Paper ID #33124

Engineering in Videogames: A Case Study of Iconoclasts Narrative andInteractive Portrayal of Engineers

Dr. Corey T. Schimpf, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (CoE)

Corey Schimpf is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at the University atBuffalo with interest in engineering design, advancing research methods, and technology innovations tosupport learning in complex domains. One major strand of his work focuses on analyzing how expertisedevelops in engineering design across the continuum from novice pre-college students to practicing en-gineers. Another focuses on advancing how engineering design research by integrating new theoreticalor analytical frameworks (e.g., from data science or complexity science). Another strand focuses on con-ducting design-based research to develop scaffolding tools for supporting the learning of complex skillslike design and advanced research methods like agent-based modeling. He is the incoming Program Chairfor the Design in Engineering Education Division within ASEE.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Engineering in Videogames: A Case Study of Iconoclasts Narrative and Interactive Portrayal of Engineers

Introduction

Outside of pursuing degrees and employment in professional fields, most of the public’s experience with the ideas, ethos, and practices of a professional field may come from either direct interaction with professionals or through popular media depictions. The influence of popular media depictions likewise affects public understanding and perceptions of engineering and engineers [1], [2]. While there are many forms of popular media that may affect public understanding or perceptions, videogames stand out for several reasons. First, videogames affect or engage those members of the general public who play them through multiple avenues. Two predominant modes of engagement games provide are gameplay, how a player interacts with a game, and narrative, the story or storytelling the game delivers. These two modes of engagement may both affect players understanding of engineering, engineers, and technology or more concretely a players technological and engineering literacy [3]. A second reason for studying videogames is that have overtaken other media formats (e.g., movies, music) in terms of market share, particularly for younger audiences [4]. Third, while some researchers have studied depictions of engineers or engineering in other media types [1], [2], [5], [6], there appears to be limited research into how videogames portray engineering to the public. Fourth and finally, engineering education research has identified game-based learning as a potent area for research for supporting engineering learning [7], [8]. Additionally, many game-based learning researchers have convincingly argued that videogames are powerful learning environments [9], [10]. Therefore, studying publicly available commercial videogames that focus on engineering or technology may grant new insights for creating engineering games for learning.

Game Studies is a newly emerging field [11], [12] dedicated to studying videogames as objects of inquiry, delving into how they are structured [13], [14], how people engage with them [14], [15] and what impacts they have on people or groups[11], [16]. While methods and lenses within the field are still developing, Game Studies provide tools for analyzing videogames and how they might impact the public’s technological and engineering literacy and may also offer insights for game-based learning research and development in engineering education. In particular, the present work draws on two lenses from Game Studies, analyzing games as formal and cultural systems. Here a formal system is composed of in-game elements and rules that guide player action [14] and a cultural system is composed of themes and discourses that connect game content to real world topics [16]. These two lenses enable analysis of videogames gameplay as well as their narratives, respectively.

This work seeks to take the first step in bringing these tools into engineering education through a case study of the game Iconoclasts. Iconoclasts allows players to assume the role of Robin, a young mechanic who must use her knowledge and abilities with technology to escape the pursuit of enemy forces and save her friends and herself from the dire circumstances that are unwittingly thrust upon them. Iconoclasts represents a promising case for analysis as its story and gameplay elements relate to ideas and practices in engineering and technology. The guiding questions for this analysis were:

1) In what ways does Iconoclasts affect players engineering and technological literacy? 2) What insights can be learned for game-based learning in engineering education by

analyzing Iconoclasts?

Literature Review

What are Videogames?

Videogames have been defined in different ways. Broadly they can be considered interactive digital media. More concretely, videogames are multimodal digital environments with an internal rule set that mediates how individuals interact with its fictional or simulated “world” and which supports one or more individuals to engage with it [10], [14], [17]. A common thread running through authors definitions of games is that they are systems [10], [14], [18]. Systems are holistic entities that contain: several objects or elements, attributes associated with the system or its objects, interrelationships between the systems internal elements and which also exists with a larger environment [19]. In the spirit of systems science [20] this is a general definition which has been adapted for study of games by numerous authors. Authors have presented different scopes or scales of what constitutes a game as a system [11], [14], [21], [22]. For example, Mӓyrӓ [16] examines games as systems within a broader cultural context and Sicart [13] focuses on games as a formal system of rules. Across these conceptualizations of games as systems, Salen and Zimmerman’s [14] treatment stands out as particularly useful as it more comprehensively distinguishes and associates three system levels for viewing games: formal, experiential, and cultural (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Different Lenses for Viewing Videogames

Starting at the top of Figure 1, the formal system consists of the game rules that manage how the game operates and responds to input from a game player. Salen and Zimmerman [14] distinguish three types of rules at formal system level: operational, constituative, and implicit. Operational rules delineate how to play the game, what is illegal or legal actions within a game and overall

shape or constrain what actions a player can take. Constituative rules refer to the mathematical or logical abstractions of the operational rules and may be shared between similar games. Implicit rules are unwritten or agreed upon rules, often in the form of player etiquette. The middle level, experiential system places an emphasis on the immediate experience of one or more game players. Finally, the third level, cultural system, focuses on the larger cultural context in which the games exist, the broader themes, discourses, or symbols it connects to and/or is reflected in the game structure itself. More accurately we can consider games as cultural systems embedded within much larger cultural systems (e.g., a community or a nation-state). For example, Mӓyrӓ [11], [16] examines games as embedded within gaming subcultures whereas others examine games within broader national cultural discourses, such as immigrant experiences in the United States (e.g., see [23]) or cross-national colonialism (e.g., see [24]). Many games also contain narratives or aspects of storytelling [25] although these narratives may hold greater or lesser prominence across specific games [26]. Narratives or stories are a common medium through which cultural ideas or discourses are shared, so it stands to reason this would also hold for games as a medium. However, although narratives or elements of storytelling are common in most games, these narratives have received less attention in game studies research, with some exceptions [25], [27].

