Week 3 – Update on game experience

While I did not enjoy the arcade games, I have enjoyed Solitaire, Tetris and Columns and this week Mahjong and Bookworm. I haven’t had a chance to play Scrabble yet but that is a game I have played since I was a child.  I also have always played Solitaire as well as puzzle games such as crosswords and sudoku.  I like to look for patterns and also having some time to reflect, although all the games had a timed element but I didn’t find them as frantic as the arcade games.

I didn’t realise how complex Mahjong was – I was concentrating on clearing all the tiles. I did notice the scoring but didn’t understand it. It wasn’t until Anna directed us to the link explaining the rules and the different suits you could make that I realised the complexity. But I am quite happy to play it on a simple level. I think I could get into it, and slowly learn the different suits you could make and think more strategically.

I never gave much thought before this course about defining what is ‘play’.  I think I just thought of it as a negative – the opposite of work. But I enjoyed the Kane and Sutton-Smith readings. I liked the focus on the different rhetorics of ‘play’ and situating them within their historical and/or scholarly context.  In particular, I find interesting the tension Kane points out between ancient (fate, chance and community) and modern rhetorics (freedom, progress and imagination).  As Kane says, there is a paradox:

To be a player is to try to live and thrive between freedom and determinism, chance and necessity. P. 40

vs.

I am not sure, though, how much the modern rhetorics are free of fate and determinism.  Progress can be seen as deterministic – particularly following Piaget - that there are stages of development that a child must go through.  Intertwining this developmental approach with play, turns play as something inherent in our genetic makeup, something we do not have control over.  Rather than being the ‘playthings’ of the gods, the child is a ‘plaything’ of his/her genetic make-up. Kane does touch upon this in saying that there is a tension between the modern rhetoric of play as progress –something that is hard-wired in our make-up and the modern rhetoric of play as imagination.  But Kane talks about our biological urge fusing with our creative imagination.  But where does our creative imagination come from? It comes back to the age old debate of nature vs. nurture.  But instead of posing fate and freedom or nature and nurture as oppositions, shouldn’t they be seem as a kind of continuum – in some areas we have more control than others. Or should they be visualized as concentric circles with freedom within fate/ or nature.  That we have certain ‘room for manoeuvre’ within a certain context.  Hence, our genetic composition or social circumstances at birth are fate or beyond our control.  But within that context, we have some freedom in the ‘raw material’ we have to start with.  And isn’t that what happens within game?  There are rules that are given but within the context of rules, we have some control over how we play the game.

Kane brings an interesting dimension into the discussion of play – considering what is ethical play. 

by dignifying our play with an ethical force, we can begin to create and act, rather than simply consume and spectate p. 62 

I think his choice of the term dignifying is revealing.  It seems he is countering the interpretation of play as being frivolous.  But there is also a moral dimension in his argument which is a critique of what he sees as the dominance of Western consumer-oriented society.

  

Play

I enjoyed the Rousseau references in Kane’s work, which led to the idea of removing boundaries that would, as later indicated by Maria Montessori, allow children’s “natural urge to explore and hypothesize, compare and dramatized.”

In secondary schools, the connotations carried by the term ‘play’ are very much the domain of primary and pupils are expected to have left that behind.

This paper explored the ideas whereby ‘play’ allowed the player (children) to articulate and simulate ideas and imaginative constructs in the ‘real’ world; it facilitates the inevitability of ‘change’ that shapes our futures and destinies.

I now view ‘play’ as a powerful activity, which should underpin – wherever possible – educational activities and processes.  ‘Teaching to the test’ suits the passive, simply regurgitate content model of education – one born from the Dickens era and the Industrial Revolution.  If we are to produce critical minds, we must allow these minds to ‘forage’.

My University is involved in phase two of JISC's Institutional Innovation Programme:

"This programme represents a £13.08m investment aimed at supporting existing institutional strategies by providing solutions to institution-wide problems, based upon proven practices, technologies, standards and services. The solutions will act as exemplars to other institutions by demonstrating innovation and good practice, and building knowledge and experience, which can be shared across institutions."

One of those projects is the Academic Social Networking project which is being developed by the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET) at the University of Cambridge. The project itself "aims to bring some of the affordances of consumer social networks to teaching and learning".

What is interesting to me, and possibly to other students on the research methods module is that CARET collaborated with Flow Interactive, an external company, to investigate whether commercial user-centric design (UCD) techniques could be transferable and be used within a Higher Education context.

As the research team suggest, user-centric design is different because:

"...it explicitly, constructively and actively includes users in the design process from a very early stage."

One of the key features of their particular methodology is the notion of "design personas" and how it enabled them to:

"...identified trends or patterns in user behaviours, expectations and motivations, through conducting a combination of diary studies and interviews, and how this formed the basis of our personas. Having these personas enabled us to focus the design effort on supporting user goals. Also, where traditionally a designer might have lists and lists of requirements, personas allow one to prioritize these requirements to the degree these personas would find them important, offering more clarity."

Moreover, the research team at CARET have published their UCD methodology into a rather useful and compelling handbook for us lucky reseachers to peruse and may even offer a new approach to conducting research with our key stakeholders.

