This is a radio show episode that explores using computers (but really games) to teach kids. The guests on the show are really brilliant people that understand what games are and what education really means, and how they obviously work together (games producing “embodied empathy for complex systems”). The host, however, is a bit skeptical, and honestly a bit annoying.
But can it really replace or even effectively supplement traditional learning? Or is this just a way to amuse children, masquerading as learning?
Games are learning. Sure, they can be used to just dress up content or try to make it more engaging without deep educational value (ironically, what most of edutainment is), but if you understand games, you know that playing a game is learning how a system works.
Anyway, I’m really glad games are finally understood and explored seriously in academia. Otherwise, there probably wouldn’t be such smart guests on this show, influencing the masses with a real understanding, not just shallow anecdotes (like most of the callers).
Here is another great talk by Chris Hecker on Structure vs Style. It’s an exploration of a pattern in problem solving, particularly for “hard interactive problems” common in games and other interactive systems, of separating structure and style. The primary example used to convey this decomposition is the texture mapped triangle. He goes on to suggest that AI is likely to have a decomposition based on this structure/style paradigm, and that this means we may someday have a “Photoshop of AI.”
This turned out to be another take on the whole “gameification” trend of points and achievements, but with a focus on the implications of failure and learning in games. Failure and learning are key to the concept of freeform play, and play generally is that intrinsic value of games. If you have a game that focuses solely on extrinsic motivators like score, points, and achievements, or worse, use them just as a way to try and drive behavior, you basically have a game without play, which is arguably not a game at all.
The problem with this is that compelled behaviors don’t teach us anything about the actions themselves, for example, like whether there is a better way for us to do things. Rather, they teach us that the only path to success is conditioned response to incentives. What many of these ‘games’ are, then, are beautifully stylized positive feedback systems. These systems offer no nuanced player experience. Every player either buys into the point structure, or they are left on the outside. These games don’t seek to engage their players, but rather to incentivize them to perform particular actions.
I suspect this is Jonathan Blow’s most popular talk. It’s about game design. The first part summarizes just how important games are to society, hinting at the responsibility this puts on game designers. The problem is that many game designers lack discernment. For historical, cultural, and obviously business reasons, game designers tend to only care if a lot of people play their game. They don’t care as much, if at all, why people want to play it, and therefore, in general, don’t show a concern for players’ quality of life.
I had a discussion recently with a game designer from Mexico struggling to find a balance between making “good games” and making successful games. I ended up breaking out the slides for this talk as I pleaded with him not to try to be like Zynga, a place that starts to trade off the concern for quality of life with the concern for sales. In fact, it starts to sound a lot like the fast food and tobacco industries.
The second part of this talk is about architected games versus games designed through exploration. It’s a slightly different topic, but it does tie back into the cause of making games that are more authentic and substantial. It’s not so much a call for games that are socially responsible (although it is that), but a call for games that strive to reach the potential of the medium.
I stumbled across this recent talk by Will Wright, speaking at a defense conference of all places. Will Wright is one of the most influential people in my life. He introduced me to systems, made me fall in love with history, and heavily framed my concept of games and design in general.
This 50 minute talk covers a lot of area, in parts summarizing and elaborating on bits from favorite talks I witnessed years ago. You can see he’s customized it for a military defense audience, but also, among other things, touches on education and even has overtones of general semantics. As usual for Will Wright, this talk is fast, dense, and interwoven with stories, cultural and historical references, great imagery and diagrams.
