Chewing up a Bitesitze Game

Will a BBC Bitesize game stand up to serious critical analysis?

Game - Shape Lab

Today, we had a look at a Key Stage 1 game on the BBC Bitesize website and completely pulled it apart. It's safe to say that no one was very impressed, but I think it is really important that we look at this game from the perspective of a Key Stage 1 child (5 - 7 years).

What is a "Key Stage 1" Game?
My own opinion of what a Key Stage 1 game should be is a simple one. The game should be simple and engaging but most importantly I believe a key Stage 1 game should teach a child about a given subject in a fun way. This is the basis that I will be analysing the game.

Interaction
There is very little purposeful interaction in the game. At it's core you are aiming to select the correct shape that you are asked for. Other than that the only other thing that you are "doing" is navigating the menu's. While this certainly satisfies my criteria for being "simple" it falls far short of being engaging. There is no real exchange of interaction between the player and game, and nothing really changes dependant on which shape you select. If you get the shape wrong it just lets you try again, essentially giving you a 1 in 3 change of winning.

Goal
The ultimate goal is to finish the difficulty mode and fix the robot. This is done by completing each of the 5 levels. Again it's very simple, but I think the majority of the goals are of a more personal nature. You want to complete the game on really hard just to show you can, get all 5 puzzles right first time or complete the game faster than anyone else in your class. These goals aren't built into the game or maybe not even what the designer originally intended, but they are a side effect of people's need to be better. I think it's wrong and actually lazy for a designer to rely solely on these side effects instead of building them into the games structure. Especially with a game that is already incredibly simple.

Struggle
The struggle starts with the difficulty you choose and ends with selecting the correct shape. It's not a particularly difficult game, but I can appreciate that a 5 year old might struggle with symetry. The main thing that takes away from the game having much to struggle about is the fact that you have nothing to lose. If you get an answer wrong, you retry - there is no penalty for getting any answers wrong so you will always get through the level.

Structure
The structure is a straight forward one, literally. The game is linear in that you complete each puzzle to get to the end. The only slight deviation from this path is if you get a puzzle wrong and the scientist gets an electric shock. Your intention of playing the game could be just to shock the scientist, but I really don't think that was the intention of the games designer.

Endogenous Meaning
There is very little item wise that is important to the game. Infact the only item or object of any conciquence are the shapes you use. The main focus of the game revolves around the use of these shapes - this makes the shapes extremely important within the game. While shapes might have real world relevance, I don't see anyone using these kind of particular shapes to create a working robot...

Evaluation
The game definately ticks most of the boxes in what makes a good KS1 game, but I think the game falls very far, too far short on one key element. The game fails to teach anything. It's all well and good having a nice looking and simple game, but these aren't just games. They're tools being used to teach children and help them in their education. Unless you already know the answer to each puzzle, you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning it. If you get an answer wrong, it doesn't tell you why you were wrong only that you were. If you get the answer right then you move on, if you didn't actually know the answer then you never learned anything from it.