Question How to move from destructive games to educational games?

[ar81]

I have been wondering why most of the commercial games you see around are about destruction, made in the most eye candy fashion.

I showed some games to old friends who did not live the gaming era. They were horrified with games you just see as natural.

When taking control of U boat and I told him to fire a torpedo at a merchant, a friend who loves history and is father, asked me "why should I fire upon them, they have not done anything to me" and I told him "because high command instructed to do so".

I showed him the old Advanced Tactical Fighters (ATF Gold) and he saw the videos, where destruction is seen as mean to "achieve victory" he felt sick. He had the idea that planes could make good racing machines.

This is why he plans to keep his kids as offline as possible.

Before 2003 war was a game to me, plain entertainment, Star Wars.
In 2003 during the first attacks I had the news on TV and I decided to play USAF Gulf War missions... and I felt sick, I understood that AA devices were firing at me because they were defending themselves from me, and as I attacked those buildings I could imagine many people living what people lived in WTC as I pulled the trigger. In a Wings documentary, a pilot said it was just a job. James Dunningan, war simulation expert says fighting war is just a job. What a job...!!

When I recently downloaded and played Defcon, I felt sick... 1.2 million people dead, 2 million dead... It was a game about genocide and extermination of human race. And the goal of the game was to exterminate more than your enemy. My wife felt terrified when she saw it.

Years ago Doom was criticized for you killed monsters... and with American Army (endorsed by US army) you kill real people, train for real killing.

You also have Grand Theft Auto...

Those games are uninstalled, giving some room to Simcity and Orbiter.

If you see the shelves you see many violent games in different flavors.
It seems like promotion of the apetite for destruction.

So I wondered what makes educational games to have less development than games about destruction.

 

[RisingFury]

No offense, but this is another topic that's gonna go nowhere fast.

Let me just put it this way:

If educational games made anywhere near as much money as the so called "destructive" games do and appealed to the average folks that don't wanna spend 2 weeks learning how to get into orbit as much as the simple "destructive" games do, they'd be making them more.

 

[pete.dakota]

I think it's something to do with energy. Humans like energy; being around it, observing it, creating it, using it. I don't know if you've ever stood next to a giant waterfall, but you'll find yourself just wanting to stay there, mesmerised by the massive amounts of energy and noise right beside you. It's quite a rare feat for any one person to utilise massive amounts of energy by their own will. But games give people the chance to simulate it. You can pretend you're stood there holding a rocket launcher, firing it into a building, and watch the building explode and crumble into a big pile of smoking rubble. Then you can that over and over again to your hearts desire.

The ability to create that much destruction for the average person really only exists in computer games. To be able to harness massive amounts of energy. The majority of humans - including myself - seem to enjoy it. Why, though, I've no idea.

I don't think the hardcore GTAIV player actually wants to go out stealing cars and driving them into hordes of pedestrians, nor is in anyway a sadist, though. If anything it gives people a channel through which to vent their pent up desire to destroy. Better in a computer game than on the streets.

 

[Vash]

Why are most commercial games about destruction? Because it sells. They make the most money. Video game development companies work just like any other business in the world. They find what people want and they give it to them for a price, making them a pretty hefty profit. The vast majority of game consumers out there go for this type of game over any other. Of course this doesn't prevent other types of games from being created, but as you mentioned, the market saturation of destructive games over non-destructive games is and probably always will be much higher.

In my opinion, the most important thing is to have the right outlook on these kinds of games. Because that's exactly what they are. Video games. They're there so that you can do things in them that you would be unable to do in real life. Whether it's fly a ship into space or starting global thermonuclear warfare. These things are meant to entertain.

Why do so many of them incorperate death and destruction? Most likely it's for the same reason that so many movies do. Death is a part of life. War is a part of life. It's a very sad reality, but it is indeed part of the world that we live in. Back in WWII, I'm sure there were more than just a few innocent freighter boats sunk beneath the ocean by submarines on both sides. In that respect, some death and destruction games can be very educational, especially historic war games. They just may make you think about things that really do go on in this world a little bit more. If you want to shelter yourself or anyone else from these realities, then yes, you should keep them away from all forms of mainstream entertainment and most certainly the internet. And as far as young children are concerned ( exact age most likely varies from person to person, really depends on how mature the child is ), I wouldn't want anyone under at least 14 getting themselves into this world of death and destruction. Children that young still have very malleable minds and can really end up getting the wrong idea into their heads about things. What you don't want is a game to end up reprogramming your child's mind. However, once they are old enough to really understand and get a grasp on the world as it is, I don't see a problem with it.

Strictly speaking about educational games, the reason why you don't see more of them isn't because they are not successful. It's because of who you're trying to sell them to. The market share for educational games tends to be rather small and aimed at schools. The problem with schools is that most of them don't have a whole lot of money to spend on buying educational games. There simply isn't enough profit in it. Sure, people still develop such games, produce them, sell them or give them for free to schools, and they do make a difference, but it's just not really mainstream like the more popular forms of entertainment are.

