I’m coming up on my fiftieth post and starting to work out exactly what my purpose is with this blog, so the next few entries might get a little overly pretentious as I attempt to solidify my own voice. I apologise in advance.
We are all of us blind, stumbling around in the dark trying to get a hold on this extensive concept that lies before us, games and gaming. Each of us is holding desperately to their one portion, trying to make sense of what we have in our hands and whether it bares any relation to the whole. Simulation, narrative, edutainment, graphics, gameplay, interface, each of these concept, each of these elements, are important but on their own they do little to inform our understanding of the greater whole.
We are the blind men groping the elephant.
We are all of us prisoners, studying the shadows playing across the wall convinced that we understand the world. We have the potential to break free, to cast aside our bonds and go out the world. We might be blinded by the brightness and confused and scared by what we see but in time we will understand that what we once knew as reality was only a pale imitation of the true potential of reality. We might not like the way games and gaming is going, it might be scaring and unpleasant but in time we too will learn to look back on what we once knew and held dear and see them as mere shadows on the wall, appealing certainly, but plae imitations of what is truly possible.
We are the prisioners in the cave.
So how do we start to form a full picture of the true potential of games and gaming? How do we go from individual elements to a cohesive whole? How do we go from pale shadows and imitations to an enlightened understanding? By asking two very simple, but profoundly important, questions. How? Why?
How does narrative relate to gameplay? How can we entertain and educate in equal measure?
Why do we define games game genres, by mechanics not thematic content? Why does the same mechanic not always provide the same aesthetic experience?
I might not be a student of philosophy, or classical literature, or gender studies, or psychology, or critical thought; I am not an intellectual, or a storyteller. There are others eminently more qualified in those fields, individuals who spend significant time and effort striving to understand games and gaming from their own perspective, who each have important and relevant insight to bring to the field. All these people, and many more I have unfairly left unmentioned, are important to the growth and development of this industry and should be supported in their endeavours.
As for me, I try to bring all these elements together to better understand gaming as a whole. To quote Einstein as I am wont to do:
“I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive.”
September 13, 2008 at 10:30 am
Given how many disparate elements games draw upon, each of us must be something of a generalist in our approach. Of course, we’re becoming generalists who each develop our own terminology.
It’d be great to have someone who focus exclusively on the intersection of ideas and helps to define the bigger picture.
Plus, it’s like committing yourself to living at the crossroads and I’ve written before about how much I love crossroads and the tricksters who dwell there!
Oh, and… Not. Pretentious. At. All.
September 14, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The problem with specialization is that one often fails to see the larger picture. The problem with generalization is that one does not necessarily have the proper tools readily available to delve right in to the subject at hand. It’s a double-edged sword, but I believe in order to push the discussion of games forward, we need as many of these eyes available as possible.
I’m also very intrigued by the sudden realization that we do tend to define game genres by their mechanics, the thematic content sometimes a sidenote (well, that’s a /fantasy/ RPG). Curious. We may be coming to a head with that discussion considering games like Resident Evil 5 look less survival horror and more FPS-ish.
September 14, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I find it interesting that Survival Horror is the only genre that is defined by both theme and mechanical content.
September 15, 2008 at 3:00 am
Bit late to the party on this post, but you know how it is.
I couldn’t help but think of the first chapter of Mackenzie Wark’s Gamer Theory, when reading this post. Your allusions to Plato’s The Cave parallel his own. Somewhat confusingly, he re-wrote a lot of the first chapter for v2 (yes, his book has versions) and it lost a lot of its poetic charm but suffice to say that his point was that “game space” has become so all pervading that when and if people ‘leave’ the cave the real world is now less real than the game. If you’ve not read it, I highly recommend it.
Version 1.1 of Gamer Theory – http://www.futureofthebook.org/mckenziewark/gamertheory/
Version 2 – http://www.futureofthebook.org/mckenziewark/gamertheory2.0/
Take your pick =P