The Game Learner

Well, after a fairly lengthy spell (hopefully) finishing off my Masters in Education (I.T in Education), I’m back.

I submitted my final assignment on Friday and now I just have to sit on the edge of my seat for a few weeks while “they” decide whether I’m worthy or not of the title. (Please, please God let it be so – Introduction to Research Methodology must have been invented by someone who really really hates students)

Anyways, as a dipping the toe back in the water kind of exercise, I’m just going to post a listing I put together a little while ago of all of the model packs, buildings, segments, characters and weapons available in the official First Person Shooter Creator (FPSC) model packs.

I have said a thing or two about this software previously (and it may well be that it turns out that you’re better off just using one of the many, freely available level editors that come with games these days) but in essence, it provides you with the drag and drop tools that you need to build a first person perspective 3d game.

My hope is to soon build something with an educational application. The Game Creators, the company behind this software, also produce a more complicated (and presumably more powerful) version called DarkBasic. (But one step at a time)

Anyways, if you’re interested, you can find a pdf file listing all the models provided up on Google Docs. (there is also a large user community who make a lot more). I mostly put it together to help me get a sense of what is in the game, to help with a possible game design.

One of the things that has come from the thought I have put into my project (full details to come shortly) into educational applications of FPS style games has been a real belief that first person perspective gaming is a richer experience than third person. This has raised a few questions for me.

Chief among these questions is that of why there isn’t more variety in terms of first person perspective gameplay? Puzzle games have it in that it is you interacting with the puzzle elements on the screen rather than via the agency of your avatar however this isn’t so far removed from simply doing a real puzzle that is sitting on the table in front you.

I know that whenever I play a first person shooter (and even moreso when I am playing other people rather than the computer A.I) I have a more intense emotional experience than when I play any other game. The feelings of fear, excitement and joy are richer in these games than any games that involve controlling an avatar, regardless of how good those games might be.

If I can have that level of emotional involvement in a shooting game, why shouldn’t I have it in other gaming experiences. Most importantly of all, why shouldn’t I be able to have these richly emotional experiences when I am learning something. The technology is clearly available so what is the problem? We live our lives in a first person perspective and if we benefit from making our learning experiences as authentic as possible, surely learning in first person perspective games is more authentic than any other game type.

Then again, perhaps this is exactly the problem. Playing a third person perspective game can ultimately be seen as a glorified form of playing with toys or dolls. We are able to do more with our avatar in them and we have more power over them, which may provide us with more of an escape from reality.

I recognise that driving games and flight simulations also offer first person perspective gameplay however they don’t allow the player to interact with objects and characters in the game environment on more than a superficial level and as such are a different kettle of fish. (And I rarely play driving games in anything other than 3PP for the aforementioned reasons of better control.

Is first person perspective too intense for us? Why aren’t there non-shooting first person games?

Why?

McGrath, D. and Hill, D. (2004) UnrealTriage: A Game-based Simulation for Emergency Response Institute for Security Technology Studies, Dartmouth College. Retrieved 31st May 2008 from www.ists.dartmouth.edu/library/58.pdf

McGrath and Hill describe the process they went through in developing an emergency response simulator using the Unreal Tournament game engine – from design to development and some of the issues they confronted along the way – something which seems not a million miles away from what I’m trying to do.
(Perhaps less simulationy but there are still a number of commonalities)

“The simulation involves multiple
emergency response players at the scene of
a small airplane crash with 30 casualties.
The player objectives developed thus far
consist of fire suppression and primary
triage. Players must locate and categorize
the casualties into one of four treatment
categories. The victims are tagged as red
(immediate), yellow (urgent), green
(delayed), or black (fatally wounded). For
the game environment, a terrain model
(map) based on a real-world airport was
created from digital elevation data, satellite
imagery, and local engineering data. The
Karma physics engine, which is part of the
Unreal distribution, was used to define
object behaviors such as fire hose
dynamics.”

This is a great example of the usefulness of games in learning – particularly simulations – because they allow you to recreate situations that would either be expensive or dangerous.

