Title: Bow Street Runner
General Information
The setting of Bow Street Runner is in London’s Covent Garden in the 1750s, depicting life on the streets of Covent Garden before there were organized police forces. The Bow Street Runners were created by local magistrates to conduct law and order in an area of high crime. Game players simulate the lives led by the inhabitants of London at this time and are exposed to many scenes that may not be suitable for certain age groups.
Game play begins with background knowledge of how the Bow Street Runners were established. Then, there is the first murder. Players are given on scene information and information prior to the murder, but the players are expected to snoop around to find evidence that will help present a case to the magistrate for judgement.
As players advance through the game, they are collecting evidence to keep in a journal, solving puzzles, and conducting interviews all to help prove who committed the crimes. As players solve and collect evidence, their esteem level increases which raise their ranking as a runner. When all evidence has been collected, runners report to the magistrate for some tough questions about the crimes. Players interactively present evidence. Chances are given to reconsider evidence if the wrong source is provided. If the evidence is correct, further questions will be asked of the runner. If all questions are answered correctly, a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the murder.
Analysis Based on Flow Theory
• Task that the learners can complete- The task is to collect evidence that will provide answers to who conducted the crime. During each scene, players explore the crime area. Players explore as they would in real life to find clues to help solve the mystery. After they collect enough evidence, a folder appears to show the players they are ready to move on to the next task moving the player closer to solving the murder mystery.
• Ability to concentrate on task- The simulation of this game is very interesting; it almost makes you feel as though you are actually there. The people are life-like and the conversations that are had by the virtual characters are based on what questions you ask or evidence you present. The game is conducted in a way that makes you feel as though you are a part of it. Players continue to want to concentrate on the task, as there are game changing elements in each scene. Players are conducting the investigation and it is exciting to locate key parts of the evidence.
• Task has clear goals- The game task is very clear throughout game play. Runners are to collect and provide evidence to the magistrate to convict the killer. Challenges arise that runners have to face changing the course of game play, but ultimately directing the runner toward the same goal of solving the crimes.
• Task provides immediate feedback- During each scene players communicate through interaction with the characters by choosing preselected questions. Players explore the scenes at their own pace, by clicking on the evidence providing players with immediate information about the object or clue found. The scene doesn’t end until all major clues have been found and the “move on” folder appears. There are no hints, so players must explore every inch of the screen with the mouse.
Some scenes provide interactive tasks to be completed, but there are no directions just visuals of a dot following a line indicating to players to move the mouse in that direction. In one scene, there was a wooden board with nails; a hand appeared that allowed a player to pull the nails up, but not out of the board. In this scene there were no directions, I just kept pulling the nails, but nothing was happening. I became a little frustrated and could never figure out what pattern the computer wanted me to take. Eventually I completed the task after continuous pulling of the nails, but still the process was never explained.
• Deep but effortless involvement- Movement through the game is for the most part effortless, as players explore by moving the mouse around the screen looking for a magnifying glass, communication bubble, or information symbol to help them find clues. The comprehension of knowledge that the player gains by understanding and remembering important facts helps the game to develop deeper. The game advances as an interactive story, and keeps a journal of each point of importance for the player to refer back to. Scenarios are not far from real world experiences that detectives or forensic scientists would experience
• Exercising a sense of control over their actions- Players are able to move through scenes at their own pace looking for evidence and choosing clues as they find them. The game does not advance unless all the clues are found. The players can click on a set of predetermined questions in any order as they interview characters. Finding clues and interviewing characters sets the tone for the path of play, but mostly is determined when players meet the magistrate. He decides whether or not a player will continue on in the game, based on the evidence that the player provides to solve the crime.
During a couple of different scenes, there are ways to help endangered witnesses. In one scenario, players help a woman needing stitches during timed play. In the second scenario, players are listening to conversations through a door. Players are provided opportunities to break down a door saving a man from a dangerous struggle.
In both scenarios, directions are not clear, but the feeling of needing to complete the task is crucial. As a player, I worked quickly to save the woman, but did not succeed. In the case of the struggling man, I listened to the conversation, but could never figure out how to bust down the door. I felt in control of my actions because the sense of panic was high.
• Concern for self disappears during flow-This game does not provide direct action contact with other characters, only in the sense of conversations, or “after the fact” scenarios. The flow of the game is constant as the players look for evidence. I never felt in fear that I would be harmed in the game world. I only became concerned when I had to see the magistrate. I was almost like the feeling of going to the principal’s office. I wanted to make sure that I had my facts in order.
• Sense of duration of time is altered- The sense of time, to me was a feeling of elapsed time. The storyline advances the runners to areas of crime or areas with possible clues very quickly using a map and providing more background information as the players move from one scene to another. Moving from scene to scene is like the narration of a play. Players could definitely play for hours, pausing game play as needed. The excitement of finding clues and advancing to the next level allows players to get lost in the game and lose track of time.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Analysis of Monopoly Board Games
*Monopoly, the classic non-digital version by Hasbo, and the digital version Monopoly Here and Now: The World Edition (http://board-games.pogo.com/games/monopoly) were both analyized for this assignment.
General Information
Monopoly non-digital version- Game play begins with two, or up to six, players rolling the dice to determine who goes first. As players roll, they advance clockwise around the board as indicated by the number on the dice. Players begin with $1,500 and game pieces on the Go square. If the player passes go during their roll, they will be paid $200.
Players land on property, Chance, or Community Chest squares, if the player lands on an unowned property, he can buy the property for the listed price. If the player declines purchase, the property is auctioned off by the bank to the highest bidder. If property is already owned, the player must pay the landowner a given rent, the price is determined by how much of the set properties are owned and how many buildings are on the property. Buildings can only be constructed if the landowner owns all properties in the color group. All purchases are made to the bank and construction of buildings cannot all be built on one property at a time, properties must be uniform. Developments on properties must be sold before any property of that color can be mortgaged or traded. If properties are mortgaged, the player receives money from the bank and repays with interest, homes are then returned for half their purchase price. All transactions are completed and calculated by the players or determined banker.
