For Creators of Video Games, a Faint Line on Cloning – NYTimes.com

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

For Creators of Video Games, a Faint Line on Cloning – NYTimes.com.

Indie developers simply don’t have the infrastructure to produce games in the same way that the big companies do. Yes, I know that the big companies all started off as little guys.

So, when did they stop being considerate and understanding of other indies? At what point do they loose sight of what they were trying to do (make great games) and grab onto the capitalist dream (become fabulously rich)? Is it really just as simple as that people are greedy?

Why do we keep idolizing bullies with money? Is there any connection between that and our apparent love of competition?

Be the first to like.

Does A Postumus Pardon Right a Wrong or is it Just Rewriting History?

Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Widespread Celebrations But No Pardon For Turing.

from /www.turing.org.uk

This is Alan Turing Year – the year we are to celebrate the accomplishments and life of this remarkable man. As a computer scientist, he is one of the icons of our discipline.

This month the House of Lords declined to grant a posthumous pardon for the crime of gross indecency for which he was convicted in 1952. Many people are upset about this decision. I think it was a good and appropriate decision. Read the explanation carefully, as I think they’ve summed it up well.

“A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.
It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times”.

A pardon is effectively the same as saying that the conviction was a mistake. It wasn’t. Not for that time.  Of course it would be wrong to convict him had he done the same thing in the present day. But he was convicted of an act he  committed knowing it was a crime (at that time). He did not deserve what he got, but the legal system has never really been about justice. Nor is it about right and wrong. Mostly, the legal system is about vengeance.

What happened to him was tragic, and I share the sentiments of many who sincerely wish we had been more enlightened at the time so we could have given him the recognition he so richly deserved. But we weren’t – we were just coming out of a terrible war where much of Europe had personally come face to face with just how monstrous humans can be. We were also just starting to emerge from our Victorian sensibilities and coming to realize that people – ALL people – might just deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity – regardless of colour, religion, sexual orientation, or financial standing. We’re not there yet.

Alan Turing took his own life in 1954, probably in large part because of the conviction. That can NEVER be put right. What we can and should do is to make sure we learn from our mistakes so that ultimately we learn never to do this to anyone else again.

Erasing our mistakes, as pardons do, does NOT make anything better. In fact it makes things worse – they give us permission to sweep our past atrocities under the carpet and pretend they never happened. Thus insulated from our mistakes, it becomes much more likely that it will be only a matter of time before we do it again.

2 people like this post.

Gamasutra – Features – Jerked Around by the Magic Circle – Clearing the Air Ten Years Later

Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

Gamasutra – Features – Jerked Around by the Magic Circle – Clearing the Air Ten Years Later.

A broad strokes definition: The magic circle is the idea that a boundary exists between a game and the world outside the game.

Outside the magic circle, you are Jane Smith, a 28 year old gamer; inside, you are the Level 62 GrandMage Hargatha of the Dookoo Clan. Outside the magic circle, this is a leather-bound football; inside, it is a special object that helps me score — and the game of Football has very specific rules about who can touch it, when, where, and in what ways.

Is the magic circle a verifiable phenomenon? A useful fiction? A ridiculous travesty? And who really cares? This essay endeavors to answer these questions by looking at the history, the use, and the misuse of the term. And along the way, I offer some correctives to how we think about the concept, about game design theory, and about the more general study of games.

 

Games (and play) exist in a space somewhat apart from reality: a dimension of time and space(*): ‘the magic circle’. Within this magic circle things are permitted that cannot (or should not) happen in real life, yet we can learn things from games that we can apply to real life. Children of almost any age seem to understand that this special realm exists,and most of us probably remember playing complaining that someone in the group “wasn’t playing right” – there are always rules to game-style play, even if they aren’t explicit.

The problem runs deep. It goes beyond just wide-eyed graduate students. Sometimes, I see it in the work of colleagues for whom I have the utmost respect and whose work I otherwise admire: game studies icons Mia Consalvo, Marinka Copier, and T.L. Taylor all have written about the need to overthrow the oppressive magic circle.

The argument goes something like this: the idea of magic circle is the idea that games are formal structures wholly and completely separate from ordinary life. The magic circle naively champions the preexisting rules of a game, and ignores the fact that games are lived experiences, that games are actually played by human beings in some kind of real social and cultural context.

My question remains: who is this ignoramus that holds these strange and narrow ideas about games? Where are the books and essays that this formalist-structuralist-ludologist has published? Where is this frightfully naïve thinker who is putting game studies at risk by poisoning the minds of impressionable students? Just who is this magic circle jerk? (Note that the word is “jerk” as in annoying person — I’m using it as a noun, not a verb.)

