International Game Developers Association

Contents 1 Game Studies: A report on an emerging academic field 1.1 Author 1.2 Additional Info 1.3 Report 1.3.1 Introduction 1.3.2 Developing the Focus of a Curriculum 1.3.3 Educational Landscape: 1.3.4 Games as a New Cultural Space 1.3.5 Level, Duration and Resources 1.3.5.1 Industry Input 1.3.5.2 Topic Coverage 1.3.6 Conclusion 1.3.7 Appendix 1 – Examples of Lab teaching schedule 1.3.8 Appendix 2: Practical Assignments 1.3.8.1 Taken from J. Goggins, University of Amsterdam: 1.3.8.2 Taken from E. Castronova, Indiana University: 1.3.8.3 Taken from G. Schott, University of Waikato: 1.3.9 Appendix 3: Course Coverage Offered by Humanities courses in Games 1.3.9.1 Example 1: Taken from B. Atkins, Liverpool John Moores University. 1.3.9.1.1 Week 1: What is a game? 1.3.9.1.2 Week 2: Why do we play? 1.3.9.1.3 Week 3: It’s a computer game, stupid... 1.3.9.1.4 Week 4: Genre 1.3.9.1.5 Week 5: Documenting Design I 1.3.9.1.6 Week 6: Gameplay, Control, Interaction 1.3.9.1.7 Week 7: Level Design 1.3.9.1.8 Week 8: Practical Narrative 1.3.9.1.9 Week 9: Progression 1.3.9.1.10 Week 10: Designing Emergence 1.3.9.1.11 Weeks 11-13: Documenting Design II/Production of Game Design 1.3.9.2 Example 2: Taken from Joyce Goggin, University of Amsterdam Syllabus: Perspectives on Games 1.3.9.2.1 Week 1- Introduction: Play and Games: What are they? 1.3.9.2.2 Week 2 - René Glas – Historical overview of the development of games 1.3.9.2.3 Week 3 - Gender Issues 1.3.9.2.4 Week 4 - Agency and Engagement 1.3.9.2.5 Week 5 - Film and Games 1.3.9.2.6 Week 6 - Interactive Narrative and Games 1.3.9.2.7 Week 7 - MarGuest Speaker: Martin de Ronde - Design 1.3.9.2.8 Week 8 - The Economy of Gaming 1.3.9.2.9 Week 9 - Violence and the Video Game 1.3.9.2.10 Week 10 - Design and Engagement 1.3.9.2.11 Week 11 - Gender II: Perspectives on Lara 1.3.9.2.12 Week 12 - Agency and Engagement 1.3.9.2.13 Week 13 - Narratology and Games

Game Studies: A report on an emerging academic field

Author

Dr Gareth Schott,
GamesLab, Department of Screen & Media Studies
University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ
g.schott@waikato.ac.nz
http://www.gameslab.co.nz

Additional Info

Department of Screen and Media Studies
Akoranga Whakaata Purongo
The University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton, New Zealand
Phone +64 7 838 4543
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/film/

Report

Introduction

Espen Aarseth’s (2001) Editorial for the first edition of Game Studies, the first humanities-oriented peer reviewed journal devoted to the study of computer games, proposed 2001 as ‘year one’ for games as an emerging, distinct academic discipline. Up until that point, serious academic treatment of computer games had been sporadic and itinerant, despite the presence of computer games since the first existence of computers. It was in 2001 that a community of academics formed to attend the first academic conference on computer games in Copenhagen (Denmark) with a second, Game Cultures (Bristol, United Kingdom), close behind it. From the success and popularity of those conferences the Digital Game Research Association (DiGRA) was formed: A non-profit, international association dedicated to facilitating a network of academics and practitioners whose work focuses on digital games and associated activities. DiGRA’s functioning agenda is to support and promote the academic study of digital games and develop its recognition as a field of enquiry that addresses distinct questions relating to:

• Theory and aesthetics of games and gaming
• Gaming and information technologies
• Production, demand and consumption of games
• Social, political and ethical issues related to digital games and gaming
• Interactive media, gaming cultures and globalization processes.

The association seeks to support high quality research through disseminating the work of its members, mainly through its conferences (see http://www.gamesconference.org), its online presence (http://www.digra.org) and associated resources, for example, its ‘digital library’ which contains all papers delivered at DiGRA 2002 (Tampere, Finland), 2003 (Utrecht, Netherlands) and 2005 (Vancouver, Canada). As a indication of its size and popularity, the recent 2005 conference contained over two hundred research paper presentations over a three day period, alongside game demonstrations and a wide variety of symposium discussions around the formation of the discipline and its curriculum.

