Understanding Learning Design in Commercial Video Games

[AC]

That people learn from games is no longer in dispute (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Squire, 2003) whether or not it would be counted as education (see glossary) is a separate question. Nonetheless there is increasing interest in the use of this medium as an educational technology and it would seem that the fundamental design structure of at least some kinds of games are believed to lend themselves to use in this fashion. It has even been suggested that ‘good’ games already embody sound pedagogy in their designs despite the knowledge that that incorporation was not deliberate (Prensky, 2006; Becker, 2005d, 2005f, 2006d; Gee, 2003). In order to take advantage of those aspects of “good” games that are conducive to both high engagement and effective learning, these games must be studied. That is the impetus for the current research.

Games are distinct from all other digital and mass media. They share qualities with many other forms to be sure, but also have other qualities that set them apart (Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2004). While most, if not all of the qualities that make a computer game “good” (i.e. popular, engaging, entertaining, etc.) can also be found in other media, there have been few, if any, other entities that have captured the attention, time, and money of an entire generation the way games have. Given their popularity, it would seem reasonable to conclude that there is some thing or combination of things that make this medium distinct. In his seminal work on “intrinsic motivation”, Thomas Malone names four essential characteristics of good games: control, challenge, fantasy, and curiosity. (Malone, 1981, 1980a, 1980b)

http://www.minkhollow.ca/KB/PhD/Thesis07/doku.php?id=thesis:main

[Denki Lajeunesse]

Very interesting proof-of-concept. I couldn't access the full article but found a copy here. :)

There is a really good review of current literature in there. This alone should put it on your reading list - but the analysis of commercial games that is being offered is thought-provoking and stands on its own. Vastly different game mechanics are covered (Katamari Damacy? Check. Phoenix Wright? Check.).

One of our current projects is a virtual world (it's in live beta at http://www.gameforscience.ca - not all content is integrated yet and there are a couple cobwebs to clean up though so be gentle ;)). It serves both as a communication media for players, with chat features, a quest-based RPG, and a showcase for our other games through a virtual arcade. There is an undeniable level of complexity to the whole thing and we've aimed to make it as tutorial-free as possible by integrating tutorials in the gameplay. I think I'll need a couple more reads but I'm fairly certain there's something in there that we can use to make that part of the project better.

How do you make the gameplay learning experience more enjoyable? We try to think of how we can gradually introduce gameplay elements to the player and it seems when we have mechanics similar to those of an already existing commercial game it's "easy" to figure where we're going with all this. For example, one of our games simulates how an endangered species can be saved from extinction through being reinserted in its natural habitat. The transformation of the natural environment was very similar to what someone would do playing a RTS combat game - accumulating resources, securing land, fighting off intruders (parasites in our case). Introducing new elements roughly like Warcraft II does it gave the game a fun flow. However our approach is very content-centered (vs mechanics-centered) on most projects - enabling the learning of facts through simulation. Things came together on their own almost... but it would be great to give ourselves the tools to make it happen 100% of the time ;).

I'd love to hear how you identify a learning process and engineer your gameplay mechanics around it, if any of you proceed that way. :)