“Some Reflections on [Gaming] Criticism”
Through my research on Samuel R. Delany for my MFA research paper, I stumbled across his opinions on the development of a language of criticism for Science Fiction. I think it applies in interesting ways to the development of a gaming language as well.
“Frequently this correspondence point generates a term; frequently this term is appropriated from the literary field to the [Science Fiction] field . . . But what this finally produces in the SF critical field is an array of terms that discuss only similarities. The field of critical terminology, because it is appropriated, suggests that similarities are much more pervasive than they actually are.”
We’ll assume in gaming language that “correspondence point” equals blog post. Over at SLRC, Ben was commenting on the merits of developing terms for gaming criticism (or lack thereof), and though this article doesn’t directly respond to his thoughts, it does argue for a completely new language to be developed over lifting critical terms from other forms of art. By taking these terms from other places in an effort to elevate game criticism to the level of art criticism, we’re focusing on similarities instead of highlighting what makes video games unique.
I know Corvus Elrod, Iroquois Pliskin, Michael Abbott (check out the comments sections for another great article), and I’m sure many others, including academics in the expanding arena of video game programs, are already thinking about the language of video games, but it’s interesting to see how other fairly new artforms have struggled with their own terminology. [EDIT: another interesting post by Pliskin that popped up just as I published this]
Delany also talks about how genres should be defined by the strategies used for reading them instead of specific characteristics of the subject matter: “A more fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a set of distinctions between reading protocols, between ways of reading, between ways of responding to sentences, between ways of making various sentences and various texts make sense.”
At first, I thought this was interesting because it seems that game genres are already based on this convention. The genres are set up based on gameplay mechanics, not subject matter, and a gamer knows they might like a game because they know the conventions of the genre (i.e. Its control scheme). Delany argues that sub-genres are the place to differentiate based on subject matter, which the gaming industry also does.
I wonder, though, whether Delany would think gaming genres are labelled wrong. Does “platformer” really distinguish how Braid should be understood as a game? It correctly labels a set of gameplay mechanics, but Delany’s “reading protocol” is based around “making various sentences and various texts make sense.” Is understanding how to play Braid enough to characterize it as a platformer? Or should its genre definition be based on how to “understand” Braid? I guess that depends on whether the genre definitions are set up to aid shoppers or to aid game critics with how to critique a game.
First of all, Braid is a puzzle game. Not a platformer. The core dynamic of a platformer is the struggle against gravity. Since Braid has a rewind time mechanic that often functionally works as a “manipulate space” mechanic, gravity isn’t the core dynamic. Layered time and space is. Thus, puzzle game.
On another note, I haven’t found a blogger out there that has worked out a clear and consistent language for video game criticism. That’s why I’ve spent the last year developing one. Inspired from Jesper Juul’s work, Half-Real, I used literary criticism as a bridge to kick start my language. Now, my glossary is nearly 70 items long.
To this day, I find the level of development and thought in the criticism space extremely lacking. Most bloggers seem content with circling around determining whether games are art or the definition of a game when such things are already determined. Even the professional games journalist have a difficult time talking about simple mechanics and dynamics of game design.
Recognizing the conventions of a genre and the power of “form fits function” is a great way to start analyzing games on how they’re “read.”
Shawn Elliott wondered if the industry of games “enthusiasts” should write with the equivalent of a thesis. I think that’s a great idea. Of course, that’s what I’ve been doing for the past year. I wish other games writers would write essays that cogently express an aspect of any game.
Reply to Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)Thanks for the correction, Richard. I was looking for an example and Braid jumped out, but I didn’t think it over very well. It’s interesting that my first reaction would be to call it a platformer, because most of its mechanics are taken from platforming, but that a single new mechanic can alter the genre of the game.
As far as writing with a thesis, I think that’s a requirement for any good piece of writing, so I’m not sure why there would even have to be discussion about that. When I’m writing a formal essay, I usually narrow in on a thesis statement in the second draft, but when I’m blogging, since it’s “informal,” I find myself wandering quite a bit. I don’t think the blog format is an excuse for poor writing though, so I’ll keep your suggestions in mind.