Developing the Focus of a Curriculum

Digital games are one the richest cultural genres that we have encountered as academics, one that fundamentally tests the validity, reliability and suitability of existing theoretical and methodological approaches. It is safe to say, at this juncture, that game scholars’ origins are diverse, including anthropology, sociology, narratology, semiotics, film studies, etc., that inevitably determines and motivates the approach and focus of study. Espen Aarseth (2002) presents the concept of Sim University a new strategy game that works on the following premise:

"You are a young professor who just got tenure at Calisota State University. Your objective is to establish a program in computer games within three years. You can play the role of Humanist, Computer Scientist, Visual Artist/Designer, Social Scientist, Psychologist, or choose a hybrid background. Within each breed, several subclasses (e.g. sociologist, linguist, film theorist) are available. Against you are the public, the University Board of Directors, the funding organizations, your department colleagues, politicians, your computer lab admins, and one or two alien monster races. As allies you have undergraduates and industry designers. Neutrals: The gaming press. Your job is to create a multidisciplinary task force (you will have to convert members of the opposing factions to be successful), gather and balance resources, forge alliances and battle the aliens (the easy part). A secret death-match level is included to help your credibility with the undergrads and increase morale. Confrontations with the Board of Directors are not playable, but shown through cut scenes only. Unfortunately the game rules are not fully documented or debugged; please register online for an update soon."

Unfortunately for many scholars working in the field of computer games, the above scenario represents a pervasive reality-based game that actually exists and is being played out right now in university campuses all over the world. Aarseth states that “many players are still waiting for cheats and walkthroughs.”

With the formation of DiGRA it has however been possible for new special interest courses in Game Studies to be developed that run at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels within higher degree universities. An early example is the MA in Computer Game Studies run at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. This course clearly opted to label itself a humanities course and highlight its concern with the social and cultural aspects of computer games. The significance of a degree of this nature is the manner in which it stood as a flagship for the new discipline and a tribute to the body of work that now exists in this research area. According to the course convener and game scholar, Graeme Kirkpatrick, Game Studies has established its own distinctive set of questions that can only be addressed from within a discrete framework. Game theorists that emanate from humanities based disciplines thus hold the view that they do not need to rely on a conjunction of design, animation, scripting and coding, that constitute aspects of the technical basis of games production, in order to give the study of games legitimacy. Instead, Kirkpatrick (2003) argues, “there is a unique cluster of meaning-oriented questions that are worth asking in themselves and which cannot be addressed within other disciplines. Moreover, these questions are of sufficient depth and scope that serious attempts to answer them merit recognition as scholarly work”.

Educational Landscape:

The 2005 DiGRA conference was utilized as a site and entry point into a small investigation into the nature, level and content of emerging Game Studies’ programs within higher education institutions internationally. Several course outlines were generously provided by academics as an illustration of the approach and structure adopted in delivering game research. Materials and online outlines were reviewed for the following institutions: Brunel Unviersity (UK), Indiana University (USA), Liverpool John Moores University (UK), Newport School of Art, Media & Design (UK), Stanford University (USA), University of Amsterdam (Netherlands), University of Colorado (USA), University of Northumbria (UK), University of South London (UK) & University of Waikato (NZ). The following sections attempts offer a broad overview of instances of a DiGRA informed humanities approach to the teaching of games:

What is it that game scholars from the humanities are striving to achieve?

The understanding of games as an object of study, or game criticism, is an important and demanding endeavor when compared to other representational media such as film or television. Games are not watched but they are played, requiring players to use screen-based components or avatars to exhibit actions within virtual spaces and trigger the game-text. The complex nature of game simulations is such that they cannot be predicted beforehand. The nature of progress, navigation and discovery can vary greatly depending on the player’s luck, skill and creativity. Criticism is used within the humanities, not only a means of legitimating games as an object of academic consideration, but as tools that challenge society to better understand and express their and others’ engagement with this diverse medium. In this way, the evolution or maturation of game content is dependent on the development of audiences themselves and their ability to rise to the challenge of superior, more difficult game experiences. Similarly for James Gee (2005) universities do not have to be perceived solely as sites for game design programs, but learning environments where students can also use games as a lens with which to consider “social interactions, economics, social and cultural issues, complex problem solving, communication, and content of a wide variety of different types bearing on many different issues.”

