It would take a lot of time, concentration and study to play the "Will you join us" game effectively and well. I played it a couple time and basically relied on trial and error. I also really tried to make irresponsible decisions during one try just to see what would happen. Without the any background study or evaluation the game is not all that useful. It follows the model of Sim-City and just starts to feel like another game without necessarily incorporating much learning.
High School students could play this game, but additional instruction and coordinated additional assignments would need to be added to insure that real learning was taking place.
One issue that occurred to me with this game and with the Haiti game as well is that the game is based on underlying assumptions that may or may not be accurate. At the very least the underlying assumptions are probably debatable, yet they are incorporated into the game in a way that makes them reality within the confines of the game. This game was created by Chevron. A game created by the an environmental group would probably be based on a whole different set of assumptions. Similarly, the Haiti game leaves players with specific understandings of the reality of day to day life in Haiti that may or may not be true. Bias is especially likely to creep into a game when the creators engage in the necessary process of simplification that must be involved in creating a models of complex social, economic and scientific systems so that they can serve as the basis of an engaging, accessible and entertaining game. Scientists and Social Scientists have had great difficulty accurately predicting the future and there is only limited consensus now on what the future may hold - yet this game implicitly makes claims about the future.
My Essential Questions:
1) What are the implicit assumptions used by the creators of this game? Are they reasonable assumptions?
2) How likely is it that technological advances will provide solutions to future economic, environmental and security challenges?
High School students could play this game, but additional instruction and coordinated additional assignments would need to be added to insure that real learning was taking place.
One issue that occurred to me with this game and with the Haiti game as well is that the game is based on underlying assumptions that may or may not be accurate. At the very least the underlying assumptions are probably debatable, yet they are incorporated into the game in a way that makes them reality within the confines of the game. This game was created by Chevron. A game created by the an environmental group would probably be based on a whole different set of assumptions. Similarly, the Haiti game leaves players with specific understandings of the reality of day to day life in Haiti that may or may not be true. Bias is especially likely to creep into a game when the creators engage in the necessary process of simplification that must be involved in creating a models of complex social, economic and scientific systems so that they can serve as the basis of an engaging, accessible and entertaining game. Scientists and Social Scientists have had great difficulty accurately predicting the future and there is only limited consensus now on what the future may hold - yet this game implicitly makes claims about the future.
My Essential Questions:
1) What are the implicit assumptions used by the creators of this game? Are they reasonable assumptions?
2) How likely is it that technological advances will provide solutions to future economic, environmental and security challenges?