Analysis of Strategy games and RPG

General information

Mission US: A Revolutionary Way to Learn History

Players can choose between:   

Mission 1: For Crown or Colony                   

Mission 2: Flight to Freedom

     I played Flight to Freedom. In this game I took on the role of a 14 year old

     slave in Kentucky. As Lucy, I embarked on a journey to Ohio to seek freedom.

     My journey was broken into five parts:

Part 1: Behind the Big House

Part 2: Runaway

Part 3: Free and Not Free

Part 4: Gathering Forces

Part 5: New Times New Troubles

In each part, I was challenged to make decisions. In my quest for freedom I

usually had three or four decisions to choose from, multiple times. Should I

put my family first, or myself? I earned badges based on decisions I made.

At times I struggled with deciding whether to sabotage the Plantation I was

on, play it  safe, or make decisions that were true to my strong willed

character, choose acts of resistance. I discovered there were no right

choices but quickly learned some choices were tied to consequences.

Play Flight to Freedom to learn if Lucy (you) will ever be free.

     Analysis based on Flow Theory

o   Task that the learners can complete

§  Learners are required to make decisions throughout the course of the game. The tasks are attainable.

o   Ability to concentrate on task

§  The ability to concentrate on the task might be learner dependent. Learners may find it difficult to concentrate on the task due to the length of the game, and learner’s interest level in the games mission.  

o   Task has clear goals

§  Learners will find the task to be straight forward; make decisions (that do not result in consequences) in order to secure freedom from slavery.

o   Task provides immediate feedback

§  As soon as the learner makes a selection from the options of decisions available, immediate feedback is given via print. Learners know right away if their decision results in a reward or consequence.  

o   Deep but effortless involvement

§  Learners will find that choosing a certain decision is based on events, various environments, and characters they encounter on their journey to freedom. Processing explicit information provided via print concerning events and the environment, and dialogue from the characters could be viewed as deep. Some decisions determine whether or not consequences for self or others occur.  After reading decision options, a simple click of the mouse to make a choice is all that is needed. Learners will find this aspect of involvement effortless.

o   Exercising a sense of control over their actions

§  Since learners make their own selection from the decision options available, learners will experience a limited sense of control over their actions. Greater control would be realized if learners were not limited to having to choose one of the predetermined decision options. If learners were free to make their own decisions, they would have a greater sense of control over their actions.

o   Concern for self disappears during flow

§  Again, I feel this is learner dependent. Personally, I was frustrated during game play therefore my concern for self was apparent. I originally made decisions based on the character description of Lucy and did not successfully complete Part 1.  I replayed Part 1 and made decisions atypical of Lucy’s character description and was able to complete Part 1 successfully. I thought I had the decision making process figured out as I began to play Part 2.  Again I failed to be successful. In order to play Part 3 I had to replay Part 2 successfully. This was another source of frustration that contributed to my sense of self during flow.  

o   Sense of duration of time is altered

§  Perhaps this is learner dependent as well. My experience as described above made time crawl.  I became impatient and lost interest in completing all game parts.

Analysis of Card and Board Games: Hearts

General information

Using a standard 52-card deck, in a 4-player game of Hearts, each player gets 13 cards. Play begins as each player chooses three cards to pass to the player to the left. The player with the 2 of clubs leads with this card and each player must then follow suit. If a player does not have a card of the suit led, any card may be played. Players that win the round lead the next round. The goal in each hand is to avoid winning any tricks including a heart or the Queen of Spades, also known as the Black Maria, or win all 13 hearts and the Black Maria. The player with the lowest score (aces are high- two’s are low) at the end of the game wins.

