Competition as a Driver for Learning

Abstract

As games proliferate, educators have developed an interest in how they function as a medium for learning. Given past research which has stressed the importance for cooperative rather than competitive learning environments, one might expect competition to be detrimental toward learning. This worked example illustrates one instance in which direct competition in a multiplayer environment drives learning. We argue that past research may have overlooked how competition is framed and experienced is culturally contextual, so that competition in some frameworks (such as a gaming context) may be experienced very differently than a school context. Direct competition is engaging for a variety of players — including many girls – as it enables an entry point into a technologically savvy sub-culture that confers status upon participants. Second, direct competition is a primary and important driver of learning, as players seek to “get ahead”, overcome problems, and earn status within the group.

Introduction

Recently, a body of research has emerged that contends that video games can be powerful tools to help learners (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2006; Kafai, 2006). This body of research has established many ways in which good video games act as powerful learning resources: games provide learners with feedback on their performance relative to their competency; games offer players consequential choices in complex semiotic systems; players get to inhabit meaningful social identities; players establish expertise relative to a body of domain knowledge; and many others). There exists little research examining the relationship between game-based learning and multiplayer competition, even as there is a plethora of research on learning in “massively multiplayer” game spaces. However, the idea that competitive activities have place in learning environments is quite controversial both within the field of game-based research and outside of it in literature on classroom-based learning. Within game-based research, some research on gender and gaming has held that females, especially adolescents, do not enjoy competition. In educational research, there is a body of literature that contends that competition in the classroom results in learners’ having lower self-efficacy.

Drawing on our research at a after-school gaming club that focuses on the study of world history, we argue that well-structured direct competition is engaging, encourages young people to further their understanding of a game system, build their knowledge of history and become more active participants in the learning community. However, our conception of competition is not aligned with a winner-take-all model that emphasizes individual achievement and failure – a model shared by both proponents and critics of competition in learning environments. Instead, we present competition that is situated in the dynamic local culture of a learning community. This local culture arises from a dialogue between the social norms and relationships of participating youth in their lives outside the gaming club, larger culturally-rooted models of competition and community with which the young people affiliate, and participant structures that are designed and maintained by adult facilitators (see Salen & Zimmerman, 2004 for a discussion of culture in games). In this paper we examine present four worked examples that offer a window into the club’s local culture of competition facilitated learning with the game’s complex semiotic system and encouraged involvement in the learning community. These worked examples examine the question of competition on two levels: First, they identify and articulate what how competition operates in a educational game community so that educational designers less familiar with games can be aware of its function in such a group, and; second, they present cases of how to structure competition in game-based learning environments to mitigate for participants the perceived negative consequences of failure.

As educators embrace game-based paradigms for teaching and learning, critics are beginning to challenge whether the schools are really embracing the core features – e.g. distinct trajectories of expertise, an emphasis on practice and identity rather than knowledge of facts and status rooted in peer group recognition (Gee, 2004) - that make games compelling. Similarly, direct competition may indeed have a role in the design of games for learning (particularly in informal learning, military, or training contexts), although such games may not be effective in schools where such direct competition is frowned upon. If educators are not adequately emphasizing such features in their curricula, are powerful, but inconvenient, game-related social phenomena like direct competition and transgressive play also being unfairly sidelined in classrooms and research projects? Indeed, for educators looking to adopt game-based learning approaches, one might be better served to think about social and cultural changes to the grammar of schools so that these mechanisms could be employed, rather than purely technical solutions.

Over the past 5 years, CivWorld has meet off and on regularly, with 1-3 researchers and facilitators attending each session. Each session was video-taped with 2-3 digital cameras, and entered into an online archival system. Researchers met formally and informally periodically to identify emerging research themes, focus data collection, and plan activities. Our relative interest in doing structured activities ebbs and flows throughout the year, as we gain waves of new members, seek to re-energize the group, and balance research needs (such as the need for specific assessment activities). We also conduct entry interviews with participants lasting roughly 20 minutes in duration. On most sessions, researchers also composed fieldnotes containing observations and emerging interpretations from the day’s events.