Landing on Chance or Community Chest squares allows the player to draw from the respective pile. The player then must complete the task on the card. If a player rolls doubles on the dice, he rolls again after completing the turn. Rolling doubles three times in a row will land the player in jail. If in jail, the player can roll the dice trying for doubles. If the player gets doubles, they are out of jail, if not, the player stays in jail for three turns each time rolling for doubles or the player pays a fee to get out of jail.
The end of the game can sometimes be unreachable, as game play can last a long time. However, game play can be determined at the beginning of the game by the players. If players go bankrupt, other players can go to auction for the properties of the bankrupt owner. This can change the course of the game and allow the game time to run longer. The final goal is to be the player with the most properties owned and the most wealth.
Monopoly digital version- Game play begins with a roll of the dice to determine which player goes first. Players then choose a game piece. With one click of the roll button, the computer quickly advances players around the board according to the number on the dice.
As players land on properties, they are able to purchase the property or go to auction if they do not wish to purchase. If players land on the Chance or Community Chest space, the computer shows the card drawn and takes money owed or advances the player to the space indicated on the card. Passing go pays the players 2 million dollars. All monies are calculated by the computer and a running total is shown by each player’s game piece. Players are able to trade properties with each other, build houses, or mortgage properties during their turn. All money for trades is exchanged between the players.
If the player lands in jail, they can roll for doubles on the dice or pay a fee to get out of jail. If the player rolls doubles 3 times, they are in jail automatically.
The game play is limited to 35 turns, and trading transactions and auctions are also timed at 2 minutes and 30 seconds or under. Each player has 45 seconds to complete play during their roll, and are allowed to pause the game play only during their own turn.
The goal is to obtain the most property, amount of buildings, and largest sum of money by the end of the game without going bankrupt. At the end of the game, there is a graph to show how players ended in net worth totals.
Comparison of two formats: non-digital vs. digital
I have condensed my version of the game definition, it now states:
A game is a single or multiple player activity governed by an organized fixed set of rules, based on conflict/resolution, prior knowledge, interesting storylines, simulation, and virtual environments used to complete a challenging goal in a safe, amusing, interactive way; providing participants opportunities to apply new and prior synthesized knowledge to skilled simulations.
Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth.
3. Players
4. Game pieces
5. Board game/Computer
6. Chance
7. Amusement
8. Safety
9. Time
Monopoly, non-digital version, is a game that has consistent rules with a clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth and monopolies. The amount of players can range from 2-6, using game pieces, a board, game cards, dice, and play money. The chance is high in each game based on the roll of the dice, game spaces landed on, and cards drawn from the Chance and Community Chest piles. Game play is also varied by the amount of buildings built on purchased properties, and how many properties in the monopoly that each player has purchased. This determines how much rent a player must pay as they land on spaces. The amusement level is high, as players interact with each other and strategize to oust other players by trying to bankrupt them. The game play is somewhat safe, depending on the competiveness of the players involved. The time limit can be determined by the players or left untimed.
Monopoly, digital version and played in guest mode, is a game that has consistent rules with a clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth and monopolies. The amount of players are 4 consisting of you and 3 other computer players, using digital game pieces, digital game board, virtual game cards, dice, and virtual money. The chance is high in each game based on the roll of the dice, game spaces landed on, and cards drawn from the Chance and Community Chest piles. Game play is also varied by the amount of buildings build on purchased properties, and how many properties in the monopoly that each player has purchased. Properties owned determine how much rent a player must pas as they land on spaces giving the chance to earn money a less/greater percentage. The video component allows for high amusement and interaction level, as the players can bid, auction, and trade properties while trying to bankrupt the other players. The game play in guest mode is a safe playing environment while players only interact with the computer. The time limit is monitored by the computer during each round and limited to 35 turns per game.
Both game play situations are interactive and use knowledge of money management, simulating building net worth. Multiple or single participants work toward becoming the wealthiest player with the highest net worth, competing with a fixed set of rules. Both games are set in safe environments, the non-digital version played among friends or family, and the digital version in guest mode played with only computer opponents. Game play is amusing and interactive in both settings. In the non-digital version, interaction is based on human players and the digital version is highly virtually interactive. Using prior knowledge of money management, or little knowledge for that matter, players are able to learn how to manage money as they purchase, sell, and manage properties. This game provides opportunities to apply new skills learned and can synthesize the information they have learned to strategize for the next game.
Depending on what type of learner the player is would determine which setting would be more enjoyable to the player. According to Prensky’s List, the digital version would appeal to the Graphics vs. Text First and Play vs. Work learners. The digital version is much like a video game and provides much of the calculations for the players. The non-digital game lends itself to follow Kolb’s Converging (doing and thinking) style of learning. The players experience the actual hands-on interaction of calculating the money and simulating trading of properties. They use practical applications to complete the game play.
Interaction
Communication- In the non-digital version, communication between players is a valuable component. Players can strategize with each other bidding and trading of properties to obtain their goal. In this version, personal feelings and persuasion can become a factor extending the time of the game. In the digital version, communication is a click of the mouse. There are no personal feelings and decisions are made very quickly. Repeated interactions can be made by the players, but again are very quick and to the point. Communication does influence both game formats, however, it seems to influence the non-digital version more.