“Synthetic environments can
enhance tabletop and command post
exercises by providing an objective,
dynamic, virtual world containingsimulated but adequately realistic people,
objects, and events. Emergency response
technologies can be prototyped and
evaluated using synthetic environments as
well, by providing a safe, virtual “proving
ground” for new technologies. The same
synthetic environments could be used to
develop training systems.”

They discuss the process of using the Unreal Tournament editor and working with APIs and plug-ins for other tools – something I’m avoiding so far for the large part with FPS Creator. There is also a reasonably detailed technical description of the technical process they went through in modelling the actual terrain of a New Hampshire airport for the game.

“First person shooter games are organized
around “levels”, with the idea that a player
will complete the objectives of one level,
and then move on to another level with a
new environment and challenges. In each
level, players move through the
environment “picking up” weapons, health,
and ammunition. Multiple players can
move through levels, interacting with the
environment, objects, other players, and
non-player characters (NPCs).”

It’s interesting to note that they have had to deal with some of the same issues that I have – namely trying to convert a tool/engine designed for making “shooter” games to another purpose.

The assumptions made by the designers of
the game engine tend to dictate the
available choices of mod developers. For
example, the easiest way to represent a fire
hose nozzle is to model it as a weapon that
“destroys” a fire, since the game engine is
based on the assumption that players carry
and fire weapons. It is counter-intuitive to
think of a fire hose as a weapon, but within
the constraints of the game world this
makes perfect sense.

Other unique issues arise in this regard as well:

“However,  the  interaction with  the  nozzle
“weapon”  has  been  problematic.
Specifically,  the  hose  should  be
constrained by  its attach point on  the  fire
truck and by the position of the firefighter
holding  the  nozzle.   Likewise  the
firefighter’s motion  should  be  limited  by
the  length and properties of  the  fire hose.
This  complex  interaction  has  proven
difficult,  in  large  part  because  player
motions  are  not  normally  constrained  by
the “weapon” they carry.”

In looking at further developments of the game, they are considering the need for cooperative play to simulate the process of carrying stretchers – a task sometimes undertaken by 4 people at once. (Good luck with that one They are also mindful of the AI of NonPlayer Characters (NPCs) by using them in a simulation for management of the emergency scene:

Improved NPC intelligence could include
two-way communication between players
and bots. More intelligent NPC behavior
will allow some of the first responder roles
to be performed by “rescue bots” and
allow actual players to act as scene
commanders. This will enable command
post exercises, where scene commanders
observe the scene, interact with rescue
bots, and help incident command build
situational awareness through normal
communication channels

Overall, they seem to have developed a pretty good understanding of what they are working with.

“Benefits include low user
cost, impressive graphics and sound,
accessible networking protocols, and built-
in scorekeeping for after action review.
Limitations include the significant
modeling and AI tasks associated with
character development, and the constraints
of the weapon/shooter paradigm which is
the foundation of most first person shooter
games. A relatively newer gaming
paradigm, the massive multi-player online
game, is founded on the idea of synthetic
economies and more peaceful interactions
between players, and may be a more
promising platform for simulation
development as it matures.“

Eastin, M. and Griffiths, R. (2006) Beyond the Shooter Game: Examining Presence and Hostile Outcomes Among Male Game Players. Communication Research 2006; 33; 448 Retrieved 31st May, 2008 from http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/6/448

One of the questions I’ve asked in this project is about violence in games and what this raises in an educational context. This paper investigates the role of violent games in stimulating aggression in players – and at the same time raises some interesting observations about the factors that cause “presence” or immersion in games.

The methodology for measuring aggression seems a little sketchy to me to be honest but then again, I’m not a psychologist. They quantify it by considering perceptions of aggressive/hostile intent in others – the more aggressive you are feeling, the more likely you are to take someone’s actions or intent to be hostile.

They made use of scenarios that the player is meant to describe what happens next in and discuss the emotional state that they believe the scenario characters are experiencing.