Criticism is crucial to the process of understanding the meaning of ‘better’ in relation to games. Ernest Adams (2004) has argued that, at first glance, the industry is overwhelmed with criticism, yet upon closer inspection the vast majority of game criticism has been represented by ‘magalogs’, “official and/or unofficial catalogs for publishers and console makers. Nothing more than eye-candy infomercials in which information is treated as promotion (and vice versa). Distinguishing editorial content from advertising is becoming increasingly difficult.” Furthermore, the ‘quality’ of games are traditionally evaluated on the basis of the industry’s technical achievements. Adams argues that this approach shows a tendency to assume that ‘bigger’ and ‘faster’ hardware equates ‘better software’ because it means more polygons, better frame rate, and so on. Despite the demand for criticism to counter the ‘ghettoizing’ of games, that explains why games work, how they work and what effect they have on us, Adams also expresses concern at the possibility that ‘game studies’ will remain a niche, an anomaly, in both the academic and the game worlds. In 2003, Ernest Adams (speaking as an industry consultant) closed a two-day academic summit between the industry and the academy with these closing remarks:

I don’t have the time to read through the reams of self-indulgent masturbatory navel-gazing that constitutes most academic criticism. Articles full of words I’ve never heard of and which are defined according to a peculiar lexicon that is only meaningful within the confines of your tiny little field, are no use to me.

Academic interests seem destined at some level to conflict with the game industry while its primary concern is to make, what Aarseth (2001) describes as “a certain kind of game: games that people spend money on”. Game scholars’ primary concern rests with understanding all games, not just the ones that sell, games are not just perceived as products but as ‘communicative practice’. The culture, goals and motivations of the academy and industry are thus opposed on this issue. Research for the academy is presented as intending to be rigorous and have long-term impact; it is also altruistic and critical. On the other hand, the industry is commonly perceived by academia as largely profit-oriented and competitive.

Games as a New Cultural Space

The increasing convergence of representational media demands that prospective or future employees of media industries possess an awareness of the impact of games both culturally and individually. The application of game technologies and the game aesthetic within advertising and marketing (e.g. NZ Army Force 9) is a prime example. Furthermore, specialized skill sets employed in other industries are now being deployed within the game industry as companies and their products develop and mature. An example of this is the utilisation of individuals with knowledge of scriptwriting and narrative construction in the production of game scripts (e.g. Katie Lea as credited scriptwriter for the game The Getaway).

A further key example of the transition of skills across interconnected multi-modal industries can be found in the film industry’s relationship with games. In recent years, videogames have succeeded in breaking out of the ‘merchandise’ category to assume a more substantial role in the success or failure of films. As a result, many filmmakers now seek creative control over what have been regarded as tie-in and spin-off products that form a brand (e.g. the Wachowski brothers use of the game Enter the Matrix to enhance a plot-line in their film Matrix: Reloaded). It has long been recognized in both industries that some films, such as Star Wars or James Bond, possess what humanities scholars term techno-ludic qualities (Bittanti, 2002) referring to the concentration of ‘second act’ obstacles, setbacks and conflicts faced by protagonists (e.g. Frodo’s journey in Lord of the Rings) that make them appropriate for simulating in an interactive medium (e.g. LucasArts’ Knights of the Republic; Nintendo’s GoldenEye). Another of these synergies occurs the crossover in the production process of games and films that allow the two media to operate in parallel. Ang Lee’s 2003 film version of The Hulk, is an example of how film remediates games through its explicit use of digital graphics and SFX in the creation of the totally computer-generated Hulk, thus illustrating how both now form part of the same audio-visual media landscape.

To perceive games solely as the latest self-reinvention of Hollywood however undermines the socio-aesthetic components inherent in phenomena such as massively multi-player games that are played via the web and possess the capacity to accommodate thousands of players at any one time. These virtual gamescapes combine the aesthetic and the social in a way that traditional old mass media, such as theatre, film or television never could. Indeed, Aarseth (2001) argues that previous media created mass audiences that possessed little or no direct communication between participants. He therefore concludes that ‘massively multiplayer online games’ (MMOGs) are the “greatest innovation in audience structure since the invention of the choir, thousands of years ago”.

Today a distribution mechanism exists that rivals existing distribution systems of Hollywood or the music industry: the Internet. Game cultures have utilized the internet to develop a world wide, non-commercial, collective games movement that possesses a better infrastructure than any amateur movement before it. Revisiting the notion of games as constituting a cultural space, active non-corporate participatory cultures exploit digital technologies to modify and subvert game texts in order to enhance game play (through adding new levels, environments or personalizing characters) and their reconstruction into new cultural objects (e.g. the new sub-genre of films that are made using game technologies labeled ‘machinima’). In some sense Game Studies has an obligation to focus less on the commercial production of games and more on the direct reworking and remixing of games as a means of creative expression such as the use of games-based ideas in contemporary art and literary fiction.

Level, Duration and Resources

While the above sections have attempted to broadly outline the nature and rationale for a humanities-oriented approach to examining games, this section will attempt to provide further information on the more structural components of game education. For educators promoting the study of games from within the humanities, the study of games is being offered at both undergraduate (usually level 3, specialist courses) and postgraduate levels (both taught and thesis-lead study at Masters and PhD). Masters level courses are typically designed to accommodate around 20-25 students, while undergraduate courses are typically larger (e.g. University of Waikato, Level 3 paper ‘Game Studies’ has recruited 60 in its first year).

