Best Practices for Marketing Games

[kiersten]

I am in the early stages of developing a free online game that allows
students to explore careers in the nuclear energy industry and to
learn middle school science content. You can learn more about the game
at http://corereaction.org/?c. I am anxious to hear what people have
found to be the most effective strategies for promoting their games,
particularly among teachers and students.

[Hoby Van Hoose]

This is all students and educators need to know about the nuclear industry:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japans-nuclear-disaster-six-months-on
http://www.democracynow.org/tags/japan_disaster

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Games for Change" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to gamesfo...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> gamesforchang...@googlegroups.com
>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/gamesforchange?hl=en
>
> By opting into this Google Group, you are also opting into our bi-monthly newsletter which we will send to you via the e-mail address you are using for the Google Group.

[Mary Heston]

Hi Hoby,

While these are interesting articles I would hope that, as educators, or even people interested in change, we would not declare these articles "definitive".

Games for Change does not seem like just a political stance on particular issues but rather in creating games that help our kids (our future) come up with better solutions that make this world a better place.

Thanks for sharing some interesting articles but it seems to me that by saying that they are "everything we need to know"  it closes down discussion instead of opening it up to the real issues.

--
###############################################
Visit me online!
Mary W. Heston
http://www.maryheston.com
http://www.linkedin.com/maryheston
http://www.twitter.com/maryheston
###############################################
 
 

[Hoby Van Hoose]

Mary,

Perhaps my wording was too absolute. Unfortunately I tend to speak that way when my aim is to be concise. The subject does deserve more depth than I'd given it but lacking the time at the time, I just wanted to voice my concern over the goals of this game in relation to the goal of G4C along with some news to give context for my objection. I'm all for creating dialogue but someone has to offer a dissenting statement for it to begin.

You clearly and correctly state G4C's purpose as existing to help to create "games that help our kids (our future) come up with better solutions that make this world a better place". The nuclear industry has proven itself to be incapable of reliably making the world a better place; and it is for this reason that G4C members should seriously question whether to help a game that promotes such an industry.

Look at the history, debate, and potential of nuclear power first from a scientific point of view. If we were to relate the viability of nuclear technology to the scientific method of hypothesis and theory, we'll find that the environmental, economic, political, and health effects of the nuclear industry were strongly postulated hypotheses that have been tested and resoundingly disproven over time. No theory status. Like all dig and burn power generation, nuclear power continually generates highly toxic byproducts in every stage manipulation (from acquisition, to usage, to attempts at disposal). Building and operating nuclear plants are hideously expensive, taking 30, 50 (or more?) years to pay for themselves. Nuclear material used for generating power is also generally weaponized for creating nuclear missiles and "dirty" bombs. Accidents at nuclear power plants are not just expensive but extremely deadly for thousands of years. We've seen what meltdowns do and we'll keep seeing it as long as they're still operating and they haven't managed render us all extinct.

Compare that to solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal. Now which industry should we be creating games for kids to simulate working in?

If we don't draw a line (or at least pencil it in) here, where do we? Does the coal industry make the world a better place? How about genetically modified foods? Credit default swaps? Just because something has gained leverage in society doesn't mean it should just be accepted as something that it isn't. I'm probably preaching to the choir here but in case I'm not, I'll leave these last three paragraphs.

Hoby

p.s., continue to discuss as you see fit

[John Beals]

Ditto Mary. For historical reference, Hoby seems to have a track record of turning requests for info into political confrontations. See the "New York Fed RFP" post to this discussion group for a recent example. While I sympathize with Hoby politically, this is not that kind of forum, and posts that are not constructive of that mission shouldn't be posted to it.

Johnathon Beals

[Hoby Van Hoose]

John,

I guess I do, sorry about that.

I recognize the importance of maintaining this list as a point of assistance and place to discuss philosophy of technique and I agree that it should not be filled with material that isn't of that nature. But at the same time, I don't wish to see another group with an enlightened purpose co-opted for nefarious means.

Is there a more appropriate way to express concerns for projects that are potentially an affront to the Games for Change mission? If a fair mechanism exists I'll use it. Otherwise, it's out in the open for me.

Hoby

[Blake Drolson]

Hoby and John,

    I have been trying to keep my mouth shut on this, since I know the list does not want to get political.  At the same time I want to say that I also had little bells go off when the request was made for help marketing a game about the promotion of nuclear energy.  At the time I deleted the email and moved on with my day.

