And one more blog - I know I'm not suppose to type in my blogs all at once, but this is the time I can do it.

As I prepare for comps, I've been perusing the journals and copying some articles that seem interesting to me. Today, I read one from Performance Improvement entitled "Real Interactivity:Connecting People with People" by none other than Sivasailiam Tiagarajan (Bernie, can you give us lessons on saying his name?). This is the guy who has developed those framegames that we looked over in class on Monday night. In this brief article he explains framegames and his strategy of structured sharing. What has me confused is that these framegames seem more like activities to use in a classroom rather than games. They are game-like but what's missing is the winning. Your thoughts please.

For our WebQuest on Educational Game Patterns, we've divided the patterns into domains and mine concerns mapping content onto games. In considering patterns this, it seems like a logical approach (and one that's especially appropriate for instructional designers) is to develop a set of patterns for the type of content the game addresses - processes, procedures, facts & concepts, principles. Clearly, most content will have a variety of these types but commonly one type is more prevalent. Two potential patterns (these are very rough and only partially done) are listed below. I'd appreciate your feedback on developing patterns based on this kind of content analysis. Is it helpful, appropriate, etc?

elaine

Name: MappingContent.Process

Description: When reinforcing processes and systems in an educational game, consider using a symbolic representation of the process itself as an area for constructing play. For example, if you are you teaching learners about processes such as the water cycle, human digestion, or ADDIE, a representation of these systems can serve as a playing area.

Range of Appropriateness: Appropriate only where such a symbolic representation exists and is part of the content to be learned. Creating a representation that does not already exist may provide additional and unnecessary material to be understood.

Name: MappingContent.Process.ObstacleShortcut
Description: When reinforcing processes and systems in an educational game, consider using sub-processes as shortcuts and/or obstacles in the game and to possibly create alternate paths. For example, evaporation is a part of the water cycle process and could be used as a shortcuts or obstacle depending on the goal of the game.

Range of Appropriateness: Appropriate for linear race-like games

So, we definitely have a bit of debate going on here about the merits of games that have a level of violence in them. I think it is interesting that the "sides" of the debate seem to show the gender difference; we have Shawn and Eric strongly defending the value of the games, and Noelle, Sharon, and me on the side that is questioning their value. While I don't question that those who play them find them fun and valuable for that reason, I'm still wondering if that "fun" can be defined. And when I say "social value," I mean, how is the energy poured into these games benefiting anyone outside of the game players themselves? By which I don't suggest that any activity that doesn't have lasting impact on society is worthless. But when the activity has inherent overtones of being antisocial (because it is violent)... do you not question whether it is impacting your interactions with people and the world outside of the game? Is antagonism a way of life, or a way to escape because it is not how you would normally act? I'm really NOT being judgmental, I just want to understand because the things that I enjoy are quite different.

I also wanted to comment on something that Shawn wrote on 10/30/00. I agree that the word "violence" does get thrown around a lot. In light of recent, over dramatized, coverage of school violence I suppose that it's understandable. I wonder if some people aren't just over analyzing "kids today." Perhaps games like Quake 3 Arena have replaced Cops and Robbers. Times change. To some degree, we've all played "violent" games. Remember when you were younger and your friends dared you to do something? I think some people are just over reacting.

Boy, it's getting harder and harder to read through all these posts. :) Anyway, I just want to comment on something that Sharon posted on 10/30/00. In regards to the article that she talked about, I wonder if some people aren't just going overboard in having stores begin to card people before selling a "violent" game. Is this really necessary? Is it feasible? Consider for a moment that some find Donkey Kong to be "violent."
She also mentioned that the article pointed out that, "games and movies not 'intended' for children (are) being advertised during times and on channels that children are watching." I wonder if the the source of this article isn't somewhat biased. Further, as I don't watch "those channels" and at "those times," I wonder if she can give "us" some example of these "offensive" things. I just wanted to be clear on what is so offensive and wrong.

Here is an article recounting the history of First Person Shooters. It begins with the original FPS, Castle Wolfenstein 3D, moves onto the now infamous Doom and finishes with a look to the future of FPSs.

In response and addition to the issue of violence in games and research on those that play such games, the Eric Digest has a great article with a wealth resources on violence, recommendations, ratings and so on in the following article: Video Games: Research, Ratings, Recommendations.

-Dan

Hi all. Tom Sloper, a self-proclaimed game design guru, has an interesting article on the trials and tribulations to entry into the game design industry. He talks a little about required skills and more about story lines and the designer's internal struggle to tell a story throughout the game. Interesting reading, if not a little melodramatic. Check it out: Game Design Essay

-Dan

I found a link to an article on gamings "Triumphs and Tragedies". It's good if you need some history, including the first game ever developed.

Last week, I had to sub in a 6th grade classroom (simply because I have a student teacher and was the only warm body available) and they had to read Scholastic News, an educational publication based on current events. It had an article on game violence. It read that major stores are going to begin to card people before selling games that are considered violent. It went on to say that movies and games not "intended" for children are often advertised during tiems children are watching televison. so my question is, "Why are games and movies not 'intended' for children being advertised during times and on channels that children are watching?"

