The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really bugs me about the game development community is the constant drive towards some sort of academic dissection of the medium. Narratology/simulation theories, endless wheezing on the likes of gamasutra.com and ludology.org are examples of what I mean.
What I don't understand is why the games theorists are so stale. To me, videogames is the new music. It's all about trial and error, good games and bad games, and trying to take a bunch of elements and create something. Like a band with a bunch of instruments, a games company takes various elements like art, design, music, animation and weaves them all together into what they hope will be a good game. Kind of like a band with an album.
Game development is a creative endeavour. Yet the academic tone that defines the intellectual upper echelons of gaming serves, in my view, to stifle thought, just like literary theory does for aspiring writers. Most of the theories of ludology and gamasutra etc are not actually all that complex as it is, so they are wearyingly cloaked in that 'academic' style to make them sound stuffed up and important.
I hate it in the same way that I hated studying literary theory because, while it's not bull I feel that it is cloaked in bull. Simple ideas wrapped in cludgy language. Intelligent discussion is one thing. Articles discussing 'Implementing Wittgenstein' are another. I find that they isolate the upper ground, so to speak, just like the more esoteric branches of philosophy.
I guess what I'm asking, admittedly in a long-winded way, is WHY those who would analyse games and gaming for some productive use feel the need to drown it in academic lingo to do so? Is it because of the technical roots of games? Is it because most people involved in game development went to college and think that this is how discussion should be engendered? Is it because some people like to sound smart?
I reckon this overly wordy style has come about as academics try to justify themselves to the public and to others in the academic circle. Years ago, games were thought to be for kids, so perhaps this is why they try to come across as mental giants. I like reading some of the articles - the latest one on Gamasutra about symbolism in games was pretty cool, but I dont feel the need for the verbosity.
Game development is a creative endeavour. As is design.
What one person instintively achieves in design, others can learn from and add to. It takes no accademic to come up with a successful design, but like the very essence of of the discipline, building upon the existing through reflection and understanding is essencial. This is a need for accademia in the design and videogame industry, as students are in the fortunate position to spend considerable amounts of time exploring their discipline; something hard to achieve in the professional world of financial considerations. And with this accumulated knowledge students gain, I can see only benefits for the design and the videogame industry when it becomes assimilated.
I think there is a place for both academic and non-academic styles of work. Studying something and understanding it is important especially when games cost so many millions of pounds to create. If you were looking for financial backing to develop and publish a game, you would find it difficult to persuade investors without some kind of research backing you up. This is why there are so many sequels and film licenses at the moment.
That in itself shows why there is a need for the creative approach. As a games player I don't want to play cack games linked to films. Yes they sell but I find it difficult to think of many good licensed games (Goldeneye is the only one I can grasp at the moment). I would far rather play a game that has original story/characters/gameplay etc. Trouble is that most gamesplayers believe the hype and buy a game because of its link to other products. Unfortunatley games is not a small community of enthusiasts anymore. It is a consumer led industry and you have to wade through thousands of STEPS (RIP) before you find an Aphex Twin.
Thanks for reading,
Mudda
What I don't understand is why the games theorists are so stale. To me, videogames is the new music. It's all about trial and error, good games and bad games, and trying to take a bunch of elements and create something. Like a band with a bunch of instruments, a games company takes various elements like art, design, music, animation and weaves them all together into what they hope will be a good game. Kind of like a band with an album.
Game development is a creative endeavour. Yet the academic tone that defines the intellectual upper echelons of gaming serves, in my view, to stifle thought, just like literary theory does for aspiring writers. Most of the theories of ludology and gamasutra etc are not actually all that complex as it is, so they are wearyingly cloaked in that 'academic' style to make them sound stuffed up and important.
I hate it in the same way that I hated studying literary theory because, while it's not bull I feel that it is cloaked in bull. Simple ideas wrapped in cludgy language. Intelligent discussion is one thing. Articles discussing 'Implementing Wittgenstein' are another. I find that they isolate the upper ground, so to speak, just like the more esoteric branches of philosophy.
I guess what I'm asking, admittedly in a long-winded way, is WHY those who would analyse games and gaming for some productive use feel the need to drown it in academic lingo to do so? Is it because of the technical roots of games? Is it because most people involved in game development went to college and think that this is how discussion should be engendered? Is it because some people like to sound smart?
I reckon this overly wordy style has come about as academics try to justify themselves to the public and to others in the academic circle. Years ago, games were thought to be for kids, so perhaps this is why they try to come across as mental giants. I like reading some of the articles - the latest one on Gamasutra about symbolism in games was pretty cool, but I dont feel the need for the verbosity.