Periodically (roughly 3 times per year), the research group would meet in response to having identified a new research theme (such as competition) which merited further in depth examination. We then re-examined the data corpus looking for examples of participants’ activities that could be brought to bear on the question. Consistent with Glaser and Strauss (1967), we use the constant comparative method to look for examples that would both confirm and disconfirm emerging hypotheses (see also Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As these examples were found, they were brought to the group for further analysis. The tapes were examined collectively and / or transcribed for further analysis, using Jefferson Notation (Jefferson, 1984). Once key passages were identified, we used techniques from Discourse analysis (Gee, 2005; Fairclough, 1995) to analyze these interactions in relation to emerging themes in our research. “D/discourse analysis” is a “theory and method for studying how language gets recruited ‘on site’ to enact specific social activities and social identities” (Gee, 2005, pg. 1).

Research Project Overview

CivWorld is an ongoing four-year after-school and summer gaming club that seeks to understand the dynamics of game-based learning by nurturing a community of expert Civilization gamers. Over these past four years, the CivWorld project has gone from teaching social studies using the medium of games, to nurturing a modding community of practice (Squire et al., 2005; Squire & Durga, 2008), developing a design orientation to media and providing routes to other valued practices (Squire et al., 2008).

Participants in the club build their historical knowledge by playing historically-based game scenarios, and learn about information technology and game design by building game scenarios and modifications. The number of participants varies as membership is rolling, ranging from a low of seven in the late spring to a high of twenty-five during the summer program. A typical game session consists of one or more historical multiplayer scenario games that have been designed by the researchers or participants. Researchers play alongside young people, act as game facilitators conducting introductory and de-brief sessions, or as tutors helping new-comers develop their game competency.

Our research framework is grounded in design-based research methodology (Barab & Squire, 2004). We believe that an effective way for digital media and learning researchers to investigate the impact of new media technologies is to design digitally-mediated learning environments and then understand the transformations participants undergo as a result of participating in those environments. From a design perspective, it is particularly fruitful to understand how our hypotheses about how learning might unfold are modified through time in order to make a program “work” (i.e. meet its stated goals, or have its goals transformed in response to new data) (see Cobb, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001). As such, it is critical to acknowledge that these environments we study are not “naturally occurring” and also not necessarily set up to be packaged interventions that can be ported into any context (indeed, given the participatory nature of such environments, it is not clear that this is a worthwhile, or even possible goal). Instead, we use such environments as incubators for fostering and theorizing learning.

With this study, we have identified two illustrative examples of participants interacting in a manner that bears on theory. These two examples are chosen not for their uniqueness necessarily; they embody the kind of social interactions that are observable most any day at CivWorld. They were, however, days in which competition was at its most pronounced, making it especially fruitful for examining learning and competition.

Context of Example

This example focuses for the most part on the game play Kira, a middle school student and relative novice – this is her third game session - to the club who knows most of the other participants from the after-school center where the club is physically housed. She has acquired basic understanding about how to play the game, including maneuvering of game units and some differentiation between the different function of the units, but has no ‘strategic’ or ‘systemic’ knowledge of the game. She has not achieved the level of competency necessary to develop or execute large-scale strategies (e.g. focusing technology development and unit production towards territorial expansion to increase production output later in the game) or smaller-scale conflict military tactics.

The data shows Kira playing as the Medean civilization in a multiplayer Civilization 3 scenario that we created to model the early empires of ancient Mesopotamia. There are six other players playing the game with her, two adults and four young people. Because the participants had previously given feedback that there was not as much competitive interaction in the game scenario as they would like, the adults had issued a challenge for the participants to capture one of their cities. The young players, and Kira, embraced this challenge enthusiastically. In this interaction, three young players, Maya, Daniel and Kira, verbally challenge and taunt each other and the adults, Kurt and Matt, as they get excited and engaged in the multiplayer activity.

Kurt [to Daniel]:

1I’m tryin to reach uh the Sumer-

2I’m tryin to reach the Sumerians

Daniel [to Kurt]:

3Ah ok

Maya [to Kurt]:

4<LEAVE ME ALONE>

5WHAT’RE YOU DOING (.)traitor

6Whatever, let’s go!