Why Study games?

Now that we have described what games are, the question still remains, why analyze videogames in the context of engineering education? Over the past 20 years there has been a growing recognition that the public in part learns about engineering and develops an understanding of the field from various forms of popular media [1], [2], [5], [6]. While the general public may learn about several professions through popular media, media depictions of engineering may be more impactful on individuals’ perceptions as in their daily lives people are less likely to interact with engineers in contrast to professions like doctors or lawyers. Recently there has been increasing attention to media depictions of engineers or engineering, yet there seems to be little work specifically examining how videogames depict these. However, videogames share of the popular media market have grown precipitously in the past decade, overtaking several other forms of media (e.g., music, movies) in market share for younger audiences. Thus, videogames widespread influence and potential impact on public perceptions of engineering or engineers as well as their lack of attention in EER suggest a critical gap for further examination.

As advances in technology proliferate and transform our lives in new ways there has been growing interest in expanding the publics familiarity and understanding of engineering and technology – sometimes referred to as engineering and technological literacy [28]–[30]. Connecting to above, popular media, including videogames, may be one means to support greater engineering and technological literacy. There are many ways technological literacy has been defined [3], [29]–[31]. For example, the International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) identified five aspects of technological literacy [29]:

• Understanding the Nature of Technology, • Understanding of Technology and Society, • Understanding of Design, • Abilities for a Technological World, and

• Understanding of the Designed World. Additionally, the National Academies of Engineering [30] released a report titled “Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology” where they outlined three major components to technological literacy: knowledge, capabilities, and ways of thinking and acting. Here knowledge includes things like recognition of the pervasiveness of technology in society, understanding of basic engineering concepts, terms and design process and understanding that technology reflects cultural values. Capabilities includes things like identifying and repairing mechanical or technological problems and apply basic mathematical concepts to make decisions about technology. Finally, ways of thinking and acting includes asking questions about technology cost and benefits and seeks information about new technologies. In contrast to technological literacy, engineering literacy has received less attention in the literature [3]. While there are fewer explicit definitions of engineering literacy, Krupzcak et al. [3] have drawn several distinctions between technology and engineering literacy. In particular, they center engineering literacy on design and distinguish engineering literacy as focusing on processes, verbs (actions) and having a narrower focus whereas technological literacy focuses on (technology) products, nouns (objects) and has a broader focus. While this is a useful distinction, it is important to note that many technological literacy definitions also include abilities or capabilities [29], [30] which reflect more than product/knowledge and imply processes or practices within technological literacy. Game-Based Learning in Engineering Education

In the realm of education, games have been gaining prominence as a medium for supporting students’ development and growth [9], [10]. Games can act as powerful learning tools that offer several benefits for learning including: developing professional identities [9], [32], providing a simulated project environment and context for learning professional skills and practices [9], [33]–[35], providing immediate and continuous feedback [7], [17], and inspiring new interests and enhancing motivations [10], [36], [37]. Much of the research in this area focuses on games developed specifically for learning or educational contexts, often called serious games [38], although some work has focused on commercial games that were adapted for learning (e.g., see [17] & [39]). Here the more encompassing term game-based learning (GBL) is used to cover the different types of games that may be used in learning contexts.

Game-based learning has likewise received greater attention in engineering education research [33], [40]–[46] including systematic reviews of GBL in the field [7], [8]. For example, Rajan, Raju & Gill [43] used a game focused on design, build, and test scenarios for building construction to teach high school students about the design process and Zhang et al. [44] used game where students assisted a fictional robot navigating a dungeon by issuing it programming commands to learn coding basics.

Tying it together – Why Study Games?

Videogames, like other popular media, can have an impact on individuals technological and engineering literacy. While there are many aspects of these literacies’ videogames could influence, this manuscript focuses on a subset based on the previous review of videogames and game-based learning. First, in terms of what games may offer as learning environment, the paper focuses on

technological literacy capabilities (e.g., see [30]) and engineering literacy related to engineering design processes or practices used therein. This most closely links with the formal system view of games [14] which covers the operational rules of the game and consequently what types of capabilities, skills, or practices an individual will need to engage in to succeed in the game. As mentioned above, past research attests to videogames potential for helping individuals develop professional practices [9], [33]–[35]. Second, in terms of what videogames may offer for broader public understanding, the paper focuses on technological literacy as it relates to understanding technology and society [29] from the perspective of science and technology studies or STS [31]. STS takes a more critical and cultural lens to how technology affects and is intertwined with societal values and discourses. This most closely links with the cultural system view of games [14] and how games, especially their narratives [25], [27] are related to and mutually influence cultural discourses.

