I stumbled upon an article by Atari founder Nolan Bushnell about the educational potential of videogames. It’s not dated, but based on the biographical one-liner I’d say it’s from around 1982. Here’s the first paragraph:

The computer, the single most powerful development of the twentieth century, is still puny in comparison to the mind of man. The difference lies in the innate creativity that is our birthright, our passport and our guide through life, without which we would be little more than machines executing programs someone else has written. The goal in producing computer-programmed video games is to provide the stimulus, the opportunity, for people to experience the essential creativity they knew as children, when their minds were actively involved in fantasy worlds of their own making. We have discovered that computers can be a highly effective tool in inspiring people to draw upon this often repressed reservoir. One way we achieve this is by designing games that combine fantasy with problem solving.

But here’s my favorite part:

Video games are clearly here to stay. The only question is, what form will they take in the future? Like most other entertainment fields, the future of video games will be bounded only by the imagination of the people in the production arena.

Almost thirty years hence, what do you think?

published September 4, 2009

Comments

  1. Mark J. Nelson

    I think people did at least attempt to produce creative-play environments following that vision for a number of years. I’d personally credit a good part of my own education to them, so at least some of us even consider the effort partially successful!

    Here’s a short 1984 InfoWorld article surveying the booming state of science software at the time, including virtual dissection (Operation: Frog), principles of optics (Reflections), and even sensor accessories that could be plugged in for a sort of virtual science lab (the AtariLab series; later there was also the Science Toolkit series). I’d probably also add in: Logo, The Incredible Machine, Rocky’s Boots, Lemonade Stand, Microbes, SimCity, Transport Tycoon, Balance of Power, etc., as at least partial successes, in various ways, and to varying degrees of game-ness.

    I do often see claims that seem to discount all that, though. Am I an outlier in considering this era of software to be in large part a successful realization of the creative-play / educational gaming / constructivist learning vision? Or is the complaint just that momentum died by the mid-90s and we’re now stagnant or even regressing?

  2. Frank

    Sometimes I think if we weren’t so helplessly in love with video games’ boundless potential we might make better video games. That’s what I think.

  3. Bruno de Figueiredo

    I figure that, at the time, it would be impossible to accurately predict the consequences of videogame playing habits so far ahead into the future – even if Bushnell is often considered a visionary. The part of this ‘videogames as creativity-inspiring entertainment’ issue in which I’m interested the most is the ability to generate memories that go beyond the borders of real and virtual – to the point where some aspects of videogames are assimilated in our young minds, later becoming the mixed memories of real experiences. Because of that openness to learning, our young minds tend to be highly receptive to artificially induced digital contents â?? even if the organic is known to reject the artificial.

    In my opinion, Bushnell was referring not so much to the category of “educational” games per se, but what can be learned from non-educational games instead. Not the learning process of school education or even pre-school education (with use of symbolic toys, for instance) or using the tools and methods of audiovisual tuition.

    From a more comprehensive perspective, the answer remains unanswered: what are the true results of the interaction with virtual objects and realities – namely in this particular case where the interactions are made during the ages when the mind is most receptive – given our natural tendency/gift to fantasize endlessly and limitlessly? What did these simple games of our childhood instill on our innate ability to think and imagine?

  4. Fabio Cunctator

    I think that creativity and interaction are often wrongly conflated in contemporary mainstream gaming, and that a ‘creative game design’ does not necessarily mean ‘creative game experience’.

    In some defined sense, Tetris is still much more ‘creative’ than Fallout 3. Game designers put effort into the immersiveness of the experience, which is a commendable goal, but different from giving space to creative action. Often the very structure that produces immersive environments somewhat puts limits to creativeness. This is probably caused by market necessities.

    Still, exceptions appear. Little Big Planet for example.

    Videogames are a mature cultural product, and as such they should make extra efforts to take different shapes for different kind of experiences

  5. Ian Bogost

    In my opinion, Bushnell was referring not so much to the category of “educational” games per se, but what can be learned from non-educational games instead

    Or even, perhaps, that what “educational games” means is “what can be learned from non-educational games.”

  6. Bruno de Figueiredo

    Agreed.