[Link to Full Transcript and Video]

Data Analysis

In these turns of talk, we see how competition not only engrosses these young people in the joint activity of playing the game, but how it also serves to create cohesion in group interaction through verbal jousting. The video begins with Kurt telling Daniel that he is trying to “reach” the Sumerians, which Maya interprets as a statement of malicious intent in the game. While Kurt probably wanted to “find” her and trade technologies and resources with her – a common strategy that enables players to advance early in the game – Maya reacted strongly in lines 4 through 6, emphatically warning Kurt against such an act. Her reaction may be interpreted as an attempt to employ confrontational rhetoric to prevent what she thinks is Kurt’s imminent attack. That she acted nonchalant or ambivalent about an attack from a seasoned player immediately after she ordered him not to – possibly in order to project false confidence – would seem to support such a thesis. Apart from hypothetical intent to influence play in the game, Maya is initiating a ritual of boasts, challenges and insult that commonly occur in friendly competitions or games – she’s engaging in interaction with Kurt that departs from their normal adult-teen discourse patterns (e.g. calling him a “hater”).

Later on, as Kira sought to win the challenge set forth at the outset of the game by capturing one of Matt’s cities, she engaged in a similarly boastful discussion with Matt about her plans for his city (lines 8-14). In this exchange, Kira used an unrelated question from a peer to which she does not know the answer as an opportunity to redirect the discussion towards the topic of her self-predicted victory over Matt. In lines 9 and 10, Kira raised the volume of her voice and slowed down her tempo to clearly emphasize her course of action.Turning to Matt, she sacrificed any hope of a surprise attack in order to boast to Matt that he could do nothing but wait for her victory. She then used a routine description of what she was currently doing in the game – consolidating her military units into a group – to again emphasize the viciousness of her impending attack. Perhaps most indicative of her strategy, Kira doesn’t stop there. She next says, “I’m going to get all of my men and start killing”. There are many things Kira may have said here which we have seen in other games and reported on elsewhere: She may have couched her aggression in moralistic terms, saying that she had to defend herself against Matt, or she may have framed her aggression in terms of being necessary as a defensive move, to maintain broader global peace, or even to obtain a resource. But instead, Kira states her desire to conquer Matt’s city emphatically and unapologetically. In using the word “killin,” a term seldom used by club participants to describe specific in-game attacks, (the game has a chess-like visual representation of battles that lack significantly in graphic detail) – Kira rhetorically stressed how complete her fictitious victory would be by comparing it to real-life violence.

As part of our effort to think seriously about the relationship between gender, engagement and competition in games, we think this piece of data argues for a situated theory of gender and competition in games. In this interaction Kira did not act meek or intimidated by game-based competition with an older male, nor did she shy away from a direct contest with him. Instead it appears that she relished the challenge. Similarly, Maya did not shy away from a possible contest with Kurt, and made him aware that she was capable of competing. It can be argued that Kira and Maya act in such a way because they play the game and talk about what’s happening in the game in relation to traditions of ritual boasting and insult in African-American culture. These ritual challenges are grounded in a rich and historic discourse genre, which includes practicesthat stresses figurative language, performance and non-serious confrontation – examples include “snappin,” “soundin” “signifyin” and “playin the dozens” (Smitherman, 2000; Gates, 1988; Lee, 1995). It may be that the affiliation and experiences of these young women with this mode of cultural discourse shape how they view and talk about competition. It may also be the case that this disjunction with gender and gaming research is rooted in divergent cultural constructions of feminine and masculine behavior (see Collins, 2000 and Giddings, 1984 for discussions of femininity in African-American culture).

Context of Example

This clip of data consists of two segments of talk that occurred toward the end of the same game session discussed above. The first segment is the announcement that it is time for the game to end and the participants’ subsequent reaction. The second segment is part of the debrief session that we conducted after the game to discuss the relationship of what happened in the game to history. To provide some background on the rest of the session data, no one succeeded in capturing a city from either Kurt or Matt – Kira narrowly failed to take over Matt’s city. Additionally, Maya and Kurt never were at-war with each other, although Maya and Daniel briefly warred over disputed territory. No major events occurred in the game session, although interest stayed high throughout the game as players reacted to events like the discovery of major new technologies, and the construction of ancient Wonders by players in the game.