4. Story 1: Todd was on his way home from work one evening when he had to brake at an intersec-
tion for crossing pedestrians. The person on the bike behind him must not have known he needed to stop
for the pedestrian because he crashed into the back of Todd’s bike, causing a lot of damage to both bicy-
cles. Fortunately, there were no injuries. Todd got off of his bike and surveyed the damage. He then
walked over to the other rider. What happens next? Note: This story was originally a car accident; how-
ever, given that one of our conditions was a racing game, the word car was removed and replaced with
bike. Story 2: Fred had worked all summer long, and now, a couple of weeks before school started, he felt
he deserved a holiday. After a bit of thought, he decided on a vacation to the coast would be ideal. After
all, what could be better than heading to the beach and ocean? The problem was that he did not want to
go alone. He knew his best friend Sam would go if he could; however, Sam had been saving his money
to buy a new stereo. Fred decided to go over to Sam’s place and try to convince him to come to the coast.
What happens next? Story 3: George had worked hard all day long cleaning his apartment. He was tired
but decided to reward himself with a meal in one of the restaurants down the street. On entering the restau-
rant George decided on Caesar salad, French onion soup, and a filet mignon. Some 15 mins later, a waiter
came around to take his order. Time slowly passed, and George was getting hungrier and hungrier. Finally,
about 45 mins after his order had been taken, George was about to leave when he saw the waiter approach-
ing with his food. What happens next?

Eastin and Griffiths provide some interesting language to describe the way people interact with the games:

First-person games are thought
to increase identification with the gaming character through involvement and immer-
sion, which subsequently increases short-term outcomes such as aggression (Leyens
& Picus, 1973; Schneider, Lang, Shin, & Bradley, 2004). Involvement, defined as a
psychological state in which attention and energy are focused on the medium, and
immersion, defined as the extent to which the player or person perceives being in and
interacting with the mediated environment, are considered necessary components to
the larger construct of presence (Witmer & Singer, 1998). Presence, which is further
explicated below, is then defined as “the subjective experience of being in one place
or environment, even when one is physically situated in another” (Witmer & Singer,
1998, p. 225). The decision to shoot, punch, and so on “as” a character in a first-
person game rather than “with” a character leads to greater presence—as defined
through involvement and immersion.

There is further discussion of what “presence” really is later:

Lee (2004) defined presence as “a psychological state in which virtual (para-
authentic or artificial) objects are experienced as actual objects in either sensory or
nonsensory ways” (p. 37). Further describing the subjective experience, Lee expli-
cated three typologies of presence—physical, social, and self. Physical presence rep-
resents a psychological state in which virtual objects are experienced as actual. In
this regard, presence can occur in any locale because it is a psychological feeling
rather than the actuality of being in the environment. Social presence is a state where
virtual social actors are experienced as actual. Finally, self-presence describes a state
where the virtual self is experienced as actual.

Speaking across definitions, the perception of presence experienced is to some
extent based on the media’s ability to deceive the human senses into believing medi-
ated sensory as reality (Heeter, 1992). Through person-centered routes, the mediated
environment becomes the focus and simulates the sensation of real life. Thus, presence
is experienced through the interaction between the individual and mediated technology
(Klimmt & Vorderer, 2003; Tamborini et al., 2004), where involvement and immersion
are important interrelated components (Witmer & Singer, 1998). Similarly, Steuer
(1992) and Tamborini et al. (2004) inferred that presence, in part, occurs through the
combination of vividness (relating to the user’s senses) and interactivity (the ability to alter environment).

Presence in this regard is dependent on the number of sensory chan-
nels activated simultaneously and the saliency of each sensory channel (Steuer, 1992).
Technology that increases sensory engagement should ease a player’s mental strain by
enabling greater focus on the content and action, subsequently increasing the effects of
game content. Based on the tendencies of previous work, the current researchers used
Witmer and Singer’s (1998) conceptual and empirical definition of presence that
broadly captures the subjective experience of being in one place even when physically
in another.

From this they hypothesize that players in a Virtual Reality (VR) environment would feel more deeply immersed in the game environment (more “present”) than players of console based games. They refer to previous studies that suggest that the greater the “presence”, the greater the short-term effect on aggression. They refer also to studies by Tamborini et al which indicate that this didn’t in fact happen with players using a VR system and attribute this to the fact that

“The researchers suggest the findings were due to a lack of experience using VR systems
and a potential disengagement between firing a gun and the respondent’s existing
real-world scripts for aggression (Tamborini et al.). Simply put, a violent behavior
resembling more common social violence, such as punching, kicking, and so on,
would increase the behavior salience (and potentially aggressive cognition) more
than a shooting-type game.”

