Virtual Learning Worlds

I wrote about the game Privates in May, hoping that Microsoft would pass it for XBLA.  No news from Microsoft about the game passing internal tests, but the game is available for free via Channel 4’s website.  After spending 30 minutes or so playing, I believe this game is a fantastic example of educational games done right.  Recently, I’ve been involved in a few discussions around the design philosophy of educational games.  In the context of these discussions, two somewhat conflicting viewpoints arise:

1. The instructional design paradigm.  The game needs to be instructionally valid and accurate above anything else.  Content is still king in this paradigm, and the content should be extremely accurate to convey the material effectively.
2. The game design paradigm.  The game needs to be…well, a game.  It needs to have game mechanics, that combine educational content with fun.  Content isn’t necessarily king, but still important.  The *design* is king, making the experience fun and engaging for the player.

The first paradigm seems to lead to more simulation-style games, where designers attempt to insert very accurate content into an interactive environment, allowing the player to experiment with variables that affect some sort of model the designer is trying to convey.  The second paradigm focuses more on blending the instructional content into a game experience.  Personally, I tend to fall in the game design paradigm, but understand the value of the instructional paradigm.  The biggest pitfall I see from folks in the instructional paradigm is the mindset that the game should be able to stand entirely on its own, as an instructional activity.

I think this is a mistake.  Think about how we learn for a moment. Think about how good teachers go about teaching their students.  It is almost NEVER a single method or a single instructional strategy.  It’s a combination of things, like lectures, assignments, powerpoint, etc.  A game is just another way to engage students, it doesn’t need to be 100% accurate, it simply needs to provide enough content to spark a student’s motivation, to drive them to other learning outlets like Wikipedia, friends, instructors and so on.

The designers for Privates sum this up nicely:

You know how you wouldn’t write a history essay based on your experiences playing a World War II shooter? Well, Privates is a bit like that - while the action takes place in and around peoples’ parts, the anatomy is in no way biologically accurate. We’ve had to make loads of concessions in order to make the game fun to play. There’s still loads of important stuff to take from Privates. Just be sensible about which bits, eh?

I urge everyone to give this game a try.  It certainly is NOT a standalone sex education game.  But I can already envision what would happen if my niece were to play this.  It offers enough content to be compelling, but also offers solid and fun gameplay to keep you interested.  Once the game is over, I’m sure my niece would have a lot on her mind to go and look up on the web, as well as ask some questions of her parents (that they may or may not be ready to answer!)

I remember hearing years ago that a Lego MMO was in the works, dubbed Lego Universe.  Being a huge Lego fan as a kid, and still playing with Legos with my nieces, I felt this was a fantastic idea.  But the more I thought about what Lego represents (free-form building and creation) compared to the generic MMO mold (linear gameplay, little-to-no custom creation), I wondered how they team at Net Devil would pull this off.

Lego Universe is set to release this October, and judging from the videos, it looks fantastic.  In several of my Virtual world talks, I get into the “virtual world roadmap”, the idea that as kids grow up, a sort of r0admap of different MMOs exists as they mature.  My nieces started with Toon Town, then tried some Whyville and continue to spend some time in Club Penguin.  Disney created Pirates of the Caribbean to be part of the “Disney MMO Roadmap”, but it feels like they might need something between Toon Town and Pirates.  As I read more about Lego Universe, it appears that it could be *the* bridge MMO, easing players into the ‘traditional’ MMO model leveraged by Warcraft, EverQuest, Lord of the Rings and most adult MMOs.  But it also maintains some of the playfulness and low-stakes environments that the children’s MMOs exhibit.

Below is a fantastic video illustrating how Net Devil leveraged a large portion of the Lego community to not only contribute ideas, but to learn the toolset to actually contribute content that is in the game world.  Also, Lego Universe will have a large user-generated content area and these Lego enthusiasts will represent the first ‘power user’ group in the Lego Universe, having the ability to create and add content at launch.

