I'm Serious.net

A Call for Standards

It's back. Another episode is on its way. The new title says it all - "Survivor: Virtual Worlds." The race is to see which serious game engine and which environment are going to take over the game industry. Many players have been announced: Multiverse, Second Life, Torque, Big World Technology... Others are in the wings.

And, yes, we all get to vote. With our purchases, certainly, but with our voices, even more so. As with so many elections, the majority of those affected by the outcome of this race will not register an opinion. This is a mistake. Here's why.

At stake is more than power, flexibility, ease of use, multi-platform compatibility, and all the bells and whistles that make us "ooh" and "aah". Yes these, and some other really critical things. In particular, I return to two fundamental issues: learner-generated content, and assessment. (I hope you count yourself, dear reader, among those who feel these are integrally linked.)

Several companies have announced not just game engines, but whole ecosystems. Second Life and Multiverse, for example, provide technology that enables players to move from one game/title/island to another without leaving the uber-verse that is their proprietary system. This portal notion is initially intriguing from a player perspective (single login, portable identity, portable avatar, portable content) and from a developer perspective (large developer community, cross-title fertilization, built-in business models).

But if I'm a learner/subscriber to a Second Life title and a Multiverse title (just for example's sake), I can't leap back and forth between the two. Most importantly, I have to learn two sets of tools to generate my own content (like I have time for that). Consequently, I can't leverage what I learn in one environment when I'm in a different environment based on a different tool set.

This is equivalent to saying, "I can't show you my video project, because it's on a VHS cassette and yours is a Betamax." Or, "I can't read your diskette, I have a Mac."

Assessment presents its own headaches. I've made clear my feelings about learning-management systems and assessment vis-a-vis serious games. Still and all, I'm making my peace with the fact that most of you will be looking for ways to tie your serious games to your LMS. Or you'll be looking for ways to tie LMS functionality into your game engine.

Remember the early days of eLearning? Remember when you had to commit to a single-vendor solution for both content and LMS because of lack of compatibility? Same problem.

Let's get ourselves out of this mess before we get in it, this time.

We need a quick intervention on the part of relevant standards bodies to address both of these issues. Specifically, we need standards to address:

1. Cross-"world" compatibility for learner-generated content.
2. Integration/compatibility issues with serious games and LMSs.

And we need this to happen now, before a lot of time, energy, and money is spent as we all try to pick the right contestant before the "Survivor" episode is over.

I'm serious,
Anne

Message to LMS Companies

I am an entrepreneur; I admire entrepreneurism and its spirit in others. I encourage forward-thinking and thought-through initiative. I enjoy creative energy and where it can take someone or some group. When these attributes are applied in the right balance to developing a business, great things can occur. And so, from that perspective, I understand the motivations of the LMS companies to begin eyeing serious game engine developers and serious game design companies as the next golden market opportunities.

That said, allow me to point out a few reasons that you are going after the serious game market far too soon.

1. This is a very immature market. Rapidly growing, yes. But still a toddler. We are still defining ourselves. We are not ready for you yet.

2. LMS companies are in the learning business. Most serious game companies have come to this work because they were first entertainment game companies. Teaching and learning are well appreciated on a lay-person level, but there are very few learning professionals who understand game design, and so brilliant game designers are shouldering the learning design role at the same time. Assessment and measurement, their desirability, their suitability, are all relatively new concepts.

3. Learning management systems are built around recognized industry standards and highly structured content and learning formats. Serious games are, in part and by nature, loosely structured. We're still trying to determine in what ways entertainment game engines must be modified in order to become serious game engines. We don't yet understand the problem you are rushing to solve.

Moreover, I contend that LMS technology is not appropriate for serious games at all. What differentiates serious games from just about any other form of learning (I know there are those who will argue this) is that they emphasize "the group": group dynamics, team-building, group communications and interactions, community-building, cooperation. Sure, an individual player can do many things alone, but if the group weren't important, why is there a group? Why isn't it just solitaire?

How do you indicate group learning in an individually-oriented assessment? Sure, I can explicate every group learning goal into discrete individual behaviors - but why? That's not the point. The point is getting the whole group - as a group - where they need to be.

So, my LMS friends, we have a lot of shaking out to do in our industry before we can be solid business partners to you. Along the way, we must decide whether your technology is suitable for our (and our customers'!) purposes. Don't be surprised if we take a pass.

I'm serious,
Anne