Game Reviews – Inside the Haiti Earthquake
A simulation that focuses on decision-making and consequences that occur immediately following a disaster (in this case, the Haiti earthquake), through one of three perspectives: a survivor, a journalist, or an aid worker.
Posted in: Uncategorized, Week 05: Game-Based Learning
Julie S 2:43 pm on October 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I went back to revisit Gee’s 16 learning principles for good games (Gee, 2005) after playing this game to analyze why I found it the most compelling selection. What I came up with is pretty high marks across all the basics.
The game provided identity by including 3 appealing characters, the survivor, aid worker, and journalist. The interactions were direct, simple selections would choose the next course of action. The production aspect was demonstrated when I would take a course of action and the consequences would be demonstrated in a video taken from real events. It allowed for risk taking and even though it was a game I found myself hesitating over choices and not wanting to be even virtually responsible for causing more suffering. I liked the customization of seeing different experiences based on character selection. The agency through each of these was clear, the dialogue was personal and explained immediate consequences to my actions. The design was well ordered, but maybe a little too simple. The options didn’t give a true sense of the complexity or the opportunity for a player to come up with new creative ideas. There were little challenges along the way in the form of text messages from bosses or sponsors. Explanations would come ‘just in time’ which made it easy to understand consequences of actions. I appreciated the design in terms of situated meanings. If someone had tried to explain the complexity of these roles to me in more traditional forms e.g. a news story or an essay, I don’t think I would have had the same understanding of the perspective. Because I was presented with situations in the role and asked to make decisions in that role I was able to get more out of the experience.
The game was pleasantly frustrating. I made the wrong decisions at times and was pleasantly given the reason why it was wrong and redirected to the better answer. I never felt like giving up because I was at a dead end. This was a good example of systems thinking because ever action and consequence was explained in terms of the overall complexity of the situation. It could have been more compelling if there were other players or actions happening unexpectedly in the game. The game offered opportunities to ‘explore, think laterally, and to rethink goals’. When I acted in the role of aid worker I was surprised that my choices to look to the large organizations for the answers in a chaotic situation was the wrong thing to do. It demonstrated why independent and creative thought and actions would be beneficial.
One of the big reasons I liked the game was how quickly I could be immersed because the game included Gee’s principle of ‘smart tools and distributed knowledge’ as evidenced in the aid worker who had the aid already transported to Haiti and his accommodations and the basics established. The distributed learning aspect could have been enhanced through a multi-player option where the 3 character roles interacted. This game did not include a cross functional team aspect but it could easily be enhanced to incorporate this given the richness of the potential characters and interdependencies that would exist in this scenario. I could definitely play before having performance competency because of the ‘smart tools’ built into the game and I understand why Gee argues for these principles to be more engrained in schools – not just in video games.
References:
Gee, James (no date). Good video games and good learning. [PDF document]. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved online from http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/Good_Learning.pdf
Everton Walker 6:42 pm on October 4, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Great work! This game is emotional for me and as a result I never immersed myself into it. Haiti is a neighboring country and have close ties to my country. Their continued suffering even before that disaster has always impacted me. Despite that, this game would be good for the geography classroom; especially in regions that are prone to earthquakes and other natural disasters
jarvise 2:34 pm on October 5, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can definitely see how if you had a personal connection to the incident, as you do, you would not really want to immerse yourself into the game. The footage used in the simulation is real footage from after the earthquake. It could be traumatic if you had personal experience related to it. This is an important point, as we would need to use such a tool with sensitivity.
Emily
khenry 6:31 pm on October 8, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The use of real footage impacted greatly. The interactive nature rather than passively listening and watching the news made the experience richer. It really saddened me as well Everton. The level of engagement needed to make decisions along with the interactivity of the game is what separates a constructivist experience from a passive one without much impact. Conditions that model reality and realistic propositions and/or situations seem integral to the gaming experience.
Kerry-Ann
Deb Kim 6:56 pm on October 8, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Start from the beginning, this game has a great impact emotionally. I was able to “see” what really happened that day when there was an earthquake in Haiti by looking and listening to the footage. It was more realistic and direct than watching the news or listening to the radio at home.
Deb