Gala Roadmap Contribution
Name of lead contributor: Tesei A., NATO-CMRE
SIG: 3.4: Security, Safety and Crisis Management
General preamble on SIG 3.4
Within this SIG, stakeholders have to:
 deal with danger and high risk
 deal with situations hard to simulate in real life, or scenarios which are too complicated and/or
expensive to simulate as hands-on scenarios,
 train large numbers of people with different roles, competences and tasks, from operational to
management/strategic/tactical levels,
 often train their team leaders and officers to cooperate each others, with other institutions and
agencies, sometimes (such as within NATO) in an international, multi-lingual and multi-cultural
environment.
These general requirements very much affect the selection of upmost topics.
Upmost characteristics of this SIG have been highlighted during our survey and SoA analysis:
• Wide range / High numbers of stakeholders
• SG adoption is generally welcome and already well assessed in many different applications
• There are very interested and active users, most related to Defense and Government Forces
and Agencies (e.g., MoDs, Police, Fire dept., airports, etc.)
In order to make this SoA study more sound, a selected number of significant games have been
taken as a reference in the fields of interest; they are representative examples of the results of the
analysis of SoA/SG current status [1]:
- Cultural Awareness (Afghanistan Pre-deployment) [2]
- Boarders Ahoy! [3]
- OpenSea [4]
- Siqur [5]
- RescueSim [6]
- ADMS [7]
Topic
High realism and high fidelity
Relevance/priority
(on a 1-5 scale)
SoA/ SG Current
Status description
(with references)
4 (high but not top, as if you exaggerate with realism and fidelity you risk to
make the game too difficult to play, too expensive, even boring)
High realism and high fidelity is a traditional topic in these fields of application
[8]. The main reason is the high risk correlated to the applications: non-realistic
game scenarios may mean not only uselessness but even dramatic
consequences, such as risk for life.
However, the need for a balance among reality, meaning and play spheres is
recognized [9][10] in order to make the game both useful and meaningful,
especially from training point of view.
Users in security and crisis management application fields are the most
demanding within the SIG on this topic. On security, in particular, SGs are
Requirements
Opportunities
SoA Gaps (if any)
requested to train either staff or troops belonging to Armed Forces at
operational level, but also at tactical/strategic, high level [2,3,4]. These SGs
must achieve a high degree of realism on points where the training is focused.
If these points are uncertain when the architecture of the SG is designed, or if
they are subject to change as training is expanded, then it means that a high
degree of realism must be achieved more generally throughout many
elements of the SG. When carried to cover the widest possible training
objectives, this ultimately means very high-fidelity, including detailed physical
modeling, scalable multi-player capabilities, and often also refined 3D
graphical scene rendering and its specialized hardware striving for the ideal of
full immersion. Most of these requirements are shared by users interested in
crisis management, most of who, though, are not interested in specialized
hardware.
At the present, high realism and high fidelity are generally achieved through:
 sophisticated 3D graphics (such as VBS2-derived games such as Boarders
Ahoy!; OpenSea Tactical Theatre Simulator; RescueSim, etc.);
 integration of refined mathematical/ physical models (events, sound, etc.)
and use of real data (previously collected) to give realistic inputs to a player
(OpenSea and RescueSim);
 involvement of real experts/actors on the field in the design phase
(OpenSea, ADMS, RescueSim);
 supply of dedicated hardware man-machine interfaces (e.g., ship bridge
consoles in OpenSea).
Identified user wishes to further increase realism&fidelity are:
 Better human perception, for example through:


Topic
o
Man-machine interfaces equipped with more multi-media tools /
hardware and more physical devices/tools, either real or phantoms in
order to increase human perception and player’s immersion
o
More real data from sensors (radar, sonar, cameras, etc.)
More extensive use of non linear mechanisms and artificial intelligence
More realistic crowded scenarios, in particular, more realistic dynamic
modeling of crowds in terms of natural movements of single elements of a
crowd (ADMS represents a significant example of attempt to solve the
problem, but with not fully satisfactory results)
Interoperability and standardization
Relevance/priority 4
(on a 1-5 scale)
The relevance has been found to be high, but this requirement is not totally
general. In some cases mainly in security field, users ask for heavy use of
dedicated hardware, which cannot be always combined with interoperability.
Hence, in general, different games respond to different requirements (e.g.,
Afghanistan Pre-deployment course vs. OpenSea).
SoA/ SG Current
Standardization enables the accomplishment of various goals, such as technical
Status description performance, learning effectiveness, better performance in development,
(with references)
broadness of distribution with on-line/remote access of games, and improved
quality in educational environments.
