Pablo Moreno-Ger’s blog

It is easy to spot a certain tendency to jump into the game-based learning wagon with a shallow approach that I would summarize as “Kids play videogames, let’s teach kids with videogames”. Sorry guys, but that is not the good position. It is shallow because it observes an effect (kids play videogames) and tries to leverage it (let’s teach kids with videogames) without actually analyzing the cause of the effect. It leads to awful “games”, usually centered on a popular IP (Disney comes to mind) in which you get your average school content and a fancy presentation. And the result is always the same: A boring product in which parents (sometimes schools) invest great sums of money and the box is left on a shelf after failing to capture the attention of the student.

In a column about good writing and stories in commercial games (completely unrelated to game-based learning) Matt Sakey states:

I’d love to see a game like Solaris, or Fiasco, another Lem book – essentially mysteries, both reflect on the inherent unknowability of nonterrestrial intelligence, but are still hard sci-fi that as games would theoretically allow you to kill aliens (Hey, I said innovate fiction, not turn games into homework).

And he hits the nail there. When game-based learning feels like like regular school work it won’t be accepted as a game by gamers.

The correct approach should sound more like “There is something about videogames that fascinates kids, and we should use it to improve our teaching”. Simply stating that games can teach is a gross simplification. There are elements in games that engage the player in a motivational and FUN activity. And those elements (ellusive as they are) are the key to a successful learning experience. We are talking of eye-candy, fantasy, action, challenge, proyection of the self onto the avatar, and, high and above, conflict. Those are the ingredients hat make game-based learning interesting and useful, but the industry tends to forget it and keeps pulling myriads of boring learning products (go to your usual retailer and check the “Educational Software” section).

And I have heard that “some interest is better than no interest” but that is, again, a serious mistake. There is a growing interest in game-based learning which migth become excessive. If ten thousand boring games fail to teach anything, the perception of “games can’t teach, sorry, nice try though” may become generalized and then the idea would die before reaching a mature state. So, if you are working in a game-based learning initiative, please ask yourself: Is my product fun? Would a student play my game outside an educational context? Would he pay for it? If the answer is “no” for all three questions, you should step down or start all over. Successful game companies are those that manage to find out that their game is crap before publishing it.
If you got at least the first question right, you are on the track. Most of us are in that level. It is fun. At least, more fun than regular school and the students love to play it in an educational context.
If you got two positives you can consider your initiative very successful and I would like to hear of your design and how it magically mixes fun and education. Few titles have gone there and they deserve proper recognition.
Finally, if you got three positives then you hit the sweet-spot. Congratulations, you nailed it and went beyond all expectations, reaching a product that competes against state-of-the-art games and yet manages to provide a learning experience. We all dream of getting there, but we are no envious, for your success may unlock the doors to a wider acceptance of game-based learning as a valid learning medium.

Research educational games, game design, reflections