Game development is a creative endeavour. As is design.
What one person instintively achieves in design, others can learn from and add to. It takes no accademic to come up with a successful design, but like the very essence of of the discipline, building upon the existing through reflection and understanding is essencial. This is a need for accademia in the design and videogame industry, as students are in the fortunate position to spend considerable amounts of time exploring their discipline; something hard to achieve in the professional world of financial considerations. And with this accumulated knowledge students gain, I can see only benefits for the design and the videogame industry when it becomes assimilated.
I think there is a place for both academic and non-academic styles of work. Studying something and understanding it is important especially when games cost so many millions of pounds to create. If you were looking for financial backing to develop and publish a game, you would find it difficult to persuade investors without some kind of research backing you up. This is why there are so many sequels and film licenses at the moment.
That in itself shows why there is a need for the creative approach. As a games player I don't want to play cack games linked to films. Yes they sell but I find it difficult to think of many good licensed games (Goldeneye is the only one I can grasp at the moment). I would far rather play a game that has original story/characters/gameplay etc. Trouble is that most gamesplayers believe the hype and buy a game because of its link to other products. Unfortunatley games is not a small community of enthusiasts anymore. It is a consumer led industry and you have to wade through thousands of STEPS (RIP) before you find an Aphex Twin.
Thanks for reading,
Mudda
Damn these people for not responding to an excellent post!
Gaming through the ages were, in the past, written off as a fad and dismissed by academics. Nowadays though, people have realised it's big business and try to dissect the very essence of a game, or what makes a good game. Personally, I think that if you do that, you lose something of the game itself as you're looking at it from a purely cold, analytical, profit making manner, when you're forgetting the most basic of emotion garnished from playing games; games are fun.
So you get all these wild-eyed, bushy-haired academics waxing lyrical about the origins of a game and why it's sold so much or the different production techniques going into a game when they're forgetting what we, the consumers, want from a game. When have you seen a games company put out a mass questionnaire asking for OUR opinion on what we want in a game rather than what they've decided will sell by the bucketloads for us? Not often, that's for sure. Of course, some developers don't need to - they constantly innovate and rekindle a stale format or genre (Nintendo being a main example) but I can understand the point you're trying to make (I hope).
I enjoyed reading that, Mudda. Keep them coming!
Gaming through the ages were, in the past, written off as a fad and dismissed by academics. Nowadays though, people have realised it's big business and try to dissect the very essence of a game, or what makes a good game. Personally, I think that if you do that, you lose something of the game itself as you're looking at it from a purely cold, analytical, profit making manner, when you're forgetting the most basic of emotion garnished from playing games; games are fun.
So you get all these wild-eyed, bushy-haired academics waxing lyrical about the origins of a game and why it's sold so much or the different production techniques going into a game when they're forgetting what we, the consumers, want from a game. When have you seen a games company put out a mass questionnaire asking for OUR opinion on what we want in a game rather than what they've decided will sell by the bucketloads for us? Not often, that's for sure. Of course, some developers don't need to - they constantly innovate and rekindle a stale format or genre (Nintendo being a main example) but I can understand the point you're trying to make (I hope).
I enjoyed reading that, Mudda. Keep them coming!
One thing that really bugs me about the game development community is the constant drive towards some sort of academic dissection of the medium. Narratology/simulation theories, endless wheezing on the likes of gamasutra.com and ludology.org are examples of what I mean.
What I don't understand is why the games theorists are so stale. To me, videogames is the new music. It's all about trial and error, good games and bad games, and trying to take a bunch of elements and create something. Like a band with a bunch of instruments, a games company takes various elements like art, design, music, animation and weaves them all together into what they hope will be a good game. Kind of like a band with an album.
Game development is a creative endeavour. Yet the academic tone that defines the intellectual upper echelons of gaming serves, in my view, to stifle thought, just like literary theory does for aspiring writers. Most of the theories of ludology and gamasutra etc are not actually all that complex as it is, so they are wearyingly cloaked in that 'academic' style to make them sound stuffed up and important.
I hate it in the same way that I hated studying literary theory because, while it's not bull I feel that it is cloaked in bull. Simple ideas wrapped in cludgy language. Intelligent discussion is one thing. Articles discussing 'Implementing Wittgenstein' are another. I find that they isolate the upper ground, so to speak, just like the more esoteric branches of philosophy.
I guess what I'm asking, admittedly in a long-winded way, is WHY those who would analyse games and gaming for some productive use feel the need to drown it in academic lingo to do so? Is it because of the technical roots of games? Is it because most people involved in game development went to college and think that this is how discussion should be engendered? Is it because some people like to sound smart?
