June 2007 Archives

Late in 1995, a software company by the name of Blizzard Entertainment released a game know as "Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness". For all our gaming rookies out there, Warcraft 2 is classified as an RTS or real time strategy game, which is a fancy way of saying that the goal of the game is to build a better base or a better army than your oponent, and then wipe out your enemy. RTS games let the random Joes and Janes get to play armchair general, and depending on the level of difficulty in the game, different degrees of strategy and tactics may be required to win.

Warcraft was set in a fictional, mid-evil world of Orcs and Elves, Wizards and Warlocks, Dragons and Ogres (think Lord of the Rings). The characters and places in this world are slowly revealed to you as your play through the game, helping to shed light on the story and the "lore" behind Warcraft. All in all, Warcraft 2 was a wonderfully fun game and I probably played through it 2 or 3 times over the course of a year or two before eventually shelving it somewhere around 1997 for greener gaming pastures.

Fast forward your clocks 7 years, and good old Stub finds himself hanging out with some friends in college. Somehow, the conversation at the time had shifted away from the usual topics of football and or beer to the old school games we used to play, and not surprisingly, Warcraft 2 popped up. So for probably 10 minutes we joked about our memories of the game, playing against friends online, the sequel, and a few other tangents before eventually moving back toward the normal football and beer conversations ;-)

But as I trecked home that night, I started thinking again about Warcraft 2 again. What was the name of that Orcish chieftan, I thought to myself? Without so much as a moment to contemplate, the name came to me. Ogrim Doomhammer. Thats was it.

A few seconds later it hit me - how in the world did I remember that?

I won't bore you with the dorky details, but the more I thought about it, the more I remembered about the fictional world of Azeroth. I remembered names of fictional leaders, the geographic location of fictional kingdoms, the strengths and weaknesses of fictional units, and the outcome of critical fictional battles that shaped a fictional world.

Somehow, amidst my countless hours of fun, I had unwittingly taken an entire course on the history of a place that has never existed, and 7 years later, I still remembered it with startling clarity. Needless to say I had an "ah ha" moment that day that has stayed with me ever since. Just because something isnt educational doesnt mean it cant teach you, and in my current spot in life, that concept has me spending a lot of time thinking about commercial (entertainment) games as educational tools. Of course such a notion isnt always an easy sell to skeptics. After all, any game where you fight ogres, undead, and goblins strapped with explosives doesnt exactly scream "educational content".

Never the less the potential value is undeniable. I remember more about the history of Azeroth from that game than I remember from the 2 years of the REAL history classes I took while I played it. Not only did I get A's in history, but I really enjoyed the subject. Anduin Lothar was killed at the foot of Blackrock spire shortly before the climatic battle at the end of Warcraft 2. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed somewhere shortly before the start of World War 1... but for the life of me I couldnt tell you where or why.

Obviously thats a contrived example, but you see where Im going. Warcraft 2 taught me, and well enough that I remember it today. But it wasnt created to teach anyone anything. Warcraft 2 was fun. Because it was fun I kept playing. Because I kept playing I learned. Crazy, aint it?

One of the bigger questions in the EduGaming space that no one really has an answer for is how do you balance the "game" with the "learning". If you use a game to teach, what is it supposed to be? How do you balance the fun with the educational content? And is their a point on either end of the spectrum when you actually torpedo your own efforts? Can a game be too educational to be fun? Can a game be too fun to be educational?

Justin Peters wrote up an interesting article last week that took the stance that serious games defeat the purpose of a game experience, because they are too heavy on the serious and too light on the game. A telling quote from the article - "Making games educational is like dumping Velveeta on broccoli. Liberal deployment of the word blaster can't hide the fact that you're choking down something that's supposed to be good for you". Essentially, he says that games CAN be too educational to be fun - at which point they really stop being games and start becoming assignments.

I'm inclined to both agree and disagree with Peters. Anyone who has ever played Number Munchers can understand why I'd disagree. For those who dont dig the old school beats, Number Munchers one of the first educational games I ever played, and trust me it was very blatently educational. There was no story, no cool guns or fancy explotions. You did math problems in your head and you "ate" the right answer. If serious games are velveeta on broccoli, Number Munchers was a slice of cheese tossed into an 18 wheeler filled with those green little stalks. And yet Number Munchers works. Not because it is insanely fun, but because it is MORE FUN than sitting around doing math problems. And that alone is a victory. The number muncher theory is one of replacementism (if thats not a word, it should be). Put another way, Number Munchers isnt good because it is good, but rather it is good because it are less bad then something else.

