Academics Turn Their Attention To Videogames

Onyxviper writes "As one who is an avid gamer, an article by USA Today/AP discussing the growing academic study of games, or 'Ludology', makes some points about gaming that I had only begun to think about. Seems like the plots and composition of the game are starting to overtake the gameplay itself, and it is interesting to see that others are starting to look at it in a more serious light. What do the rest of you think, are any of you actually involved in one of these programs?" Is there plenty important being done in this field, or is it possible that academic study of videogames can tend towards overanalysis?

Comments

Generalizations suck

[LincolnX]

That's where academics believe they play an important role. By raising the bar on game criticism and analysis, they hope to also raise the bar on how games are made and how they are perceived by the public ? and the courts.

Game makers are, generally, raising the bar themselves. If you think that "most games suck" or "most games have little or no depth", then maybe you should include games other then the ones that appear on the store shelves. There are many games out there that will knock your socks off one way or another. Ever heard of the Independent Games Festival?

gameplay vs plot

[bmnc]

Both are nice to have in a game, but it must be remebered that it is a *game*. Games are meant to be *played* by their very nature.

Frankly, there have been primarily story driven games known as 'point and click' adventures. They are all but extinct now since they aren't very engaging *as a game* as opposed to a form of *interactive media*.

At the end of the day, when someone plays a game they probably wish to play with it as opposed to interact with it. Its excelent seing new technology such as 'realistic physics' coming into games since this will allow players to play with the game in a new way.

In a way, the storyline is actually becoming a hinderance to gameplay, with more frequent and longer non-interactive 'cutscenes' (not necessarily CGI/movies, but also including those damn 5 second snippets which are in-engine).

A good example of this is in Prince of Persia: Sands of time: At the end of a battle the prince puts away his sword. Slowly. In an in-engine cutscene. I can't begin to articulate how frustrated I was by the end of the game with that. A for more preferable solution, by my reckoning, would have been to have the sword put away automatically whicle I retained control of all of the other properties of the prince, or even better, if I had to manually put away the sword.

Most seem to think that as games increasingly approximate real life they get better (not necessarily a good thing, as games "in principle" games with dragons are better than those without). I tend to agree with how games are heading as well, and I enjoy the reality provided by realistic sound, light and physics. But I note that not once in my life I have experienced a cutscene, or any other situation where I have consciously not been in control of my body (drunkeness is just reduced control!)

The one line summary: Story and plot are good, but not at the expense of gameplay and interaction.

DEATH TO CUTSCENES!