This is a particularly interesting observation – that punching in a game has a deeper connection to most people because it is closer to reality for them. From this they hypothesize that presence and hostile expectations will be greater in a fist-fighting game than a shooting (and driving) one.

Finally they consider whether the player is playing against the computer or another person. (Or at least believes that they are). Eastin and Griffiths believe that presence is enhanced when people think they are playing other people – and this forms their final hypothesis. (Also that hostile expectations will rise in this context)

However, when a person experiences an environment with another person, research
suggests levels of presence are heightened. Schubert, Regenbrecht, and Friedmann
(2000) found that when participants “perceive some possibility to be part of the action,
to interact with the characters” (p. 4), inside a virtual environment, levels of perceived
presence rose.

Competitively speaking, research suggests a positive relationship between competi-
tion and aggression (Anderson & Morrow, 1995; Berkowitz, 1962, 1989). According
to Berkowitz (1962), aggression increases through frustrations, and competition
between opponents who seek the same goal is thought to be frustrating (Berkowitz,
1989). Furthering this idea, research has shown competitive situations, or simply
priming participants toward competition, increases indices of aggression (Anderson
& Morrow, 1995).

The study used 219 participants from a “large mid-western university”

Participants engaged in two distinct sessions for the current study. During the first
session, they were given consent forms and an initial questionnaire on video-game
use. After completing the questionnaire, participants were randomly assigned to one
of six conditions (shooting, fighting, or driving games in either the standard console
or VR condition). Participants were permitted to “train” on the game until they felt
they had a handle on how to successfully manipulate the controls of the game. This
rarely exceeded 20 mins. The training environments were designed to be similar to
but not duplicates of the final testing environments. The only purpose for training was
to give participants the opportunity to develop the necessary skills for game play, sub-
sequently allowing them to focus on content and action (as suggested by Tamborini
et al., 2004). When the participants felt comfortable with the game’s controls, they
were asked to sign up for another session and thanked for participating in the study.

The second session of the study positioned the players in the same condition and
environment in which they were trained. However, this time participants were told
they would be playing against either a computer agent or another participant. Previous
game-play treatments varied from 5 to 75 mins (Sherry, 2001); however, longer game
time does not signify increased aggression. Because the researchers are interested in
short-term effects, the players played for two 10-min sessions (Anderson & Dill,
2000). As a manipulation check, after the second session all gamers were asked to
indicate whether they were playing against the computer or another person. Only
those consistent with the manipulation were included in analyses.

The results indicated that:

• consoles actually provided higher levels of presence
• VR sparked more hostile expectations overall but generally differences weren’t huge with the console
• the shooting games gave more presence than the fighting games
• the fist-fighting games provided more hostile expectations by far than either the shooting or driving games
• presence and hostile expectations weren’t particularly influenced by whether the player was playing a human or a computer

Eastin and Griffiths conclude that players are generally more familiar with console games, explaining the higher levels of presence (also by playing these in the lab they wouldn’t have had the usual distractions they would have at home)

Greater familiarity with the FPS genre could also explain the lower hostility expectations

They have a very interesting possible conclusion about shooters and presence and why hostile expectations weren’t higher:

Conversely, rivaling current hypotheses, it also could be argued that presence increases game enjoyment. As game enjoyment increases, hostility decreases due to greater desensitization toward game
violence (Schneider et al., 2004; Tamborini et al., 2004). This could also explain the
relatively small effect sizes found for hostile expectations. Given that presence was rel-
atively high across conditions, the influence of violent game play on hostile outcomes
could have been attenuated by enjoyment. Future research should continue to examine
the influence of presence when presence is absent or at least relatively low before con-
cluding that it decreases hostility.

But that’s not all.

They touch on questions of avatar and agent race and gender in better understanding competitive gameplay.

“For instance, Eastin (2006) found
identification cues could be a moderating variable to competition. In his study, he found female game players attend to self and others during game play. Gamers playing with a same-gender avatar experienced greater connectedness with game play and competitiveness.”

They finish with some interesting general observations which I believe are pretty pertinent to the project:

1. Immersion is only realized if the player is able to focus on content and action—which can only be
achieved if the player is not concentrating on the fundamental skills of the game and technology.

