It’s also reminded me that there’s lots of easy, relatively low-tech tools for thinking that no one’s built yet, because no one’s seen the money in it – or has gotten sufficiently annoyed to roll their own. Just last week I had to pull out my stats textbook to check something and got really irritated by how long it took me. Next time I’m annoyed at something in my daily life, I’ll pay attention!

I don’t mean to slam the project. They’re already about ten steps ahead of most educational game designers! They’ve chosen an appropriate game reference for the type of learning they’re hoping to achieve. Learning about real-world species has elements of collecting, categorizing and memorizing, just like Pokemon – and unlike certain other projects, kids’ independent engagement with Pokemon is more than just wishful thinking. It’s an excellent choice.

The original study that inspired their project is also pretty great. Kids are capable of learning to recognize many different species, but they’re exposed to more Pokemon species than real ones. By age eight, kids are more likely to recognize a randomly selected Pokemon than animals in their real-world environment.

As it stands, the Phylomon Project can do a lot to fix the issue of exposure. Kids who play Pokemon have cards in their possession. They can pull them out and look at them as often as they want. Encounters with real-world plants and animals are far more contingent (and, for kids who live in big cities, unlikely). Solution? Give kids real-world species in their pocket. It might not be the same as seeing a real-world hare, oak tree, or beetle, but its not-the-same-ness is both good and bad. Bad, in that a picture can only represent the lush, messy, stinky, surprising experience of the natural world. Good, in that it opens a new form of relationship to nature, a proprietary affection that doesn’t need legal or physical ownership at the root of commitment.

Here’s the thing they’re missing, though. Kids’ engagement with Pokemon isn’t just about the having. It’s about the doing. The collecting is a crucial piece of Pokemon play, but it’s given context by the existence of battle and care-taking as ongoing activities. Kids don’t pay attention to Pokemon cards just because they’ve got some, but rather because they expect to have to do something with them at some point in the future. Use shapes attention – and right now the Phylomon cards don’t seem to have any use.

That’s not to say uses for the cards can’t be retro-fitted. They probably can! But if the project leaders consider how they expect kids to use their cards, it will help shape what kids actually pay attention to about the cards, what information belongs on the cards, and even what they think is important for kids to know.

In short, what Pokemon does well is give meaning and use to arbitrary information. The Phylomon Project needs to consider how they’ll do the same!

The best thing about the project is how clearly they’ve thought through the human end of things. They don’t just say, “Here are the items to buy.” The site links to all the things you’ll need to get, including protective foam and a heavy-duty case to protect your kit. And they don’t just assume you’ll figure out how to use the camera; the site provides a training video that plays right on your camera screen, when and where you need it.

What else could we do by juxtaposing devices that already exist, and teaching people how to use them effectively in combination?

I’ve got no problem with the game’s basic premise; I’m quite aware of the rules of propriety (though admittedly I think they’re referencing a slightly earlier period) and I love the notion that these rules constrain the characters’ behavior. It’s true that these rules were far more constraining of women than of men, although both genders subverted the rules at times and they certainly only applied to a certain class of people. So why not just admit that the game replicates a sexist power structure and conception of the world? I’ve got no problem with looking at historical elements and playing with them! Or, if that’s too close to the “YOU ARE A BAD BAD SEXIST” line, why not allow the players to decide at the beginning of the game whether they will play gentlemen courteously pursuing ladies, ladies courteously pursuing gentlemen, gentlemen pursuing gentlemen or ladies pursuing ladies?

I see where the designer is going with this, and I like the extensive fictional world he’s created around the gameplay. I definitely want to play the game, read the booklet and participate in the larger fiction of the game. But I don’t buy his argument that his creation of unreliable narrator-designers somehow undermines the basic structure of gender relations the game puts forward. Maybe every player is going to read the character booklet and think carefully about it – but I’d guess a lot of people are just going to play the game, and his argument about gender doesn’t really account for that.

Turns out this is actually hard. Who knew?

I’m not surprised that automated online data collection has its own set of challenges, but I’m a bit surprised by what some of those challenges have been. I keep running into fairly simple things I want to do that aren’t well-supported by existing tools. Counterbalancing presentation of tasks. Randomizing subject assignment to research condition. Conditional pre- and post-test support. Complex tasks combined with surveys. Some tools have some of these features, but I haven’t found any that have all of them.

Enter Headlamp Research, which is designing tools for people to do research online. They haven’t released their toolset yet, but I just took their “What do we need to be doing?” survey and was really impressed. If nothing else, they’re asking all the right questions.

They’re not relevant for the work I’m doing on Advance, because I’m rolling my own tools into the game itself – but by the time I’m ready to begin a new study, it seems like they’ll have some really powerful tools available, plus a user population already in place. Self-selection effects could be problematic (after all, you’re only testing the kinds of people who sign up to do research online!) but I find their approach really inspiring.

Take the rush survey.

Take the relax survey.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Advance! Main Screen

Advance! Job Detail

Advance! Character Detail

Assumption: we have insufficient capacity of understanding to be able to act in a complex and global environment. We must count on skilled teams that are committed and self-organized to react at a local level in a global strategy. Strategic positioning requires people free of prejudice and a positive attitude committed to change. So, the ability to learn dynamically at both individual and organizational levels is essential with a focus on being able to apply the changes to facilitate adaptation to this environment. Games and simulations are capable of permitting this type of learning through an experiential form, which facilitates the understanding and integration of complex systems. 

A system is defined as a set of interdependent and interrelated elements. Systemic thinking provides us a way to visualize these relationships. Games help us understand complex dynamics and are ideal for learning systemic skills. It permits an environment that breaks the social forms of organization, and provides a safe zone for players to explore a replica of a real-time environment. This is because a game can be used as a representation or an abstraction of a much larger system.

How can a game change our mental models to create a shared model that goes beyond our individual value systems and ideas?  Some features of games that enable behavioral change:

1. Voluntary learning
2. Creating conflict (by leading players to question the validity of their existing biases)
3. Risk-free environment
4. Compression of time and space (allowing players to know the outcomes of their decisions in a short while of play)

It’s an interesting, if brief, piece about getting gaming experiences to the BRIC countries (that’s Brazil, Russia, India and China for those who don’t read The Economist regularly).  I’m particularly curious about the development of serious games for this audience.  That’s an unspoken part of why I’m committed to exploring the casual and mobile genres for serious games – because high-end PC games, virtual worlds and console games just aren’t going to reach this audience anytime soon.