Serious Games: Fun vs. Reality
Markus Lacay
Joe Casey
Applied Visions, Inc.
Northport, NY 11768
631-759-3923
[email protected]
[email protected]
Keywords:
Serious Games, Game Design, Simulation, Training, MDA, ISD
ABSTRACT: Serious games enrich simulation and training applications by encouraging regular practice and
high player engagement. In addition to reducing development costs and overhead, serious games act as a
gateway to students, allowing them to attain mastery over a range of domains traditionally learned through
instructor-led training scenarios. However, most games are designed with entertainment and not education in
mind – forming a tension when attempting to apply gaming concepts towards educational training. This can
often lead to mediocre results, either lacking in contextual substance or visceral appeal, which ultimately
undermines any attempt to facilitate learning. Here we propose a game design methodology that mitigates these
issues by first constructing a functional set of “Reality Requirements” and then defining the game’s Mechanical,
Dynamic and Aesthetic (MDA) model with the focus of complementing an Instructional Systems Design (ISD).
Using AVI’s own Convoy Routing game developed for the Marines, “The Gauntlet”, we will show the advantage of
designing Serious Games as hybrid products that value both instructional and gaming concerns equally.
1. Introduction
The academic and gaming communities have
expended considerable amount of effort to merge
their interests into what is now known as
“educational gaming” or “edutainment.” More
recently, a number of industries have begun to
explore the value of using games for training
applications, resulting in a new type of game
called “serious games.” The benefits of using these
games to help train individuals for real life tasks
has been documented in a number of fields – most
notably in medicine and defense(1) (2). However, as
this new gaming arena matures, it has become
evident that special care must be taken while
developing training scenarios that are both
engaging and informative. Satisfying both criteria
can be difficult, especially when weighing the
potential effects of negative learning and lack of
“fun factor.” Addressing this conflict is critical in
order to succeed in designing a balanced game
that appeals to the needs of both players and
educators alike. This paper takes these issues into
consideration and proposes a design methodology
that approaches the development of serious
games with respect to the concept of “fun” and its
effect on reality-based training. Using AVI’s own
serious game title The Gauntlet as an example, it
will show that taking elements from formal design
systems can be beneficial to the successful design
of serious games.
2. Background
There are many approaches to both instructional
learning and game design. Most notably, the
development of systems to describe instructional
processes have been packaged in the form of
(3)
Instructional System Design (ISD) . By
comparison, less is known about the merits of
systematic game design. Though less established
than ISD, some game design systems show
promise due to their componentization of gaming
concepts into quantifiable parts.
2.1. Mechanical Dynamic Aesthetic (MDA)
The MDA framework is a game design system that
has recently received much praise because of its
simplicity and immediate utility. MDA formalizes
the consumption of games by breaking them into
their distinct components and establishing their
design counterparts(4).
Rules
System
"Fun"
Mechanics
Dynamics
Aesthetics
Design, Development, Implement, Evaluate
(ADDIE) model developed by the US Army; it is
the most commonly used form of ISD today(6).
Mechanics describes the particular
components of the game, at the level of data
representation and algorithms.
Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of
the mechanics acting on player inputs and each
other’s outputs over time.
Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional
responses evoked in the player, when she
interacts with the game system.
Figure 1 - Overview of MDA Architecture
The fundamental idea behind this framework is
the idea that games are more closely related to
artifacts than media. By this, Hunicke, et al.
believes that the content of a game is its behavior,
and not the media that is presented to the
player (4).
This distinction is helpful to designers because it
frames games as systems that build behavior via
interaction. It allows for “clearer design choices
and analysis at all levels of study and
development.” (4) Using this approach, other rule
based systems, such as ISD, can be integrated with
the components of MDA. Complementing one
another, they can both be used to formally
describe the relationship players have between
serious games and their respective learning
material.