Reviewing courses revealed that students are typically given exposure to a balance of both creative and critical engagement with games in order to facilitate understanding of the cultural object. A back-to-basic principles approach means that students often gain an understanding of the fundamental principles of creating an enjoyable/challenging game, rather than focusing solely on advanced specialized technical issues and software creation (see appendix 1 & 2 for examples of practical lab-based work and assignments). Group collaboration occurs regularly in game studies courses in order to utilize students’ skill-sets and highlight the collaborative and specialized nature of different components of the game design process.

All courses of study have been organised to attract students who have an interest in developing advanced skills in a reflective and critically informed way. In order to achieve this, students are required to critically appraise theories and debates relevant to game structure/form, play and pleasure. In line with the discussion outlined in the above sections concerning the choice of game texts, courses demonstrate an attempt to provide critical engagement with a range of game types and styles. The main aims of courses can be summarized as allowing students to:

• Acquire skills required for a theoretical understanding of the cultural, social and formal/design features of games,
• Engage with and explore a range of design practices within the medium of digital- and non-digital based games, and
• Gain an understanding through a range of design-based exercises of what makes a ‘good’ game in terms of ‘playability’, gameplay parameters and platform specificity.

Industry Input

Courses ideally seek to, or include the support of game designers working within the industry. This currently takes the form of contributing guest lectures (see Appendix 3, Example 2, Week 7), master-classes or participation in assessment of presentational and/or design work. Students typically engage in a range of practical exercises in game design that provides material for critical analysis and evaluation. However, quality assurance is presently determined at the institutional level via annual reports/reviews, student feedback mechanisms including School-based staff-student consultative committees and liaison with industry professionals during the course design phases.

Topic Coverage

Coverage and content of lectures appears to be determined by gaming research occurring within contemporary media, utilizing current, contemporary academic interest in digital games that has allowed the study of digital games to crystallize. Tanya Krzywinska (Brunel University, UK) commented that “criticism is absolutely crucial to making a course in games design ‘academic’, without this it is merely software training. DiGRA research is likely to highlight issues that limit games to certain markets (gender in particular); may help the industry to explore new avenues to gain different market share. In the same way that film studies does not ‘support’ the industry, games research also does not have to be in the service of the industry – instead research is likely to address the role of games in and as culture.” As funding is typically provided by individual universities and course are expected to be self-financing, they are able to take an approach that encourages students to analyse what makes for ‘good’ game design and what the broader socio-cultural and formal implications of interactive digital-based games might be (see appendix 3 for examples of typical lecture content). Resources typically include a range of game titles that can be played on different hardware, practical design assignments utilise mainly the Unreal engine or Flash and the following examples of core texts are employed:

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003) ‘Rules of Play: Game design fundamentals’, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
King, G. and Krzywinska, T. (Eds.) (2002) ‘ScreenPlay’, London: Wallflower Press.
Atkins, B. (2003) ‘More than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form’, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Rollings, A. and Morris, D. (1999) ‘Game Architecture and Design’ Coriolis Group.
Rouse, R. (2001) ‘Game Design: Theory and Practice’ Wordware Publishing, Inc.
Rollings, A. and Adams, E. (2003) ‘Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design’ New Riders
Poole, S. (2000) ‘Trigger Happy: The Inner Life of Videogames’ Fourth Estate
Crawford, Chris (1982) ‘The Art of Computer Game Design’ http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html

Conclusion

Today we are seeing the results of scholars who have grasped the possibility to work at the forefront of constructing a new academic field. Contributing to our object of study is a billion dollar industry with almost no basic research and the most fascinating cultural material to appear in a very long time. Key to the discipline is an opportunity to unite aesthetic, cultural and technical design aspects in a single discipline. As Aarseth (2001) pointed out, “this will not be a painless process, and many mistakes will be made along the way. But if we are successful, we can actually contribute both constructively and critically, and make a difference outside the academy”.

