Exploration of the Serious Games Taxonomy

I am going to review two Serious Games that are about the army
both these games the player is on the American side, but their focus and purpose is very different.
While America’s army was created to attract soldiers to the army
Full spectrum warrior was originally designed to train soldiers.
I would like to see the differences between the two.
And find out which one gives the best view on how war is like.

America’s army
America’s Army, or really America’s Army 3 is a first person shooter in which the player plays a soldier working (how could it be else) for the American army, the player gets a drill and has to shoot specific targets, after learning the basics of war the player gets to fight online against other players.

Gameplay
The game calls itself realistic, it is more realistic then most games, but I would not call it very realistic. I have played commercial games that are already more realistic, (operation flashpoint, ghost recon, and rogue spear for example) the player can take relatively much damage also players respawn… which is not very realistic, and all non American weapons were fictional…  There is no need to take cover, fast strafing will do.
but thankfully there is no bunny-hopping. Jumping has been cut from the game, which is very good choice. this was not the case in the original AA and bunnyhopping was a real pest.

Another thing I did like is that there is actual medical training in the game, that is required if the player want to be a medic in the game, (you do not have to do this but if you want to be a medic you do have to do it)

The game is all about honor (you can display this) and gaining it takes time.
this honor is actually very effective, I have found several players actively trying to gain more.  However it seems sort of questionable in a game that features no moral questions whatsoever.

The player just kills any enemies, and that is it. Maybe that is true in war, but in Iraq soldiers constantly have to decide, whether that bump is a baby in his arms, or a bomb. No such hard decisions are in AA. This I personally find a pity.

The success of America’s army,
I think it is sort of split. There are 3 iterations of the game now,
so I must at least be somewhat of a success and looking at the amount of players it has.

However, as a representation of real warfare, it is not. Players respawning, inaccurate weapon damage, lack of morality, inaccurate bullet penetration
(bullets going through walls, but not through a wooden plank …. ) etc etc.

However its purpose is to get players to join the army.

video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekMQFXdORM0&feature=related

Evaluation

Download :America’s army http://www.americasarmy.com/

Complete, Correct and Well-Rounded Content:    Most content seems propaganda like.  Not objective 2
Focused on the Topic:    the game is all about war 3
Encourages Active Player Participation:    Yes players play it a lot . 3
Problem Solving:    there are no real puzzles challenges are the enemies. 2
User Interface:    especially for FPS connoisseurs 3
Genre first person shooter:    so very much like a soldier 3
Integration of game play and content:    the challenges focus on your skills in shooting, not any of the other peacekeeping tasks of a soldier 1
Assessment:   it is a multiplayer game 3
Scalable:    it is a multiplaer game which is popular 3
Interoperable:    It works together with Xfire, (similar to game-spy) 2
Editable:   Not editable by players, (tweaks are possible but minor) 1
Reusable:    a lot of assets can be resued for a new iteration / map 3

28 Out of 36

Full spectrum warrior

Full Spectrum Warrior is a real-time strategy game in which the player commands two squads. The tow squads Alpha and Bravo have 4 units, he leader, the Grenadier, the rifleman and the automatic rifleman (to lay down suppressive fire). Two versions have been developed, one as a part of the training for the military and later a commercial one (I played the latter).

Gameplay
The player has access to a map, and sees his goals laid out on there, the game itself is 3d and uses a sort of 3rd person perspective, (sort of, see the video for clarity). The game as said is very strategic, and the player has to be strategic about his positioning. The players uses the mouse/circle and uses it as his tool to command the troops, the player does not directly control the soldiers, this makes the game unique and enforces the realistic gameplay. A big part is actually gathering information, and getting soldiers to a safe position while doing that. Soldiers automatically take cover near the location you told them to go to. But if you placed them at the wrong side of a wall, they will also die realistically fast. this makes for cautious very tactical gameplay, and makes it a lot of fun to play. You have to do things right.

To add to the realism, and punish players for rash actions, shot players must be carried out. Adding to the problems and making even harder to finish the missions.  Not only do you lose a valuable asset but you have to escort them out as well. Very realistic.

actual tactics
As I said actual tactics are used, using one squad to lay down suppressive fire. Another can advance, this is not done automatically the player must signify a zone to put ire on, this also applies

repetitive
There is one problem, if one does a mission twice, the mission will be nearly the same, this is detrimental to the realism as I started to know what I could expect.

