28
Serious Games Development as a Vehicle for Teaching Entertainment Technology and Interdisciplinary Teamwork: Perspectives and Pitfalls R. Dörner, U. Spierling
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]