Appendix 1 – Examples of Lab teaching schedule

DATE	TUTORIAL TOPICS	CONTENT CREATION
WEEK 2 25/7/05	What is and isn't possible Devices are capable of executing Flash content Director/Flash metaphor Introduction to the tools	Graphics in Photoshop Create a Spaceship for Asteroids Layers and layer effects
WEEK 3 1/8/05	Basic Interaction & Scripting	Moving a sprite (Spaceship) based on keyboard interaction
WEEK 4 8/8/05	Scripting	Rotation and Inertia
WEEK 5 15/8/05	Scripting continued	Bullets (projectiles) Record keeping (file IO)
WEEK 6 22/8/05	Sound	Music (MP3 playback) Effects Multiple channels Synchronization
WEEK 7 29/8/05	Teaching Recess
WEEK 8 5/9/05	Teaching Recess
WEEK 9 16/9/05	Completed version of Asteroids to be handed in to Sean
12/9/05	Simple puzzle & arcade games	Card games Bejeweled Tetris Pacman Boulder Dash Space Invaders Pong
WEEK 10 19/9/05	Platform games and side-scrollers	Non-scrolling games with gravity, Side-scrolling, Parallax
WEEK 11 26/9/05	2.5D games	Traditional RPGs Real-time/Strategy Games
WEEK 12 3/10/05	Advanced Tiling techniques	Tile buffers and arrays
WEEK 13 10/10/05	Workshops
WEEK 14 17/10/05	Workshops
WEEK 17 7/11/05	Due date: Group component of Assignment 3

Appendix 2: Practical Assignments

Taken from J. Goggins, University of Amsterdam:

Design your own game and provide visuals for the finished version. Visuals for this project may consist of storyboards, drawings, paintings and Photoshop ‘screen shots’ of you imaginary game. Your game should be accompanied by rules and clear instructions or explanations, a walk through of the game and a short text in which you engage with one of the theoretical approaches we have studied over the course of the semester. For example, if you have designed you characters to look a certain way explain how this responds to the genre theory we have covered and/or other theories we have read about. Maximum: 2000 words.

Taken from E. Castronova, Indiana University:

Grades will be based on 1) three kinds of in-class presentation work (worth 10% each, 30% total), 2) a research paper (50%), and 3) overall class participation (20%). The research paper should aim at 15 - 20 pages and can be a critique/analysis of an existing virtual world (example: explain how the combat system in Game X encourages grief play) or a piece of original research (example: discuss the implications of censorship as applied to a player-run news website). More information about the paper will be given in class. The paper will be the basis for a presentation to the class near the end of the semester (10% of the total grade). A second presentation will be a brief, 10-minute ‘first impressions’ report on a massively multi-user world of your choice; this is also 10% of the total grade. The final 10% of presentations grading comes from brief presentations / introductions of the readings for the class. Each student may have more than one of these; the total weight will add up to 10%. Class participation is based on your overall behavior in class: contributing in a friendly, respectful, sincere way. Highest grades in presentations and class participation go to those who can clearly summarize the essence of their ideas and then engage in friendly Q&A about them.

Taken from G. Schott, University of Waikato:

For this assignment you will be asked to work in groups (maximum 5 members) to construct a game concept for a real-world game that is structured and mediated through the use of mobile technology called ‘pervasive gaming’. For this assignment you are asked to consider how Hamilton city centre can be turned into a game space. Attached to this assignment is the possibility that people could be playing your game next year!

Here are some references to spark your enthusiasm:

Savage, S. 'Invitation to First San Francisco Flash Mob.' http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000293.html The Go Game. 'Jave One Urban Challenge' http://www.thegogame.com/team/offerings/javaone_index.asp 'Flash Mob Supercomputing,' http://www.flashmobcomputing.org/ 'Flash Mobs of Beekeepers,' Alternate Reality Gaming Network. http://www.argn.com/archive/this_week_in_args_flash_mobs_of_beekeepers.html

You will be required to write out a report to accompany your design. This will include:

• A synopsis of the proposed game concept
• How it intends incorporate or utilise Hamilton landmarks and people
• How people will be recruited to play the game and organised during the game
• What mobile technologies will be required and how will they be used

Each group will be required to present a 15-20 minute group presentation of the game concept on Week 13. Grades for this assignment will be assigned from a combination of individual and group assessment. The four sections of the report plus the presentation provide five distinct areas that can be divided up and assigned to individuals for individual assessment (15%). The overall cohesiveness of the report and presentation will constitute the group grade (15%).

READING:
Olli, S. (2002) All The World's A Botfighter Stage: Notes on Location-based Multi-User Gaming, Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings.

Appendix 3: Course Coverage Offered by Humanities courses in Games

Example 1: Taken from B. Atkins, Liverpool John Moores University.

The aim of this module is to develop a full understanding of the theory and practice of game design. Students will initially study the role of design within the game development process and will be introduced to the fundamental approaches involved in designing all elements that make up a game. Even if our desire is to become professional artists or animators in the digital games industry, we should be aware of where the assets we create will sit in relation to the other components of finished games. Not all the judgements we make as producers of in-game art are aesthetic: we should always be concerned with the place our artwork will have within the overall design of a game. The purpose of this unit is to make us aware of the processes and practice of design, and to get us used to working in teams within the limits of commercial game design. Having earth-shattering genre-busting ideas is not enough on its own – we must be able to communicate those ideas both verbally and in writing, and this unit will test that communication through the submission of two design documents:

Throughout the module, students will be encouraged to play and analyse both digital and non-digital games, developing the ability to identify game play structures within various genres.

