Why do most Educational Games Suck?
As a Canadian child of the early 2000’s I still remember the excitement of getting to boot up the classroom computer and play Oregon Trail. A quest only obtained if you had completed your work before, recess was indoors, or earned as some reward. No matter what, getting to spend 15 minutes of my school day guiding a migrating family through America to eventually die of Dysentery was weirdly a highlight. Other Canadians, might remember the joy of trucking through our own nation in Cross Country Canada an experience I sadly missed out on at the time. But whether you were using a truck or covered wagon to travel, these games were a welcome relief to the classroom monotony.
While many remember these games as good experiences, the surge of educational gaming after their release in the 1970’s and 80’s has brought with it more bad games than good.. How is it that with so many years of games since, we still only have a handful of good educational games. So often we see games which barely hold a narrative, use bland mechanics such as solve 2+2 =___, and offer little engagement or desirable replayability. Despite these games finding spaces in and outside of the classroom today why are so many of them objectively bad?
Figure 1: Screenshot of Oregon Trail (1974)
What makes a game “bad”?
Now before you yell at me for saying that Oregon Trail or Cross Country Canada are bad games, I want to clarify that not every educational game is bad. But most are. Many of them barely constitute a game, acting instead as a thinly veiled reskin of curriculum. We see so many browser games being used because they are free and easy to access. Just look at games on sites like mathgames.com, math playground, or education.com. Almost every single one of them follows the same formula: oversaturated and simplistic graphics, a “play mechanic” that is just pulled from a worksheet, and some “fun” activity that may or may not relate to a theme/narrative. Despite this, these sites see daily use. But this isn’t just an issue in schools. Public education has looked to include games where concerns of disinformation (or lies online) have led to games like the pandemic vaccine focused title Know It or Not . Just spend a second of your time playing. You will notice how the game is no game at all, but instead a glorified quiz. So why are the level of design and play options so poor compared to non-educational counterparts?
Figure 2: Main interface of Know it or Not. You will see the "game mechanics" of button clicking and a point meter in the top right.
Why are they “bad”?
In game studies we have a few different categories that help our discussion here. Edutainment has been used to discuss these “games” which are really just a lesson plan with fancy graphics (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2011). You also might have heard the buzzword “gamification” which references the use of videogame mechanics in non-game spaces (Fuchs et al., 2015). Things like reward systems, point systems, and leaderboards are all game-system influences we see in these titles. The simple answer then is to say that many educational games are bad because, in fact, they are not games at all. They are gamification of school or edutainment. Their association with games is but a lie, one touted to increase funding, get school board buy-in, and market the game more generally. But there are a few more layers here.
It isn’t just Edutainment?
It would be unfair to throw every educational game under this category. Oregon Trail and Cross Country Canada are both examples of educational games that go beyond the simplicity of edutainment or gamification systems. But just because something isn’t outside those definitions doesn’t mean it is good. Educational games suffer from a series of design challenges that impact their ability to be “good” games. First, their design goals require a particular balance. Fun and curriculum (or learning more generally) need to be dovetailed. This means that many designers prioritize the learning components above all else. Rather than focus on storytelling, engaging mechanics, or worldbuilding themes that wash over the game - the central tenet of so many titles is what information they are trying to get across. Some games can manage this balance, but many fall flat. Second, play itself is typically forced. Offered as the only option, these games are played and maintain a long shelf life - but is it really play if you have no other option? The agency and choice of these games are minor. Many designers fear giving players freedom - but that is where many great titles thrive. Think of minecraft’s success in schools, the amount of player choice and creativity produced a fruitful space for discovery. But designers struggle to have the time, energy, and creativity to do this for titles of all curricula. How do you make a highly agential math game? Its possible, but the easier answer is almost always to limit player agency. The players have no choice to play your game anyway (since it is the only one of a handful the school offers).
The generality of this audience of players is the third challenge. It is really hard to make an effective educational game for a large age range and subset of players who span a variety of life experiences or socio-cultural backgrounds. While commercial titles attempt to do this, they are not balancing the same learning objectives. This means that designers need to think about how the learning and the game will be interpreted. Remember in math when you thought you knew what you were doing and ended up with a completely different answer? Educational games have to account for, and attempt to stymie, forms of deviant play and interpretation. Finally, there is a real challenge in gaining funding and promotion of the game. Educational games are a subset of the larger games market and offer a comparatively marginal revenue. This means that many educational games are reliant on funding from sources like government or corporate grants. In the case of the former, educators or community led projects do not have marketing departments who can actually help their game reach the right audience. Additionally, funders have their own goals, some of which are more reflective of edutainment or gamification systems rather than on creating an actually meaningful and welldone game.
”The “excitement” for games as learning tools has caused a rush on so many titles that these games fall flat.”
Where does this leave us?
These challenges leave us with a small handful of good educational games, and a massive bin of poorly constructed, rushed out, and barely definable game objects. The “excitement” for games as learning tools has caused a rush on so many titles that these games fall flat. However there are signs of hope. Some newer companies are attempting to bring the game aspect back into learning. One example is, Classcraft (I promise you that this is not a promoted post) who is bringing the narrative storytelling and quest building common in fantasy table top games and MMORPGs to the classroom. While a bit gamification focused at points, their approach to embedding lessons and the overall classroom environment into narrative game stories offers a somewhat convincing shell. We need designers to take the time, risks, and effort to make educational games that prioritize fun, that garner proper project outreach, and find ways to encourage player freedom in play. Games offer powerful ways to engage, wrestle with, and think about critical issues. Just as we journey in Oregon Trail or Cross Canada Canada, play should bring the student on an adventure - one that requires more than just simple addition.
References:
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2011). Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential of Computer Games. Lulu.com.
Fuchs, M., Fizek, S., Ruffino, P., & Schrape, N. (Eds.). (2015). Rethinking Gamification. meson press.
