Playing and Gaming

From Brock University's Digital Humanities Compendium

Contents 1 Brief Summaries 2 Questions to Ponder 2.1 Question 1 2.2 Question 2 2.3 Question 3 2.4 Question 4 2.5 Question 5 2.6 Question 6 2.7 Question 7 2.8 Question 8 3 Debate! 3.1 Dave 3.2 Grant 3.3 Grant 3.4 Val 3.5 Dave 3.6 Sean 3.7 Stacey 3.8 Terry 3.9 Rob 3.10 Melanie 3.11 Heidi 4 Fun Stuff 5 Post Seminar

[edit] Brief Summaries

Stephen Ramsay - The Hermeneutics of Screwing Around; or What You Do With a Million Books

In this article Ramsay is posing the question what do we do with a million books? There are in his words way too many books and too little time. Ramsay examines some of the problems posed by access to such large catalogues, especially with regards to how we search them. It not being humanly possible to read everything we have access to, how do we decide which texts are in and which are out? It has traditionally only been a fraction of books that have been canonical. He outlines two methods with which we currently navigate through the myriad of books. On the one hand there is search, which is guided. In search we use references and take advice from others who have been through the catalogues before us. On the other hand there is browsing which Ramsay equates to screwing around. When we browsing in the digital realm we have access to all of the material in a given catalogue and increasingly this includes the body of the texts. As such we might happen upon insights that might have been missed through a more structured search. Ultimately Ramsay wonders whether browsing should be a more accepted research methodology.

Timothy Compeau and Rob MacDougall - Tecumseh Lies Here: Goals and Challenges for a Pervasive History Game in Progress

This article described the making of an Alternate or Augmented Reality Game (ARG) for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. The games designers intention was to create a game that blends aspects of virtual reality and real life into a game. So the game is based in both the real and virtual worlds. For this reason these games are also known as pervasive games, as elements of the game might be found anywhere. Much of the article revolves around the problems in creating an educational ARG that will be engaging for players and still provide a means by which they will learn. Traditionally a problem with educational games has been deciding how to balance the processes of the game with the educational content one wishes to convey in a meaningful manner. In Tecumseh Lies Here the players of the game are expected in some instances to conduct what would be considered actual historical research. They are to visit certain sites to harvest information which might then be applied to the game. Part of the problem the designers encountered in making this game was in identifying their audience. They did not know if they should aim for depth of engagement and immersion appealing to a small dedicated audience (the ’you had to be there’ quality.) Or if they should create a more accessible but potentially less effective educational game that might appeal to a broader audience. This article demonstrates that even in the middle stages of creating educational games there are constantly questions being asked about how best to use games to educate.

Geoffrey Rockwell and Kevin Kee -The Leisure of Serious Games: a Dialogue

This was a dialogue between Kevin Kee and Geoffrey Rockwell about the nature of serious gaming. Throughout the dialogue professor Kee advocates serious games as a potential method for education. Rockwell however disputes this fact, largely based on the notion that once a game becomes serious, it is no longer a game. In Rockwell’s mind to use games for educational purposes would be a corruption of games. Through making games serious and educational we run the risk of simply creating a new type of assignment for students. Ultimately they reach the conclusion that what is important is to design a game that will induce a sense of flow in the player. When flow is achieved a game might become both educational and entertaining. They end off the conversation agreeing that what is really serious about games is in the design.

Ian Bogost - Procedural Rhetoric

This chapter outlined the concepts of procedural rhetoric put forward by Bogost. Procedural rhetoric as outlined by Bogost is the use of processes persuasively. What is important about processes is that they function on sets of rules and are thus well suited to the digital domain, as computers inherently function according to processes. For him procedural rhetoric is the act of authoring arguments though the use processes. Procedural rhetoric not only covers persuasive arguments through processes but it might also entail expression through processes. Although it does not necessitate interactivity procedural rhetoric is made much stronger through greater interactivity. This is part of the reason that videogames and procedural rhetoric goes hand in hand. Another reason is that video games are by their very nature are rule driven and process intensive. For Bogost persuasive games depend very heavily on procedural rhetoric in order to convey any meaningful message to the player of the game. Good persuasive games make arguments about the way in which systems work or strive to alter player opinions or perceptions outside the game itself.

