So, the last couple responses I wrote by picking and choosing passages that I found interesting and writing about them as I went through the texts. I’ll try to do this one differently, just… commenting in one block in no particular order.

So, I thought the question at hand in the article to be quite interesting. I definitely think I agree with Dr. Kee. I find it almost strange how Dr. Rockwell refuses to think of serious games as games.  I think the thing that struck me the most is when they brought up Flight Simulator.  Sure, it can (and has been) used to help train pilots, but it can be more than just a training mechanism. I used to play that game for hours on end! Not because I wanted to be a pilot, but because I enjoyed the thought and experience of flying.

I think the best way for me to go about reasoning this question is to say that I believe that if there is some element of entertainment, regardless of how small it may be, even the most serious of games can still be considered a game.  September 12th is a good example. It’s not exactly a super-exciting-mega-fun-awesome-game. But there is a form of entertainment behind it. Even if you quickly discard it and start thinking about the message, it still has an element of entertainment.

I also think that the initial question of whether or not a game can be educational isn’t properly phrased. I think any game can be educational in that you’re learning -something- from it. Whether that something applies to what our society, through time, has determined to be worthwhile academic subjects is questionable, but doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile.  I think what Dr. Rockwell had in mind when presenting the question is something more along the lines of “Can games be applied to academic subjects?” Or something like that.

On an ending note… I used to love reader rabbit.

Share