Prior to this session, Kira had trouble understanding the game’s model of the connection between resources, technology and the abilities of mobile game units that are controlled by the player. For example, in order to construct a Swordsman military unit, a player would have to research a relevant technology (iron working), find an available iron resource on land near her territory, and build a road connecting the location of the resource to one of her cities. In her struggle with Matt, however, Kira learned that these powerful Swordsman units would help her in her efforts to capture the city. After she became interested in building this unit, Kira, after consulting with other players, soon solved the problem of how to do so. She quickly dedicated her civilization’s resources towards ‘learning’ the technology of iron working, built an iron mine and constructed a road between the mine and her major city. While Kira ran out of time in this session, she won a sought-after rematch against Matt in the next game session.

Data Transcript

Ben [loudly to everyone]:

1 Alright (.) <two more minutes>

[Crosstalk]:

2 Nooooooo

3 Why can’t we just keep playing?

4 One more turn.

Ben:

5 We’ve got to go soon

Kira:

6 Oh oh

7 I was so close to taking ( over his city )

[Link to video and full transcript]

Data Analysis

These two interactions that occurred at the end of the session bring issues surrounding competition, engagement and learning toe the forefront of our data analysis. The first segment emphasizes the extent to which participants were engaged in the game activity participants and hints to one underlying reason for that engagement. Meanwhile, the second segment reveals how well-structured competitive play motivated and shaped learning with the game.

The first segment shows just how engaged the participants were in game play. When the facilitator, Ben, issued the final call for the game to end – there had been more than one – both Maya and Daniel immediately turned to him to appeal for a postponement of the end of the game. With one exception, the other players were too engrossed in finishing their final game play to look up in order to protest or acknowledge the request. After a few seconds of game play, Kira turned around to lament the end of the game, claiming that she was “so close” to achieving her goal of capturing one of Matt’s cities.

If the literature on competition in learning is to be believed, players who had were not doing well in the game should have welcomed the end of the game as they had developed negative self-efficacy toward their in-game abilities. However, it does not appear that any of the players welcomes or is relieved by the end of the game. We believe that this pattern of engagement – one that is only broken by poorly designed game scenarios – is rooted in the club’s local culture of competition, the participant structure’s maintained by the club’s adult members, and the way that play is structured by the game. The club’s local culture of competition, for instance, emphasizes personal accomplishment in game play and does not stigmatize less-than-perfect performance by players. The game’s ‘sandbox’ structure of play, which gives players multiple paths to victory and makes any one person’s victory uncertain, facilitates an emphasis on small individual achievements instead of one big win. Moreover, adult members and facilitators routinely intervene in the game to help players who have fallen behind, advising them on in-game strategies and mechanics.

The second segment shows a portion of the debrief session that points to the potential results of using well-structured competition to engage players. Revisiting the points of the game that were relevant to important historical knowledge, the facilitator asked if anyone had learned how to build a swordsman unit, seeking to draw players’ attention to the importance of iron in changing how tools and weapons were used by ancient civilizations. Kira responded that she had, and provided a correct explanation of the process – stating that her civilization needed iron working technology, iron ore and a road to bring the ore to her city. The reason she took the time to learn about this connection between resources, infrastructure and technology was that she wanted to militarily defeat Matt. Competition thus provided Kira with the impetus to learn about concepts in the game (concepts that mirror important themes in history curricula) in which she had previously been uninterested.

Context of Example

The following is a clip from a multiplayer game session in which the game scenario was designed by one of the program participants, Morgan. As this is one of his early attempts at scenario creation, Morgan has designed a game level that he feels would make an interesting multiplayer game. In the following two video data segments from this game session, Morgan interacted for the most part with three other participants- his younger brother Sami, a facilitator named Levi, and Kurt, an adult player. Because Morgan has made a beginner’s mistake in his scenario design (including too much military and infrastructure without adequate financial resources given the government type), players initially had tremendous economic difficulties. This initially led some of the other players, notably Sami, to engage in some of the most critical verbal sparring that we have seen in our years at CivWorld. Kurt interrupted the momentum of this “smack-talk” and gave Morgan an opportunity to describe his thoughts behind the scenario. Instead of taking the disparaging remarks seriously, Morgan took this opportunity to explain his vision for this game scenario.