Justin Peters - World of Borecraft

Peters is addressing the current trend to use games as a vehicle for education and training. He is of the mind that sugar coating education doesn’t necessarily help anyone. In fact he thinks that this is often a recipe for taking the fun out of games and thus ruining them. He wonders when a game stops being a game and becomes and assignment. Peters advocates that we focus first and foremost on creating fun games and allow the education to follow, as a bonus. As he says himself “it’s easier to make a fun game educational than it is to inject fun into an educational game.”

Kee et al - Towards a Theory of Good History Through Gaming

This article explores some of the theoretical issues surrounding games as an educational tool. They attempt to reconcile the concepts of education and play by outlining the overlap between ‘good history’ and ‘good gaming.’ In the mind of the authors there does not appear to be too much of a leap between learning and play, as games have been a method of teaching since ancient times. Games foster the type of thinking and develop the skills that allow the student of history to learn on their own. Gaming fosters critical thinking through a process of developing a hypothesis and then testing it in order to find out what works and what does not. The article noted a problem in testing whether students are in fact learning via games. Because games teach learning by doing and do not necessarily teach content traditional methods of assessment in the classroom ( ie. Tests) do not hold up. However it is becoming more important to incorporate games into education because technology is becoming more prevalent and students are spending more and more of their time at the screen.

[edit] Questions to Ponder

[edit] Question 1

Is browsing a legitimate research method? Can a historian screwing around hope to produce the same results as the historian conducting a more structured search?

[edit] Question 2

In the context of education is the move away from collective experience to a more individual experience a postive thing? If we are to incorporate games into education is this transition necessary?

[edit] Question 3

If we do incorporate games into education how might we assess student learning?

[edit] Question 4

A recurring theme in this weeks readings revolved around the balance between work and play. Can education be play? Or are the two notions at odds? Where is the line and how can the two be reconciled? Or can they?

[edit] Question 5

As has been the standard thus far, how might playing and gaming relate to your MRP?

[edit] Question 6

In your opinion... If we are to use playing and gaming as an educational tool, or to practice history, what is the most important aspect we should take into account? What barriers must we overcome? Does gaming to learn even make sense?

[edit] Question 7

Is the inability to criticize, change, manipulate or view the internal structures of games a problem?

[edit] Question 8

Currently there is a lot of negative stigma surrounding video games in society. How might we add legitimacy to video games?

===Question 9=== When considering games for education what is the role of content? Is this a primary concern?

[edit] Debate!

[edit] Dave

I will tackle your 1rst and 5th questions to begin our roundtable. I believe wholeheartedly that Ramsay said it best in his chapter when he identified the search engines as "browsers" not "finders" (I paraphrase). The very act of searching out the important information is a directed enterprise and too often we have a preconceived notion of what we are hoping to find, and so we do. The ability to make those random connections and in effect "spin the wheel" and see what comes up is truly exciting. Many of the best information that I have been fortunate to discover in my many, many papers has been serendipitous; I went off on a tangent and suddenly discovered that I had an entirely new way of examining my question. Is it efficient? Not at all - but if you build it into your method of search and allow a sufficient amount of lead time, the results can be quite enlightening.

My use of games, or gaming simulation software, would encompass several key battles including the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battles at Fort George. There are terrific military real time or turn based games out there at present - the entire tableau of the second world war (and the American Civil War) can be played out over and over again to see if different outcomes are possible. They often are, and with little tweaking by the users - simply by manipulating some of the factors of the battle and anticipating the strategies employed by your opponent, some very telling results about the alternative outcomes of these conflicts can present some tantalizing counterfactuals to explore.

(I would also give the Americans a 60 foot high robot - a la Heidi inspired Transformers - to tip the scales in favour of my home team.)

