Some thought about the thorny issue of educational games:
To begin with: Do educational games have any purpose? Yes I can understand the value of presenting an learning activity in a new and exciting way that connect with the kids – but at the same time there is the idea of an educational game come across as an intrusion into something that the kids love. Indeed, take away the escapism that’s leagues away from school lessons and the kids will start smelling bullshit.
And that pretty much sums up the notion of educational games. I can imagine many kids retreating to their game devices at the end of a school day to forget everything they learned (I know I did) so to force them to think may result in resentment.
During my primary school years (1987-1993) I did play some computer games of educational value. I didn’t mind at the time because micro-computers were a ‘new thing’ at the time and it was fun learning how to use one. In addition, the games I used were simple BBC programs. One program I used was one that tested me on naming the locations of Tasmania. I enjoyed it, got a lot out of it, and never once did I feel like I was being preached to – indeed that was the only game that really succeeded in its goal but some of the other games at the time were either rubbish or of questionable educational value.
If anything, for an educational game to work it must present the educational value in a decent matter and be fun to play – a balancing act that is nothing short of tricky to pull off. But can it work? Well as long as the educational values aren’t shoved down the children’s throat, it challenges them to think and is fun to play it can.
Are there any games I can think of that achieve this balancing act?
Well the Civilization series is a prime example of presenting material in a manner that never feels patronizing. Indeed, reading up on the Civilopedia on the Wonders of the World and the scientific advancements was fascinating and never once was dull. It also helped that the game itself was heaps of fun to play, insanely addictive and encouraged my mind to work on a strategic level.
Peacemaker is another game worthy of mention. Through playing this game I learned more about the conflicts between Israel and Palestine than any news program and just how difficult making decisions for a nation can be. Okay sure there isn’t much of a game to speak of but when you’re waiting for an outcome with a mixture of anticipation and dread, you know you’ve done something right.
And continuing with the strategic theme, through playing Pharaoh I learned a lot about the history of ancient Egypt and made me keen to explore some more beyond what I already knew – a sign of success if ever there was one.
If anything for an educational game to work it would first need to come across as something fun and not as a pure educational exercise. And, based on what I‘ve written above, it would seem that strategic games are the best approach with making a game of educational value: It encourages the player to think and offers an opportunity to get one’s message across in a subtle manner.
I mean you wouldn’t use Gears of War as a basis for a game to convey mathematics….
Showing posts with label Gears of War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gears of War. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2013
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Shadow of the Beast
Last week I heard that there is a Shadow of the Colossus movie in development and it has a director, Josh Trank, attached to it. Normally I don't pay much attention to game-to-film adaptations as they tend to have a rather terrible reputation (one well earned mind you). But SotC is a favorite game of mine and, as a result, this is the first I've heard of such an adaptation.
So in order to talk about this, let me share my thoughts on video game-to-film adaptations: It is something I have mixed feelings about. Sure they nearly always turn out to be terrible movies but consider this: Any movie can work if the effort is put into it - even to the point where any dubious origins can be ignored. Take the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie - great movie but looking at now, one wouldn't think that it was inspired by a theme park ride in Disneyland.
But ultimately though, unlike movies, books or TV series, video games hold the unique position of being a form that entertainment that requires participation form the viewer. As such there are many scenarios in a game that will never work in a movie.
Having said that however, it also works the other way. I never liked how games bill themselves as movies, or on par with movies, because that really defeats the purpose of it being a game. If you're going to make a game that requires the player to sit quietly when the action is being played out then why are you making a game? If you're billing movie-like quality to a game then why isn't it a movie? As such I have seen some games that present scenarios that could work great as a movie but fail when placed in the context of an actual game. Having said that, when is a Dreamweb movie going to get made, hrmmm?
But having got that off my chest, let's talk Shadow of the Colossus.
How on earth can one hope to make a movie out this scenario? There's only three characters in the entire game: One of which is in a comatose state and another one is an equine. There's the colossi true but whereas the game was sold on the seemingly insane principle of sixteen boss fights, making a movie out of that principle sounds impossible.
