dolly and Brandon used it to discuss their opinions on the difference between a game and an educational game. The distinctions are key for instructional designers to consider when deciding to design a game for a learning intervention.

Drj DOLLY: Games vs. educational games. I know, one’s fun and the other one is not! Really, though, what are the differences? I think intentionality of design is a key point, because I think that all games — indeed all experiences — are educational. Bernie deKoven talks a lot about children’s games providing an opportunity to roleplay and work out developmental issues. I know I learned a lot about what a ruthless sort my brother is when he beat me repeatedly at every board game created. So, if we accept that every game has learning opportunities, how do we make sure to include the fun?

Bwc BRANDON: Both can be fun, right? The basic difference is an educational game is designed with specific learning objectives and should be able to assess whether learning occurs.

Drj

I think assessment is key. That’s the external component that is often artificial. So many times assessment of learning within games have two basic problems:

  1. It’s completely external and separate from the game play.
  2. It’s too “safe”– Alex Trebek doesn’t give you second chances in final jeopardy. It’s FINAL!

I was thinking about that whole shift in board games with the advent of Cranium. Their whole goal was to remove the idea that there was one winner who had all the fun, but that players of multiple intelligences could play and those people could have fun. Bonding, instead of board throwing!
Bwc Hmm… Good point — Cranium could be looked at as a “learning game” although it doesn’t have traditional learning objectives, right?

Drj Well, if you look at their objectives they are met. And their learning objectives fall nicely within affective measures and an arts curriculum.

Bwc For example?

Drj Well, the goals of the game include team cooperation and communication through graphic arts and music.

Bwc “Game” is such a broad term. A game must include some element of Play, I presume. I also assume a game designed with a learning outcome in mind has structured play (as opposed to unstructured play — like when a kid plays with blocks).

Drj Garvey said that a game is institutionalized play. Look at football. It’s a game, clearly. We wouldn’t say that it’s educational, but you can learn it (and those who learn it best find it financially rewarding). Also by using it as a metaphor you can teach life lessons and/or management strategies, or you can teach math from the stats of the game.

Bwc So this leads me to think about the “game perimeter”. Most games have boundaries, right? We step into the perimeter’s “magic circle” to play the game. In the corporate workplace, the “magic circle” is the game’s play boundary the instructional designer/game designer creates. The trick for instructional designers is to craft what learning occurs while the player is in that circle… so does that mean that the assessment needs to occur inside or outside the perimeter?

Drj I think the best assessments are seamless and inside that perimeter. Examples could be performance-, point- or victory-based.

Bwc So are we saying that the differences between a game and a successful educational game can be minimal if assessment can be more embedded and genuine?

Drj Sure.

Games4Change Festival–Quick Thoughts

Leave a reply

This post originally appeared in The Total Learner Experience in May 2010.

I’m attending the Game4Change Festival in NYC for the first time this year. I might do a bit more formal commenting in later posts, but these are a few of the thoughts that keep coming up:

1) STEM– everybody kept talking about STEM content (science, technology, engineering and math) but I always wonder if STEM content in games is accurate and/or complex enough. I don’t know what the answer is to the balance of engagement and science content, but the brief glances I took at some games were encouraging.

2) What is the role of facilitators and teachers for these games? I am not sure that higher level learning outcomes happen for the majority of learners/players without some guided instruction. I know that some choose to become engrossed in this worlds, but the vast majority do not. Also, who will be pushing kids to these worlds. It seems like you will need lots of engaged ambassadors helping get the word out and getting the kids initially turned onto these games.

3) “Everyone”– People kept saying that everyone plays games. There was a good bit of homogeneity to the crowd. Mostly young, male, and white, with a few Indians and women. This was a laptop-carrying crowd, and while access was mentioned during the education days, it wasn’t so much yesterday during the main session. While I spoke with some practitioners who seemed to get it, a lot of the comments I heard tended to assume technological prowess.

By far, the getting kids involved with social games– as both creators and players– was the best takeaway I had from this conference. It reaffirmed and rekindled my belief in the power of kids doing.

IBM CityOne goes live

Leave a reply

I was a bit excited this morning to see that IBM’s CityOne had finally launched. I’m always a fan of innovative games with real life applications and I am currently searching for activities to use with my high school students. Billed as a SimCity-like experience, but with an educational side, I was expecting to have some fun building a city to my specifications and doing some high level problem-solving.

That build-up would indicate some disappointment– and indeed there was. The glossy cityscape I viewed was inviting and attractive. A small icon indicated my first problem to solve. I clicked, exposing the specific city-planning issue related to water. Three solutions were presented with various pricetags. I choose the most expensive, most comprehensive solution and was presented with some boilerplate response. Mousing and clicking over the screen to find my next challenge I determined (perhaps incorrectly) that I had no more challenges. I ended this first of ten rounds thinking that I couldn’t make much progress if I only had ten challenges to solve.

I made it to turn 7, barely. By this round I had begun to have challenges from all 4 areas (water, energy, retail and banking), but they all had the same basic format. There were few of the identified game attributes– little challenge, no suspense, I had no idea what I was competing for or against and I didn’t know how or why I could fail– and I didn’t really care.

I was attracted to the game because of this line from Gizmodo: “The idea here, presumably, is that it’s always a good thing to educate the populace about the these sorts of problems, and, hey, who knows, someone might unwittingly stumble on a solution we can actually use.” This is hard to see how that could happen  because all of the activities are call and response. There is no room or opportunity for players to create their own innovative solutions.

This seems like a marketing/training tool go awry. To launch the game I had to enter detailed personal info– not surprising– but the limited options for industry or occupation indicated to me that IBM had a  target audience in mind. One of the follow up questions asked you to indicate if you were a software purchase “decider”. Many of the game solutions included using software (presumably developed and marketed by IBM) to clean up a variety of perceived major city issues.

It’s disappointing to me that this game is so lame. I have no problem with companies reaching out through games– I just want them to be fun. There was no fun to be had.

This post originally appeared in October 2010 on The Total Learner Experience.