    For me the question is this.  What kind of change does "Games for change" stand for?  Does it mean ANY change?  As a very extreme example, if I made a game promoting a return to the rule of Kings in the modern world, or facism, or slavery, is that ok?  I know these are extreme over the top examples, but is this list only about technique, or does it have any moral stance??

    I know nuclear energy is much more debatable on if its beneficial or not, though personally I agree with Hoby on other energy alternatives.

Peace,
    Blake

[DrCyn]

It seems to me that the real issue here is that there is conflicting evidence in regards to the "best possible energy source" primarily, because it's complicated to compare methods directly and "best" can be measured in so many ways.   As was Hoby, I was a bit caught off guard that the purpose of this game was to save-the-day with nuclear power.  I was expecting a game that challenged the player to come to conclusions about a variety of energy sources based on game mechanics that represent the literature (sometimes conflicting). 

Never despise what you don't understand.

[Anna Muldoon]

I was trying to stay out of this, but I just can't.

The definition of "doing good" seems to be what is under debate here, not the content of Kiersten's game, since none of us have actually seen it.  Several people make the assumption that all educated/good people are against nuclear power.  This is blatantly untrue and unfair to the rest of us.  It is not an issue that has been settled and there are powerful arguments on each side.  Making the assumption that your personal disagreement with something makes it fundamentally evil is a very dangerous way to think.

Kiersten's game focuses on helping kids explore careers in the nuclear industry - a very large industry with many opportunities for people.  Whatever you think about nuclear power, allowing kids to explore careers in a not-very-well-understood field is not a negative thing.  This is a game that teaches and gives opportunities for exploration.  Rejecting her request for information because you have a personal dislike of the field it teaches about is unfair.

Whether or not you like it, nuclear power is here and something we all have to deal with.  Trying to prevent kids from learning about it because you don't like it isn't exactly a way to encourage critical thinking or science knowledge.

And finally, Kiersten - I'm sorry you received a negative response.  I hope you also received some help that didn't go to the whole listserv.
A

Do not bother to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself. - William Faulkner

[Martin Cocker | Netsafe]

Hello all

I'm from New Zealand which is Nuclear Free, but even so - I don't think you can conclusively say - nuclear power is bad and therefore anything associated with it is bad. Nuclear power is very much good or bad dependent on context.    

If the game promotes Nuclear power over the other options, you'd say it was a political game I guess - in which case it can be critiqued as such. However, if the game explored the management of safety risks (which I suspect is huge part of running a Nuclear power station) in an accurate way then I think you can describe it as an educative game. 

Political games are good or bad depending on your viewpoint - but genuine educative games should be encouraged. 

Thanks,

Martin  

Martin Cocker
Executive Director
NetSafe New Zealand

Report online incidents - http://www.theorb.org.nz
Advice and information - http://www.netsafe.org.nz

Phone: +64 9 353 0620 | Mobile: 021 790 369

[Anna Muldoon]

Hobby,

Well, a new first for the day - I've never been told I sound like fox news before.  And I'm amused.  Yes alternative energy is important.  It also is not at a point where it can power the world yet without drastically raising the price of energy.  When it is, it will be appropriate to get rid of what we already have.  We are not there yet.  Sorry, but whether you like it or not, affordability is a key aspect of energy production on a large scale.

I am not an industry apologist, but I object to your assumption that anyone who believes in G4C must necessarily agree with you on nuclear power.  That is very short sighted and overly simplistic.  Then again, I am sure you would think the topics I work on are objectionable as well. 

There is no disclaimer on G4C that only those who agree with very specific viewpoints should join or speak.  Good (if a little sad) to know that there is an unofficial one, at least as expressed by you.  Would you like to state the rest of it, so I (and others) know what topics are ideologically acceptable?
A

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Hoby Van Hoose <ta...@ihoby.com> wrote:

Anne

I'm sad to report that your response is filled with exactly the kind of apologist doublespeak that typifies the arguments used by industry figureheads, PR agencies, and fox news:

Self-Contradiction - "none of us have really seen it" vs "this is a game that teaches and gives opportunities"

Rewriting Others - "Several people make the assumption that.. [no one in this discussion said or eluded to]"

Irrelevant Appeal to Emotion - "blatantly untrue and unfair to the rest of us"

