CSS: General | Presentation

KymBuchanan.org > Playful Interest Bridging >

Fall 2004
Class: TC 445 Digital Game Design
Instructor: Brian Winn
College of Telecommunication, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan, USA

Some Guidelines for Educational Game Design

1. Introduction
2. Iterative Models
3. Intersections of Possibility Spaces
4. Interface and Accessibility
5. Scope and Scale
6. Conclusion
7. Works Consulted

1. Introduction

Teaching using video games is one of the most promising areas for improving education. An increasing number of educators are interested in using games, in both K-12 and higher education. In many respects, the relevant technologies are sufficiently sophisticated for ambitious designs. However, design theory itself is lagging behind. In the entertainment industry, most design work is painfully incremental, or even at a plateau, in a handful of game genres.

Fortunately, design theory is receiving greater attention in the industry and in related academic fields. Contemporary literature tries to sketch higher-level design heuristics and algorithms, while minimizing reliance on example games (e.g., Rollings and Adams, 2003). Nevertheless, it is far easier to emulate, synthesize, or fine-tune established designs than to strike out in new directions. So there is a pressing need for guidelines which foster creative, divergent design. Such design will enrich both the entertainment and educational fields.

Educational game designers should adopt some design heuristics and algorithms from entertainment. Yet education includes unique goals, affordances, and constraints, so some design principles are different. The following guidelines are derived from game design theory, educational psychology, and my experience as an educator and game designer.

2. Iterative Models

2.1 Iterative Game Design

Many game designers recommend an iterative model of design (e.g., Salen and Zimmerman, 2004). Such design is cyclical:

• Set a design goal
• Develop the minimum rules and assets necessary for the goal
• Develop a playable prototype
• Playtest
• Revise or elaborate on the goal
• Repeat

This model ensures that every part of a game is evaluated as soon as possible. Without iterative design, substantial development time may be wasted developing assets that ultimately prove dissatisfying (i.e., a game that isn't fun to play). As an interactive medium, games can only be accurately evaluated by playing them. Iterative design ensures that the player experience remains at the center of the design process, instead of story, artwork, or anything else. Iterative design is also be good for morale, since developers can clearly see their project growing and improving.

As the axis of the iterative model, playtesting deserves careful attention. External playtesting is widely recognized as a critical step in game design. Game designers can't always objectively evaluate their games, just as writers may not see the mistakes in their writing. When designing for a specific age (e.g., upper elementary school), designers should recruit playtesters of that age.

2.2 Iterative Education Research

After developing a game, educators may want to study its effectiveness. An iterative model is also appropriate for education research. Many education researchers use the general format of a research article as a research algorithm:

• Read relevant prior research (literature review)
• Develop a research question and methods (model)
• Apply the methods and analyze the results (data)
• Discuss the results (interpretation)

This algorithm doesn't have to be linear, or one-way. Instead, education researchers should be flexible in their thinking and work. Researchers should reading and write regularly, not only as the seminal or final steps. Just as games should be playtested, treatments should be pilot tested. Research should be a cycle of thinking, questioning, probing, and reflecting.

2.3 Parallel Iteration

While developing a game, the iterative models of design and research can be used in parallel, with a key crossover point: playtesting to collect data. A designer-researcher should use the feedback from playtesting to revisit the educational purpose of a game, and whether the current design gestalt is towards or away from that purpose.

3. Intersections of Possibility Spaces

3.1 Game Possibility Space

Conceptually, all existing and future games lie within a possibility space. Using Rolling and Adams' taxonomy (2003), some of the game possibility space looks like this:

In this conception, the size or relative position of the genres (or sub-spaces) is arbitrary. A genre-defining game is at the center of its sub-space, while a genre-expanding game is on the border (pressing outward, so to speak). A hybrid game is on the border of two or more sub-spaces. Specific technologies or modes (e.g., voice control, network play) are orthogonal to this taxonomy.

The central challenge of game design is selecting a region of possibility space and developing compelling gameplay therein. For example, just knowing that action games can be good doesn't help much when designing an action game. Acclaimed designer Sid Meier describes good gameplay as "a series of interesting choices." (Rolling and Adams, 2004, p. 200) The rules of a game frame the choices, while setting, characters, and plot can make the choice more interesting.

