Notes from the Game Developer Conference 2002 roundtable discussions entitled

“Children’s Software: Past, Present, and Future”

 

March 21, 2002

 

The discussion began on the topic of “eye candy”. Someone argued that Japanese Anime should be incorporated to make children’s software more appealing. Another pointed out that KidPix isn’t really easier for kids than its predecessors (e.g. MacPaint) but was innovative in its addition of eye candy (and ear candy as well). And the success of KidPix is probably due to this.

 

Someone claimed that fun should be primary. Stealth learning should be the goal. Carmen San Diego is a good example of this. Fun first but the more you know the better you do. Someone else brought the question of whether hiding the learning is analogous to chocolate broccoli – where the content is good for you but doesn’t “taste” good so you cover it with fun (i.e. chocolate).

 

Someone argued that educational content is no longer compelling by itself. Twelve years ago just being on the computer was exciting. Now educational software has to compete with lots of other software. Multi-player games work and should motivate kids whether by sharing the same computer or console or by playing over a network.

 

Someone pointed out that web software is different. Math Mayhem was given as an example. It is a math “trivia” speed game. You have 60 seconds to get a better score than others playing the same game. A child can be the best scorer in the world for a few minutes until someone else comes along and scores better.

 

Another person mentioned Cybiko (a kid-oriented PDA and communicator) and how it has very many low-tech basic games that are very appealing. Communication is very important.

 

Someone else asked why educational titles aren’t being developed for the GameBoy since it is clearly so successful. Technically a good idea but the business model gets in the way.

 

Someone pointed out there are lots of forces interacting here. Pokeman has a big “marketing machine” behind it. Kids are savvy. They are attracted to good character and story even if it is only a Popsicle stick with two eyes (from Nickelodeon). There are lots of conflicting forces among them that parents go for titles with licensed characters.

 

Kids are very quick to pick up on how software works. Software should support kids creativity.

 

Someone asked if assessment within a product is still important. Others answered that it is marketing that wants to put it on the box but it doesn’t need to be good or even work. One popular unnamed product had a huge bug in its assessment code and yet there was not a single report of this to tech support. Another said that it was an important focus of Reader Rabbit but the assessment component is much simpler now.

 

Another pointed out that assessment only measures what is easy to measure (and misses out on lots of important learning). Another claimed that parents don’t use the assessment functionality but it is important to educators. Another talked about products that come out in two versions where the school version has extras such as assessment tools.

 

Another said that designers were strongly constrained by the need to match the state frameworks. This is a strong constraint for software sold to schools.

 

Someone mentioned Hungry Red Planet as a game that taught nutrition. It was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Another pointed to Oregon Trail as a good example of stealth learning. Another said even with government grants there were requirements to meet state standards. They gave the example of the Quest Atlantis game for science learning funded by the NSF.

 

Someone pointed out that this is always a problem. Software needs to guarantee that something is learned. One is hampered and can’t make strong claims. Another pointed to how the Logo programming language for children could make strong claims prior to being commercialized.

 

Someone suggested that software be developed that meets standards and
”sneaks” in creativity and open-endedness.

 

Age of Empires was given as an example of a title that puts entertainment first but is really quite educational. But whenever there was a conflict between game play and historical accuracy then history was sacrificed. Another pointed out that disclaimers can be used to list the inaccuracies and the software can still be used in a school setting. They gave the Magic School Bus TV show as an example of this.

 

Another said that self-leveling software was new and amazing. It was very important in some Dr. Seuss software. Another wanted games based upon Howard Gardner’s seven ways of knowing.

 

Another said there needs to be more software for kids with disabilities. Someone responded that East 3 gives children attention training using brainwave monitoring. The game’s neuro-feedback works better than Ritalin. Even though the technology was really working the funding dried up for this.

 

People gave Parappa the Rapper and Dance Dance Revolution as games that were not meant or designed for children but even little kids like them. Someone said that kids need to be challenged and games can have versions for older children.

 

Another said that Carmen San Diego gets at the nugget of what is fun about geography. The same could be done for chemistry. This lead to a debate about whether a chemistry game could be fun. Some argued that some subjects lend themselves better to fun. Someone said that games should strive to capture the “mystery” that drives real scientists to do science. Another said the Logo programming language is like that.

 

Someone thought that the Tonka building game that included a special toy that fit over the keyboard was a good example of titles that include software and new technology. Another said that incorporating voice recognition software leads to more interaction.

 

Another said that simulation games in general were age independent and were examples of stealth learning.  A player can get an intuitive understanding of complex things – e.g. the cause of wars. Someone claimed that it is clear goals that makes a game fun. Another responded that the key is that it is OK to make mistakes and those mistakes have clear consequences in the game. Another said that the goal in Carmen San Diego is to catch her but the fun is learning geography. Someone else said that strict feedback is what is needed.

 

Chocolate covered broccoli was brought up as an objection to stealth learning. Kids can see through things and see what is really there.

 

Another said that it was important for kids to be able to set their own goals and gave the Age of Empires as an example. They said it was hard to design this kind of game.

 

Another pointed out that Purple Moon’s games were based upon richer story and characters than most games.

 

March 23, 2002

 

Someone started saying that titles for young children have a conflict between academic content and gaming.  Another said that Age of Empires is “too bent up” meaning that its historical inaccuracies conflict with academic content.

 

Someone said that licensed characters are necessary to market software for children. Parents buy brand names. For older kids there are peers and the web but the market for younger children is driven by brands – e.g. Disney, Barbie, Lego.

 

Someone said titles once had generous budgets of around a million dollars resulting in deep rich products. But then it was discovered that titles based upon licenses with one quarter of the development budget sold better. Another said it has gotten even worse since then.

