spinofflive
The kids game that… actually teaches you? The switcheroo that is Zoombinis.
The kids game that… actually teaches you? The switcheroo that is Zoombinis.

Pop CultureJanuary 29, 2018

When kids play the darnedest (and secretly educational) things

The kids game that… actually teaches you? The switcheroo that is Zoombinis.
The kids game that… actually teaches you? The switcheroo that is Zoombinis.

Uther Dean reminisces about how kids’ games were used to trick him into enjoying his education – and how those games still hold up today.

Do you remember the days of the old school yard? We used to laugh a lot. Well, people used to laugh a lot. I don’t know about you but I certainly wasn’t in the school yard. I was laughing, yes, but I was far from the dangers that populate the schoolyard: the bruising bark-chips, the sharp grass, the physical movement. I was inside learning like a chump.

Let me be clear: I did not know I was learning. I thought I was having fun. One of the eternal betrayals of schooling is its addiction to the secretion of learning (a not fun thing) within fun (definitionally a fun thing). Sometimes it was as simple as songs (fun) that taught us about numbers (not fun). Sometimes it was much more complicated. Which brings me back to why I don’t remember the days of the old school yard. I was playing video games (fun OR SO I THOUGHT).

The class had a couple of computers and we were allowed to use during breaks but only on approved programmes. When I first saw there was a game on the list of approved programmes, I was sure some mistake had been made. They wouldn’t just let us play The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis, would they? But it was on the list and I was more than ready and willing to abuse this seemingly oversight. Even when I was only a few years into primary schooling I was on my hustle. Little did I know, I was the one who was being hustled.

The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis, circa your childhood.

The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis (more recently re-mastered re-released as just Zoombinis; you can get it on Steam) is a thrilling game where you guide blue little creatures (the Zoombinis, obv) through a series of challenges to help them find a new home. You have to cook a squat troll a pizza, you have to trick some of the tall, edgy Fleens to attack themselves with bees, you have to sit on a raft in the right order. You know, standard video game levels.

Playing it again as an adult, I can see that Zombinis’ masterstroke is the character creation option. You move the Zoombinis in groups of 16 and each time you start out with a new group (you win the game when 625 Zoombinis make it to their new home, something I’d suspect very few people have achieved), you can design each and every one of your charges.

The character design may seem shallow by the standards of today’s pixel-perfect self-replicators but the five options each for hair, eyes, nose colour and feet are the precise right amount for you to build your own little cast of characters – each with their own distinct attitude and personality. You care about your Zoombinis, you’ll do whatever it takes to get them to their new home. This was true was true in 1996, playing it when I was six or seven, and it was true in 2017, playing it when I was 30.

I cared and I engaged. Which is what made The Logical Journey of Zoombinis’ betrayal all the more painful. It slowly dawned as I filled my school breaks with Zoombanity that something didn’t seem quite right. Days had passed and it was still on the list of approved programmes. And something strange was happening. I was becoming more logical.

I could decode patterns in the world much better. I started to be able to figure out how things could relate without being explicitly connected. This was odd. We hadn’t talked about this at school. It was just happening to me.

My first thought was that I was a genius. That is always my first thought.

My second thought is always that I am definitely not a genius.

The remastered Zoombinis.

Then I remembered the Zoombinis. I remembered how I would work out which of the two sneezing bridges to send my Zoombinis over (one was allergic to blue noses, the other allergic to everything else). Then… I remembered the name of the game. The LOGICAL Journey of the Zoombinis.

I’d been had. I’d been playing a game (fun) but learning (not fun), but it didn’t feel like I’d been learning (so it hadn’t been not fun). I have struggled with trust issues ever since.

But that didn’t stop me playing the game. I wanted to get all those Zoombinis safe. All 625 of them. It took a hell of a lot of lunchtimes, but I did it. All of my wards with their little noses and their little lives got to their new home. Yeah, I learned, but that wasn’t the point, that was a by-product. I didn’t like it, but I loved the Zoombinis so I beared with it.

Which was going to be the final point of this piece: that what makes learning games successful is that they have to be good enough games to hide the learning. The spoonful of sugar has to be sweet enough. That the secret of that lies not in mind blowing graphics or physics or explosions, but in allowing people to buy into the characters.

In short, Zoombinis are the best educational part of Zoombinis because you love them enough to learn.

That was going to be my final line. But then something happened.

A normal objective in every video game.

I couldn’t stop playing Zoombinis. I bought it just to give it another go for this thing, to remind myself of how it was. I wouldn’t spend more than hour on it.

Oh, I was a fool. How soon we forget the ones we love once they are out of our sight. Time may have robbed me of my innocence but it has not done the same to the Zoombinis. They are the same pale blue wonders they always were. The remaster has updated a lot of the graphics but hasn’t fixed what isn’t broken when it comes to character design.

