Academia's Relationship with Games pt. 2

This post is a reflection on the second half of an article on gamespot, "Redefining Games: How Academia is Reshaping the Future of Games". My thoughts on the first half of the article can be found here.

One item that this portion of the article really hits hard is the relationship between the academics studying games and the actual game designers. "I think some of the best academic game studies happen when you're engaged in design, and you're doing this sort of theoretical analysis that allows you to sort of step back, take stock, and try out your theories in design..." notes Mateas. Lowood expands on the two camps, "You have the practical game design community, and you would have scholars working on game studies. And, very often for a more scholoarly type, to gain credibility in the game design community, he/she has to do something that's more akin to designing a game." This makes a lot of sense, and brings up a good issue with our current state of game programs at various institutions. A lot of game programs are either built to produce game developers and designers , while other programs are created for the study of games as a medium (with minimal hands-on application). This is almost like film directors and producers vs. film critics: two camps that don't really help each other out or cross-polinate. Maybe it'd be a better approach to make *all* game programs, whether they be academic or hands-on in nature, provide aspects from each viewpoint. Maybe a hands-on program should force students to take at least 3 courses in game theory and write a paper, from an academic standpoint, on a certain element in a game. Along the same lines, the game studies programs and universities should require that each student produce at least one game prototype...which really shouldn't be that hard with all the mod tools out there.

As someone from academia trying to work with these companies, I sometimes do have trouble establishing credibility. But the biggest issues I've come across is time. Development studios work extremely fast, especially when it is close to ship date, while education...works...extremely...slow...most of the time. The group I work with doesn't fit into the existing EDU model of things, but I do see where studios would be hesitant to work with education folks, when I've heard people refer to EDU as the land of "rainbows and bunnys".

One quote I read, which I'm not sure I agree with, is "...there is still a lack of an equivalent of a publication that does what Rolling Stone magazine did to music -- not just reviews but also writing more about a certain lifestyle." How about Edge magazine? Sure, it is predominantly reviews/previews, but they do a nice job of capturing the essence of the gamer, along with critiqueing games on a somewhat academic platform from time to time. I find this magazine fantastic at not only previewing and reviewing games, but also giving insights into new innovations and ways to critique various game elements.

Another chunk of the article deals with Machinima (which is basically a method of creating short 3D movies in real-time, based from game engines). In terms of using this technique in innovation, Lowood responds "If you're talking about real-time animation, there are things you could do, like think about getting away from this 'third-eye' perspective that movies have given us, to being in the scene in a sense of assuming the point-of-view of any of the characters in the scene." Not to re-hash the ludology/narratology debate, but I think narratology can, and should, be driving the innovation in Machinima. Most examples I have found are done for humor, not deep storytelling. From an educators standpoint, imagine creating a simple movie using, say, the upcoming half-life 2 engine, with all the facial expression capabilities. You're teaching a consulting class, and you script one scenario, and then script all 3 'actors' perspectives into the scenario. Your students can go and watch a team of 2 consultants negotiate with a client, and toggle from each person's view, at the same time 'getting in their head' through some sort of on-screen outputs. Students could see how the consultants are thinking, then acting on those thoughts when speaking, then toggle to the client, and see how the client thinks, etc. Something like this could be a powerful learning experience, if executed properly.

From an educator's viewpoint, this article had some great quotes that reiterates some of the thoughts those of us in the 'serious games' community have been presenting for years. Fasca states "It is perfectly OK to understand the world through interesting and entertaining objects, such as video games. Of course, they should not simply replace othe rmedia, but it is essential that they are given a more important place in our classrooms." And the article concludes with more on academia's contributions to games in the future: "The shopping list of lessons academia teaches us about the future of games goes something like this: Unless imagination is unleashed, innovation will not flourish." A great prompt and for academia and studios to begin working more together vs. seperate to move the entire medium forward into new territory and new audiences.