Methods

Case Description

This paper focuses on Iconoclasts a videogame released digitally initially for computer platforms in 2018 and subsequently released on most major videogame consoles including the Nintendo Switch, the Xbox One and the Playstation 4. The game follows the story of protagonist Robin, a young rogue mechanic who stumbles into a conflict with her worlds ruling theocracy, the One Concern, and its military force. See Figure 2 for a screen capture of Robin near her home at the beginning of the game. Robin’s unnamed fictional universe features modern technology (cars, high-speed trains, and electricity) as well as advanced science fiction technology (such as cybernetically enhanced super soldiers called “Agents,” a mobile underground colony, and an entire artificial planet which was constructed by an unnamed alien species). It is heavily implied that humans escaped to this artificial planet after something (possibly humans themselves) destroyed their previous home. The One Concern dominates this artificial planet, as the main governing body which also controls the economy and allocation of jobs, as well as the limited fuel supply for energy (a fiction substance referred to as Ivory). Robin is considered rogue as she acts as a mechanic (within this world, mechanics work incorporates both upkeep and maintenance as well as technology creation, similar to engineers) without the permission of the One Concern. Robin’s journey begins when her work as a rogue mechanic is discovered by the One Concern, leading to a long struggle where she seeks to escape the One Concern, help her friends, and ultimately stop the artificial planet they share from collapsing into total system failure.

As with many games, Iconoclasts, as a formal system, is composed of several subsystems with different operational rules that guide different types of activities that can be undertaken. For example, there is a subsystem dedicated to navigating the treacherous world Robin inhabits, a subsystem for interacting and manipulating technology and tools, a subsystem for fighting opponents and others. As described under the analytical procedure, only a subset of these is relevant for the analysis at hand. Iconoclasts was chosen for this case study because its narrative and gameplay are centered around engineering and technology. This allows for analysis of Iconoclasts both as a formal and cultural system to understand its potential impact on different engineering and technology literacies including ability to engage in certain professional practices

and exposure to discourses around engineering, technology, and society, respectively. Thus, Iconoclasts is a good starting point for examining games as popular media that influence public understanding and experience with engineering.

Figure 2 Screenshot of Iconoclasts near the beginning of the game

Analytical Approach

As an analysis of a pre-existing media, this work does not have data in the traditional sense of most educational research. Data for this study comes from Iconoclasts itself as piece of media that was critically analyzed. However, the field of Game Studies does provide guidance on analyzing games. Due to their nature as multimodal media, it is argued by analysts in Game Studies that reading about a game or watching a video of someone else playing the game is insufficient for developing a full understanding of the game. Instead, a “player-as-analyst” approach is recommended [47], where the researcher plays the game while keeping detailed notes or a journal on aspects of the game under study.

To focus the examination for this study, the author created a research journal with sections dedicated to the narrative and gameplay aspects of the game. The gameplay section of the journal was further subdivided into two gameplay subsystems that most closely related to engineering and technology professional skills. The author used his past experience with the game to identify these subsystems: one subsystem which focused on Robin interacting with and manipulating technology that she possessed or existed in the world and the other subsystem that focused on creating new devices. While other systems could be analyzed, like the battle subsystem, for space and clarity the analysis focuses on two subsystems that reflect more general (or widely applicable) engineering/technology skills or practices. The author also added a miscellaneous section to the journal to capture unexpected but important information and a reflection section to record

emerging thoughts related to the gameplay and narrative, while playing. In the journal section for the game’s narrative the author recorded direct quotes from the story and took notes as the story developed. In the gameplay sections, the author recorded operational rules as he discovered them and notes on other associated aspects of gameplay (e.g., elements of game’s subsystems such as Robin’s tools).

The research journal from playing Iconoclasts was then used to analyze the game as a formal and cultural system. In order to analyze Iconoclasts as a formal system, this paper follows other researchers in Game Studies who commonly analyze game rules to understand videogames interactive or gameplay components [14], [23], [48]. The author reviewed the journal for game rules and related notes about the game subsystems (e.g., technology in the game world that Robin could manipulate) to identify potential professional practices gameplay resembled or required as a skill for accomplishing in-game goals. To facilitate identification, the author reviewed research on engineering and technology skills and practices including problem solving [49], troubleshooting [50], and design [51]. Drawing on this literature and the game rules, a task analysis was conducted to test if the actions taken in game resembled the kinds of skills and thinking needed for the professional practices. Several similarities with professional practices were identified and are reported in the results below.

In order to analyze the Iconoclasts as a cultural system, discourse analysis was applied. Discourse analysis is a qualitative approach for examining language mediated frames that highlight some aspects of social reality while obscuring other aspects [52]. These frames or discourses may be spoken or communicated through “texts”, including the multimodal texts like videogames [11], [53]. To identify any discourses in Iconoclasts, the author analyzed the recorded dialogue from the game and associated notes on the story or storytelling from the research journal. Particular attention was given to engineering and technology topics and what was being included or excluded about the topic, what assumptions the discourse(s) carried and which characters were invoking the discourse(s). Previous engineering education research was reviewed to help connect the discourses in Iconoclasts to larger social discourses on engineering and technology.

Case Results

Formal Analysis

Two subsystems within the game of Iconoclasts were analyzed: (1) the subsystem for Robin using tools she has and technology in her fictional world and (2) the subsystem for Robin creating new devices or gadgets. For simplicity, these subsystems will be referred to as the technology puzzle subsystem and the device design subsystem, respectively. Analysis of each subsystem will follow the same structure: (1) layout some of the key (in-game) elements of the subsystem, (2) present important operational rules that guide how elements are related, (3) examine holistic examples of the subsystem from a segment of “gameplay” and attempt to relate these to engineering and technological professional skills or practices.

Starting with the technology puzzle subsystem, it contains several elements of interest. Robin starts the game with a few tools and collects more throughout her adventure. These tools play different roles in the technology puzzle subsystem. Generally, these tools allow Robin to apply a force,

energy source or other input to external technology or other parts of the environment Robin finds herself in. For example, Robin has a wrench she can use apply torque to various machines or parts of machines, and later finds a small energy generator which she can use to add a small electrical charge to inactive machines. Another key element of this subsystem is the technology Robin finds in her environment. Unlike the tools, these tend to be in fixed locations that Robin travels to (instead of being carried around by her). Many of these take the form of smaller or larger transportation and control systems, such as elevators, gates/security doors, and moveable platforms, although other machine systems like energy and ventilation systems are accessible in some locations.

