(Begins April 26 - Ends May 3)
(*You can always post earlier. If you post later, you will only receive half credit.)
Chapter 3, 4:
1) What games are mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4? What games are being played in Chapters 3 and 4? What is the goal? What are the stakes? What is the scope?
2) Are games a suitable way of teaching and instruction? Are games the best way to teach and instruct? Should games be serious? Should they be fun? At what point is a game not a game?
1. Chapters 3 and 4 contain several situations that at first glance to not resemble games. With looser parameters than previous, however, these situations could be seen as games or at least game-like. What some of these situations lack, though, which previous “games” had is a diminished sense of consequence.
ReplyDeleteFor example, one could say that Graff is playing a mind game with Ender in chapter 3, where the goal is to convince Ender to come with him. There are no set rules, although it’s suggested that Graff wants to remain truthful as possible. In this situation, however, the stakes are very high and there is no diminished consequence. Should Graff fail, at least from his perspective, this could lose the war against the buggers. Peter is playing a similar game in that he’s acting more passive and playful towards his siblings, concealing his more violent nature from his parents. This is a game in the most loose sense of the word; there isn’t exactly a narrowly defined objective, nor can we be sure that Peter comprehends the consequence of failing his game, nor are there many defined rules. Yet if we look at games as a more focused version of play, the difference between the two terms simply that games have a goal and play does not, this activity is classified as a game. In this case, the penalty for Peter being found out could be nearly anything since we are not sure how much his parents are in denial over his behavior or how much they already know.
At the start of chapter 4, Graff is still playing at separating Ender from the other boys. He does this by berating the other boys for being foolish while praising Ender’s intelligence. The objective of this behavior is to build a self-sufficient commander in every sense of the word. In Graff’s mind, Ender will be all the stronger if he believes he must solve all of his problems by himself. Similar to Peter’s game in chapter 3, the other boys play at not being scared about going to battle school. The objective is to appear brave and unfazed; the strategy employed is to take situations lightly and laugh at things that could barely be considered jokes. It’s similar to Peter’s game in that the goal and rules aren’t very narrow.
Similar to what happened in the first two chapters, Bernard attempts to assert his dominance over Ender. This situation could be more clearly defined as a game because although the goal and rules are loosely defined, Bernard has a diminished sense of consequence. He does not care how much he hurts Ender and perhaps doesn’t fully comprehend the extent of his actions, making it easier for him to play. As soon as consequence is made clear by Ender throwing him in zero gravity and causing him to break an arm, Bernard no longer wishes to play.
2. Games can be a very effective way to teach. Often times, games require a great deal more reasoning skill and strategy than first glance, especially if someone aims to play the game well. The issue with using games to instruct, however, is that it can be difficult for the player to understand exactly what his brain is doing while in the game, then translate that skill over to another situation. As was mentioned in discussion over the video last week on games in education, it might help in most cases to have an instructor tell the student what to look for or get them to analyze what events occurred in game and why. There are situations in which a game on it’s own may be a sufficient enough teacher, such as games of strategy and simulations.
ReplyDeleteGames can be both serious and fun; horror games tend to be very dark and grim, yet many people enjoy playing them. The goal is to accomplish flow, the state of consciousness described last week by a distorted concept of time (in that the individual doesn’t perceive time until they realize how quickly it has passed) and a feeling of euphoria. In order for this to happen, the mind must be challenged, yet given enough leeway so that the game does not appear entirely unfair. This is generally where a game might cease to be a game; when the objectives are too difficult or too broad, the rules are too loose to ensure fair play or else restrictive enough so as to give one player one option by allowing another player several (for example, cheating may not be fair, but if both or all players are allowed to cheat, then it technically ceases to become cheating) or by making the consequences too far reaching or possessing too much of a real world impact. Still, much of what defines where a game starts and ends depends on the player. Thinking back to the question asked at the beginning of the quarter, Gladiator matches probably felt very little like a game to the participants, but were perceived as games and entertainment to the audience. In addition, a skilled combatant who feels secure in the knowledge that they are not in danger or else does not fear the consequences could very well see this is a game. The same is true in gambling; often, the high-stakes player either doesn’t think they’ll lose or doesn’t care.
1) The games mentioned are mind games. The goal is to manipulate. Manipulate Ender into coming to the school. The battle game that is played at the school is really the only example of a "game game" that is mentioned. The manipulation is of course a game, the stakes being a few different things like reactions from Ender and ultimately shaping life for ENder at the school.
ReplyDelete2) Games are most definitely suitable for teaching lessons, you just have to do it correctly. No they are not always the best way to teach and instruct. I think some games have to be serious like the game of manipulation and when your playing life or death games like war. I think the first defined goal of games in general is that hey were supposed to be fun and light-hearted sometimes. As time has gone on people have stared associating games as not only being fun and light-hearted but sometimes cruel, violent and manipulative in both the real world and like virtual space. Personally i think a game stops being a game when people start getting hurt or if someone is not enjoying themselves anymore. And even then some people might argue that eve if someone gets hurt its still a game to someone else.
ReplyDelete2) While not the best learning technique, games can be adapted into learning tools. This, of course, depends heavily on the subject matter. While many subjects can easily be turned into a game, others can be a bit more technical. Some may argue that they can learn better if it were a game, and others can argue differently. I think that games can be both fun and engaging, and at the same time hard and challenging. I prefer both, but most prefer one over the other.
ReplyDelete