Escapist has a list of the “10 myths about serious games” and for the most part, I found nothing really new there, except for one comment…
Serious games that act more like utilities
Games are a teaching utility?? Wha?
I would argue that just about anything that one would use to teach a lesson is almost always a utility. There is a main theme that the lesson is about, but there are many other smaller lessons that you are experiencing along the way (take a look at this THE article about designing games). Especially if you are a fan of constructivism. If this is the case, while learning about force vectors in a game, you might also be learning about the history of cars or weapons. In an example from Escapist, Japanese dating… I haven’t played the game, but I can only imagine that there is some additional elements included beyond explaining the logistical and mechanical elements of Japanese relationships.
Some people call this the “head game” or hidden curriculum, but regardless of what you call it, it is almost always there. Why should games be any different?
Leave a Reply