Data Transcript

Sami [to everyone]:

1 Ooh I entered a Golden Age

Morgan [to everyone]:

2 See

Levi [to Sami]:

3 Oh you entered a Golden Age already?

Morgan [to Levi]:

4 that’s because I made it to-

5 I made Egypt to-

6 I was about to be Egypt

7 but Sami is.

Sami [to Morgan]

8 So that’s why you wanted to be Egypt

Ben [to everyone]:

9 Oh great

Morgan [to Sami]:

10 Oh no

11 Sami

12 Sami, there you are

[link to video and full transcript]

Data analysis

This brief instance of verbal sparring about Morgan’s map exemplifies how conversations around the game apart from mediating group and individual play, sets up the general mood of the space, something that Squire et al. (2007) have described as being ‘playfully competitive.’ This exchange of talk features multiple levels of competition and negotiation as players try to understand the game scenario, and argue for interpretation of it that match their interests. From a games and learning perspective, a key feature of this talk is the meta-commentary embedded within it. Players are both playing the game and critiquing it, making value judgments about its playability, quality, and built-in biases. We argue that it is through participation in these kinds of exchanges that players develop systemic understandings, understandings of how the core game systems (economics, politics, military) operate and interact. Further, we see how an instantiation of what scholars have called a “gamer disposition” (Thomas & Brown, 2007) – a value set that looks first at a phenomena as a morphological systems and encourages the manipulation of variables within that system toward one’s end – can be deeply embedded in competitive play.

This exchange consists of a group discussion of the current, user-created instantiation of the game and debate about game events, common occurrences in CivWorld. Sami shared his excitement over obtaining a “Golden Age” (a triggered event in the game that occurs in response to a player achieving an achievement related to his Civilization’s strengths). Morgan’s “See” serves as a claim that this event – an early Golden Age breakthrough – was an intended part of his design. As such, Sami’s achievement also served as evidence that his scenario is not broken, but actually well designed, albeit somewhat subtlely biased toward Egypt. The quality and efficacy of the scenario are running themes in this discussion.

However, Civilization game play is a function of both the designed object, and player’s actions, meaning that conversation constantly flows back and forth across the conditions of the game world and the player’s actions. Ben expresses surprise with Sami’s achievement of the Golden Age. In lines 4-7, Morgan confesses that he designed the Golden Age with a bias toward Egypt. Note that he starts the sentence twice (“I made Egypt to…”), but does not finish the sentence “be powerful,” or “have a Golden Age,” as that would be an overt admission of bias in his scenario design. In order to avoid an explicit admission of design preference, he states simply that while he wanted to be Egypt, Sami claimed the civilization first.

Still, critiques of the scenarios design did not abate. Ben’s exclamation, “Oh great,” (line 9) summed up the feelings of many in the room: If the scenario was intentionally designed for Egypt to have an advantage, it may in fact be a “broken” game and not very much fun to play. As the group saw through Morgan’s ploy (lines 8-9), he diverted the discussion into an explanation of his vision for scenario’s design (line 15).

Kurt, acting as a facilitator, interrupts the momentum of the “smack-talk” (line 13) and gives Morgan an opportunity to describe the map he made and his thoughts behind it. Interestingly, Morgan, instead of taking the playful disparaging seriously, grabs this opportunity to explain the map he has designed (lines 15-19) and expects feedback in return (lines 18-19). The map was in fact designed to simulate colonialism, although notably, there are no civilizations in the undiscovered lands. As such, Morgan’s scenario was thematically similar to other popular CivWorld historical scenarios that focus on academic content areas (Squire et al., 2005).