Figure 3 Robin using her wrench to operate a gate.

Turning to the operational rules for this subsystem, as Robin traverses her world, she will encounter different machines and technology. The operational rules for this subsystem guide how Robin can use her tools to interact with these. Typically, the environmental machines or technology will have one or more input points which Robin can use her tools to affect the technology system. For a simple example from the beginning of the game, Figure 3 shows Robin applying torque to a large nut with her wrench, which starts to move the door/gate to the right, as it is connected to this “input” nut. Beyond this simple operational rule (i.e., rotate nut and operate locked gate mechanism), as Robin continues her adventure, she will find more complex machines or technology that will require a several intentional manipulations with her tools as well as more explicit procedures or sets of actions for affecting the technology in her world. Collectively Robin’s tools, the extant technology or machines scattered throughout the world and these rules guiding how the player, controlling Robin, can interact with them, form the technology puzzle subsystem.

Figure 4 Simple technology puzzle.

Figure 5 More advanced technology puzzle.

For a player to address more complex technology puzzles in Iconoclasts, they will need to use problem solving skills. Problem solving is a core ability student develop in engineering [54], [55]. To understand what skills a player may need to solve these puzzles, this paper draws on Jonassen’s [49] typology of problems. In this work he describes different problem types, from simpler logic problems to moderately complex decision-making problems to difficult dilemmas.

Problem types may overlap to some degree. For each, he describes the characteristics of the problem (e.g., how structured they are) and what skills/answers are needed to solve them.

Figure 4 depicts one example of a technology puzzle that requires more inputs than the gate system from Figure 3. To complete this puzzle the player must turn the lower gear (indicated by red arrow) with Robin’s wrench. This is connected to the circular structure above. The circular structure will begin to rotate as the gear returns to its original state. Robin must jump on the platform that extends from the circular structure (as she is in Figure 4) and quickly rotate the second gear as she passes by it. This will move the circular structure on the far right, allowing her to jump on that platform and eventually access the rightmost part of the screen. Looking at Jonassen’s [49] typology, this technology puzzle seems most closely aligned with simpler logical or algorithmic problems, where there are few variables, the problem is well structured, and the solver needs to only apply a few manipulations or a small procedure to be successful.

In contrast, Figure 5 depicts a more advanced technology puzzle from later in the game. For context, this technology puzzle in encountered an abandoned facility which has several malfunctioning systems. Before arriving at this particular technology puzzle, Robin has had to fix, reactivate, or bypass other broken technology in this area. Once the player arrives here, they need to do a few things before trying to solve this puzzle. First, they need to recognize the state of the system. The arrows point to three gates in the system, which Robin needs to get through. Two of these gates are closed and one is open (middle). This is important for planning on how to interact with the system. Furthermore, it is necessary to briefly experiment with the system, as there are two inputs, two spherical orbs on pedestals, highlighted by the rectangle and oval, which both accept an electrical charge as input, although it is not immediately clear how they will affect the system. The square box with a lightning bolt also accepts an electrical charge and its use is likewise not immediately obvious. With a little experimentation, the player will learn that the upper pedestal shifts the state of all gates simultaneously and can accept an electrical charge directly or have a charge applied from the box with the lightning bolt. The lower pedestal accepts an electrical charge, but this does not affect the gates. Instead, it raises the lift on the left, also highlighted by an oval.

To complete this puzzle the player must first use a small electrical charge on the upper pedestal. This will reverse the state of all the gates (top and bottom open, middle closes). The player needs to quickly apply a greater charge to the box that can store an electrical charge and then throw it below to the lift. Robin can then pass-through the top gate and wait for the initial charge to no longer affect the pedestal. The gates will automatically reverse, and the middle gate will open again. Then, the player needs to quickly apply an electrical charge to the lower pedestal, which will activate the lift. Once the box storing electricity reaches the top, the current will transfer to the upper pedestal, reversing the state of the gates again so top and bottom are open and middle closed. Robin can now proceed to the next area. While not fully accurate scientifically, the steps required for solving this technology puzzle present some key contrasts from the previous examples. First, understanding the state of the system is important. In particular, the player learns that the gates are out of sync and that an electrical charge will reverse the state of all gates (i.e., all gates are connected to the same power source). Second, experimenting with the system is

necessary, as there isn’t a one-to-one correspond between input and system response; namely the upper pedestal controls 3 gates, but the lower pedestal controls 1 lift and further some of these can be activated in combination (e.g., using the lift to transfer electricity to the upper pedestal).

Returning to [49] this technology puzzle resembles a troubleshooting problem, where it is necessary to understand where the system is malfunctioning and how to isolate and operate or fix the fault(s). In this technology puzzle, the gates are out of sync despite being connected to the same power source. The player learns this by analyzing the system components and also experimenting with inputs to the system. Thus, the player needs to use skills like fault identification, system experimentation, isolation, and bypassing the fault, as required for typical troubleshooting problems. These skills go beyond simpler logical input/output rules or procedures applied in previous examples. Technology puzzles like this one become more common as Robin advances on her adventure in Iconoclasts.

Figure 6 Menu for selecting a device to create.