I was thinking about the “circling around” you mention when I was writing this post, and that’s why I wanted to clarify that I don’t think I’m coming up with anything new, just wanted to share an article about a similar process for a different genre. I know there are people inside the industry and the academic side of things that have probably already determined a lot of these ideas, but could you point us toward some good sources for the information?
Reply to Travis MegillI didn’t mean to be so abrasive with my Braid correction. I’ve noticed that many people have labeled it as a platformer. Braid is one of those unique games that comes with a bit of confusion.
As far as developing a critical language and a supporting body of work, I’m afraid that I haven’t found many online sources.
I continually point to Jesper Juul’s work to kick start any type of video game education. His book Half-Real is a must read. Here’s his blog http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/. It looks like he contributed to a new book. Looks interesting.
Steve Wink has done some nice work as well. http://www.steveswink.com/principles-of-virtual-sensation/
I’ve created a sort of crash course in some of the basics of game design.
http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/11/dw-prerequisites.html
It even has a final exam that I put together. The glossary on the blog also has links to articles that explain everything in detail.
I feel that I’ve done so much work to establish, define, and work with the critical-language. Now, I’m most interested in simply discussing games with people. I don’t mind if others use different words or a different system. I do expect them to be able to explain themselves as completely as possible.
I hope my response points in the right direction.
Reply to Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)It didn’t seem abrasive. I think the distinction is interesting. Thanks for the links, I’ll look into them.
Reply to Travis MegillOn “circling” topics and repeated discussions:
Quickly, I think the problem is the result of one of the larger hazards of internet conversations: An amorphous group of conversants find it all too easy to speak without regard to the context of the conversation. I tend to call it the “Filthy Skimmer” syndrome, after Gamers With Jobs’ memetic epithet for those who don’t take the time to catch up on a thread’s conversation before posting a comment.
On genre categorization:
While I’m very much in favor of having a clear set of jargon, I hesitate on classifying or establishing some sort of firm genre ontology. I’m not an organized person by nature, but I also get the feeling that debate over the categorization of Braid is a distraction from more important matters. Braid has elements of puzzle games and platform games; just as Portal has elements of first-person shooters and puzzle games; or as Myst has of first person, puzzle, and adventure games. I’m much more of a “tag cloud” person. I feel that games, through their “tags,” are connected to the traditions and expectations of games that share those tags. I’d much rather talk about the similarities, differences, and evolution of games and various genres than debate which genre is most similar.
On central theses:
Reply to wordsmytheI’ll admit up front that this isn’t my strong suit, but I do agree that it’s important. I think that personal response “reviews” worry me in part because it’s so easy for them to avoid a strong, central assertion.
I wonder if there isn’t an extension of the “Filthy Skimmer” syndrome, which I admit I’ve been diagnosed with on occasion. I know there’s been a lot of discussion over “pretentious” brainy gamer bloggers, but it seems to be directed from gamers who aren’t interested in looking at games in a “deeper” manner. Are the academics that exist in gaming, who have already defined some of the issues that bloggers circle around, scoffing at the pretentious “enthusiasts” that are running around trying to sound intelligent, but not accomplishing anything?
So in a larger context, we all might have “filthy skimmer syndrome” because we aren’t caught up on what’s really going on in games criticism since we’re out of the academic loop. One of the things that has interested me about video game criticism is that it seemed like it was in its infancy and that I might say something that hadn’t been said, or at least bring a new viewpoint to it, but the more reading I do I figure out that I’m probably just as outclassed in this arena as I would be in the literary world.
If all of that is true, what are some good places to start reading so I can contribute intelligently instead of just re-inventing the wheel (circle, get it? nevermind).
Reply to Travis MegillI wish I had better inside knowledge to offer, but I’m wandering in the dark myself on this.
It seems silly that the discussion isn’t more public, open, and digital, given the subject matter and its birth alongside the internet age. Wark did a little of that with the interactive writing of Gamer Theory (http://creativecommons.org/text/gam3r), but the discussion seems mostly contained in private communication and dead trees. Perhaps this is a symptom of the publication and impact-based reward structures of universities.
Reply to wordsmythe