Sami, however, did not buy Morgan’s explanation and defense, and instead challenges the quality of the scenario (and thus implicitly Morgan’s competency as a designer). In the discussion Sami interrupts and talks over Morgan to share his displeasure with the scenario (lines 20, 22, 24, 28-29), declaring that “it sucks”. Sami’s admonishment here is among the most direct and confrontational that we observed at CivWorld. Presumably, Sami’s criticism was grounded in the financial problems that all players were experiencing early in the game. Kurt interrupted the exchange (line 30-31), and asked Sami to tone down the criticism. In doing so he emphasized the importance of a fairly critiquing a scenario design rather than dismissing it out-of-hand. Morgan jumped on this discursive framing (line 33-34), ands pointed out that Sami had not yet really even played the scenario, thereby saving face in the discussion.

The impulse toward meta-discussion of the scenario and critique persisted. Morgan explicitly invited feedback on his design (line 47). Levi remarked that it seems very hard to keep from losing money at this stage in the game. As such, the practice of being competitive in this culture is wrapped up in critical systems thinking about the design of the scenario, learning to see it as a designed object, including its implicit biases and design features. The multiplayer game’s shared, social nature made it a space for joint reflection about contested events in a complex morphologic system.

Context of Example 2B

Morgan and Sami’s earlier banter about the quality of the scenario morphed into a direct conflict between them in-game. Upon discovering that Morgan had not invested in enough defensive units, Sami launched a sneak attack on Morgan’s cities. Morgan responded by counterattacking Sami and capturing one of his cities. While Morgan did achieve a military victory in game, Sami seemed to have won the group’s sympathy and tried to instigate other players to join him as allies against Morgan.

[Link to Full Video and Transcript]

Data analysis for Example 2B

This exchange between Sammy and Morgan exemplifies a type of competitive discourse that emerged at CivWorld. While the facilitators were somewhat alarmed by the emergence of “trash talk” in game sessions, we eventually acquiesced and let it continue for a number of reasons: 1) This is a type of discourse that is widespread throughout gaming communities. If we wanted to investigate the potential of games for learning, we needed to understand its role; 2) We wanted to honor the participatory nature of game-based learning environments by letting participants bring their everyday modes of interacting with one another into the community, and; 3) We started to enjoy it ourselves.

In some respects, this sort of verbal sparring is supported by the nature of Civilization 3 as a competitive, multiplayer game that potentially involves direct conflict between players. In a multiplayer situation, players must compete over territory, if not engage in direct military conflict. As such, they must justify their actions and enlist others in meeting their goals through formal and informal alliances. Such an exchange began with Sami engaging in direct competition by attacking Morgan. In lines 1–19, Morgan and Sami publicly debated whether verbal military threats are a reasonable justification for going to war. Sami argued that Morgan needed to be taught a lesson for his verbal bluster, and sought to enlist anyone and everyone in attacking Morgan (line 11).

Morgan responded by appealing to Levi, an adult mentor who was generally recognized as the best Civilization 3 player and consequently served as an adjudicator of in-game disputes (lines 13–16). Levi refuted Morgan’s claim that Sami was attacking “for no reason,” falling short, however, of necessarily claiming Sami was justified in doing so. Morgan next appealed to the entire group (lines 20–22). He then threatened Sami in return (line 22). Morgan used Sami’s challenge as an occasion to desperately re-enlist the group for support (lines 26–28), but then Morgan decided to launch a counterattack on Sami directly (lines 29–31).

Banter about who would suffer a military loss ensued after Morgan’s counter-attack (lines 33-38). This confrontation engrossed both players. When Levi inquired(line 39) about what Morgan had learned about scenario design, Morgan, distracted, ignored him. The competitive “smack talk” reached new heights when Morgan captured Sami’s city (lines 41–54). Morgan celebrated his victory publicly, literally standing up in his chair to mark his victory and framing it in moral terms as he lectured Sami not to attack him for “no reason” (lines 46, 54). When Morgan persisted in attacking Sami after his brief victory, a facilitator intervened to prevent the game from turning ugly by loudly asking Sami for an in-game alliance. Such an act was enough to check Morgan’s vengeful designs.

