Unpacking the Journey: Insights into the Nature of Gaming Simulation (part 2)
In the second part, the focus shifts towards having a more unified vision of what a gaming simulation means and exploring several models that attempt to cast a light on this concept.
In the first part of this series, we talked more about the practicality of gaming simulation, discussed a bit about its history, and I tried to distinguish some associated concepts.
However, moving forward, I think it’s necessary to provide at least one reasonable definition. In this case, I believe Paola Rizzi’s definition can serve as a starting point:
“Gaming simulation is a gestalt in which the model of reality, i.e. simulation, is put into operation using the rules of the game which are activated by the decisions of the players/roles. Thus, the result that we obtain is a map with various attributions and natures (conceptual, geographic, iconic) continuously updated and, in some way, a dynamic multidimensional instrument, which allows the experience of the simultaneous presence of the past, of the present, and of a possible future.”
Now with this mindset, let’s break down each concept one by one to better understand them. Let’s begin by exploring the concept of gaming. The word “gaming” is broadly defined as games that simulate real-life conditions (such as business or warfare), primarily for training or testing purposes.
It can also refer to playing computer or video games. Taking this definition into account, the only adaptation of the phrase “gaming simulation” could be an educational game simulation. As we explore the subject further, we notice that some authors tend to use these terms interchangeably, suggesting a common origin and their interconnectedness in the domain of learning.
However, when it comes to the words “game” and “gaming,” the authors makes a clear differentiation. For them, a game is a framework in which individuals (players) interact, while “gaming” encompasses all the activities involved in playing. The term “gaming” is also used to refer to words like play or simulation, emphasizing a clear and unambiguous distinction between the terms game and play.
From this perspective, a game is a playful activity involving multiple actors/players who assume various roles in their journey towards a common goal. Within this framework, rules guide their activities and dictate access to resources or the limitations of their situation.
Referring to play, it primarily involves the voluntary participation of individuals based on a universally accepted set of rules. This action itself carries intrinsic rewards, serving as a form of gratification for players.
When playing games, people can experience a range of emotions, both negative and positive. Negative emotions might resemble those felt during conflicts, while positive emotions provide an opportunity for players to disconnect from reality. This aspect can serve as an additional motivation for the growing number of individuals who turn to gaming as a way to escape their everyday routines. Many people find reality unsatisfying in relation to their personal aspirations, and games offer a source of happiness for them.
The boundary between games and simulations is quite delicate, there’s an ongoing discussion in the field about whether games and simulations are closely connected or fundamentally separate. Some believe that simulations are essentially advanced games, while others assert that there’s a distinct line between them.
Simulation is all about creating systems that mimic real-life situations. These systems affect both games and simulations, including their components like players, rules, and resources. This interaction leads to various types of games and simulations.
Let’s imagine a situation where we have players, rules, and resources. With these elements, we can create a complete game that can be flexible or have strict rules, depending on what we want to achieve. For example, it could be a game where history enthusiasts act out historical events or a game with fixed rules.
Now, let’s imagine a scenario where we create an activity by bringing together players and establishing a set of rules. The outcome of this process will be a game, but it won’t require any additional resources. Depending on the specific rules we set, this creation can fall anywhere on a spectrum. At one end, we have games with strict rules, while at the other end, we have games with flexible specifications. Within this framework, simulations are a particular type of game. It’s crucial to always keep in mind that when choosing to use games, we should consider the objective, subject matter, context, and intended audience.
Well, George, if I understood correctly, simulations are actually a type of game. Why didn’t you say that from the beginning? I get it now.
Hold on, Jose, it’s not that simple. This is just one model. We also have other models where we can clearly differentiate between simulations and games, so bear with me, and let’s dive even deeper into the topic.
In this case, simulations represent essential elements of reality, while games are competitive activities with clear rules and defined roles. These two types of activities share common components like chance, strategy, culture, prediction, uncertainty, and consequence analysis. Luck, chance, or randomness remain significant factors in both gambling and video games.
Players’ strategies come into play when trying to control the outcome influenced by chance. We can’t discuss a game or simulation without considering the cultural context it belongs to. Each simulation or game expresses a set of values that can develop throughout the gaming or simulation experience.
The difference between games and simulations goes beyond these factors. Games can be considered competitive activities with well-established rules, while simulations aim to reflect the dynamic nature of reality.
When it comes to rules, simulations can have a more flexible approach, acting as guidance rather than strict constraints. Another distinction is the rule set. Closed simulations encourage participants to discover causal relationships. On the other hand, open simulations make it unattainable to identify these relationships during the simulation itself, requiring reflection and analysis afterward, in this case open simulations offer participants diverse and numerous outcomes.