[edit] Grant

Dave, I agree with you on the first question. I too believe that "browsing" can be a legitimate research method. In my past research, I have been reading one source and then found another in the footnotes or bibliography of that source. I have discovered many primary sources by accident while reading secondary ones. When trying to think of a topic for an essay, I have at times just gone to the library and looked in the history section for a cool looking book, then went from there. It opens up many doorways for research, expanding our knowledge and like you said Dave, not constricting our research to a narrow path. However, I also believe that browsing and structured research can be mixed together. You may start your research off with a certain book in mind, and then browse through it, discovering by accident many other sources. The two ideals are not distinct, but rather can be used together.

I will make an attempt to answer question three. It's often difficult to assess student learning if they are playing a game, because it is such an unconvential and untraditional method of pedagogy. However, I think one way to assess student's learning with games is to see if they identify themes that are present in them. Can they identify for example, historical contexts and global relations with war games? Can they identify any historical inaccuracies with history based games, or discuss the importance of certain cultural and social problems that are incorporated into certain games, such as September 12? If it is a strategy game, we could have the student outline how they were able to overcome the problem at hand and move on to the next level, outlining the skills they learned from class to overcome that obstacle in the game. We could have them write an essay on the themes present in certain games, discussing how those general ideals are displayed amd developed throughout the game as the student plays. Some of these ideas may not work at first, but these are just some of my suggestions to assessing students' learning with the incorporation of games. I think I will stop here and make my response this week a two parter, with more to come soon. I'm feeling ranty this week!

[edit] Grant

Ok, so to address your fourth question, I do believe that there can be a balance between work and play. Peters may disagree with me on this point, as he makes the point in his article that many educational games are not fun. He states that it is easier to put learning into a fun game, than "...inject fun into an educational one." I would disagree with him on this point, using Compeau's and MacDougall's article on Tecumseh as an example of an educational game that incorporates a lot of fun. Their game involves a sense of exploration, going out to different libraries and museums to uncover clues that will help answer the puzzles and questions at hand. There is a sense of playing in this context, as the individual gets to go out on an adventure to help solve the puzzle in the game. There could be a sense of excitement and intrigue, as they do not know what the clue will be or what is in store for them next. I would relate this to a scavenger hunt, which is fun and involves a sense of playing. Yet, they also learn about historical inquiry and interpreting sources. This is a point that the authors try to drive home in their article. Their game incorporates both playing and education, a concept that I agree with. Playing and education are not at odds, but can quite successfully be mixed together. Another example is the "Food Chain Game," in which individuals are either herbivores, omnivores or carnivores, being appointed different animals based on these classes. They then engage in a form of tag, whereby they give up or gain a life if they are caught by another person. Carnivores can take lives from each of the groups, while herbivores can't take lives from anyone. The game is educational, as it teaches students about different mammals and the food chain, while also having a sense of play to it.

[edit] Val

I will continue with Grant’s response to question four about work and play. Of course I agree with Grant, education can certainly be “fun” and “educational” at the same time. And perhaps Grant is correct in stating that playing and education are not at odds. But having just finished Bogost’s article on persuasive games I am compelled to mention that while Bogost isn’t dealing specifically with this notion of “play,” he does very quickly mention play in his chapter and offers a definition related specifically to gaming: something like “play is the free space of movement within a more rigid structure.” His definition got me thinking about how we define “play” and what type of “play” are we talking about when we’re considering serious or persuasive games. In their dialogue, Dr. Kee and George Rockwell debate whether games can be both “educational” simulations and “fun,” and I think the general consensus is that yes they can, but I think that the answer is only yes if we’re dealing with rigid definitions of play like the one proposed by Bogost. Let’s face it, Bogost’s definition of play doesn’t sound very fun… I guess my question is then, why is it necessary for serious games, or persuasive games, to be fun? What do we mean when we talk about “play” in the humanities? Can we really be “playing” when the ultimate goal of our play is some larger institutional understanding of a certain topic, etc? Isn’t this the opposite of what play is? I guess here Bogost would point to “persuasive games” which in his opinion do not cater to larger institutional goals. And he does suggest that a number of these “persuasive games” have enjoyed much commercial success and a large number of devout players. But what games is he referring to? Does calling something persuasive instead of serious then make it “play”?

