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

wang

[Anonymous Coward]

Some in the industry, however, are not so sure that games will ever mature. They fear games could be a dead end like comic books ? valuable as a social phenomenon, but outside a select few titles like Art Spiegelman's Maus, not worth a great deal of individual study.

Anything that can produce a very large profit will always garner a great deal of study. This is the reason why the game industry is compared to the movie industry more then any other.

Video games an art like film

[aflat362]

In reading this article it sounds like the video game industry is evolving to be much like the film industry. A video game can be thought of as a work of art. Just like Citizen Kane and other film class staples - games like The Legend of Zelda and Metroid can be respected for more than just a way of passing time.

Like the film industry produces great works of art like Gone with the Wind, they also produce trash like Legally Blonde. The Video game industry has their Quake 2s and Final Fantasy's but they come out with way too much garbage like Gods and Generals, and Enter the Matrix (didn't mean to pick 2 video game adaptations of movies but those 2 just happen to suck)

Re:Video games an art like film

[quandrum]

Will "The movie was better," become the new "The book was better"?

Re:Video games an art like film

[bigman2003]

Sculpture, painting, and literature are all 'fine art'.

Fine art is all well and good- but the public also enjoys artistic works by the likes of Snoop Dogg, Matt Groenig, and Aaron Spelling.

While the aforementioned artists are not involved in the traditional 'fine arts', they are artists nonetheless. Just like CliffyB, and Hiroshima Tatsumi (or whatever the guy from Nintendo is named.)

Personally, I don't know about art- but I know what I like. And the artistry involved in Metal Arms, or Deus Ex, is enough for me and the rest of the Clampetts.

Re:gameplay vs plot

[Rallion]

If you want to see a GOOD example of 'interactive media,' a game-that-isn't-really, I suggest The Dark Eye. You can get it at HotU.

I'm sure you really don't care a bit, and I can understand why. I'm just saying.

World

[Deliveranc3]

If anyone still thinks games are not artistic they simply don't understand the nature of art. Art is meant to be open to interpretation and interaction.

There is a philosophical dichonomy within art of the high(intellectual and low(popular) variety, video games definitly fall into these catagories(1vs1 high, DM low?).

A simple example of games as art comes with the map paradox within the game SiN. Download it or read a review of the map. Basically it represents an area with crossed dimensions (think Escher).

Having just started creating games I am starting to really appreciate how much of game creating is directed towards the perceptions of the gamer.

I've done it to some extent.

[metroid composite]

Though, I only did a minor in English and haven't taken that much Critical Theory. That said, I subsequently played a game with exceptional character development that I wish I had known at the time (Koudelka).

On the other hand, I've known academics to study DOOM. I, frankly, think they're nuts (games that are popular because they made graphical advances tend to be terrible on the literary end). But the point is there's a lot more to study than just the literature aspect of games. From a mathematical and psychology/education perspective, for instance, play control is interesting. Mathematics gives us game-theory to study it, and Education gives us insight into what is "intuitive" for play control.

Re:gameplay vs plot

[DeadScreenSky]

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.

But the thing about that 'cinema scene' is that really it is there for gameplay reasons. It makes it crystal clear to the player that all threats are gone in the area. Maybe it could have been sped up a little (especially after the player is further in the game), but that is really an unusual borderline case of something that is both a cinema scene and a crucial gameplay mechanic...

In general I don't have a problem with the '5 second cinemas' you mention, as long as they are used sparingly. Some of the original classic arcade games have similar stuff! Though yeah, it is always better if the player still retains some small degree of control, even just over the camera. Einhander did it pretty well - during the 'cinema transitions', which were short, built some nice subtle context stuff, and helped the pacing (and loading times), the player could still move the ship and fire. It never accomplishes anything, really, but at least you are still technically in control.

But I certainly agree about the problem with longer cinemas in stuff like MGS2, especially combined with the complete inability of so many developers to understand a concept like 'pacing'. Other than my mentioned caveats, I pretty much agree completely with your post...