Re: New member --> differences in list and game focus

[Jeffery Douglas Waddell <jeff@smluc.org>]

Hi,

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Leon Brooks wrote:

> Jeffery Douglas Waddell wrote:
> > I'm on it thank you Doug.  I've also cross posted to that list about this
> > project.  Perhaps some cross pollination will do us all good.
> 
> I also cross-posted this one message, since this concerns differences
> between the two groups.
> 

ok I've continued the cross post, if there is any desire to have this
thread go to one list or the other please speak up.

> > Don't know if we can keep the discussions separate or not, also we may not
> > want to as there is really not much reason for the "edutainment" to be
> > different from the classroom based applications.  I.E. the software should
> > scale from 1 user to 1000's of user's with no difficulties.
> 
> Sadly, no.

No it "should" not scale or No it currently DOES not scale?

> It is generally easier to add classroom-oriented features to
> an individual learning application (for example, add simultaneous
> players to a problem-solving game) than it is to trim back a
> group-oriented program and make it work well for an individual.
> 

We are trying to develop this once so that it will be easy to use and
useful.  If it's harder to develop because of that, at least we don't have
to worry about budget or a corporate cancellation of the project ;)

> There are really three different educational situations, and they all
> work completely differently, in a social and educational sense, namely:
> just-me, small-group and large-group (crowd).

Yes I agree there are different dynamics that will require finesse and
careful consideration, but I don't think that NECESSARILY means different
suites/applications.  To me, it means adding the functionality to meet the
needs of these given groups within the framework WE create.

> I would count small-group
> as about 2 to 8 people. If you play online games, the difference in
> character between Quake-ish games played in each of those three
> situations should rapidly impress itself on you.
> 

Yes but the underlying piece of code is still the same.  Multiple views to
the same data so to speak.

> In a classroom (large-groupsetting it is possible to some degree to
> simulate just-me and crowd and so make use of programs aimed at those
> situations, but these programs also don't work very fluidly for the
> class a whole, for example the group management facilities just aren't
> there, and games such as patience are impractical past small-group size.
> 

That's a matter of implementation, that I HOPE our framework will address.

> OTOH, the classroom-oriented programs (both in the computer and
> social/educational sense) that I've seen generally scale down very
> badly, particularly to a just-me setting, starting with little things
> like all of the pointless extra options to show-stoppers like
> multi-participant situations with no AI to "play" with or against. I-spy
> is no fun by yourself.
> 

So then for the I-spy type games AI's to "play" against are essential.
How does this affect the framework underwhich the games will be created?

> So, I think that there is a bright in(ter)dependent future for both
> approaches, to each their own, but each with an eye on the other's
> situation for, as you put it, cross-pollination.

;)

Thanks for your input.

Sincerely,

Jeff Waddell
jeff@smluc.org