The strong role that facilitators played in shaping conversations suggests a number of things about the core features of this learning environment. First, although the social space is deeply participatory, facilitators still play a crucial role in creating participant structures for competitive, game-oriented activity. Competitions like this have the potential to become very one-sided, and facilitators found it advantageous to play with the students. By doing so they could intervene via in-game actions (such as forming alliances) rather than as “adults” who prohibit certain behaviors. Such a strategy for intervention allowed them to prevent the game from becoming miserable for a defenseless Sami―and thereby keeping him from being discouraged from playing again―without their actions seeming like an unnatural, external intervention. As such, they were able to mitigate the exclusionary aspects of competition by acting from within the social group and the joint game activity.

[Back to Data Analysis]

Video Segment

Data Transcript

Kurt [to Daniel]:

1 I’m tryin to reach uh the Sumer-

2 I’m tryin to reach the Sumerians

Daniel [to Kurt]:

3 Ah ok

Maya [to Kurt]:

4 <LEAVE ME ALONE>

5 WHAT’RE YOU DOING (.)traitor

6 Whatever, let’s go!

Maya [to Daniel]:

7 Don’t touch my settler

[Break in video]

Kira [to Daniel]:

8 ..I don’t know

9 But what I want to do is <GO UP THERE>

10 <AND TAKE> HIS CITY

[shifts to Matt]

11 You wait till I come and-

Matt [to Kira]:

12 -I’m waitin for ya

Kira [to Matt]:

13 I’m tryin to get all my men

14 And start killing

[Back to Data Analysis]
Video Segment

Data Transcript

Ben [loudly to everyone]:

1 Alright (.) <two more minutes>

[Crosstalk]:

2 Nooooooo

3 Why can’t we just keep playing?

4 One more turn.

Ben:

5 We’ve got to go soon

Kira:

6 Oh oh

7 I was so close to taking ( over his city )

After-game debrief

Ben [to everyone]:

8 Who built a swordsman?

Kira [to Ben]:

9 I built a swordsman

Ben [to Kira]:

10 Alright (.) how did you do it?”

Kira [to Ben]:

11 You’ve got to like have iron working

12 And like iron

13 And then have a road between it and your city

[Back to Data Analysis]

Video Segment

Data Transcript of Example 2A

Sami [to everyone]:

1 Ooh I entered a Golden Age

Morgan [to everyone]:

2 See

Levi [to Sami]:

3 Oh you entered a Golden Age already?

Morgan [to Levi]:

4 that’s because I made it to-

5 I made Egypt to-

6 I was about to be Egypt

7 but Sami is.

Sami [to Morgan]

8 So that’s why you wanted to be Egypt

Ben [to everyone]:

9 Oh great

Morgan [to Sami]:

10 Oh no

11 Sami

12 Sami, there you are

Kurt [to Morgan]:

13 What kind of a map is this?

Sami [to everyone]:

14 this map sucks

Morgan [to everyone]:

15 uhm (.) you see-

16 this is how I explain it

17 Like (.) like you guys are on one place

18 and then

19 like- like- like [its on

Sami [to Morgan]:

20 Morgan this-

Morgan [to everyone]:

21 like this other place

Sami [to Morgan]:

22 Morgan this map sucks]

Morgan [to everyone]:

23 that has never been (.) discovered

Sami [to Morgan]:

24 [I’m not kidding about this

Morgan [to everyone]:

25 you guys are on a continent]

26 and then

27 >there is another continent that has [never been (.) discovered<

Sami [to Morgan]:

28 Morgan this map sucks]

29 I’m not kidding

Kurt [to Sami]:

30 >Hey let’s just hold off on saying whether or not it sucks<

31 Maybe [it

Levi [to Sami]:

32 Yeah let’s see how it plays first]

Morgan [to Sami]::

33 You-

34 You haven’t] even tried [it Sami

Sami [to Morgan]:

35 Okay okay

36 This map is not-

Kurt [to Sami]:

37 Would it be fair to say

38 that so far you are displeased

39 with the quality of the map?

40 Fair enough

Limited talk until movie break.

