White House Investigating Benefits Of Games
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
That's funny. I was thinking that it was promising to get the government into the modern world.Drop_D-Bombshell said:
Honestly, I'd rather play a game about Western Expansion than hear my 9th grade teacher read to me out of the text book. But I think these games would probably be used more for training rather than public edu.
Government views on games that aren't retarded? Huzzah!
Even as a gamer I have to admit that people who just do nothing but game are doing it wrong. However, in an ideal world the government would also recognise that even games that are meant primarily for entertainment can also teach some pretty deep stuff. But hey, progress is progress.
Even as a gamer I have to admit that people who just do nothing but game are doing it wrong. However, in an ideal world the government would also recognise that even games that are meant primarily for entertainment can also teach some pretty deep stuff. But hey, progress is progress.
How's that? And i'm not just trying to mock your opinion, not really sure how the US election system works at that stage. All I do know is that I've seen plenty of the media coverage of the Republican guys lately, and if any of them are his only opposition come election time I don't think he's got much to worry about.Screamarie said:
He may not be particularly popular, but those guys are embarrassing. Are there other people he may have to run against as well?
Australia, in both state and federal elections. And I think it works. People don't technically have to vote for anyone, but they do have to turn up to the polling station and sign off. Most people obviously sign off and then vote normally, but many sign off and then 'donkey vote' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote].Dastardly said:
If you sign off, then the government won't track you down and fine you. They don't care how you fill out the form, or whether you do at all, but you have to turn up. On the day itself, or at an early voting booth if you are going to be busy on the day.
I've worked as a election official in a state election (the most recent one in Victoria, actually) and counting the votes at the end, there are plenty of pissed-off people who write obscenities in protest. We don't count the votes as protest ones though, just whether they are valid or invalid.
A big part of the problem, to my mind at least, is that most of the educational games I've seen are things like "And now, you have to defeat the monsters--- with MATH!"
Wheeeeeee.
It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to combine education with games in ways that aren't so stilted and obvious; in fact, I wonder if part of the problem is designers having to have things they can point to and explain to non-gamers when they ask "so, what's educational about this"? You can teach vocabulary by having characters use words in context, for example, or "money math" by requiring the hero to actually choose coins and bills to buy things. When education is tied into uses of learning that students can actually identify and relate to, it's a lot less onerous to learn.
Wheeeeeee.
It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to combine education with games in ways that aren't so stilted and obvious; in fact, I wonder if part of the problem is designers having to have things they can point to and explain to non-gamers when they ask "so, what's educational about this"? You can teach vocabulary by having characters use words in context, for example, or "money math" by requiring the hero to actually choose coins and bills to buy things. When education is tied into uses of learning that students can actually identify and relate to, it's a lot less onerous to learn.
Quite interesting stuff... I think it's alright, myself. If you compel people to show up and voice an opinion, you're going to get the finger from a few... but some on-the-fencers might bother to actually FORM an opinion. And what's more, you put accountability on the people. There are too many of us Americans who don't bother voting, but then complain about the incumbent for the next four years.latenightapplepie said:
I think the issue with this is that, in the cases you're talking about, learning is a side effect of the gaming process. There's simply not the time or resources to build instruction around "learning as a side-effect."Callate said:
It goes back to my belief (as a teacher) that games are nice little diversions that are useful on "slow days," or for easing the tedium of drilling. It's still simple fact that the best way to learn your multiplication tables is rote memorization. And, due to how our brains work, the path to memorization is repetition. A game can make that repetition a bit less tedious... but it can't teach multiplication in any special way.
Because the White House doesn't have control over the laws California tries to pass?The_root_of_all_evil said:
With a very few exceptions (such as typing!) I don't think video games are likely to be a good replacement for classroom time on most subjects.Dastardly said:
But I think it is well within the realm of possibility to make games that are entertaining enough that students would be willing to play them during times not explicitly devoted to learning that still contribute to students' education.
As someone who grew up with (and actually loved playing) games like Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, Number Muncher and Oregon Trail in my school, I really don't see a problem with this. Educational games can work and can work extremely well, not only as educational tools but also as, you know, fun games. There's no reason this sort of thing should not be getting more funding and attention. Plus, it will benefit games on the whole.
Honestly I don't keep up much with politics so maybe he will still be there next year, but last I had heard was that it was unlikely he'd be reelected. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know that we chose Bush Jr...twice...we don't always make the most logical decision.Jadak said:
its kinda sad i've been conditioned to think '-.- good lord what now ...' from just the title
good to see its not all that bad sounding, if not a bit far fetched
good to see its not all that bad sounding, if not a bit far fetched
i dont think this is a election stunt. Obama always liked more human things than most politics. He did such things as appear on Mythbusters and so on. He is probably the only one of few presidetns that actually cared more about the country than about himself. personally i dont want to see him go, but such are the freedom of democracy.
so you claim that majority of votes dislike games? i would argue.Yopaz said:
You would. I hope you can back that up in any way. Now I can't offer any proof, but I can offer a logic explanation why I believe this. Games take a lot of bad criticism. Games lead to violence, there have been several attempts at passing a bill to make it impossible for kids to get the games intended for mature audiences.Strazdas said:
Politicians which have been running for office have won by saying they are against gaming. Now if someone has won in the past by using gaming as their devil, then that certainly doesn't mean there's anything to win by praising gaming, am I wrong? I want more than a simple "You're wrong" if I am. I might be wrong or reading too much into things. I don't follow American politics that much so I would even say it's quite likely.