FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Aren't life-like simulations a better way to learn than games?

Not necessarily. Some make the argument that the airplane simulator is the greatest training tool ever invented -- and want all training to work in the same way and be just as detailed and accurate. There is no doubt that simulators are a great way to learn to do things like drive machines such as airplanes or tanks. For one thing, a machine is a closed system whose behavior is well-known. Yet even here turning the simulation into a game makes the simulator much more interesting as a learning tool. Corey Schou reports that Fed Ex pilots wouldn't use the simulation he designed until he made it competitive. The Navy is experimenting with turning a periscope simulation into a less realistic but more fun shooting game to increase the participants involvement. Studies have shown that beginners prefer and learn better from an abstracted version of a control panel than a realistic one, while advanced users prefer the real thing.

When simulations involve people, the terms "real-life" becomes harder to define, since people are extremely hard (many experts would claim impossible at our current levels of understanding and technology) to simulat, even with video. The same goes for very complex systems such as business.

So what builders tend to do is build in some rules and algorithms based on historical cases and data, and combine that with rule-based automata and/or video to make it seem "real-life." However it isn't, and cannot be, "real-life" in the same sense as an airplane simulator.

Games, on the other hand, by their very nature, provide abstraction, rules and goals, as well as more engagement than "real-life,." and when properly combined with simulations create what Elliott masie calls "real kick-ass situations."

back to menu