I have been thinking more about my intended research project as well as bouncing ideas and talking to colleagues about it as well. One of the recurring themes was a person or a groups relationship to and between space (physical, virtual or both?). These relationships could occur between:

• Student to Student
• Student to Peer Group
• Student to Tutor
• Peer Group to Peer Group
• Peer Group to Tutor

It reminded me of some journal articles that I read as part of my "Space, Place and Technology" wiki articles for the "Psychological and Social Contexts of e-Learning" module. Specifically, this regards Nova (2005, p. 119) who proposes that when "dealing with the concept of space in collective situations", it should be considered through the lens of a number of dimensions:

• Person to Person
• Person to Artefact
• Person to Place
• Space, Place and Activity
• Space and Artefacts
• Space and Time

The "Space, Place and Technology" wiki articles are now converted into an "as is" electronic paper version on Issuu, if you wish to find out more about these dimensions. We can represent these dimension using the following illustration.

What we are looking at are fixed physical spaces are depicted as solid circles whereas transient physical spaces are denoted with dashed circles. Each circle is inhabited by people with some form of information and communication device like a desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone or PDA; also present are a number of "artefacts" represented by the orange star and the green diamond - these "artefacts" could be a chair, table, books, or Interactive White Boards. As depicted in the diagram, some "spaces" can overlap and be shared. Each information and communication device is connected to one or more virtual spaces as depicted by the computer servers inside a blue dashed cloud formation. These virtual spaces could be blogs, wikis, virtual environments, web pages and such like.

In terms of thinking about methodology, some ethnographic approach could be considered, but as Cousin (2009, p. 109) warns us:

"At first sight, it might seem that anyone can do ethnography but doing it well requires familiarity with a theoretical field, a set of research skills and perhaps, above all, ... an 'enlightened eye'"

Cousin (ibid) goes to say that "ethnography is not so much about studying people as learning from them". In their joint Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Creativity project called inQbate, the Universities of Sussex and Brighton have created "two creativity zones" which offers "exciting opportunities for students to work in spaces that foster collaborative, self-directed and experiential learning".

The methodology for capturing how students reacted to and interacted within the space and with eachother was to use Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). This is a relatively recent qualitative approach developed specifically within psychology by Jonathan A. Smith, a Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London. IPA concerns itself by:

"...trying to understand lived experience and with how participants themselves make sense of their experiences. Therefore it is centrally concerned with the meanings which those experiences hold for the participants."

I am not really considering IPA but it does demonstrate some of the deep and rich approaches to data collection and analysis. What has caught my eye, however, is something called Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) which is a theory about the link between attitudes and behaviour. TPB is a quantitative approach developed by Icek Ajzen, a Professor of Psychology at Amherst, University of Massachusetts. It was Siragusa & Dixon (2009) paper for the Ascilite 2009 conference where they were using questionnaire items related to components of the TPB to determine students’ attitudes and planned use of ICT-based instruction. Like any methodology, TPB has its' advocates and detractors.

It has been suggested to me that I could develop a case study. But in the meantime, I think I will look into TPB to see if it has any real value.

References

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Edition). New York, London: Routledge.

Cousin, G. (2009). Researching Learning in Higher Education. New York, London: Routledge.

Norton, L.S. (2009). Action Research in Teaching & Learning. New York, London: Routledge.

Nova, N. (2005). "A Review of How Space Affords Socio-Cognitive Processes during Collaboration". PsychNology Journal, 3(2): 118-148.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd Edition). Malden, MA; Oxford; Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

Siragusa, L. & Dixon, K.C. (2009). "Theory of planned behaviour: Higher education students'
attitudes towards ICT-based learning interactions". In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/siragusa.pdf [Accessed 02.02.2010].

 

So this is my first post about the course content directly. The reason I wanted to start, before, with posts about my background in gaming was that I think game aesthetics and expectations are based a great deal on what you already know. That's not just about the digital games you already know but the larger context of games and gameplay. I find very violent games quite disturbing but then I was also bullied at school so only find very physical tomboy play quite threatening. I know friends who have grown up with in boistrous families (with lots of brothers or lots of cousins or lots of sports played by the whole family) find physical games quite fun and playful so perhaps also have a different take on their digital equivelents. Anyway.... On with the more course content specific bit.

 

Week 1 has been all about platform games, the definition of which immediately clashed with my own idea of platform games. Although I knew that the early games with static or moving platform games fitted the label I've always seen games with a similar structure – lots of small hierarchical levels – as also being platform game. This appears to have been a little way off so it's interesting to think about how limiting/limitless classifying a game based on certain elements of screen layout and play in this way. I guess it is no better or worse from calling films “action” or “comedy” or “romance” in terms of how much it tells you about play. For me the games this week seem to be about beating the clock and perfecting simple speedy key combinations to progress. The fact that they feature platforms seems to be of lesser or equal importance to these playing features.

 

This week was all about game definitions and characteristics and it was an interesting starting point for looking at digital games. Whitton [1] approaches this by looking at what might be a game in general and what characteristics a game has in order to be classified as such. This sounds like an obvious thing to do but personally I think it is difficult to classify lots of forms of playful gamelike behaviour. When I attempted Whitton's activity to identify what I think of as a game all of my initial answers were sports and, specifically, games I had played with other people in the past (lacrosse, tennis, etc.) and as well as being fun, challenging, competitive and social I also thought that to work they must be easy to start, where enjoyment depends on play with well-matched competitors and where absorption in the game was crucial. Whitton's own 10 characteristics seem to capture some of the same criteria as well as some interesting additional characteristics but there are a few that I am not sure I agree with.