Kearney, P. (2005) Cognitive Callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player’s cognitive abilities? Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play . Vancouver, BC: DiGRA

Kearney developed a highly quantified method for analysing the cognitive abiliities of subjects before and after they played the FPS game Counterstrike. This focussed primarily on multitasking. 

He used a “neuro-psychological assessment software package titled SynWin” test participant’s “ability to function in a synthetic work environment. Scores were recorded and after playing computer games for specified lengths of time, the participants were tested again.”

He cites a number of studies as the basis for this research:

• “Green and Bavelier [8] showed that benefits are gained from computer games, such as the enhancement of peripheral vision
• “Okagaki and Frensch [12] used Tetris in their research; they found that spatial visualisation abilities were improved by college students after six hours of playing.
  
• “Research done by De Lisi and Cammarano [4] showed the students improved their mental rotational skills playing a game called Block Out

(He doesn’t mention however whether these improved skills were retained by the people in the study or just encountered after playing the games. Presumably the studies themselves answer this question)

He draws on his own prior research to identify ways in which the players have to multitask during the game itself: “A typical first-person shooter involves controlling the player movement, aiming and firing the chosen weapon, evading being a target for other players, monitoring health status and ammunition supplies, and devising a seek and destroy strategy in order to complete the level. All this done in unison, in a pressure situation”

A control group took the SynWin test 3 times over a 2 hour period, the test group took the test at the beginning and end and played CounterStrike in between.

“The data from the output files also enabled the composite scores for the control group to be broken down into memory, mathematics, visual and auditory tasks. ” They showed small improvements between the three tests (except in auditory tasks) but “overall, the improvement over the three tests presented a P-value of > 0.3 , making the increases statistically insignificant”.

For the subjects that played CounterStrike, “the output in table shows statistical significance with P < 0.05.”

I don’t understand statistics but I’m will to take this guy at his word that the difference is significant and that “based on the recorded figures, the hypothesis that playing action computer games improves multitasking capabilities within the player is proven to be true”.

He only briefly refers to whether the players are experienced gamers, which would be helpful, mentioning that “all groups showed significant increases with the exception of those who play 13 to 16 hours per week”

It would be nice to know for these players whether they had higher than average multitasking abilities from the outset or whether there is a point at which gaming might decrease a player’s ability to improve this skill.

Other general observations (and perhaps speculations) that Kearney makes -

• “The immersive environment created by Counter-Strike captivated the attention of the players in group 2. The participants were completely focussed on the game and this concentration appeared to influence the results of the subsequent multitasking test”

Kearney recommends the development of software to test whether hand-eye coordination and attention span are also enhanced by gameplay.

This is a mildly interesting paper I wouldn’t say it’s overly thorough and I’d like to get into why cognitive skills are enhanced and particularly whether this is just a temporary effect.

Fuchs, M. (2001) Expositur – A Virtual Knowledge Space (Theory). Retrieved May 25, 2008 from Syl.Eckermann website http://syl-eckermann.net/expositur/theory.html

I came across some additional information written by Mathias Fuchs about this project that raised a few more ideas worth quickly sharing.

Fuchs discusses the power and nature of games and how they approached the purpose of the project.

“Umberto Eco proposed to investigate certain works of literature as ludic machines. These texts would work as structural units, whose purpose is, to get the reader involved in a game of words. The activity of reading would therefore resemble the process of playing a game – as opposed to the more teleological task of understanding a story. It seems that computer games, too, can be understood either as narrative devices or as ludic machines”

“Ludites state that the act of playing the game is an activity which is often driven by joyful improvisation. Especially when the elements of chance and vertigo… are predominant in a game, there is no need for a narration. Throwing the dices or going on a roundabout are such games. New media in general and computer games in particular inherited the twofold nature of games. They contain narrative aspects and ludic aspects at the same time.”

“When we started working on a computer game about Viennese museums we visited many museums and tried to find out what a museum-goer is actually doing. Does he learn about a scientific field? Is he led by a narration? Does he randomly drift through halls and have his eyes wonder around amongst miraculous objects? Does the visitor always want to keep a sense of orientation? What is the potential use of loosing  orientation? Is predictability the death of the marvel?”

