Tuesday, January 24, 2006

FLOOK_Ch2_MOULTHROP_I

I think Moulthrop really hits the nail on the head in his chapter on ludology. I got the sense that he deems the traditional models of narrative, story, and drama (as applied to television and film) cannot be used to accurately describe interactive video games. Furthermore, he seems to indicate that academics are having an awkward time trying to classify and investigate the simulation/video game industry.

“A billion dollar industry is as much a cultural as an economic phenomenon.” Despite the fact that traditional investigation has ignored interactive gaming, the cultural relevance is no longer questioned. Therefore, it is interesting to note how academia and others scramble to define, shape, and help steer the technology. My BIG IDEA is simple; why define every detail of the industry and medium? Is it possible to leave this one alone? Instead of academics clambering to add classifications and vocabulary to every nook and cranny of video games, why not let the industry make creative resolutions themselves? Do not force them into models, vocabularies, and other imposed boxes. Let the industry be as creative as it wants to be. The fact that Ludology is even a term bothers me.

8 Comments:

At 12:22 AM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

Hey Chris ... I was just a bit unclear ... what do you mean by letting the industry "make creative resolutions themselves"? Do you think that the gaming industry is being placed (in the words of Dr. Joe) "inside the box" by academia? Or do you think they really care at all? Thanks! I was just curious ...

 
At 8:52 AM, Blogger flook said...

What I mean is that I wish the gaming industry would evolve through market activity and user demands and NOT be shaped by academics' (to quote Curtis) "revoltingly frivolous neologism[s]."

I think the gaming industry has a chance of being placed in a box by academic intrusion, thus limiting creativity.

 
At 11:43 AM, Blogger RAFAEL BRIONES RODRIGUEZ said...

I AGREE WITH U FLOOK, BUT ONCE $$$$ COMES INTO PLACE, ACADEMICS NEED TO GET INVOLVED TO PLACE "TAGS" IN TO THE INDUSTRY. WE LIVE IN A "TAG ALL" SOCIETY, THEREFORE ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ACADEMICS TO STAY AWAY OF THE INDUSTRY. BUT I DO AGREE WITH U.

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger Curtisgeist said...

This is one of the things that Moulthrop definitely has right in the essay. Moulthrop, however, sees industry evolution, not as a natural process (or rather he says we shoudl consider that it might not be the natural order of things), indicating that grass-roots human intercession into the evolution of the industry (to make it "configurative" and "molecular") is what will ensure freedom in the future. I am chillingly skeptical of the idea that taking the ideas from the impotent relationship of Narratologists and ludologists, and then in grandiose terms declaring it the battlefield of free thought--so that it can the foster child of the impotent relationship between right-wing and left-wint radicals, is anything but cheap rhetoric. And Chris is talking about what Will happen--the industry, supply/demand, etc., the invisible hand Will shape it, and these academics of ours may not getting any nearer to recognizing the invisible hand for what it is--which they do so that politicians, or rather beaurocracies can gain more control of it. Rather, I think our academics are doing what they've done for centuries--hide away from the rest of the world in little fortress towns where they can speak a common pidgeon and feel like they are projecting their opinions onto others (whther they are effectively doing so or not.)

OK that was a bit too cynical.

But not much.

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger Betsy said...

I think it would be great to let the gaming industry evolve on their own without academia trying to predict their future.

But then digital storyteller phd's would be out of a job. This is an area that is just screaming to be analyzed. What else can academics do, if not analyze??

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Anything that creates buzz or interest or money should be studied. I have a rather utopian view trhat these things should be studied and codified so that they are not used for nefarious purposes.

If we don't recognize how rhetoric or issues of narrative are being used on us then they will be abused by others.

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger Taco said...

I agree Flooky! WHY MUST WE ANALYZE AND CATEGORIZE EVERYTHING? The technology is constantly evolving (PS, PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3) and can't be anchored down into weighty categories. I've not had the pleasure of being in the real world, but I'm pretty sure if I was creating games, I would not give $.02 to what academics was saying about my product that is selling millions. I'm smart enough to figure out from quarterly sales what works best.

Mark, how can we be abused by a video game? I really just don't buy into video games. Maybe I'm extremely biased.

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger Taco said...

or naive.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home