I feel like I need to start posting more. There are a lot of cool things i’m currently taking part in (developing /studying games, drawing, writing), and so little time to just reflect on what I’ve done. So here’s the deal. I’m going to try to write one new post a week on what i’m doing. Simple right? Sure… until I get self conscious and delete this post.

My Advisor, Kurt Squire, has written a new book… and it is awesome. I should probably write a little bit about why it’s awesome, but for now you can buy it here.

I was disturbed when playing “Batman Multiply, Divide and Conquer”. The experience doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying it’s a bad game, some of the side scrolling parts where you control batman are fun, but then you get to a point where you have to solve a math problem to move on. Even when there is some attempt to integrate it into the game, the attempt seems tacked-on. For example, batman has to solve a math problem to open a door. Being a batman nerd, I was somewhat insulted. “I’m the goddamn batman”, why would I need to solve this math problem to open a door?

The reason that this educational game will sell is because it’s asking players to assume the role of batman. This makes simple math problems that batman has to solve stick out like a sore thumb because it doesn’t make sense from batman’s perspective. If batman had to solve a math problem in any other medium (film, television, comics) it would be a joke because we’re assuming Bruce Wayne passed elementary math. This challenge doesn’t make any sense from the enemy’s perspective either. What super villain would lock their doors with simple math problems and not expect them to be opened?

Even the reviews of “Batman Multiply, Divide and Conquer” point out the divide between game-play and content. The reviewer specifically states, “he has to do the math to move on, whether he likes it or not”. In other words, it’s not only disjointed, but actually detracts from the game and is seen as an obstacle to get to the game. It would be like playing Call Of Duty: Black Ops and having to solve a math problem every 3 minutes. In fact, that method might be just as effective.

So, if you have a content goal, how do you tie it back into the game in a way that makes sense, and doesn’t seem disjointed? Make it a necessary in a way that adds to the experience. I’ll offer the example of Bioshock’s hacking system. The experience that one gets from hacking in Bioshock is: hacking is time sensitive, approached as a puzzle, and sometimes doesn’t work. This experience works perfectly with the tone of Bioshock which is also time sensitive and dangerous. In this mini-game the idea is to connect puzzle solving with hacking, something makes sense to those who code. However, If they actually wanted to teach coding, it would have looked quite different.

Going back to the Batman example, lets use math in a way that would make sense for the dark knight. Batman is a detective, and as such solves problems. Rather than a math problem, why not introduce a problem that uses math? For example, make the problem be a cipher. If addition is what you want you can make it easy. The code could be unscrambled by simply adding a constant to the original letter, and having to subtract by the same amount to decode it. It’s still a simple concept, but it makes more sense in the context of the game and becomes a part of the experience. If only more edu-games would bother mixing the content with the experience…

Cost does not necessarily give you grounds to write a bad review. Content, gameplay, etc.

Lately, I’ve been upset with the way that playtesting and prototyping are received in an academic environment. While most designers appreciate the value of getting something reviewed in it’s rough form, others do not. I’m a true believer in prototyping and feel that showing off unfinished products early and often saves you time and headaches. Unfortunately, most people are squeamish when it comes to presenting a work that is unfinished. Even worse is when the people you ask to critique your work expect it to be a finished work of art. I’ve experienced both of these recently and have found that working with these conditions/assumptions can be deconstructive and demoralizing. So? What are we supposed to do about it?

Make sure that they know why you’re prototyping or playtesting.

• The primary objective of this whole process is to identify problems with your assumptions and implementation. You’re not supposed to get it right the first time. In fact, you probably won’t get it right. Take this opportunity to reflect on how other people interact with your prototype and listen to their feedback. Chances are, if your testers have problems working with your prototype, or would like something else incorporated, there are also others who share that opinion. If you get a lot of negative feedback try not to see it as an attack on your skills. Instead be glad that you can address the issues early on.

Make sure people know that things are going to break.

• For some reason testers want your prototype to work flawlessly the first time. When playtesting this demand is unreasonable. So, before you start playtesting make sure that you tell your tester things are going to break. In fact, tell them how rough the prototype is. If it crashes, tell them. If it uses stock art, tell them. If you haven’t proofread text, tell them. It’s better to paint a very accurate picture of the current state of the project than to have bugs that you already know about come out during the playtest.

Make sure your tester’s feedback feels wanted.

• The testers are your friend. Think about it, if it wasn’t for them YOU would have to test the system. This poses a problem because you know the prototype. You know the expected input, and you know how you’re supposed to use your system. Chances are, you will not run into problems that playtesters, who are not familiar with your system, will. If you’re looking for feedback about usability, then there is no better way to get it than with actual users. For all these reasons, make sure your testers feel wanted! Tell them you’d love to hear what they think, and that they’ll be contributing to creating a great project.

Hopefully, when you address the misconceptions you’ll get a lot of mileage out of your playtesting.

To me, video games are experiences. Just like we can have good and bad experiences, however, we can also create good and bad games. This is especially true with educational games. While making educational games it seems that most designers miss the forest for the trees. They become so focused on having the curriculum apparent (perhaps because it makes assessment easier) that they forget to design an experience. This results in a lackluster and forgettable experience comparable to a worksheet with stickers. I want to move beyond that and emphasize both parts equally. I understand that this is a difficult problem. One which brings with it questions that relate to motivation, game design, and story telling in addition to curriculum construction. I am willing and eager to learn more about these subjects so that I can create rewarding, and memorable, experiences that help to enrich a student’s mind.

When thinking about creating experiences in videogames, especially when creating educational experiences, I can’t help but think of books. A book does not have to insert a certain number of words in order to be considered an educational experience. Even when the overt goal of a book is to teach another subject (for example a textbook) there are still good texts (ones that take the time to scaffold, but challenge the students), and bad texts (ones that simply have a fixed number of examples deemed to be important but that have no context).

Due to my recent transfer to C&I, I’ve had to take a look at my research interests and really investigate what I would like to study. I decided that I would like to focus my energy on trying to answer questions that deal with creating meaningful educational experience.  How can we present educational concepts while maintaining the player’s interest? How can we make educational games things that people are excited about and would want to play?  How much can we suspend belief before the ideas become too abstract? How explicit do we have to be about concepts before they can be transferred? I’m sure that there are quite a few texts that deal with these subjects and I’m excited to read more about them.