Non-Profit Organizations could be using games to communicate their mission fast, far, and wide. This workshop aims to demonstrate the potential of games to inform and motivate a wide audience. Attendees will work in small groups, directly with NPOs, to design mission-based games. Representatives from three local NPOs will be on hand to explain their missions and participate in the brainstorming. Attendees will choose one of the three missions as the theme for their design challenge, and work collaboratively over 45 minutes to design and share ideas. Game design experience is not necessary. Creativity is!

Register for IGDC now.
Use these discount codes:

• VIP: IGCEVIP09 10% OFF
• IGDA: IGDAIGCE09 10% OFF
• STUDENT: IGCE09EDU 50% OFF

Bob Kerrey’s introduction: we must reinforce “both the ideas and the commitments necessary to make democracy work… Being critical is not critical thinking”

“I’ve become increasingly concenred about vitriolic attacks… on judges — that judges are activist… Now I always thought that an activist judge is someone who gets up in the morning and go to work.” “Public education is the only long-term solution to preserving an independent judiciary and the system of government we have.”

“The politicians are slowly learning how to communicate with and inspire the next generation — not only through rallies, speeches… young people are getting engaged with civic life through the Internet… and through these mechanisms young people can have leadership roles through tools that belong to their generation. First we need to engage young people that government has real impact on their lives, and that they can have a real impact on government.”

Our Courts for 7-9 graders to engage with real legal issues and problems, and enable them to find solutions to tough problems, to step into the shoes of a legislator, executive, judge. Two parts to the website:

1. Curriculum for classrooms. One unintended consequence of No Child Left Behind is that it has squeezed out civics education. The primary purpose of public schools in America is to help produce citizens who have the knowledge, skills, and values to sustain our republic as a nation, to keep our democratic form of government. Stimulate real thinking and debate and a commitment to civic engagement.
2. For young people to use on their free time. Young people are inherently interested in fairness and justice. We just need to present this in the language and mechanisms. Working with Jim Gee to make this truly interactive, using young people’s interest in arguing and expression. Arguing real issues with the computer and each other, using real legal arguments.

In response to Reuters: “I don’t play video games… sorry!”

In response to the New York Times: By next fall, we’ll have the fundamental outlines on the website for teachers. By the following September we hope to have Jim Gee’s very engaging parts online. Example of gameplay: T-Shirts being passed around schools that raise First Amendment issues. “I’d love to put up something for the students about the Second Amendment issue that the Supreme Court is addressing this year. These are things that students can learn to be engaged in. We can provide them with the text from the Constitution, and the precedents, and they can make good arguments for both sides. It would be a vehicle for enabling students to understand what the Constitution is, how the courts have to interpret it from time to time, and to make up their minds on their own.”

“I think that the interactive media on computers serve us better because I’ve observed my own grandchildren. And they will sit in front of the computer screens and be engaged in it for a long time. And that tells me that it’s a good vehicle to use. I also believe that when we learn something, a principle or concept, by doing it, by having it happen to us, which you can do by the medium of a computer, you learn by doing, and I think you remember and understand it better.”

“It’s easier for the classroom teachers”

Notes from the “Moving Markets” panel at G4C…

Robert Nashak (Worldwide Casual Studios, EA) — we’re looking for emotional connection, and what better way to connect emotionally than to do something people care about?

Richard Lemarchand (Naughty Dog) — grow our audience, deeper narrative — story games that marry videogame play with rich storytelling, strong characters.

Austin Hill (Akoha) — Because of new models, we can look at new distribution mechanisms for games with meaning. Over $100M invested in “casual” or “socially meaningful” games — and some are more risk bearing than the public sector. For example: Handypoints for doing chores, Grokkit for school prep in an MMO, Lumos Labs, Vivid E labs.

Christophe Watkins (Artificial Mind and Movement) — Now that we have kids, we feel we have social responsibility, and we want to keep finding new ways to develop games.

How are games pushed through? Internal pipeline, prototyping, video versions, etc… Can be year-long.

Austin: Is there a market trend you’re after? Is this a great team of entrepreneurs? Are you efficient with capital? There is a market for meaning whether it’s from social gathering or from narrative. Example of Club Penguin spinning off hundreds of copies. I believe the next big thing is games with meaning: something that adds game mechanics that add real-life meaning to life.

Modding to let players create their own narratives, impact. Nashak — The Sims illustrates the user becoming co-author with the game designer of the stories; see also SimCity Societies’ “green” tinge in partnership with BP. Echoed by Christophe: games are historically social, an excuse for people to get together through the game. Austin: “Funware,” putting the “fun” in “functional,” e.g. Facebook as networking game and Ebay as social reputation / shopping game.

