Stage 2-4: Analysis of Strategy games and RPG

Title:
Mission US - Mission 2: "Flight to Freedom"

General information:
In Mission 2: "Flight to Freedom," a player takes on the role of Lucy, a 14-year-old slave in Kentucky, navigating her escape and journey to Ohio.

You start at the beginning with the Prologue and play to unlock each successive part by completing the one before it. Play basically involves listening to what's happening in the story at the moment and who Lucy is interacting with at the time (captions are included for whomever Lucy is interacting with so you don't need speakers). You then have choices provided on the screen as to how you respond (click to choose).

There are also options to click on objects in Lucy's environment that, when clicked on , give you a little history of that area, or, dialog from someone in that area (say if you were traveling and clicked on a farm, you could gain info regarding that place).

You (Lucy) earn journey badges along the way, based on decisions you make. There aren't any "right" answers, but some of the choices you make will have lasting consequences. You use these badges to determine Lucy's ultimate journey in the game's epilogue. At the end of each part you will see which badges you unlocked and which you did not.

Analysis based on Flow Theory:
In this section, I'll use elements of flow, based on Csikszentmihalyi's Flow Theory, to analyze this game.

• Task that the learners can complete - YES:
• The overall game itself was structured such that you knew from the beginning of play how many sections were involved in the game (Prologue, Parts 1-5, and Epilogue). This game did a very good job of explaining steps to allow you to knowledgeably play (not just click buttons until something happened) without going into too many details and making me lose interest (I don't want to have to work too hard to get into FLOW). I was never stuck wondering what I was supposed to do next.
• Ability to concentrate on task - YES:
• The simplicity of the graphics and sound (great voice-overs and music) interested me from the beginning (and I've never been big on RPG or Strategy games). Because of the ease of moving around the screen and the fact there wasn't a time limit, I found myself wandering around each screen before making choices, just to see what was there. Each object I chose to learn more about made me feel more involved in the game and wanting to find out more!
• Task has clear goals - YES:
• As you move through play, Lucy is given "tasks" to perform. There "tasks" are actually separated on the screen by "Community tasks" and "Plantation tasks" and show up as a ghosted color (needing to be completed). If you hover your mouse over a task, you see what that task is (again, everything was super self-explanatory and it made performing the tasks easier). When a task was completed, it changed color (lit up more so). I liked this organization of the tasks - could be part of my personality too that I liked being able to "check" things off my list!
  

•    As I mentioned in the description of game play above, Lucy earns journey badges based on decisions she makes along her way. These badges are ultimately used in the epilogue of her story. She also collects items that are stored in her Pack (the biggest thing I saw used here was food she had collected that supplemented her when she escaped).
  

•  Task provides immediate feedback - YES:
• For example, I had a task to take care of the chickens. When in the coop, I had choices as to how I was going to accomplish this task, as shown in the figure below.
  
   
• I chose to "waste time" and play with some of my favorite hens while I was in there. After selecting this option, I got immediate feedback from that decision, seen in the figure below:
  

• Deep but effortless involvement  - SOMEWHAT:
• This game was created to teach and so, while the "world" isn't what we currently live in, this era is part of history, Still, the structure of the game allowed for deep but effortless involvement.
• Exercising a sense of control over their actions - SOMEWHAT:
• You had control over the decisions you made from a predetermined set of choices. Since it's a game structured on history, the path that you take depending on your choices can start to narrow due to being structured around that particular time period. You quickly learned that complete disobedience did not get you far in anyone's book during this time (the Plantation owner or fellow slaves).

• Concern for self disappears during flow - SOMEWHAT:
• This game is a role playing game yet is structured on real life time periods in history. I found I was making decisions based on my concern for my character (as myself) and those she cared about. That being said, it was still just a game and the consequences realized in the game did not become my reality.
• Sense of duration of time is altered - YES:
• Some parts of the game took place over a single day, others had a year or more advance in between scenes/parts. I did find myself becoming caught up in the story and lost track of time as to how long I'd played the game.

Stage 2 - 3 Analysis of Card and Board Games

Title:

Backgammon: Board game vs. Digital game

General information 

In a nutshell, Backgammon is a two-player board game where the players take turns moving their checkers around the board according to a roll of the dice. The objective is to move all of your checkers around the board and then remove them from play (or bear them off). The first player to bear off all of their checkers wins (http://www.games.com/play/masque-publishing/backgammon/single).