Some interesting times to be in the MMO space these days. Like usual, many companies are embarking on MMO projects (and if history is any indication, many will likely fail). BUT…some of the projects have the potential to really push the genre forward.

Star Wars: The Old Republic (Bioware): Bioware is the undisputed king of story in games. Just take a look at their catalog of games (Knights of the old republic, neverwinter nights, baludur’s gate, mass effect, dragon age) of great games that rely heavily on great story. With their more recent releases, they’ve taken storytelling to a new, interactive level where your decisions actually impact the characters you interact with and the world around you. Many game companies claim their games do this, but Bioware is the only company that pulls off the promise. They’ve promised this in an MMO, where story typically falls to the back burner. Especially YOUR story in an MOO. It’s very easy to get lost in the shuffle of thousands of people, where you stop feeling like your character narrative is unique and it simply becomes the same as hundreds of other characters. When the Old Republic hits in 2011, I hope we’ll see innovation in storytelling in an MMO.

Guild Wars 2 (ArenaNet): I enjoyed the original Guild Wars briefly, because a little game called World of Warcraft came out around the same time. I still pop-in to GW from time to time. Guild Wars 2 is shaping up to really innovate in the quest model of MMOs. In a typical quest, in games such as WoW, you might find an NPC that gives you a quest along the lines of “Please, save my farm from these zombies!” and you’re directed to go and kill 10 zombies. Well…the zombies aren’t really destroying the farm, they are just wandering around in a field, minding their own business. You go fill 10, turn in, and go on your way. Guild Wars 2 is implementing what they call a dynamic events system that could take the old model and turn it on its head. Building on the example above, if you (or someone else in the world) don’t stop the zombies, they WILL destroy the farm. Then, if no one wipes them from the farm, they WILL move to the closest town and start attacking that. Events will cascade from to the other, making a very unique environment that could potentially change each time you visit, and keep the game fresh for a long time.

Finally, we have Blizzard’s unannounced MMO project. Most of their leads from the original Warcraft are all working on the new game now. Knowing Blizzard’s history and high standards, plus the huge amount of knowledge they’ve gained with WoW…whatever they do next I’m sure will push the envelope in a LOT of ways from a design perspective.

The next 2-4 years will be a VERY interesting time, a time when we might see actual innovation in a genre that really just continues to build on the D&D design and mechanics established in the 70s and 80s.

For the last week or so, while sitting at my desk over lunch, I fired up some talks by Jane McGonigal from the Institute for the Future. I attended one of Jane’s talks several years ago at the Game Developer’s Conference where she talked about one of the larger alternate reality games she designed, I love bees (in support of Halo 2’s release).

Jane is onto something interesting, focusing on how games, specifically MMOs and ARGs, can help us solve real societal problems. She illustrates how game designers create experiences that exemplify her 4 pillars of happiness, and how we can start to re-create these experiences in the real world to do some good. She cites that gamers play ~20 hours of games a week, akin to a part time job. If designers can somehow leverage this fact, and get gamers into MMOs that somehow have some inherent social value, we can much more quickly move to solve some of the larger issues facing our world.

Nothing like thinking big, eh?

She gave a talk a couple years back sponsored by the New Yorker where she elaborates on this. Personally, I think this is fascinating stuff and I’m hopeful this picks up momentum. But just listening to the moderator of this talk (as well as audience members and moderators of some of her other talks) it’s clear some people think she’s totally out of her mind or simply humor her. I guess on one hand that’s flattering, considering a lot of folks thought Einstein was crazy, too! But I do feel she (and a few other game designers thinking really big like Jesse Schell) are so far ahead of the curve, not enough people are listening.

Here’s to hoping this crop of designers begins to pick up momentum and we really do start seeing games for change.

