Man, I could go for some broccoli with cheese or Cold Stone Creamery ice cream right about now.

mmm, cold stone. fuck it,k now i'm hungry,

Yo, anybody know where to send games related stuff to kotaku? like the cakes and whatnot

Math Blaster was an amazing game! Regardless of the fact that it was a game that teaches you math, it was still great. I don't care that "blaster" makes it clear that you're "choking down something thats supposed to be good for you"

I don't know about the clueless author, but myself and nearly everyone I knew relished the thought of being able to play Reader Rabbit or Oregon Trail. You shouldn't go into an educational game expecting over the top zombie killing action... unless you're playing typing of the dead, ok bad example. All things the same educational games are really useful for children. When you're an adult you should probably spend your time searching through something a little more advanced, like say, a book. In short, don't expect to see a diploma stating "I pWned American McGee's Law Maniac III" on your lawyer's wall, but don't feel as if they can't help children in a useful way.

Like any other scathing editorial regarding what "ought" to be, this one clearly forgets that if it gets paid, it gets made. It's for this reason I place games and edutainment squarely in separate categories. Games are for fun, and edutainment is a tool to be used in concert with an educational curriculum to meet a specific educational goal.

The reason edutainment titles like Math Blaster are so popular is that a kid can pick it up for 10 minutes at school and maybe learn just a tiny bit, and multiplied across a school year may actually learn quite a bit. I remember the edutainment games of my childhood, including The Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, and SimCity. Each of these games can be digested a little bit at a time, without the complexity of something like Civ or a 4X space game which have the capacity to teach kids more but only work for people with long attention spans. Kids simply don't have the time to spend 6 hours completing titles like these, and if they do have that kind of time then the parents are not providing enough activities apart from video gaming / television.

Edutainment is a good thing, because at the very least it's schoolwork and at the very best it can be something that's a great game AND a great edutainment title, like some of the titles I've mentioned. I think edutainment developers would do well to support popular, inexpensive consoles of late like NDS or Wii.

@UltraMagnus:

I think you missed the point. Games like Oregan Trail and Carman Sandiego were fun, and they just happened to teach you stuff along the way as well. That is what the article is about. A game that is built to be educational tends to be very dull, while a game that seeks to entertain can teach you stuff without you wanting to blow your brains out from bordom.

@EmeraldDragon: No. Both games were designed as educational tools first and games second. It's clearly documented. Neither of those examples are "dull". It's simply a bad generalization at worst, and an obvious point at best. "Some educational games are bad and some educational games are good." Amazing.

From TFA: Liberal deployment of the word blaster can't hide the fact that you're choking down something that's supposed to be good for you.

Except yes, yes it does, especially when you're a little kid and the only things that really stimulate you are color and sound.

Right... Right... Right...Pass the sammich.

It's probably very difficult to come up with entertaining educational games, the developers concentrating on the game being either one or the other. Games like Carmen Sandiego and Oregon Trail seem like more of a fluke, educational games that just happen to be fun as well.

I find it amusing that the author mentioned Raph Koster as part of his argument. The guy is intelligent, and formulates interesting theories about games, but his actual execution of said theories wind up more often than not mind-numbingly boring. He spends so much time 'theorizing' about fun that he forgets to actually make his games fun.

They should stick to the generic puzzle and education type of games. I find those game more engaging and it educate the user quite well. As long as there aren't too many text to listen to.

Civilization is by far my favourite.

goldeneye... taught me how to be a spy
zelda... taught me how to weild a sword and bow
metroid... taught me how to hunt bounties
resident evil... tught me how to slay zombies
tony hawks... tuaght me what a 180 varial is

etc etc. games are very educational, just not PRACTICAL. Kind of like high school. ^_^

woo! for typos tught and tuaght

Some years ago I played an adventure game called The Messenger (released in Europe as Louvre). You played a kevlar crossbow toting secret agent assigned to break into the world famous museum to steal some artifacts but end up traveling back through time to when the museum served different purposes. It was kinda fun because it was intriguing but I thought the coolest thing about it was how the game filled you in on the history of the Louvre, which added that much more dimension to the experience for me:

