The Game of Life

Another board game I found in a closet. The box tells me it's A Milton Bradley game from 1960,;Ages 9+; "Key to Fun and learning". I've heard much of this game and always wanted to have a game of it.

It's a simple roll-the-die-and-follow-the-path game. The premise is about going through life and the unexpected things that occur. The player earns money by chance as they progress, but also can loose it by chance. Realistically, there's not all that much choice in the game. 'Fate' is the decider of victory. However there are points in which a player are able to purchase insurance if they decide to (on their first turn everyone is given this chance). I decided not to, and quickly regretted not trading $500 for car insurance at the beginning when I landed on a square resulting in a $10,000 loss. Twice. Good lessons to be learnt about insurance here.
The Game of Life is all about money, suggesting that life is all about money. Landing on a square that tells me I've discovered uranium deposits and $100,000 feels damned good. As you can see, winners end up in the Millionaire Acres while losers end up at the Poor Farm. Right there is one of those mental models I've been thinking about.
Children is another interesting thing in this game too, you'll notice the pins in the cars. They represent children that you pick up on the way. Without the rules, I can only assume the victory condition rewards for children, as it seems no squares seem to mention anything else.

Gamasutra article on morality on games

Ethics 101: Designing Morality in Games

"I think gamers get tired of doing the same thing over and over," says Pagliarulo. "We've slain dragons, beat up super villains, and shot at space marines over and over again. There's a level of burnout there. So when you throw in something like a morality system, it forces the player to stop running on autopilot, and think about their actions a bit more carefully. 'Shooting the bad guy' becomes 'shooting the guy who may or may not be bad,' and that in itself adds a unique twist to the gameplay.

Bloggin' about a blog: Game experience as foundation for knowledge

I wouldn't normally put some random blogger's opinion here, but this has a great point:

TomorrowToday

 This post-modern world is one where traditional views are challenged and authoritative statements are doubted.
Why should I believe you? Who says you are right?
It is in a world like this one where a social constructivist approach becomes critical. An approach where people develop their own meaning from experiences and from interacting with each other. Using experiences. Based on relationships.

 It's the postmodern way to oppose constructed messages for the public (as Roland Barthes would say), simply because we distrust them - without considering the plausibility of the information. Games reveal the true nature of themselves. Through the experience, tests, trails, experiments, players learn what the game is about and its true nature themselves. This practical way is a good example of the power of communication that games posses.

Testosterone anyone?

It seems masculinity is the theme of video game concept art. It's a little bit ridiculous. The hardcore gamers seem to remain as the typical male gamer. While casual games are much more neutral.

 

Games to world models

Ever played Chinese Whispers, or Concentration? I recall playing these group games at primary school with the entire class sitting around in a big circle. I still remember the rhythm and surprising difficulty to Concentration, and the absurd results of Chinese Whispers. Thinking back, it is odd that such games were part of the school curriculum (presumably).
The results of the games are still quite memorable, why?


Chinese Whispers has a few quite simple rules:
1. A person starts by coming up with a phrase or sentence and whispering to the next in line.
2. Each person whispers to the next what they (think they heard) from the previous.
3. The last person announces what they heard and compares it with the starter.

At the time, it was quite a surprise that the end result differed so much from the original.
Why?
A. Someone (or several) changed in intentionally.
B. Someone (or several) repeated incorrectly.

The main learning outcome, for me, was that it is in human nature to error. Perhaps in context it could be applied to mean that rumors are not to be taken at face value.

Concentration
Rules:
1. All players clap in harmony to a 2-2 beat.
2. Someone starts by singing their own name twice, and then another players name twice in rhythm.
3. That named player does the same.
4. The loser is the first one to mess up the rhythm or the names.

This appeared to be a simple game, but when played, it was surprising to see who lost each round - and how. To me, the game taught two things:
1. The Role-taking of the singer. There felt a huge pressure as everyone watched the current singer. The game taught me about this pressure (and with time - likely how to deal with it)
2. Strategies on how to deal with that pressure. Ie: thinking of another players name before you were chosen.

Now, looking at the learning outcomes compared with the games themselves - it seems there is quite a difference. How can such simple rules, lead to such valuable learning?
This is an example of using the play in games to create abstract models for use in the real world. Is there a way I can reverse engineer this idea? Ie: Come up with a model for use in the real world, then create gameplay that would result in that abstract model?

A talk with Tanya

Thanks for the talk, here's some notes and reflections:

Look at games, whats the premise? Whats the underlying theme they are trying to convey?
Ie: Monopoly: Economics, teaching the family about money. 