 

Whitton includes Fantasy, Safety, and Rules as being key characteristics and I think there are some problems there. Of course Whitton allows for games that have only one or several characteristics but I am not sure that Fantasy is a key game characteristic. Few games have truly fantastical possibilities - there are peripheral fantasy elements but most computer games follow conventions that are very much based on the real and traditional media world in terms of gender, aesthetics, behavioural options (there are few adventure games that are wholly non combative for instance), etc. I think Safety, in the sense of a lack of real world consequence, seems to have huge overlap with Fantasy as a characteristic since the benefit of fantastical elements is surely escapism both in terms of escaping broad constraints of reality (gravity, financial possibility etc.) as well as personal physical, social and cultural limitations and embodiments (gender, sexuality, race, physique, etc.). So I think I feel that Safety and Fantasy are really one characteristic in most game scenarios.

 

Rules is an odd one. I agree that it's important to the notion of a game – particularly the sports games I identified – but I'm not sure why they are important. The parts of the games I identified reading Whitton were neither the goals nor the limitations of rules but the game play itself. However much of that game play is dictated or shaped by the nature of the rules. For instance I was a keen Lacrosse player for many years and it was the social and analytical elements of the game that I found fun. I wouldn't have found the game fun if there had been aggressive tackling or if I'd been playing attacking roles in the game and those were perks of having rules to shape the game. The thing is that in digital games, especially those in which learning explicitly takes place, I find it less frustrating to be allowed to make mistakes (and learn why they are mistakes) than being restricted to completing a task one specific way and/or being able to make mistakes without any indication of why something has not worked. One of the great advantages of learning from other people rather than interactive games is that feedback can be paced to meet a learners need. Some learners are happier to try over and over again and learn the answer themselves whilst that will be incredibly demotivating for some learners who would rather be guided through after a few early attempts. The problem with any learning process based upon complex algorithms is tailoring educational elements of play to the learning style of the student. Rules, rightly or wrongly, is a phrase that brings back to my mind the inflexibility of many gaming spaces.

 

It was actually quite challenging for me to see de Freitas' definition of computer based learning (p. 22 in Whitton 2010) which, if I am reading it correctly, assumes that learning can only take place in environments where education is the intent. I am not sure I agree with that. Learning cane take place at any time regardless of the intent of a given space I think though knowing de Freitas' background at the Serious Gaming Institute I suspect that this may be quite a tailored perspective on a particular type of computer based learning.

 

I do agree, however, with Whitton's non-Game activities. I am perplexed when Second Life is defined as a game as, whilst there are game spaces within the space, it is a space and a mechanism to create new spaces and activities but not a game itself. The idea that role play is not a game is a little tricky. I largely agree but the difference between that hybrid Safety/Fantasy element and role-play seems extremely subtle to me. There is something innately playful and removed about role play and, since “fun” is not in the list of characteristics, I wonder how playful and “game” intersect as terms since in terms of learning the “play” part of both would seem to be the most crucial element.

 

Newman [2] baffled me at first by insisting on the term “videogame” which I'd long ago associated only with the earliest days of Pong type games so I think I am going to stick with “computer game” or “digital game” in my post here as that, to me, sums up a wider array of gaming options.

 

I also found Newman's discussion of why players engage in games quite interesting especially given the current trend for extremely performative forms of game play. Singstar, GuitarBand, RockBand, etc. are all games based around a Kareoke style mixture of participation and voyerism in a way few previous games have been focused. Whilst there was always an element of watch-ability to games that allowed them to be played in social settings these new music-focused games are about, to an extent, recreating both traditional notions of community and performance and modern concepts of reality television. With a microphone, console and a series of classic hits you too can be a legend in your own living room and even friends or family members who are not physically participating in game play are invested and participating as a real audience to augment the on-screen fans. Their passive role is, nonetheless, an active part of the game whilst game play is all about practice and performance and not (only) goals related to control (Livingstone 2002 quoted in Newman 2004), progress and completion of the game.

 

Indeed games that make use of internet capable consoles add a further aspect to the player/viewer balance in that saved games are not only shared with those physically near a console but also those further afield whilst additional game material is acquired through free or paid online shops directly form the gaming environment. This is quite a disruptive idea to the notion of what a game can be. If you play Singstar and upload your video to the Singstar community are you a player of the game or an internet performer? If you create a level on Little Big Planet and share it with other gamers is that act of level creation part of game play or something else?

 

Fig 1. Screenshot of the Singstar performance gallery

 

How can competitive notions of being a winner or a loser properly defined in networked expandable and viewable games? Frasca's (1999 quotes in Newman 2004) modifications Caillois' (2001) “paidea” and “ludus” only seem to go part of the way to addressing this. Paidea, a term to define enjoyable but not goal or rule orientated games does not, as Newman suggests, seem to adequately describe the activity in playing The Sims since that game, whilst not exhibiting hierarchical goals, is structured around a defined narrative and can be (easily) lost. You can not be defeated, perhaps, but you can certainly win or lose. The goals are even stated, albeit in fuzzy terms, by the desires of the created character at a given time and by their needs to be fed, cleaned, etc. in order to live. If it were just about pleasure and no achievement (as Paidea would seem to suggest) then surely game play would not include such sophisticated levels of skills or achievement.

