Serious Games Development as a Vehicle for Teaching Entertainment Technology and Interdisciplinary Teamwork: Perspectives and Pitfalls

R. Dörner, U. Spierling

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [2]

GameTeaching

Medium forStudent

Play

Creation / Authoring

of the Game

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [3]

GameTeaching

Subject of /Medium for

Play

Student

Creation / Authoring

of the Game

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [4]

GameTeaching

Subject of /Medium for

Play

Student

Creation / Authoring

of the Game

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [5]

GameTeaching

Subject of /Medium for

Make

Student

Interdisciplinary Effort:Programmers, Artists, Manager,Game Designer

Creation / Authoring

of a Serious Game

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [6]

SeriousGame

Teaching

Subject of /Medium for

Make

Student

Interdisciplinary Effort:Programmers, Artists, Manager,Game Designer

Creation / Authoring

of a Serious Game

Games & Teaching

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [7]

SeriousGame

Teaching

Subject of /Medium for

Make

Student

X

Questions

• How can thecreation of a seriousgame be used as a vehicle for teaching?

• How can a coursebe devised?

• Which learning goalscan be addressed?

• Advantage seriousgame vs. game? Making vs. Playing?

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [8]

Contribution

• Foundation: Experience fromteaching variouscourses

• Identification oflearning goals andparameters

• Recommendationsbased on lessonslearned

• Expected Benefits

• How can thecreation of a seriousgame be used as a vehicle for teaching?

• How can a coursebe devised?

• Which learning goalscan be addressed?

• Advantage seriousgame vs. game? Making vs. Playing?

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [9]

Outline

• Introduction

• Learning Goals

• Examples

• Parameters and Best Practice

• Conclusion

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [10]

Outline

• Introduction

• Learning Goals

• Examples

• Parameters and Best Practice

• Conclusion

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [11]

Learning Goals

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [12]

gaining knowledge and skills (entertainment technology, game engines, tools, 3D modelling, usability, gamedesign, project management, software engineering, …)

• evaluation methods for assessing characterizing goal• more complex production process• interfaces to legacy software• knowledge about application domain (e.g. didactics) and its

approaches, methdologies, values• empathy in novel application field• terminology specific to a discipline• more emphasis on security and privacy• game design for serious games• cost / benefit analysis

Difficulty Level

• Trade-off between entertainment andcharacterizing goals adds complexity

• Necessity to become acquianted withapplication domain

• Constraints from application domainprovide orientation

• Reality is consistent and not underspecified

• Achievement of characterizing goalsmay be easier to assess

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [13]

Outline

• Introduction

• Learning Goals

• Examples

• Parameters and Best Practice

• Conclusion

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [14]

Examples

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [15]

Evaluation

• Evaluation of all courses at the university with EvaSys(evasys.de) with 5-point Likert scales

• Overall score: course isamong the top 10% of all courses

• Comparison between years(p > 0.15, Kruskal-Wallis-Test), unpaired case ismethodological problem

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [16]

comments: prospect ofinterdisciplinary work ismajor advantage

Outline

• Introduction

• Learning Goals

• Examples

• Parameters and Best Practice

• Conclusion

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [17]

Parameters

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [18]

Participating Disciplines

Expected Results

Assignment

Client

Target Group

…

Team Size

Project Management

Timing

Supervision

Parameters

• Polished game vs. game prototype

• Demotivation due tounderestimation ofefforts

• Value of non-technicalinsights

• Expectationmanagement

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [19]

Expected Results

Parameters

• Who representsstakeholder forcharacterizing goal?

• External organization orcompany more favorable than professor

• Real world problems

• Positive pressure

• Win-Win Situation

Client

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [20]

Parameters

• Students vs. other group

• Difficulty of emphasizingwith target group

• Availability for user tests

• Characterization of targetgroup no task forstudents

Target Group

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [21]

Parameters

• Critical mass to cope withworkload vs. challengesin project management

• Student complaints: Not learning about gametechnology but teamorganization

• Change of groupmembers increaseslearning opportunities

Team Size

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [22]

Parameters

• Different disciplines areinvolved at different points in time with varying workload

• But: students need to beworking constantly

• Deviation from gamedevelopment process (e.g. role changes or observation)

• Careful planning and self-organization (agile methods)

Timing

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [23]

Best Practice

Team assembly (10 students technicalbackground, 3 artist b., 3 management b., 2 application b.)

Kick-off workshop, expected results: prototype of first level + cost/benefit analysis for client)

Introduction of external client

Introduction to interdisciplinary work + introduction to SCRUM

Sprint 1 (2 weeks): set-up of infrastructure, professional training, application domainresearch

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [24]

Best Practice

Sprint 2 (2 weeks): three interdisciplinaryteams create game idea and preparepresentation, synthesis

Sprint 3 (2 weeks): elaborate game idea, technical feasibility study, intial clientfeedback, production preparation

Sprint 4 (3 weeks): production of playabledigital prototype (in new teams), evaluationpreparation and first playtesting

Sprint 5 (3 weeks): completion game softwareprototype, further playtesting, cost-benefitstudy

Sprint 6 (2 weeks): wrap-up of project results, final client presentation, reflection (in particularon interdisciplinary work)

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [25]

Outline

• Introduction

• Learning Goals

• Examples

• Parameters and Best Practice

• Conclusion

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [26]

Conclusion

• More learning goalsachievable

• No single best course format, adaptation necessary

• Guidance by identifyingparameters and best practice

• Need to collect more data andto reflect on experience: farfrom theoretical statements

Serious Games WS ´14 @ ACM MM – R. Dörner – 07/11/14 V1 [27]

Thank you for your attention!Questions?

ralf.doerner@hs-rm.de