1. We need to harness collaboration. Collaborative efforts are the most efficient way to get jobs done and to iterate ideas.
2. Educational games are more than just Math Blaster. We can use the idea of games and game design to create better schools that reward students more than the current system does.
3. Games are not inherently anti-social. ’nuff said.
4. Game design can be applied to more than just engineering fun. Implicitly she is arguing that fundamentals of something we know can be recycled and applied to other things that we need to fix. Nobody would think to turn school into an interactive game but that holds kids’ attention.
5. Fear of failure is a huge obstacle that keeps people from maximizing their potential. If we could mitigate failure, those that are highly risk-adverse would be more likely to take risks.
1. The world can be changed through games. True, it could be changed, but the statement is far too naive. We are simply using games as a tool to affect world change. The games are not making us change the world, they are merely guiding us to actions that would make us change the world.
2. The word game can have a negative connotation and only if you take what she says at the beginning to heart do you actually see how most anything can become a game. If everything becomes a game, though, is there not a loss of what makes reality real? Would we not simply
3. She completely ignores the advantages and disadvantages of competition, especially at the higher levels. What about MLG players or professional Starcraft players? Are they changing the world? Doesn’t competition make certain aspects of the human condition better?
4. There is a lack of research other than anecdotal evidence and the author’s own views and findings. This may be just due to the fledgling nature of the field but the lack of hard evidence makes a reader wonder if there is much of a platform to stand on. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but for the arguement to stand, it needs good support other than “I saw it therefore it must be true.”
5. There is also a lack of discussion about the commerciality in games and how that could deeply affect the path in which games lead us. There would need to be commercial pressure for games to make us more aware of problems. But on the flip side, people become skeptical of games that are made to teach us something but is backed by some corporation. For instance, Will You Join Us is about creating a sustainable future through energy. It is sponsored by Chevron which makes a point to say that oil will always bee relevant and great to use. Playing the game makes me skeptical of the real message of what is being presented, but other people might miss that and risk being brainwashed or forced into believing a suboptimal concept.