Make it Personal - "your personal disagreement" "whatever you think" "because you have a personal dislike" "because you don't like it"

Incite Powerlessness - "whether you like or not, nuclear power is here"

Obfuscate Evidence - "not an issue that has been settled" "a not-very-well-understood field"

Act like you're protecting people - "trying to prevent kids from learning" "is a very dangerous way to think"

Kiersten's game is in fact the reason for this thread. The dangers of the nuclear industry are understood perfectly well, backed up by decades of research data. And yes, employment within nuclear industry does pay well. The same is true with petroleum. There is also a great range of job opportunities in militaries and mercenary armies around the world. The sale of drugs and weaponry is exceptionally lucrative and a vast and growing part of the global economy. Escort services are always recruiting and tobacco is booming in other countries. All of these and more employment opportunities are just as "here" as the nuclear industry. Exploitation and inflicting harm are generally more lucrative activities. But I'm betting a lot of parents are not so excited about guiding their kids into those types of jobs, especially if beneficial professions are available.

Just because there is a lot of money in an industry doesn't mean we should condone it, encourage it, or spend any effort trying to help it. Just because an industry has been successful in its news propaganda doesn't mean that what they say is either true or complete. To deal with something that has gained leverage of you doesn't only mean to give up, roll over, and beg from it.

It is an increasingly difficult choice to make in a society of capitalism because it places our livelihood at stake: what to study, what jobs to take, and what jobs to turn down.. but from what I've observed of the members of this list, it's a choice that most of you have already made. You've already taken your leave of the combat shooters and ifart games that dominate the game industry, yes?

What should we be encouraging our next generations to "explore" and "learn about"? This is question becomes more important to ask when considering materials paid for and/or produced by the industries in question.

Solar/wind/tidal/geothermal power is also "here" and from what I can tell, aligns without conflict with the Games for Change mission. The nuclear industry has bought PLENTY of other venues to promote their agenda.

[Hoby Van Hoose]

Anne

I'm sad to report that your response is filled with exactly the kind of apologist doublespeak that typifies the arguments used by industry figureheads, PR agencies, and fox news:

Self-Contradiction - "none of us have really seen it" vs "this is a game that teaches and gives opportunities"

Rewriting Others - "Several people make the assumption that.. [no one in this discussion said or eluded to]"

Irrelevant Appeal to Emotion - "blatantly untrue and unfair to the rest of us"

Make it Personal - "your personal disagreement" "whatever you think" "because you have a personal dislike" "because you don't like it"

Incite Powerlessness - "whether you like or not, nuclear power is here"

Obfuscate Evidence - "not an issue that has been settled" "a not-very-well-understood field"

Act like you're protecting people - "trying to prevent kids from learning" "is a very dangerous way to think"

Kiersten's game is in fact the reason for this thread. The dangers of the nuclear industry are understood perfectly well, backed up by decades of research data. And yes, employment within nuclear industry does pay well. The same is true with petroleum. There is also a great range of job opportunities in militaries and mercenary armies around the world. The sale of drugs and weaponry is exceptionally lucrative and a vast and growing part of the global economy. Escort services are always recruiting and tobacco is booming in other countries. All of these and more employment opportunities are just as "here" as the nuclear industry. Exploitation and inflicting harm are generally more lucrative activities. But I'm betting a lot of parents are not so excited about guiding their kids into those types of jobs, especially if beneficial professions are available.

Just because there is a lot of money in an industry doesn't mean we should condone it, encourage it, or spend any effort trying to help it. Just because an industry has been successful in its news propaganda doesn't mean that what they say is either true or complete. To deal with something that has gained leverage of you doesn't only mean to give up, roll over, and beg from it.

It is an increasingly difficult choice to make in a society of capitalism because it places our livelihood at stake: what to study, what jobs to take, and what jobs to turn down.. but from what I've observed of the members of this list, it's a choice that most of you have already made. You've already taken your leave of the combat shooters and ifart games that dominate the game industry, yes?

What should we be encouraging our next generations to "explore" and "learn about"? This is question becomes more important to ask when considering materials paid for and/or produced by the industries in question.

Solar/wind/tidal/geothermal power is also "here" and from what I can tell, aligns without conflict with the Games for Change mission. The nuclear industry has bought PLENTY of other venues to promote their agenda.

