Ben Betts is…

A little time ago I was presenting to a group of academics when I was posed a question which I really should have answered better than I did:

How do you define a game?

I trotted out something along the lines of objectives and rules, but I knew I’d copped out of the definition really. So I spent a bit of time researching and it turns out the question has been raised once or twice before. Who knew!

Of all the definitions I came across, one really stood out for me. Now I must preface this with the comment that I don’t necessarily agree with every element in the definition, but it is by far and away the best definition I’ve come across when trying to put games into context. Allow me to present, for your viewing pleasure, Chris Crawford’s Taxonomy of Creative Expressions:

Chris Crawford's Taxonomy of Creative Expression

Crawford’s taxonomy offers a simple to apply rule-set, but is written from the Video Game designer’s perspective. To suggest that all of the criteria above must be adhered to in order for a “game” to be created is perhaps too narrow a view. In fact, the weakest link in the suggested taxonomy comes first in my opinion; the contention that Creative Expression can be defined into that which is designed to make money or that which is simply used to create something beautiful. This is a large generalisation and one I would take issue with. Where Creative Expression is used to educate, entertainment can also be the result. Of course, education may eventually lead to money (whether in increased productivity to an individual or organisation, or into the trainers back-pocket), but then so may Art.

This aside, I think it’s brilliant. A little further explanation to the diagram perhaps…

Crawford identifies that where Entertainment includes Interactivity (stepping beyond videos, books and so on) we encounter “Playthings”. Where goals are included as a part of the Plaything a Challenge is created. Challenges played without Competition are defined as Puzzle’s. Typically, this is where the majority of E-learning games and interactions lie. Whilst many of these E-learning objects are goal orientated, they do not actively present a competitor for the user to play against. Crawford defines this competitor as “an active agent against whom you compete”. Where this agent is apparent we have defined a “Conflict”. Conflicts in which you cannot interfere with your opponent’s performance are defined as “Competitions”. This would typically be exemplified by a running race – you are competing, but you cannot directly influence your opponent’s ability to win. Where Interference is allowed, what Crawford defines as “attacks allowed”, the conflict becomes a Game.

So it is not until all of these criteria have been fulfilled that a true Game has been created. I’ve thus far struggled to come up with any piece of E-learning that I’ve seen meet these criteria. I think this definition perhaps helps to exemplify my issues with topics such as Second Life for E-learning. I’ve no problem with people using it, but calling it a game simply isn’t true. In most circumstances it is used purely for Entertainment purposes, with some interactions stretching it into a Plaything. The most ambitious examples of Second Life “games” I have seen stretch as far as puzzles. But this is no further than a typical “drag and drop” exercise on a web page would take us. It just looks different.

Equally important in Crawford’s definition for me is the idea of a “conflict” being necessary in order for a game to be created. Where competitors play each other in a teaching environment, it is common to see examples of co-operative play. That is, helping one-another to achieve the goals of the scenario. The video game world is the exact opposite of this; it is far more common to blow the heads off your opponents than it is to work with them to reach a common goal.

There are examples of where this is not the case, but overwhelmingly this is where teaching games and video games go their separate ways. Somewhere in the middle of this is E-learning.

I feel that, at the present time, we in the E-learning world are rather avoiding this issue by falling some way short of creating true “games” for learning online. I’m keen for examples to prove me wrong, so please do comment with anything that meets these requirements. In the meantime I’m off to research Game Theory – I feel the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” will be at the heart of my findings…