To briefly explain the name of the game itself, a “gammon” can be had if one “bears” all their checkers from the board before their opponent gets any of their checkers off the board. A “backgammon” can be obtained if one “bears” all their checkers from the board and their opponent still has checkers on the “bar” or on your side of play (the “bar” is basically a penalty box that, once in, you have to get out of again before being able to continue play with any of your other checkers).

Comparison of two formats: digital vs. non-digital

1. Comparison 1: Game components

In review, my definition of a game included the components of having a goal, challenging conflict in obtaining that goal, rules that structure obtaining the goal and dealing with the conflict, and being intensively absolving from real world responsibility. Different formats (digital and non-digital) for playing Backgammon do not bring significant differences within these game components. For each format, the goal is the same, the rules remain the same, and both formats are intensely absolving from real world responsibility. The same challenging conflict is there (in that you have an opponent to beat), however, playing the board game you have a real person sitting across from you. In the digital version, you do seem to have more choices for your opponent. You can choose to play against another person (random or found through a chat room) or you can choose to play against the computer. I did not actually play against another person online so I’m not sure if the option exists, but when playing online against the computer, you could choose your level of difficulty (I’m not sure if this just means the computer is more aggressive in moves or they make your dice rolls particularly troubling while ensuring the computer rolls exactly what it needs every time-I’m going to have to play more to figure this out).

2. Comparison 2: Interaction

a. Communication: The difference in play format does affect communication between the two players in that the digital version can pretty much dismiss any comms if you’re playing against the computer, or, limit that communication through what is written (and again, I wasn’t able to play against an actual person online – I waited for one!!- so I’m not entirely sure if one is able to “chat” with the person they’re playing against during the actual time of play).

b. Cooperation: The digital version of this game makes people abide by the rules (no sneaking in an extra move when someone isn’t looking that might be possible during a board game….not that I’ve ever seen this done or done it myself). I think this attribute of cooperation (the level demonstrated by both players) can be closely tied though to the level of engagement of the players in the game at the moment.

c. Engagement: I found I could be easily distracted from the game I was playing when engaging in the digital format of this game. I didn’t need to be sitting down across the table from another person, that person wasn’t “there” to remind that it was my move (although when playing the computer, it did put up a reminder on the screen, however, if I wasn’t looking directly at it, I wouldn’t see it). I feel the level of engagement one puts forth to the digital version of the game when playing the computer, doesn’t really matter one way of the other. The computer isn’t going to get mad at me for not paying attention and try to cheat OR become less engaged itself and take longer amounts of times when making moves. Playing another person online though would be a different story. While they couldn’t cheat (less cooperation due to my lower level of engagement to the game), they could affect the length of time I waited for them to make their moves.

d. Motivation: Motivation to play the board game could be deterred by having to 1) find someone else to play with and 2) set up the board game itself (although Backgammon is fairly painless compared to setup of a board game like Monopoly). The digital version, however, just required me to open my laptop and click a few links and away I went! 

Stage 2 - 2: Analysis of Puzzle, Quiz, and Sportsr Games

Learners' style

For the purpose of this assignment, I enlisted the cooperation of my 20-year-old, sister-in-law, Samantha, who recently finished her first year of undergraduate studies at Indiana State University (majoring in Nursing). 

