Let’s start with this:
There is an interesting message here, there are likely many people out there who think like this – people for whom the ideas from the Matrix are not really that far fetched. But the take home message is that we have come to a point that games have matured to a point that they can encourage an emotional response – something that I think is perhaps even a little bit more important than the social elements of learning. Once emotion is engaged, learning becomes (perhaps) a survival skill.
If we take a bit of freedom with this idea, we can assume that the emergence of this “survival skill” of learning is brought on in part because the player believes that there is an element of risk involved with the decisions that are to be made. Now granted, not all games are going to require decisions – sports and rhythm games are obvious examples – but those that do, the strategy games or the RPGs out there are likely to be the ones that are used to help scaffold learning. Of the later group, the ones that are the most useful are those that provide the most interesting choices and that potentially involve some measure of risk – ala Sid Meier’s quote:
a [good] game is a series of interesting choices. In an interesting choice, no single option is clearly better than the other options, the options are not equally attractive, and the player must be able to make an informed choice. (Rollings, Andrew and Dave Morris. Game Architecture and Design. Scottsdale, Arizona: Coriolis, 2000, p. 38.)
These interesting choices are those that fit very nicely into “serious games” (interesting aside by Ars), which many would think are the only way to get players looking at social or potentially civic issues. As it turns out, the latest PEW survey actually looks at this. It also links into some of the ideas from the Libraries post earlier this week about getting students involved in reading.
So how do all these bits knit together? For many youth, it seems games are an avenue to become involved in their worlds, both real and simulated. In an age where parents don’t feel that neighborhoods are not safe enough to go out and play (Check out Stuart McLean’s podcast), kids may have found their interactive outlet in games. Games are no longer an idle pass time. They are a legitimate media for many “under 30s” and seemingly most “under 20s”. Games encourage conversations that stem from emotional connections that players create with the characters and stories that they manipulate. These conversations are fueled by the fact that not every player makes the same choice while experience a common world, and this has very obvious analogues to the real world. I think it is time to stop identifying games as a specific learning object class and realize that it is a peer to all the other tools (Sports, Music, Arts etc) and learning objects that are commonly used in schools.
Leave a Reply