2.2. Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
ISD is a process that broadly starts by determining
the needs of the learner, and then identifies the
goals of instruction – creating coursework to
assist the student’s transition into mastery over
the instructional goals. Developed by the US
military, ISD was designed out of a need to rapidly
train a large number of people in increasingly
complex technical tasks. Originally this process
was depicted in a waterfall fashion where each
step depends on the completion of the last –
leading to criticisms of ISD appearing to be too
rigid and linear(5). This was addressed by the
introduction of the more dynamic Analysis,
Figure 2 - Overview of ADDIE dynamic ISD model
These learning models pair well with formal game
systems because of their relationship to rulebased processes. Using games with respect to an
ISD pose unique challenges to serious game
designers as the driving force behind game design
(fun) can often seem at odds with those behind
Instructional Design (mastery).
3. Fun under forced conditions
Because of their dual nature, serious games can
run the risk of being mistakenly seen as
subordinate material to an ISD. The result of
taking this stance not only hampers game design
efforts but will ultimately limit the potential gains
one can expect to see from using serious games as
supporting learning materials. To avoid this we
suggest that games be seen as self-sustained
complementary systems that, while supportive of
ISD objectives, are not designed without careful
consideration for player needs. Brathwaite and
Schreiber describe “good game design” as being
“player-centric”(7).
Though serious games are inevitably to be used in
training environments where participation is
mandatory, it is important to note that “play” is
involuntary and cannot be willed through effort (8).
This understanding is necessary to honestly
evaluate gameplay in a way that respects the
reasons people play games. It is because of the
game’s potential to provide interactively engaging
experiences that they can enrich the lives of
players and help support learning.
3.1. Player Needs
Raph Koster’s milestone work, A Theory of Fun for
Game Design, leads the way on the recent study of
what game players want in relationship with fun.
In it, he frames the discussion by showing how
game designers and players share opposite goals –
one being to create uncertainty and the other
being to eradicate it. Koster supports his thesis by
showing that while the human brain constantly
desires new problems to solve it also wishes to
remove them. He continues to say, “Those of us
who want games to be fun are fighting a losing
battle against the human brain…” (9)
According to the early work of Bartle, Player
needs can be broadly described by the human
desires of: exploration, achievements, socializing
and conquest over others (10). Though originally
intended as an overview of virtual worlds, such as
Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) or Massive Online
Multiplayer Role Playing Games (MMORPGs),
Bartle’s taxonomy of player interests serves as a
valuable starting point for understanding the
motivation behind why people play games(10).
motivations model appears to show promise in
being applied more generally.
Achievement
Social
Immersion
Advancement
Socializing
Discovery
Progress, Power,
Accumulation,
Status
Casual Chat,
Helping Others,
Making Friends
Exploration, Lore,
Finding Hidden
Things
Mechanics
Relationship
Role-Playing
Numbers,
Optimization,
Templating,
Analysis
Personal, SelfDisclosure, Find
and Give Support
Story-Line,
Character History,
Roles, Fantasy
Competition
Teamwork
Customization
Challenging
Others,
Provocation,
Domination
Collaboration,
Groups, Group
Achievements
Appearances,
Accessories, Style,
Color Schemes
Escapism
Relax, Escape
from RL, Avoid RL
Problems
Figure 4 - Nick Yee's player motivation categories
Understanding games from the player’s
perspective is critical in designing an engaging
experience for players. Without this perspective, a
game’s design is sure to suffer in terms of quality
and overall player reception. Neurobiological
studies have shown a strong correlation between
positive reinforcement and the opportunity for
long term learning(12). Taking advantage of this
fact, a deeper understanding of player psychology
can be achieved through the study of the positive
psychology that describe focused motivation, or
“flow.”
Figure 3 - Bartle's player types for virtual worlds
Building upon the notion of there being several
player motivations, Yee’s Daedalus Project
expands on these concepts and deeply
investigates both the motivation and lifecycle of
players(11). The Daedalus Project points out several
limitations in Bartle’s taxonomy and shows that “it
would be hard to use Bartle’s model on a practical
basis unless it was validated with and grounded in
empirical data.”(11) In contrast, Yee’s work is
backed by a multi-faceted empirical study
spanning six years. He goes on to show that we
can generalize player motivations into three
categories: Achievement, Social, and Immersion.
