Hello fellow gamers,

Before you start reading: my apologies for the long post, but I really need your help. If you do not have time to read all of the information, you can just skip to the questions. Thank you!

INFORMATION:

For the last 3 years I have been studying to become a secondary school teacher (English / history), but I've been a gamer for as long as I can remember.

Next year I will have to write a thesis about a subject related to "education" in order to get my degree / diploma. As mentioned before, I am a gamer, so naturally I chose a subject that combines both my hobby and my work.

I will focus most of my research on one main question: "how can commercial / educational games be used in English CULTURE lessons?"
I want to investigate if it is possible to discuss games in an English culture lesson in the same manner as you would discuss books / films / poems/ other cultural products…

QUESTIONS:

It would be a great help if you would answer all or some of the following questions. Thank you!

1. It is my belief that games are art (Roger Ebert would not agree with me… ) and cultural products (like books, films, poems… ). I think that games show us something about other cultures, they widen our world view and teach us various lessons. Do you think games widen our world view like books, films… Or do you think that games are just plain entertainment?
2. What games do you think can be used in English culture lessons? Please consider that not all games are appropriate for all ages. You can recommend games for the following four age groups: 13-14/ 15-16/ 17-18/ 18+. ( for example: 18+ : Bioshock can teach students something about ethics and philosophy.)
3. What genres of games do you think are most appropriate for education? An MMO? An RPG? ...? Also include why you think this genre is more appropriate.
4. How do you think that games should be played for educational purposes? Should they be played during ****by using a projector (who should play? Teacher or a student?) ? Should they be played individually during **** Should they be played at home?
5. The students will get an assignment that they will have to do while playing. What assignments can you come up with? These assignments can be as creative as you like. (think about some of the assignments you have ever received after reading a book for school. For example: write an alternative ending to a game. )
6. Would you like it if your teacher used games during his / her lessons? Why (not)?clas
7. Why do you think that not many teachers use games in their lessons? (if you are a teacher: do you use games during your lessons? Why (not)?)

For all of you who take the time to read and answer my post: thank you! I will mention the people who really help me (and those who want to be mentioned) in the acknowledgements of my thesis.

If you have more information about this subject, but you don't want to post it online where anyone can read it, you can always send an email to: games.education.thesis@gmail.com or visit my blog: http://games-education-thesis.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

games.education.thesis@gmail.com

http://games-education-thesis.blogspot.com/

A week ago Metacritic posted an article in which all scores of every FF game ever made are compared. In this blog I will give you my personal comment on this comparison + give you my own comparion.

Metacritic's comparison consists of "every" final fantasy game, so not only those of the main series.

My own comparison will consist of every final fantasy game I myself have played.

Link

Comment on the comparisons:

1. FF 12 VS FF 13 : As you can see (ff) 13 scores a lot lower than 12 ( 82 < 92). Number 12 has had 64 reviews: 49 great (76%), 12 good (19%) and 3 mixed (5%). 13 has had 42 ( 22 less than FF12): 15 great (36%), 20 good (48%) and 7 mixed (16%). As you can see 13 has had less great reviews and more mixed reviews. Comment: Although 13 has had less reviews than 12, I don't think the gap between the two average scores will be bridged. 13 is far too linear for many gamers and is less "final fantasy-like" than the rest of the games so fans will generally not like it so much.
   
2. All FF Releases: as you can see in thas chart, Square Enix has been releasing MORE games, but this doesn't mean every game released shares the same quality. In general Square released great games, but the last couple of years they have also released some less good games. Comment: I don't think Square Enix's games have gotten worse the last couple of years. The number of game-sites and reviewers have increased, this also increases the chance that some of the reviewers dislike a game. Also the fact that Square Enix has been experimenting with different gameplay-mechanics ( like 12 / 13 / Dissidia) has upset a lot of longtime fans and therefore a lot more mixed reviews have been popping up. Also the fact that the FF series has been around since 1987 means that some reviewers expect that they stay true to their roots, while others expect to revolutionise the RGP-genre. No matter what they do, there will always be a group of reviewers who don't like it.
   
3. "motherload" comparison: just look at the list. Comment: Wow FF9 on first place? that suprised me. I would have thought that 7 would take first place. It's also surprising to see that a remake ( 4 advance) scores 5th place. Also if you look at the last 10 games on the list, you might notice these games have all been released after 2006 ( so they're relatively new) and that these games are almost all spin-offs of the main series. Gamers still prefer the main series over the others. And wow the 360 version of 13 gets a higher score than the ps3.
   
4. Best games per platform: just a list, look at it. Comment: the main series also dominate this list.

The last two list are interesting to look at, but I do not really have anything to say about them.

Own Comparison:

For my own comparison I am only going to use the FF games I have played. These games are: 6 Advance, 7,8, 9 ,10 12, 13, Tactics Advance, 12 Revenant Wings, 4 the after Years.

