What #PokemonGo means for immersive learning

I, like many of you, spent my weekend hunting for Pokemon while tracking my progress on Nintendo's new Pokemon Go game.

To say it was a revelation was an understatement. And the bigger question: will it lead to a revolution?

For many years now, I've talked about how technology can be used to create immersive experiences, how giving people the sense that they are performing real tasks and receiving real-time feedback is the key to that immersive feeling. I've talked about avatars and virtual worlds and alternate reality games and augmented reality and, recently, virtual reality. I've talked about how biometric data can be used to impact your experience within an environment, and I've talked about how all of these things are converging. I've also talked about the shortage of big design thinking in better leveraging the technology that is currently available to bring together storyline and experiences. Design has been lagging behind technology where immersive learning is concerned. I would tell people to keep their eyes open, because there would be a point where someone figured it out and it would go mainstream.

I'm pretty sure most people thought I was talking about a few years in the future. Turns out, I was talking about this last weekend.

Finally, FINALLY, there is an example of an augmented reality game with characters, avatars, interactive game play with feedback and leveling. And the whole world is, or wants to be, playing.

Our kiddo was working alongside a Meowth

This weekend I spent with my family, walking all over my home town Carpinteria and Santa Barbara. We were finding landmarks we didn't know existed which had been designated as Pokestops. We were exploring new neighborhoods and talking to strangers. We were walking, walking, walking. We were smiling and laughing. We were bemoaning our ridiculous battery life and speculating on our data usage. We were running into friends and chatting. We were teaching each other nuances and strategies in the game. We were laughing when we saw a large group of people wandering around a parking lot, looking for a Koffing we knew was there. I was sending messages to a friend halfway around the world in Milan, Italy, who was experiencing the same server issues we were.

Suddenly, everyone is playing and experiencing immersive learning.

For those of you who haven't played yet, imagine you are a Pokemon trainer (if you don't know what Pokemon are, google it). The world is filled with Pokemon, and you can find them via a phone app, then catch them using Pokeballs that you throw at the Pokemon on your phone screen. You can get more supplies at Pokestops, and train with the Pokemon you've caught at Gyms. All of these locations are populated from data collected over the last several years from another game, Ingress, which is (of course) a product of Google.

I could talk about the social learning implications (this game has no social features, but is an amazingly social game). I could talk about the health benefits, both mental and physical. I could talk about how the game is driving behavior change (my kids keep opting to walk instead of asking for rides...crazy...).

But instead, I want to talk about what Pokemon Go means for the future of learning. Because we finally have a flagship immersive game to build from. Where we go from here, and how we push technology to support our design, is really up to us.

First, let's talk about technology needs.

• WE NEED BETTER BATTERIES. If we are leveraging our phones for experiences like this, we can't have our batteries last an hour. 

• Also, WE NEED UNLIMITED DATA. It's well past the point that this should be the case, and the first major company who goes there will get my money, and hopefully yours too, so that the whole market will follow. 

• We will need data to be able to interact in the world, unless, of course, we have UNIVERSAL WIFI. That would be ok, too.

• And finally, the device-specific access is a drag. Most of the people we saw playing were adults, not because kids wouldn't want to, but because kids don't have smartphones that they can use to play. MAKE ALL DEVICES CAPABLE OF PLAYING IMMERSIVE GAMES. Photo apps, GPSs, data accessible (with unlimited data, as previously mentioned). Let as many people play as we possibly can. 

What about design?

Honestly, the possibilities are endless for future applications, but let's start with what we could do with Pokemon Go.

Santa Barbara Park Ranger
chatting about the Pokemon in the park

• Tie Pokemon Go to biometrics. What if you could get certain Pokemon by keeping your heart rate in the ideal range for exercise for 20 minutes? What if you were rewarded for number of steps (not just distance covered, which is how you hatch eggs)? What if you were rewarded for consecutive days of hitting exercise targets? There have to be some easy partnerships to be made with fitness trackers. 
• Add some social features. My kids already want to trade Pokemon. I'd love to see a way to do that through proximity, rather than some online marketplace. While I've been having great conversations with people I meet while playing, it would be great to have a game mechanism to prompt more interaction. Also, how about adding a way to friend other players you meet? It was great meeting folks all over town, but now there's no way to stay connected. There are already social groups forming outside of the game, why not enable it within the game?
• Leverage Pokemon Go for medical treatment. If there were enough Pokemon in a hospital or rehabilitation center, patients could collect Pokemon as part of their recovery. Therapists could track distance walked or number of Pokemon caught to help encourage patients to get out in the world and walk. 
• Pokemon Go as the new marketing angle, both customer and internal-facing. We already saw this with Foursquare, but is there something more to be done here? I would definitely frequent a place that set up a Lure to attract more Pokemon...beyond attracting more customers, could this type of activity work for new hire training? My family was chatting yesterday about what type of Pokemon we might find at our zoo; what if the zoo could strategically place Pokemon?

What are some issues that need to be addressed?

• Accessibility barriers. Already, my color-blind husband can't see the difference between the blue and purple Pokestops and has to ask me. Can options be included for blind players? Hearing impaired players? Players with physical disabilities? Let's get everyone playing.
• Technology barriers. Let's not make immersive learning only accessible to the privileged. While desire for immersive experiences might drive buyer behavior toward technologies that can support it, if only high end smart phones can play the experiences and only people who can afford more data can play, we are cutting out major segments of the population based likely on age and socioeconomic status from participating and benefiting. Immersive learning should be available to everyone. 
• Societal barriers. There has been nervousness already around women playing alone at night, players who are ethnic minorities worrying about accessing Pokemon in particular neighborhoods, and general unease about what a gaming experience that everyone can play everywhere might uncover about our own biases, prejudices, and fears. These are things that already exist, that game play is exposing with heightened visibility. Ironically, it has also been prompting people from all walks of life to start interacting and supporting each other. Maybe there's something to us all just playing a game together that may lessen this barrier. 

But let's end with some larger implications for learning, particularly organizational learning.

• New hire training: tour facilities with augmented reality or virtual reality. Meet key folks in the organization. See behind the scenes production, or visit HQ virtually. 
• Skill refinement: once the basics have been taught, present ongoing practice scenarios. Could be internal, customer-facing, or software/equipment training. 
• Product training: provide the ability to interact with multiple customers and see how the product benefits them differently.
• Application in context: how do you navigate a real-life complex environment effectively? Think busy retail, insurance adjusters, combat/disaster zones, crime scenes, etc.



