I’m a sucker for MUD.
If you’re not up on the acronyms, MUD is a “Multi User Dungeon” or a “Multi User Domain.” It has its roots firmly in the old “Adventure in the Colossal Cave” .. one of the very first computer games in the genre (c. 1975). It’s a text based adventure game where words paint the scene and control the action. MUDs are the precursors to the whole MMORPG movement. They’re the Neanderthals of the multi-player world, but unlike Neaderthals, they’re far from extinct.
There’s a unit in this course where you’ll be playing in the MUD and we’ll talk more about it later, but I wanted to bring it up now because one of this week’s readings is Gredler’s “Games and Simulations and Their Relationships to Learning” wherein she lays out five criteria for “educational games.”
- Winning should be based on knowledge or skills, not random factors
- The game should address important content, not trivia.
- The dynamics of the game should be easy to understand and interesting for the players but not obstruct or distort learning.
- Students should not lose points for wrong answers.
- Games should not be zero sum exercises.
These factors go a long way to explaining why “educational games” suck. By sucking the “fun” and the “game” out of “educational games” the value of games as instructional tools is greatly reduced.
Winning based on skill and knowledge is ok, but without random factors, some of which might be “game ending” there’s no risk. No risk means no emotional investment. No emotional investment means the game means nothing to the player. There’s no incentive to keep playing.
Games should address important concepts. I’m not convinced that a useful game needs to present useful content. There’s an exercise we use in our teacher prep programs at UNCo that uses the game Oregon Trail as an example of anchored instruction to teach the use of basic computer tools — word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations. The students play the game and then use those tools to do specific tasks based on what happened in the game. The *game* — a simulation of a passage to Oregon — has nothing to do with how to make a header in a Word document, but has everything to do with providing grist for the instructional mill. It adds interest, and flavor to what would be another “how I spent my summer vacation” assignment otherwise. I believe that MUDs would be terrific for remedial reading. But that doesn’t mean that the MUD has to be an adventure about how to break down phonemes and construct meaning.
As for the dynamics of the game, I’m sorry but with the exception of a very few games I can think of (Othello, Chess) the “simple games” are the “stupid games.” They’re the games you teach people to get them used to *real* games. I understand that time constraints in classrooms make complex games problematic for instructional purposes. That’s a classroom problem and not a game problem.
Students should not lose points for wrong answers?? Why not? Shouldn’t that depend, maybe, on the game? Is your score on game is your grade for the class? Is there no “let’s play again” button? This is just silly. No risk, no reward. And *maybe* there’s a reason in the game for the student not to lose points but — really — if it’s an instructional game, we’re bound by some arbitrary PC ruleset?
The last qualification rules out every instance of jeopardy and quiz games. Spelling bees, not allowed. You can’t have zero sum — every student has to be able to win the game at the same time. I’m sorry. There are very few games that have this stipulation or function. It’s the nature of the game. While it’s possible for the student to play solitare — giving everybody the opportunity to ‘win’ their own game (or not) — the ability to play in a social environment is just so much more powerful that they seem to be natural for educational applications.
There’s some interesting ideas in this article, but I’m reading it with a very critical eye. It only takes one counter-example to derail a theoretical foundation, and this foundation is pretty shaky. I think there are plenty of games that can be used for educational purposes that are not, themselves, instructional.
Which brings me back to MUDs.
Just my opinion.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Yes, I am following you, Dr. Lowell!
Actually, I received something interesting in the mail from Electronic Arts on this topic, and thought I’d comment… Apparently, EA is marketing Sims 2: Castaway as an educational way of sparking storytelling and writing. I received a DVD with all kinds of lessons and activities, a guide to helping students create a castaway tale, and other program components with literature standards and connections. Included on the DVD is a presentation by Dr. James Paul Gee, Presidential Professor of LIterary Studies at Arizona State University, who discusses why a game on a “classic castaway theme can enhance learning.” It’s worth checking out. 
August 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I agree with your points. Players need some emotional investment in the games they play. Without some emotional connection the game looses meaning to the player (student). This means the player has to confront successes and failure. We learn from our mistakes as well as our successes. The combination can motivate us to work harder
Once the player has developed a connection with the game they want (some say need) to play more. Why not use create educational games that create the same desire? I spent four years in college learning physics and engineering but they never really seemed alive to me until I had to create my own space craft and fly it! I invested something in the game. I felt it was important to me. That connection encouraged me to play more.
Oh, I’ve played more then my share of MUDs. I started in the mid eighties. I think can be better then most newer games because they require the people to create their own reality.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I have played games like this years ago, although at the time I didn’t know what a MUD’s was. I just knew I was playing Star Trek and I didn’t see any pictures. I also agree that withouht emotional connection the student would quickly loose interest , students atleast younger students seemed to get very emotional if their is a reward in the games such as a trophy in sports game, a new car, or money in a quiz show. Students know full well they will not receive a prize but they feel pride in knowing they reached a level the game deemed necessary for the claiming of the prize.
I too remember playing Orgeon Trail, infact this was one of the first experiences I had in computers. This game taught our class basic commands on the computer and to a lesser extent some keyboarding skills. I also remember playing a great game on Dos that really helped me to learn alot about computer commands. The game Police Quest by Sierra had graphics, not very good by to days standards but was primarily text based. If you wanted to walk into a room you typed walk foward, or walk into room. If you did not select a command that was legitimate the computer would let you know. Interestingly these were some of my favorite games, even with all the new HD graphics.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
While reading your post, I was still trying to figure out what exactly you are saying. I am a visual learner and MUD’s are still coming around.
As far as the 5 points discussed, I agree more with you than Gredler’s view. I mean really. No games without random factors. That is real life. If you are playing a game and doing good, slam in a random factor and it leaves the game open to imagination.
The content but no trivia… that is how I learn. Ask me what I don’t know and I promise I will find some way to remember it the next time. Finding what we don’t know help us scaffold new information.
The simple games are looked at as elementary type. The more complex the more students will be engaged.
Wrong answers (wrong decisions) in life result in negative things happening. Who wants to play a game when there is no threat of losing.
If the author has made these recommendations for educational games then that is the reason most educational games suck. IMO
August 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
MUDs violate every one of Gredler’s characteristics of an educational game, except they’re not zero sum. In the world of MUD, everybody can “win”
August 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Correct me if I am wrong but I think the point is that everyone “wins’ through the experience of playing MUDs. It is not broken down into winners and losers since by playing you are winning (learning). Gelder’s methodology seems to describe winning as in binary terms. If you win you learn. if you don’t win you don’t learn. It does not consider different levels of learning.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Oh, that’s an interesting interpretation, David. I think you’re right, tho. Gredler’s suggesting that to be educational, the winning is the indicator that learning — even mastery — has happened.
No wonder I’m not big on “educational games.”