Students will engage in practical and theoretical work, acquiring the self-analytical and creative skills necessary to devise a game concept and develop it using appropriate prototyping techniques. They will realise the importance of defining a functional specification to communicate the mechanics of a game, and will learn how to produce a game design document to a professional standard.

Within this module, all students will be expected to develop their critical language and thought with reference to games and game design.

Week 1: What is a game?

In this session we will look at some of the more abstract questions that should inform game design. We all have a gut feeling as to what is and is not a game, but any attempt to articulate that feeling can result in confusion. We attempt to clear up this confusion with reference to both digital and non-digital games.

At the end of the session we should have a working definition of what a game might be that will be subject to constant revision and reconsideration throughout the programme.

We will playing and/or discussing:

• Tag
• Chess
• Noughts and Crosses
• Pong
• Dungeons and Dragons
• Doom 3

Preparation for next week:
Identify a game (digital or non-digital) and come to class with a list of the different distinct pleasures that you feel that it offers. Replay the game so that you can fix those pleasures in your mind. You must come prepared to explain and defend those pleasures in group discussion. This is not as straightforward as we may think...

Reading for next week:
Richard Bartle’s definition of MUD player ‘types’. Available at www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

Week 2: Why do we play?

Although related to the question of what a definition of games might include, this session sees a shift in focus towards player experience. A digital game without a player is just so much dead code, and due attention needs to be paid to the phenomenology of play if we are to get beyond mere consideration of form. This also raises questions as to whether it is possible (or sensible) to regard players as similar in their reasons for playing games, or whether we should develop a more complex taxonomy of player ‘types’.

We will be playing and/or discussing:

• Gran Turismo
• Unreal Tournament
• Championship Manager
• Sim City

Preparation for next week:
Identify an area of design possibility opened up by current or past computer technology. Try and isolate something that the development of digital games has made possible that would not be possible in non-digital forms. Restrict yourself to an example that has been realised already, and not something that we might predict for the future if the exponential rise in processing power were to continue without limit.

Reading for next week:
Read the ‘postmortem’ from the current issue of Games Developer magazine. We will be using the postmortem format as a basic analytic tool from this point in the course, so you should become familiar with its structure.

You must also read Chris Crawford (1982) ‘The Art of Computer Game Design’ http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html

Week 3: It’s a computer game, stupid...

In this session we will concentrate on what it is that has changed in terms of games with the appearance of the computer. It should always be remembered that the delivery of games through computers or consoles presents the designer with limitations as well as possibilities, and we will be considering these together. It is possible to think productively in terms not of ‘digital games’, but of ‘interactive software’, and we need to recognise that digital games are computer programmes dependent on the operation of algorithms.

We will be playing and/or discussing:

• Asteroids
• Civilization
• Halo
• Microsoft Flight Simulator

Preparation for next week:
You must come to class prepared to argue the case that any one game has pushed the limits of its apparent genre, has been revolutionary in establishing a new genre, or escapes genre definition in its entirety.

Reading for next week:
Mark Wolf, ‘Genre and the Video Game’ in The Medium of the Video Game (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), pp. 113-134.

Week 4: Genre

Identification of genre is not as straightforward as might be assumed, and there is no fixed definition of genre throughout the industry or its related press. Genre is important, however, in that it situates a game commercially, indicates a set of expectations that a player might have of a game, and informs the reception and review of games. We should also note, however, that many successful games do more than just fulfill the requirements of genre, and go on to push the limits of genre definition.

• Rome: Total War
• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
• Everquest

Reading for next week:
Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams On Games Design (Indianapolis, Indiana: New Riders, 2003), pp. 13-17 and 569-587.

Week 5: Documenting Design I

Although this session will begin with articulation of some of the documentation that is needed to record and communicate the design process, we will also be engaging in design exercises of our own for the first time, working in groups to try and come up with an early design document. The in-class exercise will deal with the brainstorming for a game based on a brief using an existing IP that will be given to groups in class.

Preparation for next week:
You must work together as a group to prepare a short (maximum 5 minutes) pitch for the group game design begun in class.

Week 6: Gameplay, Control, Interaction

A portion of this session will be given over to the presentation of the group game designs. Hand in will follow at the end of class.

Gameplay is a vague term that we seem to understand instinctively, but often find it difficult to explain. In this session we will try to produce a functional definition of what it is that contributes to effective gameplay, with particular reference to issues of control and interactive possibility allowed the player.