I am responding to Noelle's question regarding what I meant when I wrote that children who are interested in violence choose violent games. I did mean what i wrote, but I do feel that some clarification of what I mean is needed. Violence is a very strong buzzword and saying that some people are interested in violence sounds quite ugly. Violence might mean playing cops and robbers. It could also mean watching an action movie with a lot of gunfire and explosions. In extreme cases it means going out and getting into fights. To a certain degree they are all based in violence and some of them are healthier than others.

I think that if a child (or anyone else for that matter) were playing too many games and they began to associate with the games too much, than that is something that should be looked at carefully. The motives are also important. If someone is playing violent games because of pent up aggression or anger than the games are probably not a healthy outlet for those feelings. Of course, I am not trained in any kind of psychology, so this is nothing but more opinion.

To my surprise there is a site called Game-Interviews.com

This might be interesting to the team that deals with violence and games.
Recently, a group of prominent Americans, including current and former public officials, issued a statement decrying violence in entertainment that they called an "Appeal to Hollywood".

Hi Team and others interested,

We are looking into the relationship between age and game appeal. I came across the attached research study that was conducted by the AARP. AARP surveyed over 1,000 of its members to assess their learning styles.

http://research.aarp.org/general/lifelong_1.html

While I was looking at some evaluation sites, I came across this very interesting article that indirectly relates to game appeal: "Application of Multiple Intelligences Research in Alternative Assessment" (Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement. OBEMLA, 1992).

In this article, the author (Joseph Walters, Harvard University) introduced a theoretical treatment of the concept of intelligence and drew from this theory several implications for education, paying particular attention to the question of assessment.

Following I include a part of the article that is relevant to game appeal:

"What struck the author about this scene, especially as he was gathering ideas for this paper, was the diversity of the human skills on display in this small space. As he looked about, he could easily pick out a variety of pursuits and challenges -- the games of chess and backgammon, word puzzles, musical and kinesthetic performances, social interaction, and so on. And yet, nothing in this scene was unusual. The diversity that he was seeing was completely familiar.

Another striking feature of this scene was how much of it builds on problem solving. Games like chess and backgammon allow the players to pose problems for one another. Puzzles are taken up as a challenge posed by the puzzle's author. Performances in music and movement require the solution of problems of a different sort.

This scene was a reminder of the need that humans have to create challenges and pose problems as a form of recreation. What's more, there is an inevitable variety to the nature of those challenges. For one person, chess is a fascinating and fulfilling game, while for a second person chess is impenetrable, a foreign language. The crossword puzzle for these two people may appeal in just the opposite manner. "

If you are interested in reading this article go to: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/second/vol1/application.html

Holly, Gulcin, Yu-chan & anyone interested in gender and computer games.

I found this really interesting site. The authors evaluate 4 popular "girl's" software programs. Most other articles I've read about these programs/games have been all positive, but this article disagrees and details why. Check it out!

http://cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/gender-gap-in-education/index.htm

Now many people may already be aware of this site. It may have already been shared in class. But in any case, I just found it for myself and found it useful. http://www.gradingthemovies.com This site gives reviews not only on movies but on video/computer games as well. What a great resource for parents who want to kow more about the game their child wants before actually buying it for them.

The more research I do on game violence, the more I find on gender differences in game selection. I think an interesting future topis might be: Who is choosing the violent games and what are the different effects they the game are having on the different genders? In my very preliminary research it is appearing that more boys are interested in these games. But somethng tells me there is more to it. Unfortunately I can not spend the time researching it further since it goes away from my teams topic, but I would love to read any research done in the future. It seems to be a very interesting topic.

I am on the game violence team and I want to thank Shawn for the interesting comments. I enjoyed reading another perspective. I was confused by one point, and maybe I was reading it wrong. I understood that you believe that children who are interested in cars will choose a car game. Those children who like football will choose a footbal game. Andthose children who are interested in violence are the ones choosing the violent games? Should those parents be seeking immediate help? I do agree that game choice generally goes along with interests but who has violent interests? There must be someone because these games are selling rather well. I am not one who is saying these games should be taken off the shelves or anything. I trying to look at how we can be sure they don't get into the wrong hands and one things I mean by that is lokking at age appropriateness.

I just thought I would post a little response to Sara Pehrsson who said the following on 10/30/2000 8:17:36 AM:
"What do they get out of [games like Doom]?". As a gamer, I feel somewhat qualified to answer this.

1) The best Quake (sequel to Doom) player in the world, Dennis Fong, has turned his skill in this game into a multimillion dollar gaming empire. He and many others actually make money at this sort of thing. Granted, this is the least likely case, but many people develop these skills as a career or in the hopes of getting into this as a career.

2) It's just fun. Any skills I might have developed playing these games are a result of spending a lot of time playing the games. It is not an "effort" (as Sara put it) on my part to play games. It takes me about as much effort to play games as it takes to watch TV. In fact, it takes me more effort to watch television than it does to play games. This is just personal opinion, but I don't like most of what television has to offer. Everyone has hobbies, for many people it's gaming. As soon as a game begins to become "effort" I put it away and play a new game.