A colleague, Steve Thorne, has a research project underway looking at language learning inside of World of Warcraft. His theory, backed by past experiences, is language acquisition happens quicker in very context sensitive, directed scenarios. Games fall into that category, as do things like social networking sites (another environment Steve is looking into in terms of language learning).

The current experiment that I’m helping with specifically looks at English as a second language (ESL) students playing WoW. Already we are seeing an increase in language gains, not so much from the person-to-person interaction like we initially thought, but from the person-to-computer interactions. For example, the quest system. In order to grasp the story and the context for the quests, players need to be able to read the quest dialogue.

This got me thinking to language games for children. I’m a big fan of Bioware games (like Mass Effect and Dragon Age). What if a designer put together a children’s story using the Bioware framework of games, requiring the child to pick-and-choose their path through the game? The game wouldn’t be about language learning in an overt or obvious way, but children would need to understand language in order to play the game. Additionally, using the same framework, you could also teach children about different types of behavior. In Mass Effect, for example, you have the option to make very aggressive, sometimes violent decisions (called Renegade) or very good-willed, lawful decisions (called Paragon). A similar framework could be leveraged for kids to teach and reinforce things like honesty, forgiveness, sharing and much more.

Here’s a short example of how the Bioware system works. Look for the small wheel-shaped menu throughout the video in the lower middle of the screen. This is how all the interactions take place between you and the computer-conrtolled characters you interact with throughout the game.

As part of the Learning in 3D Blog Book Tour, I wanted to focus on a few themes that I’ve encountered during my time working with, and researching, different types of virtual worlds. Instead of focusing on a specific chapter or attempting to summarize parts of the book, I selected three different categories that are all touched on (some more than others) in Learning in 3D.

1. User Interfaces (UIs)
I find the interface obstacle very interesting. I’ve designed many interfaces (mostly in 2D) as well as researched UIs in the context of emergency response scenarios. Interfaces come up throughout the book. One quote I particularly like is from Karen Keeter (IBM), in Chapter 9:

At the same time, I believe that the onus is on developers to design for
new users, while still enabling advanced users.

Karen identifies UIs as one of the primary obstacles for newcomers experimenting in virtual worlds, and I couldn’t agree more. In the past, I remember reading about the “typical Second Life experience” for first time users. Nearly 90% of people that create a Second Life account NEVER come back. I believe the UI has a lot to do with this statistic.

One idea around this obstacle is the use of Phased interfaces.

Chapter 8 deals with the diffusion of innovation, touching on typical fears people have about entering a virtual world:

People know what to expect in a 2D virtual class session or in a face to face classroom. Not so with a VIE. The interface, functionality, and experience level with VIEs are not universally high, and the lack of familiarity causes resistance and/or fear among potential users and decision makers.

In addition to the interface and functionality obstacles, a huge trade-off exists between what’s FAMILIAR in a virtual world, and what’s USABLE. People might know what to expect in a face-to-face class session on the human heart. They also might know what to expect from a 2D virtual class session on the human heart. Both of these scenarios might involve diagrams of the heart, maybe a small model of the heart for students to pass around and discussions on blood flow and the major heart compartments. But in 3D, you can do all sorts of wild things like make the avatar a red blood cell, funnel the avatar through the heart, pointing out compartments along the way, allowing the avatar to stop and examine different things, measure blood flow, capture data from the simulation…if designed right, these are powerful, very usable experiences. But trying to mimic a f2f or 2D lesson or activity in 3D is generally NOT very usable…but it is familiar. Avatars passing around a small virtual model of a heart is something familiar, something we might experience naturally. Flying through a heart at high speeds as a red blood cell, not so much.

* NOTE: worth pointing out at this point is that I contributed to Chapter 7 of this book, specifically addressing design decisions and usability vs. familiarity when designing 3D spaces.

2. Informal Learning
Chapter 2 addresses concerns around formal learning vs. informal learning in virtual worlds.

The autonomous learner problem has two core issues: (1) where the need for learning typically arises and (2) how web technologies make it increasingly easy for people to become on - demand learners.