Marketing/Distribution — Alan Gershenfeld suggests foundations think of themselves as game publishers if they want to enter that market. But being a game publisher is really hard! Can foundations work with publishers in partnership? Foundations are willing to do high-risk investment that’s powerful R&D, while publishers can make it happen.

Austin — Consider other funding, distribution, revenue models even as cost structures fall due to open source and open distribution. If you can get the concept working and out there, you can walk in and ask for money to get to the next level. Christophe — PS3: $15-30M+. Virtual world for kids: $300K+, plus competing with all the also-rans.

Alan — Possible to slip into a company with the assets, manpower and do a short-form game to get people excited between product shipments?

Robert — Cultivate a very focused market that you can bring in as an asset.

Austin — The time is now for meaningful games, it’s going to happen in the next 2-3 years, and when that occurs, every investor is going to crowd the space, and it’s going to become commonplace and you’ll see a lot of crap out there. If you have an idea for a meaningful game, now is the time to talk to commercial partners so you’re part of the rising trend.

Richard — Games are starting to mature as a literary medium. The technology and techniques is letting us talk about the same subject matter as books and film. Consider the role of Charles Dickens in social reform as a crafter of pop media.

Nashak — the revenue model isn’t clear, right now demonstrate that you can get the users / audience.

Target audience: elementary kids, not as young as Sesame audience. How to blend affordances of digital media.

Signature programs: Research Innovation Fund (how new media applications can accelerate children’s learning), Cooney Prizes for Excellence in Digital Media (recognizing “half baked” ideas), Cooney Fellows Program, Advocacy & Dissemination Program.

Two new projects: Intergenerational Video Game Project (new model for literacy, with Tracy Fullerton); ComicSpace literacy-buildng website (with E-Line Ventures / Alan Gershenfeld)

See D is for Digital: market scan of media for 3-11, concern for intentional educational design

See The Power of Pow! Wham! by Dr. Rima Shore — harnessing the new “wasteland” for learning

See Getting Over the Slump: Innovation Strategies to Promote Children’s Learning by Jim Gee and especially 6 recommendations.

Forthcoming: Games for the Future: The Potential of Video Games… findings: Video games can boost American competitiveness through participatory culture, mobilize + change; new R&D mechanism to PROVE the efficacy of game-based learning tools for specific sectors. Recommendations: new teaching/learning style, alternate assessments. Industry: new incentives to invest in R&D of game-based learning, CSR investments, double/triple-bottom-line-investments. Policy: National Center for Research in Information and Digital Technologies; public-private venture funds; CPB funding for R&D on video games.

Jessica Goldfin (Knight): Lead journalism into the 21th century. Good journalism is about democracy. See Knight challenge.

Arlene de Strulle (NSF): Cyber-learning initiative based on large investment in nation’s cyber-infrastructure. We need new ways of understanding the new learner — decentralized learning, anytime anywhere. We don’t know the cognitive implications of cyber-learning. Understanding science crucial to participating in cultural change.

Brad (Corporation for National & Community Service): Change — engaging citizens as problem-solvers.

Picking up Eric’s question from the last panel challenging assessment/evidence — What questions do we still need to answer?

Ben — evidence is central. “Does this really work?” We need to be creative. But this doesn’t mean we need a “killer app.” Compare documentary films’ effect. If we have exemplars of a number of different games, showing different kinds of learning, we can show diversity of gameplay, of outcomes. MacArthur trying to tell the story of games that do interesting things. Jim Gee now coming up with new models for assessment. With participation as key, outcomes from learning are overlapping with outcomes from civic engagement. Right now: $50M over 5 years, or $10M/year. Tended to fund games exceeding the garage capacity, $100K+. When funding a game, it’s for design research.

Jessica — We don’t know what we don’t know. It’s a great opportunity to figure out a middle ground.

Arlene — NSF requires stringent formative evaluation. What’s particularly transformative about this particular genre of learning?

Brad — $3.5M last year, maybe multiples next year.

Shelly Pasnik (EDC): If assessment is about what we know, we need to be more sophisticated about describing what we know.

Karin Hillhouse (Ashoka) gave the example of Wired and the potential for changing hearts and minds. If Wired had been tested and focus-grouped it would never had been on the air.

Fran C. Blumberg (Fordham) gave a very focused presentation on nuts and bolts of evaluation for games. Will playing games induce attitude change? Inducing such change is very difficult — especially if message is inconsistent with long-ingrained values/attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Interest do go up from the games (Gee, Squire)… but what are they actually learning — this is still in investigation.