3) Regarding the statement that these games have "little personal or social value"; I think I answered the question of personal value already, but the social value is often underappreciated by non-gamers. Some of you may have heard of LAN parties, well my friends and I have a tradition; every thursday night we get together for our game night. We have dinner, hang out for a while and play games. More often than not, we are playing computer games. We occasionally play other types of games, but we usually play on computers. Does anyone question the social value of friends getting together to play pool, poker or basketball? Is this any different since we are using computers? Some might say so, and that is a valid opinion. However, as far as we are concerned, we are getting together to play games. It's a group activity that we all enjoy together. If we consider it to be social, can our opinion be discarded simply because others do not find enjoyment in this? Add to this the power of the Internet and now we can play with friends who live in other parts of the world. A friend in Michigan can't go snorkelling with us anymore, but we can all go online and play StarCraft together.

I'm not in the group dealing with violence with games, but I have to admit I find the topic quite interesting. I have to put a disclaimer up right now; I am an avid gamer, so my opinions are quite biased. I find it interesting that so many people are ready to decry games for inspiring violence in children. This debate first began with television, but was easily moved to games as games gained in popularity. As far as I can tell. the gist of the issue as defined by people who think games cause violence is that: 1) people play violent computer games, 2) they become desensitized to the violence they perpetrate in the games, 3) this desensitized state allows them to commit violent acts without second thought or remorse. I realize that is an overly simplistic view, but I believe that is the heart of the matter. I don't believe it for a second.

This type of logic has not yet been advanced to explain other societal ills. As far as I have heard, no one has ever claimed that car racing games cause car accidents. I think the logic can follow the same track (no pun intended): 1) people play car racing games; 2) they become desensitized to the car crashes and the reckless driving; 3) this desensitized state allows them drive recklessly and get into accidents without a second thought. I have yet to hear anyone claim that an accident occured because playing "Super Mario Cart" made them forget that cars don't just bounce off of trees, or that they ran a friend off the road because mario made it look like fun. Nor has anyone claimed that playing "Need for Speed III" made them think that they could successfully outrun police cars in a high speed chase. Did the game "Driver" cause a single person to embark on a life of crime as a "wheelman"? What about other genres? Does playing sports games turn kids into athletes? Does "Tetris" turn kids in geometrists? In my opinion, these answers are "no". I don't think games turn people into things. I think poeple turn games into what they need. A kid who is into sports plays the sports games. A kid who is into cars plays racing games. A kid who is into violence plays violent games. Isn't that they way it has always been? Kids play sports; kids play with Hot Wheels cars; kids play war/cowboys&indians/cops&robbers.

On a last note (finally), let's look at game sales. Most of what I have written can be considered anecdotal at best, so let's look at a few provable facts. What are currently the most popular games? Are violent games the best sellers? The following information is accurate as of 10/14/00, and can be confirmed at http://www.gamerankings.com. Top selling Sega Dreamcast game--NFL 2K1; a sports game. Granted, football is a violent sport, but from the "kids emulate what they are playing" stance, this makes it a sports game, not a violent game. The rest of the Dreamcast topten has six non-violent games and four violent games (where violence means violent combat is a main feature of the game). The top selling gameboy game is Pokemon Silver. The violence of Pokemon is a matter of some debate, so brevity's sake, we will call Pokemon violent. The rest of the topten--54 violent, 5 non-violent. Four of the violent games are Pokemon games. Nintendo 64 top game--Tony Hawk's Pro Skater; non-violent. Nintendo topten--7non-violent 3 violent. PC titles--top game is The Sims: Livin' Large; non-violent. The topten; 7 non-violent, 3 violent. Playstation top game; Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. Topten--6 non-violent and 4 violent. The point of these figures is to illustrate the point that the games that sell best are generally the ones that do not feature a lot of violence. The best selling game of all time was Myst. There was not a single moment of violence in that game. It is true that a lot of violent games exist, but they are not the only games out there and they are not always the best sellers. What matters more, that a lot of violent games are made, or that most games that people are playing are non-violent?

After all of that writing I feel as if I should tie it all up into a neat little conclusion, but I will leave you to make your own. Anyone have anything to add, or want to disprove or contest what I wrote? I truly find this topic interesting, so any discussion on it is welcome.

Looking at Yu-Chan cheng's post about women in computer careers... many of the reasons listed struck a chord with me. Particularly "the narrow focus of the job", where women would prefer to apply CS to broader issues, and the "solitary, myopic fascination with obscure technical details." I've noticed that I feel alienated by technical discussions, of games or whatever, whenever they don't seem to have any particular effect on a broader issue that is important to me. When playing games, to me, it seems like a waste of time to get so good at something that has so little personal or social value. Don't get me wrong, I love to play games... but I don't like to have to invest a lot of effort at it. I'd be interested in the motivating factors for why some people like to spend so much time and effort on games like Doom. What do they get out of it?

CYC is a long-term effort started at MIT, I believe, focused on creating a computer program with "common sense". CYCCorp commercializes this effort. Check it out. http://www.cyc.com

The team working on the Game Industry will particularly enjoy this link: Developer Diaries. It's an offshoot of the Games Domain site and consists of one-page interviews or journals written by people hard at work at the next generation of games. It's interesting to go through the pages and note the different roles that people play: artists, programmers, animators, script writers, technical writers, mappers, testers. The days of two guys in a garage being able to develop amazing things seem very long ago.

An interesting article regarding pitfalls of data analysis. It contains the subtopics such as the problem with statistics, sources of bias, errors in methodology and problems with interpretation. If you are interested in further reading, you can find it on the following URL: http://www.execpc.com/~helberg/pitfalls/.