 

Someone said the goal should be to be appealing enough as a game and have educational content. He went on to describe how Sid Meier’s Pirates was such a game during his childhood. It inspired him to learn all he could about pirates.

 

Another picked  up on this and said there is a contrast between software that has the “veneer of education” and those involved in real learning. The titles with a veneer don’t inspire children to learn more.

 

Someone said that Barbie Fashion Designer software was a huge hit not just because it has a Barbie license – many earlier failures had a Barbie license. It was such a hit because it encouraged the child to be creative and innovative.

 

Another said that most titles focus on a particular topic. None (or nearly none) instead focus on relationships – on friendship, honesty, kindness and the like. Some are working on such, e.g. Veggie Tales where there is a clear lesson with each title. They provide good behavior models. Another pointed out that titles that are values based teach something everyone needs to know. Parents enjoy experiencing such titles together with their children. Another mentioned how Will Wright during the conference spoke of how he was very mean to the inhabitants of Black and White and then felt guilty about it for the rest of the day. Another pointed out that in the King’s Quest games one got more points and a better ending for finding non-violent solutions to problems.

 

Someone raised the question of whether software designers should care more about serendipity and unexpected outcomes than the clear outcomes that they currently focus on. Another pointed out that in the virtual reality software they were working on it was not results-oriented but the children were free to explore rich worlds without being told where to go. The focus is on simulation of place and not on story. And it can fit into states’ educational framework standards.

 

Someone said it was unfortunate that everyone tries to follow rules that won’t make the software better but will help it sell.

 

Another said that assessment functionality is being added to titles like the Logical Journey of the Zoombinis. And this makes no sense – it is like adding assessment to chess.

 

Someone told how Orly's Draw A Story was a great creativity title that failed because the main character has a Jamaican accent. Its publisher was afraid of encountering the controversy around Ebonics. Someone said it is difficult to solve the problem of market constraints despite the fantastic potential of the technology. Designers are forced to focus first on the market and then innovation and good design.

 

Another asked if research and development funding could be used to solve the problem. The fact that Lucas Learning was well-funded and developed quality titles and had the Star Wars license but still failed was mentioned as a possible counter example. Someone else said that the Connect system was spun out of BBN R&D.

 

Someone pointed out that school curriculum itself has not been so successful. So we don’t need to follow the curriculum but should lead. Schools will follow if something really works. The key is motivation and learning.

 

Another asked if charitable organizations and non-profit software might provide a solution. The model of open source software could be used for software for kids. Squeak was mentioned as an example of this. Another said there was a conflict when corporations sponsor such things since openness conflicts with their interests.

 

On the topic of how much the situation differed outside of the USA, someone said that in France there was lots of home-grown software products. Another said that in Russia software used to be very academic and fit well with the style of the schools. Very basis question and answer type software was common.

 

Someone asked what to kids want and proposed the answer is hand-held devices. 90% of their time they are using Game Boys or the like. Another asked if this what the kids want or are they being bumped off the household computer since parents and older siblings want to browse the web.

 

Someone said that schools can’t deal with PCs and all the issues of installation, reliability, security, and maintenance.  He asked why can’t schools use consoles instead? Others said that the manufacturers of the new consoles don’t want titles for young kids (the console might become less cool). PlayStation One is an option but there is the price point issue.  Titles must sell for $19.95 and it is hard to do economically.

 

Someone pointed out that the PlayStation Sesame Street titles were not done well. Another said it was because there was no money left for development because it is so costly.

 

Another pointed out the problem of the reputation of consoles. Surveys show many parents see consoles as “evil” and don’t want them in their own. They don’t seem to understand that software rules.

 

Another solution someone proposed was software on demand over the Internet. This avoids the installation issues but does require broadband. Another pointed to the advantages of formats such as Flash and Java for distributing software on the web.

 

Someone said we should hide content inside of fun games. He claimed this isn’t chocolate broccoli since both the content and the coating “taste” good.

 

The following is the handout for the discussions.

 

Children’s Software: Past, Present, and Future

Moderated by Ken Kahn (KenKahn@ToonTalk.com)

 

1.      What have been the significant advances in software for children?

·       What software from the past can we learn from? (KidPix, LOGO, Carmen San Diego, Super Mario Brothers, How the West was Won, Living Books, and what else?)

2.     What is the current state of the art in the design of children's software?

·       Are there new ideas or “only” better technology?

3.     What will children's software be like in the near and far future?

·       Speech input and output

·       Camera input and gesture recognition

·       Virtual reality

·       “Intelligent” tutors, guides, and coaches

·       New kinds of software?

4.     Will new hardware change the nature of software for children?

·       Mixed physical and virtual (What went wrong with Zowie and Microsoft Barney?)

·       Robotics (e.g. LEGO Mindstorms)

·       Intelligent toys (as input/output devices or as stand-alone applications)

5.     Should software be designed specifically for children or should we strive for software that appeals to both children and adults?

·       Movies like Snow White, Wizard of Oz, and Star Wars have very broad appeal. How about music? Is Disneyland designed just for kids?

6.     If we do design software specifically for children should we specialize the software for narrow age ranges or a single gender or both?

7.     Where does learning fit into the picture? Is software labeled as education more educational than software that isn’t?

8.     Where do the constraints of the retail channel fit into the picture?

9.     Finally, where does software made by children fit into the big picture?

·       Stagecast Creator (www.stagecast.com)

·       ToonTalk (www.toontalk.com)

·       LEGO Mindstorms RCX (www.mindstorms.com)

·       LOGO (el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/logo-foundation)

·       Playground Project (www.ioe.ac.uk/playground)

·       Squeak (www.squeakland.org)

 

home | search | purchase | manual | news | info | games | faq | support | downloads | endorsements | press | contact us