Analysis of RPG Game "Sleuth: Shades of Mystery"

Sleuth: Shades of Mystery

General information



The game begins by the player taking on an identity. Player identities can range from a reporter to a retired lawyer. The goal of the game is to solve a case that the game provides. Players can interview suspects, collect evidence from both the crime scene and suspects’ homes, and interview alibis. All evidence collected is kept in a case file and when a suspect has pieces of evidence against him or her and a motive is known, the detective can accuse him or her of the crime. It is recommended that a suspect have 3 pieces of evidence against him or her before accusation. As “detectives” solve crimes, each crime gets more difficult and it becomes more challenging to find information about suspects and clues.



Analysis based on Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory






o Task that the learners can complete: I had never played the game before and was able to determine who committed the crime. It may take more time for some students than others, but finding the suspect is definitely a task that can be completed through finding evidence and asking the right people the right questions. The player is not overwhelmed by the need to find the suspect, small parts like finding evidence then asking questions lead the player in the right direction.



o Ability to concentrate on task: The game is very entertaining as you can find clues hidden in drawers and in vases so you are constantly focusing on the game world and the screen. I think students would definitely be drawn to the set-up of the game and be able to concentrate on solving the crime.



o Task has clear goals: Most students today are familiar with crime solving shows like C.S.I. and will be familiar with the goal of solving a crime. Furthermore, the game explains the goal of each case at the beginning of the case.



o Task provides immediate feedback: This element is not so obvious. There is no score being kept regarding time and while certain parts of the game do cost money like staying in a hotel or making keys, the money does not seem to be a huge concern either. One can look at the “case file” and see how he or she is progressing on the case. They can see what evidence they have on each suspect, how many evidence pieces are against each suspect, and review what they know. If players do not notice the case file right away however (as I did not), then even this feedback will be absent. Players are given hints throughout the game and are given feedback after someone is accused as to whether or not they accused the correct person or not. However, there is not a great deal of immediate feedback, positive or negative, within play time of the game.



o Deep but effortless involvement: The game world created is unlike anything we would experience in real life and players can become involve easily. Thus, this element is definitely present.



o Exercising a sense of control over their actions: Players go where they want, ask what they want, and collect what they want through this game. One can even decide to take evidence or not take evidence that will help with the case, so the player has total control over the play.



o Concern for self disappears during flow: During this game, detectives can illegally obtain keys from a locksmith and break into suspects houses (at least in the case I solved). I felt no fear in doing this, though I did wonder if I waited to do this too close to when the suspects were supposed to return home (as I determined through earlier questioning) if detectives can get “caught.” This never happened for me, but since it is a game world, it did not matter to me anyway. Thus this element of flow exists.



o Sense of duration of time is altered: Detectives have a deadline to meet in the game which is days from when the case begins. I was able to go through about 4 days worth of play in about 20 minutes. I could also “sleep” or have a drink at the local bar in order to make time pass more quickly. I would say the players sense of time is undoubtedly altered.









In conclusion, “Sleuth: Shades of Mystery” contains all of the elements of “flow” needed for students to become motivated learners in the game. The only lacking element I found was immediate feedback, but even that existed to an extent. I know I found myself in a state “flow” as I was playing the game. I didn’t even realize how much time had passed since I started playing it. Once again, I have discovered a new time passer (or waster) for those much needed breaks in mundane, required work in my day.

Analysis of Hearts-- Digital and Non-digital

Hearts

General information



Hearts is a “trick” based card game played by four people. The goal of the game is to have the least number of points. So, one must try to get rid of their cards and avoid receiving or winning a “trick” with point cards involved. All heart cards receive 1 point and the Queen of spades is 13 points. All other cards are 0. At the beginning of each hand, you pass three cards to alternating players going counter-clockwise. There is strategy to this in that you want to keep cards that will allow others to take the tricks but also consider the cards you will be receiving. This takes practice!You want to avoid winning tricks with hearts and the Queen of Spades so that you do not receive points. Once someone reaches 100 points, the game is over and the person with the least number of points at that point wins.