1. Based on Kolb's Learning Style
• Using the provided Quick Activity Sheet (Kolb Learning Inventory), Sam scored the highest with 19 points in the Active Experimentation (AE) area and14 points in the Abstract Conceptualization (AC) area, putting her in the Converging learning style group.  This type of learner tends to approach a task or experience by doing rather than watching (AE), and transforms that experience by thinking (AC) about the task or experience to analyze it, rather than using feelings (or gut). Both qualities of this learning style made sense to me when thinking in reference of Sam; she grew up as an active member on a farm (raising and showing cattle, goats, and rabbits) and has always been one to just start "mucking" around with something new (I say mucking around but it was always done with plenty of adult supervision - actually, her dad has and is a strong supporter of this learning style). As far as analyzing her experiences, she's a smart girl and you can see the wheels turning when she's thinking about something (she scored 1's on the answers that referenced feelings, hunches, and observing - so not really big on acting based on her gut). 
2. Based on Prensky's list
• Marc Prensky believes that children born after 1970 were raised in such different environments that certain cognitive aspects are more reinforced where others are de-emphasized in comparison to generations born and raised prior to this time. The reason for this difference is in reference to the different stimuli surrounding the "Nintendo children" age group in the form of digital gaming, the Internet, and other newer technologies (Prensky, 1998).  Using the provided Likert Scale to score ten different characteristics based on Prensky's list of ten cognitive style changes, Sam scored in the mid to lower range (23 on a scale from 10-50, with a lower score being closer to this "Nintendo child" he's talking about). The two 5's she selected were in the characteristics of "twitch speed vs. Conventional speed" and "Play vs. Work." I believe these choices are very much due to her upbringing in her home environment(see the farm mentioned above). So to summarize her learning style based on this list, Sam would rather:
• Take her time on things,
• Can handle and might prefer more than one thing going on at any given time,
• Learns by seeing and finding patterns,
• Does not necessarily think or need to see things in a linear fashion for understanding,
• Can handle or prefers (perhaps accustomed to) asynchronous communication (prefers to be "connected" vs. "Stand-alone"),
• Approaches tasks actively vs. passively (acts first, then asks questions later),
• Works hard to make gains,
• Requires instant gratification to know if something is working right,
• Is more drawn to current news and discussions vs. make-believe situations, and 
• Sees technology as a friend rather than a foe.
3. Based on VAK learning styles
• Using the VAK Learning Styles Self-Assessment Questionnaire, Same scored highest (11-C's) as someone with a Kinaesthetic learning style (having a preference for the physical, practical hands-on experiences). She wasn't far behind with 9-A's, meaning she also leans toward having a visual learning style (having a preference for seen or observed things). I believe this visual learning style does not necessarily include reading the instructions prior to performing a task; for Sam, she would accept watching someone do something prior to her attempting it. But she don't need no stinking instructions:).

The results of these three self-assessments for Sam were pretty consistent with each other. 

Analysis of games

From the puzzle, quiz, and sports games provided for us to use for the analysis this week, and based on the ones I played myself, I chose a game called Planarity as the best fit and the Universal Cryptogram game as the least best fit for Sam's learning style.

1. General information of the two games
• Planarity is a simple but challenging game. You start at level one with a diagram consisting of little blue dots (vertices) that are connected by lines (edges). The goal of the game is to move the vertices around such that the edges no longer intersect. When you've moved your vertices such that none of the edges intersect, you click on a button to tell you whether you're right or not, and if you are, you are advanced to the next level (increasingly harder). 
• Universal Cryptogram is just like it sounds - you're given a set of encrypted text to unveil by figuring out by the substitution ciphers used (where each letter is replaced by a different letter). To solve the puzzle, one must recover the original lettering. I didn't play long enough to figure out how difficult the substitution ciphering progressed. This game allows one 3 hints in a game, with the game itself being timed (you are given a pause feature which was handy if you had to leave your game at all).
2. Comparison 1: Game components (consisting of a goal, conflict in obtaining that goal, rules that structure obtaining the goal and dealing with the conflict, challenging, and intensively absolving from real world responsibility).
• I felt that both games had strong game components (based on my previous definition with the components listed above which includes the added component of "challenging" I've decided should included). I struggled with calling the "rules" in Universal Cryptogram as strong, however, this was based more on the learning style of my sister-in-law and not whether or not the game had strong rules. There are rules, they're just changing with each game due to the cryptogram key changing (hence, changing the way the game is solved). Or is really that the rules are changing or just the course itself (still talking about the key for solving the puzzle)? Again, this one left me stumped, especially after re-reading something from the first weeks suggested readings. Wolfgang Kramer (2000) said that "all games which have the same course, by definition do not belong to "game with rules." for example, this would be puzzles, quiz lets, and brain teasers, which lose their attraction when they have been solved. Solitaire games which follow a different course each time belongs, for me, to "games with rules." 
3. Comparison 2: Learner's styles
• I chose Planarity as the best fit for Sam's learning styles due to the structure of the game allowing her to jump right in there and start solving the puzzle. There were no rules to really understand and follow, there were no difficult instructions on how to play the game itself. The screen was self-explanatory enough such that there wasn't a need for any of that - the GUI allowed her to jump around and click and figure out what she was supposed to do and it gave her the instant gratification as to whether or not the answer was correct (all from the same GUI the game was played on).
• I chose the Universal Cryptogram game as the least best fit for Sam's learning style mainly due to the ever changing rules inherent in the different substitution ciphers used from one game to the next. The game itself allowed her to jump in there and start figuring stuff out, however, I didn't see this knowledge as something that could necessarily be applied to the next round (maybe I haven't played this type of game enough and am missing the point??). Although many characteristics Sam chose based on Prensky's list were present in this game, she does like to take her time on things to figure them out and the automatic time limit feature of the game would be more frustrating for her rather than a challenge.