A few quick responses – I’d say that narration and play aren’t mutually exclusive and narration offers motivation to progress through the game by bringing greater emotional connection. (Not always of course)
I like the term “joyful improvisation” – it seems to embody the concept of “play”

“Even though the virtual museum “Expositur” tells about objects and processes, even though there is a semantic framework and an underlying logic structure our knowledge space leaves ample room for alternative readings, it encourages the user to define their private paths away from the main roads. It requires the visitor to set up his personal speed, pace and rhythm for the access to information, for contemplation and for sheer surprise”

Contemplation/reflection is also something I haven’t thought much about yet – this I guess slots well into constructivist approaches (as do large chunks of this project even though I choose to associate it more with cognitivist theory given the deliberate designing of information to be more processable. )

On the homepage of this section of this website is a nice summation of the intent of this project:

fuchs-eckermann: ‘We are looking for something which Friedrich Nietzsche labelled “Gay Science”, ["Fröhliche Wissenschaft"] a mode of experiencing knowledge in a joyful as well as thoughtful manner. Nietzsche thought that you can only come across important insights if you discover them when “dancing”. And that’s precisely what the users of our computer game have to do. They have to move in order to find out facts, they have to dive and swim to get deep into certain areas of knowledge and they have to dance around to discover unexpected aspects of a topic.’

Following this methodology, the user of the virtual museum has to jump into a water zone in order to hear about the extinction of an ancient fish once populating the Danube River. The user has to operate triggers and barriers to learn about the dangers of machinery provided by the Technical Museum. Or he/she has to walk to down a spiral staircase to reach the hall of Sigmund Freud’s subconsciousness ["Die Traumdeutung"]

The question of violence in FPS games and what this means in a learning (and wider) context often lurks at the fringes of any thinking I do about the First Person Learner genre.

The software package that I’m using – FPS Creator – is designed to facilitate the creation of shooter games, pure and simple. I’m using this package because it’s cheap and accessible and there is a reasonably large community of users from whom I can draw resources in the form of models, scripts and knowledge. It is also a very easy package to use and it allows me to avoid getting bogged down in what I perceive to be the complexities of other game development tools. (I don’t know for sure, I haven’t used them but I suspect they don’t come with such a vast library of pre-made resources and actions.)

The nature of the tool then makes it very easy to create games that involve running around shooting opponents as well as completing simple find-a-key type missions and more challenging to incorporate more complex gaming elements (such as having conversations and more complex problem solving).

One of the key elements of the First Person Perspective family of games for me is the extra layer of immersion in the game that comes from experiencing it more like we experience day to day life – through our own eyes rather than as a sort of puppeteer, pulling the strings of a third person perspective character. The things that we do and see on the screen become more immediate and more personally felt. I believe that this extra layer of connection to the activities can make the learning experience a richer one and thus more memorable. We have more of an emotional response and it is the things that we care more about that have the most meaning to us.

This is also why, I suspect, the issue of violence in games tends to be at its most controversial when FPS games are involved. Even when the anti-violence campaigners haven’t actually played any of the games, they seem to recognise the heightened emotional involvement that the first person perspective brings.

The actual research on causal relationships between games and aggression is still inconclusive and it is highly simplistic to think that aggressive behaviour might only stem from one source rather than be the result of a range of societal factors however I know that I have certainly felt heightened emotions while playing FPS games. This has included heart pounding adrenaline fueled excitement and genuine (albeit illogical) fear. Whether this has also sparked aggressive behaviour in me I can’t really say – I’m generally fairly laid back – I rather doubt it but I wouldn’t 100% rule it out.

Much of the controversy about the content of games centers around what is perceived to be overly explicit violence – that’s to say more explicit than the real-life image quality of film and tv violence. The interactivity is a large source of this concern but neglects to give players credit for their own abilities to separate reality and play. While the realism of games increases daily, it is still confined to what is referred to as “uncanny valley”, a state where the closer graphics get to reality, the more jarringly unnatural they feel.