Cooperation between/among players-In the non-digital version, cooperation is a major component. As players become more competitive, and feelings are involved, tension between players could become hazardous to the game play. Many times as players become too involved in the idea of winning the game, it can get too competitive. It is important for players in the non-digital format to cooperate and play for fun. In the digital format, the cooperation level is low. The game in guest mode is the player vs. the computer and at any time if the player feels frustrated they can quit.
Engagement to the games-Both game formats are high in engagement. The only difference is one is human and one is virtual. The non-digital format offers more time for conversation, taunting, and strategizing among players. The engagement between the player and computer in the digital version is just that, virtual. The interaction level is high because it is a quick moving game and players must pay attention to what is going on to know what players are purchasing and the trades offered by other opponents. Players also need to keep track of finances to know what and when they can purchase properties.
Motivation- Both games are highly motivating in that the players ultimately want to become the winner with the highest net worth. In the non-digital format, motivation also comes from the friends or family members that are playing. Everyone wants to own the bragging rights to being the winner. In the digital version, well, no one wants to be beaten by the computer, highest score and tokens are at stake.
General Information
Monopoly non-digital version- Game play begins with two, or up to six, players rolling the dice to determine who goes first. As players roll, they advance clockwise around the board as indicated by the number on the dice. Players begin with $1,500 and game pieces on the Go square. If the player passes go during their roll, they will be paid $200.
Players land on property, Chance, or Community Chest squares, if the player lands on an unowned property, he can buy the property for the listed price. If the player declines purchase, the property is auctioned off by the bank to the highest bidder. If property is already owned, the player must pay the landowner a given rent, the price is determined by how much of the set properties are owned and how many buildings are on the property. Buildings can only be constructed if the landowner owns all properties in the color group. All purchases are made to the bank and construction of buildings cannot all be built on one property at a time, properties must be uniform. Developments on properties must be sold before any property of that color can be mortgaged or traded. If properties are mortgaged, the player receives money from the bank and repays with interest, homes are then returned for half their purchase price. All transactions are completed and calculated by the players or determined banker.
Landing on Chance or Community Chest squares allows the player to draw from the respective pile. The player then must complete the task on the card. If a player rolls doubles on the dice, he rolls again after completing the turn. Rolling doubles three times in a row will land the player in jail. If in jail, the player can roll the dice trying for doubles. If the player gets doubles, they are out of jail, if not, the player stays in jail for three turns each time rolling for doubles or the player pays a fee to get out of jail.
The end of the game can sometimes be unreachable, as game play can last a long time. However, game play can be determined at the beginning of the game by the players. If players go bankrupt, other players can go to auction for the properties of the bankrupt owner. This can change the course of the game and allow the game time to run longer. The final goal is to be the player with the most properties owned and the most wealth.
Monopoly digital version- Game play begins with a roll of the dice to determine which player goes first. Players then choose a game piece. With one click of the roll button, the computer quickly advances players around the board according to the number on the dice.
As players land on properties, they are able to purchase the property or go to auction if they do not wish to purchase. If players land on the Chance or Community Chest space, the computer shows the card drawn and takes money owed or advances the player to the space indicated on the card. Passing go pays the players 2 million dollars. All monies are calculated by the computer and a running total is shown by each player’s game piece. Players are able to trade properties with each other, build houses, or mortgage properties during their turn. All money for trades is exchanged between the players.
If the player lands in jail, they can roll for doubles on the dice or pay a fee to get out of jail. If the player rolls doubles 3 times, they are in jail automatically.
The game play is limited to 35 turns, and trading transactions and auctions are also timed at 2 minutes and 30 seconds or under. Each player has 45 seconds to complete play during their roll, and are allowed to pause the game play only during their own turn.
The goal is to obtain the most property, amount of buildings, and largest sum of money by the end of the game without going bankrupt. At the end of the game, there is a graph to show how players ended in net worth totals.
Comparison of two formats: non-digital vs. digital
I have condensed my version of the game definition, it now states:
A game is a single or multiple player activity governed by an organized fixed set of rules, based on conflict/resolution, prior knowledge, interesting storylines, simulation, and virtual environments used to complete a challenging goal in a safe, amusing, interactive way; providing participants opportunities to apply new and prior synthesized knowledge to skilled simulations.
Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth.
3. Players
4. Game pieces
5. Board game/Computer
6. Chance
7. Amusement
8. Safety
9. Time
Monopoly, non-digital version, is a game that has consistent rules with a clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth and monopolies. The amount of players can range from 2-6, using game pieces, a board, game cards, dice, and play money. The chance is high in each game based on the roll of the dice, game spaces landed on, and cards drawn from the Chance and Community Chest piles. Game play is also varied by the amount of buildings built on purchased properties, and how many properties in the monopoly that each player has purchased. This determines how much rent a player must pay as they land on spaces. The amusement level is high, as players interact with each other and strategize to oust other players by trying to bankrupt them. The game play is somewhat safe, depending on the competiveness of the players involved. The time limit can be determined by the players or left untimed.
Monopoly, digital version and played in guest mode, is a game that has consistent rules with a clear goal of becoming the person with the most wealth and monopolies. The amount of players are 4 consisting of you and 3 other computer players, using digital game pieces, digital game board, virtual game cards, dice, and virtual money. The chance is high in each game based on the roll of the dice, game spaces landed on, and cards drawn from the Chance and Community Chest piles. Game play is also varied by the amount of buildings build on purchased properties, and how many properties in the monopoly that each player has purchased. Properties owned determine how much rent a player must pas as they land on spaces giving the chance to earn money a less/greater percentage. The video component allows for high amusement and interaction level, as the players can bid, auction, and trade properties while trying to bankrupt the other players. The game play in guest mode is a safe playing environment while players only interact with the computer. The time limit is monitored by the computer during each round and limited to 35 turns per game.
Both game play situations are interactive and use knowledge of money management, simulating building net worth. Multiple or single participants work toward becoming the wealthiest player with the highest net worth, competing with a fixed set of rules. Both games are set in safe environments, the non-digital version played among friends or family, and the digital version in guest mode played with only computer opponents. Game play is amusing and interactive in both settings. In the non-digital version, interaction is based on human players and the digital version is highly virtually interactive. Using prior knowledge of money management, or little knowledge for that matter, players are able to learn how to manage money as they purchase, sell, and manage properties. This game provides opportunities to apply new skills learned and can synthesize the information they have learned to strategize for the next game.
Depending on what type of learner the player is would determine which setting would be more enjoyable to the player. According to Prensky’s List, the digital version would appeal to the Graphics vs. Text First and Play vs. Work learners. The digital version is much like a video game and provides much of the calculations for the players. The non-digital game lends itself to follow Kolb’s Converging (doing and thinking) style of learning. The players experience the actual hands-on interaction of calculating the money and simulating trading of properties. They use practical applications to complete the game play.
Interaction
Communication- In the non-digital version, communication between players is a valuable component. Players can strategize with each other bidding and trading of properties to obtain their goal. In this version, personal feelings and persuasion can become a factor extending the time of the game. In the digital version, communication is a click of the mouse. There are no personal feelings and decisions are made very quickly. Repeated interactions can be made by the players, but again are very quick and to the point. Communication does influence both game formats, however, it seems to influence the non-digital version more.
Cooperation between/among players-In the non-digital version, cooperation is a major component. As players become more competitive, and feelings are involved, tension between players could become hazardous to the game play. Many times as players become too involved in the idea of winning the game, it can get too competitive. It is important for players in the non-digital format to cooperate and play for fun. In the digital format, the cooperation level is low. The game in guest mode is the player vs. the computer and at any time if the player feels frustrated they can quit.
Engagement to the games-Both game formats are high in engagement. The only difference is one is human and one is virtual. The non-digital format offers more time for conversation, taunting, and strategizing among players. The engagement between the player and computer in the digital version is just that, virtual. The interaction level is high because it is a quick moving game and players must pay attention to what is going on to know what players are purchasing and the trades offered by other opponents. Players also need to keep track of finances to know what and when they can purchase properties.
Motivation- Both games are highly motivating in that the players ultimately want to become the winner with the highest net worth. In the non-digital format, motivation also comes from the friends or family members that are playing. Everyone wants to own the bragging rights to being the winner. In the digital version, well, no one wants to be beaten by the computer, highest score and tokens are at stake.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Analysis of Puzzle, Quiz, and Sports Games
Learners’ Styles
Based on Kolb’s Learning Styles
I work with K-2 students during a very short amount of whole group time (30 minutes), and a larger portion of the learning day devoted to small group learning (60 minutes). My students lean toward a combination of a Converging and Accommodating style of learning. During small groups they are asked to complete activates or tasks that relate to the whole group instruction or skills that they have learned. The Converging style allows them to simulate situations, and use the skills learned to apply them to real world applications. They are able to find solutions to problems by using their prior knowledge, as well as use those skills to experiment with new thoughts and ideas. My students are also very ‘hands-on’. Working together in small groups can provide many opportunities for the Accommodating learning style.
It may seem that these two types of learning style are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they actually work cohesively in my classroom. I feel that I can reach most types of learners when there is diversity in the learning styles. My students are allowed to make choices as they move independently through their learning stations. As they are working on their list of activates they are able to work independently or in groups which allows them to choose the learning style that fits them.
Based on Prensky’s List
My recent K-2 students do not have much experience with computers in their homes. My students come from very poor families, and in many situations, computers are not accessible or very outdated. Those students who do have computers in their homes, and based on conversations I have had with them about how they are used, primarily use them for games, or the kids are not allowed to use them because they are for adult use. That said, based on Prensky’s List of cognitive style changes, I had a hard time narrowing down just one that fit the style of my students. They may not have computers in the home, but they do have video games, and most are the current gaming stations available. Here are the ones that I feel best relates to the students that I work with.
Graphics First vs. Text First is a style of learning that is based on the visual aspect of the game where the player receives most of the information from the high amount of graphics and little or no amounts of accompanying text. These games or videos use text in just the right places, to help tell the story, allow the user to make decisions that could help them to go further in the levels of the game. They feel success when they complete a level of the game, and are highly interested by the virtual connections that they make. Many of my students who come in with these types of playing backgrounds do well with computer games in the classroom and will want to go to the computer station as a first choice.
Play vs. Work is a learning style that builds in many concepts and skills into a computer game. While the player is playing a game, they are also learning skills, concepts, building comprehension, reasoning, and working on other academic areas all while they think and feel that they are just “playing” a game. This style makes learning more fun, and easier to retain, since it is a style they are used to. In my experience, many of these games can be chosen by skill, allowing the students to advance as they master the level of that skill. A very simple telling time game that comes to mind isn’t as complex as some games can be, however, it is still a two-player game that involves a skill worked on in the classroom. This game gives the players the feeling of playing a game and at the same time, they are working on skills related to whole group instruction. http://www.hbschool.com/activity/willy/willy.html
Payoff vs. Patience is a learning style that rewards gamers as they play with levels, wins, or high scores. The feedback that the gamers receive is highly rewarding as they continue to work toward the next goal and playing for extended amounts of time. Many older students will work toward “beating” a game and spend countless hours playing trying to reach that goal. If playing an internet game that may be a little slower, they will continue to wait as it loads or creeps along to try and achieve the title of the highest scorer or until they master specific levels. In my experience, these are games that may have codes or levels that can be saved and returned to later. Most of these games are not in appropriate time frames for school, but they are definitely games that are played at home and are those that kids enjoy.
Analysis of Games
Luxor 2
This game is a product of the company Big Fish Games, developed by Paul Thelen in 2002. Thelen works in the gaming industry as a way to renew his love of game design. Over the years, he has brought in other standout gamers to help develop more exciting programs and affiliates around the world (http://www.bigfishgames.com/company/bfg-story.html).
Luxor 2 takes you on a journey through Egypt. By way of map, each stopping point, or level, challenges you to master the chains of spheres by eliminating a series of three or more of the same color, or type, in a row. The long chains of spheres work their way toward you in hopes to gain control of you and your pyramid. The players must work quickly to eliminate the chains that are speeding toward them while catching coins, jewels, power-ups, and other bonuses. There are 3 difficulty levels, which have levels within levels, dozens of power-ups, and high scoring options.
Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), creators of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?, is a worldwide facility for scientists, with the primary goal of conducting research of the atom’s nucleus. Through public outreach and advanced technology, the Jefferson Lab wants to help further education in science and technology by providing opportunities for discovery (http://www.jlab.org/visitors/).
This game provides challenging questions about math and science in hopes to gain a million dollars, fake money of course! As you begin at the bottom level, or easiest level, multiple-choice questions are asked. Each level completed takes you up the money ladder, questions answered incorrectly will drop you down to zero dollars or to the last insured level. If the question seems a little tough, or you just have no idea of the answer, there are three chances for the player to ask for help, poll the lab, 50/50, and ask an expert. Each of the three helps can be used at anytime, and guide the player to the correct answer.
Comparison 1: Game Components
Luxor 2 Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Competition/leveled play
5. Conflict/Resolution
6. Interaction
7. Amusement
8. Safety
Strong Components of Luxor 2
The rules and goals are quite clear, working to complete a chain of three or more spheres that will release jewels, bonuses, or power-ups. As the player completes chains of spheres, they move toward a new level of difficulty in hopes battle the god Set and his evil minions, thus enhancing the conflict and resolution of the game. The game is based on leveled play that gives the player 3 lives with a chance of earning more to complete this task.
The interaction between the player and the game is quite high, as the player has to move quickly and be alert of which color sphere is coming next to fire, where the possible chains to blast are, and how quickly the chains are moving. At times, as the levels increase, there are two chains to watch out for. This game is amusing and safe to play; it holds the attention of the players with colorful and strong audio-visual effects.
The educational connection of matching colors, like objects, and using strategies to complete the longest chain provide math practices through play. This game aligns with the Play vs. Work style of learning of Prensky’s List. There is only one player involved in the game, and the game goes full screen, so there are not any other online distractions which helps the game to be played in a safe environment.
Weak Components of Luxor 2
The game only allows one player, which isn’t necessarily a weak component, but if you have two or more players and only one computer, the game could potentially take some time to play. Payoff vs. Patience from Prensky’s List, states that players who like these types of games could potentially wait, and play quite a long time because as they advance in levels, time is definitely a factor. Time makes the game a weak component if using it in the classroom. Those students who master levels with ease will want to continue on. If played in a small group or station setting, there may not be time enough to complete the game to the level that they would like, and this would make it hard for the players who have the patience to cease play. There isn’t a way to save the levels previously completed, so as new players return to the game, they would have to start from the beginning.
Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Chance
5. Competition/leveled play
6. Amusement
7. Interaction
8. Safety
Strong Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The rules are very clear and organized. There is a separate rules page that explains to players in very understandable language how to play. The game is set up to support a single player game, however, the game could be used in small groups, or whole group settings allowing the players to work together to answer the questions and advance toward the goal of the pretend million dollar prize. Group play fosters the idea of discussion as students discuss answers, look up answers, review incorrect answers, work problems, and learn new concepts.
The opportunity for chance increases, as the questions for each money level become more difficult, and are randomly chosen by the game. Competition and amusement continue throughout the levels of play, each money level proves to be harder and visually keeps track of the money levels complete. If there is one wrong answer then the game is finished, so the stakes are high while trying to advance through the levels.
The game is played in a safe environment, and is very easy to continue throughout the game with easy clicks for the answers. If a question is answered incorrectly, the game will offer the answer and a chance to play again. There are no pop-ups or other major distractions that would alter the game play.
Weak Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The level of interaction is not as high as games with more advanced graphics and audio. This game provides more of an intellectual challenge and becomes more intrinsic as the players move up in money levels. Players who like the very interactive components of game play, and lots of visual stimulation may play the game, but would prefer something with more interaction. Players who are considered in the Graphics First vs. Text First style of learning group would struggle a little with continuing play on this game. I believe to help enhance this style of learner, the small group play would allow for interaction that is missing with the high level of graphics and video components.
Comparison of Both Games
In comparing the two chosen games, both have a very well laid out and understandable set of clear rules and goals. Both games are organized, using leveled play, with one main player as the focus making the competition more intrinsic. Interaction is highly amusing in both games, however, created differently in each game. In the Luxor 2 game, the interaction is more visual, and in the Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? game, the interaction is more intellectual recalling prior knowledge and synthesizing it with new knowledge learned from missed question. Both games could fit into the Payoff vs. Patience style of learning. Both games take time and effort to play, and depending on which style the player likes the best, they could play both games for an extended period of time. Finally, both games are fall into the safe gaming environment. The games do not ask for personal information or passwords to complete, and there are not excessive ads that can be clicked on while navigating the games.
Learners’ Styles
The best-fit game for my K-2 students would be the Luxor 2 game. Based on Kolb’s learning styles, this game fits the Converging style because they are doing and thinking throughout this game. In a one-player style of game, they are able to work toward the goal while problem solving and finding solutions like matching the colors, or strategizing to build the longest chain of spheres. The game is not applicable for multiple players, so as the students are working alone to complete the levels of play, they feel success as they gain points and complete levels.