 

Whilst Church (2000 quoted in Newman 2004) identifies that players exert their own Ludus rules on The Sims I dispute that these are the only goals or achievements that are set. What is more complex in The Sims is the fact that many of the goals which are both implicitly and explicitly stated are based on traditional social constructs that are subtley introduced into game play. It is a mundane goal to eat, sleep and shower each day but it is an explicit feature of playing The Sims and is as crucial to your avatar's survival as mission achievement may be in more adventure-based titles. I don't want to dwell too much on The Sims (though I note it's repeated mention as one of the very few games played by women across various readings) but I am merely wanting to highlight that to split gameplay into enjoyment (Peidea) and achievement (Ludus) is, to my mind a rather bizarre way to split up types of game. Surely achievement and goal orientated play is not enough to motivate players through a game they are not enjoying? And surely enjoyment without progression is not enough to keep a player entertained? One of the curious features of this week's Platform games was a version of Donkey Kong that restarted rather than progresing at the end of a successfully completed level. This led to confusion and frustration because even something playful and simple needs to move on and exhibit some sort of change to hold attention. Thus I am not sure Ludus and Peidea, as I understand them (through the lens of Newman) can ever actually be separated as mutually exclusive terms. Any good game should, surely, include both elements?

 

On another classification note it was interesting, especially after reading Whitton, to see the fantastically restrictive set of elements of a videogame from Howland (1998a in Newman 2004 [2]) to add a little perspective on just how tricky it is to identify, categorise and classify a computer game. I think, in some ways, this is a good sign of how culturally assimilated gaming is since I think many people could be presented with a game and know it as such but defining why it is a game seems, like the definition of “Life” used by biologists [3], to collect only symptomatic information not the character or essence of what is being examined. This is perhaps why both Whitton and Newman both refer back to definitions of what a game is not as part of their definition of what a game may be.

 

I think this week we have come to the course with our own expectations and ideas of what constitutes a game from our own past experience (or relative lack of experience) so it is a very challenging notion to start by reflecting on the meaning of what we are yet to more fully explore. But then for Whitton and Newman even a long period of study and reflection cannot prepare any characteristics or definition of a game that they might make automatically stand up to the future technological and societal changes that will follow. I think one of the reasons that both give a flexible range of characteristics and qualities is precisely to allow a little space for gaming to adapt and change as it will, inevitably do. Whether my own sense of what a game is moves a little faster I think we shall see over the next few weeks...

 

So, finally to comment on this week's games a little. I was astonished to find that all three games were games I had, at some point, encountered before. Donkey Kong was, when I was a child, my least favourite of this week's three and I was surprised to find that it was still tremendously frustrating and irritating for me. In part this was because I wasn't very good at the game – I (Mario) died quickly and repeatedly. However there were several aspects that I found interesting after several attempts. Firstly I was surprised by how quick gameplay was. In around 45 minutes of attempts to complete the level I had probably played 40 times. This is astonishingly fast though not massively out of step with the other platform games this week. In part I think this reflects the fact that I only really completed a level or two of any of the games but I think it also reflects some of the access and social constructs in which this games were expected to work. Arcades, as noted in one of the week 2 readings on addiction (see later blog post for reference) actually taxes inexperienced players most disproportionately since your coins buy you only a few seconds or minutes of play. Similarly early games consoles were expected to sell to families and be used as social devices with friends, siblings etc. Games could not usually be saved and you were, in all likelihood, playing in a group and each taking turns. Short and simple game play is a perk to both platform game scenerios.

Pattern matching was discussed during the week across coursemates and Donkey Kong was the game where I found predictable patterns most quickly as I became aware that certain moves would trigger specific barrel movements. This was quite exciting – it rewarded my observation and skill – but also irritating as it made waiting as crucial a move as running and jumping. In fact I came late to the jumping part of the game. My most recent gaming experiences have all relied on either mice or console controllers so the idea of keyboard controls had rather passed me by and, instinctively, I had failed to read the instructions to discover that the space bar had a crucial role in the game. It was only when I was failing to get anywhere in the level that I realised I must be missing something important and went back to check. I also found the (unstated) rules about where Mario could jump quite perplexing as there was no audio or visual cue to make sense of why jumping only worked at certain platform distances. Again my game playing style was conditioned by games with complex audio signals and I was rather missing this clues as I played. Finally the one thing I really found odd about Donkey Kong was the infantalised hysterical girl I was supposed to be rescuing. For a start I could not work out why she needed rescuing rather than being able to make progress herself (certainly she seemed to be in the very prime running away position) but secondly her screaming seemed, to me, highly counterintuitive. Were she really in danger of an angry violent mammal she would, surely, be looking to lie low rather than rocking back and forth screaming at the world. Honestly I felt she was just too unwilling to get her hands dirty. And I also felt like the particular gender stereotype that sees a plucky plumber David fend off a giant gorilla Goliath in order to save a hysterical infant woman just too clichéd. I was really not feeling any sort of interest in contining any further with the game.