In only a few decades, video games have evolved and diversified to explore and settle a considerable area of possibility space. However, existing games have only mapped part of the greater game possibility space:

Some designers urge their peers to explore new possibilities rather than retread known genres. For example, Chris Crawford helped define some of the known genres, but now works far afield in digital storytelling (with his Erasmatron project). Keita Takahashi laments, "Current games suffer from a distinct lack of originality...." (2004) Takahashi explored new possibilities with Katamari Damacy.

How should would-be explorers proceed? When developing in a settled genre (e.g., action), the challenge is refining or re-inventing the choices. In contrast, to explore new possibility space, designers need to take greater risks and perhaps experiment in several directions. For such exploration, iterative design becomes particularly efficient. That is, small moves are better for a deep understanding of the local space. Just as simultaneously changing multiple variables obscures the effect of any one, game possibility space is so nuanced that large moves may miss details. This is most apparent in games that hint at greatness, but fall just short. Continuing the spatial metaphor, if gameplay is the local elevation in possibility space, then a designer should iterate from A to B to C, rather than jump from A to D:

Over time, several games will systematically define a genre in a "sweep" search pattern. But a designer may have limited time and resources to develop a single game in a vast possibility space. Hence, a designer should use a "spiral" search pattern, starting at a promising point and iterating from it:

3.2 Educational Possibility Space

In contrast to games, educational possibility space is well-settled. Educators have relatively clear goals, in the form of learning outcomes. And academic disciplines (or sub-spaces) are sophisticated yet familiar. The disciplines will always evolve and expand, of course, as human history and discovery continually unfold. But an educational game designer can choose from a variety of well-known points in educational space, or a point may be selected for the designer by a stakeholder (e.g., "make a game that teaches basic multiplication facts"). In either case, a designer should recruit a content expert if the space is at all unfamiliar (e.g., if the designer is not a math teacher, then he needs a "local guide").

Teaching is zero-sum problem: a course only meets for a finite amount of time. Educational games must be as or more effective than the teaching methods they replace. Thus, the fundamental goal of educational games must be: The player must master the content to master the game. In other words, success in the game must be contingent on learning, not eye-hand coordination, pattern recognition, etc. This is a gameplay issue: the "interesting choices" must challenge the player to develop and demonstrate content mastery. This is relatively easy if the content is physical and/or well-structured. Then an accurate simulation of such content offers the same external authenticity as a laboratory: the player learns the content by forming hypotheses and testing them.

Generalizability and transfer are far from trivial, in well-structured content and especially in ill-structured content (Spiro, 1987). There is only way to be certain that players aren't forming under-generalizations or over-generalizations, and can discriminate between accurate and inaccurate transfer cues: performance-based assessment. A game could be a perfect performance-assessment by itself, if it were wholly impossible to win without mastering the content. It's impossible to design such a game; there is always a chance that a player used guessing or sheer luck to win. However, the more freedom a game offers a player, the more reasonable it is to infer intention from success.

3.3 Finding Overlap

Thus, when designing an educational game, the greatest challenge is finding a fruitful overlap between the possibility spaces of games and education. The "interesting choices" of gameplay must guide a player toward content mastery. Such overlap has been relatively easy to find in preschool and early elementary, where much of the content is well-structured and automaticity is desired. For example, automaticity in basic multiplication facts can be fostered by prompting the player to solve multiplication problems in a Space Invaders setting (i.e., Math Blaster). The overlap of game and education possibility spaces requires more careful exploration of when content is ill-structured, or when successful performance requires higher-level thinking. Designers may need to explore new game genres to teach such ambitious content, so it's fortunate that educational possibility space is relatively well-settled, at least.

Continuing the spatial metaphor, fruitful overlap requires both high gameplay and high content importance. Many entertainment games effectively teach their content, but such content has minimal importance in K-12 and higher ed: military tactics, fictional worlds, fictional sciences (e.g., sorcery), etc. There's nothing wrong with purely entertaining games, of course. And much can be learned from studying or designing purely entertaining games.