And that's not even considering the ambiguous nature of the game: When you think about it, Shadow of the Colossus presents a story but only half of it - or even less than half. So what would the movie hope to achieve with half a story? Will it explain the origins of Dormin? Describe the exact relationship between Wander and Mono? Illustrate how Emon knows Wander? Somehow having such mysteries explained for me loses their allure.
Personally if I were to make a game based movie I would do one based on those Space Marine combat games (ie Gears of War). But I'd take one of the macho space marines and then place him in a world AFTER victory has been achieved and he must learn to reconnect with the real world and function as a proper human being :)
So in order to talk about this, let me share my thoughts on video game-to-film adaptations: It is something I have mixed feelings about. Sure they nearly always turn out to be terrible movies but consider this: Any movie can work if the effort is put into it - even to the point where any dubious origins can be ignored. Take the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie - great movie but looking at now, one wouldn't think that it was inspired by a theme park ride in Disneyland.
But ultimately though, unlike movies, books or TV series, video games hold the unique position of being a form that entertainment that requires participation form the viewer. As such there are many scenarios in a game that will never work in a movie.
Having said that however, it also works the other way. I never liked how games bill themselves as movies, or on par with movies, because that really defeats the purpose of it being a game. If you're going to make a game that requires the player to sit quietly when the action is being played out then why are you making a game? If you're billing movie-like quality to a game then why isn't it a movie? As such I have seen some games that present scenarios that could work great as a movie but fail when placed in the context of an actual game. Having said that, when is a Dreamweb movie going to get made, hrmmm?
But having got that off my chest, let's talk Shadow of the Colossus.
How on earth can one hope to make a movie out this scenario? There's only three characters in the entire game: One of which is in a comatose state and another one is an equine. There's the colossi true but whereas the game was sold on the seemingly insane principle of sixteen boss fights, making a movie out of that principle sounds impossible.
And that's not even considering the ambiguous nature of the game: When you think about it, Shadow of the Colossus presents a story but only half of it - or even less than half. So what would the movie hope to achieve with half a story? Will it explain the origins of Dormin? Describe the exact relationship between Wander and Mono? Illustrate how Emon knows Wander? Somehow having such mysteries explained for me loses their allure.
Personally if I were to make a game based movie I would do one based on those Space Marine combat games (ie Gears of War). But I'd take one of the macho space marines and then place him in a world AFTER victory has been achieved and he must learn to reconnect with the real world and function as a proper human being :)
Monday, May 7, 2012
HighDef Evolved
I recently visited a store run by a friend - there I saw something extraordinary: A SNES being run on a HD TV! Yeah! It looked like total shit!
Seriously though, looking at graphics from twenty years ago through such advanced screen technology is indeed a weird experience. I've said before that I found the SNES to be capable of producing some beautiful graphics that still look superb today - but to see them on a HDTV is indeed jarring. Considering how many games from previous consoles are being made available on XBLA/PSN/Virtual Console, it does raise the question as whether or not someone is actually taking into consideration how many people are using such powerful TVs. I know the Megadrive collection on the 360 has the games on it all in HD and there's a feature on the Wii that allows the use of a HDTV (but having never tried it I can't comment) but why would anyone play a classic game when the end result is a hideous sight?
Still, I guess this does make a convincing argument that graphics technology isn't going to get any better - I mean the likes of Gears of War may look incredible now but what's going to happen in twenty or even ten years time? Whose to say that what once looked incredible will then look like total shit?
Seriously though, looking at graphics from twenty years ago through such advanced screen technology is indeed a weird experience. I've said before that I found the SNES to be capable of producing some beautiful graphics that still look superb today - but to see them on a HDTV is indeed jarring. Considering how many games from previous consoles are being made available on XBLA/PSN/Virtual Console, it does raise the question as whether or not someone is actually taking into consideration how many people are using such powerful TVs. I know the Megadrive collection on the 360 has the games on it all in HD and there's a feature on the Wii that allows the use of a HDTV (but having never tried it I can't comment) but why would anyone play a classic game when the end result is a hideous sight?
Still, I guess this does make a convincing argument that graphics technology isn't going to get any better - I mean the likes of Gears of War may look incredible now but what's going to happen in twenty or even ten years time? Whose to say that what once looked incredible will then look like total shit?