Comparison of two formats: digital vs. non-digital

1.      Comparison 1: Game components
The game components did not change. For either format, a standard deck of 52 cards was used. However for non-digital game play, players have to physically deal the cards, hold, organize, sort their own cards, pass and lay cards down and compute points for each round of play. Having physical space for game play is also a component of non-digital game play.  In contrast, all of the above is done automatically in the digital game format and the need for physical game space is a non-factor.  For both formats, card selection for passing and playing is done by each individual player.  I think it is personal opinion whether or not the game components look stronger in the different formats.  Personally, the automaticity described above was neither a good nor a bad thing.  Perhaps if I had had to click and drag cards during game play I might have a different opinion. I did not mind having to physically do all of the above but it is possible the automatic components of digital play would be appealing to others.

I stand by my most recent definition of game: A game can be an educational learning tool played individually or collaboratively, against an opponent(s) or against a computer based program.  In order to be an educational learning tool a game must meet certain criteria.  Games must have: pedagogical design, game based learning principals, rules and goals, and must be fun to play to be considered effective learning tools. Games can be evaluated to determine their educational value.

2.      Comparison 2: Interaction
The level of interaction for the game Hearts is dependent upon the format.  The amount of communication, cooperation between and among players, engagement to the game and motivation to play the game while playing the game with other people and a traditional deck of cards is greater than when playing with computer based players and a computer based deck of cards. In non-digital game play, conversation between players is on-going. In this format, conversation can be game based or non-game based.  With my family it would be common to hear joking, reminiscing, and conversation about food and drink, etc. during game play. No conversation took place when I played the digital version of Hearts. Since this game is played individually, cooperation between and among players is not as prominent. However, in the non-digital format cooperation can exist.  When a player new to the game plays for the first time, some or all other players might work together to help teach the rules and tricks of the game. This does not occur in the digital format.  Even though you can refer to the rules and tricks of the game via print you are basically on your own.  Although I was engaged and motivated when playing the digital game of Hearts, I personally feel more engaged and motivated when playing in the non-digital format. I am more engaged and motivated during the non-digital game format because of the interaction between players and because I have to sort my cards according to suit, and because I have to pay attention to the suit that was led to know what my card choice needs to be at my turn. In addition, I have to add my points at the end of each game. Basically, I am actively involved during non-digital game play.  In the digital version, cards were automatically sorted and the suit that I needed to play in order to follow suit was highlighted for me. Game points were automatically computed and recorded.  In either format the challenge of choosing and playing the correct card in order to win the round/game was the same.  Although I prefer the non-digital format, I would continue to play the digital version of Hearts.  In the absence of other people to play with, the digital version is an acceptable alternative because it presents the same level of challenge as the non-digital version and because I enjoy the game.  Digital play also offers an opportunity to improve on game playing skills to use when playing with other people and a traditional deck of cards in the non-digital game playing format.

Analysis of Puzzle, Quiz, and Sports Games

Learners’ Styles

Prior to answering the Kolb Learning Inventory I viewed myself a Diverging Learner, a learner that prefers to think and feel. However, after completing the Inventory and reflecting, I realized this is not entirely true. It appears that the type of learner I am is situational. When I learn, especially when faced with new learning, I will choose to: do things or watch and listen.  For example, with math concepts I prefer to watch and listen, however when gardening I prefer to “just do it”.  The same holds true when learning in situations where prior knowledge exists.  To increase my tennis skills I watch and listen as the instructor explains and demonstrates, however, I also learn by doing when I put into play what was explained and demonstrated.

Prensky’s checklist clearly shows my style of learning is dependent upon what I am most comfortable with and most familiar with.  Most of my responses to Prensky’s checklist fell in the 4/5 range. I believe this is in part due to my age and experiences. It is important to keep in mind that either style needs to be considered when using simulated games as learning tools, or in more traditional classroom instruction.  It seems both style preferences need to be incorporated into the games interface and classroom instruction in order to establish a level “playing” (learning) field for all students.

According to the VAK Learning Style Assessment some people have an even mixture of two or three learning styles. My scores showed a one point spread between visual and auditory and only a 4/5 point spread between both of these styles and the kinesthetic learning style. In thirteen questions, I was not comfortable choosing only one response. Could it be possible that learning styles are more fluid than absolute? When teaching, as I consider student learning, I need to keep this possibility in mind.