However, when designing an educational game, it's far better merge high gameplay fun with high educational value. In the diagram below, game B has good gameplay but lacks important content. Game A is a better tool for teaching and learning. Note that such a game may be a compromise between gameplay and content; game A could be designed at the peak of either curve, or at the point between them.

Research in motivation suggests some guidelines for finding fruitful overlap in the two possibility spaces. Both gameplay and content should:

• Be developmentally appropriate
• Be personally meaningful
  • e.g., the player should identify with the avatar
• Foster risk-taking
  • Some anxiety heightens attention and improves performance
• Foster an individualized experience
• Foster flow
  • i.e., a series of optimal challenges that keep a player striving and succeeding

Essentially, once a designer has chosen a general region of educational space, he should seek overlap(s) between things that are fun and things that are challenging.

4. Interface and Accessibility

4.1 Interface Guidelines

One of the critical traits of games is interactivity. While the content of an educational game will largely determine its rules, the content will only be accessible via interaction. Hence, the interface and its accessibility require careful attention.

There is a natural tension in game design between the complexity of rules and the simplicity of interfaces. Paraphrasing Einstein, an interface should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Player choices and feedback from those choices should be transparent enough to foster freedom, immersion, and flow, without overwhelming the player with information or commands. Iteration and playtesting are the best tools for optimizing an interface. Here are some specific guidelines:

• Allow direct manipulation whenever possible
  • e.g., right-clicking a target causes an appropriate menu of choices to appear
  • Exception: when the gameplay is intentionally about indirect control
• Mirror the language of the target players
  • Vocabulary and sentence structure should be age-appropriate
• Try context-sensitive menus
  • Only offer appropriate, logical choices
  • If a choice is temporarily unavailable, offer information about when/how it will return
• Try context-sensitive controls
  • e.g., When the avatar is near a lever, hitting SPACE automatically uses the lever
  • This can streamline gameplay, removing lackluster challenges like "hunt for the hot spot"
  • Be careful not remove desirable gameplay
• Try letting the player customize some of the interface
  • Some players may prefer a screen crowded with readily-available information
  • Other players may prefer nested or partitioned information, to process discretely
• When designing in or near a settled genre
  • Design a similar interface
    • e.g., Most Real-Time Strategy (RTS) games have similar interfaces
  • Follow other interface conventions of the genre
    • e.g., Most adventure games are text-heavy
    • e.g., Most action games are icon-heavy
• Consider emulating the interface of a successful entertainment game
  • Entertainment game developers probably have more time and resources for playtesting and interface optimization
  • Don't adopt unwanted gameplay
  • Don't plagiarize

Exploring and settling new possibility space will require some creativity and innovation in interface design. For example, sophisticated simulations need fairly-intuitive interfaces to manage myriad variables. But every new game shouldn't require a player to learn a whole new interface. As a genre becomes more defined, designers have a collective obligation to perpetuate common interface conventions.

4.2 Accessibility Guidelines

While designing an interface for an educational game, the designer should also consider accessibility. One of the potential advantages of games is that they may be more accessible to learners with disabilities than traditional teaching methods. If a designer wants a game to be accessible to learners with specific disabilities, some playtesters should be such learners. Here are some guidelines for making a game more accessible:

• With verbal information, use audio as well as text
  • Voice acting is better than text-to-speech because it includes natural cadence and nuance
• Consider using icons and similar visualizations or animations
  • Most people think "quicker" visually than verbally
  • e.g., Text coupled with a visualization may allow players with reading disabilities to play the game while still working on their reading ability
• Consider using metaphors
  • Help the player understand one type of interaction in terms of a more familiar kind
    • e.g., The "faucets, flows, and drains" in a simulation can be portrayed as their plumbing namesakes; the flow of resources through a system can appear as colored fluids
  • But beware of arbitrary abstractions
    • i.e., Don't teach players a metaphor that only works in the game
• Follow good visual design principles
  • e.g., Consistency, Repetition, Alignment, Proximity
• Don't penalize players with poor sensorimotor ability
  • Educational content is seldom about rapid reflexes
  • If the gameplay includes sensorimotor challenges, consider offering alternative or modified modes
    • e.g., slowing down the speed of the game
• Study games with innovative interfaces and consider emulating them
  • e.g., mouse gestures in Black & White
  • e.g., body movement in DanceDance Revolution and EyeToy
  • e.g., the microphone in Mario Party 6

5. Scope and Scale

While a designer's imagination may be unlimited, his time and resources are not. After identifying a fruitful overlap, a designer must then consider the possible scope and scale of the game. Here, scope is how much content will the designer try to include, and scale is how sophisticated the game will be.

