Conference Discussion and Closing
Legacy of game in action. We had an idea to make a book, but we won’t. Too long time. Instead special issue of Human IT.
Start off discussion with his reflection, and then give work to keynotes, then free.
JL satisfied. First game conference in
TL: well managed, liked breaks for moving between rooms, great space, and team did good job. Concur with opinion that more references to previous work would be good. Situate ourselves.
Jim: game studies being created on the spot amazing how fast it has happened, this new field. Strength that ppl are coming from so many different disciplines. Very creative time. At the same time, being old, seeing a new field, exiting and both frightening, what if some ppl monopolises it. An area where it… not surprising that industry give back the view of the capitalist society. Here an area where kids can push back, can mod, can do different participatory creative things. A real space for ppl to input back. Good to see game studies not restraining them… letting kids do it. Game studies being part of it rather than dictate it. Co-design.
JL, so being a gamer is to be subversive?
Jim: ppl do it in a spectrum from appalling to amazing. Cultural product where they speak back. In history of literacy... … interest in ppl reading but not in writing.
JL: image of gamer different now from in the 80ies nerd. Substance.
Henry Jenkins: coming from film studies, seeing what is in common… multidisciplinary… listening to each other. We see this emerge in game studies. A point where we are doing work, new paradigms. Cut off from main conversation. A language that is cut off. Fatal flaw in film was to have a discourse legitimising them to the academia, but cutting off from mass conversation, game studies have avoided this. Good to talk about gaming rather than game. …stuck within a single medium. We live in a convergent culture. Preoccupation with games in isolation of other media is a hazard. Dividing lines… danger. Overlap of the critical mistakes done in film studies. Think more broadly of games. Not be so locked in, this is a gem that is not a game… we need to move beyond that.
Staffan B: Henry: reading and changing the text… designing games. The indented reader is what you have, not the actual one. Would be interesting to hear a comment about that. We need this duality.
HJ: no we shouldn’t get rid of the study. Work on several levels. Player feedback as early as possible. Hazard of using yourself as the intended player. That excludes many ppl. Diversity. Empirical studies that can be used, for designing games.
SB: agree on getting players in as fast as possible, but need time to think too, need to switch between those modes.
HJ: mental processes in production…
JL: that’s not the only problem. Mistake to talk about gaming when only having the game and the Own game experience.
C1: empirical studies important. Give nyanses.
C2: design – discipline – industry – trajectory… interesting correspondences…deign community … co-creativity. Events which bring together designers and critics are crucial for both sides. Regional discourses…
Konstantin: do we/ppl know what we/they want/need?
C3: game studies have a bad habit to own the terming. Game meta game individual texts. Burden on the texts. Game studies is constructing its canon, narrowing. Ico,
JL: so a good thing that everyone think about their own generalization?
C3: games built in a hyper consciousness of other productions.
HJ: mid level research. Useful concept. General introduction. Same content. Broad terms. One extreme high order. Loop between the specific and the general. Pokemon studies. /* comparing it to WOW studies, what happens when WoW goes out of date. */ something different. Lasting impact. Publishing journal is slow.
Staffan: interdisciplinariness of the field. Setting up review things for DIGRA. Computing science. Conferences are really where to publish results, quicker than journals and books.
…And here I had to go out to the taxi waiting outside so I missed out on further comments.