Other intersting article on gender issues is that Girlware: Software companies are targeting girls,
but is their marketing on the mark?
http://www.electronic-school.com/0697f1.html

Here is other article on gender issues in game design from U.S. News " Girls don't hate computers. They just don't like the games boys like"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/25girl.htm

Hi, I am working on gender issues in game design as a part of game appeal project. This weekend I read the article “We Have Never-Forgetful Flowers In Our Garden:
Girls' Responses To Electronic Games’. http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~inkpen/Papers/Girls/girls.html
Aim of this study is to investigate whether and how electronic games can be used to increase girls’ interest in math and science. This article describes how girls interact within an electronic games environment. Key findings of this study:
1. Many girls are interested in electronic games.
2. Girls tend to prefer computer games to video games
3. Girls are more likely to play if certain conditions hold, including ease of access to the game and the possibility of interacting with others while they play
4. Girls enjoy interacting with others as they play
5. Electronic games that emphasize relationship and build confidence appeal to girls
6. Game characters and relationship with game characters and people around girls feature highly for many girls.

The Geeker Sex ( http://www.theinspiracy.com/argeeker.htm)

Responding to the question, "why are game players mostly male?", the author, Noah Falstein, points out some common misconceptions and debates them by providing justification.
The misconceptions and debates are as following:
Misconception1:
No one has ever tried making games specifically for women.
Debate:
1. The fabled Epyx Barbie game released around 1985 was made specifically for women.
2. Many games have been made with women specifically in mind: perhaps a tiny fraction compared to all the game released, but enough to conclusively put this misconception to rest.

Misconception2:
Men make the games and they make them for other men and boys. If women actually made the games, other women would buy them in droves!
Debate:
1. Coin-op arcade game developed in the early 80's and its designer, Lyn Oswald is female.
2. The "Plundered Hearts" game was developed by Amy Briggs.
3. The Roberta Williams's games from Sierra. In particular her LAURA Bow mystery games were aimed at the female market.

Misconception3:
Too many games out there are about killing. Women need games about topics specific to their likes.
Debate:
The author agrees that too often designers in our industry depend on violence and gore for commercial effect without much regard to artistic merit or game play. But, he further asks the question, what topics are specific to women's liking? Will be shopping and cooking? This has always struck him. Then, he brings up two facts: the games named Ms. Pac Man and Plundered Hearts appealed to women either because of a sexless yellow blob or because of asexual Tetris.

Misconception4:
If only a game was made that did appeal to women, it would sell huge number.
Debate:
1. Although it's true that women are a largely untapped market, the games that have been a hit with women so far have done so while also appealing to men, instead of by going out on a feminine limb.
2. If a game is designed to be perfect for women who have never been interested in computer game before, but is of little interest to men, it's probably never going to get a chance to be published because of internal company hurdles where most of decision-makers (mostly men) are cautious about untested markets. If the game is made, not only distributors (mostly men) but also retailers must believe in it to make it a hit or recommend it to customers.

The conclusion is that with time and maturity, we'll see a diversified audience for interactive entertainment. Then, perhaps even games narrowly focused on women can be successful!

To make women-oriented games happen, there are several factors following:
1. Survey on " what topics are specific to women liking?"
2. Eliminate filters of company executives, distributors and retailers
3. More and more people grow up computer-literate
4. Design game based on game-savvy female audience

Women and Computer Careers( http://vest.gu.se/vest_mail/0846.html)

Women are leaving or avoiding careers in computers because of the following factors:
1. Discrimination by male co-workers
2. The narrow focus of training
This training tends to emphasize technical expertise rather than practical application. However, a higher percentage of men are concerned with technical details itself while a high percentage of women are concerned with putting the technology into use.
3. The narrow focus of job
Many women more often want to link computer science to other issues, to broader social agenda. In other words, instead of focusing on faster, better technology for its own sake, women want to use computing to solve problem in medication or education. However, the current situation in computing job is more narrow focus such as debugging software.
4. Different preferences
Women would be more likely to design hand-held computers that keep track on an entire family or cylindrical kiosks with a facility for group discussion while men don't.
5. Computer usage
"Computer use is pretty equal between boys and girls until age of 10, when boys rapidly overtake girls" said John Baskett, senior vice president of marketing at Girl Games, a software company in Austin, Texas. A landmark 1995 study of 1,100 children ages 7 to 12 tried to find out what causes girls to tune out. It shows that rather than violent, girls found games boring. Because girls tend to look for characters that they could imagine having a relationship with, and for an intricate, true-to-life story line.
6. The bad image of programming
According to a study of students at Carnegie Mellon, the image of programming as a solitary, myopic fascination with obscure technical details is especially pernicious for discouraging and repelling women students who want to broader experience.
7. Few role models
Women made up only 10% of computer science professors and less than 6% of full professors, at top American universities in 1997. In addition, at the nexus of the industry, women leaders are in still shorter supply. Therefore, few role models were made and women feel inferior to men, regardless of their training.
8. Family-unfriendly work environment
9. A general sense that the field is irrelevant to women interests

Patterns
I'm a kindergarten teacher and I thought I knew what a pattern was. Let's see,
It solves a problem.
It is a proven concept.
The solution isn't obvious.
It describes a relationship
The pattern has a significant human component

Each pattern is a three-part rule, which expresses a relation between a certain context, a problem and a solution.