Don't mind the rattata in my kitchen

• Just in time geographically relevant support. Have a question in context? What if an app let you access training and tips relevant to where you are?  

And that's just to name a few.


So, to sum up, we need better consumer tech for immersive experiences, we can build on Pokemon Go for even more immersive design examples and applications, we need to be mindful of biases limiting access, and there's a lot of potential for organizations to leverage immersive learning to solve meaningful learning problems. Let's do this, folks!


(Related: Does anyone even use Foursquare anymore? I bet the kids don't even know what that app is...)

Make a game of it

Today I led my first service at USSB; the theme was how games can help heal brokenness. I led the congregation in a spirited round of massive multiplayer rock-paper-scissors. Below is my reflection, where I included mentions of Sid Meier, Katie Salen, Eric Zimmerman, Jane McGonigal and Raph Koster. It was a really fun morning for me & from the conversations I had with people after the services, it sounds like I helped people to think differently about the value of games. And Unitarians proved they are seriously into rock-paper-scissors :)

Here is my reflection:

My family had just moved to a new town at the beginning of my 6^th grade year. A few weeks into the school year, the entire 6^th grade had a pizza party at the local Little Caesar’s restaurant. This was back when Little Caesar’s had restaurants, and this particular one also had a bar with a huge dance floor where the locals hung out on Friday and Saturday nights. But on this particular Friday afternoon, my entire 6^th grade class was having a pizza party. And then a dance contest.

I had no intention of dancing. I really hadn’t made any friends yet. When a boy that I recognized from my math class named Kevin asked me to be his partner, I was so shocked that I said yes.  He pulled me out into the center of the dance floor and the music started.  The contest rules were simple: keep dancing until a teacher taps you on the shoulder, indicating you are “out.” The song for the dance contest was “I can’t drive 55” by Sammy Hagar. If you have ever heard this song, you’ll know that it’s not exactly dance contest material.

As it was, the song choice didn’t matter. I didn’t know that my dance partner was a 12 year old dance prodigy. To be honest, he could have probably won the contest on his own.  He was dancing so enthusiastically that I couldn’t help but try to match his clearly superior moves.

Something happened as I tried to keep up with my partner; I forgot all about the people watching us. I didn’t notice the teachers tapping the other couples’ out. I was focused on dancing. I was having fun. And for the 6,000 times they played that song, I wasn’t a shy 6^th middle school girl who was trying to make friends in her new school: I was a dancing queen.

When the music finally stopped, Kevin and I were standing alone in the middle of the dance floor, sweaty and triumphant. The kids surrounding us cheered and patted us on the backs; Kevin grabbed my hand and held it up in victory.

Now, I was a very, very shy 6^th grade girl. I had ended 5^th grade as a social outcast in my previous school, shunned and bullied by my best friends. I was honestly relieved we moved to a new town for middle school, even though I didn’t know anyone.  And then a few weeks into the school year, my shyness and relative anonymity were blown to bits in the middle of that dance floor at Little Caesar’s.

Our brains are quirky, funny organs. Brains are super pattern collectors and recognizers, constantly seeking out meaning amidst chaos. We delight in finding patterns where none should exist, like when we see a cloud that looks like a bunny, or we see the image of Jesus in a piece of toast. Our brains are constantly trying to make sense of the world, to get better and better at recognizing patterns and anticipating cause and effect.

The funny thing is, when we are presented with a new or unexpected pattern, our brains are not very good at dealing with it right away. It’s like our brain goes into shock, yelling “This is not what I expected! What do I do?” It can send us into a state of paralysis, or it may prompt you to make a decision you normally wouldn’t, like participate in a middle school dance contest.

In order for our brains to learn a new patterns to better anticipate cause and effect, we need to practice recognizing the pattern. We know that practice is how we learn. Need to learn an instrument? Practice. Need to learn how to do algebra? Practice. We know that practice is the path to master a skill.  

When we are young, we practice navigating the complexities of life through play. We learn to negotiate and argue and apologize and make new friends all within the context of make believe and games that we create our own rules for.

At some point, though, we flip the expectation that play is the catalyst to learning and growing and begin to see play as a waste of time, a form of entertainment with little other value. As we stop valuing play, we deprive ourselves as adults of a safe place to practice and fail and learn how to navigate new, complicated situations. Our brains haven’t changed: we still are constantly struggling to learn and recognize new patterns. Just because you’re 16 or 36 or 86 doesn’t mean that you know everything you need to about relationships or about yourself.

I face issues every day that I don’t know how to respond to. Sometimes I think it would be great to sit down and have a tea party with my 8 year old and try to work through them, but I’m pretty sure her stuffed animals aren’t as experienced with working through the nuances of my adult relationships with my parents or how to deal with gender discrimination at work.

Still, there’s something to be said for play as a way to make us better, stronger and more confident in navigating the world around us. And games are the perfect way for us, even as adults, to play and learn and grow.

What is a game, really? Sid Meier, who is the famous designer of the Civilization computer games, defined games as “a series of meaningful choices.” This definition has always rung true to me, although probably a little too broad: couldn’t life itself be defined as a series of meaningful choices?

Another definition from game designers Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman says that a game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome. I like this definition, particularly because of that last piece, “a quantifiable outcome.” This is what differentiates play from games. In a game, there is an outcome, usually a score that tells you who won and who lost. Those outcomes, whether successes or failures, serve an important purpose: they provide you with feedback. Are you winning more, getting higher scores? You’re learning and improving. If you aren’t getting better at the game, what do you need to differently to improve? What are others doing to win that you can learn from?

Games, really, are patterns that we learn to solve. The simple ones, like tic tac toe, are fascinating to kids who are just learning pattern recognition. But one day after a couple years of practicing tic tac toe, you realize that you can win or tie every time depending on the skill of your opponent, because you have learned every pattern possible in the game.

My uncle was so good at solitaire that he could tell after only a few minutes of play whether he was going to win that hand or not. I was not that good, and I would get so frustrated watching him for a few minutes and just as my mind was starting to get into the game, he’d fold the deck and deal a new hand. How do you know? I’d ask him. And he’d say, I’ve played this a million times. I know.

