by Fiona Prince and Nicolette Young
What we investigated:
We decided to discover if there were enough resources available for someone to learn how to create a simple video game for adult learners. Specifically, we wanted answers to the following questions:
- What software is available and recommended?
- How long would it take someone to learn how to create a game?
- Are there free software or free trials available to practice?
- What technology do you need to create a game (software and hardware)?
- Are there active and supportive learning communities and user groups to help newcomers create games? (Some user groups may be too technical for the average person).
What we found:
A Google search on “create video games” returned articles that claim you do not need any experience to create a video game. This seems unlikely because at the very least, a person needs to know the fundamentals of how to use a computer.
We also found that we needed to be more specific about the type of game we wanted to create. The amount of effort and time required to create even a simple video game will depend on the genre, such as puzzles, shooters, adventures, to name a few.
Using the search string “how to create educational video games”, we found a plethora of websites and resources including:
- Many commercial blog posts with lists (top 5; top 10) of how to incorporate games or gamification into learning design.
- Learning industry and community sites such as Elearningindustry.com, Articulate E-learning Heroes Community, and elearningbrothers.com, that contain informative articles and tutorials.
- Recommendations for authoring tools that include gamification elements.
- Online classes to learn how to create educational games.
- And of course, a bazillion sites trying to sell their gaming software, assets, and swag.
Confidence in the abundant content around our topic enabling us to learn about it:
We are confident that there is abundant content on how to create simple video games; however, many of the resources assume a high level of computer literacy and ability. Few resources provide a concrete timeline for how long it will take someone to create a game. For example, in his article How to Make a Video Game (Experience Not Required), Brandon Widder (2017) claimed it took ten hours for him to create one level of a simple motion game; however, he did not reveal his level of computer skills. According to his bio, he is a multi-media journalist. So, perhaps he is not your average user.
Was abundant content enough:
Abundant content actually inhibited our ability to find the targeted content we were looking for. The industry articles and tutorials seemed to be the best starting place while commercial sites seemed to entice readers to purchase their software or services through the information they provide.
To sort through the abundant content for all the relevant information took a significant amount of time which must be factored into the time it would take to learn to create a video game. Widder’s (2017) ten hours could be doubled. This supports Weller’s (2011) view that abundant content “changes the consumer’s relationship to content, [as] it is no longer the content that is [sic] scarce, but their own time and attention [that] becomes the key scarce resource”.
What you need to make use of the content:
First you need to know the offline elements for creating an educational game, including the learning outcomes, audience, technology (e.g. iOS, Android, Windows). Then you need to discern between the real experts and the marketers—those who wish to share their knowledge vs those who wish to sell a product.
Weller (2011) refers to the pedagogy of scarcity in the context of classroom learning where the lecturer is the expert; there is one expert for many learners. On the internet, in order to learn how to create a simple video game, we need to first unearth who the experts are before we can trust that the learning materials will meet our needs.
Ways we can make use of this content:
As instructors in an online course, we could design an assignment for learners to create a simple video using a specific, easy to use video-game software package. We would provide comprehensive tutorials with worked-examples for learners to follow and three scenarios (relevant to the area of study) to choose from.
We felt that by providing the software and associated assets (graphics, sound effects, music), learners would be able to focus more time on their subject matter than on getting lost in the abundant content on what software to use and how to use it.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Weller, M. (2010). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy. 249 pp. 223–236.
Widder, B. (May 8, 2017). How to make a video game (experience not required) [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/how-to-make-a-video-game/
Hi George,
Thank you for your reply – I’d like to add some of my own answers to your questions in addition to Fiona’s excellent responses.
First, I believe that there is always room for educating the public about these skills (ie. being able to recognize content with a marketing purpose) within our current institutions. To me, I see it as adjusting the curriculum to assure learners have these skills when they are searching for information.
I think while abundant content poses a challenge, it is also useful to the learner. For instance, in this activity, the abundance of content made us narrow our search and really dig deeper into our own question of what we are looking for. If people have a tutor, software or intermediary that curates the information for them, I’d argue we may be providing the same disservice as to when we are making the teacher the only expert in the room, rather than a more social learning context, where we can learn from multiple people with multiple backgrounds online.