While also focused on MMORPGs, Yee’s player
3.2. Player “Flow”
The concept of flow, proposed by Mihály
Csíkszentmihály, is a positive psychology theory
that describes the human experience of being fully
immersed in a state of focused motivation(13). In
this theory, there are three conditions necessary
to achieve flow state:
1.
2.
One must be involved in an activity with a
clear set of goals. This adds direction and
structure to the task(13).
One must have a good balance between
the perceived challenges of the task at
hand and his or her own perceived skills.
One must have confidence that he or she
is capable to do the task at hand(13).
3.
The task at hand must have clear and
immediate feedback. This helps the
person negotiate any changing demands
and allows him or her to adjust his or her
performance to maintain the flow
state(13).
Csíkszentmihály continues to describe flow as
representing a harnessing of emotions in the
service of performance and learning. Some of the
effects of flow are feelings of spontaneous joy,
rapture and elation while performing tasks(14).
Figure 5 - Mental state in terms of challenge level and
skill level, according to Csíkszentmihály
These concepts describe the ideal state of play
where a player is fully engaged in the activity at
hand – thus being more receptive to learning. It is
because of these observations that game designers
have started to pay great attention to the meaning
behind individual game mechanics and their
systematic impact on gameplay. In the
development of serious games, the design of
mechanics is given a new dimension of complexity
due to their need to complement the realities of
training. In designing The Gauntlet these issues
were non-trivial and required a number of design
revisions paired with quality input from subject
matter experts (SMEs) that could guide the overall
“feel” of gameplay with respect to reality.
4. Game Mechanics are not Reality
Game mechanics are the components through
which games express their rule sets and allow the
player to interact with them. They can be
exemplified through the rolling of dice, use of
“power-up” items, or ways to attack an enemy.
Brathwaite and Schreiber describe game design
“[when distilled down to its essence] is about
creating opportunities for players to make
meaningful decisions that affect the outcome of
the game.”(7) The purposes of game mechanics are
to allow players to interact with a game’s rules in
ways that permit them to make meaningful
choices.
How game mechanics are selected by designers
depend on many factors. Issues of theming,
aesthetics, avatars and dynamics are frequently
brought into the discussion in order to determine
the value that a particular mechanic, or rule,
brings to the table. Sometimes, mechanics are
even chosen for the sake of themselves, giving rise
to “twitch” based gameplay as is seen in the early
arcade games that had very thin plotlines with a
heavy emphasis on challenging gameplay.
Normally, mechanics are introduced in the
interest of player enjoyment. Usually this
approach results in mechanics having only a vague
semblance to reality with less attention to factual
accuracy and more towards satisfying the player’s
expectations. However, in the case of serious
games, this “reality gap” is often considered
unacceptable and the fidelity of a game can be
considered as important as the gameplay itself. To
resolve this discrepancy, we propose that all
mechanic aspects of a game must be in support of
one or more “reality requirements” derived
through ISD and SME input. To understand how
this works more clearly, we take the example of
how Marine convoy operations doctrine and SME
input played a large role in designing The Gauntlet
– a serious game based upon the framework used
in Applied Vision’s convoy planning application,
AVIsor.
4.1. Serious Objectives
The process of mapping reality onto a serious
game’s mechanics begins with understanding and
defining the goals of the desired training from the
perspective of the instructor. By this it is meant
that the design of all serious games must begin
with a set of instructional objectives that are
distinctly serious in nature. Without starting from
this point, it will be very difficult to produce an
informative and engaging interactive experience
that simply “feels right” to players. It is only after
the primary goals have been defined that our
process asks designers to conceptually decompose
these goals into two sets, reality requirements and
game mechanics.
4.1.1. Reality Requirements
Defining ISD and SME input into a set known as
the reality requirements is a critical step in
providing gameplay that both feels believable and
enjoyable. In this set, it is expected that the atomic
components of the overall instructional goals will
be represented. For example, a convoy planner
learning how to respond to incident reports may
deal with a vehicle failure, contact with enemy
forces, or scheduling conflicts. Each of these is a
reality requirement and will contribute greatly to
deciding which game mechanics should ultimately
be used.
