It has been a long time since I've seen a Scholastic flyer, but from what I hear they've diversified, putting games in the mix as well as the books that were the flyer's mainstay. Some people have a problem with this, including David Staples of the Leader Post, who argues that games have no place in such a catalog. I do not agree with him, and feel that his view is based on an antiquated viewpoint of the medium. While some titles are inappropriate for an educational context, other titles would be a great addition. Some titles can be the equivalent of a choose your own adventure book, or tell a story interrupted by some problem solving. The hyper-addictive Professor Layton series, for instance, is all about solving word and visual puzzles, and is much better than books of the same, because you can't cheat and just look up the answer when frustrated. It is also a reminder of how far we have come in the years since I was a kid.
I say this because I wouldn't be comfortable putting most of the games I played back in school in a Scholastic flyer. This is not because they were bad, necessarily, but instead because if we are supposed to encourage reading, we need to include products that are written in a coherent manner. This does not describe most of the games that I played as a child. In those days, most of the good games came from Japan, but the people in Japan were less than interested in markets outside their home country. The end result was most of the games had translations which were rushed out and barely coherent.
In some ways, this has been useful. The ability to read text that is strung together quite poorly has made it easy to comprehend texts and messages from those who do not have the best command of language. On the other hand, if you're trying to teach a kid the love of reading, it is best to give them text that is actually readable. While I enjoyed the games of my youth immensely, I have to admit they would be inappropriate in a school setting, unless one was trying to teach a kid how to proof read.
The Professor Layton series, which I mentioned earlier, would simply not have happened in my youth, because there's no way that a company would take the time to translate such a text-intensive game for a North American audience. If they did, it would be impossible to play, because puzzles based on wordplay don't survive bad translations. The work done on that series is evident, it takes a year to get installments ready to cross the seas and the quality of translation makes it difficult to tell it originated in another, very different language.
That level of quality makes me much more willing to endorse games in an educational context. Yes, it has to be the right games, something focused on reading and puzzle solving rather than just an average action title. It is on Scholastic themselves to ensure the titles in question are appropriate for the context and keep within the school-centric setting that the catalog needs. But to say that games don't belong in the catalog at all is just wrong. Fifteen years ago I may have been more inclined to agree, or at least, the sensible, older version of myself might. But when I look at games directed towards kids, I see products that are better put together and more appropriate in an educational context. As a result, to say they don't belong is living in the past.
