Collaborative Gaming: The Ultimate Case Study

One of the most common ways in which games can be used in an educational environment is for collaborative gaming.  An entire class focusing on one game is far easier to manage or control than many small groups or everyone at a different computer and it also promotes skills such as teamwork or communication.  We have looked at some of the benefits or difficulties involved with this previously but recently an extremely interesting example of collaborative gaming has emerged and, although it isn’t in an educational environment, there are a lot of interesting phenomena that have arisen and we can learn a lot from it in terms of the dynamic of a large group working towards a goal.

A screenshot from TwitchPlaysPokémon - courtesy of http://imgur.com/V9D2Tfi

TwitchPlaysPokémon, whose creator has expressed his desire to stay anonymous, is hosted on twitch.tv, a website more usually used for streaming a game live as you play it, but it has one vital difference: the controls are not entered by one player; they are entered in a chat box to the side of the live video stream of the game.  This means that multiple people from anywhere in the world are in control of the game at any one time and, since it has entered the consciousness of the general public, there are often ten commands being entered in a second and sometimes many more. The game of Pokémon Red (1996) lends itself well to this format; as a strategy game it can be played in an infinite number of ways and it rarely punishes missteps seriously, ensuring a level of unpredictability in progress while also guarding against heavy, demoralising setbacks which would potentially scare off people interested in contributing.  Despite this, it was still expected that some challenges in the game would prove too much for the community at large and it was certainly not expected that they would ever actually finish the game.  However, the combined efforts of the globe’s nostalgia-fuelled gamers have overcome all of the game’s gym battles (the major challenges in the Pokémon series), leaving only the final section of the game and the final boss battles to go.  During the past two weeks or so, there have been moments at which approximately 150,000 people have watched simultaneously, as well as landmark moments showcasing the power that a shared goal and a fun interface can have over a group of people working together.  Of course, there have also been low points and some sections which require a specific sequence of buttons to be pressed can take hours (or in very rare cases, days) to overcome.

How the Group Tackles Issues

Of course, this is the most extreme example possible of a collaborative game; there is probably never going to be another situation where 150,000 people could press the same button on the same game at the same time and it is even more unlikely in an educational environment.  As such, there are some quite major issues with gameplay, but the ways in which the community has reacted to them is enlightening and encouraging.

The first and most obvious of these is that with so many people inputting commands, any section that needs extended precision is almost impossible (such as the dreaded Ledges, which earned their capital ‘L’s).  One of these, a room involving floor tiles that can send you back to the entrance of the room had taken up to 26 hours without any progress.  This motivated the creator to introduce a ‘democracy’ mode, which takes the most popular command over twenty seconds and enacts it, creating precision but it is excruciatingly slow.  This has sparked a backlash from some sections of the community, who believe that democracy mode defeats the point and the game should be completed entirely in the original ‘anarchy’ mode.  The majority of gamers are not particularly concerned about the purity of the experience and so it creates a fascinating phenomenon.  After an obstacle has been impeding their progress for a large period of time, usually several hours, the votes will flood in for democracy mode and they will complete their task before immediately sliding back into anarchy mode so that they can continue the game ‘properly’.

Another problem with the format is that due to the scale, there is a thirty-second lag, rendering many commands obsolete at best and a hindrance at worst by the time there are actually registered.  Again, the hivemind arguably exceeds expectations in dealing with this, often only overshooting targets once or twice before arriving at the destination.  Sometimes, when preparing for big events, the community organises itself via the forums and chat facilities and is capable of entirely pre-empting the lag.  This shows an impressive level of communication, given that hundreds, potentially thousands, of people are entering commands for something they won’t see for another thirty seconds.

Both of these demonstrate an innate desire to progress and to achieve.  The gut reactions of most contributors is to do what is best for the communal goal and it is heartening to see people automatically working together without instruction, although since this is accessible to anyone on the Internet, there are of course a small number of trolls whose sole purpose is to disrupt the game, an extremely easy task when a single disruptive command can halt progress.  However, even more impressive heights have been reached.  Pokémon is a strategy game and as more progress has been made, some members of the community have considered and developed their strategies to deal with both the actual game and the control system.  They show independent research (e.g. finding and distributing this map), critical thinking and even presentation skills as they develop methods to beat certain parts of the game (taking into account the unusual challenges presented by the format), before presenting their findings to the community at large via chats and forums, often in the form of an annotated document or map.  The input format is effectively a vote: if enough people approve of the suggestion they will attempt to enact it and will eventually overpower the others.  There have been suggested strategies which have been considered, rebutted and then ignored and there have been strategies which on the face of it seem counter-intuitive but have been enacted, showing that the majority of the community has a high level of communication.  Astonishingly, there has even been what must be a rare example of organised trolling, when a group of trolls worked together in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to render the game unwinnable at one of very few points where this is possible.