 

Frogger was a much more enticing prospect. I liked the basic premise as it was simple but infuriatingly reliant on quick button taps and very very good timing. I found the movements very intuitive to control but was particularly impressed by the simple but highly disorientating effect of having a game road function almost but not quite like reality – the changes in direction were tremendously unsettling and the variant speeds of cars quite challenging. Once you knew the general rules of what happened where it was fairly easy to play but one of the interesting conceptual elements was the fact that the screen was the universe. Should your frog float on a log off screen he was a gonner. Which is in stark contrast to the conceptual space in most games that, as in most television and film constructs, encourages you to believe there is a whole world beyond that which can be seen.

 

Pacman, our final game this week, had an alternative but again novel approach to structuring it's 2D game play with a layout that provides a tunnel from one side of the screen to the other suggesting that the screen is your universe but that it is, at least, a fairly smart space with it's own peculiar rules of time and space. Pacman proved to be the most addictive game of the week for me. It was intensely fast, baffling, but fun. Audio clues were minimal but helpful and it was aesthetically the best game because it was built around clear engaging highly abstract visuals that worked in a low resolution context whereas Donkey Kong and Frogger both required big leaps of faith to believe that the pixellated detail on screen were worth becoming engaged with. I did not, sadly, find all the clever little patterns and twists (more on this next week) but I did feel, of all three games, that there was a noticable difference between playing at initial skill level and, after a few hours, playing at a more developed level. I completed level 1 of Pacman and found it a really compelling game to return to to see if I could again reach (and this time conquer) level 2. I think part of what made it so playable was the option to play vertically or horizontally. Working bottom to top in Frogger and Donkey Kong seemed peculiar especially as email, blogging and most internet sites order content to avoid scrolling making top to bottom as key a default reading style as left to right. Which makes me wonder how much the structuring of these games depends on other conventions of players. For instance are some games (particularly those with complex status information shown on screen) easier to play with those used to scripts that write from right to left rather than left to right? Is the vertical game play in puzzle and platform games easier for those used to vertical kanji rather than western scripts? I'm not sure but I have a feeling those expectations do definitely influence enjoyability and the success of the first few plays of a game.

 

 

References

• [1] Whitton, N. (2010). Chapter 2, “Recognising the characteristics of digital games”. In Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education, London: Routledge.

• [2] Newman, J. (2004). Chapter 2, “What is a video game? Rules, Puzzles and Simulation”. In Videogames, London: Routledge.

• [3] Wikipedia. (2010). Section 2.1, “Biology”. In Life. Accessed 31^st January 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

 

 

By the time I reached university I had reached the point when I had not only access to networked computers but also a PC in my own room so I brought myself the Monty Pythons the Meaning of Life game as a way to expend spare time. It was all based around the film and included additional Terry Gilliam animation it looked incredibly slick. It ran off a CD Rom and included lots of clips of film between a progressive series of puzzles and daft trivia games. It appealed to me because I liked the Monty Python TV show and films but I returned to play it as it had several entry points and the games were fairly random and witty: it was entertaining even when you did badly.

 

 

At university I found myself trapped at a campus out of town for lots of lunch hours with little to do so joined my peers in playing Light Bikes and, when flash started powering lots of online games, things like Tetris and Solitaire but played online (wisely the university did not include the games in the standard Windows installs on computer lab machines). I was still on the whole more interesting in writing, blogging and starting to edit websites most of the time but remember reviewing films one festival with a team of video and flash producers. At the time flash games were starting to be used particularly on brand websites (as they still are) to create lively slick looking add ons to the site (rather than as the core style of presenting the whole website as is the case with lots of brand sites now). The process of creating them was, however, fairly complex and time-consuming (though, at the time, less taxing than trying to capture and deliver video to a good standard online) and the team I'd been working with went off to lucrative work in London as every company was starting to need a website and starting to want something slick and playful to draw people in.

 

 

A few other games started popping up as well. A friend lent me his copy of Incredible Machines, a rather geeky game based on building wonderful surreal gadgets and vehicles to solve peculiar puzzles on screen. Of the games I'd played this was one of the most educational feeling – although since I was studying engineering in between games I knew that this was more puzzle than study – and one of the most engaging as it was quite analytical, very creative and there were multiple ways to find a solution. 

I enjoyed Incredible Machines but, when I complained how much I wanted an even more freeform game – something where I could create and build and control what I wanted, I found myself receiving a box set of the Myst series for Christmas. I tried to fathom the game but whilst it was the most graphically glorious game I'd encountered it was also terribly frustrating. It did take creative skills to master but it seemed to need a psychic connection to the games developer to find the goals and solutions to progress. I gave up quite quickly as I grew tired of reading obtuse text introductions and then playing baron (but beautiful) game areas where only a few areas had any type of (obscure) functionality. It had the aesthetic I'd been hoping for but the “creative” game play aspect felt too regimented.

 

 

I started working part time in a computer lab and, since the job amounted to babysitting the room and filling the printer, I found myself with long shifts to fill with things that could be regularly interrupted. GemMine and various other deeply daft puzzle games kept me entertained as gameplay only took a few minutes on the whole.