I reckon this overly wordy style has come about as academics try to justify themselves to the public and to others in the academic circle. Years ago, games were thought to be for kids, so perhaps this is why they try to come across as mental giants. I like reading some of the articles - the latest one on Gamasutra about symbolism in games was pretty cool, but I dont feel the need for the verbosity.
Game development is a creative endeavour. As is design.
What one person instintively achieves in design, others can learn from and add to. It takes no accademic to come up with a successful design, but like the very essence of of the discipline, building upon the existing through reflection and understanding is essencial. This is a need for accademia in the design and videogame industry, as students are in the fortunate position to spend considerable amounts of time exploring their discipline; something hard to achieve in the professional world of financial considerations. And with this accumulated knowledge students gain, I can see only benefits for the design and the videogame industry when it becomes assimilated.
I think there is a place for both academic and non-academic styles of work. Studying something and understanding it is important especially when games cost so many millions of pounds to create. If you were looking for financial backing to develop and publish a game, you would find it difficult to persuade investors without some kind of research backing you up. This is why there are so many sequels and film licenses at the moment.
That in itself shows why there is a need for the creative approach. As a games player I don't want to play cack games linked to films. Yes they sell but I find it difficult to think of many good licensed games (Goldeneye is the only one I can grasp at the moment). I would far rather play a game that has original story/characters/gameplay etc. Trouble is that most gamesplayers believe the hype and buy a game because of its link to other products. Unfortunatley games is not a small community of enthusiasts anymore. It is a consumer led industry and you have to wade through thousands of STEPS (RIP) before you find an Aphex Twin.
Thanks for reading,
Mudda
What I don't understand is why the games theorists are so stale. To me, videogames is the new music. It's all about trial and error, good games and bad games, and trying to take a bunch of elements and create something. Like a band with a bunch of instruments, a games company takes various elements like art, design, music, animation and weaves them all together into what they hope will be a good game. Kind of like a band with an album.
Game development is a creative endeavour. Yet the academic tone that defines the intellectual upper echelons of gaming serves, in my view, to stifle thought, just like literary theory does for aspiring writers. Most of the theories of ludology and gamasutra etc are not actually all that complex as it is, so they are wearyingly cloaked in that 'academic' style to make them sound stuffed up and important.
I hate it in the same way that I hated studying literary theory because, while it's not bull I feel that it is cloaked in bull. Simple ideas wrapped in cludgy language. Intelligent discussion is one thing. Articles discussing 'Implementing Wittgenstein' are another. I find that they isolate the upper ground, so to speak, just like the more esoteric branches of philosophy.
I guess what I'm asking, admittedly in a long-winded way, is WHY those who would analyse games and gaming for some productive use feel the need to drown it in academic lingo to do so? Is it because of the technical roots of games? Is it because most people involved in game development went to college and think that this is how discussion should be engendered? Is it because some people like to sound smart?
I reckon this overly wordy style has come about as academics try to justify themselves to the public and to others in the academic circle. Years ago, games were thought to be for kids, so perhaps this is why they try to come across as mental giants. I like reading some of the articles - the latest one on Gamasutra about symbolism in games was pretty cool, but I dont feel the need for the verbosity.
Game development is a creative endeavour. As is design.
What one person instintively achieves in design, others can learn from and add to. It takes no accademic to come up with a successful design, but like the very essence of of the discipline, building upon the existing through reflection and understanding is essencial. This is a need for accademia in the design and videogame industry, as students are in the fortunate position to spend considerable amounts of time exploring their discipline; something hard to achieve in the professional world of financial considerations. And with this accumulated knowledge students gain, I can see only benefits for the design and the videogame industry when it becomes assimilated.
I think there is a place for both academic and non-academic styles of work. Studying something and understanding it is important especially when games cost so many millions of pounds to create. If you were looking for financial backing to develop and publish a game, you would find it difficult to persuade investors without some kind of research backing you up. This is why there are so many sequels and film licenses at the moment.
That in itself shows why there is a need for the creative approach. As a games player I don't want to play cack games linked to films. Yes they sell but I find it difficult to think of many good licensed games (Goldeneye is the only one I can grasp at the moment). I would far rather play a game that has original story/characters/gameplay etc. Trouble is that most gamesplayers believe the hype and buy a game because of its link to other products. Unfortunatley games is not a small community of enthusiasts anymore. It is a consumer led industry and you have to wade through thousands of STEPS (RIP) before you find an Aphex Twin.
Thanks for reading,
Mudda