When I put all these in one list it turns out like this, the numbers behind it are the games' postion on Metacritic's list:

1. 9 (1)
2. 13 ( 19 / 22)
3. Tactics advance (9)
4. 8 (6)
5. 6 advance (5)
6. 7 (4)
7. 10 (3)
8. 12 (2)
9. Revenant Wings (23)
10. 4 After Years ( 42)

As you can see, my list a quite different from that of Metacritic. And a lot of FF fans will probably say my list suck ("OMG he totally put 7 and 10 behind 9", "WTF 13 on second place?"...). But this is my blog, so I can say whatever I like and I support my own opinion 100%.

Any comments on my list I will happily read and give my reaction.

In my last blog I talked about complete immersion in a game and when this was possible for me. Today I'd like to talk about the criteria I use to select a game I'm going to play.

If you look at the list of games not yet released ( or just released) that look interesting: COD:MW2, Dragon age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, Command and Conquer 4, Demon's souls, Uncharted 2, the last guardian, Heavy rain, FF: XIII, Borderlands, Tekken 6, Bioshock 2, Monster Hunter 3, New Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks, Mario Galaxy 2, God of War 3 + the collection, AC 2, Lost Planet 2, Dante's Inferno, Dark Void, Brutal Legend, Golden Sun DS, Metal Gear Rising/ Peacewalker, White Knight Chronicles, FF Versus XIII, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Gran Turismo 5, Forza Motorsport 2, Pokemon Soul Silver / Heart Gold, Valkyria Chronicles 2, Okamiden, Dragon Quest IX, Left 4 Dead 2, Dead Rising 2, Red Steel 2, Metroid: Other M, ...

I probably forgot a game or two (apologies for any fanboy I insulted). But the question is: based on what criteria do you make your choice out of this list? It probably depends on how much money you have, but let's say you can't buy every game that comes out ( + you don't have the time to play them all). If I have to make the choice out of this list, I usually ask myself a couple of questions:

• Do I want to play a probably very good sequel (COD MW:2, Mario Galaxy 2, Monster Hunter 3,...) or do I want to play some new game of which it is still unclear if it's any good ( Heavy Rail, Brutal Legend,...)?: it would be very easy to buy the sequels on the list because you can be almost certain these are good games. But sometimes I have the craving for something new and fresh. The only danger in buying a game from a new IP is: disappointment (scribblenauts: what have you done to me?!)

• Do I want to play a long, story-driven and intensive game (FF XIII, Dragon Quest IX, MGS: Peacewalker /Rising) or a rather short, action-packed game (dark void, Dead Rising 2, Tekken 6)?: sometimes in the mood to indulge myself in a beautifully created world where I can lose myself in completely. I get completely consumed by the story and the game will eat away 40-50 hours of my life. But sometimes I have the need for a short game that I can pick up and play for a couple of hours and put back down.

• Will I believe the scores the game gets? Reviews are very useful to get information about a game, but that little figure at the end usually doesn't match your own score of the game. This often (VERY often) leads to discussions on online forums because the game "scored too low" or "scored too high". That's why I don't trust scores that reviewers give to a game, but I still do read the them because they give you a general idea of the game. Especially if it's a video review: you can see and hear the game.

• Do I look at the previous games the developer has created? Do you buy games based on the previous games of the same developer? Well I do, I know that a company like Nintendo, Bioware, Square enix... has more experience in creating a high-quality game than a rather "fresh" company. So I would prefer a game of a settled company above one of a new one any day.

• Does the game have replay value (trophies, unlockables,/ achievements, multiplayer)?: some games are great but offer little replay value. Any game with great replay value like multiplayer (COD MW), trophies/ achievements (Uncharted 2, God of War collection,Halo 3 ODST) or great unlockables ( RE5) will always be higher on my list because it offers more gametime for the same money.

• How much does the game cost? All these games on the list above are interesting and probably without a doubt fantastic. But let's face it if I have to choice between let's say Dead rising 2 for 60$ or MGS4 for 10$ ( I bought it recently) I would choose for MGS. This has two reasons: the price (duh) and the fact that the game has been out quite some time and you know it's a good one.

• What do I like personally the most? Every gamer is different and has different tastes. I would choose a game like Final Fantasy or Demon's souls above a game like Gran Turismo or Fifa 10 any day. Just becaus I like those types of game more than the others. But this is completely personal and different for everyone.

• Are graphics important? Games like COD MW2, Forza 3... look way better than others on the list, but graphics isn't my most important criteria. It's fun to play a beautiful game, but I prefer gameplay and story.

So these are my criteria / questions I ask myself when buying a new game. What are yours?

I recently bought a ps3, because I bought one this late I have the choice over a broad selection of great games that I would like to play. With a full wallet I left for the gamestore and came back with an empty one. The games I bought were : Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, MGS4, Mirror's Edge, Resistance: fall of man, Viking: battle for Asgard, GTA4 and LittleBigPlanet.