In 2009, I attended the annual Game Developer’s Conference in San Francisco and saw a presentation that changed my life. Jane McGonigal presented a session on how games can change the world. She had recently launched a game called “Top Secret Dance Off” with one goal: to make people happier. The game was simple. You went to the game website and joined a team. Once you were on a team, you could start completing dance challenges. For each dance challenge, you needed to complete 3 steps: 1. Assume a secret identity. 2. Video tape yourself completing the dance challenge in public. 3. Upload the video to the game site. Once you uploaded the video, other people could vote for your dance  - the team with the highest vote total for their dance videos “won.” The website still exists and if you visit it today, you can still see the amazing and hilarious videos of people in disguise dancing in public.

What was the pattern that Jane wanted people to recognize in this game? Simply that dancing makes you happy. Even watching other people dancing makes you happy. In her talk, she proposed a noble purpose for games: games can be designed to elicit lots of different types of emotions and develop different types of skills. What if we designed games to help make people better and, even grander, to change the world for the better?

I knew that what she was saying was true. A decade earlier, I had made of game of eating using Weight Watchers points and over the course of a year had lost 75 pounds. If I could make something super hard, like losing weight, into a game that I could play and win, why couldn’t that same idea be used to solve even bigger, more complex real problems?

Two years after I saw Jane McGonigal speak for the first time, she published her first book, Reality is Broken. In it, she expanded on her idea that games can be a catalyst for growth and change, for individuals and for the world. Her idea was catching on. A game called Re-Mission helped kids with cancer understand how chemotherapy and radiation worked and let them play along fighting cancer cells during their treatment. Another game, World Without Oil, challenged people to go through their day without using oil products and to journal what alternatives they used in order to help other players facing the same challenges.  There were games addressing subjects as complex as how to most efficiently rescue survivors during a natural disaster like a typhoon or hurricane or how to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Even more powerful than the games that were allowing people to work through complex problems were the real issues gamers were being asked to solve.  In 2011, gamers were able to solve a virus enzyme structure in 3 weeks that scientists had been unable to solve for over a decade.  In the same year, gamers were able to identify cross-species DNA segments that geneticists were unable to identify using computers.  All by making a game of science.

We, humanity, prove over and over again that our brains are the most incredible pattern recognition systems and problem solvers. And it’s not just that we’re capable of doing it. We think it’s fun.

Fun is a loaded word. Raph Koster in his book A Theory of Fun defines fun as “the act of mastering a problem mentally.” I like this definition because mastering a problem mentally defines fun as an active state, which differentiates it from entertainment or enjoyment or delight. Koster further defines fun as learning in a context where there is no pressure.

Learning in a context where there is no pressure. This is why games matter.

This is why playing games, at every age, is important. If we are constantly in a state of brokenness, then we are always in a state of repair. When we don’t know how to fix a situation, we must learn. How better to learn a new pattern, a new cause and effect, a new way to look at the world, than in the safety of a game where we can practice and learn and get better, step by step? How better to make ourselves and the world better than in a game where we can have fun doing it?

When I look back now, I can see why winning that dance contest in sixth grade meant so much to me.  It was the perfect game for me to play at the perfect time. I needed to learn how to make friends in this new environment, but there was no pressure in that dance contest: I didn’t know anyone and I had nothing to prove. But I learned that taking a risk, putting myself out there and trying something new COULD be the catalyst for friendship and success.  It’s a pattern that I have recognized and repeated throughout my life, from starting my own business, to meeting my husband on a blind date, to joining this congregation.

Any challenge can be made into a game, just by approaching it in a playful way. My daughter makes something as simple as walking down the street a game by trying to avoid the cracks (and sparing my back from breaking).  More complex challenges like exercising more, I can break down into smaller challenges and reward myself for achieving milestones along the way.

What challenge are you facing? How can you make a game of it?

You can't measure learning, but you can measure behavior

I'm overstating it a bit with the title of this post, because sure, you can measure knowledge acquisition by pre-testing and post-testing, or iterative assessment. I know, I know...we can measure how much someone knows because we have standardized tests! (I really hope the sarcasm is evident in text...)

I spent the last three days at the mHealth Summit in Washington, DC and 19 hours manning the Ayogo booth, talking to amazingly interesting people about the potential of games to improve health outcomes. What mattered to everyone? It wasn't what people know...amazingly, most everyone actually knows what they need to do to be healthier. The challenge is to get people to actually DO those healthy things that will help them better manage their diabetes, reduce their risk for cardiovascular disease, etc.

When it comes to health, but really when it comes to ANYTHING, there is a knowing-doing gap. We all know this...so then why are we as a learning profession settling for assessing knowing? Knowing is not doing. The proof is in the behavior, and behavior can be easily measured.

We live in an age where everything we do is tracked. Do you carry a cell phone? Your wireless carrier knows where you take that phone all day, every day. Do you use a credit card or bank card? All of your purchases are tracked. Do you log onto the Internet? Every site that you visit is logged and recorded (yeah...I know...you delete the history. That just means your kids won't see those sites your visiting...but your Internet service provider still knows).

All of that data, and more...everything you post on Facebook, Twitter...everything you email...anything you do is trackable now. And more ways to track behavior are being created every day...sleep monitors, pedometers, glucose monitors...there is data EVERYWHERE and its all about you. And me. And the guy sitting in traffic next to you who's using his gps.

With all of this data, we can start making predictions about future outcomes. We can target specific communities or subsets of employees, populations, learners. We can provide information to the most relevant audiences in the most appropriate places.

As learning professionals, we should be thinking more closely about the implications of that data and what it means to know so much about a person's current status and the implications for her future status. Can we change the future? Why yes...yes we can. We can observe current behaviors, predict future outcomes, and use our expertise in learning and performance improvement to change behavior to improve those future outcomes.

We have access to so much behavioral data. How do we get people to change their behavior, when we know that people operate in a world of short-term benefit over long-term reward? We're not going to change those behaviors through knowledge training...we'll only change them through behaviorally-focused training. Games, simulations, contextualized practice...immersive learning environments are the bridge between having access to data and changing behavior for better results.

We can, and already do, measure behavior in almost every aspect of our lives. Learning professionals need to stop focusing on knowledge and start focusing on behavioral change as the basis of our design practice or risk obsolescence (see: Instructional Design is Dead). Our jobs aren't about making sure people know things...they are about making sure people can do things better. We can design those experiences and measure those outcomes. If we aren't doing that, we're not doing our jobs.

Gauntlet thrown. 

The F word as a strategic advantage

I want to talk about the "F" word. The one that makes many learning professionals cringe, the one that risks you or your ideas being taken seriously, the one that people want to say but imagine that by using it they will risk credibility and perhaps even look foolish. Yes, I'm talking about FUN.

