An Education in Child’s Play
Given a choice between learning multiplication tables and doing stunts on a snowboard, most kids would choose the latter. To succeed in the educational genre, game publishers such as the Learning Co. in Fremont and Humongous Entertainment in Seattle develop software with “covert learning” to draw young players.
One series with a knack for this is “ClueFinders,” which features a group of young adventurers who solve mysteries that just happen to teach spelling, algebra and grammar. Introduced in 1998, the six “ClueFinders” games have sold 3.5 million copies.
The key to creating an enduring game: Listen to what kids say they want, said Kenny Dinkin, the Learning Co.’s 35-year-old creative director. Dinkin says kids want characters they can identify with--not cute, cuddly creatures. Kids also want responsibilities.
Q: How did you come up with “ClueFinders?”
The original problem that the “ClueFinders” team needed to solve was that our biggest brand at the time was Reader Rabbit, who was soft and cute and fun. But we needed a brand that would appeal to 4th- and 5th-graders. So we focused our attention to understanding what kids wanted. We not only ran our ideas by them, but we also asked them for their ideas. And what we realized was that kids that age are very different. They collect baseball cards. They’re more capable of abstract thinking. They like to explore. The challenge was to create a whole new approach to getting cross-curriculum content to those kids. We had to approach it on a level that is more sophisticated than preschoolers.
Q: How did you settle on the cast of characters you currently have?
We needed to create a brand for that age group. We needed to figure out who our characters were going to be. We needed to land on something that would appeal to both boys and girls. We would talk about Spider-Man, Indiana Jones, and play mock game show games with them to figure out what they liked best. We found out that they loved adventure stories where kids would go out and do adventures on their own. The kids wanted to be part of a team, but they didn’t want to be chaperoned. There was a great emphasis about kid power, kids who could solve problems. We didn’t get there overnight. We tried animals, rock stars, FBI agents. Our art director would draw these things and run them by the kids. We’d all run back and huddle and hone the game to do what the kids wanted.
Q: How much emphasis was there on creating the story behind these games?
There was a great deal of research on the back story. The full development took 16 months, which is unusually long. We knew we needed to set aside some time to create a whole new brand. We had to figure out who the characters were and the world in which they live. Our characters are complex, flawed. We create a story line that’s super compelling. Our products have rich story arcs. We have a third-act twist. We try to create a sense of urgency and at the same time have our players use their minds and explore and use what they learn.
We have a character grid with four kids and their computer turtle, LapTrap. It talks about their flaws, their fears, how they met, where they grew up and their likely reactions to certain situations. We use that to write the dialogue and to help shape how we tell our story. We have some formulas to really keep players compelled. Some involve setting up a mystery, encouraging kids to explore and find clues.
Q: So how do you make your games educational without being a stick in the mud?
There was a lot of emphasis on weaving the story with interactivity. A lot of products are activity-centered. We try to create an immersive story world where you have to use your brain to unravel a mystery. The vision was to create an immersive story world, an interactive Saturday morning cartoon. We call this the concept of seamless integration, in which we try as much as possible to make the technology invisible. For example, we never turn to the player directly and tell them to click on the mouse. All the things they do are gathered by listening to the characters in the game. Kids naturally want to find out what’s next in the story. So to advance the story, they need to solve the activity. They fly in to an island to investigate--find keys to the lost city to stop the monster. To get the keys, they need to cross the rings of fire.
Q: How is crossing rings of fire educational?
To cross the rings of fire, you need to raise a sunken bridge. To raise the bridge, you answer math questions posed by a rock creature. But you also have to shoot sneeze berries at the correct answer. When you solve enough problems, the bridge rises.
Q: When designing the games, do you start with educational objectives and wrap the game play and puzzles around that? Or the other way around?
Education comes first. We look at how particular aspects of curriculum can be brought to life. We then think about how this is going to be woven into our structure. When you enter a “ClueFinders” game, you enter a story world. From the user’s perspective, it should feel as if the story comes first. But from the designer’s perspective, we have to start from the curriculum and build from the bottom up. It’s like building a couch. You build the armature, and the armature is your structure and your curriculum. The fabric is the story, and that’s what people encounter first. But if you cut the fabric first, you’ll end up with too much or too little. You have to start with the armature.
Q: Why is the leader, Joni Savage, a female? And how did you choose their ages?
We were charged with making a math game for elementary school students. We early on wanted to address the notion that girls don’t like math. So we created a character who is assertive, adventurous and not afraid of math at all. At first, we created a teenager named Indiana Joni, but kids said that was like a baby-sitter. They wanted the characters to be closer to their age.
Times staff writer Alex Pham covers the video game industry.