Friday, September 9, 2011
Reality called
It's a funny thing looking back at the past: More often than not, one will recall a new innovation/technology that was supposed to change the world..... only to do the exact opposite. Indeed it's funny to see how things were marketed as revolutionary when in, the present, we have other things that do the exact same thing only better.
That being said, I remember Virtuality. Based upon the then new technology of Virtual Reality, it was a product of the early-to-mid nineties that was built on the promise of taking the immerse nature of games to a whole new level.
How it worked is that people step into a confined playing space, don headsets and grab a controller. Once the game kicks in, the player's movements correspond to the game characters: Thus it is possible to move and look around in a rendered environment.
I remember this product being hyped as being the next advancement in gaming technology and the promise of a full immerse experience in a full created world (not to those words but still....). As a result, these began appearing in arcade parlors complete with screens to pull in a crowd - of course, these weren't cheap to play but they certainly garnered a lot of interest in the 16-bit era.
The only games I remember were two: Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare.
This was Zone Hunter: You control two giant space marines going through a futuristic environment blowing up anything dumb enough to stand in your way.
This might of looked mind-blowing twenty years but two decades is a long time. Whilst I never played it, I have however spoken to people who have and from I could gather, this game doesn't really deliver on the promises made by the hype. The main problem is that the player character can only move in one direction: Forward! Thus one can't go anywhere else or admire the scenery - and, gameplay wise, one can't duck behind cover: No they're just continually marching and getting shot.
Here's another video on Zone Hunter, whilst demonstrating the Virtual Reality in action:
Still, this is a far cry from Gears of War - another game involving Space Marines blowing shit up. Side by side, one wonders how we ever got by without the necessity of cover.
The other game I recall was Dactyl Nightmare. This was the more well known of the two as it was heavily featured in many a promo video. Here, players could fight each other in an open environment whilst being harassed by a giant pterodactyl who could pick up players and drop them, thus subjecting them to terminal velocity.
Compared to Zone Hunter, this game was going for a one-on-one/deathmatch approach with a horror theme. But again, through a modern eye some baffling design choices come to light. Why is the gaming map so limited in size? Where is it all out in the open? What are you supposed to do when the pterodactyl picks you up?
Looking back, it seems that Virtuality promised a lot but didn't really deliver. Granted a fully rendered gaming environment was a bold step for it's time but what good is it if the player is restricted about where they can go? The deathmatch nature did indeed predate Doom but what good was it when it's played in an open environment?
Indeed a lot of the promise Virtuality has been achieved by the enemy of the arcade parlor: console gaming. Twenty years later, what Virtuality promised has been surpassed in ways that are mind-boggling. Fully rendered worlds are now commonplace and immersion has been accomplished in ways without the use of a headset. Indeed, when one considers the hype that went into Virtuality, one has to wonder what the fuss was all about.
Ultimately, Virtuality seems more a product of the arcade parlors: Sucking people in and then stacking the odds against them just for the purpose of making them cough up money just to keep playing. And it seems the general public thought so too. Because by the time I got to play Virtuality, it was the mid nineties and Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare had been replaced with Doom. And what do you know, it was good fun. So there is an irony that the game that worked best for the Virtual Reality Headset was game made for a home computer.
In researching this post, I recently learned that, surprisingly, the technology for Virtual Reality is still in use - only it's for simulations and training scenarios like Flight training and medical procedures. But it is interesting to see this technology succeed in areas whereas it failed as a gaming machine.
I guess there's no substitute for a wide-screen TV.
That being said, I remember Virtuality. Based upon the then new technology of Virtual Reality, it was a product of the early-to-mid nineties that was built on the promise of taking the immerse nature of games to a whole new level.
How it worked is that people step into a confined playing space, don headsets and grab a controller. Once the game kicks in, the player's movements correspond to the game characters: Thus it is possible to move and look around in a rendered environment.
I remember this product being hyped as being the next advancement in gaming technology and the promise of a full immerse experience in a full created world (not to those words but still....). As a result, these began appearing in arcade parlors complete with screens to pull in a crowd - of course, these weren't cheap to play but they certainly garnered a lot of interest in the 16-bit era.
The only games I remember were two: Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare.