Standards and interoperability have become an explicit goal in national and
Requirements
Opportunities
SoA Gaps (if any)
international initiatives of Serious Games (SG) research, industry, and policy
[11] because the advantages associated with them are massive: they foster
innovation and competition, enhance diversity, give consumers choice, and can
lead to unexpected benefits over time [12]. In the technical context of serious
games, interoperability concerns the ability to transfer and make useful data
and other information across systems, applications, or components [13]. Up to
now, there is little research related to the interoperability between SGs and
LMS platforms, most of them use the SCORM (Sharable Content Object
Reference Model) specification to package and deploy web-based SGs and to
send and receive information from the LMS. Up to now, there is no
standardized specification or standard to integrate desktop games with an LMS
platform [11]; however there is a research trend related to the SCORM High
Level Architecture (HLA), which aims at integrating training simulation software
with an LMS [14][15].
Serious Games, unlike entertainment games, necessitates the implementation
of specific educational and technical requirements related to pedagogical
constructs, learners’ assessment and standardization.
For SG users interoperability corresponds to the ability to transfer and make
useful data and other information across systems of different nature,
applications, or components.
The application of standards and interoperability is seen to have the potential
to improve ease of development and use, while lowering overall cost.
Within GALA, MAN has addressed the role of standardization and the
interoperability between SG and Learning Management Systems (LMS).
A case study on the implementation of the “Cultural Awareness Training Afghanistan” game on the ILIAS platform (Integrated Learning, Information and
Work Cooperation System) of the “Carol I” National University of Defence
(MAN) in Romania has been carried out. The Cultural Awareness Training is
part of the Afghanistan Pre-Deployment Course developed by the Joint
Advanced Distributed Learning and Simulation Section, NATO Allied Command
Transformation. The ILIAS platform is an open source web-based learning
management system (LMS) – compliant with standards such as SCORM 1.2 and
2004, LOM, AICC, QTI, XML - that supports learning content management and
tools for collaboration, communication, evaluation and assessment. The main
aim of MAN’s work is to highlight the advantages and the restrictions of
implementing a SCORM compliant game into an LMS, in order to provide
practice-based guidance to game developers.
Up to now, there is little research related to the interoperability between SGs
and LMS platforms.
Up to now, there is no standardized specification or standard to integrate
desktop games with an LMS platform.
Serious Games and LMSs require further attention, in order to explore and
employ their full capacity within learning environments. Interoperability
initiatives, such as between SCORM compliant games and LMSs, although not
universally accepted, can have a significant impact on serious games
development.
Eventually, this and other interoperability standards should evolve to a level
that enables developers to create and integrate serious games more quickly
and easily and reduce needless duplication of effort.
Topic
Multiple player mode
Relevance/priority
(on a 1-5 scale)
SoA/ SG Current
Status description
(with references)
3
Requirements
Opportunities
SoA Gaps (if any)
This topic is particularly highlighted by stakeholders involved in crisis
management, and partially in security (mainly at strategic/tactical level [4]),
where a lot of actors of different kinds play an important role and must
cooperate [6] towards a common goal.
Training to cooperation
Possibility to have multiple players, possibly with different roles in the game
Possibility for the players to cooperate towards a common goal
Possibility to have players at different hierarchical levels (e.g., strategic role,
resource manager, operational role)
Possibility for the players to interact not (or not only) through the computer
(or the game platform in general), but directly between humans, for example
by talking.
Possibility to play through a network (e.g., a LAN, internet, etc.)
There are very interesting, refined and advanced games in the field that satisfy
most of present requirements. Significant examples are RescueSim and ADMS.
The possibility to play in a cooperative way can be provided either in a
classroom (RescueSim), or remotely (Reckon&Choose! [16]).
One of the most interesting user wishes recorded during our surveys is the
possibility of interacting among players not (or not only) through the computer
(or the game platform in general), but directly. This is not available in present
games at our knowledge. Given the high technological potential (multi-media)
available nowadays, this gap might be filled in the future (possible idea, voice
recording, interpretation and translation into the game, while two players talk
together).
Topic
Feedback & Performance Assessment
Relevance/priority
(on a 1-5 scale)
SoA/ SG Current
Status description
(with references)
5
Methodological assessment of performance is not very frequently reported in
literature in the case of security applications.
It usually comes from general approaches (see for example the Appendix on
possible structures for research in debriefing reported in [17]).
The most common approach to analyse the effectiveness of SGs in the security,
safety and crisis management fields is a simple test after the game session or a
debriefing session among stakeholders [18] or between students and tutor.
However the number of SGs is increasing, which have got as significant
features a direct, simultaneous feedback during the game session and a final
assessment of the player’s performances.
As abovementioned, interoperability makes assessment easier and remotely
available [11] and is highly recommended.
