On The End of a Semester

Well, the winter break and associated holidays are upon us all.

This will be my last spring semester working on my Masters with the goal of moving on into the Ph.D. program in Arts and Technology at the University of Texas-Dallas.

The idea of going elsewhere appeals to me, but that is more from a traditional background. In the humanities, going to another school for one's masters, then another for their Ph.D. is the usual progression.  Game Studies, on the other hand, is often looped into other schools - so, normally those going into the studies are coming from a more relevant school. Often, one has done their undergraduate work in their bachelor's that relate directly to their Masters.

I'm in a curious position.

My undergraduate work was back in the 1990s and isn't really relevant to what I am doing now. Back then, I was going to be an attorney. Over a decade later of being deep in game design and development, a history degree isn't worth much beyond affording me the chance to earn a Masters degree.

So, I'm finishing my Masters and finding that, getting a Ph.D in something like Game Studies often requires glomming into something else like Media Studies.

I want to focus specifically on Game Studies.

So, I'm looking around, but in all likelihood, I'll be remaining here for the next few years - at the very least - as I dive headfirst into a Ph.D at UTD

Cheers!

On Writing

I really need to write more often.

Which is an odd thing to say as a grad student.  I'm finishing out what should be the last fall semester of my Masters Degree and the last fall before I begin my PhD.  I'm working on a class where I'm putting together an article to submit to a conference (which will need cleaning up, assuredly), I'm about to start working on my final paper for my Cognitive Ethnography Class, and I need to do some work on my final Interactive Narrative Class.

And I need to write more often.

It is definitely an odd thing to say.

Part of me wants to throw out some of the screen play I was working on for class.  The characters involved mean a lot to me, even if I cannot claim supreme authorship, and they remind me of better times creatively.

I'll need to think about that a bit more before I commit to it.

On Kerbal

For my game studies class this past semester, I spent a lot of time with Kerbal Space Program.

I really enjoyed this game from a very early time, though, I'll be the first to admit that rocket science is something that I actually know very little about.  In fact, I know so little that I'd never been able to get a satellite into orbit.

See, I played the game VERY early on.  I love the idea of a serious game teaching a difficult subject in an engaging and fun environment.  Kerbal is the definition of a serious game to teach a complex subject along the lines of James Paul Gee and his work.

Kids are able to put something together in an engaging way, communicate with other players, and put it all together to move forward.

The trick here is convincing parents and educators that games can be a way to teach children. Slowly, but surely, this is happening.

I recently looked at some of the curricula implemented for Common Core in New York via Eureka Math (sample here). I investigated based on some discussion surrounding the wisdom of instructing kids in Kindergarten, and if doing so was "too early".  In looking at the lessons, the goal is the kids learning, certainly, but each of the lessons are actually games.

A bit of deconstruction here:  parents questioning the wisdom of Eureka Math often assume that "learning" and "lessons" involve the very conventional, post-industrial age education.  We all know this stereotype: rows of desks, kids sitting, quiet, heads down, scribbling answers on papers for grades, listening to instructions by the teacher.

Eureka is gamifying mathematics for kindergarteners. The kids don't sit at a desk and memorize facts and figures and recite them back to the teacher.  They play with beans and gloves, interactively manipulating tokens and the learning environment to build useful facts within the context of play.

How awesome is that?

On Critics

Well, another day, another complete misunderstanding as to the role of a critic within the cultural context.

As usual, this spins from Anita Sarkeesian.  In this case, from her inclusion on the Time 100 Most Influential list.

Most of the comments I've read in my circles are either the trite (polite rehashing of GamerGate comments) to the other usual comment that artists make of critics - because she doesn't make games she cannot possibly be informed enough on the process to provide a complete and intelligent criticism of games.

This sort of commentary completely misses the point of a critic in the relationship with an artist.  Critics are informed, they are studied, and most of all, they represent a specific voice as representatives of good taste in a broader cultural context.  A good critic will do more than simply point out shortcomings either in form, style or taste.  A good critic will also point out when something works and representing a shift in form, style or taste.  More to the point, critics represent good taste talking back to the artist so that the artist can improve their craft. This analysis of play aesthetic is key because it represents a voice separate from fandom, a dispassionate voice who provides feedback so the artists can grow and create better works of art.

Is it good form when developers ignore player feedback? No. Why? Because the players represent the audience in play. I've lost count the number of times I've been told by developers far more learned than I that audience feedback is essential for tuning and balancing play.

Yet here is a critic pointing out feedback and is met with polite be firm denial.

This reminds me of the MDA method of game analysis.

For those that aren't familiar, it is a method of analysis used to analyze games.

MDA stands for Mechanics -> Dynamics -> Aesthetics.

When a developer creates a game, they create the mechanics, tune the dynamics of play, and create a specific emotional response or aesthetic.  They experience this sequence from left to right.

Players and critics experience the sequence in reverse order. When a critic plays the game, they engage the emotional response to play, react to the dynamics and perhaps delve into the mechanics that create those dynamics.

When Anita and other critics engage with games,they experience a specific emotional response to the content provided to them. The critics response is based on whatever cultural perspective that they bring to the game. This is no different than any other player.

What this means is that a critic does not need, rather, they are addressing the aesthetics of play as they interpret it and respond accordingly based on the current standards of taste.

So, what does Anita do?  She responds to the aesthetics of play from her cultural perspective as it pertains to current standards of taste.