Game components



The game is generally the same whether one is playing digitally or “manually.” There are of course some differences. For example, the rules on the digital version can be found on the website or software program you are using. I used the digital version provided by Microsoft on my computer. That version will explain the rules, give you tips if you want it to, and keep score for you. The rules portion of the digital is definitely stronger than the non-digital version as one can refer back to them as needed. You can also find “tips and tricks” online to use on the digital version that can help you.



Interaction is definitely stronger in the non-digital version. I played the game with my husband, mother, and father after dinner one night and it was actually very comical as none of us are really “experts” at the game. I was trying to teach them (though I just self-taught myself). We were laughing and talking and that is something you do not get with the digital versions. You can “chat” with people if you are using Yahoo games or another game site, but if you are using the form that comes on many computers, there is no interaction.



Chance occurs in both versions and I don’t know exactly how the “robot” players work on the digital games, but they are probably programmed by people who really understand the game. I have a better chance of winning with my family because they are more likely to make errors. Thus, the element of chance is greater when playing the non-digital version.



In my definition of games that I have presented on different occasions, I have mentioned that a game must represent some form of reality. I am beginning to think differently about that because what is “reality” about cards? I guess higher cards winning over lower cards is a life-comparison to government forms, but that is a stretch to me. Thus, neither is really a representation of reality; it is just amusing and a way to make you think.


Interaction

I mentioned interaction previously as that is one of my components of games within my definition. As mentioned, there is much more interaction between players in the non-digital version. The types of communication I observed and participated in with Hearts did not necessarily have to do with the game. Some of it did as my family is very competitive and will make comments to each other when a Queen of Spades or Heart is thrown out and causes someone else to get point, but some of the communication is just light, every day conversation. There were times when everyone was studying cards and not talking at all, but most of the time everyone was just chatting and having fun.



Playing this game took a lot of cooperation because we were all learning (and are still learning). My family is familiar with a similar game called Euchre, so they used their skills in that game to help with Hearts. My family asked me questions as we played and we also figured things out as we went. It took several hands of the game before everyone felt comfortable with the game. We also worked together when scoring to make sure all of the math was correct and everyone received the points they were supposed to receive.



I think I was most engaged in the non-digital game as the person who made everyone play, but my family all wanted to learn the game too. In the digital version, I was very engaged and it, like many of the other games I have discovered, became addicting. Much of that was because I wanted to keep playing until I really understood the strategies. I did not really know how to play the game before, so I read the rules and then just started trying it out. I am a competitive person, so I really want to beat the “robot” players.



Being better at playing a game than my family members is motivation to play and being better than the robots is motivation as well. I think that my students would be motivated to play this game because there is a tangible goal: to have the least number of points. There is a logical way of meeting that goal: don’t win tricks with hearts or the Queen of Spades.


Conclusion:


While anyone can learn to play this game, students with a converging learning style (http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm) would probably respond best to learning the game because it takes thinking and active experimentation at first. Students can read about the game and strategies to use, but it is not until active play that one really understands what cards to give up in the beginning and what cards to lead with in hands. I am definitely still learning, but I think Hearts may be a game I teach to my students. It does not directly relate to my classroom content, but there are times when it is appropriate for students to play games that are not related directly to instruction. I would use this game in after-school activities, recess times, and perhaps even after a test day.

Bloxorz & Garbage Glut

Bloxorz and Garbage Game


Learners’ styles



1. Based on Kolb’s learning styles

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that in a single classroom, nearly every learning style will be present. For the sake of this activity, I am going to base learning styles both from Kolb and Prensky on a student that I worked very closely with in the past year. It has been a couple of months since I have had students daily, so using notes on this student, Eric (pseudonym) is the best way for me to determine to analyze learning styles.

Eric is a sixth grade student (now seventh grade) who struggles with reading. He has some learning difficulties, but is very intelligent and a hard worker. Eric enjoys working in groups and always quietly observes what is going on around him before he begins participation. He is not a risk taker, but will try new things once he feels comfortable. Eric seems to fit most closely in the assimilating learning style as he is a thinker and a watcher.





