After reading the first course reading about the introduction to video games theory, I've realised that there is a point in it that I'm not sure whether to agree with or not. Those who study and/or write about video games should be able to play the games they analyse. Is this not saying that the person who is studying the video game is not allowed to analyse it from an outsiders point of view? To me, it is sort of like saying, those who have no experience have no say. But at the same time, to be able to explain it, you should be able to play. Which leaves me kind of on the fence over the whole topic. Surely there must be no right or wrong answer to this even though, the study of video games should have a certain level of performance. But then again, why can't people write about a video game from 'the sideline'. Perhaps talking about how the gamer response to an action, or when they move up a level, or increase a strength. Maybe not personal performance and then rating the game itself, telling readers about how boring or exciting it may be, but just watching, from an audiences point of view.
Hmmmm, my mind confuses me.
Jenni
I think you're absolutely on the right track that this is an interesting point of tension, which is why I flagged it for discussion in the worksheet.
ReplyDeleteVery curious to see what people think.
I think videogames are one of those things that have multiple levels of engagement. A person playing the game will obviously a different experience compared to someone standing over their shoulder, but I don't think it necessarily means that thier experience is not 'authentic'. Do I need to get burned o know that fires hot? Just some thoughts. Nice post btw =)
ReplyDelete