Hoby

On Sep 19, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Anna Muldoon wrote:

[John Beals]

Anna was spot-on in her reply. Reasonable people can have disagreements about what the best course of change should be on some issues. Those cases don't seem to call for active confrontation on a general-use group like this. You can voice your dissent on those topics in many forums around the world wide web and beyond, and probably with better effect.

Obviously a group asking about how best to market a game promoting slavery would invite some deserved attention. So far I have yet to see anyone posting requests for info on anything remotely close to that level yet. In those cases, where most sane people would reel in disgust, I would guess a place called "games for change" with its implied social do-good aura, would be the last place they'd venture, unless they were just trolling. If and when a KKK group comes in asking for the best way to market a race-war game, feel free then to take the gloves off. Until then, i'd feel better if we just moved on and gave people the benefit of the doubt and took ideological battles elsewhere.

I mean what is there to be gained by starting a political discussion in this case? Is the OP suddenly going to have a sea-change and quit his job because of a post on a google group? I doubt it. Far more likely he gets a bad first impression and tells everyone that this forum is apparently only for the ideologically pure. Discussion ends. Everyone loses.

I've seen THAT happen far more regularly than being coopted for "dubious" purposes.

[Natasha Barnes]

Hi all

I have very recently joined this mailing list and I am very interested to see this sort of debate come up. I think that this debate raises a number of critical questions about the development of 'games for change':

How should educational games treat issues such as the developer or designers agenda and bias? 

Are 'games for change' held to higher ethical standards than the other entertainment products? 

Do educational games presented as 'authorities' on certain issues lend undue weight to the objectives that they advocate? how can this be mitigated?

Should developers take steps to be transparent and inform the 'young' target market about the objectives of the games?

 

I personally have grave concerns about a game on this subject as it raises a number of issues about the sort of messages that are appropriate for young people (who is the target market?). As an adult and as a scholar I feel that I am in an adequate position to critically analyse the dangers associated with work in this area; however, I wonder if young people are in a position to consider these issues and make informed career choices?

I would hope that games that fit under the 'G4C' banner consider the means by which they communicate their message, the impact of this communication and the wider implications of the messages they communicate.

There are a number of games that serve a recruitment tools (particularly for the armed forces), which are targeted at young people- do the developers or industry backers have a responsibility to outline the dangers associated with these career choices?

best wishes,

Natasha

Education and Communications Officer
Disarmament and Security Centre
Christchurch

+64 3 348 1353
+64 27 568 4797

[Matt Gaydos]

pro-tip games have taught me: don't feed trolls

Doctoral Student in Educational Psychology
University of Wisconsin - Madison

[Ben Rolfe]

I just notice from a previous post that your game is targeted at middle
school. Also, apologies for the gendered language at the end of my last
response (I know a karsten who is male).

[Ben Rolfe]

Kiersten,

To attempt to answer your question (pointed looks at some other list
members), I think the answer depends on exactly who you're trying to reach.

I've taken a look at your site, and I'm guessing that your core audience
is late elementary kids in the US? Is it important to you to reach
similar children in other nations? If not, then I would suggest that
your first approach should definitely be through the school system
itself. This not only gives the messages in your game extra credibility,
it also allows you to leverage the existing educational relationship by
providing teachers with additional materials and support to expand
learning beyond the game. We are taking this approach with a child
safety game we are presently developing. Unfortunately, as an
Australian, I can't provide you with any specific advice on working with
the US education system. If you haven't worked with the school system
before, a good starting point is probably to talk to someone on the
ground, rather than diving headfirst into the bureaucracy - approach a
teacher and ask them what sort of barriers they would face if they
wanted to use your game in the classroom.

I'm really sorry you copped some flak for your question. Personally, I
am strongly against nuclear power, for a range of reasons I won't go
into here, since this is not an appropriate forum for such discussion.
However, I have always appreciated this list's pragmatic approach to
exploring and sharing the techniques and practices of implementing
social change through games, regardless of personal ideology. Different
people have different beliefs about what is good for society, and I
trust every member of this list to strive to move our society in the
direction they believe is best. I am presently in the early stages of
developing a game which explores a renewable energy future. May the best
man win :)

Ben Rolfe,
Engage Research Lab,
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.

