Comments on: Why we need more scientific study of games design I like games research -- my alma mater is a leader in it. I also think scientific research of game design is fair game. I just don't think converging design and scientific research will necessarily lead to improvement in the medium. There's already an avenue to improvement of the medium: criticism. We don't need to hook up our friends to electrodes to know if our game is good or not. We don't need to place numbers on everything. I can guarantee the people who will eventually use such metrics are marketers and those focused on profit. It will be even less about who expresses themselves in profound and interesting ways, but those who can hit predictable local maximas of engagement. If anything, were already at that point. The games medium is backwards. Our video game Scorseses' are the film equivalent of Michael Bay. We thrive off metrics, stats, and figures -- and so does the other gaming (gambling) industry. We have genres dedicated to such ideas. If the medium needs anything, it's more cultural analysis, improved journalists, and respectable curators and critics. Games are a unique medium and we deserve more attention academically, so how about more research and understanding in the soft sciences, humanities, and arts? I like games research — my alma mater is a leader in it. I also think scientific research of game design is fair game. I just don’t think converging design and scientific research will necessarily lead to improvement in the medium.

There’s already an avenue to improvement of the medium: criticism. We don’t need to hook up our friends to electrodes to know if our game is good or not. We don’t need to place numbers on everything.

I can guarantee the people who will eventually use such metrics are marketers and those focused on profit. It will be even less about who expresses themselves in profound and interesting ways, but those who can hit predictable local maximas of engagement.

If anything, were already at that point. The games medium is backwards. Our video game Scorseses’ are the film equivalent of Michael Bay. We thrive off metrics, stats, and figures — and so does the other gaming (gambling) industry. We have genres dedicated to such ideas.

If the medium needs anything, it’s more cultural analysis, improved journalists, and respectable curators and critics. Games are a unique medium and we deserve more attention academically, so how about more research and understanding in the soft sciences, humanities, and arts?

]]>
By: snake5/2011/03/05/why-we-need-more-scientific-study-of-games-design/#comment-1269 snake5 Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:36:43 +0000 I agree! But I don't think the problem is so much a generational divide, or young "know-it-all" designers (though I'm sure both of those things contribute). I think the bigger problem game design today is too easily distracted by the pursuit of "art", and we're spending all our energy answering questions like "How do games mean?" and generating taxonomies for emotional states and so forth. Game design started out as toy-making -- engineering and craft -- and then when we discovered we could evoke emotions and tell (or enable) stories and make statements about the human condition, we went full-tilt in that direction and all but abandoned our logical roots. I don't mean to denigrate the pursuit of art in games. On the contrary: improving the "art-ness" of games is an important, legitimizing, and energizing pursuit. But I feel like we may have lost our balance. "How do games mean?" is an important question... but "How do you know that the player is immersed?" is equally-important and should not be ignored. I agree! But I don’t think the problem is so much a generational divide, or young “know-it-all” designers (though I’m sure both of those things contribute). I think the bigger problem game design today is too easily distracted by the pursuit of “art”, and we’re spending all our energy answering questions like “How do games mean?” and generating taxonomies for emotional states and so forth. Game design started out as toy-making — engineering and craft — and then when we discovered we could evoke emotions and tell (or enable) stories and make statements about the human condition, we went full-tilt in that direction and all but abandoned our logical roots.

I don’t mean to denigrate the pursuit of art in games. On the contrary: improving the “art-ness” of games is an important, legitimizing, and energizing pursuit. But I feel like we may have lost our balance. “How do games mean?” is an important question… but “How do you know that the player is immersed?” is equally-important and should not be ignored.

]]>