Games Studies
Contextual Research
Task One - Computer Game Studies, Year One - Complete Version
​
We were asked to write a short response to http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html by Espen Aarseth as our first research into games as a field of study. Here are a few of my thoughts:
​
Early in the journal, Aarseth talks about how games combine aesthetic and social aspects in a way that previous mass medias have failed, creating entirely different requirements from an audience for a game to 'work'. Participants need not interact with one another when it comes to old mass media, only with the medium itself. Multiplayer games are almost the opposite of this, where communication is key to the point where entirely new programs, such as Discord, have been created to allow for easy interaction between players. As the article states, this balanced combination of social and aesthetic facets presented in digital games has greatly innovated what is considered audience structure, something I had never contemplated previous to reading this.
​
It was interesting to me how Aarseth explains that to consider games as a 're-invention of Hollywood' would be to ignore the socio-aesthetic qualities of digital games and project out of date ideologies on to a new and ever-evolving medium, however then goes on to vaguely compare the workings of Nintendo with that of Hollywood.I can understand why though, as Nintendo has huge grip on the current games market due to their intellectual property being the most popular media franchises in existence (like Mario and The Legend of Zelda), however this doesn't prevent the popularity of inexpensive indie games found on Steam for £0.50. The same can be said for indie movies and how audiences can appreciate them differently, but just as robustly as they do the Hollywood blockbusters.
Under the subheading 'A cognitive, communicative revolution?' it is discussed that games can't be watched, read or listened to like other mediums can; they must be played, and active participation is necessary for the very structure of a game. With this considered, it can be argued that games are the only mass media that does more than just 'exist', where it doesn't matter whether an audience is present or not. For a game to reach completion, an active player must be engaged. A game's result can be greatly affected by the participants individual skills and ideologies, where other medias like movies are static no matter who the audience is.
(This then lead me on a slight side note, I'm sorry this is over 250 words but this bit doesn't count because it's in brackets and I'm enjoying this article. With the knowledge that books and movies are static, do some authors and directors disregard an audience's capabilities, such as skill and intelligence? Could this be why many of the larger blockbusters have such simple three-act plot lines? Because they assume the general public would understand no matter how 'stupid' they may be? The only movie I can think of that actively consider's the intelligence of it's audience is The Big Short, in which there are multiple scenes showcasing famous actors and actresses who briefly explain some of the uncommon financial jargon used in the movie with the assumption that most people would not know what any of it meant.)
Later in the article, Aarseth considers who games studies really belongs to, if anyone, and how each existing field comments on it readily with their pre-existing paradigms, ignoring many of the unique,key aspects that make up a game. I find it fascinating how varying scholars from different backgrounds fail to see the numerous and diverse differences between their own field and games studies, which is realistically an entirely unique genre of media in itself.
Lastly, there was a quote that really stood out to me near the end.
"We have a billion dollar industry with almost no basic research".
I'd never considered this, but it very quickly became clear how much information was publicly available on the work of authors, directors and their varying audiences in comparison to data on games development and their own unique audiences. Could this be why studios can come out with four amazing titles in a row (and appear to know what they're doing) only to release an absolute flop the following year? (Think of BioWare and Mass Effect Andromeda). The fact that the industry is so ridiculously popular regardless of how little the average person knows about it astounds me.
Task version on 'Tasks' page.
​
Glossary:
​
- Paradigm: noun
-
a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking,and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.
-
such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group:
the company’s business paradigm.
- Integral: adjective
1. of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component:
integral parts.
2. necessary to the completeness of the whole:
