Recently I've been perusing what few books on computer/video/whatever gaming theory I can get my hands on. It probably has a lot to do with an unrealized ambition towards literary criticism, mixed with bored noodlings in computer games. I think, perhaps, in part I realize that I'm not particularly good with actually playing games, so I tend to make myself feel better by analyzing them from the bush with my pith helmet on.
In part this was catalyzed by book on the 'ethnography' of video gamers that came across my cataloging desk. I don't recall the name of the book, but it was boring as hell. The author infused their study with broad generalizations about the habits of video gamers attempting to build a sociological template for how people play games ('Well, it is an ethnography,' a friend said). But again, more than being dubious, it was mostly boring. I directed my attention elsewhere, picking up the recent Video Gamers by Garry Crawford. That book started out much more promisingly, but I was quickly distracted by Crawford's citations: particularly Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play by Diane Carr, David Buckingham, Andrew Burn, and Gareth Schott, The Meaning of Video Games: Gaming and Textual Strategies by Steven E. Jones, and the 'seminal' Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace by Janet H. Murray. I got the impression from the way Crawford cited these sources that they concentrated on building a narratology of video games. I'm interested, mostly from an armchair perspective, in the narratology of literature and have recently been wondering how the school of thought was deployed in gaming theory. This may have something to do with a cataloger's inclination for categorization and classification... but I'm not going to get into that right now.
Instead, I'm just going to point out something I've noticed from the few books I've begun in the above list. Like I said, I started the nameless 'ethnographic' study, before getting frustrated with it, the Crawford book, before getting distracted, and have since moved on to Carr & al. I also started Sex in Videogames by Brenda Brathwaite, but that was just total shit. Jones is held up in consortial borrowing somewhere, and Murray is sitting in my backpack. So from the whopping four books I've begun, I've noticed a kind of weird predilecition for these books to begin with a justification for their existence. More to the point, they don't seem to start out with any aesthetic justifications, instead favoring economic justifications. They start by talking about the ubiquity of video games in the market, discussing the number of units sold and how much money has exchanged hands. "Obviously," they seem to say, "video games are big business, so they're worth investigating." Really? I thought they might be worth studying because they offer a novel way of expressing stories and ideas.
To be fair, at least Crawford and Carr (& al.) seem to get this, and their books dabble or dive into the narratological implications of video games. Carr freely quotes Genete and Bhaktin in talking about the structure and genre (respectively) of games, and that's probably why I'm connecting to the book more. On a very obvious level, this reflects a certain interest in how the games are covered, but I do find it interesting that in order to justify an entire book on freakin' video games, authors have to start out by explaining that, no, seriously the average age of gamers is, like 30. No, really, look it up! I've got citations and everything!
Game criticism is still probably in its infancy, so some justification is probably in order. However, I reject the idea that video games are still in their infancy. Considering they've moved rather swiftly from plotless twitch exercises, to narratives, back again and then beyond it's kind of silly to think of them as still being in their infancy. I also think that once games start to intelligently subvert conventions of their respective genres (like Half-Life, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, The Path, Amnesia &c., &c. Hell, even Serious Sam, and Saints Row could be said to be based around subversion of genre) then they've at least proven that there's something to think critically about.
In part this was catalyzed by book on the 'ethnography' of video gamers that came across my cataloging desk. I don't recall the name of the book, but it was boring as hell. The author infused their study with broad generalizations about the habits of video gamers attempting to build a sociological template for how people play games ('Well, it is an ethnography,' a friend said). But again, more than being dubious, it was mostly boring. I directed my attention elsewhere, picking up the recent Video Gamers by Garry Crawford. That book started out much more promisingly, but I was quickly distracted by Crawford's citations: particularly Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play by Diane Carr, David Buckingham, Andrew Burn, and Gareth Schott, The Meaning of Video Games: Gaming and Textual Strategies by Steven E. Jones, and the 'seminal' Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace by Janet H. Murray. I got the impression from the way Crawford cited these sources that they concentrated on building a narratology of video games. I'm interested, mostly from an armchair perspective, in the narratology of literature and have recently been wondering how the school of thought was deployed in gaming theory. This may have something to do with a cataloger's inclination for categorization and classification... but I'm not going to get into that right now.
Instead, I'm just going to point out something I've noticed from the few books I've begun in the above list. Like I said, I started the nameless 'ethnographic' study, before getting frustrated with it, the Crawford book, before getting distracted, and have since moved on to Carr & al. I also started Sex in Videogames by Brenda Brathwaite, but that was just total shit. Jones is held up in consortial borrowing somewhere, and Murray is sitting in my backpack. So from the whopping four books I've begun, I've noticed a kind of weird predilecition for these books to begin with a justification for their existence. More to the point, they don't seem to start out with any aesthetic justifications, instead favoring economic justifications. They start by talking about the ubiquity of video games in the market, discussing the number of units sold and how much money has exchanged hands. "Obviously," they seem to say, "video games are big business, so they're worth investigating." Really? I thought they might be worth studying because they offer a novel way of expressing stories and ideas.
To be fair, at least Crawford and Carr (& al.) seem to get this, and their books dabble or dive into the narratological implications of video games. Carr freely quotes Genete and Bhaktin in talking about the structure and genre (respectively) of games, and that's probably why I'm connecting to the book more. On a very obvious level, this reflects a certain interest in how the games are covered, but I do find it interesting that in order to justify an entire book on freakin' video games, authors have to start out by explaining that, no, seriously the average age of gamers is, like 30. No, really, look it up! I've got citations and everything!
Game criticism is still probably in its infancy, so some justification is probably in order. However, I reject the idea that video games are still in their infancy. Considering they've moved rather swiftly from plotless twitch exercises, to narratives, back again and then beyond it's kind of silly to think of them as still being in their infancy. I also think that once games start to intelligently subvert conventions of their respective genres (like Half-Life, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, The Path, Amnesia &c., &c. Hell, even Serious Sam, and Saints Row could be said to be based around subversion of genre) then they've at least proven that there's something to think critically about.
No comments:
Post a Comment