So the first reading assignment definitely had its highs and lows. The low being the reading from "An Introduction to Game Studies" and the high being everything but the reading from "An Introduction to Game Studies". In my personal opinion that book took a lot to say a little. It may have been because I read it while I was half asleep, but then again... it's the thing that put me in that state. All it needed to say was "video games should be respected as a legitimate field of study", throw out a couple examples, and then wrap the section up. Wham, bam, thank you officer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legitimizing video games and they're fields of study because they are a form of entertainment and an art, but keep in mind that those grueling 12 pages were just the introduction to the book. If you're going to talk about everything later in the book that you did in the introduction (which is usually the case) then why would you want to drill an idea into someone's head to the point where they are bored of the topic before the book even gets going? I understand that some people enjoy this approach on things, but it's not like I have the shortest attention span in the world so I could only assume that other people were thinking the same thing. Then again, we all know what assuming does.
The other two readings however, did keep my attention long enough for me to get through (possibly because they were shorter or possibly because I did it on the computer so I could check email, facebook, and everything else if I got bored). The argument's presented in the Video Game Style Guide and the blog, "Videogames or Video Games - What are We Talking About?", were hit and miss I found. Yeah, in order for video game journalism to be taken seriously it needs to be unified as far as spelling, grammar, abbreviations, etc, but I think people are looking way to far into it. Take the choice between video games and videogames for example. Spell check just popped up for one of them (no space), but they are both still technically correct in video game journalism and people feel we need to argue which one we should use. There are obviously arguments for each side but honestly now, who feels they are that connected to a word or holds a word that dear to their heart that they would be genuinely upset if they didn't get what they wanted? The whole debate just seems silly to me. Pick one and move on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that that the reading from "An Introduction to Game Studies" was boring. While I found the arguments well thought out, I felt that the author believed using more words made his argument more persuasive. I, and I believe many others, just want to cut to the chase. I want to know what you have to say now and get it over with because I have to do a million other things today. If anything, I'm sure anyone he was trying to convince is now lost in this sea of wordiness.
ReplyDeleteIn a general sense, I agree with both of your comments - that things don't necessarily need to be so complex and fleshed-out. But here's the thing: that textbook is meant to be an academic reference textbook, and as such, it is responsible for the level of academic rigor found in any other field. What this means is that one (at least, when writing and directly incorporating the text into works) cannot just pick a term and move on - that arbitrariness is exactly what people like Mayra are trying to get away from. Choosing things at random and based exclusively on personal preference - without having a body of logic and evidence to support that decision - is not academic discipline. It isn't thoughtful, scholarly analysis of an idea. It isn't even clever and informed criticism - at best, it's punditry.
ReplyDeleteIf getting to the absolute root of game-related ideas, and making arguments about them - with justification through context, data, and logic - isn't the focus of the class and the field, then what is or, even, should be the point? Anybody can have an opinion and just "decide" on something and move on, but that should never be good enough for anyone considering themselves to be an academic.