I'm Serious.net

Why I Changed the Tagline

  Did you notice? I did it several weeks ago, when the colors and some other things changed (more on that later). Don't worry, my feelings are only a little bit hurt. But, seriously, I did it for a reason.

My view of the intersection of new technologies and workplace learning and productivity has expanded. In the first place, the shifting sands of new and emerging technology have blurred the boundaries between games, virtual worlds, social networking, 3D simulations, and other immersive technologies. As a result, I'm socializing an ür-term to embrace it all: immersive environments.

Secondly, organizations that adopt immersive environments do so to facilitate work and enhance productivity. This is equally the focus of learning design professionals, not to mention business managers and decision-makers.

And so, "serious thoughts about immersive environments for learning and productivity".

Some things haven't changed, though.

I'm (still) serious,
Anne

Re-finding gems

  Every so often, while in a fit of agita, I run across a nugget that I appreciate just as much as when I first found it. Richard Van Eck is a frequent author of these treasures, and so it was today.

About a year ago, a question popped up on the serious game listserv run by Ben Sawyer. The discussion actually had to do with guided learning/discovery learning, but detoured at one point to scaffolding as a component of serious game design. Richard offered the following thoughts:

Regarding the idea of scaffolding a game, I would encourage us all to also consider how games provide scaffolding already, and to incorporate those strategies. First, games almost always begin with a tutorial which walks you through the main interface components and skill demonstration. Second, games often provide learner control over challenge (a la Malone and Lepper) in the form of selecting amongst levels of difficulty (usually akin to easy, medium, and hard). Third, games invariably proceed from the simple to the complex, require small, graduated steps in skill level until we "level up", at which point we usually face all the challenges of the first level plus increased challenges that require new learning (e.g., combination of a run and jump comm[a]nd in an action game, or combining two items in inventory to make a third thing). And this does not include the myriad of other features in the game that provide feedback and guidance (direct and indirect) such as journals that are automatically updated with important information, the availability of goal reminders (e.g., Bioshock or Neverwinter Nights), text options for possible actions, etc. So if we are going to scaffold learning in games, we need to [be] cognizant of the ways of scaffolding that are appropriate for games, and to make use of established tools and game strategies to do so.

And all of these ideas are just limited to what is part of the game itself--the game manual, cheats and walkthroughs, and game player social communities are also all arguably part of the game, and certainly allow players to self-regulate access to assistance (a kind of self-imposed scaffolding, I think).

I appreciate not only Richard's discussion of scaffolding, but his wholistic view of the game. If each of the components he refers to are also part of the game, then aren't they also part of the learning? Both learning about and learning from the game? Since these components often provide the player's "intro" to and "outro" from the game, don't these component's also have a good chance of influencing learning transference?

Good reminders, Richard. Thank you.

I'm serious,
Anne

Put On Your Glass Beads, Baby

Conceptuary, a start-up serious game company based in Salt Lake City, has just launched its first game, Glass Bead Network. The game is free for all at this point; a subscription service will be added shortly as an upgrade to the free game. The only technical requirement is a Firefox browser.

Glass Bead Network is a turn-based, strategy game. Players (up to 4) each receive a set of beads which form the players' hands. Each bead represents a concept, e.g., "Pat Metheny", or "honeymoon", or "Lithuania".

The game is played on a shared "board" that looks something like a Chinese checkers board. Each player, in turn, lays a tile on the board so that it touches one or more other tiles. For each "touch" point, the player must explain the linkage between the touching tiles, which can be accepted or rejected by the opponent(s). The object of the game is to be the first to place all one's tiles on the board.

Glass Bead Network is not just good fun, as it challenges each player's knowledge and creativity. Turns can take up to 5 minutes, giving players the chance to inform their play through on-the-fly background research. In fact, it is possible to play customized game by selecting a topic in advance, with players receiving tiles that are particular to that topic.

At this very early stage in the game's life, it is limited by a couple of things. The reservoir of beads is in early production, according to the game's website. So far, I have not seen duplicate beads; those who would like to assist in bead production are encouraged to contact Conceptuary.

At any given time, one is likely to find a couple of dozen people online, making it somewhat challenging to find a game partner. I hope you'll give this one a try, as it's a great example of how technology and games can make for an entertaining and thought-provoking experience. Plus, I'm trying to scare up a good game.

I'm serious,
Anne

A “Must” Read

I recently finished "Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture" by T.L. Taylor. It is a fascinating look at the vast online community within Everquest with many important observations for serious game designers. Among the most salient points:
- "linking design with the social life of a game cannot be overemphasized" (p. 38)
- Dynamic Goal Setting (p. 75)
- Embodiment Online (p. 117)

This is a must read for any (serious) game designer!

I'm serious,
Anne

What do South Koreans know that we don’t?

Two items from the New York Times caught my eye.

This past weekend, Blizzard's 2007 Worldwide Invitational "Starcraft" tournament was held in Seoul, with thousands of fans cramming into the Olympic Gymnastics Arena. Seth Schiesel writes about this event and the gaming craze that grips South Korea in today's "To the Glee of South Korean Fans, a Game's Sequel is Announced." E-sports (what South Koreans call competitive gaming), he notes, has not just millions of fans, but millions of participants. Just imagine the enthusiasm in the arena yesterday when Blizzard announced its sequel to Starcraft.

"Why Work Is Looking More Like a Video Game" doesn't offer any new information to us in the field, but gives a nice glimpse into how a number of companies are using games to their advantage. Author Michael Fitzgerald points out, by the examples he uses, the power and importance of social networking to a serious game's success. It's the collaboration that results from the networking that facilitates learning transference back to the job.

So we have e-sports mania in South Korea contrasted with just a dawning awareness among the world's business leaders of the power of games for learning, for innovation, for team-building, for on-boarding... The good news is that with attention from the likes of the New York Times, serious games are getting a serious look by more and more decision-makers.

I'm serious,
Anne

The Power of Virtual Communities

Charles Babcock, Information Week, recently wrote a piece, "What's the Greatest Web Software Ever Written?". Great article. After nominating World of Warcraft to #9 (of 12 - and it's heady company), he explains:

"...[M]uch has been made of a three-dimensional virtual world known as Second Life. For my money, more significant examples of 3-D virtual reality can be found in massively multiplayer online games, which offer playful, real-time activity where the actions of one participant affect another. The possibilities in terms of training people to complete complicated team-oriented tasks seem obvious. The godfather of this genre is Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft. Introduced in 2004, World of Warcraft's 8.5 million rabid fans--3.5 million in China alone--put Second Life's 6 million registered residents in the shade."

Players’ Expectations

As we know, evaluation of any SG comes both from the buyer/client/underwriter and from the players. Learning designers (should!) spend time up front understanding the purpose and desired outcomes for the game, as well as the pertinent characteristics of the players. This process enables us to, among other things, anticipate what each of these constituency's evaluation criteria will be - and plan accordingly.

One of the branches in the players' evaluation tree is how well the game matched the experience they expected to have. What are some of the basic components of Player Expectation?

Putting myself in the role of the player, my basic expectations fall into three categories. Unless I've been told otherwise:

LEARNING

- I know what I can expect to learn
- I know what my investment of time will be
- I'm safe, and therefore free to make mistakes and learn from them
- I'm pretty much equal with everyone else

GAME

- It's competitive
- It's fun
- There are rules of play

GROUP EXPERIENCE

- Other players may be people I really know, so I have to be careful what I do
- We learn with each other
- We learn from each other, both directly and indirectly
- Player interaction is encouraged, facilitated, and rewarded
- There are rules of interaction

How do your players' experience match their expectations?

I'm serious,
Anne