Simulation involves systematic information processing and computer-based modeling, while games focus on human interactions and behavior. Actors/players in simulations can be automated systems, not necessarily human beings. Simulation provides a direct and active experience of a selected part of reality, involving a higher level of abstraction compared to the actual situation it represents.
Okay, George, a quick question I wanted to ask you: Does gaming simulation still come from game theory? Maybe you remember the movie “A Beautiful Mind”?
Yeah, I remember the movie. We can’t just go all-in for the blonde, right? But now let’s get serious. The fundamental theory of games involves studying mathematical models of conflict and cooperation among rational decision-makers, where rationality plays a central role.
Traditional economics assumes that people always behave rationally and try to maximize their chances of winning. However, in recent years, the concept of bounded rationality has gained prominence, showing that our decisions are influenced by factors such as available information, the flexibility of the decision problem, the limitations of our cognitive abilities, and the time we have to make decisions.
From this perspective, the bounded rationality of decision-makers significantly impacts managerial decision-making, viewed through the lens of the dual-process information processing system. We can think of two thinking models: System 1, which is fast, automatic, emotional, unconscious, and intuitive, and System 2, which is slow, deliberate, logical, and conscious. According to these models, automated processes are always activated first, and additional deliberate processes come into play only when necessary to correct or support the automated and intuitive processes.
Now, let’s turn our attention back to game theory. It is part of a broader framework called rational choice theory, which aims to predict economic systems and doesn’t have an educational role in itself.
In the case of gaming simulations, we can say that this perspective not only encompasses the theory but also includes the underlying mathematical models. John von Neumann’s fundamental theory provides a limited and clear set of criteria for making predictions. These criteria state that games are finite, meaning each player has a limited number of actions they can take, and the game has a well-defined structure with a set number of moves.
Games are also zero-sum, where one player’s gain is equal to the other player’s loss, as seen in the prisoner’s dilemma. Information is distributed uniformly, ensuring that players are aware of their own choices as well as those of their opponents. They also understand the advantages and preferences of outcomes based on their own value system and that of their game partner.
So, to put it simply, there are similarities and differences between game theory and how gaming simulations are seen, but pretty much everyone makes a clear distinction between them. This comes from the way game theory is based on principles and aims to provide a one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making, while the narrow definition of rationality doesn’t fully capture human behavior.
Now, going back to our definition, which we started with, when I try to explain gaming simulations to someone for the first time, I always refer to my favorite model, which I believe is much more intuitive. In this case, we classify them based on their function, and in this case we talk about three categories: pure games, simulations, and case studies.
In the category of pure games, we have well-known games from popular culture like tennis, football, poker, etc. Pure simulations are considered those with a learning purpose, such as flight simulators or air traffic control simulators. Pure case studies, on the other hand, involve past situations, whether they are medical, legal, or events. For example, all the information about the events of September 11, 2001, in the USA could be constituted as a case study.
These types of activities share common elements, giving rise to other hybrid categories. We can talk about simulation games (combining key elements of reality with a competitive yet well-regulated process), games used as case studies (these activities share common elements with both categories but is a greater challenge to create them), simulations used as case studies (selecting central elements of a case and simulating them to develop specific skills), and game-based simulations used as case studies (offering the highest educational value as they provide an experience similar to real-life situations and allow for extrapolation of that experience).
When comparing games and simulations, we can identify three key differences: the objective of winning in games versus the actions and consequences in simulations, the linear event sequence in games versus the nonlinear sequence in simulations, and the rules-based consequences in games versus the dynamic relationships reflecting real-world processes in simulations, because simulations offer a way to represent reality through dynamic models, prioritizing learning and providing a safe environment. At the same time from a functional perspective, games can be categorized based on time, competitiveness, cooperation, resource access, goal pursuit, and opponent’s gain or loss. This leads to finite games (competitive or cooperative) and infinite games.
It’s important to note that these classifications are not set in stone and may overlap. The distinctions between simulation and games can be unclear, and many recent articles in the field refer to a single “simulation game” as a unified entity. The educational goals of games depend on their specific context and can vary widely, such as motivating learners, developing skills, acquiring knowledge, integrating learning experiences, and evaluating performance.
If you’ve made it this far, thank you. This would be an integration of the gaming simulation concept into a bigger picture. I know it wasn’t a walk in the park, but hey, we’ve barely scratched the surface of this magical world. Our journey continues with the last part, so stay tuned for more!
End to part 2
To be continued
