**4. Paths to overcome barriers to experiential learning**

The previous sections have provided a better understanding of how the computer environment affects the gaming experience and can be a barrier to experiential learning. In this section, we present points of attention and some ideas to overcome these barriers.

First, it is important to take into account the type of public targeted and the level of accessibility required for this public. Depending on the target audience, the development of a gaming simulation can aim either for a computerised or a haptic version. The other important factor to take into account is the degree of free-play that is expected in the game. This depends on the objective of use of the gaming simulation. If a high degree of flexibility is to be achieved, it is advisable to develop a haptic version. However, the accessibility and flexibility of a computerised application can be improved, in particular by playing on its ergonomics. This will be further developed in the following of this section. The last part of this section will present some of the advantages of computerised devices, which can be reached when the constraints linked to computerization have been lifted.

#### **4.1 Avoiding excessive technological sophistication and recent advances**

The examination of the issues surrounding the usability of computer interfaces has served to highlight the obstacles it can pose to the forms of interaction and communication that are an integral part of the gaming experience [7, 29]. For the configuration of computerised games (computer-assisted games, computer-based

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

games or other types of hybrid configurations), it is therefore essential to avoid excessive technical sophistication and to focus on the usability of the interfaces, paying particular attention to processing time, the clarity of the interfaces and their controllability [1, 10].

The developers of the Cormas simulation computer program, the benchmark multi-agent platform for participatory modelling and simulation, have paid close attention to this question of usability and flexibility of use of the game-playing components and the controllability of the game mechanics [36]. In the past years, they have integrated relatively user-friendly tools for moving and manipulating virtual game pieces into the platform [32]. With several other practitioners, they are now interested in designing hybrid boardgames that would allow players to physically manipulate the game pieces, but calculating the effect of their actions would be computer-based. Such a hybrid boardgame would be a great step forward in overcoming the problems of accessibility and captive effect described above.

Concerning the improvement of the free-play capabilities of computerised gaming simulation, the Cormas developers seek to enhance the control that players can have on the definition of game mechanics. The question, from a modelling point of view, boils down to achieving *"a tighter coupling between the conceptual model and the simulation model by using tools to manipulate both internally"* [19]. Two avenues are explored to this end. Firstly, Bommel integrated tools into the platform that can be used during the game to modify (fairly easily and quickly) the computing specification of the interaction mechanisms [37]. A game facilitator can use these tools fairly easily, but players find it more difficult to use them. Secondly, Christophe Le Page explored the process of gradually creating specifications for the interaction mechanisms with the participants over the course of a simulation [38].

### **4.2 Taking advantage of computing capabilities**

When the constraints linked to their use have been lifted, the features of computerised games can be useful tools, both to encourage participants to reflect on how the system represented functions and to explore potential future scenarios. Compared with non-computerised games, computerised games have four major advantages. First, the use of computer technology means that important and useful calculations can be performed during the game to report on complex physical phenomena or to simulate automatic game actions, for example. Second, this computing capability can also be used at the end of the game to explore different development trajectories, as in the game FisHcope [39]. Third, computer interfaces can be used to represent a large amount of information, especially in different forms, which is particularly useful when it comes to integrate asymmetric information and points of view, distributed among the different players [13]. Lastly, computers reduce the time required to reset the simulation environment between two rounds of the game, because this is done automatically. With a board and game pieces, resetting is done manually and can take several minutes [40]. In some cases, this reduces the number of facilitators needed to run the game. This is the case, for example, with the games Motte-Piquet and Djolibois [34, 41], which require only one facilitator thanks to their userfriendly computer interface for entering players' actions. The initial versions of these games, however, required three or more facilitators.

## **5. Conclusion**

This chapter on the usability of computerised gaming simulations has provided a better understanding of how the computer environment can be a barrier to

experiential learning and how these barriers can be overcome. The accessibility and flexibility of use of computer interfaces are two key aspects that need particular attention for usability of computerised applications. The use of computer technology also has an impact on the teams developing and deploying the systems. The choice between designing a haptic system or a computerised system therefore depends on the resources available, the calculation requirements, the display requirements and more specifically the asymmetrical display requirements, and the degree of free-play that needs to be integrated into the system.

The criteria for making this choice will most certainly change as technology develops and as the boundary between these two types of system becomes blurred. The current developments in hybrid boardgames, which mix physical manipulation and digital display, have already been mentioned above. Other innovative forms of human-machine interaction are also beginning to be used in simulation and gaming, including the ability to interact with several people using the same simulation through different individual devices such as tablets or smartphones, or the ability to interact as a group through an interactive table [42]. The development of these new forms of interaction will certainly shake up perceptions of the role that computing plays in gaming simulations.