I like this definition best:
As an element of language, a pattern is an instruction, which shows how this spatial configuation can be used, over and over again, to resolve the given system of forces, wherever the context makes it relevant.

John, here is my understanding of Forces: In the description of a pattern for game design a force would be the motivation for using that particular type of pattern. It would be the discriptiion of the instances and ideas about why you want to solve the problem. that would be best suited to using the pattern described.

I was most interested in the discussion that I will copy here and then discuss:

Context:

You are an experienced practitioner in your field. You have noticed that you keep using a certain solution to a commonly occurring problem. You would like to share your experience with others.

Problem:

How do you share a recurring solution to a problem with others so that it may be reused?

Forces:

* Keeping the solution to yourself doesn't require any effort
* Sharing the solution verbally helps a few others but won't make a big impact in your field.
* Writing down your understanding of the solution is hard work and requires much reflection on how you solve the problem.
* Transforming your specific solution into a more widely applicable solution is difficult.
* People are unlikely to use a solution if you don't explain the reasons for using it.
* Writing down the solution may compromise your competitive advantage (either personal or corporate.)

Solution:

Write down the solution using the pattern form. Capture both the problem and the solution, as well as the reasons why the solution is applicable. Apply Mandatory Elements Present to ensure that the necessary information is communicated clearly. Include Optional Elements When Helpful to capture any additional useful information. Distribute the resulting pattern to the largest audience you feel it could help that does not compromise your competitive advantage. Often, this means publishing your patterns exclusively within your company via Intranets or company journals.

The forces in this example include why the problem is needing to be solved. It directs and guides the solution. It is like the thoughts behind the formation of the solution.

I am still unsure how this can be handled for game design. I had hoped to have a better outline by now to bring to our meeting on Monday.

What iff we take the general categories of pieces, paths, probabilities, prizes and principles.

This seems like a simplistic view of game design. Much of this is already done in the Board Game Design First Steps. The literature is much deeper and goes beyond the surface discriptions we first discussed last Monday.

However, let's go forward with this idea for the present.

Pieces
-moving pieces
-alterations to the game (houses in Monopoly)
-reward pieces
-comments and questions to answer
-motivational


Paths
- Movement through Space or time
-obstacles
-shortcuts
- decisions



Probabilities
-

Prizes
-rewards to progress through the game faster
-increase in status
-ways to win

Principles
-

This is pretty sketchy. More to come.

Karen

Here is my first attempt at stating a pattern..

Pattern Name: FeedbackThroughChallenge

Some game systems allow open ended responses without providing feedback
therefore allow users to challenge each other on the correctness of a given response.

Principle involved:
Learners must be provided with timely feedback regarding their performance and learning.

Sample Situations: Scrabble, Boggle
In Scrabble users create words from letter tiles, Users may create words that violate scrabbles given words or are mispelled. Opponents have the option to challenge the player.

Now on to some thoughts for our webquest.

Defining patterns seems to me like more than just saying "spinners are a way of randomizing numbers."

It is more a matter of looking at the game from a designers point of view.

For example:
As an educational game designer I might want to focus on facts memorization:

--------------
Our team might therefore go out and look at
1.different objectives game designers may have had.
How can I get my user to:
memorize, synthesize, classify,
2.ways to motivate the user
3.ways to provide feedback to the user
4.ways to map particular content onto a game form.
5. how to scaffold learning
6.how to limit the time a game uses
7.how to increase competition(motivation)
8.How to increase interativity between players

Is this on track? Can you think of more categories

I now understand what Chris meant by brain overload. I have been reading about patterns for the last hour and a half. My understanding is moving from a deep fog to an opaque film.

Here is what I have so far:

A pattern describes both the context of a problem and the solution. It also describes specific instances of a pattern.

I don't understand what a force is.

The most interesting page I have found so far:
http://www.bell-labs.com/cgi-user/OrgPatterns/OrgPatterns?WebIndex

This is a list human-resources type patterns, usefull in business to solve management and team work related issues.

For example: the "Sacrifice One" pattern states:
"Small distractions can add up, and sap the strength of the team.

Even small distractions must be handled. But they take time away from the primary task. In particular, any distraction, even a small one, disrupts "flow" time, which costs significant additional time to regain.

Many small distractions are less desirable jobs. "

This made sense to me. Since I am not a programmer, many of the examples are out of context.






Therefore:

Assign just one person to it until it gets handled.

Game violence is obviously a very hot topic. There is a lot of argument over how much exposure children and teens should have to these games. A lot of violent crimes committed by teens where violent video games have said to have a direct influence on the crime, showed that the person committing the crime had many other problems such as family, depression, and so on. For children with these types of problems I don’t think these games help. However, as I have mentioned before, I don’t think that they should be blamed solely for that child’s actions. One article that I read stated that, “One survey of 900 fourth through eighth graders found that almost half the children said their favorite electronic games involved violence (http://www.Findarticles.com, June 28, 1999). This goes to show that unfortunately violence sells and it is only going to make the video game market hotter. To combat this parents and legislators are going to have to place more concentration on implementing a new rating system and changing the advertising on T.V. To go directly after the game producers themselves, I feel is a waste of time. They know that violence sells their games, and they are not going to stop producing it. So more concentration has to be placed on reducing the amount of exposure that we allow children to have to these games.