[edit] Dave

Val, Bogost's chapter made me regret ever trying to "play" anything. To analyze something and categorize it to that extent in an effort to define the aspects of games that may be of use to pedagogy just made me sad. I was taken down a bit of memory lane with dear Bogost when he gave examples of Eliza, another dinosaur from the dawn of computers. Like the Life game (no, not the Milton Bradley board game), Eliza was one of the first interactive programs that I experienced. It was somewhat Socratic in it's approach, always asking questions to fool you into believing that it could truly be responsive to your answers to questions it "asked". Did you learn anything from the exchange? No, not really and I would hardly call Eliza persuasive, but it was a departure from the side scrolling Mario games of that time.

In response to question 6, I believe that the article on Tecumseh lies here answers many of those questions. The game must have the ability to inspire users to actually play them and to generate enough interest (at least in the structure of the type of game they were creating) to bring together a community of players in order to solve the puzzles and "win" the game. The games must have a solid background of historic research and either allow for the fanciful with all of the attenuate offshoots that entails (counterfactuals, time travel, anachronisms) or be strongly narrative while at the same time ensuring smooth gameplay in order to keep players on target. The difficulty with much educational gameplay is that it is BORING. There's no payoff for solving the puzzle or completing the level. Let's face it; no one defeats the final boss to get an "A" (at least not literally...)

To succeed, games built to educate need to do so in a manner that doesn't necessarily seem to be doing so. Applied knowledge is as valid as rote memorization when applied to actual situations that the student will encounter later, when writing an essay or constructing a presentation. The challenge for the educator lies in devising a platform that incorporates real knowledge while encouraging immersive gameplay. The description of the game in the Compeau and MacDougall article didn't sound like the type of game experience that I would undertake, but perhaps that is another factor to consider. The games that I will seek out may not be the ones that other students will want to play, and vice versa. So to sum up Ryan's 6th question: gaming to learn DOES make sense, but only if the educational aspect is so enmeshed in an entertaining game play that the user is virtually unaware that they are learning important historical information.

[edit] Sean

Well...having spent a week going between my readings, Steam Account, and EBGames I now feel sufficiently prepared to address some of these questions. In terms of the first question, regarding the value of electronic browsing, I too have to agree with Dave and Grant. Digital browsing is simply a more efficient and high tech version of shelf scanning, a process which the Library Sciences hate, but which is enormously effective. Dave is correct when he suggests that in searching in a directed way we limit the results which we find - however, when we scan or browse we find unexpected results and make unexpected connections. This makes research more exciting and more rewarding - even if it doesn't make it more efficient. It works well, as Grant notes, alongside and in conjunction with directed research methods.

The third question, about gaming environments and assessing student learning is interesting and makes us look at what we should expect of gaming as an educational tool. I think that this is often considered a difficulty because, as Peters argues and Rockwell suggests, any game which purports to strictly educate someone fails – while, any game which entertains must not be serious enough. However, I think that the problem comes in our expectations of games - after all I wouldn’t want to play a strict (Ian Bogost like) game, but that doesn’t preclude that it can’t inform my understanding of the world or human condition in general. Neither does the ability to become immersed in a game preclude that it can’t relate critical thinking skills or basic understandings of resource usage or economics. Therefore, effective and immersive games are such because they don’t lecture, and we shouldn’t expect students to learn facts from them. However, games could be used – and are used – to promote critical thinking skills, and general concepts. Games are a supplement to institutional education, not a replacement or substitution for it.

Finally, for question seven, regarding the inability of users to change and manipulate the internal structures of games being a problem. For this, while I'll admit it is fun to explore and understand the inner workings and structure which shapes how information is presented - this isn't the point of games! Programming is not gaming, nor should it be confused as such. Yes, certainly it is important to understand how and why information is interpreted or presented a specific way, but generally, for gamers, there isn't really an interest or desire to interact with the primary data in this manner. If we are trying to improve a game, its facts, details, or presentation of material then by all means being able to "look inside" is important and valuable - but beyond this interest, no the inability to reorient the internal structures of games isn't a problem.