Community

When watching the stream and following the chat, it is possible to get a sense of a cross-section of the players’ mentalities and the way they play.  There are a few clear types of regular players, some of which mirror player types we have discussed before on the topic of MMO games.  Using this article as a guide, we can clearly identify Socialisers and Philanthropists.  There are many people who are playing for social reasons, and in fact the meme culture which has rapidly sprung up around this game is impressively diverse and being added to with playful faux-religious fervour.  It is arguably the star of the show and almost certainly the main reason people have not lost interest is due to the narratives and binding references being constructed as they go along.

In fact, it is extremely difficult to identify anyone playing solely for achievement’s sake, like the Player type in the cited article.  There are some players whose main goal is progression but they still have in mind the social aspect and also the chaos with which this game began, as shown by the immediate regression to anarchy once democracy has served its purpose.  I would add a couple of new types: Purists, who are devotees to the anarchy system and believe that it should be adhered to at the cost of progress; and of course, Trolls, whose main goal is the disruption of the game.  It seems as though all players have purity in mind but as frustration over a specific obstacle grows, we often see them drift towards democracy to facilitate progression.  Purists are the players who staunchly vote anarchy even at this point and could be considered similar to the Free Spirit as they put their personal journey ahead of the collective desire.  However, they are not necessarily hugely creative either so I consider them different.

Fan-made art inspired by the game - courtesy of http://imgur.com/F5NA7RK

Lessons for Educational Games

While this specific format has major problems blocking it from use in education, it could be used with tweaks and editing.  Without being actually used, it still has lessons to be learned with regard to group dynamics.  We can see that when left to their own devices with a goal to achieve, a group of people will work towards a common goal, strategise to overcome more difficult obstacles, and implement rudimentary democracy to make contested decisions.  Ultimately, it may not even be necessary for a game to have any educational content; children (and some adults) could learn those valuable lessons from this exact game.  On top of this, the fictional world and characters facilitate the creation of the culture and memes that surround the game, which glues the community together and promotes discussion and sharing ideas.  Oftentimes, games where learning is spontaneous can be more powerful than when learning is explicit and can feel forced.  For a game to be used educationally, it doesn’t have to be designed with education in mind.  Any game can be an educational game, it just depends what you want to teach.


Please follow @paulladley on Twitter, games-ED on Pinterest and like games-ED’s Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and interesting games based learning findings.

The Role of Learning Simulations in Learning & Development Strategies

In September, we (pixelfountain) held a workshop in partnership with Virtual College.  The delegates were professionals from a wide variety of sectors who were invited to discuss the role of serious games/games based learning in learning and development strategies.  For more of an introduction and to see footage from the day (and to appreciate more how our workshops work), watch the video below.



After playing the learning simulation, the delegates discussed using serious games for learning and development.  Various applications were suggested, including:

• Inductions
• Management training
• Partnership working and relationship building
• Staff engagement days/away days
• Stakeholder collaboration
• Team building
• Assessment centres
• Training needs analysis
• Community/resident groups

Barriers to adoption were also discussed.  These were fewer in number, but included:

• The term ‘game’ and misconceptions about games for training
• Access to technology
• IT literacy
• Cost

One of the main aims of the day was to discuss the delivery method of the games and the positives and negatives of different methods.  For example, workshop-based, facilitator-led, collaborative delivery as opposed to individually played, online delivery.  There was a bias in favour of the games being workshop based, but that is likely to have been because the simulation used on the day was designed for that purpose, which could have skewed opinion.

The delegates had a fantastic day and really loved our newest simulation, Planit-Housing, which was developed in partnership with The University of Northampton.   For more information about Planit-Housing, click here and to learn more about our other products and how our workshops work, click here.

To download the full Virtual College report, click here.

Please follow @paulladley on Twitter, games-ED on Pinterest and like games-ED’s Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and interesting games based learning findings.