We will be playing and/or discussing

• Wario Ware
• Singstar
• Dance Dance Revolution
• Rez
• Eyetoy: Play
• Baldur’s Gate

Week 7: Level Design

If game design is generally focused on the larger question we must ask of a game, level design is where our focus needs to be on the smaller matters of player experience. We will be looking at the basic structure of in-game puzzles and challenges (including game balancing and key-and-lock puzzles), issues surrounding how to help a player who becomes ‘stuck’, difficulty curves, and other issues related to how the detail of design can keep the player engaged with the game.

We will be playing and/or discussing:

• Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness
• Galleon

Reading for next week:
Barry Atkins, More than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003), chapters 2 and 3.

Week 8: Practical Narrative

Narrative in games can be confused, in some quarters, with the delivery of story through cut scenes, the backstory given in manuals, or with the tedious exposition of plot by NPCs in-game. While all these elements are useful (and common) design tools that we consider in detail, we will also consider more subtle ways of building narrative in games, as well as examining the limitations imposed by current technology and budget demands. We will look at branching narrative (and its problems), the implementation of dialogue trees (and its problems), and the ways in which the cutscene has been implemented in games with varying degrees of success.

We will be playing and/or discussing

• Metal Gear Solid: The Sons of Liberty
• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
• Knights of the Old Republic

Reading for next week:
Jesper Juul (2001), ‘The Open and the Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression’, available at www.jesperjuul.dk/text/openandtheclosed.html

Week 9: Progression

Most games (but not all) move in linear fashion towards an end goal. Whether we term the methodology of proceeding through the game as one of ‘making interesting choices’ or of ‘solving problems’, progression involves a series of important design decisions. We will look closely at levelling up, the role of the power up, the save game structure and other matters that govern the negotiation of the game structure.

We will be playing and/or discussing

• Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
• Half-Life

Week 10: Designing Emergence

Much is made of the possibilities opened up by emergent player behaviour. As in so many other areas of game design, however, we should recognise the problems that any attempt to design emergence can bring. We will consider questions related to AI, ‘real’ physics

• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
• Thief: Deadly Shadows
• Far Cry
• The Sims

Weeks 11-13: Documenting Design II/Production of Game Design

For the next few weeks we will be concentrating on the production of a fully worked out design document. This session will cover the basic ground of format, presentation and the demands of writing design documents. The rest of the unit will be conducted through tutorials and presentations.

Example 2: Taken from Joyce Goggin, University of Amsterdam Syllabus: Perspectives on Games

Week 1- Introduction: Play and Games: What are they?

Reading:
Huizinga, Johan. “Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon”. Homo Ludens, Trans. Johan Huizinga (1938). Boston: Beacon Press, 1955, 1-28.
Caillois, Roger. “The Definition of Play” (9-10) and “The Classification of Games”. Men and Games. Trans. Meyer Barash. New York: The Free Press of Glenco, 1961: 9-35.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “The Ontology of the Work of Art and Its Hermeneutical Significance: a) The Concept of Play”. Truth and Method, Trans. Barden and Cumming. New York: Crossroad, 1985: 91-108).
Derrida, Jacques. “Sign, Structure and Play”. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978: 278-293.)

Week 2 - René Glas – Historical overview of the development of games

Reading:
Kent, Steven L. “Super Mario Nation”. The Medium of the Video Game. Ed. Mark J.P. Wolf. Austin: Universtiy of Texas Press, 2001: 35-48.
Herz, J.C. “Primitive Blips” and “A Natural History of Videogames”. Joystick Nation: How Videogames Ate Our Quarters, Won Our Hearts, and Rewired Our Minds. Boston and New York: Little, Brown and Company: 1997: 5-31.
Kent, Steven L. The Ultimate History Of Video Games, Roseville. Prima Publishing, 2001: xi-xvi.

Week 3 - Gender Issues

Reading:
Chen Christensen, Natasha. “Geeks at Play: Doing Masculinity in an Online Gaming Site”, in The Games Reader: Games, Gamers, and Gaming Culture, Ed. Wolf-Meyer, Matthew and Davin Heckman, 2003.

Download this article at: http://www.reconstruction.ws/Games%20Reader
To read abstracts of other articles in the reader go to:
http://www.reconstruction.ws/projects/gamescfp.htm
De Castell, Susan and Mary Bryson. “Retooling Play: Dystopia, Dysphoria, and Difference”, in From Barbie® to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games, Ed. Cassell, Justine and Henry Jenkins. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2000.
Download this article at: http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/retooling2.html

Week 4 - Agency and Engagement

Reading:
Fisler, Ben. “Digital Extensions and Performed Players: A Theoretical Model for the Game”. The Games Reader: Games, Gamers, and Gaming Culture, Ed. Wolf-Meyer, Matthew and Davin Heckman, 2003.
Download this article at: http://www.reconstruction.ws/Games%20Reader
To read abstracts of other articles in the reader go to: http://www.reconstruction.ws/projects/gamescfp.htm
Darley, Andrew. “Games and Rides: Surfing the Image”, in Visual Digital Culture: Surface play and spectacle in new media genres. London and New York: Routledge, 2000: 147-166.

