Topic: Interesting NYT Article
Started by: Nathan P.
Started on: 2/26/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 2/26/2004 at 4:05pm, Nathan P. wrote:
Interesting NYT Article
Hey all
For you online NYT subscribers (its free to sign up if you're not already), this is an interesting article:
The Ivy-Covered Console
It's about how video game studies are struggling towards academic acceptance, and has a couple passages that I think are interesting from a RPG perspective also. I'll pull out some quotes later, I'm in a rush now...
Thank you for your time,
Nathan P.
On 2/26/2004 at 5:54pm, John Kim wrote:
Re: Interesting NYT Article
Here's some quotes for discussion:
In fact, video games have long been a focus of academic study. In 1985 Mary Ann Buckles wrote what is considered to be the first dissertation about a computer game. During the 1980's and 1990's, psychologists and sociologists studied the links between games and violence, and which features of games attracted more boys than girls. Researchers came to games from disparate fields: computer science, literary studies and film studies.
But since 2000, game studies has begun carving out its own territory. Universities in both the United States and Europe offer graduate programs in game studies, and conferences devoted to games, like the one at Princeton, are becoming more common. A professional organization, the Digital Game Researchers Association (www .digra.org), links developers with academic researchers. Scholars can publish in three peer-reviewed journals and contribute to game studies Web logs (ludology.org, ludonauts.com, terranova.blogs.com and buzzcut.com). The field's snappy new name is ludology, from ludus, Latin for game.
Now game critics are rephrasing the fundamental questions that Aristotle gave to literary studies about 2,300 years ago: What is the purpose of a game? How do we describe the experience of playing a game, or game play?
Others say that games need a Shakespeare, someone who can catapult the digital medium forward. "But Aristotle was one of the things that helped create Shakespeare," said Janet Murray, who teaches game design and interactive media at Georgia Institute of Technology, the first American university to offer a Ph.D. in humanities-based digital media. "Putting those things together, the analysis of games with a tradition of storytelling, trying to have a critical vocabulary of games that will help raise the standards of practice."
Aristotle might begin by asking, "What is a game?" To answer, critics point to a spectrum of games from abstract to narrative, with Tetris at one end and Grand Theft Auto on the other. Yet The Sims or Sim City, which a player neither wins nor loses, leaves critics divided, as does EverQuest, if one requires that a game have a definite endpoint. (As its title suggests, EverQuest can be played perpetually.) To further complicate the definition, the linear quest game Half-Life has only one course of action, giving a player no influence over the final outcome. Does that make it a game, or merely a story disguised as a game?
On 2/26/2004 at 7:50pm, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: Re: Interesting NYT Article
Yup, those were the passages that attracted my eye.
What this story really drove home to me, though, is the difference in popular perception between video games and RPGs (in the United States, at least). Every time I tell non-RPG players that I design games, they ask me what platform it's for. When I explain what I mean, they usually respond "Oh, like...whats that thing called...Dungeons and something?" with a little hesitence, like it's taboo.
I guess it bugs me that video games are given higher status/recognition in popular culture than RPGs, despite their similarities - especially because I personally consider RPGs to be a superior hobby or past-time. Why is this? What is about video games that gives them a more positive aura, or conversely, what is it about RPGs that give them a more negative one?
If this has come up in the past, go ahead and point me to other threads.
Extending the comparison - if video games are moving, however jerkily or slowly, to being considered a legitimate academic discipline, does this open the door to the same thing for RPGs? I'm sure Ron could give a damn good class on the Creative Agenda and RPG design, as could a number of the other theorists on the Forge alone. Does it strike anyone as likely, or plausable, that we could be seeing RPG theorists "come out" in academia?
If not, what is about RPGs that make them in-eligable for academic recognition? Is there something intrinsic in structure or content, or is a function of social pressure?
I guess these are issues that I find important/interesting, and I'd like to see some discussion about them.
Thank you for your time,
Nathan P.
On 2/26/2004 at 8:24pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: Interesting NYT Article
Nathan P. wrote: I guess it bugs me that video games are given higher status/recognition in popular culture than RPGs, despite their similarities - especially because I personally consider RPGs to be a superior hobby or past-time. Why is this? What is about video games that gives them a more positive aura, or conversely, what is it about RPGs that give them a more negative one?