Compared to Prensky’s List, this game fulfills the learning styles of Graphics vs. Text First; it is highly visual and interactive much like video games that my students are used to. They would enjoy this game because they would think they are playing, and not realize they are really working, as in the Play vs. Work style of learning. My student’s would find this game a challenge and highly entertaining because it is more like an arcade game, they would show great levels of patience while completing the game. It would be very hard to pull them from this game, as it quickly becomes addicting.
The least-fit game would be Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? While it fits the descriptions Kolb’s style of learning and Prensky’s style of learning, the prior knowledge needed for the game is not age appropriate for my K-2 students.
Based on Kolb’s Learning Styles
I work with K-2 students during a very short amount of whole group time (30 minutes), and a larger portion of the learning day devoted to small group learning (60 minutes). My students lean toward a combination of a Converging and Accommodating style of learning. During small groups they are asked to complete activates or tasks that relate to the whole group instruction or skills that they have learned. The Converging style allows them to simulate situations, and use the skills learned to apply them to real world applications. They are able to find solutions to problems by using their prior knowledge, as well as use those skills to experiment with new thoughts and ideas. My students are also very ‘hands-on’. Working together in small groups can provide many opportunities for the Accommodating learning style.
It may seem that these two types of learning style are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they actually work cohesively in my classroom. I feel that I can reach most types of learners when there is diversity in the learning styles. My students are allowed to make choices as they move independently through their learning stations. As they are working on their list of activates they are able to work independently or in groups which allows them to choose the learning style that fits them.
Based on Prensky’s List
My recent K-2 students do not have much experience with computers in their homes. My students come from very poor families, and in many situations, computers are not accessible or very outdated. Those students who do have computers in their homes, and based on conversations I have had with them about how they are used, primarily use them for games, or the kids are not allowed to use them because they are for adult use. That said, based on Prensky’s List of cognitive style changes, I had a hard time narrowing down just one that fit the style of my students. They may not have computers in the home, but they do have video games, and most are the current gaming stations available. Here are the ones that I feel best relates to the students that I work with.
Graphics First vs. Text First is a style of learning that is based on the visual aspect of the game where the player receives most of the information from the high amount of graphics and little or no amounts of accompanying text. These games or videos use text in just the right places, to help tell the story, allow the user to make decisions that could help them to go further in the levels of the game. They feel success when they complete a level of the game, and are highly interested by the virtual connections that they make. Many of my students who come in with these types of playing backgrounds do well with computer games in the classroom and will want to go to the computer station as a first choice.
Play vs. Work is a learning style that builds in many concepts and skills into a computer game. While the player is playing a game, they are also learning skills, concepts, building comprehension, reasoning, and working on other academic areas all while they think and feel that they are just “playing” a game. This style makes learning more fun, and easier to retain, since it is a style they are used to. In my experience, many of these games can be chosen by skill, allowing the students to advance as they master the level of that skill. A very simple telling time game that comes to mind isn’t as complex as some games can be, however, it is still a two-player game that involves a skill worked on in the classroom. This game gives the players the feeling of playing a game and at the same time, they are working on skills related to whole group instruction. http://www.hbschool.com/activity/willy/willy.html
Payoff vs. Patience is a learning style that rewards gamers as they play with levels, wins, or high scores. The feedback that the gamers receive is highly rewarding as they continue to work toward the next goal and playing for extended amounts of time. Many older students will work toward “beating” a game and spend countless hours playing trying to reach that goal. If playing an internet game that may be a little slower, they will continue to wait as it loads or creeps along to try and achieve the title of the highest scorer or until they master specific levels. In my experience, these are games that may have codes or levels that can be saved and returned to later. Most of these games are not in appropriate time frames for school, but they are definitely games that are played at home and are those that kids enjoy.
Analysis of Games
Luxor 2
This game is a product of the company Big Fish Games, developed by Paul Thelen in 2002. Thelen works in the gaming industry as a way to renew his love of game design. Over the years, he has brought in other standout gamers to help develop more exciting programs and affiliates around the world (http://www.bigfishgames.com/company/bfg-story.html).
Luxor 2 takes you on a journey through Egypt. By way of map, each stopping point, or level, challenges you to master the chains of spheres by eliminating a series of three or more of the same color, or type, in a row. The long chains of spheres work their way toward you in hopes to gain control of you and your pyramid. The players must work quickly to eliminate the chains that are speeding toward them while catching coins, jewels, power-ups, and other bonuses. There are 3 difficulty levels, which have levels within levels, dozens of power-ups, and high scoring options.
Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), creators of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?, is a worldwide facility for scientists, with the primary goal of conducting research of the atom’s nucleus. Through public outreach and advanced technology, the Jefferson Lab wants to help further education in science and technology by providing opportunities for discovery (http://www.jlab.org/visitors/).
This game provides challenging questions about math and science in hopes to gain a million dollars, fake money of course! As you begin at the bottom level, or easiest level, multiple-choice questions are asked. Each level completed takes you up the money ladder, questions answered incorrectly will drop you down to zero dollars or to the last insured level. If the question seems a little tough, or you just have no idea of the answer, there are three chances for the player to ask for help, poll the lab, 50/50, and ask an expert. Each of the three helps can be used at anytime, and guide the player to the correct answer.
Comparison 1: Game Components
Luxor 2 Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Competition/leveled play
5. Conflict/Resolution
6. Interaction
7. Amusement
8. Safety
Strong Components of Luxor 2
The rules and goals are quite clear, working to complete a chain of three or more spheres that will release jewels, bonuses, or power-ups. As the player completes chains of spheres, they move toward a new level of difficulty in hopes battle the god Set and his evil minions, thus enhancing the conflict and resolution of the game. The game is based on leveled play that gives the player 3 lives with a chance of earning more to complete this task.