While doing some research on the Internet about video game violence, I came across a very interesting article on the marketing of these games. One I guess you could call strategy that the gaming industry uses is to make plastic action figures that replicate the main characters in many of these games. What they then do is label the packaging 5 years and up, and advertise the video game that these characters in all over the packaging of the action figure. Not much is being done to try and stop the selling of violent games to children. Currently, there is a rating system, but even the rating is under heavy controversy. Many parents and legislators feel that it is unrealistic and inadequate. There also are not many rules being placed on video rental stores either. Unlike the movie theaters, there are no 18 and over restrictions placed on these games. As I stated in a previous Blog, I feel that to have to have restrictions at a video store is kind of overkill. It’s not the video stores responsibility to decide who can rent a certain type of game and who can’t. It’s the parents. Besides, I have yet to see or read anything that directly relates a violent video game to a violent crime.

Hi everyone... I have been doing some reading and research on game violence. One commonality that exists across all of the articles that I have read is that there is an overwhelming agreement that violence in video games has a direct influence on children’s behavior and has increased violent behaviors among children as well as teenagers. Among the members in my group I chose to take a more liberal approach to this topic. The reason for this being that I personally don’t think that video games should solely be blamed for children’s violent behavior. Granted, I don’t think it helps the issue, however, I put the responsibility one hundred percent on the parents. Ever since video games have been around some have been violent in one form or another. The only difference with the games of today is that they are a lot more technologically advanced. So does this mean that because these games have better more advanced graphics that violent crimes among children and teens is going to dramatically increase? I don’t think so. If children are going to commit a violent act then it is usually due to more serious complicated issues. I don’t think that some kid is going to play Doom for an hour and go rob a liquor store. If these parents don’t want their kids exposed to these games then don’t buy them. Sometimes it seems that parents are quick to blame others for their children’s bad behavior instead of blaming themselves.

For those of you out there who may be madly preparing for comps (like myself) - I have an interesting web source for you. It can be found on the gender webquest site, under New Players, New Games by Brenda Laurel. It is a manuscript of a talk she did in which she discusses a variety of design, game, and gender issues. I found it very interesting to read. The site is at http://www.tauzero.com/Brenda_Laurel/Recent_Talks/NewPlayersNewGames.htm .

Found some info that may be useful to the design group. Brenda Laurel, who is listed on the gender webquest site, has done some research on the architecture for computer-based interactive fantasy and fiction. It didn't really give any more details, but if you're still looking for something....

Hi everyone! I'm working on game designers and the game industry with my group. I found an interesting web site in my search to find out about the history of game design and the designers. It's about game testers and it discusses the process of game design from idea to fruition. Kind of interesting and it may be a perspective that my group might like to keep in mind as we build our WebQuest. http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Jake/GameDesign.html

Okay, I'm going to combine some thoughts on violent games, gender, and bots (I'm in the bot group). One of the links for my group goes to a website that provides lists of various types of bots that exist. At first it brought me to the "games bots" list, and I began to think that bots were mostly only for violent types of games. Each bot had a little description like " this bot can isn't afraid to die... this is an agressive bot.." etc. So I thought, come on! can't people have a little more imagination than that? Then I saw that the site had lists for other kinds of bots. I went to the "fun bot" list, which had bots that *I* found interesting. There's a bot that will evaluate your reading preferences and recommend books for you, and one that will do the same for movies. Then I found that I already have some experience with bots... I have a Catz program, and these too are bots. They're little virtual cats that play on your computer screen. Anyway, now I feel less as though bots are purely designed for the types of violent gaming that I don't cater to (and that I believe are male-dominated... do the gender or violence groups agree on that one?). There is a bot out there for everyone.

Speaking of violent games, I just read that they're doing a remake of RollerBall, a classic movie from 1975. The new movie takes place in 2005 and describes a game so violent that its players often die on the field. The release is set for Memorial Day weekend next year, but there's already a website in place that portrays the game as if it were already real.

Noelle asks... "Do you feel that it should be the parents' responsibility to censor and preview their child's entertainment or do you think these tyoes of games should be censored from the get go and not even be out on the shelves, thus eliminating the role of the parent as the bad guy?"

As the parent of a 12.5 year old, I know that being the bad guy is in my job description, and I'm not about to censor all of society to make my job easier. My wife and I draw the line at slightly different points (I'm the less bad bad guy), but we've always been clear about what's acceptable to watch on TV or what downloaded games get sent immediately to the trash can. So far, I think, Alex has been internalizing what we say and does his own self-censoring (mostly).

More effective than simply banning all exposure to violence (and crudeness and dumbth) is to talk back to it. When we're watching TV and see something that shows that the writers just weren't working very hard, we're quick to jump on it, and as a result Alex is becoming a pretty funny critic of popular culture. (I hope we haven't ruined real life for him! Probably not.) If all violent games were banished from view, then the worst of these things would become the forbidden fruit with even more appeal. If we never see even a hint of these things and get to talk back to them, then a teaching opportunity has been lost.