2. Based on Prensky’s list

Based on my experiences with Eric, I estimated his Prensky score as 33. I have explained the scoring within each box above the score. A score of 33 puts Eric right in the middle between being what I think of as someone who likes a lot going on at once and someone who is a little “type A” and likes things to be organized and sequential.



1. Twitch Speed vs. Conventional speed

High speed reactions motivate/excite you.  OR

You would rather take your time on things.  (All are on a 1-5 Scale)

Eric does not like to be rushed, but he does like getting done and moving on—whether to an advanced level on a game or a different activity. Score: 4



2. Parallel vs. linear processing You like several things going on at once.  OR

You prefer to deal with one thing at a time.

Perhaps it is due to learning difficulties, but Eric does not multi-task well. He like to do things in steps and finish one before doing another. Score: 5


3. Graphics vs. text first
You learn by seeing, finding patterns. OR

You read directions before trying things

 Eric is observant—it s one of his best qualities. However, sometimes he needs some prompting and guidance. Score: 2



4. Random access vs. step-by-step

Bouncing around is fine.You have a hyperlinked mind. OR

Step 3 has to come only after s tep 1 and 2.

Sequential order is generally better for Eric, but he is also flexible and is able to adapt. Score 4


5. Connected vs. standalone
You would like to have three Web windows open, IM your friends, and talk on the phone while working. OR
You would rather take a book to a quite place to work alone.

Eric does not do well would multiple things going, but he does not really like working alone either. Score: 3


6. Active vs. passive
You act first, then ask. OR

You watch for a while before deciding what to do

 Eric is definitely a watcher. He will watch others and watch the teacher before feeling comfortable about what he is doing. Sometimes it does not seem like he is getting it, and then, through his close observation, he is a pro! Score: 5


7. Play vs. work
You fool around to make gains OR

You work hard to make gains

Eric is an exceptionally hard worker, He works to overcome his learning difficulties and truly embraces help that is given to him. Score: 5



8. Payoff vs. patience
You need to know immediately if something is working or not.  OR

You appreciate “delayed gratification”.

He is very patient. Just an easy going kid. He also understands that sometimes getting better takes a lot of repetition and practice. Score: 4


9. Fantasy vs. reality
You are drawn to make-believe situations. OR

You are drawn to today’s news and discussions.

As Eric’s reading teacher, I base this score off of his reading choices.
He loves reading fantasy and always has a story for me about some “out of this world” occurrence he heard about somewhere.  Score: 1


10. Technology as friend vs. foe
You cannot imagine learning or working without a lot of technology in hand. OR

You use technology when it is necessary, but probably have forgotten how to do a few things since the last time you used it.

Eric uses technology daily in my classroom. He loves it! In addition to using interactive software for reading, he also uses word processing as his handwriting is not the best and he can present better work using technology. Score: 2


Eric: Total 33





Analysis of games



1. General information of two games

Development: Bloxorz- DX Interactive Games—Damien Clarke—2007

Purpose: “Get the block to fall in the hole at the end of each stage.” Bloxorz is a logic game. The player must determine how to best move the block to get it to fit into the hole.

Play: Instructions preclude the actual playing of the game. Players use the arrow keys to move and flip their block around platforms. Sometimes the hole that the block must fit in is on a platform that is not connected to where the block is currently located. Bridges must be formed between platforms in order to get from one to another. Landing the block on “switches” enables bridges. There are three different kinds of switches in the game and the block must land on them in different ways in order to form the bridge. The player must use logic to determine how to best maneuver the block to get to each switch, each, bridge, platform, and hole. If a block is moved too far in one direction, it will fall of and the stage must be repeated. The computer tracks the number of moves made. You get more points for fewer moves. There are 33 stages to the game, each one getting more difficult than the other.



Garbage Glut—“Quiz Game”



Development: Gotham Gazette, developer of Garbage Glut is sponsored by donors. The Gotham Gazette “provides independent coverage of the important issues facing New York City and state and the policies and politics that shape life for the city's 8 million residents” (http://www.gothamgazette.com/about/). The Game was developed in 2007 in order to inform people about the effects of their garbage on our environment.