Morgan [to Shree]:

41 That side has never been (.) [discovered

Sami:

42 Rrrr:::]

Shree [to Morgan]:

43 Did you purposely put everyone close together?

Morgan [to Shree]:

44 Yuuup

Morgan [to Levi]:

45 ( Could you hurry and finish your turn? )

46 Please?

Morgan [to everyone]:

47 So (.) how do you guys like it so far?

Levi [to Morgan]:

48 Well

49 I think we need more money to start out with?

50 Cause I’m just losing money like crazy.

Morgan [to Levi]:

51 Why?

[Back to Data Analysis]

Video Segment

Data Transcript

Sami declares war on Morgan

Morgan [to Sami]:

1  What?

2  Why are you killing me? 

Sami [to Morgan]:

3  Because you said you would attack
me ) 

Morgan [to Sami]:

4  I said I w-

5  I said I was just kidding.

6  Oh, my god. 

Sami [to Morgan]:

7  You can’t just say you were
just kidding.

8  You shouldn’t do that.

9  I’m teaching you a lesson.

10  Lets make- 

Sami [to everyone]:

11  <EVERYBODY (.) HUNT DOWN MORGAN.> 

Sami [to Morgan]:

12  >WHAT’RE YOU DOIN’?< 

Break in video 

Morgan appeals to power. 

Morgan [to Levi]:

13  He is attacking me for
no reason 

Levi [to Morgan]:

14  Who is? (.) Ben? 

Morgan [to Levi]:

15  Sami.

16  Sami is attacking me for no reason. 

Levi [to Morgan]:

17  Sami is attacking you

18  because you said you were going
to kill him. 

Morgan [to Levi]:

19  But then I was (kidding) 

Break in video 

Morgan [to everyone]:

20  >Dude, someone has to help
me!<

21  >Sami’s going to attack
me for no reason! 

Morgan [to Sami]:

22  >Sami (.) if you attack me,
I’m not kidding< 

Sami [to Morgan]:

23  What will you do,

24  kill me?

25  What will you do?< 

Morgan [to everyone]:

26  (hhh) Oh, gosh.

27  >Bad bad bad bad.<

28  I’m getting attacked for
no reason. 

Morgan glances over his shoulder
briefly at Sami’s screen.

Morgan launches a counterattack. 

Morgan [to Sami]:

29  That’s it.

30  I’m coming over.

31  Sami, you’re done right now. 

Sami [to Morgan]:

33  Hey! What’s the (troops doin’
here)? 

Morgan [to Sami]:

34  No.

35  You lost.

36  So I’m bringing as much troops
as I can. 

Sami [to Morgan]:

37  I didn’t lose, you lost. 

Morgan [to Sami]:

38  No. 

Levi [to Morgan]:

39 So have you learned something
about building a scenario?  

Morgan [to Levi]:

40  Yup. 

Sami makes unintelligible derisive
remarks about Morgan’s scenario. 

Morgan captures a city. 

Morgan [to Sami]:

41  Ha ha!

42  I captured over your city.

43  Thank you, Sami.

44   >See I told you- 

Morgan stands and starts laughing. 

Morgan [to Sami]:

[Leaves his chair and brags about
his victory] 

45  You see, you see that?<

46 >That’s why (.)
YOU SHOULDN’T ATTACK ME FOR NO REASON.

47  >That’s what ya get.<

48  >You see- you see- you see-<

49  I’M COMING...

50  I’m gonna beat ya now.

51  I’m coming.

52  Oh yeah, >that’s right-
That’s right.<

53  >Go. Go. Go.<

54  >I told you not to
attack me for no reason.< 

Facilitators intervene. 

Levi [to Sami]:

55  He can’t get the rest of your
cities. 

Morgan [to Levi]:

56  >I’ll get it.<

57  >I’ll get ‘em. I’ll
get ‘em.<

58  I’m gonna...

59  [You see- you see what I’m- 

Levi [to Kurt]:

60 It’s okay.

61 He’s got some cities]
out by Morgan but the rest of (them are west.)  

Kurt [to Levi]:

61  Oh. 

Morgan [to Levi]:

62  No, ‘cause see... 

Kurt [to Sami]:

62  Hey Sami, want to make an alliance? 

Morgan:

64  NO, YOU SEE―