Questions: A) Syntax vs. Algorithms
Scenario 1: complex XO game is built in C, binary, complete C sourcecode + all source files + minimal documentation are included. Kid only understands Python. Sourcecode is complete gibberish. Kid enjoys game anyway & learns from content. Scenario 2: complex XO game is built in C, binary, no sourcefiles or C sourcecode included, but algorithms/principles used to create the game + mechanics in English tutorial + pseudocode are included so users can create their own version of the game using any language. Kid only understands Python. Kid enjoys game anyway & learns from content. Which of the 2 scenarios is constructionist? B) Engaging vs. Spoonfeeding Scenario 1: Closed binary of new free fantastic game is provided, contains chockful of puzzles & easter eggs for kid to explore and discover. There are no spoilers available on the net. Kid explores and collaborates with friends & classmates to solve the game, gain inspiration from the game & implement their own inspired version in Python. Scenario 2: Sourcecode is included, kids peek into the sourcecode to get all the answers to the puzzles without having to explore, collaborate or flex their mental muscles or creativity. Basically no effort. Game over, game is done. They have a good laugh and move on to the next game. Which of the 2 scenarios is constructionist? Alternately, replace game with multiple choice math puzzles. Available multiple choice answers had no explanation, just the plain answers (e.g. 5, 12, 3.5, etc) C) Artistic Vision Scenario 1: I am an artist. This is my vision of a game, this is how I implemented it. This is my artistic statement, and I hope it inspires the audience to create their own artistic statement (hopefully games themselves too) inspired by it. I do not want users to tinker with and modify the sourcecode game itself I made, I want them to flex their mental muscles and creativity and create their own original games using any tool they want. Theoretical Example: http://www.amanita-design.net/samorost-1/ Scenario 2: Kid changes some of the text like the names of the characters, reskins some of the art assets, but game is unchanged. Laughs and enjoyment are had by friends, but nothing groundbreaking or original is achieved. Real-world Example: http://www.thepencilfarm.com/blog/2008/02/snow_day_at_the_beijing_olympi.html The *Official* Beijing Olympics committee hired programmmers who reverse engineered & plagiarized Ferry Halim's game snow Day (http://www.orisinal.com -> Please check it out, the Ferry is a truly gifted pioneering artist/game developer), not even bothering to replace some very obvious art assets. Which of the 2 scenarios is constructionist? (please note that I am into the mod community. I love to death the games & mods that starting hackers & budding game developers made in doom, quake, half-life & unreal. Counterstrike & Team Fortress would not exist without the mod community or the support ID software or Valve gave them.) I know you guys are sick of my voice, so I'm going to refrain from posting for a while. Please give the above serious thought, and I would really really appreciate it if I could hear your thoughts. Please have a great week, continue to rock on, you guys are my heroes. All the best, -n -- carlos nazareno http://twitter.com/object404 http://www.object404.com -- interactive media specialist zen graffiti studios http://www.zengraffiti.com -- "if you don't like the way the world is running, then change it instead of just complaining." _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
