This article follows the footsteps of the previous article read on ludology. It is an interesting dialogue performed by Dr. Geoffrey Rockwell and Dr. Kevin Kee, where they use certain games to exemplify their points. More specifically, they discuss serious games are able to provide an educational experience however simple and short play they may be. I find Kee makes some interesting arguments about "September 12's" serious and education aspect. Sometimes the player and also the game make must think farther than a simple first person shooting game, but rather to think of the consequences of shooting and how complicating shooting can be in relation to reality. Here is an important quote from Kee that he point out to Rockwell:

This is a conversation starter: some people think that the way to crush terrorism is to fire missiles from 30,000 feet. Frasca makes the point, through the way the game is played, that that kind of anti-terrorism strategy only creates more terrorism.

This sort of ideology can get quite abstract since in reality games are not like television nor like books. In addition, I do believe there are serious games just like there are action and stupid games. Serious games are stimulating and through that stimulating game play often lies an educational side. Is it really up to us to officially define whether a game is serious, or is it up to each individual to decide for themselves while they play? Everyone may have a different opinion on if they think the game is serious or not. What Kee does explain about the September 12 and Civilization III games are very true but you have to think further than what the game is said to be to see them as serious/educational games.

Rockwell successfully counter argues Kee's point by providing us with a different perspective. As the dialogue does on I am slightly confused whether the main focus of this speech is on serious games or education games or simply both combined. They bring into play ancient philosophers and twentieth-century theorists that some of us may be unaware of. However confusing this point of the discussion may be, I must say that a dialogue makes it interesting to view both sides of an argument. I think the goal of Kee and Rockwell was to just give an introduction of serious and educational games and game play. They come to agree that the line separating games and learning does not necessarily exist and that in game designs we can find the beginning of certain serious game plays.