Games Based Learning Integrated with Traditional Exercises

There is a buzz surrounding games based learning currently.  They are many games that can be used in classrooms and for training and development.  However, they will usually be most effective when they sit alongside traditional materials.  It is unlikely that you could get all the information you need from one game (although of course it is possible).

Overview

Recently we were asked by The University of Northampton to put together a learning simulation to be delivered within the context of a Housing and Community Living Module within the Health School.  We developed Planit-Housing.  In Planit-Housing, additional workshop activities (incidents) have been fully integrated into the learning simulation.  Teams must complete exercises out of the simulation, which directly feed back into their in-game progress and score.  The quality of the delegate’s responses to the incidents (a riot or flood in the virtual community) alters multiple variables and the teams’ budgets in the simulation.  There is a seamless interaction between the two learning elements.  They offer a richer experience than either a game or traditional learning activities could have done alone.  This approach also addresses varied learning needs and styles (see ‘Games Based Learning Supports Multiple Learning Styles').  It also provides a flexible way of learning that the facilitator can control and depending on their time constraints, the activities can be divided up as the facilitator sees fit.

The Planit-Housing programme is designed to:

• Explain the complexities of the subject, including issues faced by those in different housing sectors, which will be identified and examined from a health perspective in addition to multiple sources of inequity/exclusion.
• Enable the students to improve collaborative working skills and practically explore the partnership working necessary for successful and sustainable communities.  These include developing an understanding of the big picture (strategic thinking), cause and effect (joined up thinking), communication / negotiation skills and collaborative working (the importance of partnerships). 

Integration of Learning Simulation with Traditional Exercises

Planit-Housing is the latest learning simulation from pixelfountain; the latest incarnation of our mission to integrate learning simulations with traditional exercises.  In Planit-Housing, each team’s performance in the exercises is judged for content, presentation, teamwork and understanding the wider impacts of the incident.  These values are entered easily into the learning simulation via a dashboard.  In this way multiple variables and the team’s budgets are altered.  For example, in the riot incident, a poor performance by the Housing Team could result in more destruction and reduced housing quality.  Whereas a good performance would mean the team was better prepared and so the impacts in the riot would not be as bad.  In fact, a team could generate positive outcomes for the virtual community, such as improved cohesion resulting from community clean-ups.

The learning simulation also has save functionality.  This means that time constraints needn’t be a worry.  Planit-Housing has been used by The University of Northampton over three afternoon sessions.  However, it is flexible and could be used over fewer or more sessions if desired.  It is our firm belief that the teacher/facilitator should be fully in control of the learning process and therefore flexibility built into games is an important feature.  For more information, see our Games Based Learning Analysis and Planning Tool).  The teacher/facilitator should be able to stop game play at any time to reinforce or assess learning, do a non-game activity, end the session and so on.  Many commercial games do not allow this and some purpose built games overlook this feature.

Benefits of the approach

• Flexibility – the approach allows the simulation workshop to incorporate any sort of activity to achieve a specific learning outcome.
• Extension – the learning simulation can be extended to incorporate sophisticated workshop exercises and additional learning components, which can be interweaved into the game play.
• No additional development - whatever the exercise, the trainees can be judged using standard metrics.
• Engagement – the exercises break up the game play and the simulation brings added weight to the traditional workshop exercise.
• Supports multiple learning styles – exercises / learning components can be designed to suit all learning styles and together they work in a single meta exercise or learning piece.
• Supports active learning – real world activities can be incorporated into the learning process. 

What Next

pixelfountain is always looking to innovate and improve.  The next steps for this type of learning could include a more sophisticated dashboard which would enable the trainer / facilitator to:

• Trigger any number of incidents as and when they want them to occur in the workshop programme.
• Integrate incidents without the need for additional bespoke coding.  Specific algorithm variables could be selected in terms of the impact of a newly devised incident.  The trainer could determine the level of impact for each variable and how the workshop activity relates to the variables.

A core simulation could then incorporate incidents without the need to involve a development team.

Other Examples

Grandma’s Games:  Grandma’s Games have won awards for their innovative learning programmes, which make use of traditional games (mostly from Macedonia), such as hopscotch and Cat’s Cradle.  They use these games along with technology to teach areas within and beyond the curriculum.  For example, a game called Chelik (steel) has the following learning outcomes:

“To learn the linear measures, cm (centimeter) dm (decimeter) and m (meter); to be able to compare linear measures by free judgment; to make linear measure instruments, rulers and tape measures with the use of computers; to draw in Paint and to print rulers and tape measures glued on a piece of paper; to define homonyms (same words with different meanings); evergreen and deciduous trees; to explore pictures using Bing, memorize and insert them in a Power Point presentation.”