Why does that bother people?  Because it challenges several deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes of who consumes games. It is also much easier to attack Anita than it is to put together a coherent response. But this all side-steps the fundamental truth that the artist and the critic are a relationship that is required for growth of games as a true art form. If games are to be taken seriously as an artistic form, it means that games must conform to matters of taste. In that regard, the critic is essential. 

The critic is the curator of taste within our culture. The critic is to point out when a creator does something well or when the creator does something poorly, and inform the broader audience of these points.

It's time for the game industry and its fans to grow up. As long as I've been a developer, game developers and creators were sounding the clarion call that games are art. 

Now that they are recognized as such, these same developers and creators are upset when critics point out the deficiencies of games as they reflect larger cultural deficiencies when it comes to gender.

Take from that what you will...

On Pain

I've been estranged from by Father for 5 years now, give or take a few months.

I decided to break contact for a variety of reasons. These boiled down to the influence of my step-mother on my father. My father felt that he had to make a choice between her and her family or his sons.  This is a false dychotomy, because he ignored his responsibility to build a bridge and make sure that the two families came together.

Instead, he chose to drive the wedge in deeper by choosing her and her family.

My brother stopped speaking to my Father before I, as he and his husband received very insulting treatment from our step-mother. I believe they stopped communicating 6 years ago, or a year longer than I had.

My step-mother has since died. My Father has an apartment somewhere in the Austin/Round Rock area, and that's that. My step-mother absorbed most of my father's assets in exchange for my father's healthcare and living situation settled until his death. As expected, my Father's adopted family don't really seem to care much about him and, as far as I can tell, don't communicate with him at all.

This revelation I'm sure came as a surprise to my Father, but was of no surprise to my brother or I.

My father embodies the modern, american conservative ideal of "I have mine, fuck you and get yours".

He expects my brother and I to want to maintain a connection with him, despite the emotional abuse leveled against us by him and our step-mother through the years.

I'm told I should reconcile.  But for whom am I reconciling?  I have a dad, my step-father.

A Father results from sexual congress between a man and a woman and the successful implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus.

A Dad results from being a parent.  A parent means consoling injuries when the bactine stings.  A parent means encouragement when it seems dark and bleak.  Being a parent means proud smiles and laughter when things go great.  It means hugs and kisses, every day.  It means back rubs every night. It means putting your own desires aside and playing with them, loving them, and being a part of their life, being a mentor for life.

That is my step-father.  He is my Dad.

My Father stopped being my Dad two decades ago.  He was often rude to my wife, stooping so low as to make snide remarks about incidental housecleaning while she made him lunch and she was 8 months pregnant. He was rude to my friends when he'd visit me in college. He showed as little desire to be a part of his Grandchildren's life as he did mine. When asked when they could visit, he and my step-mother would claim poverty, yet we'd be told stories of their numerous cruises around the Pacific or Caribbean.

We're often told to forgive and forget.

When it comes to by Father, I'm not sure I can do either.  I don't think that he deserves forgiveness, and I cannot forget and appreciate the repercussions these choices had upon his children.

On Spock

I'm a bit behind.  So, here we go...

Farewell, Ambassador.

So, I'd like to write a bit about the passing of a Science Fiction icon, as Leonard Nimoy has passed.  I have a long time love affair with Star Trek.  The universe of Star Trek is hopeful, even in the face of horror and the unknown, filled with optimism that seems to be lacking in Fiction generally and Science Fiction specifically.

And then there was Spock.

Leonard was iconic as Spock, not just because of the character, but because he did more than simply read off the page.  He committed himself, his personal outlook and his philosophies - secular and religious - to the character.  For a man who, at one point, defiantly proclaimed "I am not Spock", the amount of his own persona and life he poured into the character defied separation.

Spock, for me, was more than simply a great character in which an actor poured himself into with grace and skill.  He was an alien who was, at once, more human than the humans with which he shared screen time.

I was deeply moved on learning of his death.  I grew up with Trek and Spock, and while the rational part of me always knew that this would happen (illogical to think otherwise?), there is still the understanding that a deeply important part of my personal, cultural makeup is physically gone.

And, in that way, his performance and the world he helped create will always have an effect on me.

Live long and Prosper, Ambassador.  

On Petitions

For the uninformed, a petition was started in the wake of the recent "Gamer" Law and Order SVU.

I recommend reading it if you want a good laugh.

This petition places the blame for the episode on the likes of Polygon and Kotaku.

Now, for those that haven't seen the episode:  yes, it's bad.  It's as uninformed as you'd expect from a 45 minute TV show trying to cram in some pretty reprehensible things.  The arc of the show was limited and the whole thing basically took things to a ridiculous extreme (though, if the threats to Breanna Wu are any indication...).

But what the petition fails to really grasp is the concept of yellow journalism. To borrow Frank Luther Mott, a historian and journalist, defined yellow journalism in 1941 as:

1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

To call Kotaku or Polygon's coverage as "Yellow Journalism" is to create a pretty fuzzy distinction between two things that actually have some pretty strong distinctions.  You could, maybe, present the case for number 1, and number 4 doesn't apply, but from their coverage, Kotaku and Polygon have not delved into 2 or 3 unless you take the "GG" crowd at their word, which given their behavior, would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

To quote Inigo Montoya:  "You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Shooting the messenger is the easy way out.  It allows the receiver to ignore the repercussions of the events which effect them.  It is no different than a child throwing a tantrum, standing with their fingers in their ears and yelling.

If games and game culture are to be taken seriously in the larger mass media culture, then being able to address the foibles of the culture are a requirement.