The device design subsystem allows Robin to create either new devices to assist her on her journey or to improve the functionality of existing tools. An example of the former is breathing device that allows Robin to travel underwater for short periods and an example of the latter is an enhancement to her power generator that enables it to create a stronger charge. This system contains several elements of interest as well. First, there are raw materials that are required for creating new devices. There are also schematics that enable Robin to create new devices. Both of these are found throughout the world. Finally, there are workbenches Robin can use to create a new device or enhance one of her tools.

In terms of operational rules, finding either raw materials or schematics typically involve solving small puzzles to unlock access to either the materials or schematics. In this way, the device design

subsystem overlaps with the technology puzzle subsystem, as solving small to moderate puzzles is how these materials are gathered. To create a new device, Robin will need to navigate to a workbench and select the device she wants to make from a list (see Figure 6). Once a device has been created, Robin can choose to bring that device with her or apply it to one of her tools (if it is an enhancement device). Robin can only bring three devices with her at any time, so the player will need to be strategic on which devices to select depending on what they are trying to accomplish. Collectively, the raw materials, schematics, workbench, and guiding rules form the device design subsystem.

A subsystem dedicated to creating new devices within a game holds potential to relate to engineering literacies around design practices. However, analyzing the device design subsystem quickly reveals that it does not map particularly well to engineering design practices. The player is only required to gather the appropriate raw materials and then simply select a device they would like to create. Once a device is selected from the list it is automatically created. This is in stark contrast to the technology puzzle subsystem, where the player must apply a variety of problem-solving skills in order to progress. As Squire notes about games for learning: “Many of the games that are of interest to educators are simulations. They aren’t perfect simulations and its not always clear what they are simulation of, but very often they try to create some experience for the player” ([10], pp 22.). For Iconoclasts, there appears to be a fairly detailed subsystem for having players use problem-solving skills, but the device design subsystem is streamlined and simplified to a “recipe” selection interface that requires little if any engineering design practices or thinking.

Cultural Analysis

The narrative and storytelling aspects of Iconoclasts establish several discourses about this fictional world. These discourses can be seen through character dialogues, events that happen in the fictional world, and other contextual storytelling the game delivers. The present work focuses on a subset of these discourses most closely associated with technology and engineering.

One discursive framing that emerges repeatedly throughout the game is that mechanics/engineering profession is a male dominated space. This framing is particularly notable from the perspective of the player-character, Robin, a young woman who has taken on the profession of mechanic/engineer. Robin encounters numerous characters that emphasize how unusual it is for a woman to be a mechanic/engineer in this world.

Potently, one of these characters is Robin’s own father, Palro, a mechanic/engineer himself. In a flashback, Robin recalls her father asking:

Palro: Are you still reading my engineering books and tinkering with things?

Robin: Yes

Palro: Are you sure you want to? You don’t think you’d make for a great settlement farmer? There’s still some upkeep involved with being a farmer, that you can do on your own.

In this exchange, Robin’s father asks her if she is continuing to study and practice engineering and encourages her to consider being a farmer instead. He mentions that she can still do some “upkeep”

suggesting he recognizes Robin’s interest in working with technology but doesn’t think she should continue to follow the mechanic/engineer profession. Although Palro does not reveal his full reasoning as to why he discourages Robin, it is implied that this conversation happened many times and thus he regularly discouraged her from this line of work.

Another aspect of this discourse can be seen in the other mechanics/engineers observed throughout the game. Robin regularly runs into them at several distinct locations including: the Shard Wastelands, Ferrier Shockwood, the Tower, and City One. Every mechanic/engineer Robin encounters in her world are men. While there may be women who are mechanics/engineers, it is clear in the game world it is not a common profession for women.

Finally, several characters, particularly members of the One Concern ruling theocracy, refer to Robin as a maverick or outlaw, notably for her professional work. For instance, Tolo, an officer in the One Concerns army describes Robin to other soldiers as “…an unblessed mechanic who has been tainting Ivory with bare hands.” Note Ivory is the main fictional energy source in this world. While part of the reason the One Concern view Robin as an outlaw is because they try to control the allotment of jobs, the repeated references to Robin being an outlaw or illegitimate mechanic/engineer resonate with other parts of the game’s narrative suggesting Robin somehow doesn’t belong or shouldn’t be part of the profession.

This in-game discourse that frames women as not belonging in a mechanic/engineering profession has similarities to real world discourses engineering education researchers have discovered. For instance, research by Tonso [56], [57] discovered several ways in which women on engineering teams had their work downplayed or marginalized or where women were given roles viewed as less central to engineering.

Another discourse that emerges in Iconoclasts focuses on technology and more specifically energy. Throughout the game there are multiple references to an energy crisis happening within the world. While this might seem like an objective issue faced in the world of Iconoclasts, there are highly divergent views on this issue from different characters, suggesting it has different discursive frames within the game. For instance, several characters that are not part of the One Concern share a view that there are severe energy shortages. A patron at a bar in Settlement 17 complains: “Ivory fuel is becoming stupidly expensive. At this rate I’ll freeze to death once winter rolls around…” and Elro, Robin’s brother laments “We can’t pay for government services anyways, with this Ivory fuel shortage.”

These views stand in stark contrast with members of the One Concern. For instance, destroying a helicopter and derailing a train and subsequently expending a massive amount of Ivory while chasing Robin, General Chrome, leader of the One Concern army tells his subordinate officer, Tolo, nonchalantly: “Tolo we’re going to need to order more Ivory again.” Here, General Chrome exhibits minimal distress over how much of the nonrenewable Ivory they spent while not completing their goal. The divisions on this issue are further highlighted by a group called the Chemco Contra, a group of scientists and engineers/mechanics who are secretly working outside of the One Concern’s rules to find an alternative energy source to Ivory. Chemco Contra’s regularly help Robin throughout her journey.

