Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- pf:game-reviews:game-reviews [2012/10/19 22:10] – [Additional Resources] becker
+++ pf:game-reviews:game-reviews [2013/05/30 20:56] (current) – [Format of the Review] becker
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ===== Format of the Review =====
-The review has 5 main parts, each of which contributes equally to a total score.
+[[pf:game-reviews:game-review-template|Template V3.0]]
-  - Game Overview: How is it as a game?
+There are two parts that are not scored (yet).
-    - Gameplay
+It doesn't make much sense to score these as there really can't be a good or bad answer here - it depends totally on context. They do, however, contribute to the whole picture and so they add a dimension that can be useful.
-    - Art & Audio
-  - Teacher Support
+They are:
-    - Guides: How to use it.
+  - Instructional Strategy - What instructional strategies does it use?
-    - Resources: Supplementary Materials
+  - Theoretical Underpinnings - What theories, models, or principles were used in the design of this game?
-    - Community: Is there a community to turn to?
-    - Operation: IS installation & basic functionality explained?
+The review has 4 main parts, each of which contributes to a total score.
-  - Educational Content
-    - Accuracy: Is it correct?
+Approximately half of the total score has to do with the game and game elements. This is, after all a GAME we are reviewing, and if it doesn't make it as a game, it shouldn't matter how well it does in the other categories. The other half has to do with the educational potential. Remember that this template does not include efficacy tests or any other user validation. As such, this is ONE step in what should be a battery of assessments performed to try and determine the value of this game in an educational context. The current version is biased towards the use of the game in a formal educational context.
-    - Objectives: Does it appear to fulfill the stated objectives?
-    - Integration: Are the objectives integrated into the game?
+Each section includes several sub-parts, and each sub-part is to be scored on a 5-point scale from excellent [5] to non-existent [0]. The points are simply summed to create the over-all score.
-  - Magic Bullet Rating
-    - How are the MUST learns & CAN learns balanced?
+  - **Game Overview:** (30%) How is it as a game?
-  - Instructional Ethology Rating
+    - **Gameplay** What can you do in the game? Are the controls logical and easy to use? Does each 'level' fit the overall style of the game?
-    - Interaction: How does it work?
+    - **Art & Audio** - How does it measure up esthetically? This includes visual and auditory components.
-    - Goal Support: Does it help the player achieve the goal(s)?
+  - **Teacher Support:** (20%)
-    - Flow: Does gameplay develop over the game?
+    - **Guides:** How to use it.
-    - Evolution: Has it evolved from it's first edition/ predecessors?
+    - **Plug'N'Play:** How much work is involved in fitting this game into a lesson? This also includes operation: Is installation & basic functionality explained?
+    - **Resources:** Supplementary Materials
+  - **Educational Content** (25%)
+    - **Accuracy:** Is it correct?
+    - **Objectives:** Does it appear to fulfill the stated objectives?
+    - **Inclusion of Learning Objectives:** Are they obvious (either in the game or in the support materials)?
+    - **Integration:** Are the objectives integrated into the game? In other words, is it necessary to master at least //some// of the stated learning objectives in order to get through the game?((This is what I call Becker's Lazy Test. When I am examining a game, I see how far I can get without reading or learning anything. I simply follow the known mechanics (if obvious) or click randomly. If I can get to the end this way, it does NOT pass as an educational game.))
+    - **Assessment:** Is the scoring / assessment in the game connected to the learning objectives (or is it easy to make them be)?
+  - **[[pf:game-reviews:magic-bullet|Magic Bullet Rating]]** (25%)
+    - **Overall Balance:** Is the relationship between the what the player can learn and must learn, both inside and outside of the game appropriate for this game given its intended use?
+    - **Can vs. Must:** Is it possible to get through the game without learning anything (i.e. without meeting any of the educational objectives)?
+    - **Operational vs Educational:** Is the required operational learning appropriate for the game's intended purpose?
+    - **Educational vs Discretionary:** Is there an appropriate balance of learning and fun?
+    - **Containment:** Is the game (including support materials) sufficiently self-contained to justify its use in the given context?
 ====== Games ======
@@ Line 48: / Line 61: @@
 [[Mathblaster]] age 8-10
   * **Math Blaster!** (1986) [PC] Published by Davidson & Associates, Inc. [[http://www.knowledgeadventure.com/mathblaster/|Game Site]]
+  * completed using an early version of the review template
 [[osyosmosis|Osy Osmosis]] age all?
   * **Osy Osmosis** (2012) [PC/Mobile] Published by IS3D [[http://www.osyosmosis.com/|Game Site]]
+  * completed 2012 - template V2
 ===== Queued =====
+[[Gambling Never Pays]]  (incomplete)
+  * **Gambling Never Pays** (2010) [PC] [[http://www.e-bug.eu/|e-Bug Games]] and [[http://www.edugames4all.org| edugames4all]]
 [[Digital Frog]] (incomplete)