hi Marc!
This is pretty interesting. I lack the proper background and context to comment, I was wondering if you could clear 2 points up for me.
First: I appreciate how you make the distinction between a group and stand alone training tool. What I am wondering is, do you envision a learning environment where everyone is logged on to a simulation from different locales or are they all in the same room with the facilitator?
I'm only asking because I've seen people "play" (bitch n' moan seems to be more accurate) simulations like WoW with a teamspeak microphone system built in and I've seen them play much more successfully when they're all in the same room.
Physical presence, I've observed, tends to be more effective as people are able to intuitively know whose 'turn' it is to speak. Generally, the level of discourse also tends to be higher as participants are less likely to troll each other and generally poison the allegedly team-focused activities. Physical cues are important.
Secondly: By participating in an group simulation to test 'real-world' events, do you envision that the facilitator actively monitors/runs the simulation, periodically introducing new, unexpected challenges or even impossible scenarios? Or perhaps is this training style more suited to pitting two moderated groups in opposition to one another while a moderator essentially introduces variable ala a D&D style Dungeon Master?
I was also interested why you selected WoW as an example and not something like America's Army (is it too tactically centred to be of value as a teaching tool?)
Additionally, I've also observed that no matter how good the AI, nothing can really can compare to a living opponent as AI tends to lack the ability to act illogically and employ ruses IMO. Except maybe DEFCON, but that's not exactly what I would call a realistic Sim.
I tend to be a mechanics minded gamer myself. I might be missing a key piece of your argument here due to my own blinkers.
Bookmarks