Outside of the process of design, there are several key features of the construction of a game for health behavior change. Created a game with serious content is a complex process involving game designers, content experts, funders, and other parties, who are often in conflict as to the direction of a game (Tate et al, 2009). However, with appropriate negotiation of different elements of the game design, significant, fun, and effective games can be created. Today I will address two of these: Team Expertise and Before, During, and After Gaming Content.
Team Expertise
It is important to have a well balanced team in place in order to ensure the success of a game. Re:Mission's team included game designers and cancer experts (Tate et al, 2009). Immune Attack had a multi-institution approach to the development of the game. USC handled game design, user interface, and art direction including 3-D, cinematics, and sound. FAS handled the project management for the game as well as content, learning tools, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the game. Brown contributing programing, scientific visualization, and additional art. Each institution utilized their strengths to provide a well balanced team for this game (Kelly et al, 2007). When building a team for serious games, it is important to mimic this balancc so that the game is fun, scientifically accurate for the target objectives, and effective.
Before, During, and After Gaming Content
In education, it is considered important to activate schema when reading a text or providing a lesson. By doing that there is a concept of before, during, and after activities. Through readings, I can conclude that this proves to also be effective with games. Before game play, there is an invitation to play (Fullerton, 2008). This allows the player to get ready for the experience of entering Huizinga's “Magic Circle” of the game space.
Theory becomes more involved with During and After Gaming concepts. This time is ripe for use of Cognitive Behavioral Theory, making use of key influences to ensure a successful health behavior change (NIH, 2005).
During the game, it seems to be easiest to approach two of McElroy's five levels of influence: Individual and Interpersonal. Models such as Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, Precaution Adoption Model, and Social-Cognitive Theory are transferable inside the game environment (NIH, 2005). In addition, one can provide additional resources to enhance understanding of the behaviors. For example, Immune Attack uses a MyLA (My Lab Assistant) to allow players to ask questions during game play, helping to provide context and build schema (Kelly et al, 2007).
After gameplay, in particular the community level of influence comes into play. By building on digital communities, there is a source for additional information and support through the behavior change process. Some theoretical models to use when building this kind of post-game community include, Diffusion of Innovations, Communication Theory, Media Effects, Agenda Setting, and Community Organization (NIH, 2005). Out of the two, I find Diffusion of Innovation and Community Organization the most interesting.
Although I have discussed two different elements of designing games for health, they are both important to pay attention to. With a proper team and theoretical models applied throughout the game experience (including before, during, after), one can create a dynamic environment for behavior change.
Works Cited
Fullerton, T. (2008). Game Design Workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games. Morgan Kaufmann, 2nd edition.
Kelly, H., Howell, K., Glinert, E., Holding, L., Swain, C., Burrowbridge, A., & Roper, M. (2007). How to build serious games. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 44-49.
National Institutes of Health (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion and practice. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://www.cancer.gov/PDF/481f5d5363df-41bc- bfaf5aa48ee1da4d/TAAG3.pdf
Tate, R., Haritatos, J., & Cole, S. (2009). HopeLab's Approach to Re-Mission. International Journal of Learning and Media; 1(1):29-35.
No comments:
Post a Comment