4.1.2. Game Mechanics
Prepared with a set of reality requirements,
serious game designers can more accurately gauge
which mechanics are most appropriate given the
tone set by the reality. Conceptually listing game
mechanics will be a helpful exercise for
brainstorming and later design purposes. Game
development can progress in unpredictable ways
and what may initially seem like a “good” idea can
be later shown to be less favorable when
contrasted with others. Allowing sufficient leeway
for new ideas during this phase may prove to be
beneficial later on in design, when looking for
alternative approaches.
Taking each of these points into the reality
requirements set gives us a strong basis for the
type of game mechanics we are to consider in the
development of our game. From here we can make
mechanics that allow the player to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Control convoy movement
Throw smoke grenades
Fire at enemies
Request UAV support
Note that while there are five reality
requirements, there are only four suggested game
mechanics. In fact, there can be an unlimited
number of game mechanics with the only
requirement being that each reality requirement
must be represented in some way by at least one
game mechanic.
In this example, we have each reality requirement
represented by a game mechanic where III and IV
which are both represented by the game mechanic
c – the ability for a convoy to fire at enemies.
4.2. Mapping reality onto mechanics
Once the reality requirements and mechanics have
been mapped out, the process of mapping reality
onto mechanics can begin. We can conceptualize
this process as finding a function that describes
the relationship between two abstract sets, reality
requirements and game mechanics, where its
mapping is surjective or onto. In this case, each
element in reality requirements must map onto at
least one element in game mechanics. For example,
in researching convoy operations for The
Gauntlet’s design, it was found that when convoys
are faced with sniper fire there are multiple
regulated procedures for how to handle this
situation (15). Namely, they are:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Do not stop
Throw smoke to screen enemy
observation, if wind conditions permit
Suppress the area in the sniper’s general
direction.
Provide suppressive fires and supporting
arms.
Be vigilant of potential future
confrontations
Figure 6 - Function diagram of mapping reality onto
mechanics (surjective function)
The advantage of this approach becomes apparent
as multiple reality requirements arise and begin to
overlap with each other. For instance, a convoy’s
response to an ambush shares several similarities
with its response to sniper fire as they both
require that “Vehicles caught in the kill zone
continue to move.” And “Vehicles find positions to
return suppressive fire.”(15) When
each
requirement is laid out next to the game’s
mechanics, it becomes apparent which mechanics
contribute greatest to the overall training
objectives and which are superfluous.
This mechanic was most notably popularized in
Blizzard Entertainment’s groundbreaking game
StarCraft (16) . Inevitably, the suggestion of using
this mechanic had crept its way into The Gauntlet’s
design discussions and was the subject of many
heated debates. Like every design team, The
Gauntlet’s has its own bias and prefers mechanics
that have been proven to work for certain types of
games – in this case – resource acquisition and
RTS.
Figure 7 - Convoy Continues to Move (Taken from U.S.
Marines Convoy Operations Handbook, pp. 3-3)
4.3. Avoiding Negative Learning
In practice, the introduction of game mechanics
that bear no relationship to the reality
requirements is bound to occur, though should be
avoided. The situations where this does occur
should be deliberate and have good reason for
doing so. For instance, let us investigate the effect
of introducing a new game mechanic that doesn’t
fit well with the learning objectives of The
Gauntlet i.e. e – Fuel Resource Acquisition.
There were a number of problems with using a
resource acquisition mechanic in a convoy trainer.
For example, convoy planners do not order
convoys around in “god-like” fashion while they
acquire minerals, nor do they typically concern
themselves with the construction of missile
turrets – as are both the case in StarCraft. As a
simple rule of thumb, we found that serious game
mechanics always need to be both realistic and
mindful of the overall learning objectives. Without
quantifying the relationship between reality
requirements and game mechanics early on in
design, there is a strong potential for additional
project overhead due to late refactoring in the
development cycle – adding to overall costs.