But where do you draw the line on game violence? It's a line that moves as your child gets older, and that's a question that we still wrestle with. Alex's favorite game at present, StarCraft, is rated for Teens and I'm not totally at ease with it. StarCraft does have some redeeming virtues involving strategy and creativity, but still...

As a parent and a teacher, I have real issues with violence among our youth. But, are video games the problem? That's what I am supposed to work on. It is much meatier than I thought it was going to be. And my group has a very, very, wide variety of opinions on this matter. Wish us luck!

Hi everyone. Okay, I just resized my screen and lost all of my inital "musings." So far, I'm 0 for 6 on using this medium. I hope it gets better.....

I guess that just emphasizes some of what I've been uncovering in my web quest on gender issues. From the report - Educating Girls in the New Computer Age: A Report on Equity in Technology - some key findings are: 1) girls are not afraid of technology, they just see it as divorced from subject matter and interpersonal relationships 2) boys are more interested in how technology works, while girls are more interested in how it can be used, 3) both sexes would benefit from authentic technology assignments (ie, building something real and useful to the student) given in an atmosphere that promotes experimentation without fear of failure or pressure to meet a standard in a certain amount of time.

I am a teacher but not a parent and many of the articles that I have been reading on game violence have suggested that parents need to take the blame for the violence of children, not the games. They are saying that parents need to take more care in checking for ratings on the game boxes and take a minute to preview games that children play. They also mention that if parents are allowing these games to be played, they should be discussing the situations with their children. I do have my opinions on this issue, but, as I mentioned above, I am not a parent. For all of you out there who are parents, I would like to know how you feel about this. I thnk it could give me a better perspective. Do feel that it should be the parents' responsibility to censor and preview their child's entertainment or do you think these tyoes of games should be censored from the get go and not even be out on the shelves, thus eliminating the role of the parent as the bad guy? If you have children and a have free moment to comment, I would love to hear what you have to say.

In one of the readings that I did for my group project on game violence, I found an interesting observation. This writer was commenting on how in each decade there is something that gets attacked and blamed for the troubles of the current society. As much attck as these things seem to fall under, most have survived and are still around today. He continues to suggest that computer and video games are the next thing to fall under this attack and will be for this decade. There are many issues to consider but how interesting to look at history in this way. It seems that we must always find something to blame other than ourselves for what is happening in the world around us. What next!?

Calling the gender group once again!!! I've got another one for you. Again, it may already be on your list but Computer Games and Violence: A Child's Friend or Foe? also look at the differences in genders. It is also on the process page for the violence group. I hope that in some way these will be helpful to you.

While going through the suggested readings for my webquest project I found one that might fit into another topic. My group's topic is that of game violence. Those of you out there looking at gender issues might want to take a look at SALON: The shooters and the Shrinks, which is on the prcess page for the game violence group. I'm not sure what your research entails but this might be useful to you, if it wasn't already on your list!

I guess I hadn't really realized how much of a different light I am beginning to see games in until our game was put to the test. We had people try playing it and really enjoyed it but didn't like the negative outcomes. They thought we should just leave them out of the game. We explained the need for them after the prototesting and they agreed woth our usage. It was just very interesting to discover how differently we all look at games and especially now that we are looking at it from a designer's standpoint rather then someone looking for the entertainment.

You know how you feel when you read a bunch of information that you can decode, but you have no clue as to the content of what you're reading? New words (as of the last ten minutes) that do NOT mean what you think they mean in English when relating them to concepts about patterns: field, web, patch, lanugage, signals, singleton pattern, abstract pattern, and (my all-time favorite for the day) knode. Forget designing a web page for future EDTEC students on patterns to use in their games. . . I think we should make a dictionary for future EDTEC students just so they can translate what they're reading!

On a different tangent -- I went to the Children's Software Finder and looked for software applicable to the grade level I teach. I only limited my target to fourth grade, Windows platform, and software created after 1997. Guess how many titles this "finder" found!? Only 3! (And two of them were both Carmen Sandiego versions.) The summary and reviews for each software piece was nice, though. Found a few patterns!

This reading on patterns is interesting, but I've yet to come across anything that specifically relates to game design. I am noticing, though, that some people should take lessons on web page design before they throw something on the Internet. Some of these pages that I'm coming across are an absolute eyesore (and, they have NO patterns incorporated from one linked page to the next).

Apparently there is a goal for all patterns and their products. IIt has been deemed "the quality without a name" (QWAN for short) by an architecture professor at Berkeley, and it gives overwhelming beauty and value to a structure. It incorporates symmetry, balance, wholeness, order, cognitive resonance, and a few more things. This QWAN goes past "beauty in the eyes of the beholder" and encompasses everyone everywhere in the world.

Is that really possible!? This QWAN can be universal throughout every culture and every lifestyle? I'm kind of thinking that "QWAN" should have really been named "perfection" . . . and architects at Berkeley should do something (like maybe hire an English teacher or buy a thesaurus) to prevent themselves from being associated with extremely vague concepts and acronyms.

A definition of "pattern" = "A pattern is a named nugget of insight that conveys the essence of a proven solution to a recurring problem within a certain context amidst competing concerns." (from Brad Appleton's Patterns and Software: Essential Concepts and Terminology)

I hope my team and I come up with a friendlier definition when we design our materials for the WebQuest.

