Gaming Literacy

And the second post for this week follows...

Readings:

Getting into the Game: Doing Multidisciplinary Game Studies, Frans Mäyrä
Re: Gaming Literacy, Eric Zimmerman

In chapter 16 of The Video Game Theory Reader II, Frans Mäyrä states in “Getting into the Game: Doing Multidisciplinary Game Studies” that the main argument of his essay is to discuss that “since games involve both representations and actions,” – similar Frasca’s simulation, perhaps (discussed more in detail in the below post), “both variously coded structures and their actual instantiation during the performance of play, there is an inherent need for multi- and interdisciplinary collaboration in the area of game studies.” This is rather refreshing to read.

Further, “Doing papers that are “pure ludology,” or rooted only in the discussions within the core field of contemporary game studies are not necessarily within the interest of any such established discipline.” I'd be curious to see a concrete evaluation of what the "core field" of contemporary game studies are, but I can agree that ludology would be in there somewhere. Mäyrä ultimately (and perhaps someone unhelpfully) concludes that the game studies field “can best maintain its interdisciplinary role by strengthening its disciplinary self-image.” However, Mäyrä also realizes the possible paradox here. Namely, the “discipline” of game studies is not exactly concrete or transparent, as I mentioned a sentence or so ago.

I personally realize and respect that ludological explanations and approaches likely evolved out of a desire to avoid purely literary (post-structural, perhaps?) evaluations of games. There is much to be said concerning formal and rule-oriented approaches towards video games (and thus I simplify ludology terribly), but I wonder if subverting traditional, literary approaches necessitate tossing aside the alternatives (narrative?) completely? In fact, I disagree intensely, though I'm also not about to declare narratology as the complete answer, either.

In the same text, Eric Zimmerman introduces an idea of Gaming Literacy, which “games,” or exploits, taking clear advantage of “literacy, bending and breaking rules, playing with our notions of what literacy has been and can be.” And I agree that traditional methods of evaluation may not be entirely appropriate, though are they really anathema? According to Zimmerman, Gaming Literacy does not address “the meaning that only arise within the magic circle of a game, it asks how games relates to the world outside of the magic circle – how game-playing and game design can be seen as models for learning and action in the real world." Rather than peering so heavily inward, Zimmerman does have a point that selling game studies as something of value may depend on how the game-play as a whole can be explained as a representation of what's going on in the world around the game. Could this be a core aspect of game studies? At the very least, I don't think it should be ignored.

Still, this is a very humanistic approach to evaluating games, and does seem to view them as representational to some degree – but it doesn’t exclude action or simulation either (assuming Frasca's argument that simulation is not representational, which I disagree with; see below). The entire process of “playing, understanding, and designing games all embody crucial ways of looking at and being in the world.” Mäyrä’s point that game studies is preoccupied in attempting to justify itself as a meaningful field is powerful, as is his observation that the field often has trouble attracting funding for “research in theoretically-oriented subjects related to games” because the medium still maintains a questionable stigma as "low" subject matter. Gaming Literacy and interdisciplinary work certainly could be some possible answers to this.