We all want to have fun...I'd venture to say we all want to have more fun than we're having now. We dream of our work being more fun, of having fun on vacation, even just infusing a little fun into everyday tasks. Its true that fun is subjective; what someone may consider a chore, others might get great joy from (for example, driving...I love it! other people, not so much...).

Fun is also an attitude. You know that expression "you make your own fun"? Truer words never spoken. Everyone knows someone who's a killjoy...as soon as he or she walks into a room, all the air is sucked out. We also all know someone who is like a ray of sunshine, who we love to be around because of the energy and attitude that the person infuses into even the most mundane tasks. I had a cousin who could make even standing in line at the bank fun. We gravitate towards those people because we want to have fun, be happy, and enjoy life.

Source: http://historytech.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/video-games-and-social-studies/

What bothers me most about the concept of fun is how it is handedly dismissed in many professional environments. For years, I couldn't talk about games for learning to potential clients, or at least I didn't call them games. Why? As soon as they heard the word "game," they dismissed anything else I had to say. Most companies wanted "serious" training and the idea of learning through a game, or for learners to be having fun...*gasp*! Well it was just never going to fly, because learning was already devalued in most organizations as a cost center, and then start calling it FUN?? Anyone who wanted to be taken seriously was not going to start throwing around the F word.

Within the last 9 months, I've seen a shift in the market. I get requests for proposals from companies who are specifically looking for games for learning. Many are still tentative, nervous; they've heard about badges and gamification but they aren't sure what that means for their training initiatives or how game dynamics might improve learner motivation and engagement. Most organizations approach games very seriously, sometimes to the point of taking all the potential for fun right out of them.

Fun can be serious and challenging and look an awful lot like work, just ask any athlete. The attitude, the expectation that even when we face our most difficult challenges and most serious subject matter, that human beings strive to be happier and have more fun...these ideas don't have to be in conflict. Nathan Verrill recently gave the keynote at LEEF titled "Work is not the enemy of fun." He talked about how immersive games can be designed to address even the most serious social and business issues while fostering opportunities for fun to get (and keep) people's attention. Jonathan Richman made one of the most resonating points about marketing in a presentation at ePatient Connections last fall: you aren't just competing for attention with your competitors...you're competing with LOLCats. These presentations reinforced my opinion that in a world where there are so many distractions, competing media streams, and ways that we can choose to entertain ourselves, our business goals, and for learning professionals, our learning goals, must be addressed with strategies that account for human motivational drivers and the environmental context that we're operating in.

My conclusion? Fun is the new strategic advantage.

Organizations should be embracing fun. Organizations who close their eyes to this necessity the will suffer for it because employees and even customers will seek out fun where it exists. You want to attract and retain the best talent? Create a workplace that they are happy to jump into every day. You want people to be engaged in learning activities? Design relevant training that people look forward to participating in. You want to attract and retain more customers? Create a company that's a pleasure to do business with.

After all, who doesn't want to have more fun?

It's all about change (and resilience): The Change Game

Three years ago when Tandem Learning started this entrepreneurial journey, we fancied ourselves a services company. Over time, though, as we saw the intersections between the work that we do and the business challenges our clients are facing, it became clear that there were some solutions that could help a variety of organizations.

Take change management, for example.

What started out as a custom project for a client who wanted to help their employees be more resilient in the face of big organizational changes led to our partnering with Linda Hoopes of Resilience Alliance and using her book, Managing Change with Personal Resilience, as the basis what has become Tandem Learning's first product, The Change Game. 

We're really excited about The Change Game.

On an individual level, this game helps people identify how they react to changes in their own lives and through reflection and recognition, provides them with strategies to help them break the destructive patterns of resistance to change. 

On an organizational level, The Change Game provides companies with a new tool in their change management toolbox...addressing employee resistance, providing a common organizational language to identifying patterns and instances of resistance to change, and providing managers and organizational leaders responsible for implementing changes specific data around which to provide coaching to employees. 

If you'd like to learn more or to see it, send me a message and I'll be happy to show you around. If you'll be at Learning Solutions 2011, come find me for an in-person tour.

Augmented Reality Games, Alternate Reality Games, and the Future of Learning

Watch live video from RELATE Live! on Justin.tv

Thank you to Rick Zanotti and Terrence Wing for inviting me to speak today on #elearnchat. You can check out the video here...including our "prep" session at the beginning! 

Tandem Learning at DevLearn 2010

The Tandem Learning team is gearing up for next week in San Francisco at DevLearn 2010. By now you may have heard some of the buzz about what we'll be up to at the conference, but here's a complete list of where you'll see us at the conference. Hold onto your hats, everyone! Tandem is bringing the learning to the city by the bay...

Do this now:

• Sign up for the alternate reality game (ARG) that we are running - Dr. Strangelearn: www.drstrangelearn.com 
• Download the DevLearn 10 app for your smartphone. Its amazing!

Wednesday 11/3:

• Visit us at booth 410 in the Expo Hall.
• Register to win an Extreme Makeover: Learning Edition! at our booth
• Check out our "Why in 5!" Five-minute information sessions at our booth, where we'll be introducing new, emerging and exciting learning technologies and WHY you should be thinking of integrating them now.
• Come find out more about ARGs (and maybe find some clues) at the Dr. Strangelearn Information Station (next to the Serious Game Zone)
• If you haven't already, definitely sign up to play Dr. Strangelearn - it's not too late to see what all the excitement is about!
• 4:00 - 5:00 Understanding Alternate Reality Games and Why They Work in Salon 4.

Thursday 11/4:

• Visit us at booth 410 in the Expo Hall.
• Register to win an Extreme Makeover: Learning Edition! at our booth 
• Check out our "Why in 5!" Five-minute information sessions at our booth
• Come find out more about ARGs at the Dr. Strangelearn Information Station 
• If you haven't already, definitely sign up to play Dr. Strangelearn
• 11:00 - 11:40 am Come hear me talk about Emerging Social Learning Ideas at Mark Oehlert's Social Learning Camp
• 12:00 - 12:40 pm Come hear me talk about Emerging Game Technologies in Alicia Sanchez's Serious Game Zone

Friday 11/5:

• 7:15 - 8:15 am Dr. Strangelearn: ARG Debrief is a Breakfast Byte in Nob Hill AB
• 9:45 - 10:45 am New and Emerging Learning Technologies session in Salon 14-15

We are all really excited about the conference this year! Besides the activities listed above, there will be some onsite announcements and surprises as well. Stay tuned and see you at DevLearn!