Week 5 - Film and Games

Reading:
Manovich, Lev. “Digital Media and Cinematic Point Of View”.
Download this article at: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6105/2.html
Poole, Steven. “Electric Sheep”. Trigger Happy, The Inner Life Of Videogames. Londen: Fourth Estate, 2000: 78-102.

Week 6 - Interactive Narrative and Games

Reading:
Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator ad the Avant-Garde”. Early Cinema: Space – Frame – Narrative. Elsaesser, Thomas Ed. Londen: British Film Institute 1990: 56-62.
Tong, Wee Liang and Tan, Marcus Cheng Chye. “Vision and Virtuality: The Construction of Narrative Space in Film and Computer Games”. Screenplay: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces. King, Geoff and Krzywinska, Tanya, Eds. London: Wallflower Press, 2002: 98-109.

Week 7 - MarGuest Speaker: Martin de Ronde - Design

Reading:
Smith, Harvey. “The Future of Game Design: Moving Beyond Deus Ex and Other Dated Paradigms”.
Download this article at: http://www.igda.org/articles/hsmith_future.php
Adams, Ernst W. “The Construction of Ludic Space”. Level Up. Ed. Copier, Marinka and Joost Raessens. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht Press, DVD, 2003.

Week 8 - The Economy of Gaming

Reading:
Garite, Matt. “The Ideology of Interactivity (Or, Video Games and the Taylorization of Leisure)”, Level Up. Ed. Copier, Marinka and Joost Raessens. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht Press, DVD, 2003.
Molesworth, Mike. “Encounters with consumption during computer-mediated play: the development of digital games as marketing communication media”, Universiteit Utrecht Press, DVD, 2003.

Week 9 - Violence and the Video Game

Reading:
Crogan, Patrick. “Wargaming and Computer Games: Fun with the Future”.
Swalwell, Melanie. “’This isn’t a computer game your know’: revisiting the computer games /televised war analogy”.

Week 10 - Design and Engagement

Reading:
Eladhari, Mirjam and Craig A. Lindley “Player Character Design Facilitating Emotional Depth in MMORPGs”. Level Up. Ed. Copier, Marinka and Joost Raessens. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht Press, DVD, 2003.
Mannovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2001: 244-268.

Week 11 - Gender II: Perspectives on Lara

Reading:
Ouellette, Marc. “’When a Killer Body Isn’t Enough’: Cross-Gender Identification in Action-Adventure Video Games”, The Games Reader: Games, Gamers, and Gaming Culture, Ed. Wolf-Meyer, Matthew and Davin Heckman, 2003.
Download this article at: http://www.reconstruction.ws/Games%20Reader
To read abstracts of other articles in the reader go to: http://www.reconstruction.ws/projects/gamescfp.htm
Kennedy, Helen W. “Laura Croft: Feminist Icon or Cyberbimbo?: On the Limits of Textual Analysis”, in Game Studies, Vol. 2: 2, 2002.
Download this article at: http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/kennedy

Week 12 - Agency and Engagement

Reading:
McRoy, Jay. “’The Horror is Alive’: Immersion, Spectatorship, and the Cinematics of Fear in the Survival Horror Genre”. The Games Reader: Games, Gamers, and Gaming Culture, Ed. Wolf-Meyer, Matthew and Davin Heckman, 2003.
Download this article at: http://www.reconstruction.ws/Games%20Reader
To read abstracts of other articles in the reader go to: http://www.reconstruction.ws/projects/gamescfp.htm
Eskelinen, Markku. “The Gaming Situation”. Game Studies, Vol. 1:1, 2001.
Download this article at: http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen

Week 13 - Narratology and Games

Reading:
Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media”. Game Studies, Vol. 1:1, 2001.
Download this article at: http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Aarseth, Espen J. “Introduction: Ergodic Literature”. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature.
Download this article at: http://www.hf.uib.no/cybertext/Ergodic.html
Frasca, Gonzalo. “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology”. The Videogame Theory Reader. Wold, Mark J. and Bernard Perron Eds. New York and London: Routledge, 2003: 221-235.
Kücklich, Julian. “The Playability of Texts vs. the Readability of Games: Towards a Holistic Theory of Fictionality”, in Level Up. Copier, Marinka and Joost Raessens Eds. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht Press, 2003: 100-107.