 

 

 But it was when I moved into a shared flat with a console (and subsequently several consoles) that I really started to play computer games. I spent hours and hours playing Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 with my flatmates. There felt like a real progression of skill in the game and, as I perfected my grinds, I felt like I was really progressing through the game. Key to this sense was the fact that the flatmate I played with most often was of a similar skill level so a slight difference in skill or experience from playing individually made shared game play that much better. Both of us, however, were regularly shown tips and masterful play by two casual experts of the game who came round for parties and video nights and trounced our scores. One night we decided that we should play with the custom settings on game and decided to create players for our games that looked just like our real life experts. This new bizarre embodiment in the game actually made it much more fun to play – suddenly our skaters had a name, a look and a personality as well as some custom skill points to match our best playing skills. The game kept us entertained for months and months – and cleverly blended the ability to save long term progressive games with short unsaved party modes - and felt really sociable so I have very fond memories and reached probably the highest level of game skills of any game I've played before or since. I really felt like I knew what I was doing. And years later I was amazed to find that the realistic landscapes used in the San Francisco levels of the game had been so good that I was able to guide my partner (who grew up near the city and had often visited) round the areas she hadn't visited before. In fact Alcatraz was so like the game that I had flashbacks to specific favourite moves as I walked around and felt like I had been there before. It was wonderful and very bizarre.

 

 

Computer game sessions at the end of video nights become the standard end to the night in the flat with Bishi Bashi, Super Monkey Ball/Monkey Tennis, TimeSplitters 2, Grand Turismo, and Tekken Tag Tournament were all very popular.

 

My flatmate also brought a few more slow burn titles so we both attempted Pikmin - which was highly enjoyable if not wildly exciting and Mario Sunshine, a game we again traded off tips and progressive game play in. Luigi's Mansion didn't entertain for long but was silly and fun but The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker proved to be an even more compelling experience than Tony Hawks since it combined slick animation and a whole rich complex universe. It was, however, definitely a solitary game and the most social it ever reached was in the exchanging of tips or new level info between game play sessions.

 

My flatmate also acquired GTA: Vice City for his PC at about the same time as a whole raft of our (male) friends did. After hearing about some of the notorious features of the game – freeform gameplay was the most enticing element but the idea of a game where you scored points for killing, mugging and using prostitutes had a certain amoral charm – that I requested a wee play on the game. Again I was wowed with the graphics and I did enjoy the custom cars and their multiple radio stations. I didn't really get the goals (perhaps the point if Games Britannia [1] is to be believed) but I enjoyed the openness of the space – Tony Hawk's and GTA were the first two games where I could go in the wrong direction, do something purely for entertainment or craft my own narrative and they were both much more enticing for this. The animation and, most particularly, the soundtrack packed with great well known tracks that set the mood were key to the games' success. However the progressing goals and narrative scenes of GTA, though slick, seemed to interrupt more explorative play and I never quite got the hang of taking part in these missions and areas of the game where you were taken out of game play to view important information. I do know friends who wanted to progress through the game in a much faster more goal orientated way though and I think these sequences (longer but not unusual in any video game) felt less disruptive in this style of play.

The rather warped moral code in the GTA gameplay didn't bother me too much at the time but then I was an adult woman playing the game. As subsequent titles have come out in the franchise I've been interested to see how they are marketed as I think the same subversion that makes these edgy and witty games has some odd implications for who plays them and how really committed players may view other people. I am astonished, for instance, how few protagonists in any modern computer games are women. Lara Croft may have been designed to look great to male gamers but that at least meant that she was a tough and multi faceted character (and led to the hyper feminist and equally quite exploitative Bits[2], a female fronted answer to Games Master[3] ) and gamers of all genders played the game in the embodiment of a woman (although more often as voyeur than through her eyes). GTA had men cast as various characters – gang members and bosses, taxi drivers, irate by standers, police men radio shock jocks etc. - but women seemed only to appear very peripherally and as prostitutes and mob girlfriends (which may or may not effectively equate to the same thing in the game). That actually means the game had more women in it than more random aggressive games – such as Halo, a game I played only a few times but found fairly dull (though exquisitely rendered) - but is, nonetheless, quite an odd experiential landscape.

When I moved out of that flat a few years ago my partner and I sat down and talked about buying a games console. We'd both gotten used to playing a lot of games quite regularly and the Game Cube seemed the most enticing option. Indeed I still occasionally look into the windows of second hand gaming shops and ponder a discounted bundle of console and games to relive my gaming student days. At that time we decided to leave it for the time being. I lost track of what games were coming out and decided I was fine without a gaming console. However with several friends in the industry I do waver quite often and when the WII came out both my partner and I thought it looked like it could be a fun console to get. We haven't got one yet but that's mainly because we look at the price, we look at the amount of free time we have and we generally decide that we'd rather use the money on knitting, crochet, beading and cooking equipment – things that we tend to do together. Spare time is at more of a premium than money so my partner currently plays The Sims 2 on and off (very obsessively at times) when she has free time but, partly because of studying for this course, and partly because of other hobbies that tend to be my first choice of time filling activity, I've been pretty much off games for a few years.

