Comments on: On addictive games (Kids Don't "Need Structure", Part 4)

By: Geer Rift

Geer Rift — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:02:45 +0000

You only need as much structure as what is relative to your goals. In games such as World of Warcraft (WoW), a “guild” for example needs a leader which can give orders to the rest of the members in order for the players to progress and get better weaponry and armor. But during the six months i played WoW I quickly discovered that not every player wanted this kind of setup. Many players were more than content with roaming about, talking and joking.

The point is that in a possiblity-rich game such as WoW, the term “success” becomes very relative – much like real life.

By: Michael Sappir

Michael Sappir — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:34:08 +0000

My claim, as I made it in part 2, is not that all structure is bad. Instead I am only saying that children are not in need of an extrinsic, academic structure that must be forced upon them. The social structures in games are not by any means academic or pedagogical structures, and they are by definition voluntary because nobody is forced to play the game in the first place.
I am arguing for freedom, not for lack of structure. If people want to create or find their own structures, this is just as good use of their freedom as anything else would be.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:57:55 +0000

I find it strange you claim children don’t need structure and then that you cite as excellent examples of cooperation games which have a built-in social element in which the players are forced to socialize in order to succeed. I was under the impression guilds, clans, tribes and classes are all there just to force like minded people to socialize and gather around a common element in the first place…