This in-game discourse also has similarities with real world public discourses around energy issues and different framings that may alternatively downplay the degree to which it is a significant issue or emphasize the imminent challenge it presents modern society. Engineering as a professional field has also staked a position across these opposing frames, with the National Academies of Engineering identifying fourteen grand challenges engineering should address, with three of these challenges focused on energy [58]. More specifically, making solar energy more economical, provide energy from fusion, and develop carbon sequestration methods.

Discussion

To address the first research question on games potential impact on literacy, the paper presents what a commercial game, as a popular form of media, may expose the general public to in terms of technological and engineering literacy, as revealed by the case analysis. This discussion begins by looking at gameplay and narrative as two separate dimensions of engagement before turning to how both of these dimensions may jointly affect technological and engineering literacy. To address the second research question about what commercial games can teach the engineering education about GBL, several implications are drawn out for game-based learning environments from the case analysis.

First, turning to the gameplay aspects of Iconoclasts, as revealed by the analysis of the game as a formal system made of in-game objects and rules, it is clear the game presents many opportunities for players to engage in engineering skills. In particular, the technology puzzle subsystem examples revealed how players must leverage several problem-solving skills to complete increasingly complex puzzles. This finding is in agreement with other studies in GBL that indicate they are a powerful tool for learning professional skills [9], [33]–[35]. In terms of technological literacy, there is a clear line from the technology puzzle subsystem to technological capabilities or skills as described by the ITEEA [29] and NAE [30] reports. For example, the subsystem supports understanding how to work with technology or repair a technology system - with the caveat that these actions are simulated within the game. Importantly, players are still able to engage in technological literacy capabilities even if the in-game technology are not a perfect mirror of real-world, so long as the skills required are used in a similar manner to real-world applications. Interacting with the technology puzzle subsystem may also help players develop technology understanding or knowledge, as another component of literacy. However, this may be more strongly mediated by the degree to which in-game technology resembles real-world technology. Given how simplified the device design subsystem is, it is not clear that it contributes much to players technology or engineering literacy, despite its potential for engaging in design practices.

Next, turning to Iconoclasts narrative aspects, as revealed by the analysis of the game as a cultural system, opportunities for engagement in technological/engineering literacies also emerge. Iconoclasts presents the players with several different discourses related to technology and engineering, which appears to link most directly with technological literacy components that address the role of technology in society [29]. This means of player engagement is different than the gameplay subsystems, as it does not involve the player taking actions within the game world but rather learning and thinking about complex topics and divergent perspectives on those topics. One of these discourses reflected the relationship between women as an underrepresented group

in engineering and how their position or standing are sometimes marginalized within the field. In other words, this discourse related to something happening internally with engineering or technology fields. The other discourse related to energy and views of its scarcity or limitations, which was related to how real-world field of engineering positioned itself relative to this topic of public debate (e.g., see the grand challenges from the NAE [58]). In brief, the narrative aspects of games that touch on engineering and technology topics have the potential to expose players to discourses or debates similar to those happening in real world they might otherwise be unfamiliar with. For players, this provides a means to start thinking about, form their own views, and think critically on the topic(s) based on their in-game exposure. It may also encourage greater public engagement with these topics in real world debates.

Games are multimodal media [53]. That is, interacting with a game involves multiple modes of engagement. Here we have focused on gameplay and narrative, which Iconoclasts and other games provide as a holistic multimodal experience. In other words, these two dimensions of engagement or modes cannot be considered fully independent and must be considered as dimensions of a larger gaming experience. In discussing these two modes, Arsenault [25] describes how games may shift between more narrative and gameplay modes through different kinds of transitions. In Iconoclasts, this may happen in two ways. First, the player may be engaging in gameplay and interact with an in-game character, who will share dialogue, a narrative or storytelling element of the game. In this way, the transition from gameplay to narrative is fluid and under the player’s control. Conversely, Iconoclasts has many events that happen as Robin continues her adventure; when the player encounters these they will be forced to transition from gameplay to storytelling event, so this mode of transition is more linear and not fully within the player’s control. Clearly there are regular transitions between these two modes, and they are intertwined, not separate entities. This becomes even clearer when looking at some narrative and gameplay sections which are influenced by the other engagement dimension. For example, part of what made the troubleshooting puzzle more convincingly a malfunctioning technology was the setting the story laid out, that this puzzle was in a dilapidated and abandon facility. Similarly, all the technology puzzles the player guides Robin to solve reinforce the point that Robin is a mechanic/engineer, even if a maverick, as outlined by the games story. Thus, not only do these dimensions of engagement regularly flow into each other through transitions, they are mutually supportive throughout the game.

Moving to the second research question, analyzing Iconoclasts as a formal and cultural system reveals several insights for GBL in engineering education. At the most basic level, the resonance between aspects of the gameplay and narrative in Iconoclasts and real-world engineering or technological literacies suggest there may be great value in analyzing commercial videogames as a type of prior art for informing the design of games for learning. While this work begins to contribute to cataloguing of ways in which engineering or technology literacies may be gained through games, there are many other videogames that could be similarly analyzed. For example, the following games could be fruitfully examined for different insights: (1) Minecraft, a game that affords great creativity in designing; (2) Space Engineers, a game that also affords creativity and enables a deeper interaction with technology; or (3) the Deus Ex series that explores humanities relationship and symbiosis with technology. Another key insight this case analysis helps demonstrate is that games have at least two distinct dimensions of engagement, gameplay and

narrative and these dimensions have unique learning affordances. While GBL researchers in engineering education and other fields have had to contend with gameplay and narrative design decisions, there is little prior work that separates the unique affordances these dimensions can provide learners. Actively considering what each dimension of engagement can afford learners and how they can be mutually supportive may help the field design games that are more captivating and lead to greater learning outcomes.

