**2. Using computers in gaming simulation artefacts**

This section first explains the dilemma that arises when deciding whether to use or not computer technology in a simulation and gaming application. Secondly, we examine in more detail the different forms of computerisation used in gaming simulations.

#### **2.1 The computerisation dilemma in simulation and gaming**

The study carried out by Crookall et al. [15] analyses human-computer interactions in several situations that use simulation and in which computer technology is used to a greater or lesser extent. Their results show that, during a gaming session, the computer too frequently monopolises users' attention in use cases where the simulation system is more computerised. This has a detrimental effect on social interaction within the user group and, according to the authors, on experiential learning. This early finding was subsequently corroborated by other work. For example, Paran et al. compare two versions of a game they designed for negotiating the siting of gravel pits: a "paper" (haptic) version and a computerised version [16].

*Usability of Computerised Gaming Simulation for Experiential Learning DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97303*

*"User-friendly, simple and quick to set up, the paper game puts the emphasis on the psychology of negotiation because it insists on interaction and dialogue between the players, bypassing the cumbersome technical aspects. The simplicity of the materials required for this paper version makes it a malleable simulation game that can be easily adapted to the needs and expectations of its organisers. The computerised platform requires more resources but allows the players to manipulate the tools to help the negotiation process. While dialogue is always required, care must nevertheless be taken to ensure that players do not become overwhelmed by the constant stream of information or the technical aspects."* Fedoseev makes the same observation, but he also notes that from the point of view of the game's facilitator1 , a computer-based version is more practical in terms of logistics. A computer is the only gaming equipment required, the tasks involved in completing a round of the game are performed more quickly, and the results and data are provided in digital form, which can be more practical for displaying or analysing them [17].

The study by [18] compares 29 use cases of gaming simulations. The artefacts were used with different types of local stakeholders involved in companion modelling2 processes, either for prospective planning, co-development or consultation purpose. Of these use cases, 21 were workshops involving a role-playing game3 and the remaining eight used computer simulations (in which all the decision-making is handled by computerised agents). The comparison between these two forms of simulation is based on the opinions (positive or negative) of the workshop participants and of the designers and experts who observed the workshops. More than 300 argumentative elements were collected, classified and analysed.

The results 'summary (**Figure 1**) shows that role-playing games are particularly useful in creating a space for discussion and interaction between participants. Their ability to generate learning among participants is also an important factor, as is, to a lesser extent, their ability to trigger changes in perception of the system being studied. Role-playing games appears to be a particularly user-friendly tool that can be adapted to different types of participants. It has a fun aspect, creating a detachment that facilitates interaction and reduces tension, which other tools do not offer. However, some participants do not embrace the playful dimension of the proposed system. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, simulation of a single scenario lasts two to three hours, which limits the potential to repeat the simulation and explore a variety of scenarios.

#### **Figure 1.**

*Comparison of games and computer simulations – Updated version [18].*

<sup>1</sup> All the gaming simulation applications discussed here, are implemented during workshops where the players are in attendance and where a facilitator organises and animates the workshop.

<sup>2</sup> Companion modelling is a branch of participatory modelling domain, in which simulation and gaming is widely used.

<sup>3</sup> The term "role-playing game" is used here in the sense used in the literature on companion modelling. A "role-playing game" simulates a real situation involving human participants; it may or may not use

computer-based materials but it involves mainly human to human interactions [19]. When computerization is used, it is to represent the decisions of the human players, to record their choices or to display the state of the simulation.

Computer simulation, on the other hand, appears to be particularly well suited to exploring scenarios. A large number of simulations can be run over a short period of time, or even repeated several times, allowing participants to explore different scenarios incrementally [20, 21]. However, it is much less suited to fostering discussion between participants; few changes in perception were noted during the workshops analysed in this study. Their ability to generate learning in the participants is weaker than that of role-playing games, but it still exists. This study thus shows that a computer simulation workshop is rather a space for reflection than a space for social exchange. Lastly, there is a major disadvantage to computer simulation in terms of its poor usability, which can hinder the experience of participants and create a barrier to learning. This is because the computerisation of gaming simulation artefacts tends to reduce their usability and increase their technical sophistication (long waiting times, and difficulty in understanding the content of the tool and in manipulating its interfaces).
