W505 Games as Learning Tools
Stage 2 - 3: Analysis of Card and Board Games
Title: The Game of Life
General
information
Briefly describe how games are played.
The Game of Life is a game that takes players through typical twists and turns of life like buying a house, getting a job, and starting a family. The goal is to finish the game with the most money of the other players. You make money through your career, investments, and LIFE tiles. Along the path to the finish, there are also typical bumps like paying taxes, paying college tuition, and other misfortunes that can dwindle your bank account.
The digital version allows you to play against a computer simulated player or in party mode with other players at your computer. There didn't seem to be a choice to play someone remotely. The player clicks to spin the wheel and the computer moves the pawn, draws the cards, provides the choices, and even calculates the math involved with salaries, etc. The board game version is played with 2 or more players. The players spin a wheel but they are in control of drawing the cards, doing the math, moving the pawns, etc. The rules do not vary in the different formats.
Comparison
of two formats: digital vs. non-digital
1. Comparison 1: Game components
My original game definition was that it is a voluntary, interactive activity between two or more entities working to be the first to achieve the desired goal. It's outcome cannot be known. It is governed by rules and guidelines that do not necessarily represent reality.
Components
Digital Non-digital
goal
strong strong
more than one player medium strong
fictitious strong strong
governed by rules strong strong
outcome unpredictable strong strong
voluntary weak weak
As you can see, the similarities show that the format of this particular game did not particularly matter, except for the difference in interaction.
Goal
The goal of the game is clear in both formats. Whether playing online or not, to win you still needed to be the player with the most money at the end of the game.
More than one player
In the digital format is possible to play by oneself or against the computer. Obviously, this is not an option in the board game. Although it each can be played with multiple people, this option resulted the interaction levels much different in my opinion; making this an important component to analyze.
Fictitious
The
path of life, careers, family, salaries, obstacles, are all
fictitious in both formats of the game.
Governed
by Rules
This
component is particularly strong in The Game of Life. Chance is king
in this game. There isn't much a player can decide on along the way.
Most of it is determined by how many spaces one can move, the LIFE
tiles, the pitfalls, etc.
Outcome
unpredictable
This
is another component that is strong. Because the game is governed by
rules and chance to such a high degree, no accurate predictions can
be made at the beginning. For instance, someone could take what he
thought to be a better paying route by going to college and getting a
high paying job, but they may land on a space that has them sued or
in medical trouble. The reverse is also true. Someone could take a
low paying job but land on a space where they win the lottery or they
could make a worthwhile investment at the beginning of the game.
Voluntary
This
component has since been removed from my game definition.
The digital format for The Game of Life completely changes the original, dare I say intended, form of play. Because the opponent is computer simulated there is no interaction, cooperation or communication of any kind between the players. The player simply clicks to spin the wheel and the computer moves the game piece along the board. When playing the actual board game, players can converse about the choice between careers, houses, paying taxes, and even debate over stealing LIFE tiles or paying penalties.
Although, it was fun and passed the time, there was almost no engagement on my part. I found myself sitting back and clicking the wheel when it was my turn. I wasn't dedicated to achieving the goal. This is possibly because The Game of Life doesn't require a real strategy to win. There are too many unknowns and surprises that pop up along the way, just like life itself. This could be the reason one might not be intrinsically motivated to do well, because no matter what path you take there is bound to be bumps in the road. This means one is not in control of the game.
When playing the board game version these components are much different. One has to cooperate with his fellow players. There can be encouragement, or for that matter delightful manipulation, to another player to skip college so they get less money. One could poke fun at someone's career, house, or family status making the game atmosphere more engaging and giving a competitive person more motivation to win. In the board game format, one has to physically move the pawn through the road and read the LIFE cards. This direct involvement relates to higher engagement. On the digital version, the computer does everything for you. You can't see the big picture and you are simply along for the ride.
Overall, both versions are fun. The digital format has nice graphics and might be more appealing to learner's that score lower on Prensky's scale. The set up doesn't take as long and the rules can be learned as you go. But in my opinion the original board game format leads to higher levels of motivation, social interaction, and engagement.
I totally agree with you in that the traditional format is more engaging. Although I didn't do my analysis on the Game of Life, I have spent dozens of hours playing it in the past, and I have always found the the player interaction is what makes the game. Poking fun at friends, "delightful manipulation" as you so aptly put it, and even physically engaging with the game and its pieces all combine to create an engaging atmosphere of play where all parties are invested in the game and its outcomes. The digital game removes the humanity, dare I say, that was built into these games and replaces it with a calculation machine whose only job is to spin the numbers and move pieces while taking away the elements of responsbility that make the game so interesting to people. Isn't it interesting how some games lend themselves so well to 100% digital formats but others do not? After doing this assignment, it has occured to me that perhaps games that begin as board games lose a lot of their "heart" when transitioned to digital formats, but games that began digitally are generally ok to remain so. Interesting indeed!
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued to hear your analysis. I too have played the game in the past in both formats, though the Game of Life was one of my first computer games I owned. Our family played lots of board games but we did not own this one in the physical format. I did enjoy the digital version and I agree with your comment about the digital graphics, and (at least in the version I owned) the graphics would lead you in the car (as if you were driving) as you moved spaces. As a child I really liked that feature. But it was not as engaging as sitting with friends or family laughing and interacting with them as fortune or misfortune occurred.
ReplyDeleteI think we're all noticing how enriching it is to have other humans interacting within a gaming environment. I wonder how we would all feel about our games if one of us was able to play a multi-player version where most (or all) of the players were human?
ReplyDeleteI had another thought about the format of this particular game as I was reading your post:
In your second paragraph about interactions, you made an interesting observation:
"... it was fun and passed the time, there was almost no engagement on my part. I found myself sitting back and clicking the wheel when it was my turn. I wasn't dedicated to achieving the goal. This is possibly because The Game of Life doesn't require a real strategy to win."
I played backgammon, hearts, and then Agricola (and then wrote my post about The Settlers of Catan). In all of the games I looked at, they all required strategy on the part of the person interacting within the digital environment. Even though my opponents were computers, I still had many decisions to make within my own turn. Yes, there were many variables and elements of chance (how the cards were dealt, what cards to pass, when to play a special card, what the die roll is, etc), but the games were varying amounts of strategy, adding another element to game-play for interaction, engagement, and motivation.
Just thoughts occurring as I read your post.
Life and Monopoly - 2 of my all time favorite board games!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed (and agreed) with your comparisons regarding the interaction differences with the game. In Backgammon, one can at least (and probably should if you want to stand a chance at winning) strategize in either format, even though you still have the chance component of using the dice to determine if you can move and by how much. In Life, you just kind of cross your fingers and go!