Megatrend V - Gaming as a
Teaching Tool
Educational games: a novelty
in the video game industry? Academically-themed games aimed at younger kids are
nothing new and are not a "megatrend". However, pedagogic multimedia
products targeted at high school and college students, or even adults, will no
doubt be part of a future development path for our industry. Why?
Many teachers will
confirm the increasing difficulties involved in grabbing the attention of
today's youth. Under constant bombardment by a torrent of stimuli, their
attention span has shrunk to the point where concentrating on any
one subject for any significant length of time can be a Herculean task --
particularly when a subject is daunting!
Some have had the idea
to use video gaming as an academic complement. This type of media has the
advantage of being at the heart of teenage leisure, and its nature is
well-adapted to the best of mankind's teaching mechanisms: experimentation.
Many businesses have started down this challenging road, such as the American firm pullUin.
What forms will these games take? Some academic subjects can often be easily translated into games. Let us
consider a few examples:
Economic sciences. Their mechanisms are well-adapted to this
exercise, since they apply to a concrete universe which we all know. Management
games can be used to support or illustrate theories of international trade,
interactions between supply and demand, or the disruption of competition caused
by a monopoly.
Mathematics and
physics. Despite their highly
abstract natures, these sciences have in fact been invented to solve truly
concrete problems, such as the building of aqueducts by the Romans. We can
imagine interactive illustrations: the launching of a rocket into orbit, or a
game with a catapult to illustrate vectors.
Biology. The mechanical characteristic of the inner
workings of a cell, and therefore of any living organism, can be emulated by
construction games such as the famous The Incredible Machine.
Sierra's The Incredible Machine
What game
design?
Though the ultimate
purpose of these interactive products is not gaming for its own sake, game
design rules should still be applied with the same care exercised in designing
a more traditional video game. Here are a few such rules to keep in mind:
-
A theme
suitable for the targeted audience, particularly regarding age groups
-
Game
objectives that are simple to understand, and that offer true fulfillment (new
features)
-
The
availability of tools (game features) allowing the player to reach his goal
-
The development of an environment with consistent rules and behavior
-
The progressive discovery of the use and limits of the available tools
through experimentation
-
An
intuitive interface inspired by standards expected by players
-
A feedback mechanism allowing the player to assess his progress
-
An appropriate handling of difficulty, pace and replay value.
However, such
applications will also need to include specific features unique to their
academic function:
-
A deep tutorial mechanism for explaining each feature available to the
player. To avoid falling into bloated text explanations, the tutorial segments
themselves should be interactive.
-
An
auto-exam module allowing the student to test his acquired knowledge, comparing
these results to teachers' expectations.
-
A module for exchange and communication between players/students, to
allow for cooperation between themselves, as well as with the teacher.
-
An
eventual link with the applications developed for the new interactive
whiteboards we are starting to see in classrooms.
Perspectives
Ambitious and complex
to develop, these game-based academic tools will also need to find their target
market -- from teachers to parents itching to help their children -- and,
consequently, suitable distribution channels.
The rapid development of distance
learning in the United States -- and therefore soon in Europe -- may yet create the perfect environment for
these products. The Nintendo DS has also shown its potential as a platform for
teaching applications.
The gaming approach to
these academic applications may yet become a powerful commercial argument for
newcomers on the education market -- one of the flagship markets of our
civilization of knowledge.
Next article
I
shall address only one Megatrend: multiplayer gaming and its far-reaching
impact on our industry.
Previous articles
The
Megatrends of Game Design, part 1
Physics
in Game : A New Frontier
Multiplayer
level design, part 1
Multiplayer
level design, part 2
Multiplayer
level design, part 3
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Save/Load should be anywhere, anytime... always. See the MDA document that explained eight different types of aesthetic appeal for game design where "challenge" was merely one of the eight. Games do not havr to be challenging. Ideally, the choice of whether to be challenged or not should be in the player's hands, not the designer's. If a designer attempts to force me to endure challenge in her game, I will very likely not play except in the specific instance where I am searching for a challenging game experience... at which time it's much more likely that I will play a game that allows me to choose whether to be challenged or not rather than one which forces the challenge on me. Also, a challenge for one player may be simplistic for another. People have different abilities and needs, so the decision should be left with the player.
