     |
 |
 |
 | | | | |
 |
|||
 |
||||||
          |
 |
 |
||||
|
Compulsory Game Blooming Minds The argument I want to make is based on the premise that creating computer games gives you a deeper understanding of games than you get from just playing them. Unfortunately, as a game developer myself, this could just sound like I just want to present my own occupation as superior to others connected with the industry. Consequently, I think it will help to back up my argument with some general theory that has been applied to learning in many different domains. The table below provides a hierarchy of educational objectives as proposed by an educational psychologist called Benjamin Bloom (1956). There are few theories that are universally accepted in the learning sciences, but Bloom’s taxonomy broadly concurs with another one by Gagné (1985) and seems to have stood the test of time as well as most. I’ve also tried to add relevant examples alongside each level to show how you might interpret these objectives in terms of understanding games.
Observing, recalling and comprehending knowledge are considered the easiest educational objectives to achieve, and this is the initial level of most children’s understanding of games. They are full of facts and opinions about games, and often have an appreciation of different genres, but they find it much harder to apply this knowledge in any useful way. This is most obvious when children try to design and create their own games for the first time. Children can recognise and acknowledge flaws in commercial games such as being too hard, having unclear objectives or limited interactivity, yet they frequently make these same mistakes when creating their own first games. They are unable to turn the knowledge they’ve gained from observing other games into a successful strategy for creating their own. This may also explain why testing games on a consumer audience is often a reliable way of finding out whether your game is good, but a poor way of getting suggestions on how to improve it. It’s common sense really to suggest that learning facts and making observations is easier than applying what you’ve learnt to a new situation.
You might expect that older children would naturally progress to applying and analysing their knowledge about games, but this hasn’t been my experience in practice. Teenagers certainly progress up the hierarchy more quickly than seven year olds, but they begin by making the same mistakes as younger children. Fortunately, making games provides a context for not just applying and analysing knowledge about games, but synthesisand evaluation as well. Synthesis and evaluation are considered a key part of developing cognitive strategies, in this and a number of other learning theories. Children are not naturally very good at reviewing and modifying their own work, but watching another child play their game creates an ideal means of self-evaluation. The children’s finished games also provide a relevant context to go back and review their ability to apply and analyse the knowledge they have gained from the experience. This is not to suggest that children gain some kind of visionary insight after making their first game, but I believe they do develop an appreciation of gameplay and design over a number of projects that they could only get from developing games. The Game Maker’s Apprentice In effect, this is precisely what we’ve tried to put into practice in our book, “The Game Maker’s Apprentice”. Mark Overmars and I have worked together to create a step-by-step guide for building a series of motivating 2D games using Mark’s Game Maker tool. Each set of projects is followed by a game design chapter that encourages the reader to take a step back in order to reflect and improve upon the design of an earlier game. We try to demonstrate game design principles in a practical and relevant way by providing variations of the games for the readers to play and experience for themselves. Combined with the simplicity of the Game Maker tool this structure is ideal for supporting the reader through the process of synthesis and evaluation that helps to deepen their understanding of games.
This understanding is essentially the basic psychology of games. It is an appreciation of the interplay between concepts like challenge, control, goals and rewards in creating playable game mechanics. It is understanding how a game needs to change in order to keep the player’s interest through the course of its levels. It is recognising the need for a theatrical threat of failure, whilst actually doing everything you can to help the player complete their goals. These are all concepts you can read about in any number of books, but you will only gain a true understanding by practically applying them for yourself. Game design is simply not an abstract subject that can be learned in isolation. Phil Wilson, producer at Realtime Worlds (and one of the best designers I’ve worked with), sums it up well in the foreword to our book:
The cynics amongst you may be thinking that I’m only promoting game development to sell copies of our book, but it’s actually the other way around (I made far more money as a senior programmer in the games industry than I do doing research in schools!). I’m passionate about getting as many people as possible to have a go at game development, mainly because it’s good fun, but also because there are potentially huge benefits for the games industry too. Some of these are more controversial than others, but I’ll take each sector in turn and explain what benefits I think an improved level of gaming literacy could provide. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Features
|
|
|