I wasn’t exactly impressed or sucked in by Erberts entry. An argument in that sense, I feel, should be based of the steps taken to get to the actual production stage of a game. Concept arts are the root of the visuals for games(obviously), but when designing and producing a new body style for a model of a car … the same reaction takes effect. Only difference being the finished car is present and able to be touched, a finished video game obviously cannot. I would like a concrete answer determining if video games are in fact now considered art, because if you perceive art being only something that can be touched, then video games wouldn’t meet those qualifications … right? But then again … the fact of pure design would, in my mind at least, be considered art. You can’t touch cool graphics and montages being displayed on screen during commercials … but I look at them and critique them as art when I see them. Also, if going to propose an argument as such, use a damn game that reaps brilliance, not something that looks like it was colored in with that old Paint program. Art may be a lot more then just the visual analyzation, but that aspect can still be abided by, you know? Oy vey.

In regards to Quest to Learn, this is obviously awesome. If you don’t agree, I’d like to know why. Although the article was from a couple of years ago, this emergence into a new realm of knowledge accessibility is applaudable. I’ve come to attempt to entertain the possibility of this approach to teaching accesses multiple variants of thinking types, which it does. That being said, these children are getting exposed to these types of thought processes that most don’t start using until later years. They literally are the next engineers and designers of reality enhancement.

Jane McGonigal killed her presentation. Very enjoyable and interesting. Saving reflection for class discussion.