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.