Hey all, Thanks for the discussion on games yesterday. I thought I'd write a follow-up email of things that have been on my mind since then... 1. Not all gamers are the same Average gamer? Woman in her thirties. But that's because of the casual game revolution. That said, not all gamers are the same, obviously. So, when talking about gamers, I'd like to see people be specific about which players and focus on actual practice around specific gaming genres. 2. Not all games are the same Yet all games (in my book) have in place certain constraints that force players to make interesting decisions based on limited resources or abilities. This is why multilearn isn't a game but more a platform. 3. Some ways to think about games for change - educate about current issues (content knowledge) traditional educational "games" have focused on content knowledge training... I don't agree that they've been proven to be successful. In fact, I find there's a dearth of good solid research to show their efficacy. One problem is that many of the software titles aim at conveying certain bits of info that is completely devoid of authentic context, ignoring decades of research that shows people learn in situated moments of activity (making the whole idea of transfer problematic). - simulate systems to foster conceptual change (algorithmic training--getting people to think more like scientists) the ludic argument: gamers learn how to recognize patterns (cf. Koster's Theory of Fun for Game Design) and exploit game mechanics for game goals - role-play hypothetical future settings (Jane McGonigal's stuff) the narrative argument: gamers are motivated by stories and like to explore many possible futures. Jim Gee (of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy fame) and David Shaffer (How Computer Games Help Children Learn) make this argument coming from a sociocultural framing and identity building model. - add game-like elements to other activities this is the earning points with your credit card model. Another take on it is chorewars.com where families can set up quests in the form of doing dishes, doing homework, etc. Yet another example (tho maybe making a stretch here) is slashdot's rating system for comments. Urgent Evoke includes giving out points in certain attributes when people contribute to the imagined, emergent story. I don't have any good answers and, supposedly, I'm a games scholar. I do agree, however, that more and more people are playing digital games, so it's potentially very fruitful to think about these issues. thanks, mark -- Mark Chen | @mcdanger | markdangerchen.net PhC | Games Ethnographer | LIFE Center | UW Education This was sent from a PC with a full-size keyboard; misspellings and brevity are entirely my fault.