I am here to tell you: there is no magic circle jerk. We need to stop chasing this phantasm. I offer this essay as a corrective. It is meant to clarify where this magic circle idea came from, what it was intended to mean, and to stop the energy being wasted by chasing the ghost of the magic circle jerk — a ghost that simply doesn’t exist.

 

 

The concept of the magic circle is not unique to humans – animals also understand it, which implies to me that it is a fundamental concept common to most intelligent life.Example: When dogs are play-fighting, they exhibit almost all of the same behaviours they would when fighting for real. There are some important differences though – the secondary physiological reactions are absent (like the hair up on their backs), and the normal dominance hierarchies are not enforced (a subordinate dog can ‘best’ a superior dog in play without retribution). If you’ve spent any time watching dogs play, you will also have seen times when the magic circle is broken (someone breaks a rule) and suddenly it becomes serious. The growling changes, their posture changes, the hair goes up, the growling changes, etc. and a whole new set of rules come into force, for now this isn’t play.

There have even been studies that imply that this kind of play is essential to normal development: In one experiment, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (human ethologist) discovered that polecats who are not given the opportunity to play with siblings did not know where to bite prey and rivals or how to hold females during mating once they grew up (Lorenz & Leyhausen, 1973).

I think we can argue over the precise definition – though personally I don’t see the need, but that the concept exists and is understood by people and animals alike on a very deep level does not seem to be disputable.

(*)“….You’re traveling to another dimension. A dimension of time and space. A dimension of sight and mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance. You’ve just crossed over into..” Sorry, couldn’t resist…this is the intro to the Twilight Zone , Rod Serling’s television series that ran from 1959-1964.

Be the first to like.

Choose: Education OR Fun. Apparently, you can’t have both.

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

I’ve talked about this before (Trading off between Education and Fun??? SRSLY?, and FUN Should NOT be an ‘F’-Word). I even wrote about this in my book.

The "Serious Games Continuum"

Many people in Education seem to believe that fun and education are at odds with each other.

It’s discouraging that this fallacy is so tenacious.

I got an offer in the mail today to answer a challenge to create an “idea for how interactive technology and game-based learning can improve teaching and learning”. I won’t name the source because it is not my intent to single them out. I have no desire to embarrass anyone. Here is the line that caught my eye:

…games could be as engaging as launching birds at pigs
and as educational as reading a textbook…

WOW.

Yes it’s true that Angry Birds is a lot of fun. I’m not sure it should be touted as the epitome of engagement – a big part of what makes it so much fun is that it asks very little of the player – it doesn’t take long to do a round, and you don’t need to know anything (not really). On the other hand, it’s definitely worth looking at some of the things that make it so good: the audio, the interface is easy to understand, the gameplay is clean and accurate, …. We can learn from that, but there are other games I would use as examples of engaging – Portal maybe, or Skyrim.

But that’s not my big beef. My BIG beef is the second part: as educational as reading a textbook. Really? REALLY?!

I guess if people believe that textbooks are the epitome of “educational”, then the Ed-Fun continuum is not a surprize.

We have a long, LONG way to go.

Be the first to like.

» Top Ten Ways to Annoy a Gifted Child giftedguru.com

Approximate Reading Time: 4 minutes

 

» Top Ten Ways to Annoy a Gifted Child giftedguru.com.

I shared this on FB the other day and got some responses I had to think about for a while.

First, here’s the summary of the list:

  1. Force them to remain at the “right” grade level.
  2. Insist that they show their work, even though every single answer is correct and they have known how to do that type of problem for three years.
  3. Make them read along with much slower readers.
  4. Place them in a classroom with more typical learners and don’t do anything to accommodate the giftedness.
  5. Say, “You’re so smart, you should be able to do this.”
  6. Refuse to allow them to play with older or younger kids.
  7. When the unit on wolves is over, there will be no more learning about wolves (or hurricanes, or the quadratic formula, or quantum physics).
  8. More-ferentiate! This is Differentiation’s evil imposter. With more-ferentiation, you just give more of the same work, not different work.
  9. Expect them to “act gifted” all of the time.
  10. Make them practice work they already know over and over.

I thought this was wonderful because those are exactly the things we used to argue with our kids’ teachers about. Many of these were also things that turned me off when I was a kid.

But several people commented that they thought all kids had the same issues. After some thought, I’m not so sure. I’m not trying to be elitist – some of these are problems for many kids regardless of how smart they are.

Lack of accommodation [4] is a problem for any kid who doesn’t fit the typical mold. (Yes I know every kid is special, but statistically, there are those who fit the norms and then there are outliers. By definition MOST people fit the norms.)

I think ALL kids should be playing and socializing with people of all ages [6] – that’s one of the things that’s wrong with formal schooling.

