The Voices In My Head - Chris Stubbs

Late in 1995, a software company by the name of Blizzard Entertainment released a game know as "Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness". For all our gaming rookies out there, Warcraft 2 is classified as an RTS or real time strategy game, which is a fancy way of saying that the goal of the game is to build a better base or a better army than your oponent, and then wipe out your enemy. RTS games let the random Joes and Janes get to play armchair general, and depending on the level of difficulty in the game, different degrees of strategy and tactics may be required to win.

Warcraft was set in a fictional, mid-evil world of Orcs and Elves, Wizards and Warlocks, Dragons and Ogres (think Lord of the Rings). The characters and places in this world are slowly revealed to you as your play through the game, helping to shed light on the story and the "lore" behind Warcraft. All in all, Warcraft 2 was a wonderfully fun game and I probably played through it 2 or 3 times over the course of a year or two before eventually shelving it somewhere around 1997 for greener gaming pastures.

Fast forward your clocks 7 years, and good old Stub finds himself hanging out with some friends in college. Somehow, the conversation at the time had shifted away from the usual topics of football and or beer to the old school games we used to play, and not surprisingly, Warcraft 2 popped up. So for probably 10 minutes we joked about our memories of the game, playing against friends online, the sequel, and a few other tangents before eventually moving back toward the normal football and beer conversations ;-)

But as I trecked home that night, I started thinking again about Warcraft 2 again. What was the name of that Orcish chieftan, I thought to myself? Without so much as a moment to contemplate, the name came to me. Ogrim Doomhammer. Thats was it.

A few seconds later it hit me - how in the world did I remember that?

I won't bore you with the dorky details, but needless to say the more I thought about it, the more I remembered about the fictional world of Azeroth. I remembered names of fictional leaders, the geographic location of fictional kingdoms, the strengths and weaknesses of fictional units, and the outcome of critical fictional battles that shaped a fictional world.

Somehow, amidst my countless hours of fun, I had unwittingly taken an entire course on the history of a place that has never existed, and 7 years later, I still remembered it with startling clarity. Needless to say I had an "ah ha" moment that day that has stayed with me ever since. Just because something isnt educational doesnt mean it cant teach you, and in my current spot in life, it has me spending a lot of time thinking about commercial (entertainment) games as educational tools. Of course that idea isnt always an easy sell to skeptics. After all, any game where you fight ogres, undead, and goblins strapped with explosives doesnt exactly scream "educational content".

Never the less the potential value is undeniable. I remember more about the history of Azeroth from that game than I remember about from the 2 years of the REAL history classes I took while I played it. Not only did I get A's in history, but I really enjoyed the subject. Anduin Lothar was killed at the foot of Blackrock spire shortly before the climatic battle at the end of Warcraft 2. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed somewhere shortly before the start of World War 1... but for the life of me I couldnt tell you where or why.

Obviously thats a rather contrived example, but you see where Im going. Warcraft 2 taught me, and well enough that I remember it today. But it wasnt created to teach anyone anything. Warcraft 2 was fun. Because it was fun I kept playing. Because I kept playing I learned. Crazy, aint it?

One of the bigger questions in the EduGaming space that no one really has an answer for is how do you balance the "game" with the "learning". If you use a game to teach, what is it supposed to be? How do you balance the fun with the educational content? And is their a point on either end of the spectrum when you actually torpedo your own efforts? Can a game be too educational to be fun? Can a game be too fun to be educational?

Justin Peters wrote up an interesting article last week that took the stance that serious games defeat the purpose of a game experience, because they are too heavy on the serious and too light on the game. A telling quote from the article - "Making games educational is like dumping Velveeta on broccoli. Liberal deployment of the word blaster can't hide the fact that you're choking down something that's supposed to be good for you". Essentially, he says that games CAN be too educational to be fun - at which point they really stop being games and start becoming assignments.

I'm inclined to both agree and disagree with Peters. Anyone who has ever played Number Munchers can understand why I'd disagree. For those who dont dig the old school beats, Number Munchers one of the first educational games I ever played, and trust me it was very blatently educational. There was no story, no cool guns or fancy explotions. You did math problems in your head and you "ate" the right answer. If serious games are velveeta on broccoli, Number Munchers was a slice of cheese tossed into an 18 wheeler filled with those green little stalks. And yet Number Munchers works. Not because it is insanely fun, but because it is MORE FUN than sitting around doing math problems. And that alone is a victory. The number muncher theory is one of replacementism (if thats not a word, it should be). Put another way, Number Munchers isnt good because it is good, but rather it is good because it are less bad then something else.

The other side of the coin is obvious though. Shouldnt an EduGame be fun instead of just "better than awful"?

EduGames, in my opinion, provide their greatest value as a teaching suppliment, not a teaching replacement - another tool in the educator's toolbox. And like any tool, EduGames offer the most potential when used for the purpose they were built for. The bottom line is that lectures work. Textbooks work. Group projects work. I think there is a knee jerk reaction to think that because games are popular that they could be used for everything. But they shouldnt be. Because games have not risen to their prominent spot in our culture because they are good at everything. Games are good at interactivity and games are good at fun. Whether they are used for education or entertainment, games should always retain their fun factor even at the cost of potential educational value. Because games, in my opinion, are not a one stop educational solution. They are not meant to replace the tried and true traditional methods - they are meant to support them. Your instructors give you the facts and clarification. Your textbooks provide additional detail. Your games take that educational content and give it life and fun - and with fun comes one of the most saught after goals in education or gaming... repetition.

Thats not to say that Number Muncher style replacment isnt a good thing every once and a while, because it can be effective in the right situation. But more often than not, my vote is to let every teaching medium do what its good at.

If you build it, they will learn. Well... as long as its fun =)

Images taken from Wikpedia.com and Wowwiki.com