The other side of the coin is obvious though. Shouldnt an EduGame be fun instead of just "better than awful"?

EduGames, in my opinion, provide their greatest value as a teaching suppliment, not a teaching replacement - another tool in the educator's toolbox. And like any tool, EduGames offer the most potential when used for the purpose they were built for. The bottom line is that lectures work. Textbooks work. Group projects work. I think there is a knee jerk reaction to think that because games are popular that they could be used for everything. But they shouldnt be. Because games have not risen to their prominent spot in our culture because they are good at everything. Games are good at interactivity and games are good at fun. Whether they are used for education or entertainment, games should always retain their fun factor even at the cost of potential educational value. Because games, in my opinion, are not a one stop educational solution. They are not meant to replace the tried and true traditional methods - they are meant to support them. Your instructors give you the facts and clarification. Your textbooks provide additional detail. Your games take that educational content and give it life and fun - and with fun comes one of the most saught after goals in education or gaming... repetition.

Thats not to say that Number Muncher style replacment isnt a good thing every once and a while, because it can be effective in the right situation. But more often than not, my vote is to let every teaching medium do what its good at.

If you build it, they will learn. Well... as long as its fun =)

Images taken from Wikpedia.com and Wowwiki.com

A few weeks ago I tossed up a post asking the question "whats next" for the gaming industry. Well as it turns out, a little company known as IBM has been asking their own version of the whats next question, and gaming may be part of their answer.

IBM's question: where do we turn to find the leaders of the future? That is to say leaders who are capable of working with and managing people in environments that transcend the walls of an office building or the borders of a country, and accomplish complex, rapidly changing tasks in an increasingly digital world.

Then it dawned on the good folks that IBM that there are already leaders doing this every day. Not only are there people doing it, but they are doing it (brace yourself) for free, for no other reason than fun. Right about now your skepticism is probably kicking in. For free? For fun? Surely you jest oh wise Stub of the mountain? There is no place on earth where people would undertake the stresses of global leadership for fun. Well, you're right. There is no place on earth...

Because the answer, or at least the beginning of an answer for IBM is that the virtual world's of Massive Multiplayer Online Games may hold within their 3D rendered lands people who are no stranger to the challenges of leadership in a digital world. So IBM decided to take a look at this MMOs and the secrets they may hold, and the results of their investigation have recently been posted. If you arent familiar with MMOs or if the thought of gamers being leaders forces you to run to the medicine cabinet, then these two reports are defiantly must reads =)

The idea that online gaming might translate into real world leadership potential isnt a revolutionary one - back in '04 for example, Yahoo hired one Stephen Gillett to a senior management position, in part due to his experience running a "World of Warcraft" guild. Other companies, such as Sun Microsystems, have even gone as far as to create positions like Chief Gaming Officer (How someone snags a job like that I will never know). Even still, IBM's stance on the potential benefits of online gaming leadership is still a relatively progressive one as far as big business is concerned.

The timing of IBM's reports is almost uncanny, as just last week I had started writing a blog post with the title "Everything I Need to Know I Learned From Warcraft" -basically describing my own experiences with exactly the sorts of things IBM describes. Funny how things work out sometimes, eh? =)

From my own experience, I can tell you that IBM's findings are pretty much spot on. Managing people and personalities, performance assessment, quick decision making, managing multiple communication channels, event organization, recruitment and downsizing, motivation, recovering from failures, structuring community goals and in the end, producing results all come with the territory of leading a guild. And I do think that a lot of the experiences that one could take from leadership in an online game have the potential to transfer professionally. In fact, if you wanted to, you could probably minimize every corporate leadership job function down into some sort of gaming equivalent. Thats not to suggest that leadership in a corporate setting is little more than a game, because nothing could be further from the truth. But I think that there are some major parallels between corporate business leadership, and virtual gaming leadership.

I will say however, that there is at least one enormous difference between gaming leadership and business leadership - the stakes. Leadership may be leadership, but a game is still a game (Yogi Berra would be proud). Making mistakes in a game will never cost your company millions of dollars, or cost your employees their jobs. Games are sandboxes, where mistakes, even big ones, are not only expected but often times encouraged. Depending on your environment, the real world can be far less forgiving.