I think it’s too early to tell how virtual worlds play into this. I consider myself an on-demand learner, and I find myself relying on Google, Facebook and my IM contacts to provide critical information on-demand. I struggle to envision a scenario where I open up a virtual world and go seek information on-demand. I have been told that virtual IBM’ers often interact informally in Second Life, and managers of virtual teams are finding value in “management by virtually walking around”, similar to how managers in co-located, physical spaces communicate to team members.

Still, virtual worlds (specifically MMOs) are fantastic training environments for meta-skills such as problem solving, collaboration, teamwork, leadership and basic mathematics (see Steinkuehler, J.Gee, C.Aldrich, C.Quinn, J.Bower and several others). One interesting aspect of this learning comes from things that happen OUTSIDE the virtual world, such as through VoIP, Discussion Boards, IMs and other communication where people are talking about the virtual world and their experiences within.

With training professionals reporting anywhere from 50% to 95% of learning occurring informally, this is an interesting space that virtual worlds will play a role. Design will play a critical role in this evolution (from Chapter 3):

Even if the goal is to foster informal learning, the VIE must be structured appropriately to encourage and enable interaction between and among learners. If not, the result is a virtual ghost town. No one comes to visit, and the place is empty

3. Characters
This comes a bit more from game design, but also applies to virtual worlds. One thing that connects us to learning and our learning environment are the characters, or people, we interact. Sometimes it’s an instructor that tells great stories about his or her experiences that allows you as the learner to relate better and put more context around the content. Perhaps it’s a friend, that pushes you in a course to perform better.

The beautiful thing about virtual worlds is that we can fabricate characters (sometimes called non-player characters or NPCs) with artificial intelligence (AI). The last three years has seen an explosion in the depth of story and character development in video games, to the point that the player starts to care about their virtual, AI-controlled companions (for example, check out either Mass Effect game or Dragon Age: Origins). Even in MMOs like World of Warcraft, Blizzard is placing more priority on creating characters with deep back stories, providing a new, higher-level of engagement between the player and the game world.

These are three areas I find critical to the adoption and success of virtual worlds as learning/training environments. If we figure out how to create phased interfaces, quality informal learning spaces and characters the learner can empathize with, we’ll have a learning environment unlike any other.

The majority of my game purchases come from three studios:
Valve
Blizzard
BioWare

The first two studios are often listed in the top three of the industry, and BioWare is rapidly reaching the same status. As Blizzard develops Cataclysm, the next expansion to World of Warcraft, I’m hoping for some serious innovation. The best place for innovation? The 5-player dungeon experience in WoW.

The dungeon experience is my favorite part of the game; grouping with 4 friends for an hour or so, laying waste to enemies and collecting better gear for your character. Once you move in to 10 and 25-man dungeons, the level of commitment goes up, the stress goes up, and arguments crop up between players from time to time. No thank you!

But the 5-man experience gets very boring after a while. The dungeons are very scripted, with packs of enemies in the same spot every time. The bosses are in the same place, and do the same things, each time you run the dungeon.

Why not try and use the technology that powers Valve’s franchise Left 4 Dead within WoW’s dungeons, at least the 5-man dungeons? Specifically Valve’s AI Director, described by Wikipedia:

The artificial intelligence of Left 4 Dead features a dynamic system for game dramatics, pacing and difficulty called the “Director”. Instead of fixed spawn points for enemies, the Director places enemies and items in varying positions and quantities based upon each player’s current situation, status, skill and location, creating a new experience for each playthrough. The Director also creates mood and tension with emotional cues, such as visual effects, dynamic music, and character communication.

If Blizzard could implement this in the context of 5-player dungeons, I have a feeling players would continue to pay their subscription fees for a much longer period of time.