More sophisticated games generally require more time to learn how to play, so a sophisticated educational game should have a large scope to justify this time. But not all games need to be as sophisticated as cutting-edge entertainment games, nor can education afford to compete on that scale. Fortunately, most new possibility space can be explored and settled without cutting-edge technology.

When choosing technology, a designer should carefully consider the return on investment. For example, consider two-dimensional graphics versus three-dimensional graphics (2D v. 3D):

Compared to 2D, a 3D solution generally requires a greater investment of time and other resources. At the high end, a 3D solution should be more vivid and engaging, a return that justifies the greater investment. But at the low end, 3D graphics may be worse than 2D, so the investment in a 2D solution may yield a higher return (in game quality). The same level of investment might yield a low quality 3D solution, or a high quality 2D solution. (The diagram is only a rough concept. e.g., The respective return lines may be exponential.) This principle may apply to other similar technology choices in game design. For each individual choice, and in the overall matrix of choices, a designer should find the optimum region for maximal return. As always, the small moves of iteration and playtesting are the best approach.

The scope of content may require a minimum scale of game. For example, it would probably be futile to create a single-screen action game to teach the causes of the United States Civil War. A designer should honor the complexity of content.

6. Conclusion

These guidelines only sketch the complexity of designing games for teaching. Hopefully, the recurring spatial metaphor evokes the gaming experience of designers: game design should be a process of exploration, trial, and error. The iterative model will ensure that most errors are small and quickly caught. Many of the challenges are poorly understood, veiled in a "fog of war" in possibility space. Exploration is the only way to approach these issues. For example, in new genres, designers may find ways to better honor the complexity of content at an affordable scale.

The spirit of exploration is divergent thinking, and these guidelines should foster such thinking. Great games are about going to interesting places and doing interesting things. To make that happen, game designers need to have interesting dreams.

7. Works Consulted

Berliner, D. C. and R. C. Calfee (1996). Theories and Principles of Motivation. Handbook of Educational Psychology. D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee. New York, Macmillan Library Reference USA, Prentice Hall International: 63-84.

Bogost, I. (2004). The Muse of Video Games. The Ivory Tower. Retrieved April 4, 2004, from http://www.igda.com/columns/ivorytower/

Costikyan, G. (1994). I Have No Words and I Must Design. Interactive Fantasy #2. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from http://www.costik.com/nowords.html

Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on Game Design. Indianapolis, New Riders.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Chapter 1: Happiness Revisited. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, Harper Perennial: 1-21.

Elliot, J., L. Adams, et al. (2002). No Magic Bullet: 3D Video Games in Education. ICLS 2002, Seattle, Washingon. Retrieved September 20, 2003, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/aquamoose-icls02.pdf

Foreman, J. (2003). "Next-Generation Educational Technology versus the Lecture." Educause Review 38(4): 12-22. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0340.pdf

Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Hanna, L., K. Risden, et al. (1999). Chapter 1: The Role of Usability Research on Designing Children's Computer Products. The Design of Children's Technology. A. Druin. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.: 3-26.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Rollings, A. and E. Adams (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. Boston, New Riders.

Salen, K. and E. Zimmerman (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, The MIT Press.

Spiro, R. J., W. P. Vispoel, et al. (1987). Knowledge Acquisition for Application: Cognitive Flexibility and Transfer in Complex Content Domains. Executive Control Processes in Reading. B. K. Britton and S. M. Glynn. Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum: 177-199.

Takahashi, K. (2004). "The Singular Design of Katamari Damacy." Game Developer 11(11): 34-38.