I have just started doing the background reading for my WebQuest (Pattern Language for Game Design) and I think I've already got brain overload! My understanding of patterns prior to these readings was based on my experiences as an elementary school teacher ("Can you arrange your tiles in a red/green/red/green sequence, class?") and from the Board Game Design First Steps from EDTEC 670. Apparently, the whole concept of "patterns" is MUCH more involved. There are even study groups that exist solely to meet on a weekly basis to discuss patterns found in organization, architecture, analysis, etc. (How do these people have time for all this!?) Here's one site address that just about blew my mind. . .http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/docs/patterns-intro.html

Do any of you play Quake? It's a hugely popular first-person shooter game. In my ongoing quest to channel things that are popular into more educational roles, I've been wondering if the various Quake editors out there could be used to make a game that was more benign yet still fun.

Just came upon this BBC report on how architects are using Quake to let clients run around in a still-unbuilt building to get a feel for it.

I wonder if we could make a version of the North Education building this way? Or a slave ship? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Versailles?

I just visited the CoolQuiz site for the first time. [http://www.coolquiz.com/].

CoolQuiz has trivia-type, multiple-choice questions in a zillion categories, mostly about pop culture. The basic structure is that you get to keep answering questions until you get 3-5 wrong, depending on the quiz. Motivationally, the only reason to keep going is to get yourself on the Hall of Fame associated with each quiz. I kept answering away on the Map Quiz until I got my 5th one wrong and ended with a score of 1930, which got me on today's Hall of Fame at the number 2 spot! Before my head had a chance to swell even slightly, I saw that the all time high score on that game was 50000.

I wonder how you could change this game to make it a bit more motivating? They call it a game, but is it?

A feature I didn't check out: you can create your own quizzes. The down side of that is that you'd have to create a whole bargeload of questions to make it playable.

Wow, look at this stream of blogs from everyone! Guess everyone is waiting for the weekend...
Well here's my first post. I'm part of the Game Bots group. I've looked over a few of the webpages now, but not all. Two things strike me:
The first page I looked at was just a list of Game Bots, and they ALL appeared to be ones that had to do with violence. Hmm. There's that gender thing... I skipped on to another page.

The next page I looked at was a very interesting essay from a person who felt that game bots should be given character by writers, rather than programmers. And that this would create more interest and interaction. I think that sounds great... though after reading the essay I sort of wondered why people would need to find that kind of interaction from a Bot rather than an actual person. To each his own, I guess.

Don't mind me, I'm just posting this to see how it works. :)

Wow! Thanks to a link from another blog (Dave Winer's Scripting News) I just learned about a new company/site named Skotos.

Here's how they describe themselves:

About Skotos Tell Me A Story: Stories live within our hearts. Through them we immerse ourselves in the tales of events and people we do not know; we see conflict rise and be resolved; and we revel in all of the other surprises comedy, tragedy, and drama can offer. We also have a deep need to be storytellers: to express our own ideas; to wrap people up in the tales we spin; and to build worlds for others to play in and explore. Storytelling is a hardwired part of how humans learn and pass on their culture. Stories speak to the meaning of life. Like myth, fictional stories are often false on the outside, but true on the inside. They express our deepest selves beyond the level of conscious knowledge. Though storytelling is as old as the human race, in fact an essential part of what it is to be human, how we tell stories changes. For most of human history, stories were expressed as spoken words. Then came poetry, then writing, then printing, then novels. Now we have movies, radio, TV. Skotos takes its stand in the early times of a new way to tell stories - interactive fiction - a hybrid of story and game that will play a large role in the way stories are told in the future. Interactive fiction allows the "reader" to play a role that changes the story as they play. Multiplayer interactive fiction allows many players to simultaneously inhabit and change the story space. Thus people, from all over the world, connected by the Internet, play with each other and the creations of the storyteller. Skotos Tech is about this new way of telling stories. Skotos Tech offers a theater for multiplayer interactive fiction. It hosts a community of StoryPlayers, who enjoy playing in other people’s worlds, and StoryBuilders, who enjoy creating worlds for them. Skotos’ technology, in the form of the StoryBuilder Server, brings them together.

If you poke around in the site, you'll see that they're using the latest, coolest XML to design the gaming environment. Instead of leading people through a pre-scripted story, they've created a world filled with objects whose characteristics are already written, but it's up to the players to do things with those objects (which include non-player characters). It's through that interaction that the story unfolds.

Just think about the possibilities: if we had a way to describe life in Ancient Egypt using these tools, and turned kids loose to "live" in that world... .what would they learn? I'm guessing that they'd learn a lot that would apply not just to that time and place. They'd acquire experience and skill at making sense of strange new places and an appreciation of how a culture, any culture, hangs together. And it would certainly stick with them better than the usual, superficial stuff about mummies and pyramids that they get in 6th grade now.

Amazing stuff.

FYI - a local company, Interact, which makes educational simulation games

http://www.interact-simulations.com/

To inaugurate this blog about educational games, here's a paper I just happened across that grapples with the concept of fun in the context of software design.

http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/fun.html

The premise of the article is that there are three different cases in which it might be important to concern yourself with making software "fun": 1) where enjoyment is the main function of the software; 2) where learning is the main function; and 3) where learnability is considered an important secondary requirement of software with some other main function. Seems to make tentative sense to me.