Purpose: The purpose of this game is to make decisions about how you would dispose of your daily garbage in order to decrease the amount of garbage sent to landfills. Your identity in the game is a New York resident where there is always an issue about where to put all the garbage. Players can read an article on the issue before playing the game and also read about their disposal decisions before they make them. The article provides all of the “answers” for how to best dispose of the garbage. That is where the “quiz” part of this game comes in.



Play: Suggestion: read the article before playing the game. This is a very simple game—you read a statement about form of trash you have such as disposable diapers, water bottles and worn hand-towels. Then you make a decision on what to do with them. For example, for the water bottles, you can reuse them, recycle them, or just don’t use plastic bottles at all. Since the goal is to decrease waste, you want to choose what will cut down on waste the most. The problem with this game is that in this part, it is relatively obvious which decision will cause the least amount of waste. It asks you what you “would” do…which does not necessarily correlate with what you choose.

In the second part of the game, you have to determine what to do with the trash that you do have. Players have to think about where the trash goes and how to get it there in the environmentally friendly way. Thus, players must think about mileage, emissions, etc. Players earn points based on their decisions and how “environmentally friendly” their decisions have been.

2. Comparison 1: Game components

Analyze what game components are strong or weak in each game.

Compare the results

Components: Bloxorz

Most of the game components I have deemed necessary in a game were very strong in Bloxorz—it is a game I would encourage my students to play.

Strong:

• Rules—Rules and procedures are clearly explained before the first game is played. However, students can skip them for subsequent playings—which is good.

• Conflict- There is always conflict between how the block will move and how to get it to the necessary location without it falling off the platform.

• Safety—You can’t get much more safe than pressing arrow keys!

• Amusement-I had a great time playing this game. It really makes one want to keep moving on to the next level and definitely had the element of competition with the computer that makes one want to keep going.

• Pieces (cards, game pieces, board, computer, etc.)—the computer is all you need for this game, and all parts seemed to work well.

• Players- this is a one player game, but you are competing with the computer to get your block across the platforms into the hole.

• Interaction—I don’t normally find puzzle and quiz games all that interactive because to me, interaction is something that only happens between people or like-like things. In this game however, you can actually “chat” with others while you play, so it is interactive both in a technological fashion and a person vs. person fashion.

Weaker:

• Representation of some form of reality—This is fun, but not really “real.” I guess in a way it makes you see how something a certain size can only move in certain ways and directions in order to get to a target location, but it does not seem real to me.

• Chance—this is a logic game. Once you get the hang of it, you can kind of figure out exactly how you have to move the block. There is SOME chance however since you don’t know how the platforms will change with each stage.

Garbage Glut:

Stronger:

• Representation of some form of reality—I thought this was the strongest component in the game. Recycling is a hot topic everywhere you go, so this subject will be pertinent to students even if they do not live in NYC.

• Conflict—clearly there is conflict between what we do with our garbage and what we should do with our garbage. Many people do not believe in taking the time to reuse or recycle so this game could actually cause some critical discussion in the classroom.

• Chance—players can make decisions that aren’t the “best” decision and thus their scores will vary based on what they decide. While the article does provide most of the answers, not every player will remember everything.

• Safety- very safe—no risks taken. You can’t even chat while playing this game.

• Amusement- The game takes a little while to play and the actual reading of the article may not be fun for students, but it is fun to see how much garbage you create vs. how much you avoid putting into landfill through your decisions.

• Pieces (cards, game pieces, board, computer, etc.): All you need is your computer!

• Players- This is a one person game, but I think it could be completed with a partner. The reading, especially for a middle school student, could be a little difficult and lengthy. Thus, making this a partner activity would include more players and allow for additional interaction.



Weaker

• Rules—there are no rules given explicitly in this game. In fact, it does not even tell you to read the article first—which I found very helpful. The game would take explanation from the teacher for many students.

