Comments on: What's wrong with serious games?

At Game Developers Conference, serious-games proponents talk about what's wrong with the genre.

[wanorris]

History

I've always thought that developing games that immerse you in a world of the past could be a really good way of teaching history. Reading a textbook about the Byzantine Empire is bound to make far less of an impression than an explorable Constantinople that you have to make your way through.

[themaninthebox]

I had a project like this once

When I was in college, I had a class on Greek and Roman Mythology, where the professor had a pretty multimedia class for us. We watched movie clips (mainstream movies, like Das Boot, and Rudy, not just Myhtological movies) as well as music (like Pink Floyd). Towards the end of the semester, he gave us an extra credit project that involved Age of Empires II, and asked us to create a game and make a character into something of myth and legend, and to write a story about it and what you did with the game itself.

Unfortunately I didn't do the project, but it was a clever idea definitely, and wouldnt it be interesting, if like you said, there was a simulator that put you in different historical scenarios, like Constantinople, or Rome, and a teacher had you assigned a certain character class and profession, and you had to keep a log or journal of the progress/struggles and actions, then present them to the class and compare experiences. I would maybe actually learn something in a History class if I had that.

[tdowling]

Efficiency

The problem with that is that it's just not an efficient way of
teaching. Games are good for basic math and reading skills, but
once you get up to the complexities of history, the going gets a
little tough.

Maybe you're talking about a combination of books and games,
though. Then it could maybe act as a good reinforcement for some
concepts.

[Wiz Wildstar]

Games and The Media

I believe that the idea of talking about their games is a good one, but they really need to attract the attention of the mass media. Sure, the "gamers" will ferret out any game that hits the marketplace, but in a world full of buyers with a "Wal-Mart" mentality, they need to get their message out to the general public. National news services are quick to jump on any negative story, and to much of the world, the only news they've heard about games, is that school-age killers play them just before they go out and murder their classmates. Not a very good national image there! Surely, if they're beginning to rival the music industry, the gaming industry must have the resources to advertize some of their "less-gory" products. If they truly "hold water" the end result will be a much increased support from the underinformed buying public.

[RavingEniac]

Not for the mass consumer market

I've thought about the worthiness of creating games that walk players through intellectual discoveries, perhaps historical events, etc. But if I could, I'd do games that require outside reading, puzzle or math solving, real learning in the process of playing a game that after all is intended to be educational. Ideas and the words that express them would be at the center of many learning games, and the graphics of such a game should have an educational purpose too.

The idea that the discovery of ice ages or genetics should become a top-selling must-have game like Doom III or whatever is ridiculous. There aren't that many members of the consuming public who actually want to learn something. The market for educational games would be educational institutions and homeschoolers, though religious homeschoolers would produce their own hogwash games instead of anything of educational value. I'll chew my mouse cord the day I hear of a game hot among homeschoolers that walks a student through the theological discovery of Calvinism, Arminianism to the finding that they prove each other wrong and therefore both are wrong.

[rtaggert]

Why do we bother to play games?

The digital entertainment market faces the same concerns as and other entertainment venues. Real casinos are adult fun. Console casino games do indeed draw audiences from its real life counter part. Likewise, NFL football gamers are likely to draw upon real experiences as a player or a fan. Serious games suffer from the problems that children's edutainment suffer from--the lack of interest that persons tend to have when the experience focuses on learning rather than entertainment. Perhaps it is a bad marketing plan to tell gamers they are in for an educational experience. Moreover, the enjoyment people have from entertainment that is intertwined with favorable memories does not come from a learning experience. Most gamers would settle for a good story and a way to share game play, even if only to talk about it. Yet, there is still hope that the way to be a good story or game element is to get serious.

[Hobyx]

they still don't "get it" is the problem

The main problem I see for the acceptance of educational
software of any kind, is that the creators of these things still
don't "get it" about bridging the gap between Learning and
Game. I personally do get it, but I'm not in a position to make
anything of it yet.

When you get past concerns of budgeting, availability of coders,
etc. - what it comes down to is the person(s) responsible for
designing the game. They need to understand from personal
experience the triangle of 'why games are fun' and 'why learning
is fun' and 'how quality software is designed'. Any less than 3
out of the 3 ingredients won't cut it.. and less than that is
exactly what we've seen produced under the banner of
educational software.

[martineelizabeth]

See Apply Serious Games Conference Europe, May

What is interesting with Ben's comment is that Serious Games = non-entertainment apps of games means more to the games community than it does to the individual sectors these apps are applicable to. The only way serious games will grow is when the term is 'bent' towards the needs of the recipient sector. That's why we are focusing on serious games = learning games for Apply Serious Games 2006 in London this May 25-26th. more at www.applyseriousgames.com.
One of our speakers: Ron Edwards of Ambient and representing Forterra in Europe has said:'This conference is one of the few opportunities in Europe to learn first hand about the variety of game based approaches from the fast and simple to more complex, yet both feasible and manageable that could be added to their mix to better address communication and educational needs - and Game Developers will better understand why non-entertainment games are in demand, to have conversations with people interested in commissioning games and to see the variety of projects under development to gain perspective and ideas.'
We are doing our bit to try to get the Serious Games terrain a little less opaque and alittle more understood where it counts.
Martine

[jjsbhall]

Games in education are not new

I attended the serious games summit as I was already over in the US for the ABSEL (Association of Business Simulation and Experiential Learning) Conference having designed management games (business simulations) for 36 years. I found that the emphasis was on (video) games and not serious. No where was there any reference or link to the use of games in education and training. Yet there are organisations going back more than three decades exploring and supporting the use of games for learning - e.g. NASAGA, ISAGA, SAGSET etc. All of these have a vast body of research and knowledge about the subject. I guess I am saying stop gaming and get serious :)

[aclhl]

Critical drivers of success

I am a PhD student mulling on doing a research on the educational value of serious games.

I concur with Teriman that gameplay mechanics are more important than visuals.

I also want to add that while games offer the learner opportunities that would not be present in real life, such as clearing mines on seabeds, performing surgery on a heart, make calculated but big risk on the stock exchange, etc.. it is important for game developers to understand, whether presecribed learning goal and objectives are met at the end of the day. It is also important to understand at what level of learning on Bloom's taxonomy or Gagne's taxonomy of learning outcomes are serious games targetting at?
My guess is at the level of higher order skills, i.e. synthesing, judging, evaluating, problem solving. If after playing a game, I am able to attain the learning goal and objectives, I say that the serious game has done its job so far as the learning design is concerned.

Is there a close dialgue between makers of games and educational technologist? There should be because the educational rigour must not be compromised by the initial "novelty" of the game, i.e. the apparent immersiveness of the media and the fidelity of the graphic and sound effects.

Is there has been so much research given to E-learning, more must be given to serious now?

Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue between educationist and game designers.

Eseentially, what needs to be accomplished are tasks in games. What is in the execution of those tasks that helps someone learn something, hone a skill and things like that? What features and functionalities in the gaming environment are affordances (scaffolding) that learners can take up whist executing tasks in the game?

These might be legitimate research questions. Please give me your thoughts?