The interaction between the player and the game is quite high, as the player has to move quickly and be alert of which color sphere is coming next to fire, where the possible chains to blast are, and how quickly the chains are moving. At times, as the levels increase, there are two chains to watch out for. This game is amusing and safe to play; it holds the attention of the players with colorful and strong audio-visual effects.
The educational connection of matching colors, like objects, and using strategies to complete the longest chain provide math practices through play. This game aligns with the Play vs. Work style of learning of Prensky’s List. There is only one player involved in the game, and the game goes full screen, so there are not any other online distractions which helps the game to be played in a safe environment.
Weak Components of Luxor 2
The game only allows one player, which isn’t necessarily a weak component, but if you have two or more players and only one computer, the game could potentially take some time to play. Payoff vs. Patience from Prensky’s List, states that players who like these types of games could potentially wait, and play quite a long time because as they advance in levels, time is definitely a factor. Time makes the game a weak component if using it in the classroom. Those students who master levels with ease will want to continue on. If played in a small group or station setting, there may not be time enough to complete the game to the level that they would like, and this would make it hard for the players who have the patience to cease play. There isn’t a way to save the levels previously completed, so as new players return to the game, they would have to start from the beginning.
Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? Game Components
1. Rules
2. Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
3. Players
4. Chance
5. Competition/leveled play
6. Amusement
7. Interaction
8. Safety
Strong Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The rules are very clear and organized. There is a separate rules page that explains to players in very understandable language how to play. The game is set up to support a single player game, however, the game could be used in small groups, or whole group settings allowing the players to work together to answer the questions and advance toward the goal of the pretend million dollar prize. Group play fosters the idea of discussion as students discuss answers, look up answers, review incorrect answers, work problems, and learn new concepts.
The opportunity for chance increases, as the questions for each money level become more difficult, and are randomly chosen by the game. Competition and amusement continue throughout the levels of play, each money level proves to be harder and visually keeps track of the money levels complete. If there is one wrong answer then the game is finished, so the stakes are high while trying to advance through the levels.
The game is played in a safe environment, and is very easy to continue throughout the game with easy clicks for the answers. If a question is answered incorrectly, the game will offer the answer and a chance to play again. There are no pop-ups or other major distractions that would alter the game play.
Weak Components of Who Wants to Win $1,000,000?
The level of interaction is not as high as games with more advanced graphics and audio. This game provides more of an intellectual challenge and becomes more intrinsic as the players move up in money levels. Players who like the very interactive components of game play, and lots of visual stimulation may play the game, but would prefer something with more interaction. Players who are considered in the Graphics First vs. Text First style of learning group would struggle a little with continuing play on this game. I believe to help enhance this style of learner, the small group play would allow for interaction that is missing with the high level of graphics and video components.
Comparison of Both Games
In comparing the two chosen games, both have a very well laid out and understandable set of clear rules and goals. Both games are organized, using leveled play, with one main player as the focus making the competition more intrinsic. Interaction is highly amusing in both games, however, created differently in each game. In the Luxor 2 game, the interaction is more visual, and in the Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? game, the interaction is more intellectual recalling prior knowledge and synthesizing it with new knowledge learned from missed question. Both games could fit into the Payoff vs. Patience style of learning. Both games take time and effort to play, and depending on which style the player likes the best, they could play both games for an extended period of time. Finally, both games are fall into the safe gaming environment. The games do not ask for personal information or passwords to complete, and there are not excessive ads that can be clicked on while navigating the games.
Learners’ Styles
The best-fit game for my K-2 students would be the Luxor 2 game. Based on Kolb’s learning styles, this game fits the Converging style because they are doing and thinking throughout this game. In a one-player style of game, they are able to work toward the goal while problem solving and finding solutions like matching the colors, or strategizing to build the longest chain of spheres. The game is not applicable for multiple players, so as the students are working alone to complete the levels of play, they feel success as they gain points and complete levels.
Compared to Prensky’s List, this game fulfills the learning styles of Graphics vs. Text First; it is highly visual and interactive much like video games that my students are used to. They would enjoy this game because they would think they are playing, and not realize they are really working, as in the Play vs. Work style of learning. My student’s would find this game a challenge and highly entertaining because it is more like an arcade game, they would show great levels of patience while completing the game. It would be very hard to pull them from this game, as it quickly becomes addicting.
The least-fit game would be Who Wants to Win $1,000,000? While it fits the descriptions Kolb’s style of learning and Prensky’s style of learning, the prior knowledge needed for the game is not age appropriate for my K-2 students.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Real Lives 2010 Analysis
Analysis of Simulation Games
Game Title: Real Lives 2010
Play Features
Representation
Analysis
Game Title: Real Lives 2010
General Information
Background Information
Bob Runyan, author of Real Lives 2010 and president of Educational Simulations, developed this game to help immerse players in the day-to-day struggles of life in other cultures. The goal is to bring awareness of cultural challenges and world living conditions to others around the world. Players are able to experience over 190 countries facing challenges and make decisions about their life journey.
Creator Runyan "wanted to create a game that generates a level of empathy" (http://www.educationalsimulations.com/). Throughout the game, he provides real world data, based on the facts of the country and cultural references, and provides an opportunity to learn how people live in other countries. In addition, 10% of the profits are contributed by Educational Simulations to help improve the lives of those in disadvantaged countries.
Play Features
The game begins on your birthday! As a newborn baby, from a pre-chosen country, you are provided with information about your family, home, country, and health. Each year you age, a diary is kept to log the events that happen in your life. During the year, you will encounter events that challenge your health, family status, education, religion, economic status, and your country's hardships and celebrations.