For more information and resources visit: http://www.grandmasgames.org/Visitor/Games.aspx.

SimCityEDU: As I am sure many of you are aware, the latest incarnation of SimCity will be released early next month.   However, what you might not know is that SimCityEDU has also been developed by a partnership between Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) and GlassLab (a research and development initiative aimed at transforming learning practices through digital games). Educators can use SimCityEDU in the classroom to teach students STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects alongside traditional methods.  The website (which goes live in March 2013) reads:

“Engage your students by using the SimCity game to make learning come alive! Create and share SimCity-based learning tools that address a wide range of subjects including science, math, civics, economics, and more.”

Please follow @paulladley on Twitter and like games-ED’s Pinterest, Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and interesting games based learning links and resources.

Gamification - Different Types of User

I was recently pointed in the direction of an blog article from Andrzej Marczewski, ‘Different Types of Users in Gamification’.  Andrzej built on Richard Bartle’s player type theory.  Bartle’s theorised that you could categorise MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) game players in one of four ways: killer, achiever, socialiser and explorer.  To read Bartle’s full theory, click here.  Andrzej took these ideas and related them to gamification.

Andrzej notes that the important distinction between game players and users of gamified content is that they may not wish to ‘play’.  Andrzej categorises users as: Players, Socialisers, Free Spirits, Achievers and Philanthropists.  Below is his explanation of each:

• Players are the ones who like to get the achievements in your system; they like to see their names on the leaderboards.  They like the “game” of it all. They are also the most likely to make use of “loop holes” to gain an advantage. There to play the game and are happy with the extrinsic rewards.
• Socialisers (as in the original Player Type) are the ones who want to interact with others. They like to be connected to others. They are interested in parts of the system that help them do this. These are the ones will evangelise your internal social networks. Most motivated by the social connectiosn aspects of relatedness.
• Free Spirits like to have agency. They don’t want to be restricted in how they go through their personal journey. They will be the most creative, have the fanciest avatars, create the most personal content, but also find the most holes in a system. They seek self expression and autonomy.
• Achievers are the ones who want to be the best at things, or at least be achieving things within the system. They want to get 100% on the internal learning system. They do this for themselves and are probably not that bothered with then showing off to others about it. (This differs from the original definition, but I could not think of a better word!!). They need a system that will enrich them and lead them towards mastery.
• Philanthropists want to feel that they are of something bigger.  They want to give back to others. These are the ones who will answer endless questions on forums, just because they like to feel they are helping. They want a system that allows them to enrich others and feel a sense of purpose.

So why is this useful?  Andrzej goes on to explain that each of these types prefer to operate in either structured or unstructured ways and for material and non-material gains.  The second part of his blog article extends this idea further explaining how users see rewards, whether they act within the system or not and how they interact with other users.  While the second part of his article gets a little complicated, it is a great tool for anyone thinking of utilising gamification.  Andrzej argues that you must create a balanced system for all users for gamification to be worthwhile and fully useful and he does a lot of the work for you in terms of working out how to do this.

For the first part of the series, visit: http://marczewski.me.uk/2013/01/30/different-types-of-users-in-gamification/
For part two: http://marczewski.me.uk/2013/02/04/user-types-in-gamification-part-2-players/

pixelfountain and its brand, games-ED, who bring this blog to you, develop learning simulations (serious games) to be used in training workshops and in the classroom.  These games are used in training so delegates are not classic game players or have not come to play.  So does Andrzej’s classification hold water in our experience? We would say that we have certainly come across these different types of players in our workshops.

We have come across a significant minority of players, who report that they enjoyed getting the high score or beating the other team – we have on occasion played more than one simulation in an event.  These are Player types.  But the most common type, bearing in mind that the games are used in training workshops, could be thought of as modified Achievers.  Note: Andrzej suggests that people may be a combination of ‘types of user’, but they usually have one main motivator.

The following quotes are just a sample of the feedback we have gained from our latest product, sim-uni (a learning simulation that models a University to train Higher Education employees).