Design considerations for conference alternate reality games

If you've been following along, you've probably heard that Tandem Learning is running an alternate reality game (ARG) at DevLearn 10. Dr. Strangelearn is our sophomore ARG at DevLearn, and we're excited to get everyone involved and playing. (If you're going to DevLearn, you really should sign up now. Really. Do it now. I'll wait...)


As I've been writing about ARGs for learning, I hoped to make some correlations between our conference ARGs and the ARGs that we've designed as learning experiences. But there are distinct design differences between the two types of ARGs because of the different play contexts, and for people investigating the use of ARGs for learning, its important to understand these differences.

In no particular order:

• At conference ARGs, the ARG is not the main attraction. Unless the event is designed around the ARG, the game is likely to be a supplement to the conference. In these cases, people are there for some other reason...and typically, the reason is to interact with the other people at the event. Because of this, its important to design conference ARGs to supplement, not take away from, the main event. If you don't, people will abandon the game play to focus on the main attraction.

• When designing ARGs for learning, presenting complex problems to be solved is part of the learning. For conference ARGs, complex problems seem like work. Designing for simplicity of play at events is critical...if the game is too complicated or the puzzles/challenges are too difficult, players at an conference are more likely to give up or stop playing.

• Learning-focused ARGs can challenge the players to follow a path, or to find hidden information. For conference ARGs, give players LOTS of opportunities to play and join in on the fun. If the path to play or win is too linear, players are less likely to join an conference ARG if they feel they joined too late or can't keep up.

• For conference ARGs, keep the content light, with opportunities to take-away content from the game to review after the event. Although there may be learning opportunities during the event embedded in the game, sparking a learner's interest and providing great content that can be explored after the conference is a more successful strategy than trying to actually train people at the event. For learning ARGs, the training is an important part of the design and the expectation is that players will have much more time and attention to focus on the content as they play through the game experience.

There are lots of other subtle design considerations that make conference ARGs different from ARGs for learning. The main focus of ANY serious ARG design should be the basic question: what do you want people to learn by engaging in the experience? After that, understanding your audience, the context of the game play, and the resources you and the players have available are the parameters within which you design. 

FINALLY some research! Games improve corporate learning results

For years, the serious games industry has danced around the questions of whether games are better for learning. We've pushed past objections about something being too "game-like" or "fun." We would come up with other words for games, like "competitive environments." All the while, we have held our conviction that well-designed games really DO improve learning outcomes.

And now there's some research to prove it.  (Source: sciencedaily.com and article link here)

A University of Colorado Denver Business School study found those trained on video games do their jobs better, have higher skills and retain information longer than workers learning in less interactive, more passive environments.

"Companies have been designing video games for employees for years but so far it has all been done on a hunch. They suspected the games helped but they could never actually prove it," said Traci Sitzmann, PhD, assistant professor of management at the Business School whose study will be published in the winter edition of Personnel Psychology. "We now know video games work, and we know why they work."

Sitzmann spent over a year examining 65 studies and data from 6,476 trainees and discovered those using video games had an 11 percent higher factual knowledge level, a 14 percent higher skill-based knowledge level and a 9 percent higher retention rate than trainees in comparison groups.

I only hope there will be more research and data where that came from.

What can alternate reality games do for you?

I've written a lot in the past about design considerations (here and here) and lessons learned (here) for alternate reality games (ARGs) for learning, but another important question to address is: what are ARGs good at teaching?

This is a multi-layered question, as ARGs are complex learning experiences and most are not designed as a simple linear process like you would see in a typical e-learning module. Because ARGs are storyline driven and depend on learners to engage with the content to complete the game tasks and/or inform their game decisions, it is important to consider two key questions when determining whether an ARG is an appropriate learning activity.

1. Does learner interaction with the content positively impact the learning goals?

This is a basic, but important question. Sometimes you just want people to know something, or do something differently. Company policies, learning a new process...these are training initiatives that are important, but they don't necessarily require learner interaction nor are they subject to interpretation. There are a lot of topics, however, where learners actively engaging with the content is critical to learning it. Think about topics like leadership development, project management and team communication, sales strategy, or quality assurance review. In all of these training areas, learners get better by practicing and engaging with the content. Designing an ARG that encourages critical thinking and learning by doing is a great application of an ARG.

2. Is it difficult to get learners to engage with the content effectively in other formats?

Sometimes its difficult to motivate learners to engage with content. Most training professionals don't like to admit this, but we all know its true. Training exercises can feel forced, and often it depends on each learner's personal motivation to get something out of the training. One reason for this may be that the delivery mechanism of the training isn't appropriate or creates barriers to learning. For example, can you develop a sales strategy for your customers after watching a PowerPoint presentation on developing a sales strategy? Can you lead a team after an e-learning module on leadership skills? Will you know who to contact or where to find the information critical to your job after sitting through your HR orientation? Probably not. And that's because the format of the training doesn't provide you with the proper opportunities to practice or the motivation to engage with the tasks. ARGs can be designed to address almost any topic or content in a way that allows for more interaction and with an overlying competitive element that provides additional motivation to learn and engage. 

ARGs allow for flexible design that can encourage problem-solving, communication skills, leadership skills, information gathering and critical thinking skills. Do you have a need within your organization to help learners practice these things? An ARG can help.

The Obvious Ninja: a key to successful alternate reality games

I was recently at a conference and noticed the conference photographer. Yes, already you may see the problem. Photographers are supposed to blend into the scene. They document an occasion but aren't supposed to be the attraction themselves. Well, not this photographer.

Its not that she was trying to draw attention to herself. In fact, what I noticed about her was that she was trying SO hard to be sneaky that you couldn't help but notice her. Exaggerated sneaky walking. Sudden ducking and swinging the camera around. Watching her during one session caused us to break out into a fit of giggles.

That's when I named her "The Obvious Ninja."

Ironically, this concept is important for serious alternate reality game (ARG) design. Traditionally, entertainment ARGs have been very subversive, attracting a small group of players that invest significant time into figuring out the puzzles of the game in order to win. There are two problems with this type of design: "small group of players" and "invest significant time."

One of the most basic things we know about learning game design is the need to reduce the cognitive overhead and barriers of entry to play. At first glance, this seems counter-intuitive given that most ARGs are puzzle-based. But good ARG design relies on balancing making the game obvious and easy to use and keeping it challenging (because if there's no challenge, there's not much fun).