I think IBM's findings have a lot of merit. But I do think there is still a huge jump from a game world to a corporate world, and quite a few variables that would need to be looked at before IBM starts planting recruiters in MMOs.

But educationally... well then... thats another story entirely...

The monkeys in my head just started banging their pots together. I think Im having an epiphany.

Image from http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/www_innovate.nsf/pages/world.gio.gaming.html/$FILE/gamingreport.jpg

The description of this blog states that "The Voices In My Head" is designed to contain "a whole lot 'o me". But one thing that may not come through as well as I'd like it to is that the Stub behind the Stub loves to laugh, and sometimes that means being down right stupid =)

Every once and a while, the internet serves up a juicy nugget of tom foolish hilarity so good that it must live on forever. Today is that day. This video has nothing to do with anything, but it made my day. And its my blog - so thats good enough for me! In the words of my girlfriend "[this is] what you're destined to be reincarnated as". What a sweet gig that would be.

Thanks Millet. It must be Friday =)

Movie from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

One of the more interesting developments in the gaming world over the last few days has involved a new game known as "Manhunt 2", which was set for release in July. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what "Manhunt 2" is about - it, like it's predecessor "Manhunt" is a game deeply entrenched in violence. A title of this nature is sort of par for Rockstar's course - the creators of the Grand Theft Auto series have shown more than once that they don't mind pushing a few of societies buttons, and are more than willing to make their games as extreme as they can, regardless of public outcry.

But with Manhunt, Rockstar went a little further than they intended.

It started early in the week, when the BBFC (the British Board of Film Classification) announced that it was refusing to rate "Manhunt 2" which means "it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK". Ireland's IFCO followed suit shortly after, with their own ban of Manhunt 2 in Ireland.

America's ESRB (Entertainment Software Review Board) was slightly less heavy handed with "Manhunt 2", slapping it with an "AO - Adults Only" rating. For those who know movies, AO is akin to an NC-17 rating, however AO titles are restricted to those 18 and older.

Though an AO rating doesnt officially ban "Manhunt 2" in America, it does come with a brick in the face. Some of the more popular game rental vendors, such as Blockbuster and Gamefly refuse to carry AO titles. So do major family oriented retailers such as Walmart . But the biggest hit of all is that Nintendo and Sony (who run the Wii and Playstation) do not allow adult only content to be liscensed for their systems. This is a particularly significant problem, being as "Manhunt 2" was being designed for the Wii and the Playstation.

Game over, if you will.

I'm not sure if this makes me a bad person or not, but I find myself sitting on both sides of the fence on this particular issue.

On the one hand, I have no real pitty for Rockstar. They are a company who has made their name living on the edge since the first Grand Theft Auto, and when you live on the edge, sometimes you fall off. They knew what an AO rating would mean with distributors, retailers, and their gaming platforms, and they choose to push anyway. Not to mention, they chose to develop for Nintendo and Sony, as opposed to Microsoft (which does allow AO content on their Xbox).

But on the other hand, I'm forced to wonder if this is fair. I think it is most certainly the right of stores like Blockbuster and Walmart to choose what games they distribute. But should gaming platforms have the same right?

Think of it this way. You are developing a game for the Playstation. If Walmart says "we choose not to carry this product because of X, Y, or Z", life goes on. Walmart is a huge retailer, but it is not the only retailer, and consumers who are interested in purchasing your product can go somewhere else. But if Sony says "we choose not to allow your playstation game because of X, Y, or Z" then its over. You game has effectively been censored out of existence.

So the million dollar question is this - do gaming platforms have the right to deny their users certain types of content?

And I've gotta say, I don't think they should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting "Manhunt 2". Some of the descriptions of MH2 gameplay were enough to make me cringe, and I've played through a lot of violent games in my life. But I do think that I should have the right to purchase a game if I have a desire to do so. It may be difficult based on the policies of retailers, but it should not be impossible because of the policies of platforms. A governing body rates the games for the purpose of allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy. If someone else is making those decisions for you, all you have is censorship - and that dont jive well with Stub's turkey.

Text has always been at the foundation of internet communication. Websites, emails, IMs - they are all written in text. Simple. Functional. Effective.

And though one might consider virtual worlds to be "advanced" in comparison to your average web page, text has been just as much a cornerstone of communication within them. Some virtual worlds provide more bells and whistles than others, but in the end, its still just plain old text on a screen. Again, simple, functional, and effective.