Analysis of Games: General Information

Cryptogram: In this word game, sentences comprised of one set of letters are substituted by the game player for another set of letters in order to figure out a familiar phrase. The challenge is to break the code  within the seven minute time limit.  If needed the game player has the option to access three hints which provide clues to help solve the phrase.  

Additionally, with three minutes remaining, the game will automatically eliminate “useless” letters every 30 seconds.

Mrs. N’s Math Slalom: This game combines quick  math computation skills and quick skiing skills (eye/hand co-ordination)  to earn gold, silver, or bronze medals. Players choose between the four math operations (+,-, x, /) to test their skills. Players must multi-task during game play. Math computation skills, and eye hand co-ordination skills must occur simultaneously, quickly and almost effortlessly to earn a medal. The game begins at the top of a ski hill where skiers (players) will see a number displayed.  As skiers slalom downhill, they will come upon two flags, each flag with a number on it.  If the number at the top of the hill is a factor of the two numbers on the flags, the skier must ski between the flags, if not the skier must ski around the flags. Make quick correct computations to decide whether to ski through or ski around the flags to earn a medal.  The more correct quick computations, and quick hands to ski through or around the flags will earn a gold medal, silver medal, and bronze medal respectively.

Comparison 1: Game Components

                                         Strong Components     

                                                                                                   

Cryptogram

Rules

Mrs. N’s Math Slalom

                                          Weak Components     

                                                                                                   

Cryptogram	Challenging Goals	Mrs. N’s Math Slalom
	Interaction
	Amusement

Despite both games having clearly defined rules, both games fail to deliver challenging goals, interaction, and amusement. Although players are working against the clock, which presents somewhat of a challenge, higher order thinking skills are not required in either game. Instead, players can expect to rely on  letter and word knowledge and math fact knowledge for game play. Because players do not have opportunities to “hold,” examine, or manipulate game objects there is no interaction in Cryptogram (is choosing a letter and having the ability to delete letter choice considered interaction).  In Mrs. N’s Math Slalom the most interaction a player will encounter is slaloming through or around the flags. Both games fall into the lower level thinking category with the absence of complex interactions. Crypotgram is not differentiated based on student ability level nor is Mrs. N’s Math Slalom. As a result, the one-dimensionality invites boredom. Combine all of the above and it is no surprise that both games fail to be engaging.

Comparison 2: Learners’ Style

Since both games have major weaknesses in three out of the four game components I did not feel either game would be a fit or misfit for any one particular learner.  I did however feel that all learners might choose to partake in either game for practice purposes only. Players would practice using word knowledge skills while playing Cryptogram and math computation skills while playing Mrs. N’s Math Slalom.

Stop Disasters! Simulated Game Information and Analysis

Simulation Game Analysis: Stop Disasters!

Stop Disasters! is produced by ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) for the purpose of educating children to the risks of disasters. In the event of a natural disaster, ISDR believes children are at a greater risk for calamity. For this reason, ISDR feels that by teaching children about disaster risks early, children will have a better chance of survival.

In the wake of a natural disaster do you know what preventive measures can be taken to make the environment safer and lessen the destruction? Visit http://www.stopdisastersgame.org/en/home.html. to play the game Stop Disasters! for yourself! Stop Disasters! will challenge you to plan and implement measures that are necessary to protect the population, community, and environment from tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and wild fires. Whether you choose to play the easy, medium or hard difficulty level, be prepared to assess disaster risk, in order to minimize damage. Expect to receive advice, but be wary, you will have to decide whether it is good or bad advice. Did I mention you have limited time and money at your disposal to assess, plan, and implement safety measures before the natural disaster strikes? Reporters will write about how well you prepared for the disaster and how well the population, community, and environment withstood the natural disaster under your watch. Good Luck to you as you play Stop Disasters!