The majority of humans - including myself - seem to enjoy it. Why, though, I've no idea.

According to Spock in the original Star Trek series, it's because humans are natural born carnivores. By nature we have to hunt down and capture our prey for food. Of course we're a bit more evolved beyond that there, but the idea is that the instinct is still there. And extrapolating upon that, one must be strong and powerful to capture one's prey. And the stronger and more powerful you are, the bigger and better prey you can get, and the more rewarding it is.

Make any sense at all? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[ar81]

I just wonder if no one buys educational games because they are not getting the funding and marketing to increase demand, or if on the contrary it is because there is no market for them.

When Atari demise took place, everyone in US thought gaming market was dead, until Nintendo came to prove them wrong. Atari demise was explained by those who worked there in a way that you understood that its demise took place as the corporate pollution on creativity, and corporate limitation to invent, as corporate rules on schedules instead of excellence destroyed the company.

So I wonder if the same could be happening to educational games. I wonder if a sorta "Nintendo" could prove them wrong.

In this battle between destruction vs education, I have the theory that it might not be that education has less chance, but less resources have been allocated to promote destruction than education.

 

[Eagle]

Speaking of the GTA games, you end up dying so much that it might even dissuade people from trying in the real. Then again, the game is most fun when you have 4+ stars.

I suppose you might see sports games would be preferable to first person shooters and most real time strategy games. (personally I find 99.99% of sports games boring)

And speaking of educational games. Portal. Style of a FPS, quite dark and violent in some respects, but awesomeness.
:lol:->O......O->:speakcool:
O->:rofl:->O

 

[ar81]

No offense, but this is another topic that's gonna go nowhere fast.

Not from me.


-----Post Added-----

I suppose you might see sports games would be preferable to first person shooters and most real time strategy games. (personally I find 99.99% of sports games boring)

I would like more creative games.
Violence and sex as cool factor is the trick for lazy designers.

If you see Star Trek (ST) games, they are boring.
Instead, Independence War (IW) was a game that could have been a cool ST game. The cool factor of IW was not the shooting (which at some times became annoying) but the storyline, the situations you faced.

Orbiter is a game with no storyline, no scripting, not even an interesting landscape for alien planets or interesting weather or interesting shielding as your craft enter in contact with corrosive atmosphere, when you land on them. And yet, we love it. Think of it as "orbital slingshot sports" championship game.

From my view, Orbiter proves that creative ideas and design make non shooters interesting, and lazy minds go for violence and sex as cool design factor.

However I would like to see any alternative views.

 

[Eagle]

I think most educational games fail because they are bad games. A lot of them are a somewhat fun clone of an existing platform, adventure or puzzle game, but they break the gameplay to make you do math problems. The educational part is just tacked in, it is a distraction from the game.

Orbiter doesn't force you to learn a thing to play. But you need to learn about flight, Newtonian physics, orbital mechanics and delta v to be able to do most tasks. Education here is part of the game. It is the necessary knowledge to do well. And really a LOT of these lessons can be learned in game.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also: What is the primary purpose of a game?

 

[ar81]

I think most educational games fail because they are bad games. A lot of them are a somewhat fun clone of an existing platform, adventure or puzzle game, but they break the gameplay to make you do math problems. The educational part is just tacked in, it is a distraction from the game.

Orbiter doesn't force you to learn a thing to play. But you need to learn about flight, Newtonian physics, orbital mechanics and delta v to be able to do most tasks. Education here is part of the game. It is the necessary knowledge to do well. And really a LOT of these lessons can be learned in game.

If I understand your view correctly, the problem is that it merely automates puzzles. And just like Hollywood writers, many designers (or producers) are ignorant enough not to see the fun of having entertainment that demands knowledge. So it tells me that there is a design problem, as you call them "bad games" which is sort of equivalent of "poor gameplay" and therefore poor design.

A "history quiz" game would be like an automated exam... same boring crap from school...

 

[BHawthorne]

Games are an escape from reality, not a reinforcer of reality. Some people think it's cool to shoot space aliens, other people think it's cool to pilot a space shuttle. Whatever people want to play as long as it doesn't negatively impact others I really could care less. If you relieve stress by pretending to be some gangster in a shooter game, who cares? I'd much rather people diffuse thier angst and stress abstractly with games than do it in real life. I also don't believe one needs to move from one type of game to another. It's bad to be fixated on a single type of thing anyways. I play MMOs, sims, shooters and strategy games about equally, so I don't get bored or burnt out on a specific game type.

 

[Messierhunter]

So it tells me that there is a design problem, as you call them "bad games" which is sort of equivalent of "poor gameplay" and therefore poor design.

A "history quiz" game would be like an automated exam... same boring crap from school...