But as with all things internet, the times keep on changing. High speed internet connectivity has become more prevalent. Online games have become faster paced and more reflex intensive. Conferences have started popping up in virtual worlds like Second Life, and Instructors have started harnessing the power of these new environments to teach. Suddenly, good old text which was still simple and functional found itself become less and less effective in the face of complex tasks. Oh, and somewhere in the midst of all that, people realized that typing just sucks. No one reads anything either ;-)

And so necessity and laziness got together as they so often have, to churn out a scrumptious little ball of glory that we like to call "voice".

Of course! Voice! It makes perfect sense! Why write when you can podcast? Why IM when you can Skype? Why try and type to your virtual class, when you can just talk to them? Why network at a virtual event through text, when you can unleash your Rico Sauve voice on potential customers? Why try and type out coordinated actions in a game when you can just scream your little head off like you just drank a case of Vault soda and red bull?

Seems like the perfect solution right? Well... maybe not so much.

Wired recently posted an article by Clive Thompson thats shares some of his experiences using voice communication while playing the popular online game World of Warcraft.

The quick hitting version is that voice chat has a profound effect on the social dynamic of a game like Warcraft (and by extension any virtual world environment). A particularly interesting quote:

But voice has much higher emotional bandwidth. It conveys a lot of identity: Your voice instantly transmits your age, your gender and often your nationality -- even your regional location too... .With voice, the real world is honking in your ear."

Risks too come with voice, because voice is far more prone to follow the norms of society - meaning all the facets Thompson described, as well as things like personality type, tone, or confidence level can all play an unspoken part in the judgement or ideas or conversations.

And so we have returned to the question of transparency that we touched on so long ago. This isnt so important in a game environment like World of Warcraft, but in, for example, an educationally based virtual setting, how much of yourself should you be expected to reveal in the form of your voice?

If text affords the timid, the shy, or the discriminated against an opportunity to express themselves openly, should it not be supported as an acceptable form of communication? Or does such an idea merely allow people to hide behind a wall of pixels instead of confronting their fears or the biases that do exist in the real world? Should participants in virtual worlds be allowed to be who they choose to be? Or should they always be grounded in the sound of their own voice?

I may have just blown my own mind.

Image from Blizzard.com/wow/images

A conversation at lunch inspired me to step outside of my daily RSS feeds and go off "exploring the internet" just to see what I could find. After a mere 15 seconds, I was regretting my decision, having forgotten just how much garbage is online. But then I came across an interesting blog post from "the Back Buffer", which I assume to be just some random guy.

The premise of BackBuffer's post was very simple - he wants more realistic WW2 games. But in reading it I rethought an old idea that had crossed my minds many a moon ago.

When it comes to (war) video games, how real is too real?

Image from gamespy.com (Call of Duty 3)

In addition to being the veteran of countless war games, I also study military history in my spare time. I was even a member of Army ROTC for a semester. But in truth, I know nothing about war. My father was in the Air Force for several years during Vietnam, though he was never deployed overseas. My Grandpa John left the army a brigadier general, serving domestically in intelligence during World War 2. My Grandpa Elmore served over seas during the Korean War, and when he passed away several years ago, still had grenade shrapnel lodged in his jaw.

As a curious youngster, I asked a lot of questions of these three men about the military and about war. When you are young and ignorant, war is cool and exciting. Guns, jets, tanks, pewpewpew to the bad guys. Its almost as cool as dinosaurs or construction equipment. But as curious as I was, I never got a lot of answers to my incessant questions. Grandpa Elmore in particular said very little about his time in Korea. But I will always remember one thing he said to me (I was probably about 10 at the time). "Chris", he said "the things I did and the things I saw, I did so that boys like you would never have to do or see them. War is like a nightmare that you dont wake up from for the rest of your life".

Image from movie-page.com (Saving Private Ryan)

Finding ways to use games as an instrument if learning is something I'm very passionate about. And depending on the type of game and the type of subject it is helping to teach, a certain degree of realism would be required.

From an entertainment perspective, I'm personally of the view that there are lines that should not be crossed into the space of reality. When a war game leaves the realm of an intentionally artificial, intentionally fictional play world and becomes a true recreation of history, I for one, would feel uncomfortable that the sacrifices of so many were reduces to a consumable form of entertainment. In fact, I might even call it disrespectful.