[edit] Stacey

I think I’ll take a stab at your first question and argue in favour of browsing randomly as a valid form of conducting research. I agree with Dave on the idea that this may not be the most efficient way to conduct research, however I think that it can prove to be quite effective. As Ramsay argued, search engines aren’t perfect tools for locating sources because they pull out articles/sources that are tagged. In many cases I have found that tagging has also not been an efficient way to conduct research as there have been numerous instances where I have found myself reading say an article off of an academic website like JSTOR and it has been completely irrelevant to my research at that moment but it has offered different ways of looking at my research problem/question. I have also found browsing the library stacks after locating a book via the online catalogue in a specific place and found other books that are relevant to my research that did not appear when I did my online search. I believe that as historians we have to be open to new sources and interpretations of events that we are studying and the art of browsing allows us to be much more open. Like Val and Dave, Boogst made me a)not want to ever “play” again and b) frustrated because it reminded me of the rhetoric class I had until recently blocked out of my university memory. I really like the many questions Val presents because it leads us to wonder to what extent is what we’re doing as humanists or historians supposed to be fun? I had never really considered that being a university student let alone a masters student was about having any fun. I really like the idea of gaming and history because it allows us to have some generic fun while still learning. I would much rather like to get lost in the world of a video or computer game than any of the texts we have encountered thus far!

[edit] Terry

I am not so sure that question #1 has an answer. I see it all on a continuum. There is neither starting nor ending point where structure becomes browsing becomes structured! Perhaps it is cyclical rather than a continuum. I really like Ramsay and his writing style. Maybe in PLAY we can browse and say we didn’t!

[edit] Rob

Some very interesting perspectives already mentioned here. So I'll try to add my two cents in with regard to some other issues. To begin with, the idea of collective vs. individual experience. In media studies these days, there is a term called "audience fragmentation". This means that as tv channels become fore specialized, RSS feeds predominate web browsing, and the like, we run the risk of ultimately having not much to talk about outside of our own little niches. What happens to the cultural conversation then when we can't understand any of each other’s references? I am all for individual experience and tastes, but does there not need to be some common ground where we can meet and discuss issues together? Perhaps I am digressing.

With regard to assessing student learning. The ideas of pencil and paper pre and post testing as presented by Kee et al. may be doable, especially if we regard the game as a historical text where we have to "read between the lines" so to speak. In this respect it could be especially useful in assessing meta-cognition (e.g. explain the ways in which the game helped you to learn about X) Perhaps something that tests the skills gained through gaming verses the actual knowledge perse. I was also thinking that there is a lot of value in designing a game, as Kee and Rockwell allude to at the end of their conversation (unless I'm reading it wrong). The principle of “we teach what we need to learn” can be applied here. Just like with a lesson plan, the amount of background research you do before distilling it into what will be presented can be enormous. Likewise, in designing a game, avenues of exploration and developing questions in order to achieve comprehensive POV’s and plots, would surely be highly instructive. While one could argue that most of these “serious games” are designed for younger students, game design and the attendant research and knowledge would be useful to students (and instructors) at all levels.

[edit] Melanie

I think everyone has had some interesting viewpoints concerning question 4. I can't help but react to the question on a personal level (rather than just based on the info from the readings). I agree with Grant and Val that gaming has the potential to be a useful educational tool - we see this with Tecumseh Lies Here and in references to the Civilization game. However, I know that myself, personally, and the Tecumseh Lies Here game would not get along - waaaay to much like work for me to think of it like a game. Games to me function as something to relax with, and that seems like too much work to be leisurely. It leads me to think that games like that one, which are as involved as they are, wouldn't necessarily work for everyone as an educational tool; though I am not trying to discount its use as a educational tool. It's just not one I'd use/enjoy myself.

In terms of question 7, I think this relates back to the question we've touched on since day one - do we all need to know how to code? I am referring to games that use a more complex digital component, not just reworking Battleship to study chemistry - yes, I have friends who use this technique in their classroom. As Grant noted, Peters states that "it's easier to make a fun game educational than an educational game fun". With this frame of mind, one can easily take a game already in existence (like Battleship) and turn it into a useful tool, because its 'inner workings' are already understood. Along the same lines, if someone wishes to construct their own digital game, or use a digital game already in existence, I think it is important that they at least understand its internal structures. If you don't, how can you effectively tell if the game will be useful/applicable/complete the goals you set out to achieve using it? I'm sure someone will have an answer to that...