Stop Disasters! would appeal to students with a converging learning style. According to Kolb, the converging learner can solve problems and will use their learning to find solutions to practical issues. Converging learner’s ability to solve problems and make decisions will serve them well in Stop Disasters! where decision making and problem solving is required to minimize damage to a community, population, and environment situated in the path of an impending natural disaster. Interesting enough, although the converging learner is less interested with people it is their ability to make sound decisions and problem solve that would ultimately help to save lives. Taking the converging learning style into consideration, it seems appropriate to set decision making and problem solving skills as objectives.

Game components for Stop Disasters! are as follows: Challenging Goals, Interaction, Rules, Amusement and Raise Awareness. I was hard pressed to find any components that were weak. If you are wondering how being successful at minimizing damage to a simulated community, population, and environment as a result of sound decision making and problem solving skills be considered amusing, you are probably not alone. In the gaming world, amusement refers to motivation and engagement. Since Stop Disasters! offers three levels of difficulty as well as five different natural disaster scenarios to choose from, coupled with decision making and problem solving opportunities, a high level of interaction, clear rules to follow, and challenging goals players find themselves highly engaged. Therefore students playing Stop Disasters! would be actively involved, motivated, and as a result would find the game amusing.

Since I teach first grade a lot of frontloading would have to take place before Stop Disasters! could be integrated into my classroom. To activate background knowledge, I would introduce the concept of natural disasters through read alouds. Additional opportunities to become familiar with the topic would be provided by: providing access to informational texts about each of the five natural disasters so students could read about them in the classroom, student conducted research via the internet, and educational videos/dvd viewing. After the initial informational gathering phase, writing a class “All About” book collaboratively would follow. The book may focus on one of the five natural disasters, or include all five disasters. It may be best to choose only one of the natural disasters to write about together, to allow for groups or individual students to write their own “All About” book. The writing phase would follow with discussions about why it is important to learn about natural disasters, as well as brainstorming ways to minimize damage to the community, population, and environment. Information would then be gathered, read, and discussed concerning prevention of damage. Additional research could take place at this point. For example one preventive measure that can be taken to lessen the impact of a tsunami is to plant vegetation in shallow water, on the beach, and in the grass. Knowing what type of vegetation to plant is key. Learning about different building materials used for construction and knowing how to choose the best site for building placement is also important to prevention. Integrated into this section would be the need to know the cost involved in implementing preventative measures under budgetary constraints. Comparing how their parents need to budget in order to provide food and clothing to budgeting for preventative measuresin the event of a natural disaster would provide a bridge to this concept. At this point students would be introduced to the game through modeling. The use of an interactive whiteboard would be needed for large screen projection. The sheer volume of concepts needed to understand before actual game playing would take place would require gradual concept introduction through multiple phases. Alterations to budget and preventive measure cost values would be adjusted. For example, instead of $50,000 to spend I would change it to a value comprehendible to first graders: $5.00. Once these steps were achieved, I would play the game. When decision making is required in choosing preventative measures to implement I would employ the advice of students. Students would be required to use knowledge gained from the information gathering and writing phase to support their decisions. To encourage collaboration, table groups would be required to work together to suggest and support their decisions and advice. Because implementation of preventive measures must take place during game play, and ongoing discussion would be occuring, repeated game playing would have to take place before a game could actually be completed in entirety. After repeated game playing through modeling, gradual release would take place. Students would be paired to play the game together. Eventually, students would be given the option to play the game independently.

Note: These are ambitious plans for integrating Stop Disasters! into a first grade classroom. I would anticipate this initial plan may have overlooked critical components and processes. I would also anticipate the frontloading phases, information gathering phases, and writing phases to take months to complete. It is realistic to expect the game playing phase may not occur until January or February if not later. It might be more developmentally appropriate to implement this plan after several months of the new school year has past. Perhaps waiting until January or February may be the most appropriate time frame for implementation.

Check back to see what game I decided to play and write about!