Although I never think of it as a game I have flirted with Second Life both for this course and for general entertainment. As a space it ticks many of those boxes that Myst never did but it is really a social space and for that reason it tends only to capture my attention when I have a social use for it. The most compelling element of Second Life for me is the ability to create things but the tie to cash for importing and housing any items or textures in SL feels very alienating to me. I might be happy to pay a one off fee for software/a game but I don't use the space enough to subscribe (as I do to Flickr and PodBean) and really use it as an alternative space to be. What I would love it to be able to take out some of that SL experience and share it in other spaces.

OpenSim is interesting as a possibility and I also like the type of Machinima that comes out of SL as a way to share experience and creativity to those who do not want to register and take part in the same virtual world. I have also looked at World of Warcraft but have not been terribly tempted yet, in part because of the fantasy element of the game (not a style of game play in any format that has ever terribly inspired me) but mainly because the cost barrier is fairly high to get started and I'm just not sure I have the time to make the most of the game and thus get the value out of paying (even if I l

 

iked the game play). Those I know who do play a lot of WoW have existing groups of peers who already play in the space and this, in part, is a motivating factor as it allows them to play some fun challenging situations with old friends in areas near and far – as well as friendly strangers. And I cannot argue that WoW looks immeasurably more slick than Second Life.

 

Although I'm not gaming at the moment it seems that more and more of my friends do. Singing games show up at parties, WII Fit seems to be regularly mentioned as a modern alternative to the fitness videos and DVDs that used to be ubiquitous at this time of year. Given this upturn in gaming I'm surprised gaming doesn't appear in mainstream media and most particularly doesn't feature on TV outside of the adverts. When I started to take an interest in computers Knightmare (for a taster have a look at this (realplayer) clip) was on TV. By the time I had a PC and was wondering what I could eventually do with the technology Cyber Zone was on TV suggesting that we'd all be playing virtual reality games in the near future...

And by the time I actually played console games I was watching the excellent Bits and I felt like I had a connection to what was going on in gaming. But at that point gaming was gaming, as in a particular hobby with a fairly geeky connotation...

At the moment I see ads for gaming – more often than not featuring A list actresses or footballing dynasties. The emphasis is on games as a leisure pursuit for all – not just geeks but older players, women, and families – to play in sociable group contexts (the big screen TV acting like a roaring fire at the heart of a modern living room).

Particularly interesting are the brain training games ads – a particularly enthusiastic attempt to get older consumers to buy hand held gaming devices that seems, if the cafes and commuter routes of Edinburgh is anything to go by, to have had a fairly successful impact. Oddly this is marketing pitch claiming that games are educational but in such a way that the ads almost play like dietary supplement infomercials. It adds credibility to learning through games but only in the context of Sudoku style puzzles that are specifically labelled as learning games.

So, after looking back at all those gaming encounters a few things are highlighted for me. Firstly I am a hard gamer to capture. Although I seem to have played a lot of games and can be easily absorbed in many types of game it actually takes a great deal for me to become properly invested in playing a game. The long term games that allow the saving of positions and more freeform explorations work best for me and I learn skills in these. I like creative spaces but I get a little lost when there is no structure at all. Choice is good, infinite choice is quickly baffling. And finally I am quite price sensitive to games. I will happily try a free or inexpensive game but I am wary of entering a game that may prove expensive to continue. This is not because I could not afford to play (generally) but more to do with where value lies for me: virtual goods have limited value to me and regular payments must represent decent value for money. For educational games this last element would not, on the whole, be an issue but game play would. I have seen demos of “Serious Games” and these look fantastic but very much based on following a specific response. There are good reasons for this but the idea of free choice that traps you in a single level until you make the one approved move is a tricky one – it can feel like Groundhog Day.

[1] Games Brittania is a BBC 4 Series from late 2009 tracking the history of computer gaming. More information on the shows website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pddc6

[2] Bits was a games review and news show running in the late '90s and early 00's and hosted by three female games journalists/presenters. Websites about the show are sparse but Charlie Brooker gives the show mention in his own review of gaming shows on TV.

[3] Games Master was a Channel 4 computer gaming show which began in 1992. A detailed page about the series can be found here:http://www.gamesmasterlive.co.uk/gamesmaster/gamesmaster.php.

Last week I was frustrated by the arcade games I was playing.  I realized that they weren’t just random and that there were patterns but I couldn’t quite make out the patterns. At one point, I stopped the Pacman to see if I could discern a pattern in the behaviour of the ghosts (without any success!). Having read Greenfield now, I realise that was the wrong strategy. The strategy is not in identifying a pattern in just one element of the game e.g. the ghosts – but the pattern depends on the interaction between the ghosts, the pacman and the board itself.

I was starting to ‘feel’ that some parts of the board were more dangerous than others.  But I did not have the patience to pursue and investigate that feeling. I think it does have to do with learning styles – as Emma mentioned on the Discussion Board.  Thinking of Kolb’s learning cycle, I think arcade games would favour those who prefer an active experimentation style.  I, on the other hand, have a more reflective learning style and the sheer speed of the games does not allow any time for reflection. 

James Paul Gee’s account of the view that videogames are a waste of time as they have no content has resonance with the views expressed by my friends including my husband.  I never held that view myself mainly because I have no experience of those games.  Gee argues elegantly that a semiotic domain is not just content but...