[Aaron Kontagent]

Perhaps a better topic to discuss about the evolution of games is the soon-to-be-published data showing gamers were an integral part of solving a critical roadblock related to an enzyme that could block the AIDS virus.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ygo-frontpage/lp/story/us/529202/coke.bp%3B_ylt=AuyrJHFEdie4szOUdURzfECx.tw4%3B_ylu=X3oDMTI1bG0ybWMzBGNjb2RlA210MwRjcG9zAzEEY3NlYwNtb2JpbGUtdGQEaW50bAN1cwRwa2cDaWQtNTI5MjAyBHBvcwMxBHNsawNpbWFnZQ--?ref_w=frontdoors&view=today&.intl=US&.lang=en&.tsrc=yahoo

And hello to all on the board!

-Aaron

[kiersten]

Thank you to everyone for your comments: positive and negative. I
will make one political statement and then hopefully everyone can get
back to doing what they do best - designing games. Ben, I think that's
great that you're designing a game that explores the future of
renewable energy. With the increasing demands our society continues to
place on energy, all sources of energy will be needed. For the purpose
of teaching nuclear energy, the city in the game is powered by nuclear
energy. When your renewable energy game is complete, please send me a
link to your game. I'd be happy to share your game with the teachers I
work with.

Best,

Kiersten

> > athttp://corereaction.org/?c. I am anxious to hear what people have

[joe dauz]

We do not call the list

GamesForStatusQuo

propaganda is not a good marketing tool nor is a single sided simulation a proper educational tool.

The data sited by your parent company is dubious at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Energy_Institute

Then there is the issue of building your info request on  a non game. How could anyone on this list give advice on a game we cant play.

I dont think this is a political issue , it’s a social one. It must be sad if you kiersten believe that Vented steam which is sometimes radioactive equates to CLEAN AIR and that’s a good lesson for school kids.

----------------------

joe dauz

Fine Art And Digital  Design

Home Page

Latest Artwork

[Gene Koo]

Thanks for flagging this to the Facebook group - it reminded me I
hadn't joined this Google Group.

It seems the primary discussion so far in this thread has been whether
G4C implies a political stance ("good change" vs. "bad change");
secondarily, whether the pros/cons of nuclear power is a "settled"
question, similar to climate change science, that makes it
definitively "bad."

A second strand of thought I don't see quite as much is whether "a

free online game that allows students to explore careers in the
nuclear energy industry and to

learn middle school science content" is a "Game for Change." Putting
aside concerns about whether nuclear power is "good change" or "bad
change," is the concern here that this is a "marketing" or "PR" game
-- in other words, using a market need (good STEM teaching materials)
to reach a malleable audience (children) with a (hidden?) agenda
(nuclear power advocacy)?

Is a game that allows students to explore the McDonald's menu while
learning nutrition science a "game for change"? Why or why not?


On Sep 19, 11:19 pm, Aaron Kontagent <aaron.hu...@kontagent.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps a better topic to discuss about the evolution of games is the soon-to-be-published data showing gamers were an integral part of solving a critical roadblock related to an enzyme that could block the AIDS virus.
>

> http://m.yahoo.com/w/ygo-frontpage/lp/story/us/529202/coke.bp%3B_ylt=...

>
> And hello to all on the board!
>
> -Aaron
>

> On Sep 19, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Natasha Barnes <natasha.j.bar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all
>
> > I have very recently joined this mailing list and I am very interested to see this sort of debate come up. I think that this debate raises a number of critical questions about the development of 'games for change':
>
> > How should educational games treat issues such as the developer or designers agenda and bias?
> > Are 'games for change' held to higher ethical standards than the other entertainment products?
> > Do educational games presented as 'authorities' on certain issues lend undue weight to the objectives that they advocate? how can this be mitigated?
> > Should developers take steps to be transparent and inform the 'young' target market about the objectives of the games?
>
> > I personally have grave concerns about a game on this subject as it raises a number of issues about the sort of messages that are appropriate for young people (who is the target market?). As an adult and as a scholar I feel that I am in an adequate position to critically analyse the dangers associated with work in this area; however, I wonder if young people are in a position to consider these issues and make informed career choices?
>
> > I would hope that games that fit under the 'G4C' banner consider the means by which they communicate their message, the impact of this communication and the wider implications of the messages they communicate.
>
> > There are a number of games that serve a recruitment tools (particularly for the armed forces), which are targeted at young people- do the developers or industry backers have a responsibility to outline the dangers associated with these career choices?
>
> > best wishes,
>
> > Natasha
>

> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, John Beals <spyral...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anna was spot-on in her reply. Reasonable people can have disagreements about what the best course of change should be on some issues. Those cases don't seem to call for active confrontation on a general-use group like this. You can voice your dissent on those topics in many forums around the world wide web and beyond, and probably with better effect.
>
> > Obviously a group asking about how best to market a game promoting slavery would invite some deserved attention. So far I have yet to see anyone posting requests for info on anything remotely close to that level yet. In those cases, where most sane people would reel in disgust, I would guess a place called "games for change" with its implied social do-good aura, would be the last place they'd venture, unless they were just trolling. If and when a KKK group comes in asking for the best way to market a race-war game, feel free then to take the gloves off. Until then, i'd feel better if we just moved on and gave people the benefit of the doubt and took ideological battles elsewhere.
>
> > I mean what is there to be gained by starting a political discussion in this case? Is the OP suddenly going to have a sea-change and quit his job because of a post on a google group? I doubt it. Far more likely he gets a bad first impression and tells everyone that this forum is apparently only for the ideologically pure. Discussion ends. Everyone loses.
>
> > I've seen THAT happen far more regularly than being coopted for "dubious" purposes.
>

> > On Sep 19, 2011 6:44 PM, "Martin Cocker | Netsafe" <mart...@netsafe.org.nz> wrote:
>
> > > Hello all
>
> > > I'm from New Zealand which is Nuclear Free, but even so - I don't think you can conclusively say - nuclear power is bad and therefore anything associated with it is bad. Nuclear power is very much good or bad dependent on context.    
>
> > > If the game promotes Nuclear power over the other options, you'd say it was a political game I guess - in which case it can be critiqued as such. However, if the game explored the management of safety risks (which I suspect is huge part of running a Nuclear power station) in an accurate way then I think you can describe it as an educative game.
>
> > > Political games are good or bad depending on your viewpoint - but genuine educative games should be encouraged.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Martin  
>

> > > On 20 September 2011 08:32, Anna Muldoon <anna.muld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I was trying to stay out of this, but I just can't.
>
> > >> The definition of "doing good" seems to be what is under debate here, not the content of Kiersten's game, since none of us have actually seen it.  Several people make the assumption that all educated/good people are against nuclear power.  This is blatantly untrue and unfair to the rest of us.  It is not an issue that has been settled and there are powerful arguments on each side.  Making the assumption that your personal disagreement with something makes it fundamentally evil is a very dangerous way to think.
>
> > >> Kiersten's game focuses on helping kids explore careers in the nuclear industry - a very large industry with many opportunities for people.  Whatever you think about nuclear power, allowing kids to explore careers in a not-very-well-understood field is not a negative thing.  This is a game that teaches and gives opportunities for exploration.  Rejecting her request for information because you have a personal dislike of the field it teaches about is unfair.
>
> > >> Whether or not you like it, nuclear power is here and something we all have to deal with.  Trying to prevent kids from learning about it because you don't like it isn't exactly a way to encourage critical thinking or science knowledge.
>
> > >> And finally, Kiersten - I'm sorry you received a negative response.  I hope you also received some help that didn't go to the whole listserv.
> > >> A
>

> > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM, DrCyn <geekgur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> It seems to me that the real issue here is that there is conflicting evidence in regards to the "best possible energy source" primarily, because it's complicated to compare methods directly and "best" can be measured in so many ways.   As was Hoby, I was a bit caught off guard that the purpose of this game was to save-the-day with nuclear power.  I was expecting a game that challenged the player to come to conclusions about a variety of energy sources based on game mechanics that represent the literature (sometimes conflicting).
>

> > >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Hoby Van Hoose <t...@ihoby.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> John,
>
> > >>>> I guess I do, sorry about that.
>
> > >>>> I recognize the importance of maintaining this list as a point of assistance and place to discuss philosophy of technique and I agree that it should not be filled with material that isn't of that nature. But at the same time, I don't wish to see another group with an enlightened purpose co-opted for nefarious means.
>
> > >>>> Is there a more appropriate way to express concerns for projects that are potentially an affront to the Games for Change mission? If a fair mechanism exists I'll use it. Otherwise, it's out in the open for me.
>
> > >>>> Hoby
>
> > >>>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:18 AM, John Beals wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Ditto Mary. For historical reference, Hoby seems to have a track record of turning requests for info into political confrontations. See the "New York Fed RFP" post to this discussion group for a recent example. While I sympathize with Hoby politically, this is not that kind of forum, and posts that are not constructive of that mission shouldn't be posted to it.
>

> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Mary Heston <mwhes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Hi Hoby,
>
> > >>>>>> While these are interesting articles I would hope that, as educators, or even people interested in change, we would not declare these articles "definitive".
>
> > >>>>>> Games for Change does not seem like just a political stance on particular issues but rather in creating games that help our kids (our future) come up with better solutions that make this world a better place.
>
> > >>>>>> Thanks for sharing some interesting articles but it seems to me that by saying that they are "everything we need to know"  it closes down discussion instead of opening it up to the real issues.
>

> > >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Hoby Van Hoose <t...@ihoby.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> This is all students and educators need to know about the nuclear industry:

> > >>>>>>>http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japans-nuclear-disas...

> > >>>>>>>http://www.democracynow.org/tags/japan_disaster
>
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:00 PM, kiersten wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> > I am in the early stages of developing a free online game that allows
> > >>>>>>> > students to explore careers in the nuclear energy industry and to
> > >>>>>>> > learn middle school science content. You can learn more about the game

> > >>>>>>> > athttp://corereaction.org/?c. I am anxious to hear what people have

> > >>>>>>> > found to be the most effective strategies for promoting their games,
> > >>>>>>> > particularly among teachers and students.
>
> > >>>>>>> > --
> > >>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > >>>>>>> > Groups "Games for Change" group.
>
> > >>>>>>> > To post to this group, send email to gamesfo...@googlegroups.com
>
> > >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[DrCyn]

[Moses Wolfenstein]

lol cats aside, might I suggest that further conversation relating to the big questions about G4C be moved to a fresh thread? Gene raises some excellent points, and it might be nice to reboot this conversation with a specific focus on those questions and related ones. It would also provide an opportunity to bring in other examples in a meaningful way rather than continuing to hammer on Core Reaction.

-Moses

-- 
Moses Wolfenstein, Ph.D.
Associate Director of Research
Academic ADL Co-Lab
www.moseswolfenstein.com
Twitter: @mosesoperandi

[Patrick Prax]

I agree with Moses. These questions are very important to be discussed and hopefully answered but maybe that should hot happen in a thread about "Marketing Games". So defining what the "change" in G4C is exactly would be a very interesting task. My 2 cents here would be that this discussion has to evolve around what games mean as a medium and what they specifically can do to contribute to society. What do games with interaction and intensive immersion bring to the table that film and books do not have? How can that change something? However, that is just my take on it and I am looking forward to hearing yours.

Greetings,
Patrick

-- 
Patrick Prax
PhD student, Department of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University
Patric...@im.uu.se
Office phone: +46184711135 Mobile: +46760427398

[John Beals]

Define "propaganda". I'd wager there are a fair number of games that you'd feel are just right for this group that would fall under that same definition to somebody. "Propaganda" is pretty much what I'd call almost all examples of "Games 4 Change" actually, since it implies an agenda and a goal. Remember, generally speaking truth has nothing to do with anything when talking about propaganda. Propaganda can be completely true and factual, it's the aim and goal of it that makes it "propaganda".

"Then there is the issue of building your info request on  a non game. How could anyone on this list give advice on a game we cant play."

Another non-issue. How many RFIs has this group gotten from people who don't post any link to their game or even describe what kind of game they're making with any great detail. The OP was asking about how to get the word out. Giving an answer to that doesn't require an in-depth description of the game.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Games for Change" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to gamesfo...@googlegroups.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
gamesforchang...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/gamesforchange?hl=en
 
By opting into this Google Group, you are also opting into our bi-monthly newsletter which we will send to you via the e-mail address you are using for the Google Group.

--
Johnathon Beals

[Mary Heston]

Love this new thread!  Great Comments!

[joe dauz]

prop·a·gan·daNoun/ˌpräpəˈgandə/

1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy. 

seems pretty basic to me.  

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:51 PM, John Beals <spyr...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Joe Dauz

[Seth Alter]

Propaganda is a pejorative synonym for a marketing tool. This is a question of semantics, and not of content.

--Seth