Controversies have also arisen (briefly) about the encouragement of “anti-social/illegal” behaviour in games – which tend to be just the latest in an intergenerational series of moral panics – as well as (much less frequently) the occasional presence of sex. (The hidden “Hot Coffee” content in GTA:San Andreas). Personally I find it interesting to observe that in our society something as humourously blocky and unrealistic as a bad sex simulation can arouse so much more ire and civic concern than the most explicit excesses of graphic gore. Perhaps this comes about from the fact that it’s perfectly acceptable in “polite” society for people to talk at length and in graphic detail about injuries they have suffered but only the scantest mentions of making sweet love are (generally) tolerated. Anyway, that’s a side issue really.

My concerns about including violence in games designed for education aren’t necessarily that they are going to warp the fragile minds of the people playing them as much as they might turn some people off the game altogether or that the concerned parents brigade will make a hullabaloo, in spite of the fact that their children are in fact enjoying their learning experience for a change. (Who the games are made for is in some ways a moot point, working in adult education as I am, however there are still some 16-18 year olds who come into the mix from time to time)

Educationally, FPS games (with the shooting elements intact) have pretty well exclusively been used for military training (and recruitment – America’s Army) – which makes a certain amount of sense. What I want to know is, can they be used for other training/teaching purposes without diluting the knowledge you are trying to get across?

If I put my learners in a maze with zombies behind the doors which represent answers to question, is it a reward to fight the zombies for a right answer or a “punishment” for a wrong answer? (This is a very behaviourist approach I know but still valid for some content). What if the learner is rewarded with better weapons or more ammunition for right answers or smart decisions? If the learner already wants to play this game where they can roam around shooting bad guys (or hell, OHS hazards in the workplace) then is it wrong to let them and embed a layer of learning on top of that?

Isn’t half the battle getting their attention?

Yep, it’s this old hobby-horse again but I still believe that FPP/FPS games can prove useful in education. Research into this field is still a little scant but I have found some useful stuff – not just about using these games in military training either.

This is the proposal that I’ve put together for a uni project to investigate these options – now I have a whopping great 21 days to put together the 6400 words I’ve promised to deliver (and 2 game prototypes – or at least designs)

Title:
Creating the First Person Learner: Educational Applications of the First Person Shooter game genre.

1. Abstract
Gameplay in First Person Shooter (FPS) games is generally highly structured with the player given limited options in terms of the paths they can take and the decisions that they can make. They are often taught a specific skill, practise it for a period of time and when they have adequately demonstrated it, they are given progressively more advanced skills.

This often reflects students’ initial experiences of Vocational Education and Training (VET), during which they spend large amounts of time methodically developing foundation skills and knowledge in their chosen discipline.
This proposal describes a study that aims to investigate the potential uses of First Person Shooter style games as learning tools for students in the VET sector. It will centre around identifying the unique characteristics of the FPS genre and examining ways in which varying educational approaches might be applied to the design of FPS style games for these learners.

2. Introduction
While the use of computer games in education has been widely researched in recent years (Prensky, 2006), a significant focus of this research has been on the development of higher level skills such as problem solving and collaboration in third-person perspective games and particularly virtual worlds such as Second Life. (Kay, 2007)

Much less attention has been paid to the first person perspective genre, typified by the highly popular (and sometimes controversial) First Person Shooter. An initial scan of educational and games research however has indicated that this genre possesses a number of relatively unique characteristics that mesh well with behaviourist, cognitivist and even constructivist approaches to education.

Behaviourist.
Robyler and Havriluk (1997) point out that among the “needs addressed by directed instruction” (their term for the Behaviourist approach) are “making learning paths more efficient… especially for instruction in skills that are prerequisite to higher-level skills” and “performing time-consuming and labor intensive tasks (e.g., skill practice), freeing teacher time for other, more complex student needs”.

In 2005, Oliver and Pelletier devised a methodology which permitted a detailed analysis of how people learn from particular instances of game play. They compared a player of an FPS game (Deux Ex) who played a level having previously used a training level with one who had not. Unsurprisingly, the player who had played the heavily structured and repetitive training level first progressed through the level far more quickly than the second player and also mastered a number of essential skills that the second player did not.