But what if the same "real war" game was created for education and not for entertainment? Are the rules, the stigmas still the same? If a student in a World War 2 class could simulate rushing the beaches of normandy in an virtual environment as close to the real thing as possible, is it a good thing? Assuredly it would provide an enriching educational experience like no other.. but does that give it any more right to cross the boundaries of realism? Or is it just hypocrisy to suggest that a game for entertainment is bad, but a game for education is good?

In the end, I have no answer to this question of how far is too far when it comes to reality in war games. Nor do I know if the means (entertainment or education) justifies the ends (crossing the reality line). But I am forced to wonder if Grandpa Elmore was right... and if some things are better left unknown, and unseen, regardless of the reason you want to know or see them.

Whats next?

Its a question that just about any forward thinking person, in almost every profession, in almost any industry has pondered at some point or another. In my field of information technology in particular, "whats next" is a perpetual question. Well... it was the perpetual question until the iPhone was announced =) Personally Im convinced that Steve Jobs is infusing his soul into those little swanky new devices in order to spread himself across the world, eventually creating Skynet (from Terminator). And thats what we call a tangent.

Anyway, in gaming, the answer to the "whats next" question has been relatively boring for a long time. There have been innovations for sure (free roam worlds, multiplayer capabilities, mobile gaming and the wii-mote to name a few), but at their core, games as a whole still follow the same premise as they did when two italian plumbers started rescuing princesses from dragons (Who thought up that plot by the way?). In 1993 I shot nazis in "Wolfenstein 3D". In 2003 I was still shooting nazis in "Return to Castle Wolfenstein". The 2003 nazis have lifelike facial expressions. The 2003 guns blaze off in dolby digital surround sound. The 2003 Castle Wolfenstein is rendered in 47 billion colors, played on a wireless keyboard, rendered out by a graphics card that costs more than then entire 1993 computer...

Images from wikipedia.com and www.sg.hu

... and in the end, Im still shooting nazis. So much has changed, and yet so much has remained the same.

Of course the fact that so much of gaming has remained tied to its roots isnt a bad thing. After all the gaming industry is a multibillion a year machine and still growing. If it aint broke, dont fix it, right?

Still, the question of "whats next" has yet to be answered. As I alluded to earlier, innovations like the wii-mote hint at a possible future of how we control games. Mobile devices influence where we play those games. Internet connectivity changes who we play them with. But what about the games themselves?

CEO of Ubisoft-Montreal, Yannis Mallat has an idea, and he shared some of his thoughts in an interview with Gamasutra. For those who arent interested in clicking, a short snipet for your viewing pleasure:

"...we'll also see products where you can jump in and use the interactivity to control and shape what you're being told as a story, for example. Let's say you are watching a famous battle from within a famous sci-fi franchise, and you don't like the way the battle is turning out for whatever faction it is. If you want to jump in, you jump in and play, and you shape the contents yourself with the interactivity. This is where we envision products going."

The convergence of gaming and film or tv into a single form of entertainment? Sweet mama I must have died and gone to interactive sensory overload heaven! Imagine stories that are no longer told, but experienced - shaped by your actions. The design considerations for something like this are beyond gargantuan, but the possibilities for entertainment or dare I say education, would be limitless. Though it does raise the interesting question of what kind of impact a shift would have on family movie night...

Obviously talk is cheap, and companies like Ubisoft are a long way from turning today's game into the ultimate in interactive media. But big talk makes for big dreams, and what I hope will be a big answer to the "whats next" question.

The wonders of TechCrunch (brought to you by RSS) delivered me a wonderfully rich and creamy little nugget of wisdom this morning. It seems a company by the name of Postreach has come up with a slick little one click blog assessment add-on, that lets users provide feedback on your blog posts with incredible ease.

Image from http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/06/one-click-blog-commenting-clickcomments/

Clickcomments (shown above) lets users mark your posts with the following tags out of the box: Cool Stuff, Inspired Me, Entertaining, Write More, Creative , Insightful, Touched My Heart, and Great Find. The tags are then summed up and displayed right below their corresponding icon, providing instant feedback both to the blogger and the blogosphere on what other people are thinking about a given post.

