It’s the final installment of the blog series and makes a few summations as well as provides the grid that you ask for.

The statements are observational and not research-based, but the distinctions between the generations are based on widely understood characteristics that are collected from a variety of published resources.

The article series is addressing a stereotype that proliferates the use of games and simulations for learning; that only games and simulations are appropriate for the younger generations. Some of that is just stereotypical and some is based off the results of current game design trends and strategies.

My attempt in writing the series was to consider and discuss whether there can be design considerations in games and sims that address the possibility that different generations view and experience games differently.

I apologize if the information was presented as research-based. It definitely is not, but rather some points to ponder as we address feedback about the lack of interest/appropriateness in games and simulations from older generations.

Certainly, the distinction is individual, but group characteristics are used to make decisions in a variety of business arenas. This is just another attempt to use the accessibility of group characteristics to design for the individual.

Thanks again for your comments. I’d love to hear about your experiences designing games for multi-generational audiences. What feedback have you encountered? What design techniques have you used to address the viewpoints of the different generations?

Put all the generations into a grid so it is easy to compare and contrast — I think that is the point you are after. Since this deals only with booomers, you have only 1/3 or 1/4 of your picture painted.

I you don’t have any real research to support the boomer description, what research do you have to support the conclusions you draw? Your opinions may be very informative, but it would help to distinguish facts from opinions.

Finally, I am not sure that the distinction between generations is as remarkable as the distinction among individuals in terms of responding to games and simulations.

Like any generalizations they will not fit every individual. You may find that you have more in common with the GenXers (stay tuned for the next blog post in this series), depending on whether you are on the edge of the generation timeframe or what your specific experiences have been.

Would you agree that you do not have as much experience with games, engage in them the same way that younger generations might and/or have reservations that games and simulations can be valuable learning tools – perhaps better than face-to-face instruction in some cases?

I’ll admit that for some generational characteristics I’m trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, but the intent is to think beyond the common dialogue that games are only for the younger generations. I’m attempting to indicate that in fact games can be beneficial for all learners, but that certain considerations might need to be taken into account based on the generation. I’m trying to connect those considerations based on the generational characteristics . . . to support more use of games and simulations for Boomer audiences and well thought implementations that take into consideration how Boomers work, play and live – and may react to games for learning as a result.

Thanks for the comment. I’m sure you work with some Xers and Yers. I hope you’ll follow the series and comment on your thoughts about the other generation’s characteristics and how they relate to game design and implementation.