Educational gaming company LeapFrog has certainly found a great deal of success with an array of products, the company claims to have sold 120 million platforms, books and games to date worldwide. I have a recent press release here on my desk for their newest products, the Leapster 2 (look for that in the October issue of DA), and the Didj. It's a handheld educational game system for 1st to 5th graders that goes for $89.99, and currently has nine game titles to choose from, at $29.99 each. Looking at the Didj, besides the unfortunate name (short for "didgeridoo," or what?), what strikes me is how amazingly similar it is to, say, a PSP, Nintendo DS or other just plain ol' video game systems. The Didj is sold in toy stores just like other video games. And consider the titles: Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Wars Clone Wars, Spongebob Squarepants... we're getting a long way from Schoolhouse Rock if you ask me. Perhaps that's a natural evolution? With stuff like Schoolhouse Rock, for example, the content comes first, and the characters are created to enhance it (though in the interest of full disclosure, my dad was an original writer and consultant for the series!). With games like those on the Didj, obviously it's the reverse: the characters come first and educational content is written in. I haven't played the games, admittedly, but I wonder if this method can be a bit awkward and artificial.
Is it effective? Obviously these things are selling by the million, are all these gamers really learning? Or are they selling because this is a less expensive way than mainstream game systems to play Star Wars games? When is "edugaming" just "gaming?" How do we judge whether a game is truly "educational?"
Comments