Pretty much. If you wanted to make a "good" history game don't try to make a history exam that you mask with a game. Stay true to the idea of a game. For instance, for a simple idea you could do a time travel game where the player goes back and finds history has been subtly changed by an evil traveler - it's up to the player to find out how the event should have played out and put it back to be historically correct. The key is focus on making the game fun and not just a history exam. The history itself should flow naturally from the story and gameplay. In my example, you could let the player keep going back somewhat freely and see how events play out as they make corrections, like Groundhog Day. Let them intentionally mess things up and have fun with history, but in the end they have to put things right to go on.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hint: Game-play.

The whole debate is just around taking games so serious, that you can't play them anymore.

 

[ar81]

Pretty much. If you wanted to make a "good" history game don't try to make a history exam that you mask with a game. Stay true to the idea of a game. For instance, for a simple idea you could do a time travel game where the player goes back and finds history has been subtly changed by an evil traveler - it's up to the player to find out how the event should have played out and put it back to be historically correct. The key is focus on making the game fun and not just a history exam. The history itself should flow naturally from the story and gameplay. In my example, you could let the player keep going back somewhat freely and see how events play out as they make corrections, like Groundhog Day. Let them intentionally mess things up and have fun with history, but in the end they have to put things right to go on.

Your idea sounds like "Where in time is Carmen San Diego".

 

[bujin]

The argument doesn't just relate to the gaming industry.

Would you prefer to pay to see a documentary on quantum theory or evolution at the cinema instead of the latest Hollywood blockbuster?

 

[ar81]

Hint: Game-play.

The whole debate is just around taking games so serious, that you can't play them anymore.

It depends on how you define a game and how you define play.
An exam is not really playing, if you understand it as fun.

Some define game as a set of rules (like board games and role playing games) and some others define it like storyline (interactive movies).

That is the center of debate between ludologists (from latin Ludus, game) vs narratologists who study games from 2 different perspectives.

I would add a 2 dimension axis to this linear view, which is the opposition between education and just entertainment and fun.

 

[Messierhunter]

Your idea sounds like "Where in time is Carmen San Diego".

I remember playing that game. The thing is that it didn't really play much like a game, more like a quiz. My idea is that the game should first and foremost be a game, it should immerse itself in history naturally. Your player should be allowed to interact with history freely, the goal being to restore it, but freedom of choice is cruical to fun gameplay. "Where in time" didn't give you any real choices, and no way to change or interact with history. You either got the answer to each history question right or wrong - and getting it wrong did not result in a creative change to the way history played out, just a dead end. Imagine being allowed interact directly with historical characters and events, but regardless of whether you get it right or wrong you find out how your change affects history and then time travel again to try to get it right. Naturally such a game would be challenging to make; you have to anticipate many different player actions and script each one out, maybe even allow it to branch off into altenate histories. It would require the attention to detail given to big blockbuster games like GTA IV, but that's what makes a game truly excellent.

 

[ar81]

The argument doesn't just relate to the gaming industry.

Would you prefer to pay to see a documentary on quantum theory or evolution at the cinema instead of the latest Hollywood blockbuster?

The problem is that we usually relate concepts like this:

Education = Boredom, data, knowledge
Entertainment = Violence, sex, storyline or arcade, fun, gameplay

Orbiter seems a strange mixture that proves that you may have education and entertainment in a single package (Orbiter just lacks sex and violence and it is fun and has great gameplay).

The dicotomy between game vs simulation seems like oposing red and blue, not really opposites. The Sims, Need for Speed are simulations, but they are also games. Many people consider Orbiter a game (not here, of course).


-----Post Added-----

I remember playing that game. The thing is that it didn't really play much like a game, more like a quiz. My idea is that the game should first and foremost be a game, it should immerse itself in history naturally. Your player should be allowed to interact with history freely, the goal being to restore it, but freedom of choice is cruical to fun gameplay. "Where in time" didn't give you any real choices, and no way to change or interact with history. You either got the answer to each history question right or wrong - and getting it wrong did not result in a creative change to the way history played out, just a dead end. Imagine being allowed interact directly with historical characters and events, but regardless of whether you get it right or wrong you find out how your change affects history and then time travel again to try to get it right. Naturally such a game would be challenging to make; you have to anticipate many different player actions and script each one out, maybe even allow it to branch off into altenate histories. It would require the attention to detail given to big blockbuster games like GTA IV, but that's what makes a game truly excellent.

You are in the side of narratologists who say games are narrative.
Ludologists say that a game like Space Invaders has no storyline and is still a game, composed by rules that entertain people.

But still I do not find the clear boundary or opposition between education and entertainment, or education and gameplay.

 

[Urwumpe]

And again, an important keyword: Entertainment...

Is Grand Theft Auto IV the end of the genre, or the current Magnum Opus?

 

[ar81]

And again, an important keyword: Entertainment...

Is Grand Theft Auto IV the end of the genre, or the current Magnum Opus?

Correct me if I am wrong...
If software developers get to create educational entertainment that entertain a lot and make people to learn, like Orbiter, you could have a great gaming hit.

The fact that someone tried to sell Orbiter at eBay tells me that if Orbiter was commercial it would have enough entertainment to become successful. So educational games could have a good chance if game is designed properly.