Serious Games - are we really a community?

[Kevin Corti]

I've added a rather long blog entry on this subject to this site. If this sparks an interest then please check it out - I'd love to hear other people's opinions.

It is also attached as a PDF file to this post.

Kevin

[AC]

It does seem that 'serious games' is more of a 'movement' than a community. Using play via games and simulations to facilitate learning appears to be the common denominator.

Communities usually share common tools, customer types, educational backgrounds etc... The serious games space is very diverse and I can see the opportunities for culture clashes and misunderstandings between it's members.

[Diane Robertson]

I was interested in your comments about the name, 'Serious Games'. The word 'game' sometimes conjures up playful and frivilous connotations in some people's minds. The word 'serious' is meant to counter that image, which makes it an intriguing title. It might be less playful, but the name 'Immersive Learning Simulations' is a name that could sit better in some people's minds. Should be seriously consider changing the name?

[Kevin Corti]

I've just covered this question in depth on the Digital Mill Serious Games Initiative email discussion. In summary however, and I don't want to appear dissmissive, but I feel that the definition of terms is a redudant debat to a certain extent. Too many people are getting hung up on names for what they do. My contention is that the overall 'serious games community' is no such thing in actual fact as it comprises of serious games (a subset of entertainment games), immersive learning simulations (much more grounded in WBT/eLearning (but a damm sit more engaging and useful) and 'virtual worlds'. I see less and less commonality between these groups but by mis-describing ourselves blandly as 'serious games' we are seriously (if you pardon the pun) confusing our very different client groups. That is a far more serious issues than debating the meaning of life..erm...sorry, Serious Games.

[Diane Robertson]

Kevin, That's an interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that the differences between the three groups you name are so great that they should not come under the common name of serious games? How would you describe these groups?

[Kevin Corti]

Hi Diane,

I think that others have done a better job than I - I have made reference to a couple of 'maps' on my personal blog at http://theevilnumber27.wordpress.com just recently.

I have had many responses to my various posts and it has hit www.seriousgamessource.com as well - it seems I have touched on an issue that many people wanted to vent about. Exactly what I wanted to achieve. Open debate is much healthier than pretending to be something that collectively we are not.

[Robin Petterd]

Hi Kevin,

Your points are interesting.

Maybe in area like this there is two major concerns. Those people interested in implementing a "new way of learning" and those people interested in exploring "what is this new way of learning". This could then be divided up in those implementing a "new way of learning" are often the companies involved and the people interested in the "what is this new way of learning" are the researchers. Both of these area's bring different value systems and these often clash. The desire to define is often a scholarly approach. If an area of knowledge can be defined that what is "new knowledge" can also be defined. Often the most exciting thing are what cann't be defined.

I've been searching of serious games "community" and to be honest as someone coming into the area it feels more like really loose network of people. Maybe the reason for the lack of community is that area is still quite large and as people become more focused on niches communities might develop in those niches.

Cheers

Robin

[Kevin Corti]

Hi Robin,

That makes sense particularly the need to define/classify being a classic academic trait. I have no problem with that so long as we seek to classify the subsets and recognize them for what they are and to whom they are relevant. It is this darned mass confusion that I am most concerned at as everyday we have to address it with organisations that we want to work with that don't know the difference between 2nd Life and games, 3D games and online sims, virtual worlds and sims etc. Customers shouldn't be required to have to invest time and energy fighting through the confusing fog of classificatiosn and taxonomies that this industry has created....they just want a solution to their problems.

[AC]

Kevin,

Bob Stone has written about how serious games can fulfil the promise of immersing training made by VR in the 90's. This is a compelling vision. However could there not be a nightmare scenario where the virtual worlds hype turns into a bubble that enters popular culture and make silly promises that can never be delivered. Just like VR did:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112209/

Is this the start of the Virtual Worlds bubble:

http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN1127313320071011

When the bubble explodes it could greatly harm the serious games movement.

[Kevin Corti]

Yup - Ben Sawyer posted a comment last week commenting that the VW hype seems to be 10x worse than that we are experiencing in the serious game space.

[Eliane Alhadeff]

Dear All,

As I finished reading Kevin Corti's opinion piece 'Serious Games - Are We Really A Community?', where Kevin thoroughly discusses the nature of the 'serious games' movement and the deep divisions amongst the various sub-sections, I immediately empathized with its essence.

It reminded me I had experienced something quite similar a couple of years ago, when restructuring a global company and 'creating' new markets. At that point, my personal coach, one of the 'best and brightest' from the Chicago Stock Exchange, came up with the following:

The Chaos Theory fully applies to major step changes, where discontinuity prevails. In the beginning all you've got are fractals, without any bonding.

Therefore, at the very early stages, inclusiveness can make your incipient community gain critical mass and visibility (e.g for the SG movement could imply welcoming Flash, Unreal, etc. as opposed to “but it is only developed in Flash”).

At this stage as well, communities can not yet be formed, since there is no bonding. What we do find are 'networks of conversation' (e.g. the SG summits).

The more radical the change and the greater the anticipated reach, the more chaotic is the process. The Chaos Theory welcomes this sort of 'mess' as an inherent aspect of the transition.

There are so many (and powerful) forces intervening in the SG market formation, that "struggling for survival" behaviors often show up, the same way they do when restructuring corporate governance (which reminds me Kevin Corti's comments on the Wiki.)

With regards to fun, I must confess that the 'engaging thing' makes me dream on.

My gratitude to Kevin for opening up his heart and sharing his deepest feelings with the members of this 'baby' community.