The Zoombinis’ wide eyes still stare out at you, begging you to care for and understand them. Pleading with you to get them home. You make a family of Zoombinis, and then you save them. You can’t say no to that.

I was going to be here for much more than an hour.

Partly, this was because of the Zoombinis but also because it turns out that Zoombinis is still a challenge when you’re six times the age of the core audience. The learning curve is not so much painful as persistent. This is exacerbated by the dopamine-dampening insistence the game places on deliberate failure. You have to be wrong to deduce what the right pattern is.

This should make the game unsatisfying but instead it makes it compulsive. Removing the fear of failure means that you are free to try anything. The worst thing that can happen is that you lose a Zoombini or two and they can be collected from a campsite later in the game.

This makes the game mediative and calming. By understanding, the Zoombinis’ world, I was starting to understand my own better.

Which is to say: oh shit, it started teaching me again and I am a grown adult.

Turns out that good educational video games work for everyone. Or maybe I’m just stuck being six forever.

But either way I know one thing: I am getting all my damn Zoombinis home.


This post, like all our gaming content, comes to your peepers only with the support of Bigpipe Broadband

Keep going!
grammy

Pop CultureJanuary 29, 2018

And the Grammy goes to… Who knows, but here are our predictions

grammy

Is Melodrama the best album of the year? We’ll know definitively later today (*irony warning*), but in the meantime, Elle Hunt predicts the winners of the 60th Annual Grammy Awards.

These Grammys, the sixtieth ever, are the third for which two friends and I have got our picks in. The Grammys’ administration starts four to six weeks out from the awards, allowing us plenty of time for deliberation and debate.

In a colour-coded Google spreadsheet listing about a quarter of the 84 categories – all the big ones, plus a couple of wildcards to keep things interesting (“Best Liner Notes”) – Ciaran, Joseph and I each record the songs we like of the nominees, for posterity, as well as the ones we expect to win. There is rarely much crossover between the two groups.

The exercise is an opportunity to reflect on the past year in pop music and catch up with far-flung friends over a little low-stakes betting, the idea being whomever correctly picks the most winners will be bought dinner by the other two the next time we are all in the same city. We have not been in the same city in three years, which I am okay with, as I am owed zero dinners.

The first year, for Song of the Year, I picked the song I thought to be objectively the best song of the year: Taylor Swift’s ‘Blank Space’. Ciaran and Joseph both opted for ‘Alright’ by Kendrick Lamar. Ed Sheeran’s ‘Thinking Out Loud’ won. Across the awards, I got 13 categories right in total, out of a possible 41.

The second year, I changed tack, attempting to put myself in the head of a voting member of the Recording Academy. I picked songs that could be argued to have merit, perhaps against better judgement – a mediocre album by a heavyweight artist, for example, or a song that could be described at best as ubiquitous. This led me to choose Twenty-One Pilots and Mike Posner over the eventual five-time winner Adele: in hindsight, a highly avoidable error in judgement.

This time around, I’ve thrown out any illusion that the Grammys recognise winners on merit, and have leaned into the inexplicable, often perverse and unjust unpredictability of it all. How following my intuition will work out for me remains to be seen on Sunday night PST. But I am comforted by odds that suggest, even if I rank the lowest of us three once again, I won’t be buying any winners dinner in 2018.

PREDICTABLE GRAMMY WINNER BRUNO MARS WINS ONE OF HIS FOUR GRAMMYS

Record Of The Year

  • Childish Gambino – Redbone
  • Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee – Despacito (feat. Justin Bieber)
  • Jay-Z – The Story of OJ
  • Kendrick Lamar – HUMBLE.
  • Bruno Mars – 24K Magic

Record of the Year goes to the artist and “to the Producer(s), Recording Engineer(s) and/or Mixer(s) and mastering engineer(s), if other than the artist”, meaning to try and pick this category, by the Grammys’ criteria, you should be going by the quality of the song’s production. The people that brought you ‘Uptown Funk’ won this category in 2016, before handing down the title to Adele’s smash ‘Hello’ the following year. To my mind, only one shortlisted song this year rivals those two in terms of ubiquity: I’m going with ‘Despacito’. I am sure its production is fine.

Album of the Year

  • Childish Gambino – “Awaken, My Love!”
  • Jay-Z – 4:44
  • Kendrick Lamar – DAMN.
  • Lorde – Melodrama
  • Bruno Mars – 24K Magic

I know two of these five albums very well, and one in passing, but you don’t have to have heard all five to be able to guess the winner. Melodrama and DAMN. are both excellent; “Awaken, My Love!” is very good. I personally try not to listen to modern-day Jay-Z but plenty of people feel differently and have said positive things about 4:44. My money’s on Bruno Mars.