Left 4 Dead Gameplay

Warcraft 5man dungeon Gameplay

I’m spending some time recently talking about the evolution of platforms, specifically computing platforms. As part of my IST 110 course, I spend time talking about the history of computer games. The earliest iterations of home entertainment systems had no cartridges; the game software was on-board, embedded in the hardware of the device. A good example is Atar’s PONG. Eventually the manufacturers moved away from this model and towards a model of the console as a platform. The Atari 2600 is an early example of this. Today, with things like Xbox Live and the PS Network, consoles continue to expand their roles as platforms with each new iteration.

Another good example is Apple’s iPhone. Samsung, Nokie, Motorolla or any other cell phone manufacturer could have approached the phone as a platform, but they chose to simply build phones. From the very start, Apple conceptualized the iPhone as a platform, not merely a phone. If you glance at the app store, and associated market data, you can see this is paying off.

Our automobiles are well on the way to being platforms. Ford is rolling out Ford Work Solutions in their trucks, morphing your truck from a simple means of transportation to the hub of your business.

Here at PSU, we’re using Movable Type, what some consider to be a basic form of blog software, as a platform. We’re exploring MT as a means for portfolio development, online learning delivery and even personal content management.

I was interested to read last week that BioWare, makers of some of the best video games on the market today, are looking at two of their franchises as platforms: Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. What does that mean exactly? It’s too early to tell, but with the advent of downloadable content (DLC) and episodic content, game developers can no longer create games in a traditional framework, where the game is a self-contained close system. Developers now need to build a game, always thinking about how they can leave the framework open for DLC, user-generated content and other options that starts to make the game have similar attributes as a platform.

It never ceases to amaze me how much my blog, and now Twitter, have turned into quasi-personal content management systems. CMS might be too strong in this instance, but I find myself continually going back to my blog and twitter stream to find a URL or some nugget of information that I forget, but becomes relevant months or years later.

With that being said, I had to work on a flowchart recently. In the past I used Omnigraffle, but it was tedious to re-apply for a demo license each time I wanted to use it. So I hit the web and a colleague up for some ideas.

Webspiration - this is what I’m currently using for my project. My students found this over the summer and used it for a web design project. Not bad, but no features to export to my knowledge, only print. Very similar to Google Docs in that you can invite collaborators, track changes, see change logs and other nice collaborative features.

Gliffy - Suggested by the Frenchman, I also used this in the past. I probably should have stuck with this for my recent project, but I wanted to give other tools a shot.

SlickPlan - I do not have any experience with SlickPlan, but it appears to be made by web designers, for web designers. Worth checking out.

Games are complex beasts. Not only do you need to understand and master the interface and inputs, but in order to succeed you need to put your patience to the test. Games are meant to be challenging, but until dynamic difficulty systems are commonplace, what do you do when you hit a brick wall in terms of progression within a game?

Some people continue to run into the wall, testing different strategies, collecting feedback, then re-strategize until they succeed. I find this very interesting in terms of the learning process and applying the scientific method in an entertainment context, but that’s not the point of this post…

The point of this post is what I do when I hit the wall in a game. I look for cheats. Unlimited ammo? Instant health packs? Armor? Something to help me break through the wall so i can continue with the game.

Why look for a cheat? In my case, two reasons:

1. Time. I simply do not have time to try and overcome the same obstacle over and over if I ever want to see the end of a game. Between work, PhD studies and other obligations, time always seems to be short.
2. Story. I WANT to see the game to the end. I’m a firm believer that games are an art form, and to enjoy the art to its fullest you need to experience the entire artistic expression, from start to finish.

So back to accessibility. Would games be a more accessible medium if designers provided the end user with a variety of tools to ease the difficulty of the game? Cheats are available for most games, but the user needs to go out and actively seek them out. What if the game was smart enough to say “hey, I see this alien has destroyed you and your base 12 times in a row. Want some free weapon upgrades this go around for a better shot at progressing?”

Or would this take away something from the experience?