next »

[s0]

wanted to reply to starsrift but got ninjad by maw

i'd also like to add: you can quantitatively analyze everything ever and there's quantitative theory for everything ever. you can design a piece of music (ex: incidental music) or a film (ex: instructional videos) for a specific purpose using psychology and specific techniques the exact same way you can design a game. and you can of course analyze them in the exact same way too. you can quantify using !!SCIENCE!! what colors were used in a painting, what chord progressions were used in a song etc etc. ive done quantitative content analysis of tv shows for instance.

[starsrift]

I'm not sure how to put more simply. More elegantly, I'm pointing out that we have quantitative (ludological) criticism for games, whereas art criticism is merely qualitative.
Unless modern art criticism is rooted in mathematical analysis, in which case I am now no longer modern.

Except that ludological criticism is built upon inherently subjective approaches to a game (as everyone engages in play differently).

If you're talking about metrics analysis, that's not really criticism, that's statistical analysis, and even then statistics are flexible enough that they allow you to draw a dozen conclusions from a single set of data.

So Sinclair is right, your post doesn't really make much sense. Or, more accurately, it makes sense, but you're doing an unneccessary dichotomy between "art" and "game" criticism, when they are fundamentally the same thing.

As for academic discourse: I'm personally a lecturer for a few economic simulation conferences with a focus on predicting player behavior. DiGRA does pretty extensive research and discussion of games in the academic space. Freelance critics like Lana Polansky approach being academic without being formally academia. So games are definitely a part of academia.

Could it be a larger part? Oh, for sure. I think we're just now reaching the point where certain games are held as part of "the canon" so we're right at the turning point where we might see liberal arts classes on things like game history (just like art history). But games have always had a strong root in academia; it's just never been loud or visible.

I normally try to post concisely and pack my sentences with meaning, to make them immediately readable and so that one doesn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time getting the meaning behind them. This hasn't worked in this thread, so it's wall of text time.

FK in the Coffee was lamenting the absence of publicly available meaningful criticism on games. Since we are on TIGS, not Neogaf or Kotaku, this can be reliably interpreted as a lack of criticism that helps to make better games. FK in the Coffee compared it to other artistic genres.
The problem with these other artistic genres is that their criticisms can be qualitatively stated in such a way as that an aspiring artist, or writer, or director, can take these qualitative criticisms of other work and apply them to their own, because those qualities are often self-apparent, and just as often, not based in quantitative fact, but instead cultural subjectivity. This is not me slagging off on art criticism, this is me pointing out that an appreciation of compositional elements, attention to details, and so on, can be readily apparent and explained to the beginner. However, one only has to look at how art has changed over the years to realize that most art criticism is not with a mathematical foundation, only subjective appreciation, rooted in our cultural psychology. I hasten to add before someone goes, "Aha! There's an exception which proves everything you say is wrong!" - color balance is, of course, quite firmly entrenched in mathematics, and fairly rigorous. Of course this can be easily explained to an aspiring artist with a color wheel and the notions of complement and contrast - and as such, is often the easiest thing for an aspiring artist to learn!
 FK in the Coffee expressed dissatisfaction with current criticism of video games, which is also qualitative. This criticism does not, however, encourage application of that criticism to your own work, because it is extremely subjective. Reviewers are essentially talking about what 'feels' good to them, and not why. Damn, I got concise there for a moment. Hope it's okay.
I mentioned talking about moral values because that can often feel like an academic conversation that a reviewer (and their intended audience) is capable of having, and it often feels academic, though it is essentially immaterial to a game designer who is attempted to discuss craft. The message of a game is not substantive in how to make a better game, only how to make a different one.

Ludological discussions not only explains why things 'feel' good or bad, but backs them up with math. This is more than simple statistical analysis of course, this is game theory, psychology, and so on. The difference between quantitative criticism and qualitative criticism is meaningful, because qualitative criticism is often not helpful with games. The reasons that they 'feel' bad is often not self-apparent, and in fact require analysis to understand. Using a quantitative basis for criticism has repeatedly proven helpful for games and explaining elements of the whys of craft.
This dichotomy is necessary, and deliberately drawn to help highlight the difference between unhelpful criticism like FK in the Coffee has found, and how to recognize meaningful criticism like what he's searching for. I also felt it was necessary to include when pointing at Gamasutra, because there are both meaningless and meaningful analyses of games on Gama, and if you don't know what you're looking for, it's easy to get lost. Anyone can write a blog on Gama, after all.