”a  lived and historically changing set of social practices. It is in these social practices that 'content' is generated, debated and transformed via certain distinctive was of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and often, writing and reading. “p.21

For people who have never engaged in playing videogames, the ‘silliness’ of the content is an easy target.  But Gee demonstrates that a lot of learning can be acquired in well-designed games. If a game is actively and critically played the player:

·         Learns to experience in a new way

·         Gains the potential to join and work with a new affinity group

·         Develops resources for future learning and problem solving in related semiotic domains

·         Learns to think of semiotic domains as design spaces that engage and manipulate people in certain ways and help create certain relationships in society among people which could have social justice implications

The key to critical learning is the ability of the player to be able to reflect on, to critique and manipulate the design grammar of a game at the meta level.  This requires looking well beyond the content of a game – but how it is structured, what elements it has, the characteristics of these elements, how it is similar and different to other games of this type. 

Gee sees the value of videogames in that they:

“...situate meaning in a multimodal space through embodied experiences to solve problems and reflect on the intricacies of the design of imagined worlds and the design of both real and imagined social relationships and identities in the modern world.” p. 48

The player learns to think critically about the simulation and thus gain literacy of multimodal spaces.

Gee points out that the key is not questioning the ‘content’ of games per se but whether it is worth spending time pursuing the semiotic domain of a particular game.  And the questions he poses are ones of value judgements:

·         Is this a good way to experience the world?

·         Is this a good and valuable affinity group to join?

·         Are these resources for future learning applicable to other good and valued semiotic domains?

• is this domain leading the learner to reflect on design spaces and their intricate relationships to each other in ways that could lead to critique, innovation and good and valued thinking and acting in society? 

In the beginning of the book, Gee argues that even violent video games can be valuable. And I can see that he is thinking beyond the actual content.  But in terms of the value questions he poses, I feel there is a contradiction here. I have not read yet what he says in particular about violent games but Greenfield indicates that it is action rather than violence which children find attractive. 

This week the Learning Technologies show (2010) took place at the Olympia exhibition Centre (The 27^th and 28^th of January). Working for a company that offers a number of products in this field I spent both days exhibiting at the event. This gave me an excellent opportunity to contrast where the corporate world is in terms of e-learning (technologies and usage) with how e-learning is used in the academic setting (having been on the course for two weeks now).

It seems as if the corporate world is still using the “traditional” e-learning of two decades ago: the number of companies still offering e-learning authoring (“click on the 'next' button 30 times and you are done”) is phenomenal. On the administrative side the main products being offered are LMS systems (which are mainly responsible for scheduling the presence of employees in classrooms or when they need to go through e-learning packages). In other words while interfaces have changed and systems have been speeding up there is little change in this field from the 1990s.

The buzz words of yesteryear – Mobile learning has now become more common (being used mostly for performance support and just in time knowledge) and so while many companies offer something in this field it is no longer a main attraction.

There is however some good news for corporate learning: the main product which seems to be making tracks is the e-portfolio. In fact, in a number of conversations that I have had during the show it seems as if corporates are finally starting to understand that being able to schedule employee A in classroom B at time C (with an LMS) does not actually mean that employee A has learned anything. Therefore, e-portfolio (and 'Talent management') systems are becoming of greater interest as they offer a mixture of skills and competency management (“what does the employee know” rather than “what does the employee need to learn”).

According to researchers such as Jay Cross most learning is informal. In such a case managing the skills and competencies of an employee rather than what they need to learn is very good news for learning in general. Over the next decade I believe that we are going to see the LMS become a subset of the e-portfolio system (it will still be needed to track learning for compliancy reasons).

The second trend that was obvious at the show is all about “social learning” on the one side this is closer to what is happening in the academic environment but it also acknowledges the way that younger employees (those currently joining the workforce) live their digital lives. The theme of “Google is today's main learning application” is a recurring one appearing in Barbazon's “the University of Google” and other sources. However, we have to remember that these books have all ready been out for a while (3 years in Barbazon's case) and the younger generation look at Facebook, MySpace and Twitter as their main port of call. In other words we have gone from learning from a teacher (with the book) to learning from an infinite library (searching it via Google) to learning from our peers. An example of this is given by Steve Johnson in his article “How Twitter will change the way we live”: describing an instance where a certain celebrity (Oprah) asked for help removing ticks from her dog.

I think that the main significance of this 'peer learning' to the corporate environment (and this is the main point which interests me personally) is that it brings closer the learning organisation as described in such books as Peter M. Senge's - “The Fifth Discipline” and Argyris and Schon's “Organizational Learning II”. Achieving the state of a learning organisation is not possible without the help of technology due to the simple reason of mass – the amount of data generated, updated, stored, queried and retrieved on a daily basis is by far too much for a non-technological system to handle. In his article “How Twitter will change the way we live” Steve Johnson claims that the value of twitter (and this apply to any system which generate great volumes of data) is not in the data it helps create but in the tools that allow users to manipulate and search it and so transform the data into information. I will be following closely the development of these systems for the corporate environment and their impact.

On a personal note, now that the show is finally over the weeks of preparation has paid off and I can finally returned (Begin) to make a more regular contribution to this blog and my studies in general. I look forward to this end to the reduction in day-to-day pressure.

James Paul Gee's 5 Learning Principles are extended here:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~lsmithg/jamespaulgee2