Cognitivist
In 2001, Fuchs and Eckermann developed Expositur – ein virtueller Wissenraum, a game based collaborative project showcasing ten Viennese museums. This first person perspective knowledge space, built using the Unreal FPS game engine, made use of loci, a place based mnemotechnique dating back to the ancient Greeks, to enhance the meaning of its virtual museum exhibits by “connecting seemingly unrelated imagery to gain insight into visual similarities and connotations”(p.84).

They considered “the freedom of the user to go his or her own way in the virtual environment as an important feature that allows for individually shaped relational networks inside a complex field of knowledge”(p.84), which ties in well with Ertmer and Newby’s description of knowledge acquisition under Cognitivism as “a mental activity that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner”. (1993, p.58).

Constructivist
Some researchers have also investigated the use of FPS games to develop higher level skills in decision making and problem solving using authentic and immersive scenario based learning approaches commonly found in the constructivist approach to education. (Colvin, Clark & Mayer, 2007). Barlow and Lewis from the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) presented a paper to the SimTecT conference in 2005 discussing their use of a customised FPS game (Operation Flashpoint) to develop and examine the tactical decision making skills of ADFA students in a variety of authentic scenarios.

I believe that elements from all of these approaches can be successfully integrated into an FPS based learning game, whether it be a drill based reinforcement of key concepts, using the arrangement of information in three dimensional space as a cognitive aid or engaging students with an authentic and immersive scenario based learning experience.

3. Methodology
This project will draw on the ADDIE instructional systems design model. This is a five stage process involving Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation and represents “a dynamic, flexible guideline for building effective training and performance support tools”. (Wikipedia, 2008) Given time and resource constraints, the project will focus on the first three stages of the ADDIE process.

In the Analysis phase I will initially seek to answer a number of questions which will give me a better idea of the strengths of the FPS genre, suitable content and activities for the games, evaluation strategies and pedagogical approaches to developing these games. Given my stated aim of examining games suitable for VET students, this will initially involve identifying particular types of structured tasks that would be appropriate to this form however all options will be considered as they arise.

Some of the key questions to be considered are:
What is the anatomy of an FPS game?
How do FPS games differ from third person perspective and virtual world games and what advantages do they offer?
How can FPS games be educational?
What kind of educational approaches lend themselves to this type of games based learning?
What are the factors that might determine the most appropriate target audience for an FPS based learning game?
What impact might game violence or destruction of virtual objects have on the learning experience?
In what circumstances might game violence or destruction of objects be appropriate in a learning activity?
Do single player and multiplayer games support different educational approaches?

A number of game design questions will also be considered including:
To what extent does the level of realistic representation of the learners’ environment affect their engagement with the game?
What makes a game enjoyable and what makes a player want to play a game repeatedly?

In answering these questions I will draw on existing research into the use of games in education in general then focus on the use of FPS games and environments specifically.

I have a growing list of game oriented resources at http://del.icio.us/colsim/edugames
which will be my first port of call. From there I’ll also look into writing from Marc Prensky, James Gee, the Serious Games Initiative, Constance Steinkuehler, Jack Thompson and other games in education writers and theorists as a starting point.

I will also make contact with Barlow and Lewis at ADFA and teachers at the Academy of Interactive Entertainment, a respected game design school in Canberra.

Based on the findings of this research, I will develop design statements for and build prototypes of two small games using FPS Creator, a game development software package. These games will serve to demonstrate some of the possible practical applications of the FPS game genre in education.

5. Results and Discussion
Assessment of this project will centre around a final report which documents and discusses the outcomes of this research. This report will examine the methodology used and outline the answers found to the questions listed earlier. It will consider the success or failure of my attempts to integrate learning strategies into FPS based games and consider approaches for future developments of educational games.

During the course of the project I will regularly discuss the use of games and particularly FPS games in education by posting observations and reflections on my edublog at http://gamelearner.edublogs.org. This reflection process will enable me to formulate my ideas and seek feedback from the wider games in education community. I will include a summary of these posts as an appendix to the report.

I will also include an annotated bibliography of the six most significant publications that I find in my research .

Due date:
June 13, 2008
Final Report – Methodology and findings
4000 words
50%

June 13, 2008
Annotated Bibliography (6 x 200 words)
1200 words
15%

June 13, 2008
Reflections
1200 words
15%

June 13, 2008
Game prototypes x 2
N/A
N/A

Easy right?