This was some time ago and I've managed to finish a couple of games. Everybody reading this ( not too many people I suppose...) will probably think I've played MGS4 and GTA4, the two titles who got the best review scores and are commonly thought of as the "better games". But this is far from true, I've not even started up these two games. The games I've played completely through are: Uncharted, Mirror's edge and Viking. Why you ask? Well let me explain...

I've played every GTA and MGS that has come out in the past and I consider myself to be a "fan" of the two series. Both series are known for the great stories the games tell. The stories in these games are so good I get completely sucked in and almost can't think about anything else. I love to immersed in a good game, but it can only take place under the right circumstances. I have to be home alone and not bothered by anyone, I hate it when someone is coming in all the time and asking all sort of questions. I like to concentrate myself and only than can "the immersion" take place. Think of it like this: when you watch a thriller/horror movie in broad daylight it's not as scary when you are watching it in the dark. Sort of like Resident Evil 5 not being as scary as the previous ones.

Lately I've been very busy with my studies so I couldn't concentrate myself on my main hobby: gaming. Therefore I chose to play the games with the less compelling story like Viking or Mirror's edge. Because I knew these game wouldn't suck me completely in and I would be able to concentrate on my studies. A game like Uncharted is almost as good as MGS or GTA but it's a game you can play for an hour and then put it away. If I play a MGS or GTA I'm completely focussed on the story and the world in the game, I can't just play it for an hour, I have to play it for a couple of hours to really enjoy it.

Now that my studies have gotten easier I have the opportunity to play the other games and because I now can enjoy them without any disturbances, I can enjoy them even more.

A couple of games that require complete concentration to really get sucked in are: Max Payne, Zelda and Final Fantasy. (in my opinion of course).

And what about you? What games do you play only if you really have the time and opportunity?

This blog is about the possibilities game developers give us during a game. It's about what we can do in a video game and how the developers control our actions.

In the beginning:

When we look at an evolution in videogames, we should start at the very beginning: Pong. It was one of the first "popular" games. You controlled one bat and tried to defeat your opponent who controlled the other bat. Your options were very limited, you could move your bat up and down and that was it. The developers completely controlled the game and your possibilities in the game. The developers had few possibilities to create a game and therefore you as gamer had few possibilities in the game.

You had so few possibilities and it was so simple.I loved it.

The first evolution:

When the developers' possibilities expanded, so did ours (the gamers' possibilities). The developers were able to create more "realistic" characters, worlds,... It was even possible to create games that consisted out of more than 1 screen (like pong). To explain this I'm going to use "Donkey Kong" from 1981. Your options as a gamer were still extremely limited but still you had more possibilities than for example in Pong. You could move left, right, up, down... It was a small step in the evolution, but an important one.

Just look at those graphics, amazing!

The first "open" world games:

I'm not talking about sand-box games yet ( no GTA here), but about open world games. Again the developers' possibilities to create a more realistic game expanded and they were able to create games with "open" worlds. For example: "the legend of Zelda" from 1986. In this game you controlled Link and you embarked on a huge adventure. Before these "open" world games you did what the developers wanted you to do and when they wanted you to do it. But for example in Zelda you had a world with quests you could complete when you wanted to do them, not when the developers wanted you to complete them. If you felt like exploring the world a bit more, you had the possibility. You obviously can't compare these "open" world games with sand-box games like GTA, but it's a start. The developers still control what and how you do things in this "open" world, but not when.

The beginning of sand-box games?

The "(r)evultion" of the first sand-box games:

For obvious reasons I'm going to pick the first GTA from 1997 to explain this part of the evolution. A sand-box game is a game where you can do things that were not intended by the developers or where you can ignore your objectives. So you still have objectives ( this is a small difference with the so called open-ended games like sim-city where you don't have fixed objectives.) but the developers no longer control how you complete them. You almost have complete freedom, your possibilities are only limited by what the developers put in the game. For example, you couldn't swim in the first GTA games. In a sandbox game you can (almost) do what you want, when you want it.

Almost unlimited possibilities, awesome...

What even more choices in sand-box games?

In the first sand-box games you could do what you want, when you wanted it but every gamer still experienced the main story in a similar way. For this next step I'm going to take a look at GTA 4. In the main story of GTA 4 there were a few moment were you could pick how the main story continued ( for example: "The holland play": kill Dwayne or Player X) and based on your decisions the story is slightly different for anyone who plays it. The developers create a game and story but you as a player decide how you play it.

Live or die, your choice.

User Generated Content:

A feature that has become more and more important the last few years is UGC. The developers give you the tools to create the game yourself. A good example is LittleBigPlanet. In this game there is still a story mode, but it's not the most important feature of the game. The story mode isn't even necessary to play the game. In the game you get an editor where you can create your own levels, story mode... The possibilities are unlimited and you can create your very own game... It makes you wonder what the next step will be. Everyone wants to be a game developer? what are your thoughts, remarks?

What is the next step?