Gambling Never Pays

Are the game elements well developed and appropriate for the game? Does it show original thought? Does it follow accepted norms for the genre? ~OR~ does it have new take on known genre? ¹⁾

“It’s quite clear from the initial splash screen that the game is patterned after Phoenix Wright. http://www.capcom.com/phoenixwright/ I happen to like Phoenix Wright played through a number of the games. I think this format holds considerable promise for educational games because there is almost no animation, audio does not play a large role. The Phoenix Wright games are what I would call games on rails, namely, there is really only one correct way to the end. It is effectively a branching story. With the right balance of narrative and interaction , this can be a fun game.”

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?

“The game rules are fairly simple and only actions that are likely to move along the story are available at any given time. The game world offers only spaces and items that are directly relevant to the serious goals. There does not seem to be an easy way to pause or to backup. Premise or story is interesting and the characters are believable.”

The transitions between levels (which need not be traditional levels) go from simple to challenging and are smooth and appropriate for the game.

The situations are highly realistic and this is especially important in this game because it must be clear that the facts as laid down story map directly onto facts and concepts we want players to understand

Is it overall Visually Attractive? Does it make me want to try the game? Does it seem to be appropriate for the game?
Very pleasant looking. Everything hangs together thematically.

The art is pleasant and the organization is good.

Does it seem to be appropriate for the game? Is it: Appealing. Distinctive. Sufficient variety. Original or appropriate.

Does it seem to be appropriate for the game? Is it: Appealing. Distinctive. Sufficient variety. Original composition or appropriately credited

There is no audio

exists and is easy to find. It is clear how to use this game. Includes: Description of game play.Content description (documentation) is well organized. I can see how the game will play. Any required special permissions/skills to install or run are clearly identified. Installation and execution processes are clearly identified and easy to read and follow.

includes lesson plans with thorough instructions for using it in the classroom (or other target environment). Will not require large time investment to make it “teacher-ready”

for teachers (background, how to use, where to get help) exist, and are both complete and readable.

exists where teachers can go for help, support, to share. It is clearly identified and easy to find.

This relates to gameplay, but is specifically focused on how well the gameplay matches the intended educational objectives. For example, a guessing game or drill and practice may be appropriate for for learning anatomy, but not for Mendelian genetics.

They fit with the nature of the problem presented in the game.

As a portion of a unit this could work, but I wouldn't use it as the only resource.

It is not possible to guarantee that any particular objective will be met in an educational object like this, but it is possible to assess whether or not it provides the necessary 'raw materials'.

It is still kind of fun.

Does it pass Becker's Lazy Test (BLT)? It should not be possible to get through by brute force or by random chance. Are the educational objectives included among the required learning in the game? It should not be possible to get through the game while ignoring the learning objectives. The required learning in the game should be PART of the game and not only found in pop-up screens of text.

At the end of each chapter, there is a kind of mini lecture (which is kind of boring) that explains the science and concepts that were highlighted in the story. This is presented as a series of screens were the only thing that changes is the dialog box. Normally, when I come across these in a game, I have a tendency to click through as fast as possible, often not reading what’s there at all, until I get to something more interesting. My guess is that kids playing this game will likely do the same thing unless they have some sort of external motivation not to, such as some sort of test or quiz.

Even though no game can be completely accurate, it is crucial that all of the facts associated with the learning objectives be correct, and that the needed concepts and principles are clear. There should be nothing here that is misleading.

As far as I can tell.

Is scoring in the game related to the learning content?

Doesn’t keep track of what player has already done unless it’s wrong.

Bullet Class: MUST Learn ≈ CAN Learn 1

• MUST learn is considerable component of CAN learn.
  • Can be good game.
  • Challenging for some, frustrating for others.
  • Often requires players to repeat plays and levels many times.
  • Design does not really allow for or include external learning.
  • Coincidental learning possible, but not necessary.
  • The more one MUST learn of the total set, the fewer choices players may ultimately have.
• Although this is a game on rails, it still manages to be entertaining. This game requires the player to gather evidence and uncover clues and then solve the mystery. It is not possible to skip any parts and almost all interactive parts are in some way connected to the goal. However, the cases are interesting.

For a more detailed explanation, see: Magic Bullet Assessment

Is the relationship between the 4 main categories appropriate for this game given its intended use?

Overall balance is fairly typical for an educational game. There really isn't much to do in the game that isn't directly related to the learning goals. There's not much in the way of external learning, making it fairly self-contained, and though there are opportuities for discretionary learning, it is not really supported by the game itself (i.e. there are no additional resources where players can go to learn more).

Is it possible to get through the game without learning anything (i.e. without meeting any of the educational objectives)?

t some point I had to go through and read at least some of what was there in order to figure out what my next move should be. Now, it would have been possible to work through it by brute force and simply try every possible alternative, in turn, but one of the things that this game does do is keep track of that and after a while he actually tells you what you need to do. That is useful in an educational game's players should not be left to wander in circles.

Is the required operational learning appropriate for the game's intended purpose?

“I am not finding the interface to be as intuitive as they would like it to be. However, the style fits well with the purpose.”

Is there an appropriate balance of learning and fun?

This is one of those games where, “You will like this game if this is the sort of game you like.”