As you grow older, you are making more decisions on your own regarding your financial status, relationships, and recreational activities. Those choices will be based on current conditions of the country and family status. Over the course of the game, as you age, you will experience the joys and hardships of living the life of a person in your given land.
Representation
Real Lives 2010 is representative of the world in the present day. Players are provided with information of personal successes and tragedies that are current with the situations that are on going and happening around the world today. Simulations are related to decisions that one would make living their life in the different country. Each year of life, players are notified of events related to births, illnesses, financial situations, crisis in the country, and employment.
With one click, your life advances a year. Each player can relate to the game differently based on age and prior life experiences. The game provides a sense of empathy as you journey through your life with a new identity in another country. You will find yourself making connections with familiar experiences as you play the game, and if you haven't experienced some of the circumstances, then you will feel compelled to think about the differences between your home country and your new simulated country.
Analysis
Game Components
A game is an interactive situation based on conflict, resolution, use of prior knowledge, interesting storylines, simulation, and virtual environments that are all used to complete a challenging goal. Multiple or single participants work toward completion of a challenging goal governed by a fixed set of rules. The game is organized, safe, amusing, interactive, and representative of the skills the students are working on, thus providing review and practice of prior knowledge, and allowing the participants to apply new synthesized knowledge to related situations.
A Look at Real Lives 2010 Game Components
- Rules
- Organization-clear goals to be obtained by playing the game.
- Players
- Representation of reality through simulation.
- Chance
- Conflict
- Resolution
- Safety
- Amusement
- Interactive storylines
Strong Components of Real Lives 2010
The goal, working toward a long healthy and happy life, along with making decisions that can change the outcome, is quite clear. A single player or a possible small group of players, can work toward achieving the goal. The chance that something devastating will happen to your virtual family differs based on the encounters throughout the years. Conflict arises when there is devastation in your family, a gain, or loss of a job, an event that poses problems in the country, or a personal life experience. Choices are made by the players to resolve concerns that may arise regarding finances, love interests, and contributions to the community. These components provide for a safe learning environment building on prior knowledge; simulating the real world experiences through decision-making processes.
Weak Components of Real Lives 2010
Rules are somewhat clear and could use a more explicit approach for understanding the game better. While the players independently play the game and can click on family members to obtain more information, the virtual environment is missing. Some of the material becomes repetitive, which may be a component of the trial game. The game becomes lengthy at times, allowing for periods of needed intermission by the player. Therefore, the amusement level would be higher if there were a stronger storyline, more interactive components, and more chances to interact with the non-playing characters of the game.
Learner's Styles & Teaching/Learning Objectives
I would choose this game for late high school or a higher education level of students. Based on many components of the game, there are not many opportunities for interactions with other players or non-playing characters. The decisions are made solely by the individual player or possible partnering of no more than two players. Based on this information, I would choose the Assimilation Style of learning for the group that would enjoy this game.
The Assimilating learning preference is for a concise, logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people. These people require good clear explanations rather than practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it in a clear logical format. People with an Assimilating learning style are less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. People with this style are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value. This learning style person is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through (http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm).
Objectives for Real Lives 2010:
Decision-Making: analysis of knowledge based on problem solving, prediction, drawing conclusions, and choice making. During the game, choices are given over the course of a lifetime to enhance the opportunity of a healthy and happy life. Detailed situations give the game a real-life feel, and players have the chance to monitor their life choices visualized on a current graph.
Social/Cultural Awareness: understanding the social environment of others. The students take on the life of a person from a different country making decisions that will extend or end their lives based on current issues that are relative to that country. This narrative-based game provides opportunities to comprehend and reflect on decisions made related to the real world concerns. During the course of the game, reflection is necessary to continue with choices. Upon completion of the game, a death certificate is given. It reviews the major factors and decisions that were made throughout the player's lifetime.
Ability to Self-Assess: evaluation of one's own progress. Players can consistently evaluate and change their social status by looking at the assets that they have obtained through life. There are also opportunities to continually assess personal progress with a graph; however, I'm not sure how this graph plays into the game. I couldn't find much value to it, other than I could tell when I was getting close to ending my life. At the end of the game, there is an opportunity to reflect on the game process.
Implementation & Assessment
Settings
If the high school setting were set up in small group stations, as we do in the elementary level, a purchase of a Six Pack license would be needed. The cost for a Six Pack is $199; the price goes way up when looking at full lab packs of 30 or more students. The total cost can exceed $800 to complete the license requirements for a student lab. Computer labs would also require systems to have Windows 2000 or higher, 512 MB RAM, and 1024 x 768 graphics resolution.
Real Lives 2010 is aligned with the national standards. This program provides additional teacher resources in the form of lesson plans. Teacher lesson plans include cause and effect, comparing personal life to the virtual life of the game, discussion-starting questions to synthesize the knowledge learned while playing the game, journal discussions, and activity extensions.
Teachers, students, families, and community members that share this game are the primary stakeholders. To fully understand and obtain the true feeling behind the author's message, the players will need a basic knowledge of life skills. If players are lacking experiences of independent life skills, it will be difficult to gain the full simulation of empathy for the virtual characters of the game.
Procedure
One way to implement the game would be to help students to understand that an important part of geography is the cause and effect relationship between the natural environment and human beings. The environment directly impacts the ways in which people live and the ways in which people make a living. Have students work in pairs to research such topics as land use, natural resources, climate, and vegetation in their simulated birth countries.
Assessment
Ask students to present, one by one, oral summaries of the major events in their simulated lives and the related causes/effects. Help students process all of the information and relate it to their own lives with post activity discussions centered on life's events, causes, and effects --those that we can influence in a positive or negative way and those we can't. Assessment given in a rubric from would be helpful for both students and teachers to know the expectations of the final project.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)