I also agree that given the right kind of guidance, all kids should be allowed to explore topics in greater depth [7]. I know that certain learning objectives need to be met – but it is usually possible to find a way to make it work. I’ve been supporting my “Hatching in the Classroom” program for over 20 years and when teachers hatch ducklings in the class, EVERYTHING is about ducks. Every subject gets related to the ducks during that time and I’ve been regularly amazed at the different ways teachers have found to tie the required curriculum into the unit.

As for [1] – as long as classrooms force segregation by age, I think it’s a bad idea to put kids in a grade that is outside of their age-group. I happen to think forcing kids to stay with their age-mates is a BAD idea (see [6]), but as long as it is, putting kids ahead or keeping them back makes them stick out. It makes them different in an obvious way and that is often damaging. If you’re too old for your class – people assume you are dumb, and if you’re too young for your class – people assume you’re going to give them the answers all the time (speaking from personal experience). In my case I ended up being two years younger than almost everyone in my class – I was constantly ridiculed.

Reading along with slower readers [3] isn’t a bad thing, at least not in class. I think it can teach tolerance and patience. It can also be a great opportunity to let the quicker kids tutor the slower ones.

That leaves: [2] show your work, [5] single them out, [8] more-ferentiate, [9] expecting them to act gifted all the time, [10] make them practice work they know.

[5] & [9] are basically just rude, but I’ve seen it happen many times, and I’ve had teachers do it to me. Many teachers feel threatened by really bright kids and react badly. Teachers get frustrated with some of the ‘slow’ kids too, but (and many are not going to like this) teachers are more likely to have greater patience with someone to whom they feel superior.

[2], [8] and [10] are all related. I see it as a lack of creativity and flexibility on the part of the teacher. They just don’t know what to do with these kids. And here I really think that average kids are not nearly as bothered by these things as the bright ones.

One of my kids used to be notorious for NOT handing in homework. We used to get frustrated calls from his teachers because his grades were always below average. Knowing that he actually understood all the material, we tried all kinds of things to get the teacher to accommodate him (this was grade 2-8!), including offering to create work for him ourselves that the teacher could approve. We were always politely refused. His grade 4 teacher told us that his grades would be stellar if she only used his test scores. I patiently tried to explain to her that high test scores indicated he KNEW the material, so whether or not he handed in his worksheets shouldn’t matter. She couldn’t get her head around that one.

As a result of this on-going struggle, he was ‘tested’ in grade 7 – and promptly pronounced “gloriously AVERAGE”. We were told we should celebrate his averageness.

Take it from me, he’s not. I’ve taught at university for over 30 years and I’ve literally taught thousands of students. Some were clearly smarter than I am, though not many. I enjoyed the challenge of finding ways to keep these kids engaged without alienating the average and struggling students. Some of those exceptionally bright students still keep in contact with me to this day.

I have this theory: most actors can’t convincingly play someone who is smarter than they are, at least not much smarter. I think it’s because they have no way of imagining what someone who’s really smart thinks like.

I think the same is true for teachers.

Be the first to like.

Interesting Take on Gender Stereotyping in Comic Characters

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

The Avengers: Strike a Pose!

Here we have the original ad pic for the new Captain America film (note the position of the Black Widow) followed by how it might look if all the superheros were made to pose like us girls usually are.

http://danhf.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/the-avengers-strike-a-pose/

In this series, Aaron Diaz takes a shot at a different approach to superheroes.

In part one he tackles the Justice League

In part two he does the Legion of Doom

In part three he does Batman

AND THEN, DC takes a short at re-designing some of his characters.

 

I’m still not sure how I feel about this – I think I like having a mix of ‘pin-ups’ and more interesting characters. In the interestes of full disclosure, I’ve never really found ANY cartoon character sexy, so mostly I don’t care. I guess aslo, I grew up when my most significant TV role models were Geanie, Bewitched (housewives, who, though smarter than their husband-masters, still behaved like mere servants), and Emma Peel. Even Emma quit her job when her husband re-appeared. Sigh.

Be the first to like.

Why Education Publishing Is Big Business | Epicenter | Wired.com

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Interesting….

Why Education Publishing Is Big Business | Epicenter | Wired.com.

 

Be the first to like.

The dark side of Apple’s digital textbook utopia | VentureBeat

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

The dark side of Apple’s digital textbook utopia | VentureBeat.

The dark side of Apple’s digital textbook utopia

One of the problems with Apple is that it wants to commandeer market share by preventing people from having a choice. Even though the love for Apple is strong in Education, the fact remains that in Ed, “open is better than closed”.

This is not a lone voice in the wilderness:

Apple’s mind-bogglingly greedy and evil license agreement

The Chronicle of Higher Ed: Apple’s New E-Textbook Platform Enters an Already Crowded Field

Be the first to like.