I’d also argue that there should be more onus on the people that are putting the information out there to provide a short background on their knowledge and experience of the subject. This would help readers ascertain for themselves what they can take away from the content. This is not to say that one needs to always be an expert on the content they share because I believe there are lots of valid ideas and thoughts that can come from people that are expressing their thoughts on a topic of interest publicly. This way, readers can determine whether the content is valid for them and their context.
Lastly, the internet is full of people trying to be seen, read and heard. As Fiona and I observed in this activity, there are some people that have agendas for their online content. Some include being paid by a company to market a product, branding their business or even gaining followers so they can become a person that gets paid to share content. However, I wouldn’t necessarily want a software to recommend me content based on my past content choices. I always get a lot from being lost in the abundance and getting a real idea of what’s out there. I find it helps situate where I stand on a topic in terms of what I relate with.
I know everyone doesn’t feel the same though so I understand the appeal to use a software to sort for you. However, I think we need to be cautious of using software that may implement algorithms that use historical behavior (and anything else the software decides to be an element of the algorithm) to predict what we want to see. While convenient and efficient, I think this may take away a lot of the learning you can do by investigating content on your own and making your own decisions on what is appropriate for you to apply to your own situation.
– Nicolette
Hi Nicolette and Fiona,
I enjoyed reading your post, and coincide with you on the observation you make about the scarcity of resources… it is particularly interesting to note how dramatically the change can be, 180 degrees! When the once scarce becomes abundant, then scarcity appears on the opposite side of the table, so to speak.
On a different token, like Albert Einstein would say: “All is relative…” it all depends who you ask about how difficult it is to create a video game, educational or of any kind for that matter… a similar situation might be when you ask the waiter at a Mexican restaurant if a dish is too hot or spicy. If the waiter is used to eat hot spicy food, which is very likely to be the case, he or she would reply the dish is rather mild… then it will be up to you to decide how much water you drink while eating! LOL.
Cheers!
Alfonso
Hi Alfonso,
As you copied your comment to both of our blog posts (thank you!), I have replied to you on mine. Thanks for your reply!
– Nicolette
Very cool topic. I interpreted your findings as almost a false sense of abundance. As you mentioned, there was no shortage of articles, websites and other sources that could take you through resources used to create a game, but how much ‘pre-knowledge’ do you actually need in order to be successful? You make great points about not knowing the backgrounds of the ‘engineers’ who were successful at creating a game or program. Great perspective!
Hi George,
I take responsibility for using “Gamification” in our heading. I knew it was not the correct use of the term, but perhaps it was because I enjoyed working Nicolette on this project that our quest for knowledge through the abundant content felt a bit like a game inside an assignment. 🙂
Thank you for your questions. Here are some brief, though I admit not complete, answers.
1. If learners use intermediaries to make decisions about content, does that take away from the learners’ development of their own critical thinking processes and skills? If by intermediary, you mean someone to curate the content, that would be useful but learners may still need to go beyond that curated information, depending on what they are studying.
2. New learning institutions seems to be as abundant as content and just as difficult for learners to navigate. Even if a learner uses previously trusted sources to review the institutions, how can they be sure that the institutions did not pay to be included in the lists for a favourable review. (e.g. McLeans magazine top ten university list; BCAA’s best places to go camping).
3. If we used AI and software to offer up content, which we can already do with tools such as Google Alerts and clipping services, would we run into the same issue as having an intermediary curate content for us? There could be a nugget of information sitting in a site that doesn’t make it to the top of the AI search returns, similar to Google. Does anyone go past the first or second page of search returns anymore?
4. Personal tutors would be great…especially human ones. Let’s keep library folks and teachers employed. 🙂
Hi Fiona and Nicolette,
Thanks for this examination! I appreciate the finding that abundant content also poses challenges for learners. Here you describe some literacies that learners might need to address those challenges (e.g., being able to discern between marketers and experts). In this context of abundance is there a place for other intermediaries to make those decisions for learners? Do we need new institutions of learning? Different kinds of software that recommend content? Personal tutors that we can call? Personal AI tutors? I’m curious as to your thoughts given what we know how people learn.
P.S. 1. The term “gamification” refers to applying game-like ideas/elements (e.g., levelling up) to non-game contexts like education. Though closely related to video games, gamification is not the same as video games.
P.S. 2. I have posted this note on both of your blogs