Log Jam

4 +

The busy beaver has built a beautiful dam out of logs, but his pesky neighbors keep trying to snatch them away while he's not looking. Be careful when skillfully removing the logs, as the pile might suddenly cave in! When he falls, you'll hear the beaver chattering his annoyance. Who'll be able to collect the most logs unnoticed?

 Teaching spatial awareness; how objects fit together; beaver dams; cooperation/semi-versus




Ravensbuger company:
2. Ideas and content

Our products offer a springboard to personal development and self-discovery. They teach an awareness of community and family and do not promote violence; they cultivate taste and an appreciation of quality.

Team-building exercises: The idea is to get people to work together, how does team-building work?



Cathedral Game

CATHEDRAL is a two player strategy board game based around a battle for supremacy between two political factions (dark and light) within the walls of a Medieval City.  Ancient cities were confined by walls for protection against enemies but as the population grew the limited space caused competition of another kind. This game represents that competition for living space within the city wall.

Spatial awareness; Strategy (block opponents); Medieval city; Versus;

Game analysis: Appreciation

The Appreciation Game

A way for better communication
Board game

a game for families of all ages

a game for couples -- to know each other better

a game for students and teachers, and for peers

a game for church groups and clubs--to build fellowship

a game for coporate and military units--to build a team for any task

How to play:

Before you begin, decide:

-How long to play (how many turns or how many minutes)

-Which marker for each player

-Who will go first, moving to left

1. Roll the dice and move your marker on the game board in either direction according to the number rolled, beginning at start.

2. Draw a card or spin the spinner according to the space you land upon. Read the card or spinner aloud.

3. If you land on:

a: IF SPACE: Draw an IF card. Answer Briefly.

b: ME SPACE: Draw a ME card. Answer Briefly.

c: THINK SPACE: Draw a THINK card. Answer Briefly.

d: DO SPACE: Draw a DO card.  Answer Briefly.

e: REMEMBER SPACE: Spin the spinner and read the topic in the outer REMEMBER circle. (Recall a past experience from your childhood that relates to the topic).

f: APPRECIATION SPACE: Spin the spinner and read the topic on the inner APPRECIATION Heart: (Say something positive about the person indicated).

g: ANOTHER PLAYER'S SPACE: You must compliment that player, (the price for landing on his territory) then follow directions for the space.

4. Each person should answer his own question and his answer should be accepted as given.

5. If a question does not seem to apply, ANOTHER CARD MAY BE DRAWN, or SPIN AGAIN. (At each turn you may choose which direction to move).

6. The game ends when the allotted time is up or when each has had the number of turns agreed upon. Be sure to APPRECIATE the players who share the game with you.

Analysis

Compared with most games I have played, this has two distinct unique qualities: 

1. It is reality based - No fantasy. Encourages sharing of real events and emotions.

2. No win/lose state. There is no point system at all. I been thinking that game points are a shallow way to communicate the game state, but it seems they are really required for any real competition. Since this game has no points or a win/lose state, is it even a game? It's more of a toy that encourages a certain kind of conversation. I suppose, if I were to play, the game-y-ness would come from trying to overcome my own apprehensions about what is asked of me.

-Though this game has no religious content, it is very obviously influenced by christian values.

-Similar to Cranium. Though, Cranium has more 'fantasy' & competition.

-Very low 'cool' value. I find it hard to imagine my friends would choose this over Cranium. Though I would expect to enjoy this 'game'.

Some key concepts

I've been thinking, and have found some key concepts to the discussion at this point in time.

Ambiguity of Game Rules:
As discusses previously. Addresses Kohlberg's methods quite nicely.

Rule -Lawering:
The method by which players argue and come to agreements on how a game is to be played. The intention of the rules are argued with a players exploitation on the rules. Through ambiguity, debate can arise. Ie: "At x you must do a good act". Debate ensues on what is 'good'.

Moral reasoning v. Moral attitudes
A key to this project is finding core values and how to discuss them. Moral reasoning is the method by which situations are assessed. Moral attitudes are a result. They are more concrete, black/white and more subject to conflicting with others. But by assessing moral reasoning and debating the process, a healthier discussion arises that can result in a change of process.
Moral attitudes: What made you do that
Moral reasoning: Why did decide to do that.

Principal of Justice:
Kohlberg decided to base his moral dilemmas around the principal of justice. Justice is quite a debated topic, and brings forward different methods of treating right/wrong. Revenge, compassion, laws/rules.