Now obviously Clickcomments isnt the answer to the "one click assessment blogging" question (that is of course, if anyone is asking that question). The icons are a bit cheesy, some options dont necessarily apply to all blogs and most importantly, there isnt any opportunity to provide negative feedback out of the box.

But it is an excellent example of lowering the barriers to entry regarding feedback, which more often than we realize, can be substantial. Very few of my friends who follow blogs have ever commented on them - even when they feel like a post really meant something to them, or got them fired up. There is an invisible line for some, between reading a blog, and a willingness to respond with your own name, your own ideas, and really put yourself out there. As a writer, google analytics can tell you if people are reading your thoughts - but it cant tell you what they are thinking unless they take the time to comment. A one click assessment option like ClickComments solves both problems. Commenting is incredibly easy (and anonymous) for the reader, and writers have the opportunity to get more feedback on their word, because readers will be more likely to do so. Everybody wins!

Great find! Insightful! Cool Stuff!

The US Army was long ago wooed by the siren's call of video games as a tool to bolster recruitment and image efforts (see America's Army). Even so, this story caught me by surprise.

Image from http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/02/02/2287/

When I first saw the image above (look at the leftmost soldier), I was sure it was some sort of joystiq spoof, created to amuse an editorial intern. That is, until I went to the US Army website, and found the same image. US Army Future Combat Systems troops evaluating the next generation of unmanned support units... by using the same Xbox 360 controller that I use to pop the arms off stormtroopers in Lego Star Wars. Anyone else having an "Ender's Game" moment right now?

This is for all the haters in the audience =) All talk of recruiting aside, what does it say about the gaming phenominon when the US Military, an organiation of nearly limitless resources and budget, is turning to a game console controller to test drive its next generation hardware?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go dig out my Biology textbook and highlighter to study for an exam...

Every since social studies became a required part of the educational curriculum for me (roughly 6th grade or so) I've always had an interest in history - or more specifically military history. Unfortunatly, in the 6th grade world of social darwinism, an interest in history isnt one of those characteristics that tends to send you rocketing to the top of the social food chain. In fact quite the opposite. When I'd suggest that (military) history was cool or interesting, I tended to get a lot of those "oh there there Stub, we wont judge you for being dropped on your head as a baby" sort of responses. After all, history stood no chance in the face of science class, where "accidently" blowing things up with bunsen burners was par for the course. Thankfully there were sports, or I likely would have had to pull myself out of many a locker =)

For many students, especially young students, history is the epitome of all that was/is boring about education. Lots of memorization. Lots of lecture. Lots of textbooks to struggle through, and very rarely anything that even remotely resembles an interactive learning exercise. Probably the biggest challenge in teaching history (especially true of military history) is visualization. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but when it comes to history, it might be closer to a million.

Do you remember learning about the D-Day landings during World War 2? Maybe. Maybe not. But you probably dont remember it vividly from your 6th grade history textbook. How about the same event as depicted during the opening scene of the movie Saving Private Ryan? $5 says your memory of D-Day just got a little clearer.

The moral of the story is that when history is brought to life - it becomes memorable. A page of words on a 1,000 page textbook is hard to swallow. Its hard to picture. Its hard to be stimulated by, admittedly, even for someone who finds it interesting. But when you can see, and hear, and dare I say, interact with that same history, when you can become a part of the story being told, all of a sudden it becomes a lot easier to care about. You know where Im going with this =)

History was the first field of study that really made me think about gaming as a viable educational tool, because games bring life to a subject that many feel is lifeless. They allow you to visualize the abstract. They allow you to interact with situations that have occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago, situations that would otherwise be relegated to paper.

Using gaming as a history teaching aid is far from a new idea, but one that has never, in my opinion, been used to its full potential. But today, I came across a very interesting example that shows that people are getting the right idea. Take Two Interactive Software has just finished up HistoriaCanada, a strategy game based on the Civilization III engine. HistoriaCanada allows students to play through parts of Canada's history (1525-1763) using the Civ3 gameplay, and be a part of the decisions and moments that have shaped Canada into the nation it is today. In addition to the basic gameplay, students are also given access to an abundance of specially produced cinematic shorts, historical documentation, and articles on major events in Canada's history.

I havent tried HistoriCanada myself, but Im looking forward to downloading it and giving it a try this evening. History may never be interesting enough to be "cool" for 6th graders, but kudos to Take Two for trying to give it new life.

But this is only the tip of the educational possibilities for history based EduGames =)