Interesting fact I found on Wikipedia while researching this game:
“The original military version of the game can also be unlocked within the retail Xbox version, by inputting the code HA2P1PY9TUR5TLE on the code input screen.”
I could not test this as I tested the pc version but it shows the real roots of this game.

multiplayer
Full Spectrum Warrior has a cooperative gameplay, both players get control over 1 squad, however I could not test it. I had no-one to test it with.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqERSD7ZAI

Evaluation

download Full spectrum warrior: http://www.filefront.com/11928826/Full-Spectrum-Warrior/

Complete, Correct and Well-Rounded Content:real tactics, very realistic. Not fire first questions later based 3
Focused on the Topic:   the game is all tactics 3
Encourages Active    Player Participation: players have to perform very well to survive. . 3
Problem Solving:   the area’s to take over are well guarded, the player has to make good plans to succeed 3
User Interface:    hard to pick up, but I used very comfortable 3
Genre:   sort of strategy you command troops. But do not control them directly 3
Integration of game play:   and content The content is about teaching soldiers tactics and I does it very well. 2
Assessment:  perform well or get shot 3
Scalable it is:   mostly a singleplayer 3
Interoperable:  It works together with Xfire, (similar to gamespy) 2
Editable:    Not editable by players, 1
Reusable:  The game is nearly all multiplayer. 3
TOTAL 32 Out of 36

Comparision
These game although about the same topic are so clearly different.

One is tactical while one is more of a stereotypical shooter designed to be popular. Also full spectrum warrior puts the player a much more realistic situations and really requires the player to think tactically, while run and gun won’t work in America’s Army, in FSW you won’t even attempt it as life feels valuable.

Conclusion
Full spectrum warrior is a very realistic game that was actually used to train soldiers, although succesfull in it’s own way America’s army does not communicate warfare as well. Also life and other moral issues seem more trivial. I did not learn as much about warfare tactics and the feel was more casual. Therefore I choose Full spectrum warrior as the winner of this shoot-out.

Serious games

-Review and comparison-

Food force versus against all odds

Food Force

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuRTldf-zeM (includes gameplay although with Chinese voices)

Download: http://www.food-force.com/index.php/game/downloads/

System requirements are low

The game food force is about the process of arranging food transport to countries where people need it. For example, a country in a state of war.

The game consists of 6 mini-games. The mini-games are not hard to complete but they are fun enough to keep you playing. The game also generates a high score, so you could replay the game to perfection your performance during the mini-games.

The country you are going to supply is Sechlan. There is a situation in Sechlan, drought has stricken the country due to climate changes. In the first mini-game you can see a dried up river which is one of the causes for the lack of food.

The game gives clear background information about the situation you are going to face. You can project yourself in the situation at hand.
Before the mission a 3d character explains what is going to happen next. They integrate this well in the story.
During the first mini-game you have to fly over a landscape with a helicopter to check the situation of the people. You have to hover over groups of people and when you have scouted enough people you complete the mission.

After a mission you are shown several videos of real life footage. For example, there is a mini-game where you have to drop food packages from a plane. After the mini-game you get some additional information about dropping food and some real life footage of a plane dropping food packages.

The other mini-games are about finding the nourishment mix of the food, dropping food packages, finding countries that want to donate food, trucking food to the country, building up a village by investing food in the right department.

My opinion:

This game is well done. It provides you with a lot of information about the world food program.  As a player you take part in the action. For example; you drop food, transport food and rebuild a village. This really makes it clear to the player what actions are involved in getting food to the people of a country. Most of the information is shown in the video’s in between the mini-games. As a player you can skip this information, however you still get a good idea of the process of dispersing food.

Food Force Evaluation Rubric

Against all odds

Play: http://www.playagainstallodds.com/ (download is not needed)

System requirements: low/internet

The game Against all odds lets you experience how it is to be a refugee. The game is made in flash and guides you through different levels and aspects of fleeing to a new country and establishing a life. In this game is one part where you have to sneak through a city and not get detected, the other parts are about making decisions and reading opinions about refugees. You learn you have to make tough decisions and what strong opinions people can have about refugees.

For example, you want to flee the country by truck. However the truck is too full, six persons have to stay behind. Then you get the question who should be left behind. Six relatives, friends or neighbors?

Then you continue your journey. One of your friend then notices he didn’t bring his ID papers. You have to choose if you are going to leave him behind or not. If you leave him behind you pass the border, if you keep him with you all persons in the truck get caught.

In this game you have to make hard decisions. If you choose the wrong answer you are game over.

My Opinion

What I don’t think is done well is the character you play with. You don’t know why you are fleeing your country. You can’t place yourself into the character. There is no emotional attachment.

The game is quite long and doesn’t have much entertainment value.  The ending screen has some information about a organization. This organization is never mentioned in the game. It would be better for the organization to connect their name to the game.

Against all odds Evaluation Rubric

Comparison between food force and against all odds

Perspective

The main difference between the two games is the perspective. In food force you play the guys that help the people in need. In against all odds you play the person that needs help.

Topic

The topic also differs. Food force is about distributing food and against all odds is about refugees. Still, these games share the same genre: social issues.

Gameplay

Food force’s gameplay differs greatly. Each mini-game is different.

Against all odds doesn’t have much difference in gameplay. The gameplay is not entertaining. Most of the time you just have to click on people to hear their opinion or you have to choose a certain option.