Song Of The Year

  • Ramon Ayala Rodriguez, Justin Bieber, Jason Boyd, Erika Ender, Luis Fonsi & Marty James Garton Jr – Despacito
  • Shawn Carter & Dion Wilson – 4:44
  • Benny Blanco, Mikkel Storleer Eriksen, Tor Erik Hermansen, Julia Michaels & Justin Drew Tranter – Issues
  • Alessia Caracciolo, Sir Robert Bryson Hall II, Arjun Ivatury, Khalid Robinson & Andrew Taggart – 1-800-273-8255
  • Christopher Brody Brown, James Fauntleroy, Philip Lawrence, Bruno Mars, Ray Charles McCullough II, Jeremy Reeves, Ray Romulus & Jonathan Yip – That’s What I Like

This award recognises the craft of songwriting which, as you can see, is a team sport these days. One might say Jay-Z deserves to win for having written precisely half of ‘4:44’ versus Bruno Mar’s 12.5% contribution to ‘That’s What I Like’. Again, my money’s on Bruno Mars.

Best New Artist

  • Alessia Cara
  • Khalid
  • Lil Uzi Vert
  • Julia Michaels
  • SZA

The criteria say that “an artist will be considered for Best New Artist if their eligibility year release/s achieved a breakthrough into the public consciousness and notably impacted the musical landscape”. Meghan Trainor won two years ago – over Courtney Barnett, Sam Hunt, Tori Kelly and a man called James Bay – for notably impacting the musical landscape with ‘All About That Bass’. But last year Chance The Rapper won over The Chainsmokers, proving justice sometimes prevails, even at the Grammys.

This year’s nominees are hard to call, even by my own perverse logic: Alessia Cara’s biggest hit was nearly three years ago, so it would be just like the Grammys to recognise her now; Julia Michaels is a long-time industry figure with one hit song of her own, and a few high-profile features. SZA, as the most critically acclaimed of the five, is to my mind the least likely.

I can’t name a single song by Khalid or Lil Uzi Vert, which calls into question either their breakthroughs into the public consciousness or my own ability to judge this category.

Best Pop Solo Performance

  • Kelly Clarkson – Love So Soft
  • Kesha – Praying
  • Lady Gaga – Million Reasons
  • P!nk – What About Us
  • Ed Sheeran – Shape Of You

Just as my gut instinct is to back Bruno Mars in any Grammys race he’s in, I’m going to go for Ed Sheeran. ‘Shape Of You’ was the biggest song of the year by sales and streams – the kind of mega-smash that justifies a black-and-white wonkish video breakdown by the New York Times.

But though I know better than to make it my pick, the tiny part of me that’s endured Brexit and Trump and been bolstered by #MeToo wants to imagine a world in which Kesha wins with her defiant kiss-off to Dr Luke. If I was producing the televised ceremony, I’d want this, too – and for Lady Gaga to present her with the award. A huge advance on the Golden Globes’ all-black “protest dress code”, if you ask me.

Best Pop Duo/Group Performance

  • The Chainsmokers & Coldplay – Something Just Like This
  • Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee (feat. Justin Bieber) – Despacito
  • Imagine Dragons – Thunder
  • Portugal. The Man – Feel It Still
  • Zedd & Alessia Cara – Stay

‘Despacito’ should, by rights, storm every category it’s nominated for, but it’s by no means a sure thing here. This one’s fraught with the kind of showy dross that attracts Grammys like paperclips to a magnet.

There’s the bombastic kind, Imagine Dragons; the faux-throwback neo-soul kind, Portugal. The Man; the maudlin-dancey kind, Zedd and Alessia Cara; the really-aggressively-without-merit kind, like The Chainsmokers, and the piggybacking dinosaurs Coldplay. As the only song you can imagine people actually choosing to put on, as opposed to being to passively exposed to it in a mall or other low-quality shared space, it’s not looking good for ‘Despacito’.

Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album

  • Michael Buble – Nobody But Me (Deluxe Version)
  • Bob Dylan – Triplicate
  • Seth MacFarlane – In Full Swing
  • Sarah McLachlan – Wonderland
  • Various Artists – Tony Bennett Celebrates 90

Look at those shortlisted artists. Really hold one’s image in your mind, imagine their most popular song, if you know it, picture their fans – then go onto the next. This is what the Grammys is all about.

Best Pop Vocal Album

  • Coldplay – Kaleidoscope EP
  • Lana Del Rey – Lust For Life
  • Imagine Dragons – Evolve
  • Kesha – Rainbow
  • Lady Gaga – Joanne
  • Ed Sheeran – ÷ (Divide)

I mean…

See the full list of Grammys nominees here


The Spinoff’s music content is brought to you by our friends at Spark. Listen to all the music you love on Spotify Premium, it’s free on all Spark’s Pay Monthly Mobile plans. Sign up and start listening today.