Exploratory Essay

In a “looser” version “playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles” (Suits, 2015:55).Many game designers have taken this definition as a frame (e.g. McGonigal) and others have expanded on it (e.g. Salen, 2012).As philosopher Suits (2014) posits in his seminal book “The grasshopper”, any well-designed game is an invitation to a challenge, an invitation to deal with an unnecessary obstacle. But why would anyone want to undertake an unnecessary obstacle? Would it make sense? And yet, what is the drive that makes so many people be dedicated players who spend so many hours playing games? We’ve seen the physiological-neurological consequences of what happens to players during active game engagement in previous sections.

Third, a compelling story woven into the game, tied closely to learning objectives is a prerequisite for learner engagement. Only when the players/learners are engaged into the story can the game be successful in changing attitudes and build on knowledge (Kapp et al., 2014).

Finally an alignment of story, activities, feedback and learning goals is necessary.

Below is a template with the mechanics of an effective serious game as compiled by a successful serious game developer Kapp Karl and used by successful serious games development companies. The template is mapped against the mechanics of WIN:

The guide towards effective serious game development. What is needed is: The mechanics of WIN:

1. an uncertain game outcome that the learner is required to tangibly affect It cannot be predicted whether Miloans or Athenians win the game. It is up to each team’s negotiating skill.

2. an emphasis on learning objectives and mastery The goal is to save either dignity or freedom of one’s country by negotiating more skillfully than the other team based on mastery of negotiation skills and

rules of play, conditions of mystery, chance, or luck The teams negotiate following a certain creative problem-solving framework (De Bono’s problem-solving method), applying Toulmin’s argumentation theory within a time-frame for each round (15 mins as set through the ancient water clock).

5. an overriding goal/challenge (sub-goals/challenges) with a reward system The overriding goal is defending the vested interests of one’s country. There are 8 arguments that each team should develop/rebut. There are 8 rounds/challenges therefore, each round closing with scoring feedback shown on the scoreboard.

6. Requires strategy development to win or succeed. The more players adjust and improve their negotiation skills, the more chances they stand of getting more points and winning the game.

7. Employs recognizable patterns of action The players know they have to develop arguments which will be rebutted by the other team based on De Bono’s problem-solving method of 6 Thinking Hats and Toulmin’s argumentation theory as set out in the first two training sessions of the game.

8. Is deeply engaging, captivating the learner with organized play that requires increasing mastery of skills, knowledge and tactics The feedback provided at the end of every round (score on the scoreboard) gives players food for thought to adjust& refine their negotiating