Adventure games come in two general "flavors." The English market developed their own idea of the adventure game genre where the game is about telling a linear story and the game places puzzle challenges as obstacles between locations or chapters. The Japanese adventure game is a very different product where the focus is (usually) on multiple characters and multiple story paths with multiple interactions and choices that lead to a wide variety of different, multiple endings. Events are often mutually exclusive; once you are on certain story branches, others are precluded during that playthru. Not only does this increase replay value, but it mirrors real life where choices you make can cause different results (but not always). This structure also requires the player to play through all possible events and paths in order to truly understand the overall story that is taking place as well as the various character motivations, events, etc that are experienced. The challenge is cerebral rather than any type of visual puzzle; the player must determine character responses to player actions and activities as well as how all these interactions lead to a wide variety of paths and outcomes.
Save/Load anytime-anywhere cannot be applied to all genres/all games. It often makes games too easy or boring, and defeats the purpose of certain genres such as platform games.
The challenge of a game is in the developer's hands, not the players. That's what makes playing games rewarding.
I want to be challenged. If a developer lets me burn through an entire game on ultra-easy mode where I can save right before any challenge so I don't have to waste a second backtracking, I probably will. I'll beat the game, shelve it, and forget about it by next week.
If a game is compelling enough I will develop whatever skill it takes, and replay as many levels as necessary to achieve the goals the developer laid out. Those are the games I look for, and those are the games I remember for years.
For example, MMOs (obviously) seem to do this very well, players start with only their most basic core skills and slowly accumulate more specific and complex abilities.
However, other games like Call of Duty 4 have done the exact opposite. The game gives players only the most basic perks at the start, but in other aspects, the game seems to throw new players to the wolves. Players are forced to use statistically inferior guns WITHOUT the laser sight dots. I found it incredible that new players, in the already hardcore world of PCs FPSes, were expected to compete without a true crosshair.
While acquiring these RPG-like unlocks is extremely addicting, they seem like they may be a mistake in competitive online games. Not only is it unfair, but as this article suggests, it is extremely discouraging to new players.
There was this controversy over the HITMAN sequels for having it, and it definitely removed a lot of the "tension" in the game. The main problem being that there were never any bad consequences to decisions the player would make on how to approach a "hit", because you always had a "quicksave" stashed away about 10 seconds earlier to quickly fix your mistake.
I think a good compromise is the "CHECKPOINT" system. It gives old long time gamers that were once hardcore, such as myself, a good balance between challenge and accessibility. I can live my normal life and work my 40+ hour a week job and choose one to two hour "nuggets" of game time to finish a title.
A good example is DEADSPACE which I am playing right now. I can put it down for 2-3 weeks during crunch periods at work, then pick right back up where I left off and not have to figure out the controls again.
On the save issue, I agree with checkpoints. Saving anywhere completely defeats the challenge and consequences.
I disagree, and strangely I'm a firm believer in having the ability to save more-or-less exactly where I am. The key here is granularity.
There are two types of 'difficulty', in the sense of the level of challenge presented by the game: the essential and the accidental. Save/load systems need to be balance to preserve the essential challenge of the game, whilst minimizing the accidental challenges (read: frustrations) caused by having to repeat a section multiple times.
In the Hitman games, the essential challenge is infiltrating, killing, and exfiltrating whilst making as few mistakes as possible. Adding a quicksave removes that essential challenge, because it lets players ensure they do everything in perfect individual units, rather than as a whole. However, not having any saves at all will add accidental challenge by forcing the player to some mundane tasks which they have no chance of failing - like finding an outfit, changing and entering the building - because they have failed a harder task later on. So the solution is either to have checkpoints, or a limited number of saves.
This is entirely different in a game like Half-Life 2, where the essential challenge is staying alive and killing (mostly) anything that moves. Quick saving in a game like that doesn't make the essential challenge any easier - you still have to deliver the same amount of ordanance to each enemy whilst receiving as little damage as possible.
As someone above mentioned, you only have to imagine being able to save anywhere at all in a platform game, like Mario Galaxy, to see that saving anytime/anywhere can completely remove the essence of a game.
It's not about choosing to be challenged. If you want to be entertained without any challenge at all, you should probably just watch a film. Saying it should be up to the player is also wrong thinking in my opinion - the player's paying money to you to be entertained. That includes you making the tough design descisions and balancing the game, not leaving them to try and figure out how to do it themselves.
For making the player start off powerful, I'd cite Symphony of the Night, or God Of War 2. Assassin's Creed is kind of a bad example because the player only really needed one "power" throughout the entire game: The counter-attack. And that's the first power you get back, right after completing assassination number one. So really, they just made you wimpy for that one level and then they immediately gave you back your game-breaking power and let you abuse it for the entire rest of the game.