I think this one is pretty simple. Video games are more popular -- thus (1) they are more familiar to most people, (2) they have more money and thus higher production values, and (3) they have greater interplay back and forth with mainstream culture. Moreover, academic cultural studies people want to look at mainstream cultural phenomena more than small subcultures -- because what they're interested in is broad trends. And getting recognized by non-cultural-studies people (like literary studies) is much much harder.
Nathan P. wrote: Extending the comparison - if video games are moving, however jerkily or slowly, to being considered a legitimate academic discipline, does this open the door to the same thing for RPGs? I'm sure Ron could give a damn good class on the Creative Agenda and RPG design, as could a number of the other theorists on the Forge alone. Does it strike anyone as likely, or plausable, that we could be seeing RPG theorists "come out" in academia?
In the future, maybe. For right now -- no. Video games are not really recognized as a legitimate academic discipline, as the article emphasizes. Palmer and Bellin who organized the conference cited in the article are not professors -- Bellin is a graduate student, and Palmer has a PhD but isn't in academia per se. Anyone can organize a conference -- I've done one with other grad students at Fermilab, for example.
What can be done in the meantime is to organize -- just like the video game studies people like Bellin and Palmer have done. Publish articles and books on the subject, panels at RPG conventions, and perhaps eventually a conference unto itself. One might look at sharing with other game studies people as well -- especially crossover with MUDs and MMORPGs which are very similar to tabletop. I think the Solmukohta book is a good step, for example.
On 2/26/2004 at 10:59pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Interesting NYT Article
For right now -- no. Video games are not really recognized as a legitimate academic discipline, as the article emphasizes.Too true, unfortunately. Like certain other degrees taught at universities it seems that teaching video game design is considered something like an advanced trade. Not something that needs any academic debate, but instead something you just teach by rote.
We're getting there, but there's a ways to go.
Mike
On 2/27/2004 at 2:17pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Interesting NYT Article
The difference is "serious money". Some games have budgets approaching those of hollywood movies these days, and obviously a medium that bigs attracts attention, interest and investigation.
On 2/27/2004 at 2:31pm, Loki wrote:
RE: Interesting NYT Article
I think some of the "icky" factor with role-playing games is the idea that a bunch of adults getting together and playing make-believe is somehow immature. Not to mention it's not something most people are comfortable doing--hell, most people aren't comfortable speaking in public, let alone having to play a role.
Video games are more accesible because they're easier to get into: they involve manual dexterity, hand-eye coordination, etc. These are all skills that everyone has, to some degree. And if they don't have them, it's not considered a major flaw, so there's nothing to lose by trying. Meanwhile, performance is something most people haven't done much of--but putting on a terrible performance is an embarrassment. People don't like to fail big.
On 2/27/2004 at 2:31pm, Vishanti wrote:
RE: Re: Interesting NYT Article
Nathan P. wrote: I guess it bugs me that video games are given higher status/recognition in popular culture than RPGs, despite their similarities.
Sensate bias.
Video games offer sights, sounds, and competition based on physical skills -- hand-eye coordination, reaction time, sense of rhythm. Sensate personalities dominate the population, so video games directly appeal to a large market. Especially as tech advances the realism of such games.
RPGs are imaginative activities. Nothing tangible, just make-believe stuff. Imagination and intellectual skills are not highly regarded, so these activities aren't either.
The two hobbies aren't as similar as you might think.
On 2/28/2004 at 2:35am, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: Interesting NYT Article
All sensable reasonings. I guess I'll just keep on wishing for a time when RPGs will be more than a niche market...
Thank you for your time,
Nathan P.
On 2/29/2004 at 7:31am, Eric J. wrote:
RE: Interesting NYT Article
One thing that hasn't been said is that video games are much easier.
Look at it this way: How much time does it take to organise everything and prepare for a good game?
How long does it take to turn on a TV and a console?
There you have it.
Here's something that someone posted on the Forge once:
http://www.gamespy.com/fargo/august03/realrpg/index.shtml
I think that the two medians are fairly similar. They both have RPGs. They both atract a similar audience.
Those are just my ideas.
May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron