Some Level Up thoughts

I've finally caught up a bit from my trip to Utrecht and figure now is a good time to sneak in a conference report while most of the group is in New York for the State of Play conference (which I really look forward to hearing about). As has been mentioned a few places the conference was great and it was terrific to meet up with so many interesting researchers. The keynotes and papers were good, though I admit wanting to see a bit more diversity in what is framed as the major questions of the field. I've been thinking about the imagined user who haunts the central approaches. I confess this is more an impression than a fully researched argument but I often feel that some of the meta-debates leave the terrain of the actual user, and actual practice, a bit undetailed and without context. There is structure, there are rules, there are stories, there are texts... and real players, culture, industry, etc. seem to inhabit a kind of unarticulated hidden space. Might it be that there is a third set of meta-concerns, approaches, methodologies so far a bit absent - not in practice but in terms of foregrounding - that can inform the field more actively? The common points of departure, "game" and "story", which have structured much of the concerns thus far could be broadened out to include the player (and culture), meaningfully described/analyzed/theorized. Just to be clear, this is in no way meant as a slight of what we have so far, but maybe it's time for things like sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology, law, history, etc to emerge more strongly. I suppose, of course, I'm preaching to the choir a bit by writing this here. It's been great to see work in those fields turns up at recent conferences and journals and I look forward to when we begin to see these approaches shape some of the meta-debates in game studies. I briefly ran my thoughts by Espen (sharing an office is handy that way) and he didn't disagree, even suggesting (with a kind of playful seriousness) that what is needed is a "second paradigm conflict." Heh, I'm not sure that I'd go that far but it's an interesting issue. Is game studies at a place (or should it be) where central theoretical/methodological frameworks can be fruitfully added to by the social/human sciences? How can, and does, the work of those of us in these fields effect some of the theoretical debates we have been encountering thus far? How are concepts, approaches, frameworks that often dominate the field challenged/supported/extended by the inclusion of this type of work? And just as importantly, what is lost or goes missing when we don't foreground work in the social/human sciences? He of course pointed out that the burden for such a thing rests with those of us doing work in the area and I certainly agree. I wonder too though how such an endeavor can be supported structurally. I think we are seeing good inclusions in the Game Studies journal for example, and tracks at various conferences where such work is presented. It will be interesting to see if there is some way the dichotomization of the theoretical terrain can be unsettled a little.

To this end I will just mention some work at the conference I found particularly interesting. A group of researchers from Taiwan - Holin Lin, Chuen-Tsai Sun, Honghong Tinn, Chheng-Hong Ho - presented several papers on the social context of games including Lineage and Ragnarok Online. Sun/Lin/Ho's paper "Game Tips as a Gift" was particularly interesting in that it explored console gamers widespread use of strategy guides/walk-thrus and located their production and circulation in various social networks. We have examples of the way playing MMOGs is a fundamentally social activity but I think it's quite interesting to situate console gaming in a similar context. I wonder, does anyone actually game alone? And are the boundaries of cheating quite messy when we start seeing the widespread use (across genres and platforms) of things like hints, tips, walk-thrus, guides, etc.? I've begun to think that defining "game space" too narrowly misses the ways gaming is only possible because of these larger contexts. It certainly seems the case that a good number of games and genres are only playable, or are the most enjoyable, when all kinds of "extra-game" practices and knowledge get used. In this regard, the panel on participatory culture with Andrew Mactavish, Sue Morris, and Cindy Poremba, was very good. The presenters focused not on MMOGs but on FPS's, The Sims, and modding culture. Each detailed out fascinating ways players are involved in what Sue calls "co-creative" media - where playing the game fundamentally rests on a mix of player/company technologies and practices. Mactavish presented some great points not only about the ways the modding community is supported through tools, but simultaneously kept in check through them (and EULAs) as well. Without watering down important differences, I came away from Level Up thinking that a lot of what we've been talking about in relation to MMOGs is happening in variations amongst the FPS and console community as well and that they all stand as important examples for making sure we include actual players/cultures as part of the theoretical foundations the field gets built on.

Comments

[Brian 'Psychochild' Green]

1.

T.L. Taylor wrote, "I wonder, does anyone actually game alone?"

I don't think so. It's been said a number of times that games are a primarily social concept. People made a great deal about the fact that the "solo" play found in computer games was a step back from the usually social play in other games. Solitaire games were always something you did to pass the time until you could find a group to play a "real" game.

Looking at my own life, however, gaming has always been a social activity. I was/am the typical introverted geek that doesn't go out of his way to socialize. Maybe I sat by myself while actually playing the game, but gaming also gave me the opportunity to interact with other people when I might not have otherwise. I traded Atari 2600 cartridges with my friends in the neighborhood. I chatted with my best friend about the latest RPG I was tackling. I even put in half the cost with a friend to buy a "guide" for an RPG on the Nintendo.

Even now I spend a lot of time discussing games with my peers. I chat with other developers about game ideas and observations. The transition to developer didn't harm the social aspects of gaming for me, I guess. :)

In short, I think the stereotype of the computer gamer as some lonely geek sitting in a basement bathed in the glow of the monitor was outdated from the time it was created. I think that computer gaming has always been a social activity, even if the socialization happens at a meta level instead of while playing the game.

My thoughts and observations,

[Slyfeind]

2.

I observed this, too, when my family and I were in Reno several years back. We were all playing slot machines, when at one point, my brother and I broke off to play some blackjack.

Both being MMOG and tabletop gamers, suddenly we were at home.

Ultimately, the difference between a slot machine and a blackjack dealer is the slot machine is an automated generator of random numbers, while the dealer is a human generator of random numbers. Not much difference in terms of gameplay, but night-and-day when regarding the environment.

[Scott McMillin]

3.

Slyfeind:

I was thinking that you and your family playing slot machines was more akin to PvE -- the social aspect being that you were playing the game(s) together. While maybe Black Jack, Poker, etc. is more akin to PvP.

I don't think it matters that you're playing against a human -- just that you're playing *with* other humans. Either way it's still a social experience.

Scott

[rodriguezmark]

4.

i hav been scam by by a swordsman named "Jecca"
my bunny band and may two clip of flash was taken away...
i want it back..
can you get those for me plsss...

thanks

[ryan]

5.

sssssssssssss