So if you're planning an ARG and are aiming to involve a broad audience, think "obvious ninja." And tip your hat to my favorite conference photographer.

SIEGE ARG Post-game debrief

Back from Atlanta, I barely had time to catch my breath before jumping into the next project, but wanted to share out some of our lessons learned from the latest alternate reality game (ARG) that we ran at SIEGE!

First, a HUGE thanks to Silly Monkey, Getting Girls in the Game, and Design Marbles for inviting us along for the ride. Not only was the ARG fun to put together, but it was a pleasure to work with such talented folks and I can't wait until our next adventure!

A few notes on ARG design coming out of the conference:

• The augmented reality (AR) features in this game were new, and really got people involved in game play in a different way. We had QR codes that served as many of the clues and it was great to see how people were interacting with them. One important note for AR though--make sure your audience members have the technical capabilities to access the clues! I was surprised at the limited number of smart phones on site, but it was awesome to see people working together (and finding people with smart phones!) to access the clues. 
• Just because they're gamers doesn't mean they'll play your game! Think about it...gamers don't want to waste their time on a game unless its fun and engaging--just like anyone else. Its absolutely essential that you design your game for engagement, understanding your audience, and providing ample information to get people involved in the game early. Subversive game play, even for gamers, seems like work when you're in the middle of a conference. Keeping game elements obvious and instructions simple goes a long way.
• Get some celebrity endorsements. We were fortunate to be able to post our clues on the keynote podium, and Nolan Bushnell even wore a clue on his back one night! It always helps to get some prominent players involved to peak interest and get people playing.
• Design as you go. I can't emphasize enough the importance of the puppetmaster in ARGs. As you see how people are engaging in your game, its critical that you are thinking of how to make dynamic adjustments to tweak and improve the game play experience. ARGs are not a static experience, and their execution should be as fluid and intentional as the nature of playing them. 

For more information about the SIEGE ARG, there was a really nice write up by Nettrice Gaskins for the National Alliance for Media Art +Culture (NAMAC).

Attack of the Classic Games: SIEGE ARG

So excited to be attending and speaking at the SIEGE conference this weekend--even more excited about the work we have done to put together an ARG with the collaborative efforts of Silly Monkey, Getting Girls in the Game, and Design Marbles.

Tomorrow, we'll be proud to announce the Attack of the Classic Games ARG.

This ARG is a bit different, since it will be mainly played during the actual conference. There will be online components and lots of onsite play. I'm looking forward to seeing what a conference full of gamers do in comparison with the learning audiences we usually design for.

And I'm really looking forward to hearing Nolan Bushnell speak!

Games for assessment

Another Twitter conversation, another blog post...another thought-stream based out of ADL's Implementation Fest #ifest (Srsly, this is the most a conference has inspired me to write in a long time. A good, and bad, thing...).

So, let's talk about the opportunities and problems with using games for assessment. Especially when you throw the "s" word in there..."standardized" assessment.

Deep breath.

First, I'll preface by saying that games are a natural environment for assessment...in essence, they are assessing your performance just by nature of the game structure itself. Unless, of course, there aren't clear success metrics and you "win" by collecting more and more meaningless stuff (like Farmville)...but that's a whole other topic. So let's assume there are success metrics built into the game and those metrics align with what your learning objectives are. Its logical that by having someone play a game, you'll see how well they know something or know how to do something. Right?

Nothing is ever that easy. There are lots of aspects of game play that depend greatly on how the game was designed. For one, games have an intrinsic layer of cognitive overhead that may not exist in real life. For example, as I've been learning how to play Call of Duty 4, I first have to master the use of my PS3 controller. No, this isn't a learning game, but the same principles apply...it's why real guitar players get irritated playing Guitar Hero...there are skills that you need to develop to play a game, or to be successful in a game, that don't exist in real life or don't mirror the skills necessary to be successful at real life tasks. I think it becomes clear in first person shooter games, where your ability to operate your game controller does not directly translate to being able to accurately fire an automatic weapon in a combat environment. For any assessment, you have to make sure you're not just assessing how well someone plays the game, but how well they have mastered the real skill or content. In using games for assessment, you run the risk of assessing how well someone plays the game, not the objectives you are hoping to assess.

Another issue with games for assessment is the gender differences in how people play games. I'm about to talk about broad generalizations, so bear with me and recognize that some women game like "guys" and some guys game like "girls"...but there are different ways that people approach game environments and those differences do tend to follow along gender lines. Men are bigger risk-takers and explorers; women like to be guided, understand the environment, and follow the rules. Depending on how you design your game, you risk alienating a whole group of players if you don't consider the gender differences in game play. Worse, if you are using games for standardized assessment, you could be putting about half of the people you are assessing at a disadvantage just by the nature of the game design. Given the general acknowledgment that standardized tests are racially and class biased, adding a layer of gender bias in the game design risks making the concept of "standardized" even more meaningless.

Do I think games can be used effectively for assessment? Yes. Look at surgical simulations, flight simulators...close approximations of performing tasks in real life. Research has proven that successful performance in these simulated environments correlates to successful performance at the actual tasks. Where you can mirror game performance to real performance in this way, I think games are a brilliant and useful measure of assessment. But without careful design, thoughtful reflection on what the game environment adds to assessment, and what the trade-offs are with other forms of assessment, we risk creating another assessment environment that falls short of measuring true capability, potential, or performance.

America's Army and gender bias in game design

Coming out of the #ifest Twitter stream, I once again heard how America's Army was a shining example of how games had been used to improve recruitment efforts. I posed the question...has it improved recruitment of women at the same rate it has improved the recruitment of men? So far, all I've heard back is *crickets*.

For two weeks, I have been looking for data or research on America's Army that mentions gender as a research parameter, but so far, I've found nothing. If you know of any research, I'd love to see it. My hypothesis? Recruitment of women was not as greatly improved after they played America's Army. If that's the case, what does that say about the relative value of recruiting women vs men into our military?

What makes a game successful? Is it ok for public institutions (government, schools, etc.) to measure the success of a serious game without looking at differences in outcomes along the most basic parameters (gender, class, race)? Is it ok to say a game is successful in achieving its goals if we don't consider those issues as part of the discussion?

I'm tired of hearing the marketing spin and the hype around how games can change the world if we're not even asking the most basic questions about WHO games are changing and HOW they are changing them. You won't find a bigger advocate of games for learning and as a vehicle to raise awareness and support behavior change. But not all games are created equal. We have to be vigilant and constantly questioning our design to ensure we're achieving the outcomes we seek. Ignoring questions of gender, class, and racial bias in serious game design makes me question the motives of the design itself and the motives of those promoting a game's "success."

As always, I welcome anyone's comments who can prove me wrong...

LEEF wrap up: The best little conference you're missing

Just back from LEEF 2010 at Harrisburg University, and in its second year, it did not disappoint. Last year we attended the first LEEF conference, and were thrilled at the structure and the content. With a focus on serious games, simulations, and virtual worlds for learning, we were treated to in depth case studies and demos that you just didn't see at other conferences.

This year was even better. The quality of the sessions was amazing. We got to see demos of products, like IBM's Innov8, before they are released on the market. We got to play full blown games and ask all of the design and strategic questions that you don't normally get to ask at conferences. And we got to really meet and connect with brilliant practitioners in our field.

The keynotes blew me away. Mike Cuffe, Vice President, University of Farmers, Claims at Farmer's Insurance, is doing some of the most cutting edge training I've seen. It was refreshing to see a visionary in corporate training who practices what he preaches and is vigilantly staying ahead of the curve. Jerry Heneghan, Managing Director, Virtual Heroes Division at Applied Research Associates gave a really inspiring presentation on 3D immersive games that gave some insight into how they have been effective in changing behaviors. I am looking forward to seeing what his group will be doing next related to health.

Tandem presented two sessions on ARGs (alternate reality games) and both were really fun for me, in different ways. The first was our case study overview and we presented to a pretty packed house. Even more exciting for me was the line of people afterwards that wanted to talk more. I'm excited to see ARGs really seeming to have some traction for corporate learning, and I'm looking forward to our next projects in this area. The second session was a debrief of the ARG that we helped support at the LEEF conference, The Robots are Eating the Building. It was a truly valuable learning experience, and I got a lot out of the debrief.

Thanks so much to Jen Reiner, Andy Petroski and Charles Palmer for putting on such a great conference. Can't wait to see what you put together next year...and hopefully some of you who haven't already will join us!

The play is the thing

Have you ever played a game? Did you enjoy it? (I know, these seem like silly questions, right?)

Then why is there all of the fuss about using the word "game" in relation to learning? Who said that learning can't be fun?

Now, I know...we all went to school and learned in classrooms and we were taught that it was serious business. Studying is hard. You need to read quietly. No talking during tests. We even call it homeWORK. We were conditioned to think that learning had to be serious and dry and boring. 

But what if we hadn't been? 

I was watching my 3 year old playing a game today. I realized she was learning about pattern recognition, but she wouldn't have told you that. She would have told you she was playing. She would have said she was having fun. Was it any less learning than if I had given her worksheets? 

So let's think about corporate learning. If you want employees to "know" something, sure...let them read about it, go through an e-learning module, answer some multiple choice questions. If you want them to "do" something...you should have them practice it. Practice builds expertise, practice implies repetition...and games are a great vehicle to allow for practice. How do you get better at a sport? Practice. How do you get better at selling? Practice. How do you get better at solving problems? Practice. 

How much more would your employees practice if it was fun? 

Let's not vilify games for not being brutally painful to play. Let's explain the elements of games that make them more appropriate than most other learning methods for improving skills, increasing knowledge and encouraging practice. I'd bet that manager who dismisses games for learning might even be watching the ball game on Sunday...

ARGs (alternate reality games) for learning

After launching our second ARG for learning this week with our development partners Hybrid Learning, and after I pulled a double shift last week on #lrnchat talking ARGs (early and late transcripts), and I realized that a blog post about ARGs and how they can be used for learning is well overdue. Why should you be thinking about ARGs for your next event, or corporate learning initiative? Consider this tweet from Kristen Cromer regarding our pilot test results for our latest ARG:

Client tester reacted to ARG test run by jumping up and down saying "I want to play more!"

So...when was the last time you launched a training program that made people jump up and down? Yeah...that's what I thought. The truth is, ARGs can incorporate many of the elements that traditional training lacks: social learning, experiential learning, game play, and competition. And...brace yourself...fun.

So what is an ARG? And how can you use them to help people learn?

Alternate reality games (ARGs), also sometimes called pervasive games, are designed to combine real life and digital game play elements. Typically, ARGs are "tracked" online but the actual game play consists of real life activities. There are many entertainment-based examples (eg, I love bees, The Lost Experience, Numb3rs Chain Factor) and emerging examples of ARGs for serious purposes (eg, Urgent Evoke, World without Oil). A new area of focus is how ARGs can be leveraged for corporate training.

I've seen a lot of confusion in the term ARG--some people use "alternate reality games" and "augmented reality games" interchangeably.  For a point of clarification, alternate reality games refer to game play that integrates real life and online game play; augmented reality games refer to games where there is a technology overlay on reality that contributes to play (think the 1st down line on televised football games).

Its difficult to make generalizations of what an ARG is or looks like for learning. Just as there are an unlimited number of games and rules for game play, the same is true for ARGs. Designs could range from something very simple (eg, a scavenger hunt) to something very complex (eg, large scale, problem-based learning leadership development). There are, however, some basic design principles and "lessons learned" that have become apparent as we have designed more and more ARGs for corporate learning.

• Design is the key: just as with any game, ARGs are most successful when they are designed for the type of play and outcomes that both make them fun and engaging as well as focused on achieving the desired goals. This is not instructional design; this is game design with learning goals. A huge misconception is that because you've played games, you know how to design them. Don't underestimate the amount of time, energy, thought, and expertise that it takes to design a fun game, let alone a fun game that accomplishes your organizational learning goals.
• Technology drives the experience: you shouldn't underestimate the importance of the game design, but neither should you underestimate the importance of having a solid technology plan for driving and tracking the game play. Much of the basis of a good game is the mechanics--you can't play Yahtzee without dice or poker without cards. Technology enables game play and is an essential element of what makes an ARG successful.
• What's your story?: everyone loves a good story. The most successful ARGs embrace storytelling as a key element of the game play. For corporate training initiatives, the storytelling elements can either mirror real-life scenarios or be more of a fantastical overlay. Strategy for the storyline should align with the design and objectives, but should not be overlooked as a critical aspect of the experience.
• Stick to the point: yes, it might be fun to plan an ARG with a Mission Impossible theme, but it might not be appropriate for a game focused on team building. Make sure that your design is led by and focused on your learning objectives. Recognize that anything that doesn't support your goals might distract from them and be strategic about what you focus on to reduce cognitive overhead.
• Follow the rules: people play games to win, and rules dictate what you need to do to win. Part of the complexity of game design is setting rules of play to balance game play at the sweet spot between "too hard" and "too easy."
• Play to learn not learn to play: beware of designing game play rules that are so complex that there's a significant learning curve to figure out how to play the game. Unless, of course, the goal of the game is to promote critical thinking skills...then it might be appropriate :) But in general, ARGs should be designed with clear rules of play to help players focus on the content and accomplishing the learning goals instead of figuring out how to play or win the game.
• Should you keep it on the down-low?: in the past, part of the intrigue and appeal of ARGs is that they have been secret or subversive, which created an atmosphere of being "in the know." But for learning, you probably don't want your training experiences to be secret, but it might not be a bad idea to think about how you can still create that feeling of subversiveness. Secret clues, bonuses, and secret codes are all examples of ways that you can create a "secret" feel to game play. 