Graphics

Food force has a really good look. Although it’s not state of the art, it is good enough and well communicated to the player. The graphics of against all odds are mostly stills made in flash. There is hardly any animation. The advantage though is that you can play against all odds in your internet browser.

Length

Food force is a short game and feels like you’re having fun.  Against all odds tends to get a bit boring. Not because of the subject, but because of the length of the game and the little variation in gameplay.

Propaganda

Food force propagates the WFP (World food program) but against all odds does not clearly propagate an organization. Food force gives you a good idea of what WFP does. Against all odds just give you an idea how it is to be a refugee, but they don’t make you feel emotionally attached to the character. So it fails on that part. Furthermore, what is the use of feeling compassionate towards refugees if you don’t know how to help them? They don’t propagate the UNHCR enough.

Conclusion

I would describe Food force as: Short, fun, informative, hits the spot.

I would describe Against all odds as: Long, negative atmosphere in game, oppression, learn harsh fact.

Preface

This review is about Windfall made by Persuasive Games ® and Waterbusters by Saving Water Partnership.

Windfall is a political strategy game. The game lets you build windmills to generate electricity for your city. Waterbusters is a political policy game that provides advice to reduce water utilization.

These games are designed for public policy makers, educators, advertizers as well as ordinary people.

Both games fall under the serious game taxonomy of:  “Strategic & Policy Planning”.

Windfall

This game is controlled by a mouse only. The player can choose to build windmills and electricity poles to connect windmills to turbines that generate the electricity. The positions of the windmills have to be determined strategically. The player can do research on a buildable location which provides more information regarding the quality of wind and land. For instance, some locations have 20% of windmill efficiency while others have 60%. Researching, as with building windmills and electricity poles, costs money.

There are 3 types of windmills the player can build. They vary in size, prize and electricity production. Building bigger windmills cost more money and will make inhabitants less happy as it makes more noise and looks less nice than small windmills.

There is a monthly income for generating electricity as inhabitants have to pay for the electricity generated. However, building bigger and noisier windmills will make the inhabitants less happy resulting in more money spent on keeping them happy trough commercials and other advertising methods.

Note that the money spent to keep inhabitants happy is handled automatically. The player does not have to manually keep them happy trough these methods. The only way to keep them happy manually is by building smaller windmills.

There are 3 difficulty levels and the game has some very well picked background sounds.

A certain amount of KWh must be generated. If this objective is achieved within 3 years, the mission is succeeded.

My learning experience

The game made me aware of the environmental friendly energy production which is becoming more popular nowadays. People want ‘clean’ energy but do not want lots of noise and ugly buildings like huge windmills. It is a dilemma that has to be dealt with as is with many political decisions.

Windfall

Waterbusters

This game is controlled by the 4 arrow keys on the keyboard. The player can navigate Phill trough the house and the yard. Phill can pick up tools to repair water leaks. Phill can also interact with other people around the house.

The interaction with other people and picking up tools happens automatically by walking Phill over the tools or colliding with other people. When Phill picks up a tool or interacts with someone else a text message pops up with advice and sometimes background information.

The colors and animations of Phill are old school. The controls feel annoying and Phill is moving too slow. The game comes with a very repetitive soundtrack that is too short and is replayed over and over again.

The objective of the game is to fix all the water leaks.

My learning experience

This game made me aware of the water that is easily wasted on a daily basis. I saw today a documentary (NOVA, NED1) about the youth not realizing these problems due to the way parents raise their children has changed.

On the other hand, nowadays there is more attention to energy savings trough television commercials and other public advertisement methods.

Nevertheless may it provide a couple of suggestions you may not have thought of before, such as:  ”use a broom instead of a hose to clean the sidewalk”.

Waterbusters

Comparison

This comparison involves the rubric: “Encourages active player participation” and:  “Integration of game play and content”.

Because Waterbusters does not require any brain activity it becomes rather boring very quickly whereas Windfall requires the player to find suitable spots to produce efficient energy. Windfall makes it the player a lot harder. People have to be kept happy. If they become too unhappy the player loses too much money on commercials and advertisement to keep them happy while at the same time the player requires the money to build new windmills. Waterbusters does not include any of these mind breaking dilemma’s.

Both Windfall and Waterbusters make use of somewhat ugly sprites and outdated animations and colors. Though, they are just flash games, this should be taken into account.

The gameplay in Windfall is much more varying. The player has to find suitable spots, build windmills, connect them to turbines and optionally sell windmills. Waterbusters only allows the player to walk around. The interaction with tools and other people happens automatically.

Conclusion

Both Windfall and Waterbusters have some dated graphics but Windfall wins on mostly every other point. Waterbusters provides the user with some useful tips regarding efficient water utilization, whether this is brought in a boring manner or not.

Websites

Persuasive Games

Social impact games