• Interaction: More interaction can be created as explained above. The game itself is not all that interactive—that is there were not exciting special effects or audio effects.

Comparison:

To compare these two games would be a little like comparing apples to oranges. Each of them seems to support my view of a game based on the fact that they contain all of the components. However, the way each game is played and the purpose for each game is so different that they can’t really be compared in terms of “good” and “bad.” Bloxorz is definitely a game for someone with a converging learning style as you have to think and experiment in order to figure out the correct moves to make. Garbage Glut is for someone with a more assimilating style as you have to think about your decisions and perhaps observe the effects of you decision on the score and pounds of garbage.

Both games could be amusing for different learning styles. For example, I consider myself to have an assimilating learning style, but I really liked Bloxorz because it was, on the surface, mindless. In reality, one’s mind is actively working for the entire time of play in order to keep the block from falling off of the platform.







3. Comparison 2: Learners’ styles



Based on Eric’s learning style (assimilating) I think that the Garbage Glut game would fit him best since one has to think more when playing the game. However, it’s important to acknowledge that though a game may fit a certain learning style, it would not necessarily fit every student. Eric would probably love the game, but would have to work closely with a teacher or a partner because the reading is so heavy in the game.

Bloxorz does not fit neatly with Eric because it is a game of experimentation. However, Eric does respond well to graphics and I think he would give the game a shot. This is especially true if he were able to watch a few rounds of the play first. For him though, a game with predictable outcomes which can be achieved through thought is probably best.

PeaceMaker Game Analysis

PeaceMaker

Background information

PeaceMaker is a simulation game developed by ImpactGames. ImpactGames strives to create “interactive experiences” based on actual current events. Their goal in developing “real life” simulation games such as this one that deals with the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is to help people become educated on world events through interactive media. An ex-Israeli Army officer, Asi Burak helped develop PeaceMaker and says, “Unlike some other computer games, Peacemaker is not about killing as many enemies as you can. It's not about that, though you certainly have the option. You become one of the leaders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” (NPR, July 18, 2007).

Play features

The object of the game is to make respond to catastrophic events (which are based on actual current events) in ways that will be agreeable to both national and international populations. The goal is to bring peace to this region which has been experiencing chaos for decades. In the game, you can be an Israeli leader or a Palestinian leader. The role you choose will greatly affect the game—so players can assume both rolls at different times to see how the perspectives differ. Players can choose from three different levels—calm, tense, or violent. Obviously, the violent level is the most difficult and cause for the most leader intervention.

In the end, you want both the national and international population to be happy with the decisions made and thus peace will be accomplished. Players can educate themselves about the locations they are make decisions about and the decisions themselves simply by clicking on the area or choice. The game gives descriptions of each major city in the area and provides advisors to help out with the decision making process.

Representation

The “game world” represented in PeaceMakers basically positions the player as the leader of a country (Palestine or Israel…you choose). The player has a view of the entire map-based region of conflict. When a conflict or event occurs, photos and videos of real people accompany the description. The events that occur in the game are actual events that have occurred and can even be referenced in newspaper and magazine articles. In addition to the actual information being about the real world, the decisions made regarding security, international speeches, border control, etc. affect the national and international acceptance toward the leader. These decisions of course, would have an effect on perspectives toward the leader in the real world.

Analysis

Game components

A game is complete and self-sufficient-it contains all of the rules and materials needed to play it to the end. The rules are explicit and there is no need to change or alter them along the way. Any game that needs the rules altered is not a good game. For an activity to be a "game" the parts of the game should interact with each other (the rules, the pieces, the players). These parts "interact" to create a fantasy representation of reality.

Components of a game include:

• Rules

• Pieces (cards, game pieces, board, computer, etc.)

• Players

• Interaction

• Representation of some form of reality

• Conflict

• Chance

• Safety

• Amusement

Strong Components:

Pieces: The computer game has several pieces within its interface which are used to aid the player. The player can use these “pieces” to take action, to ask for advice, or to simply gain information.

Safety: While the Israeli/ Palestinian conflicts are all too dangerous, the actions taken during play are absolutely safe for players.