5. Maximize fun without reducing
realism
In Jesse Schell’s definitive work The Art of Game
Design he writes, “As a game designer trying to
design an experience, your goal is to figure out the
essential elements that really define the
experience you want to create, and find ways to
make them part of your game design.”(17) It is with
this observation in mind that we found value in
revisiting the reality requirements after gaining
insight from elaborating the game mechanics.
Using these insights, serious game designers will
be in a much better position to evaluate what
works and what doesn’t within the context of a
game with a “real purpose”.
5.1. Finding the fun
Figure 8 – Function diagram mapping reality onto
unbalanced mechanics (non-surjective function)
Here we suggest the introduction of very typical
Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game mechanic where a
player is tasked with acquiring mineral resources
that can be used as currency when building units.
Serious games aren’t all serious. In fact, much
must be done in order to make the gameplay
enjoyable so that it may be used as a learning tool.
However, while fun is desirable in nearly every
game, it can often defy analysis(17). In the design
of The Gauntlet, we found that taking another pass
over the game mechanics proved to be useful in
isolating which parts of the game were fun and
how we can build upon them. Referring back to
the example where a convoy must continue
moving during an ambush (depicted in Figure 7)
we had originally settled on representing this
reality using a mechanic where the player will be
able to order convoys to move at will. Using this as
a starting point, we then proceeded to dissect this
mechanic – trying to understand its role in the
overall game and how we can maximize its fun.
There were many ways to approach this. First, we
evaluated how large a role ambushes played in
convoy operations in order to determine how
central the mechanic should be to the gameplay.
After reviewing our SME and ISD material, we
determined that concerns over being ambushed
are quite important to a convoy planner and
should be a central focus of our game. Second, we
thought of ways to enhance the dramatic element
of moving through hostile areas. Brainstorming
sessions were helpful in suggesting approaches to
stall or halt convoy movement in ways that were
conducive to other aspects of the gameplay. For
instance, each convoy can have vehicle failures
that delay or obstruct movement all together. We
chose to time these failures at critical junctures
when the enemy threat is high in order to increase
challenge and provide an opportunity to focus on
other aspects of training. This scenario proved to
be useful as it provided the player with an
additional sense of entertainment and realism.
5.2. Pruning “chores”
Simulations and models are often utilized for their
attention to detail, but in a game, details can
quickly become meticulous and mindless chores.
A low-skill, low-challenge activity can produce
apathy in the player.
Occasionally these mundane mechanics can be
removed via abstraction, but in situations where
removal is unsatisfactory, automation is an
answer. Instances where player decisions have
little or no impact on the game are considered
false choices and can be bundled together and
short-circuited with a single event. Consider a
typical first-person shooter wherein players enter
the arena with a full arsenal of weapons. They are
not required to walk to a gun counter to obtain
these arms. It would be a needless chore done by
every player every time he or she began play.
If the game mechanic attached to a low priority
reality requirement is found to be tedious,
designers should consider removing the mechanic
and replacing it with relevant information
originally intended to be conveyed by that
mechanic. For The Gauntlet, we began with a
reality requirement that convoy planners must
perform vehicle checks. The player avatar would
be tasked with verifying tire pressure, oil and
coolant levels, and other mechanical attributes.
The game mechanic for performing this action
involved moving the player avatar to the vehicles
and manually investigating each vehicle
component. It was a painstaking activity which
detracted from the focus of The Gauntlet: the en
route convoy operations. Instead, we allow the
player to access safety checklists to ensure that all
vehicles are safe during mission briefing.
6. Summary
In the same spirit as game design, in this paper we
covered a wide variety of topics ranging from
player motivation models and positive psychology
to set theory. Using each as a lens into game
design, we showed how they can be useful tools
for serious game developers wishing to refine
their designs. Using our own title, The Gauntlet, as
an example, we showed how it was helpful to
approach its design from multiple angles. We
believe that in order to advance, serious games
need to be designed using dualistic approaches
and weight the needs of both players and
instructors equally. It is our hope that similar
approaches will arise and result in the
development of serious games of a higher quality
than seen thus far.