Finally, the last lesson is a word of caution. Although on the surface Iconoclasts appears to target both technological capabilities and engineering design practices, in reality only one of these gameplay subsystems is robust enough to allow players to engage in skills similar to their real-world counterpart. When designing games one-to-one simulation with the real world may be undesirable or impractical, but care needs to be used to ensure students need to use the kinds of skills or thinking we want them to learn in game. Iconoclasts is a commercial game and cannot be expected to act as a surrogate for engineering or technology learning, however, it does give us an example of oversimplification to compare the fields efforts against.

Conclusion

This paper presents a case study of the commercial game Iconoclasts and how it may impact players engineering and technological literacy. Drawing on techniques from the emerging field of Game Studies [11], [12], this case study analyzed Iconoclasts as a formal system composed of in-game elements and rules that guide player action [14] and as a cultural system composed of themes and discourses that related to real world topics [16] involving technology and engineering. This enabled analysis of Iconoclasts gameplay and narrative aspects, respectively. The findings indicated subsystems within Iconoclast’s gameplay provided opportunities for engaging in some engineering and technological skills around problem solving and that the narrative brought to the fore topics around women in engineering and energy challenges modern societies face. In summary, each of these dimensions of engagement reflected different engineering or technological literacy components to members of the public who play them. Moreover, the analysis revealed these dimensions of engagement are mutually supportive, providing a holistic multimodal experience for learning.

The results also have implications for game-based learning in engineering education, another growing area of research. First, the analysis of Iconoclasts revealed that commercial games may be fruitfully examined as prior art for the design of serious games for learning. Second, the results emphasize the importance of explicitly delineating the separate learning affordances of gameplay and narrative in games and how or if they are mutually supportive. Third, there is a need to critically examine the scope of gameplay systems and how well they align with learning goals in game-based learning environments.

Future work remains to explore how other games that address engineering and/or technology in their gameplay or narratives may affect players technological and engineering literacy in additional or different ways. These may also present opportunities with new gameplay or narrative structures that could serve as prior art or inspiration to the development of future engineering games for learning. Looking ahead, as videogames continue to grow and evolve as a popular media format,

new synergies between the analysis of commercial games and efforts to leverage games for learning may also appear.

References

[1] Z. Pasek, “Reel Engineers: Portrayal of Engineers and the Engineering Profession in the Feature Films,” in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012, p. 25.1107.1-25.1107.17. doi: 10.18260/1-2--21864.

[2] F. Clark and D. L. Illman, “Portrayals of engineers in ‘science times,’” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 12–21, 2006, doi: 10.1109/MTAS.2006.1607718.

[3] J. Krupczak et al., “Defining Engineering and Technological Literacy,” in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012, p. 25.381.1-25.381.9. doi: 10.18260/1-2--21139.

[4] S. Monahan, “Video games have replaced music as the most important aspect of youth culture,” The Guardian, The United Kingdomg, Jan. 11, 2021. Accessed: Feb. 20, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/video-games-music-youth-culture

[5] N. Sochacka, J. Walther, J. Wilson, and M. Brewer, “StoriesTold about engineering in the Media: Implications for attracting diverse groups to the profession,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044009.

[6] J. Steinke, “Cultural Representations of Gender and Science: Portrayals of Female Scientists and Engineers in Popular Films,” Sci. Commun., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 27–63, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1177/1075547005278610.

[7] J. Morelock and H. Matusovich, “All Games Are Not Created Equally: How Different Games Contribute to Learning Differently in Engineering,” in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jun. 2018, p. 29766. doi: 10.18260/1-2--29766.

[8] C. A. Bodnar, D. Anastasio, J. A. Enszer, and D. D. Burkey, “Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering Students: Research Review: Games as Teaching Tools in Engineering,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 147–200, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1002/jee.20106.

[9] J. P. Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

[10] K. Squire, Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2011.

[11] F. Mӓyrӓ, An Introduction to Game Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 2008. [12] J. P. Gee, “Why Game Studies Now? Video Games: A New Art Form,” Games Cult., vol. 1, no. 1, pp.

58–61, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1555412005281788. [13] M. Sicart, “Defining Game Mechanics,” Game Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, 2008. [14] K. Salen and E. Zimmerman, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

2004. [15] L. Landay, “Interactivity,” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, M. Wolf J. P. and B.

Perron, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 173–184. [16] F. Mӓyrӓ, “Culture,” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, M. Wolf J. P. and B.

Perron, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 293–300. [17] C. Schimpf, “Scaffolding early engineers’ design learning with a videogame: Investigating the

influence of Minecraft as a platform for design ideation.,” Published Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN, 2015.

[18] T. Fullterton, C. Swain, and S. Hoffman, Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, and Playtesting Games. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books, 2004.

[19] S. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989.

[20] L. Von Betalanffy, General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller Inc, 1968.

[21] O. Sotamaa, “Artifact,” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, M. Wolf J. P. and B. Perron, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 3–9.

[22] A. Lukacs, “Sociology,” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, M. Wolf J. P. and B. Perron, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 407–414.

[23] O. Perez Latorre, “The Social Discourse of Video Games Analysis Model and Case Study: GTA IV,” Games Cult., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 415–437, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1177/1555412014565639.