What can be measured: 3×3 grid:
Stage: before / during / after
Effect: Motivation to elaborate content of desired social change / knowledge acquisition, comprehension / attitude change

DURING
Motivation: Enjoyment promotes greater attention to social message
Knowledge: Narrative facilitates comprehension; multi-player game promotes communication about the content

AFTER (Transfer)
Motivation: Enjoyment promotes repeated play. Enjoyment prompts greater thinking about the game between play. Enjoyment prompts talking about social messages with others.
Knowledge: Immersive nature of game enhances likelihood of transfer to real world.

VEHICLES FOR ASSESSMENT

• Play diaries (blogs)
• Focus groups
• Surveys on frequency of play, frequency of behaviors initiated as a result of game play
  Recall of game information

Shelly Pasnik presented case study evaluations of Global Kids games (Ayiti, ICED). Perspective-taking in ICED changed the way players thought about the issue: identifying with, rather than distant. Ethical scenarios strengthened students’ written feedback.

Zimmerman: industry (19th century), information (20th), the Ludic Century (21st century systems)

Gee: Games not terribly good at delivering information, but at novel experiences: seeing the world in new ways. Can we do as well as the commercial sector in seeing the world differently? Games also as arch problem-solving spaces — essentially a continuous assessment.

Zimmerman: what do we mean by “games for change”? What are the design strategies? Sim as – a procedural representation of a system.

Gee: once you see that a game is a model, you can look behind it to critique the model.

Zimmerman: but not necessarily a good model of everything — they are fundamentally computational, logical. but if the influence is limited to the critique… how is that acceptable for games when not so for film?

Gee: but modding as part of the game — increasingly design is built into the play. a great way for meta-understanding

Zimmerman: range of strategies — information, simulation, design, interest (e.g. SimCity)

Gee: also, preparation for future learning — “failure” now may prep for future success. motivation.

Zimmerman: and also changes in behavior, beyond the player and the game system to the larger context. whether the subject matter or the gameplay.

Gee: future of game designers will be community designers.

Zimmerman: single-player game as a historical anomaly

Gee, channeling Jenkins: It’s a baby boomer attitude to take the game out of the context of convergent media.

Zimmerman: challenge of games that aim to break the frame and relate to the world — games like Pokemon that catch on are hard to design backwards; games are often emergent.

Gee: some things that one might learn is that Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh are systems with blank spaces for people to fill in (both the social/community and also the story)

Zimmerman: danger of G4C is that they’re “heavy,” “pedantic” — understanding play is the seeds of efficacy. Always a structure to play against.

Gee as Portal fanboy: “The game is designed to change the way players approach, manipulate, and surmise the possibilities in a given environment” — marketing description of Portal. Game offers you a tool to look at the world in a different way.

Zimmerman: Portal points out the difficulty. Portal succeeds because it’s a fictional, self-contained world. The unsolved problem: translating what we know about a closed system of a game into the kinds of issues we want to tackle within these games.

Gee: Learning sciences point to people learning best when triggering emotion. Perhaps the real win for social issue games.

Gee: We’ve reached the limit of realism in games. Japanese anime games are deeper emotionally because they are semiotic spaces — raising questions like what constitutes you as human? Get a lot of mileage out of using art assets, not realism.

Gee: Games as documentary of your story.

Zimmerman: Game industry chasing cinema — “cinema envy” — we should seek pleasures unique to games.

Suzanna Samstag Oh (Global Contents Forum) — games for change (”practical games”) in Korea… need for psychological research.

Cindy Poremba (digital media theorist, Concordia University) — is there a game analog of film documentaries? e.g. embedding documents in Brother-in-Arms game. bringing evidentiary materials into a game to convey complexity, multiplicity. DocGames.com

Ken Perlin (Dp’t of Computer Science and Media Research Lab, NYU) — design factors (cognitive, emotional, socio-cultural), deployment context (integration, support), expanded definitions of educational outcomes including affective. Storytelling and entertainment’s power to transform. See ICED game corresponding to The Visitor.

Wendy Cohen (Manager of Community and Alliances, Participant Media) — see Participant’s “pro-social” mission. Now launching takepart. Looking for distribution avenue for games.  wendy at takepart.com

World Without Oil: Rather than teaching that oil dependency is bad, instead ask how an oil shortage would affect your (real person’s) life.

ARGs are more self-aware as an active agent in culture — not a box off the shelf to be consumed. Also as inherently collaborative, interactive.

Content as most expensive, least interesting part of ARGs — get the players to create the content.