This was Zone Hunter: You control two giant space marines going through a futuristic environment blowing up anything dumb enough to stand in your way.
This might of looked mind-blowing twenty years but two decades is a long time. Whilst I never played it, I have however spoken to people who have and from I could gather, this game doesn't really deliver on the promises made by the hype. The main problem is that the player character can only move in one direction: Forward! Thus one can't go anywhere else or admire the scenery - and, gameplay wise, one can't duck behind cover: No they're just continually marching and getting shot.
Here's another video on Zone Hunter, whilst demonstrating the Virtual Reality in action:
Still, this is a far cry from Gears of War - another game involving Space Marines blowing shit up. Side by side, one wonders how we ever got by without the necessity of cover.
The other game I recall was Dactyl Nightmare. This was the more well known of the two as it was heavily featured in many a promo video. Here, players could fight each other in an open environment whilst being harassed by a giant pterodactyl who could pick up players and drop them, thus subjecting them to terminal velocity.
Compared to Zone Hunter, this game was going for a one-on-one/deathmatch approach with a horror theme. But again, through a modern eye some baffling design choices come to light. Why is the gaming map so limited in size? Where is it all out in the open? What are you supposed to do when the pterodactyl picks you up?
Looking back, it seems that Virtuality promised a lot but didn't really deliver. Granted a fully rendered gaming environment was a bold step for it's time but what good is it if the player is restricted about where they can go? The deathmatch nature did indeed predate Doom but what good was it when it's played in an open environment?
Indeed a lot of the promise Virtuality has been achieved by the enemy of the arcade parlor: console gaming. Twenty years later, what Virtuality promised has been surpassed in ways that are mind-boggling. Fully rendered worlds are now commonplace and immersion has been accomplished in ways without the use of a headset. Indeed, when one considers the hype that went into Virtuality, one has to wonder what the fuss was all about.
Ultimately, Virtuality seems more a product of the arcade parlors: Sucking people in and then stacking the odds against them just for the purpose of making them cough up money just to keep playing. And it seems the general public thought so too. Because by the time I got to play Virtuality, it was the mid nineties and Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare had been replaced with Doom. And what do you know, it was good fun. So there is an irony that the game that worked best for the Virtual Reality Headset was game made for a home computer.
In researching this post, I recently learned that, surprisingly, the technology for Virtual Reality is still in use - only it's for simulations and training scenarios like Flight training and medical procedures. But it is interesting to see this technology succeed in areas whereas it failed as a gaming machine.
I guess there's no substitute for a wide-screen TV.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Showing one's age
I use my Wii almost exclusively for the Virtual Console (and I swear I'm not the only one who does so). For me, it is the means of catching up on stuff that I missed out on the first time around - Indeed adulthood certainly makes way for a whole lot more freedom than one's teen years.
However, it is interesting to note that looking back, some games that may have seemed ace at the time haven't really aged well. The greatest offender here is Super Mario 64. Now, I've played Super Mario 64 many times and actually find it quite enjoyable. I recall when it was released it was universally praised and many people crediting it (and even now) as being the game that took the then new technology of 3d environments and made it fun. HOWEVER! Looking back at it now, the problem of the crummy camera functions are glaringly obvious - Indeed, this has been such a problem you have to wonder how Nintendo, who have prided themselves in game design, could have gotten away with it. And how many people can overlook this problem to, then and now, dub Super Mario 64, the Greatest Game EVAH.
Indeed, it is interesting to consider how many games can be loved on their initial release only to be condemned (with venom) years later. The backlash is interesting indeed, exhibit the kind of betrayal one would think they are dealing with Marcus Brutus, Benedict Arnold or Judas. Sure nostalgia may play it's part but I don't buy that: Nostalgia only provides a positive experience that people are trying to find every since but as such an experience is a unique one, such a quest is a doomed mission. And if the first few games one plays had such an important part in one's perspective I'd be playing the Commodore 64 version of Double Dragon over Beatles Rock Band but this is not the case.
It is interesting to note how many games have staying power within an industry where everything moves so quickly: Technological advancements get developed quickly and, as such, gamer's attention is quite limited and fickle. I still enjoy games from obsolete consoles (give me Secret of Mana over any recent JRPG any day) and for good reason: They work. They have great ideas, attention to detail, efficient design and a technical spark that makes the game enjoy a lifespan far longer than it's parent console.
