Comments on: Developer Interview: Martin Campion

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:00:34 +0000

So yes, Bruce’s caveat was the reason for my warning that games teach whether you want them to or not. The trick is of course to have them teach useful things instead of just historically-misleading fluff. The same can be said of any media, but the interactive component means that people are more inclined to apply whatever knowledge gained, whether accurate/useful or not.

By: Michael A.

Michael A. — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:34:59 +0000

As you state, James edu-games are simply a tool. Like any tool, it can be useful if applied correctly, less useful (or counterproductive) if not.

Re: ML, I think the indie/internet pipeline has made possible the publishing of games that would have been difficult if not impossible in the past. High production values are not necessary for a game to gain a strong following – Dwarf Fortress perhaps being the best example.

Armageddon Empires is perhaps the best example of a “one-man” development effort I’ve seen for a while, though; an excellent game and very polished to boot. As you say, it needs some work to reduce the learning curve. P.S. The cryptic comet blog should be of interest for you, Troy, if you haven’t already read it.

By: James S.

James S. — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:16:11 +0000

Some research is being done, though there could stand to be more.

Majors Jason Jones & Joseph Nolan did an MA thesis for the Naval Post-Graduate School on training cadets for live-fire ranges, using 6 hours with Black Hawk Down as a transition from chalkboard to live; Major George Kneuper did a larger experiment using the preparation for ROTC summer camps as an MA thesis for Old Dominion University (also using Black Hawk Down).

In both cases, structured training tended to improve performance in the field, largely by providing an opportunity to figure out what the chalkboard diagrams meant before going out and trying to do the tasks while hot, sweaty, tired, etc.

Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen wrote a Ph.D based on use of Europa Universalis in the classroom, “Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential of Computer Games” (University of Copenhagen, 2005). Likewise Kurt Squire’s “Replaying History” dissertation used Civilization III (Indiana University, 2004).

In both cases, instructors who were better at using the tool got more out of it, and the tool was best at motivating the students to learn more from traditional sources and at getting them to think through interrelated factors – including challenging the game’s model. Instructors who were less able to use the tool got less from it. No surprise.

I see the same pattern at work. Instructors who put in the effort to use the tool well get a lot out of it; those who don’t, don’t.

Part of the point of the (ranting :) ) line that no sim every taught anybody anything is that too many instructors seem to expect the sim to teach for them…. sit students down in front of scenario X and see if they succeed.

Unfortunately, teaching with sims *may be* (and I believe frequently *is*) more effective than teaching with traditional methods alone — BUT it is *harder* as well. It’s another tool that instructor must figure out and understand and master, to ensure that the lessons can be drawn from what happens in the sim.

Regarding _A Force More Powerful_, I’ve tried it out, and it looks to me like a solid training tool; getting anywhere with its scenarios requires some pretty serious analysis of the situation, mapping out a plan with branches & sequels, and replanning during execution as necessary if/when prior planning assumptions prove invalid. If the training objective is to teach planning and basic analysis skills for a non-violent resistance movement, it (and the reference docos that come with it) delivers if you’re willing to put in the effort to learn. If AFMP wanted to preach, they’d be better off making the missions easy. :)

By: Scott R. Krol

Scott R. Krol — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:22:03 +0000

But Bruce, why does it have to be an either/or type of thing? If “Serious Games” are used in teaching are they no worse than films, filmstrips, guest lectures, field trips, or anything else that fits along those lines? In your example yeah, if the OKW is having their staff officers do *nothing* but wargaming and assuming that they’re learning life lessons, that’s a problem. But if they wargame, and then from that experience the instructors are able to explain *why* you can’t add in one more CF and an AA, the students should have a better understanding of the situation.

It’s like the Air Force Academy using Starcraft. No one in their right mind would think that Starcraft is a game that should be considered for a serious military application, but it’s not being used in that sense. The instructors are using it to showcase real-time decision making, the overall need to understand the changing fluidity of the battlefield, and logistics. It’s just a way to illustrate those concepts. It’s one thing to read a textbook or hear a professor expound on the importance of dealing with an ever changing situation, it’s another thing to experience it on an easy-to-understand level.

That’s the key to “Serious Games”. They shouldn’t replace traditional methods of teaching, but simply complement them. Heck, even their name
implies that they shouldn’t be taken too much to task. They’re Serious GAMES, not simulations.

Along those lines I wonder if Peacemaker and A Force More Powerful are truly “Serious Games” or are they really just propaganda tools, that because they’re meant to be more informative than fun, get lumped into the category of “Serious Games”?

By: Pierre

Pierre — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:06:45 +0000

I am an old friend and colleague of Martin, and I discover this site with great interest. All of you will want the Special History Issue of Simulation & Gaming when it comes out. Among other things, I have a paper on how games help study history, from when I did a lot of research on the subject. I promise to return to this site and announce the publication of the issue.
I used games massively in my history teaching. The trick is to use the game to establish hypotheses and method, and require research on the real events, which the students pursue with eagerness. I also used a largely increased (e.g., world map) Diplomacy. Masters and Slaves, translated into French, was also used in a Methods Course and a course on US history, along with a game on the 1787 convention by James Schick (also translated into French).
Masters & Slaves translates well, and we also adapted the game to the conditions of nineteenth century French industrial workers.
Classroom games work fine, but partly because of the interaction among the human players, who learn from that interaction. I am skeptical of computer games in classes, because of the absence of interaction. Graphics and high definition are indifferent to learning with games. Possibly, some interaction could be generated. The best use of a computer game would be to give a file of an ongoing game of, say, Civilization, to many two or three person teams, then compare the results at the end. The discussion and the research would be a good start on learning

By: Troy

Troy — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:47:40 +0000

Texts are superior as teaching tools to games for a lot of reasons. Reading is a basic tool in university education, so all you need to teach the lesson is the text itself. As Campion notes, people often teach based on how they were taught, so there is a built-in familiarity with book and articles.

It is easier to be critical of texts because they have a “point of view” that is readily distinguished. This is probably why Serious Games are getting a good look in academe because they are being designed with an obvious point of view. Peacemaker has very clear assumptions about the dynamic between Israel’s legitimate desire for security and the PA’s failure to provide elementary services to keep its people content. A Force More Powerful teaches organization as the key to a successful non-violent movement.