“I think the event/the simulation provided a fun way to learn about the different elements that impact on the running of the University (particularly in raising awareness of areas not directly related to those you may have worked in), and could also be used as a team building event (irrespective of the actual content of the simulation).  It really got you thinking and talking about the issues, and also about the importance of communication (networking and negotiation).”
- E-Learning Manager

This player comes over as being primarily an Achiever.  They enjoyed playing the simulation as it provided a fun way of learning and raising awareness.  I think that secondary to this, they are a Socialiser.  They note that the simulation would be well suited to a team building event, appreciated that sim-uni got them ‘talking about the issues’ and that it highlighted the importance of communication.

“Taking part in the sim-uni event gave me an interesting insight into the way different decisions about admissions policy, budgeting, staffing, research, resources etc are linked and have an effect on a university’s reputation as well as its ability to do its job. The sim could provide value to the whole range of university personnel, to show how they fit in to the big picture, and how the big picture depends on the smaller details.”
- Divisional Manager

This delegate / player is primarily an Achiever. They appreciate the game as it helped them increase their understanding of various issues. They also have a hint of Philanthropy about them. They appreciate the wider goals and the greater purpose and suggest how it could be useful to ‘the whole range of university personnel’.

“The day was a lot of fun.  I enjoyed working with a range of colleagues from across the University (some of whom I had never met before) and once we got a handle on what we were doing, we were able to bring some creativity and ingenuity to the exercise!  The facilitator was engaging and knowledgeable and the whole event definitely got me thinking about how Universities work.

I would definitely recommend the exercise to anyone who is interested in taking part.”
- Head of School Administration

This delegate is a Socialiser and a Free Spirit.  They ‘enjoyed working with a range of colleagues from across the University’ and they ‘were able to bring some creativity and ingenuity to the exercise’.  Their primary motivations seem to be the social aspect of the workshop and they obviously enjoyed how flexible the workshop and simulation were as it allowed them to be creative and autonomous.

“We stepped out of our silos.  It was a great opportunity to view the University operation from a different perspective and to appreciate the value of collaborative working across the organisation.”
- Head of Student Operations

This delegate is an Achiever / Socialiser.  They enjoyed the opportunity to learn, however they also enjoyed socialising and working beyond their silos.

“The ‘Sim-Uni’ event was very engaging and an excellent way for managers (new and established) to learn more about managing and being responsible for budgets.  Through the use of simulated ‘Report Screens’ you could see the impact of your budgetary decisions made year on year, that as a manager can be an invaluable tool helping you to steer the direction of your purchasing decisions and areas of work that impacts on and feeds into the overall achievement of the University’s strategic goals” 
- HR Manager

While this delegate could be seen as a player (due to liking report screens as a guage of progress and achievements); it is more likely they are beind descriptive for the benefit of others. So, I would argue they are an Achiever / Philanthropist as this delegate appreciates the learning outcomes of the learning simulation and workshop above all else.

Andrzej has so far named four user types that are intrinsically motivated in certain ways: Socialiser, Free Spirit, Achiever and Philanthropist.  In his second blog post he discusses how there are four types of extrinsically motivated users of gamified content too: Networker, Exploiter, Consumer and Self-Seeker.

• Self Seekers Act on Users for Extrinsic Reward- They will answer questions and help others, but purely to get rewards from the system. Quantity over quality – unless quality gets them more rewards. They are uninterested in the social aspect of users
• Consumers Act on the System for Extrinsic Reward - A consumer wants to use a system that can give them something. An example would be people who use one particular airway because of the loyalty scheme.
• Networkers Interact with Users for Extrinsic Reward - They want social connections, but to give them some form of status or reward. An example of this are people who network and tweet etc. just to get higher Klout scores
• Exploiters Interact with the System for Extrinsic Reward - Similar in nature to Self Seekers, they are the people who will like or upvote or retweet something multiple times to gain reward. Unlike Free Spirits, who will seek the boundaries of a systems capabilities for fun, they are very likely to find the loopholes in your rules and exploit them

It seems to me that these 8 types of users of gamified content can also be used to describe most of the people we come across in our organisations, if not our lives at large.  And what also seems likely is that people will fit into different categories in different situations.  For example, you might be a Socialiser and Achiever at home, but be a Networker and Consumer at work.  So while these types are important when designing gamified content, they could also be very useful when designing other interventions: training, rewards structures, communications and so on.

For more information about sim-uni, visit: www.sim-uni.co.uk and feel free to let me know your views and experiences in the comments section below.

Please follow @paulladley on Twitter and like games-ED’s Pinterest, Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and other interesting games based learning things.