[24] A. Brock, “When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong’’: Resident Evil 5, Racial Representation, and Gamers,” Games Cult., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 429–452, 2011.

[25] D. Arsenault, “Narratology,” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, M. Wolf J. P. and B. Perron, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 475–483.

[26] E. Aarseth, “A narrative theory of games,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games - FDG ’12, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2012, p. 129. doi: 10.1145/2282338.2282365.

[27] D. Arsenault, “Narrative in the video game.,” Masters Thesis, : Université de Montreal, Montreal, Canada, 2006.

[28] S. Stanton and M. Bailey, “Whose Job Is It? Technological Literacy In Society,” in 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Honolulu, Hawaii, Jun. 2007, p. 12.1610.1-12.1610.9. doi: 10.18260/1-2--2217.

[29] “Standards for Technological Literacy,” International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA, 2000.

[30] “Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology,” National Academy of Engineering, Washington D.C., 2002.

[31] R. Cheville and J. Heywood, “The Philosophical Foundations of Technological and Engineering Literacy,” in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Columbus, Ohio, Jun. 2017, p. 28992. doi: 10.18260/1-2--28992.

[32] S. A. Barab, M. Gresalfi, and A. Ingram-Goble, “Transformational Play: Using Games to Position Person, Content, and Context,” Educ. Res., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 525–536, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.3102/0013189X10386593.

[33] C. A. Bodnar and R. M. Clark, “Can Game-Based Learning Enhance Engineering Communication Skills?,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 24–41, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2016.2632838.

[34] N. C. Chesler, “Design of a Professional Practice Simulator for Educating and Motivating First-Year Engineering Students,” Adv. Eng. Educ., p. 29, 2013.

[35] N. Gu, L. Gul, A. Williams, and W. Nakapon, “Second Life: A Context for Design Learning.,” in Higher education in Virtual Worlds: Teaching and Learning in Second Life, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009, pp. 159–180.

[36] G. Arastoopour, N. C. Chesler, and D. W. Shaffer, “Epistemic persistence: A simulation-based approach to increasing participation of women in engineering,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 211–234, 2014, doi: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014007317.

[37] T. M. Connolly, E. Boyle, E. McArthur, T. Hainey, and J. Boyle, “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games.,” Comput. Educ., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 661–686, 2012.

[38] R. Ratan and U. Ritterfield, “Classying Serious Games,” in Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, 2010, pp. 10–24.

[39] K. Squire, “Replaying history: learning world history through playing Civilization III,” Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomgton IN, 2003.

[40] N. Sevim-Cirak and Z. Yıldırım, “Educational use and motivational elements of simulation games for mining engineering students: a phenomenological study,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 550–564, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2019.1666797.

[41] A. Perkins, G. Fry, and C. Stuessy, “An Earthquake Engineering Education Research Methodology for Game-Based Learning,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jun. 2016, p. 27279. doi: 10.18260/p.27279.

[42] Y. Tang, K. Jahan, S. Shetty, and C. Franzwa, “Solaris One – A Serious Game for Thermodyanmics,” in 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jun. 2014, p. 24.1092.1-24.1092.8. doi: 10.18260/1-2--23025.

[43] P. Rajan, P. K. Raju, and J. Gill, “Impact of an Engineering Design Serious Game on Student Learning in a K-12 Curriculum,” in 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jun. 2014, p. 24.694.1-24.694.12. doi: 10.18260/1-2--20586.

[44] J. Zhang, M. Atay, E. R. Caldwell, and E. J. Jones, “Visualizing Loops Using a Game-Like Instructional Module,” in 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Beijing, China, Jul. 2013, pp. 448–450. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2013.137.

[45] L. Davidovitch, A. Parush, and A. Shtub, “Simulation-based Learning in Engineering Education: Performance and Transfer in Learning Project Management,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 289–299, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00904.x.

[46] S. W. Crown, “Improving Visualization Skills of Engineering Graphics Students Using Simple JavaScript Web Based Games,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 347–355, Jul. 2001, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00613.x.

[47] D. Carr, G. Schott, A. Burn, and D. Buckingham, “Doing Game Studies: A Multi-Method Approach to the Study of Textuality, Interactivity and Narrative Space,” Media Int. Aust., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 19–30, Feb. 2004, doi: 10.1177/1329878X0411000105.

[48] C. S. Ang, “Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 306–325, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1046878105285604.

[49] D. H. Jonassen, “Toward a design theory of problem solving,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 63–85, Dec. 2000, doi: 10.1007/BF02300500.

[50] D. H. Jonassen and W. Hung, “Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 77–114, 2006.

[51] D. P. Crismond and R. S. Adams, “The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 738–797, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x.

[52] R. Rogers, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.

[53] J. P. Gee, “Discourse Analysis of Games,” in Discourse and Digital Pracitces: Doing Discourse is a Digital Age, R. Jones H., A. Chik, and C. A. Hafner, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015, pp. 18–27.

[54] S. Grigg and L. Benson, “Effects of Student Strategies on Successful Problem Solving,” in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012, p. 25.508.1-25.508.13. doi: 10.18260/1-2--21266.

[55] D. Jonassen, J. Strobel, and C. B. Lee, “Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 139–151, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x.

[56] K. L. Tonso, “Teams that work: Campus culture, engineer identity, and social interactions,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 95, no. 1, p. 25, 2006.

[57] K. L. Tonso, On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdamn, NL: Sense Publishers, 2007.

[58] “14 grand challenges for engineering in the 21st century.,” National Academy of Engineering, Washington D.C., 2018.