" One more attribute of The Messenger that deserves mention is its skill in cradling the story in a historical context. Quite a rich history, too. A key feature of Morgana's gadgetry is the inclusion of a virtual history book which visually and orally chronicles the past of the museum as the residence of some of France's most famous -- and infamous -- kings and queens. It was originally built in the 12th century as a fortress for protection against the advancing English. The 13th century sees the fortress turning into the home of Charles V, and during the Renaissance (16th century) is occupied by Francois I whose wife, Catherine de Medici, builds her own addition. From there (17th and 18th centuries) the palace is abandoned by Louis XIV (he moved to the suburbs, which we know as Versailles), and moved into by a host of artists, idle noblemen, has-been courtesans, derelicts, and prostitutes. Later on (19th century) the former palace, though no longer home to royalty, is cleaned up and ambitiously added on to, thanks in large part to Napoleon. Finally (late 20th century) the French government vacate their offices in the Richelieu wing and hand it over, completing the Louvre's transformation into a great museum. "

That's from an Epinion review I wrote about the game. [www99.epinions.com]

I'd love to see more games like this, where the education is sort of 'snuck into' the content and helps set the tone.

There's no reason why fun games can't teach you something along the way, you just have to realize that a game isn't going to teach you anywhere near as much as an actual book.

The easiest way is to add interesting facts into the game's story. I still remember all the tiny pieces of real science used as the basis for Parasite Eve's plot, and games like Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors are based on real historical figures and events, even if they're highly exaggerated. Hell, you could even work lessons into the very gameplay itself. Instead of mixing generic red and blue chemicals to solve a puzzle, why not use some basic, real world chemistry and teach the player a thing or two.

Ahh yes, Civilzation. The only game that teaches you important historical facts, like how Plato lived in Russia in 2047 and conquered the Japanese with his special forces troops.

Some of my favorite games back in the day were Gizmos and Gadgets, Spellbound, and Outnumbered (all by The Learning Company... holy shit!). Gizmos and Gadgets required you to wander through a warehouse, solve engineering puzzles, pick up vehicle parts, and build a vehicle (car, gokart, or airplane) that would race against the bad guy. You had to sort out which parts would make your vehicle better, as well as learning things about simple machines along the way. That was one damn fun game, I don't care what anyone else says. Pity it won't run on Windows XP... for my little sisters, not me of course...

There's about 9,000 serious games companies in the area I live in. Not a single one of them makes any kind of game I'd care about. Almost got a QA job at one of the places, actually. I probably would have bored myself into quitting after the first day.

I think the article is mostly missing the point. Bogost seems to reserve the right to make games that aren't especially fun, just in order to make the point that what we think of as "games" don't always need to be entertainment first. Other than the training game, a lot of his stuff resembles editorial cartoons in purpose -- you play for five minutes, get the point he's trying to make, laugh, and move on. Less informative than an article that's reporting news, but about even with an editorial, and it's a new gimmick for regular Times readers who wouldn't want a Geometry Wars with their morning coffee and sports page anyways.

"Animating mindless, boring repetition doesn't make the repetition any less mindless or boring."

The author neglects that simulations - say for training pilots - clearly aren't meant to be fun. Now Stone Cold's creamery game is obviously not in the same league as a hydraulic simulator, the intent remains. I wonder if the job the game purports to model - a ice cream 'jockey' - is anything BUT mindless and boring. I would imagine not.

Typing programs are tedious, but they're meant to teach what - that right - a repetitve task. I just don't understand - does the author want the next Mavis Beacon to use the DoomIII engine? Games have a variety of roles, and entertainment is not their only virtue.

"...that games like The Sims and Grand Theft Auto make us smarter by training the mind in adaptive behavior and problem-solving."

And this is patently obvious. However, the approach he advocates - make a game fun then sneak in the educational stuff - just won't fly for most projects. If you want to teach math, it's got to be pretty central to the design spec.

"I know not to trust Mohandas Gandhi if he offers me an armistice."

This is the problem with these sorts of pseudo-educational games. Having no knowledge of history is better than a completely fantasy one. The idea that Gandhi would even be involved in waging war - well - essentially it teaches people stuff that makes them look stupid at parties.

@juliopalio: None of the games you mentioned actually teach you anything about any of those things.

My favorite was always "world of chorecraft", but i guess borecraft will do

I don't get it, you can learn from games pretty well. Case-in-point, Indigo. If any of you remember that, then you'll know exactly what I mean.