Conflict: I was very overwhelmed by all of the conflict described in the game and the number of decisions and actions I had to take as a leader. Conflict with locals and international groups is prevalent.

Representation of Some form of Reality: It does not get much more real than a representation of a newsworthy conflict going on in our world.

Chance—There is definitely a element of chance in this game. The actions taken will affect the outcome of the game, so every play is different. Even one who is familiar with the conflict will probably not always make the correct actions—if there were “correct” actions, the conflict would be resolved!


Weaker Components:

Interaction/ Players—In this game, of course the opponent is the computer or conflict itself. While the game is there, I don’t feel the “opponent” interaction strongly. The game itself is interactive as far as the pieces and technology components.

Rules—I read the tutorial and still felt that experimentation would be the only way I could get a hang of the game. There were not really rules, but guidelines. To me, rules are cut and dry of what you can and can’t do to win.

Amusement: This game is amusing if you are interested/ educated on the Israeli/ Palestinian conflicts. If you are not, it is confusing and simply a point, click, and see what happens game.

Learner’s styles & Teaching / Learning objectives

Chosen Learner Group:

Assimilating (watching and thinking - AC/RO) - The Assimilating learning preference is for a concise, logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people. These people require good clear explanation rather than practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organising it a clear logical format. People with an Assimilating learning style are less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. People with this style are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value. These learning style people is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through (http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm).



Objectives:

• Decision Making—As the leader of the country, decisions need to be made and actions need to be taken. As a teacher, I want to see if my students are able to make proper decisions based on the conflicts they encounter and (hopefully) background information they acquire both from the game and possible classroom activities.

• Logical Reasoning- This goes along with decision making. Actions can be taken in the game, but one will only move toward peace if the decision is logical for the issue. Being able to do this will take background information taught in the classroom or acquired through familiarity with current events. My AC/RO students enjoy gathering information and applying it effectively—especially toward an abstract concept like “peace.”

• Awareness of International Issues—This is a huge objective for this game. Many student probably do not even know where Israel is located, but you can use the game to learn about the conflict and the areas within the conflict. My AC/ RO students like reading and lectures, so this game may not score high as far as meeting this objective for these students. However, they can read about certain cities and issues, and hopefully have a chance to think about the issues at hand.

Implementation & Assessment

Settings

Resources needed to implement PeaceMaker:

• Downloaded game ($20).

• Computer

The resources needed to implement the game are rather simple. If you have a computer and the ability to download software, you can play. It could be an obstacle for some to pay the $20 for the download. I understand that each computer would probably need this download, so if you have a classroom set of computers, the cost could become quite high. I think the major stakeholders in this game are social studies teachers as the content directly relates to that topic. However, in a broader sense, we could all be stakeholders in this game because it is based on current world events upon which we should all strive to be educated.

Procedure

• Before the game is played, the teacher needs to provide some serious background information for the students. Perhaps some students will be aware of the situation being represented in the game, but most in my school will know nothing about it. Thus, presentation of background information could take a few days before the game could be played.

• After students are aware of what the game is representing, they should be instructed to use the tutorial before beginning. The tutorial is great for explaining the pieces of the game and what they do.

• The game takes 10 rounds to completely play, so the teacher should allot about 30 minutes to play. The first few times the game is played should be looked at as “experimental” until students get the hang of the procedure.

• Students will strive to score 100 in both national and international acceptance in order to achieve peace.

• Teachers should encourage students—scoring 100 is very difficult and would probably take many, many sessions of the game to figure out the proper actions to take.

• It would also be a good idea to have students take notes on what they have learned. It is not part of the game, but it would allow them to hopefully remember some of the valuable information they are learning.

Assessment

Performance Based: I would use performance based assessment for this game. I don’t so much care if student reach a score of 100 in both areas; I am more concerned that they are learning about a world event. Observing students, asking them questions about what they learned from the game, and asking open ended questions (not necessarily in the form of a quiz) would be the way I would assess the effectiveness of PeaceMaker for students.