[edit] Heidi

Some thoughts before class starts... I absolutely agree with what has been said about question one and the notion of browsing. I myself do not see this as being much different from what I do already. As Grant said, you follow the crumbs from the books you have, and in many cases you look in the shelves surrounding the books you have to find related topics. When we look at a library book shelf for resources, we are looking for key terms in titles, just as we will do when browsing high volumes of digitized selections. We often are not handed a list of the best books for our topic (though we may get suggestions from a prof, etc) so it only makes sense that we will get better at these searches as more material becomes available. As for number 8, I think MacDougall and Compeau's article shows that this is in fact a constant battle that game designers are still trying to figure out. The idea of incorporating the skills we as historians use (including fake/forged documents) will force the player to hone this skills to figure out the game (which they could then transfer to their academics). Number 3 has left me to wonder, and I look forward to hearing other people's thoughts on how we might assess student learning. I'd also like to hear how different people prioritize fun versus content (question 9). I feel like that will be very different depending on the individual and their experiences with gaming.

[edit] Fun Stuff

McDonalds Game

Why People Don't Finish Videogames

[edit] Post Seminar

We began our discussion by delving into the Tecumseh Lies Here game. Grant mentioned that he thought the game would be quite valuable as an educational tool. Melanie however disagreed and thought that it would not be a game that she would be able to engage in on any level. To her this game seemed like it would quickly become work. This brought to light the divide between work and the concept of playing and gaming in order to learn. We then discussed what mix of play and education would be ideal.

One problem that arose in our discussion was a question of learning styles. But it seems that games can incorporate multiple learning styles at the same time and as suck are well positioned to be adapted to an educational setting. There is however the problem with regards to audience as was brought up by Robert. Robert felt that Tecumseh Lies Here would appeal to a broader audience if it had scaled back. This seemed appropriate because Robert also expressed some concern about the role of individual vs. collective in play. It came up briefly that gaming might be adopted because the humanities are slipping. There is no longer the same appeal and the discipline is shrinking, we have to think about where the humanities are going. Games and play could be a way for us to inject new life into history.

Robert purposed that when it comes to gaming at the university level we don’t necessarily need to concern ourselves with playing the game. Instead it is important for us to look at designing a game. In order to do this we would encounter and have to reconcile many of the points of contention that came up during our discussion. We would also have to understand the concepts of flow and how to induce flow as was mentioned in the Rockwell and Kee dialogue. In this vein we also discussed the role of content. We came to the tentative conclusion that the content within a game should take a backseat to the processes and concepts. Content can always be added later, but the lasting take away from playing a game comes with the internalization of the processes necessary to complete the game. The skills necessary for conducting history (critical thinking and analysis, posing questions and testing the answers) readily transmit themselves to the format of videogames.

We then spent sometime talking about the immensely popular call of duty series. While the games were not designed with an educating factor in mind it seems as though they do indeed transfer at least some knowledge. Even though much of the knowledge is only cursory and might be latent within the player it can form a base for later inquiry based learning. We also came to the conclusion that gaming should not and cannot function on its own. In the case of the army, the soldier might learn battle tactics and strategies but they will not learn how it feels to fire a gun or how to use it effectively in combat.

We then spend the last portion of our discussion thinking about play. We tried to understand how play might fit into our lives as MA students. There was some difficulty with regards to play however. It seems that the concept of play is more complicated that one might think at first glance. We were wondering whether play can fit within the rigid structures of an institution and whether or not it should. Some of the aspects of play that we decided might be reconciled with education (and the work it entails) were things such as the use of non traditional methods to present course material. The notion of exploration was also mentioned as a form of play. However as Val mentioned, a change of setting changes the way in which we engage. This again throws into question the notion of using play within an institutional setting.

One thing seemed clear. History and the humanities have been losing ground in recent years in part because they are becoming stale. I think we could all agree that play, gaming and the digital humanities could breath new life into history, allowing the discipline to be fresh and exciting.