An interesting example is the module of Cultural awareness in Afghanistan
pre-deployment course [2]: a risk indicator appears every time the player
makes a decision which immediately indicates the correctness of that decision.
On the other hand, the final assessment is not detailed, just a quick summary
of what happened.
In other cases [5] feedback and assessment are achieved by measuring during
Requirements
Opportunities
SoA Gaps (if any)
the game several parameters, such as needed time, number of tasks
completed, percentage of completeness, etc., and providing the player with a
more detailed assessment report at the end of the game. This implies logging
at least some of the player’s actions along the game.
A complete logging of occurred events is much less frequent (very good
examples are the logging capabilities provided by VBS2 platform).
Appropriate feedback during the play session (simultaneous feedback).
Simultaneous complete logging of player’s actions.
Adequate information level (“useful and effective” for most of users means:
not verbose, details on demand, simple but focused hints, etc.)
Hierarchy of information details:
- General: always available
- More detailed: available on demand (e.g., through pop-ups)
A general feedback and assessment at the end of the game, with percentage of
completion, measurement of learning progress with respect to the initial
knowledge of the player
Interoperability
Non-invasive measurement of physiological indicators
As an interesting, recent case study, related to capabilities of logging and
computerized debriefing is represented by the recent application of a logging
tool (NISIDA+) to MSTPA, the MultiStatic Tactical Planning Aid [20] developed
at CMRE with a view to providing both scientists and operational personnel a
powerful, configurable tool in order to assess the performance of (multistatic)
sonar sensor configurations. Through Nisida+ software package, developed at
CMRE in late 2012, the players can play back all their actions/decisions with
the aid of a specific graphical interface, and, hence, check and discuss their
performance with their tutor/trainer.
Possibility to measure learning progress with respect to the initial knowledge
of the player
Physiological/neurological parameters to measure in a non-invasive way during
the game (through the application of specific sensors, dedicated hardware and
software systems): measurement of attention, stress, tiredness, brain activity,
etc. Equipment and devices exist but are rarely applied to SGs (of course also
due to cost issues)
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
A. Tesei, A. Barbieri and R. Kessel, “Survey on Serious Games applied to security, safety and
crisis management: User requirements, present solutions and envisaged possible
improvements,” in Procs. of VS-Games2012 Int. Conf., Genoa, Oct. 2012.
http://adlunap.ro
www.vbsworlds.com
Kessel R. HPT2E Contextual Read Ahead. NURC Report 2012.
www.siqur.com
www.rescuesim.com
www.trainingfordisastermanagement.com
Caspian Learning, “Serious games in defence education,” UK MoD Report, Crown Copyright,
2008.
C. Harteveld, R. Guimarães, I.S. Mayer, and R. Bidarra, “Balancing Play, Meaning and Reality:
The Design Philosophy of LEVEE PATROLLER,” Simulation & Gaming, 41(3) 316–340, 2010.
C. Harteveld, “Making Sense of Virtual Risks. A Quasi-Experimental Investigation into GameBased Training,” PhD Thesis at TUD, Delft, Dec. 2012.
A. Ştefan, I. Roceanu, D. Beligan, A. Tesei, A. Barbieri, “Standards in practice: a serious game
perspective,” in Procs. of the 9th Scientific Conf. eLearning and Software Education,
Bucharect, April 20013 (in press)
J. Palfrey, U. Gasser, “Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems.” New
York, Basic Books, 2012.
I.A. Stănescu, Roceanu I., A. Ştefan, I. Martinez-Ortiz, “Principles of Serious Games
Interoperability,” in Procs. of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning, 2011.
T. Carron, J.-C. Marty, J.-M. Heraud, ”Teaching with game-based learning management
systems: Exploring a pedagogical dungeon,” Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 39, pp. 353-378, 2008.
P. Moreno-Ger, D. Burgos, J. Torrente, ”Digital Games in eLearning Environments: Current
Uses and Emerging Trends,” Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 40, pp. 669-687, 2009.
http://l4s.fvaweb.eu
D. Crookall, “Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline,” Simulation &
Gaming, 41(6) 898 –920, 2010.
D. Christoff, G. Eves, “Considerations for Serious Games use in safety culture improvement in
the resources industry,” Procs. of SimTecT Conference, 2008.
I. Roceanu, D. Beligan, A. Tesei, “Measureing learning impact of serious games in military
training,” accepted for ITEC2013 Int. Conf., The International Forum for the Military Education,
Training and Simulation Sectors, Rome, May 2013.
C. Strode, M. Oddone and M. Leonard, “Development of a real-time multistatic ASW
simulation facility at the NATO Undersea Research Centre,” NURC Internal Report NURC-FR2011-005, Sept. 2011.