We've launched two ARGs for learning in the last few months and are in process of developing two more. Corporate training initiatives and live events and conferences are great opportunities to leverage the strengths of ARGs at a comparatively low cost. How would you rather learn and network with your peers? What kind of shared experiences could an ARG provide as a basis for learning and relationship building? The possibilities and opportunities are endless.

Check out more information about our Constellation Academy of Wine National Sales Meeting ARG that launched this week here. I previously wrote a bit about our DevLearn 09 Zombie Apocalypse ARG here, and I'll be presenting the case study on both of these ARGs at the LEEF Conference in Harrisburg, PA on June 17th & 18th (and running an ARG for the conference as well!). I'll keep you updated on our upcoming ARGs as well. Stay tuned!

Game design strategy: content versus concept

My 7 year old is a gamer. He prefers what he calls "learning" games (he's not much for the "fighting" games...doesn't see the point). But recently, he's transitioned from simply playing games into making his own games and animations. He started out with Scratch and now has moved onto Alice. I can't say enough about either of these programs; if you have kids who are interested in games, they are great tools to get them started.

In helping him think about what he's designing, we've been referencing other games that he's liked playing. Two of his favorites are Big Brain Academy on the Wii and The Impossible Quiz, which he plays on his iTouch but also on the laptop. Both of these games have been highly engaging, and both of them are quiz/puzzle-based. But their design is pointedly different, and provide some insight for learning game designers.

Big Brain Academy focuses on a series of questions that fall into different categories, such as visualize or compute. The questions vary, and your performance is measured in the time it takes to complete and how many you get right. For example, in the compute category, you might be asked to pop balloons that have numbers in them, from low to high. The first few are pretty easy, but then negative numbers are introduced and players need to understand the concept of the number line in order to be successful. The game play focuses on repetition to keep increasing the number you get right, and how quickly you get them right...essentially, repetition for mastery of the concept.

The Impossible Quiz is equally, if not more addictive. The first quiz is 110 questions long, but questions are puzzles themselves and if you burn through your 3 lives, you start over from the beginning. You get the exact same questions every time. Game play is progressive...by the time you get to question 84, you can fly through the first 83 questions because you've learned the tricks and solved the puzzles. The challenge is solving the next puzzle, not repetition of the previous puzzles for mastery. The content is the challenge, and once the content is mastered, its time to move onto the next question.

So which design is better for learning? Both of these games are highly engaging and the sense of accomplishment elicited is intrinsic in the game design. But at the end of the day, my son is a master of the number line in any context, but I'm not sure he's any better as solving puzzles...he just knows the answers to The Impossible Quiz. If the learning goal is to communicate content, The Impossible Quiz design gets the job done nicely. If you want to teach a concept, focus on the design elements seen in Big Brain Academy.

For now, the 7 year old is more interested in emulating content puzzles...be on the lookout for "The Impossible Space Quiz." In the meantime, check out his portfolio on Scratch...and feel free to leave a comment if you see something you like!

(This blog post approved by Jackson Olbrish.)

The name of the game in virtual worlds? Monetization.

I'm at GDC (Game Developer's Conference) in San Francisco this week. Learning a lot, seeing some great, and some sketchy, sessions...I've only got the Summits & Tutorials pass, so I won't be able to comment on the regular conference sessions. They did away with the Virtual Worlds summit track this year, but they keep creeping into the other sessions. Lots on social gaming and mobile, and a bit hit or miss (but I think better) line up in the Serious Games summit track.

One initial observation? Much less discussion on design, unless of course you want to learn about design for monetization. Holy cats, I know people ultimately are in this to make some money, but the emphasis on the manipulation of players to convert them into paying customers, and if you're really lucky, subscribers, has been downright depressing. The session on what social gaming can learn from virtual worlds featured "Hangout" which is evidently a new teen world, and initially, primarily targeted to girls. It reinforced every superficial stereotype of young women that the media perpetuates, and it was described with such a casualness that everyone may have missed that it was a soulless vehicle to pander to the media bias that the most important things to teenage girls are clothes and boys. SIGH.

The best session I attended so far was by Eric Ries, who talked about the ecstasy and agony of being a start up, and provided two really interesting case studies on virtual worlds start up companies There.com and IMVU. For those who don't follow these things, There.com just shut down yesterday and IMVU is one of the most successful (if you look at profitability and active users) virtual worlds. Main lesson learned? There.com followed the "rules" and it killed them...IMVU did the opposite and it's flying above the carcasses of other dying worlds.

On a positive note, met some great guys working on some virtual world stuff for enterprise that, if what they say is true, is going to turn some existing platforms on their ears. There are cool things on the horizon...stay tuned for when I can actually talk about it (after I see it and sign an agreement to what I can actually say...) but its about time that we had a browser-based platform for corporate uses that leverages other open API technologies, no?

Its a different vibe this year. It seems a lot smaller. It actually seems a lot quieter, and a bit more desperate. I learn the most at GDC of any conference I attend because seeing what is happening in the entertainment space helps shape how we are designing for corporate learning. We're bolstering our knowledge of ARGs (alternate reality games) and mobile learning through the sessions and technology featured here. But the unrelenting circle-back to "this is how you can make money" is starting to bother me. Good design in entertainment should lead to more customers...good design in training materials should lead to more informed, more educated, more highly skilled learners. Yes, tell me how you're designing for engagement...but not to get someone to push the "Pay" button.