7. References
1. Bokhari MD, Ravia et al. Design, Development
and Validation of a Take-Home Simulator for
Fundamental Laparoscopic Skills: Using Nintendo
Wii® for Surgical Training. Wii Surgery. [Online]
Human Machine Symbiosis Lab, Department of
Biomedical Informatics, Arizona State University,
2010. [Cited: December 1, 2010.]
http://symbiosis.asu.edu/wiisurg/research.html.
2. Bohemia Interactive Australia Pty Ltd. White
Paper: VBS2. s.l. : Bohemia Interactive , 2010.
3. Esseff, Peter J. and Esseff, Mary Sullivan.
Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS).
s.l. : ESF Press, (1998) [1970]. ISBN 1582830371.
4. MDA: A formal approach to game design and
game research. Hunicke, Robin, Leblanc, Marc
and Zubek, Robert. 2004. Challenges in Games AI
Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference of
Artificial Intelligence.
5. Clark, D. R. Instructional System Design
Concept Map. [Online] [Cited: December 1, 2010.]
http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/isd.htm
l.
6. U.S. Army Field Artillery School. A System
Approach To Training. 1984. ST - 5K061FD92.
7. Brathwaite, Brenda and Schreiber, Ian.
Challenges for Game Designers: non-digital
exercises for video game designers. Boston : Course
Technology, 2009. 1-58450-580-X.
8. Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens. s.l. : Beacon
Press, 1971. ISBN 0807046817.
9. Koster, Raph. A Theory of Fun for Game Design.
s.l. : Paraglyph Press, 2009. ISBN 1-932111-97-2.
10. Bartle, Richard. HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS,
SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS. [Online]
[Cited: December 1, 2010.]
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.
11. Yee, Nick. The Daedalus Project. [Online]
[Cited: December 1, 2010.]
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus.
12. Hamann, Stephan and Mao, Hui. Positive and
negative emotional verbal stimuli elicit activity in
the left amygdala. Neuroreport. 2002, Vol. 13, 1.
13. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S. and
Nakamura, J. "Flow". [book auth.] A. Elliot.
Handbook of Competence and Motivation. New
York : Guilford Press, 2005.
14. Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence: Why
It Can Matter More Than IQ . s.l. : Bantam, 2006.
055380491X.
15. U.S. Marine Corps. Convoy Operations
Handbook. Honolulu, Hawaii : University Press of
the Pacific, 2005. 1-4102-2091-5.
16. Blizzard Entertainment. StarCraft. [Online]
[Cited: 12 1, 2010.] http://us.blizzard.com/enus/games/sc/.
17. Schell, Jesse. The Art of Game Design: A book of
lenses. s.l. : Morgan Kaufmann, 2008. ISBN
0123694965.
Author Biographies
Markus Lacay is a Senior Game Engineer for
Applied Visions, Inc. in Northport, NY. He is lead
developer on the game described in this paper - as
well as its parent SBIR project, Adaptive
Visualization of Safe Optimized Routes (AVIsor). He
has played key development roles on several DoD
funded projects at AVI that focus on adapting
game technology to military C2 and training
systems. Mr. Lacay holds a B.S and an M.S. in
Computer Science with a concentration in Gaming
and Visualization, both from Stony Brook
University. His master’s thesis topic Visual Game
Tuning: Integrating Interactive Visualizations into
Game Design introduced visual analytics into the
game development cycle as a means of improving
Quality Assurance and design decisions. With over
ten years of experience in software development,
his expertise includes data visualization and game
design for immersive, console and mobile
environments.
Joseph Casey is a Software Engineer for Applied
Visions, Inc. in Northport, NY. There he adapts
gaming technology for several SBIRs, as well as
develops serious games intended to teach safe
computing habits.
Casey has significant experience with developing
virtual worlds, including Open Simulator. He cofounded a video game company whose product
was a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing
Game (MMORPG) for Facebook.
Mr. Casey holds a B.S. in Computer Science with a
concentration in Game Design and Programming
from Marist College as well as an M.S. in Software
Development from the same institution. His
graduate work focused on Natural Language
Processing and Distributed systems.