It makes me wonder what people ten or fifteen years from now are going to think of the games going around at the present time. Compare Super Mario Galaxy to Super Mario World: they may look like they've come from different planets (pun most certainly intended) but that's fifteen years of technological advancement right there. So when you consider Gears of War 2 you have to wonder what things are going to look like in in 2025.....
However, it is interesting to note that looking back, some games that may have seemed ace at the time haven't really aged well. The greatest offender here is Super Mario 64. Now, I've played Super Mario 64 many times and actually find it quite enjoyable. I recall when it was released it was universally praised and many people crediting it (and even now) as being the game that took the then new technology of 3d environments and made it fun. HOWEVER! Looking back at it now, the problem of the crummy camera functions are glaringly obvious - Indeed, this has been such a problem you have to wonder how Nintendo, who have prided themselves in game design, could have gotten away with it. And how many people can overlook this problem to, then and now, dub Super Mario 64, the Greatest Game EVAH.
Indeed, it is interesting to consider how many games can be loved on their initial release only to be condemned (with venom) years later. The backlash is interesting indeed, exhibit the kind of betrayal one would think they are dealing with Marcus Brutus, Benedict Arnold or Judas. Sure nostalgia may play it's part but I don't buy that: Nostalgia only provides a positive experience that people are trying to find every since but as such an experience is a unique one, such a quest is a doomed mission. And if the first few games one plays had such an important part in one's perspective I'd be playing the Commodore 64 version of Double Dragon over Beatles Rock Band but this is not the case.
It is interesting to note how many games have staying power within an industry where everything moves so quickly: Technological advancements get developed quickly and, as such, gamer's attention is quite limited and fickle. I still enjoy games from obsolete consoles (give me Secret of Mana over any recent JRPG any day) and for good reason: They work. They have great ideas, attention to detail, efficient design and a technical spark that makes the game enjoy a lifespan far longer than it's parent console.
It makes me wonder what people ten or fifteen years from now are going to think of the games going around at the present time. Compare Super Mario Galaxy to Super Mario World: they may look like they've come from different planets (pun most certainly intended) but that's fifteen years of technological advancement right there. So when you consider Gears of War 2 you have to wonder what things are going to look like in in 2025.....
Friday, December 3, 2010
Metal Gears of War Solid
I've had Gears of War 2 lying around for awhile so I recently sat down and popped it into the Xbox 360 to have a bash. I've never played the GoW games before so I had no idea what to expect. The cynic in me suggested that it was yet another shooter with pretensions to realism and maturity - ho-hum in other words. Nevertheless, if GoW is a major force in the Xbox camp then it must have something going for it.
After playing for a little while, what struck me is that I really have no idea how I should be taking this. Everything seems so macho that I'm not sure if the game is trying to be serious. The male protagonists all have stupid names, speak in ridiculous voices, are in possession of absurdly muscular bodies and body armor that seems designed for anything but practicality. Everything seems overdone it's hilarious, with patriotic speeches, the sense of impending extinction against an unstoppable foe and Marcus Fenix being able to both absorb so many bullets and heal wounds without too much effort.
Again I reiterate: Is this a parody? It can't surely be serious. You can't have so many absurd elements and have it done with a straight face. But regardless of intention, the idea of a parody is enough to keep me going, so I will continue with this game and see how things turn out...
After playing for a little while, what struck me is that I really have no idea how I should be taking this. Everything seems so macho that I'm not sure if the game is trying to be serious. The male protagonists all have stupid names, speak in ridiculous voices, are in possession of absurdly muscular bodies and body armor that seems designed for anything but practicality. Everything seems overdone it's hilarious, with patriotic speeches, the sense of impending extinction against an unstoppable foe and Marcus Fenix being able to both absorb so many bullets and heal wounds without too much effort.
Again I reiterate: Is this a parody? It can't surely be serious. You can't have so many absurd elements and have it done with a straight face. But regardless of intention, the idea of a parody is enough to keep me going, so I will continue with this game and see how things turn out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)