“Learning and fun go together; playing a game is fun therefore there is some learning in every game”, a game designer told me once. Let us analyze this statement for deductive reasoning. I shall call this as statement number one in this paper for future reference. I will reflect upon his argument in the light of the understanding that I got in my reading ‘Think Critically’ on deductive logic and in this process, I also understood how ‘only’ when used in English as a natural language could have logically different and sometimes misleading meanings. I will evaluate if the deduction as in the above statement one is valid or invalid. Invalid deductions are also known as fallacies. I also understood how to spot fallacies. I will thereafter do a mini analysis of the deduction in a serious game that exposes to me for the first time the challenges faced by a family of four while they live in a third world country ‘only’ on small piece of land. I will briefly give my comments on the game’s environment and game system – rules that make paying this serious game emotively engaging, I am not sure if there is any fun but sure there is some learning in the game. In the end, I will summarize the central argument of the game and test out if the deduction in the argument is valid or a fallacy.
When Looking the statement number one part by part, we get two key words ‘fun’ and ‘learning’ in the first part and since there is no usage of ‘only’ we can instantly agree with the statement that they go together. There is no contradiction in having fun and learning at the same time. We can also confirm to say in our own words that ‘we learn more when we have fun’ but we can not twist the same words to say that ‘only fun means learning’ or ‘learning is the only way to have fun’. Moving to the second part of the statement ‘playing a game is fun’ will also hold mostly true since when you play a game for as long as you play it voluntarily, it is fun. The conditions when there is no fun in playing a game are very few in the real life of an individual so most people will agree to the second part. The third part after ‘therefore’ is, ‘there is some learning in every game’. Two new adjectives before nouns ‘learning’ and ‘game’ are placed to refine or restrict the logic to ‘some learning’ and ‘every game’ as also our own experience of playing games and learning something or the other through it makes the argument valid. There are many serious learning games where we find a balance of learning and fun; some of these we have played and in the process, we learned some thinking or decision making skill.
‘Serious games are engaging enough to motivate people to take-up causes related to poverty’ let us call this as statement number two before we review the game. This statement or the game has nothing to do with the statement number one we analyzed. We will experience one serious game as a part of this program where we will also explore some questions that remain unanswered in our reflection of the deductive statements. These questions are; what is the stated objective of the serious game? How far is that achieved in the game design? I also describe the game environment, the game challenge or the storyline. Does the game meet the objective as stated in the game’s description? Is it engaging enough to drive results? We do the above by analyzing a game – “The Third World Farmer”
The game starts with an opening screen with a visual that clearly sets the serious tone of the game with two statements on the opening screen ‘thought provoking simulation’ and ‘’Endure the hardships of 3rd world farming’ The game environment looks like set somewhere in Africa where we have a small piece of land and family of four to feed, we see the sunny background but that does not create excitement with a small hut and a poor family in the foreground. In the game, we get to manage an African farm with the opening balance of $50 to grow crop, buy equipment, buy and manage livestock. We can plant 4 types of crop each unit ‘a heap or bushel’ can be bought and planted. We can buy 4 types of animals, 5 types of farm equipment, 3 types of shelter or even get a well for usage there are 6 choice of what are essentials or utilities like school, communication, medical or crop insurance. The last items are luxuries in the conditions that they live and as I played it for 15 rounds, I soon encountered the realities for a tough living conditions and difficult choices that poverty and conflict can cause.
As a farm and family management game it had an emotional impact on me, there was no background music with the game. All the games even learning games with tough challenges are played out in much easier settings, where I never had the uncertainty of bad weather and soon both the children, I had died and with dismal balance there was no signs to prosper even if I play it cleverly and make whatever are the right choices. Far too many things can go wrong in this game with no insurance for the family’s health or crop failure. To buy an elephant means ten years of savings and supporting a representative who could get me peace some day would take fifteen years. I faced them all during the 30 minutes of my play; a one bad season, an encounter with corrupt officials who takes away all my savings – not that I had much, a sudden epidemic and fluctuation in market prices. As I was not primed for such a serious game – Before playing this game, I had always associated games with just having fun and given the statement as I analyzed in the first paragraph, I could have played a more learning with fun kind of a game.
When I looked at the overall objective and the story behind this game, it is to touch the emotional cord of the player and encourage him to do something to improve the plight of the farmer in third word countries. The game does engage much with the fun seeking gamers mind and does not meet any learning objective so there is little or no learning in it for me as a student in the US. It does not impart any fun. A smart presentation or a video will do better for raising funds for the cause. The cause itself looks genuine and with hundreds of people really dyeing, there does not seem to be any reason why any such simulation or games that do not engage enough are required. I mean why anyone would play the game or again. If the game was not part of my curriculum, it was unlikely that I would have stumbled upon it. Overall I can say that the game as a suitable medium for learning whereas may not be most suited for serious causes like poor living conditions. The game does not meet any valid deductive argument in support of its engagement as tool for funding. The game does generate some positive emotional responses from but they are not strong enough to generate widespread usage. The game can however be utilized as a part of teaching sensitivity to volunteers who are engaged in the developmental projects in the third world countries.
I conclude this paper with my comments that the learning we received on deductive logic and what can be fallacies under the guidance of our instructor is going to help us produce more logical constructs in our writings. I wish to conclude with the statement that learning and fun do go together; playing a game is fun therefore there is some learning in every game that is played out of interest. The serious games are not engaging enough to create interest of the player and motivate him to take up social causes however; they do spread awareness and learning.
Works Cited
3rd World Farmer Team. Simulated Game. 2006. 21 December 2014 <http://3rdworldfarmer.com/>.
Gittens, Facione. "Chapter 8, Think Critcally." Pearson, n.d.