[s0]

Using a quantitative basis for criticism has repeatedly proven helpful for games and explaining elements of the whys of craft.

but you can do that for everything else as well, it's not unique to games at all. you can analyze painting techniques or sentence structure or shit and help someone improve their craft along those lines. also music composition is pure math*. you're getting criticism confused with critique.

*actually no but let's leave it at that for the moment

Ludological discussions not only explains why things 'feel' good or bad, but backs them up with math.

lots of things that "feel good" to me in a game don't "feel good" to other people and vice versa.

[Dragonmaw]

The problem with these other artistic genres is that their criticisms can be qualitatively stated in such a way as that an aspiring artist, or writer, or director, can take these qualitative criticisms of other work and apply them to their own, because those qualities are often self-apparent, and just as often, not based in quantitative fact, but instead cultural subjectivity.

Learning about cultural subjectivity and the nature by which authors associate certain elements of their work with metaphorical concepts is important, though, and by learning how a particular culture or person approaches a certain topic, you're still analyzing both qualitatively and quantitatively.

More succinctly: All arts criticism is valid and valuable for the creation of new work, because it exposes you to new horizons and also provides you with evidence and reasoning of metrics and enjoyment.

However, one only has to look at how art has changed over the years to realize that most art criticism is not with a mathematical foundation, only subjective appreciation, rooted in our cultural psychology.

While you are correct in the sense that art appeals to cultural sensitivities, you're incorrect in that art criticism doesn't deal with math. Perspective, composition, negative/positive space and (as you mentioned) color theory are all important to art criticism and rooted in mathematics.

The best way to think about it is like this: Criticism of technique is like theoretical math, where criticism of how that technique is used is applied math. Your formulas can be perfect, but if used incorrectly, they mean nothing; in the same way, your ludological techniques can be perfect, but if used incorrectly, it all falls apart.

You can't really separate them.

Reviewers are essentially talking about what 'feels' good to them, and not why.

This is a problem, I think we can agree. But this isn't a problem with arts criticism or academia, it's a larger problem with how our industry sees games (as toys or products, not as art).

I mentioned talking about moral values because that can often feel like an academic conversation that a reviewer (and their intended audience) is capable of having, and it often feels academic, though it is essentially immaterial to a game designer who is attempted to discuss craft. The message of a game is not substantive in how to make a better game, only how to make a different one.

"Better" and "different" are the same thing. Your goal is to make a game that is "better" to your audience, which means making it "different" from your previous audience. By discussing how people find games interesting (and hopefully why), criticism aims to explain and educate people.

Ludological discussions not only explains why things 'feel' good or bad, but backs them up with math.

But it doesn't say why. It's looking at a graph. One of the first things they tell you in a statistical course is that "context is everything." Pure metrics mean nothing without a context to place them.

Ludological discussions are essentially "X people found this fun." But why did they find it fun? That falls under psychology, not metrics; you can't judge why people found things engaging, only what they found engaging. It's the first step on a long analytical path.

The difference between quantitative criticism and qualitative criticism is meaningful, because qualitative criticism is often not helpful with games.

I don't make this distinction between qualitative vs quantitative, partially bc in this context they don't make any sense.

The reasons that they 'feel' bad is often not self-apparent, and in fact require analysis to understand.

Yo use an old cliche, it's not about the end result, but the journey that took you there. The analysis is important because it opens you up to new ideas and allows you to better understand not just the game you are criticizing, but also other games by proxy.

I've had this "by proxy" realization with like 6 separate games at this point.

Using a quantitative basis for criticism has repeatedly proven helpful for games and explaining elements of the whys of craft.

It doesn't really explain anything except "people like this" and "don't like this." Not to mention it encourages people to stick to what they know to ensure their audience.

Metrics are important, don't get me wrong, but you're overstating just how valuable they are.

This dichotomy is necessary, and deliberately drawn to help highlight the difference between unhelpful criticism like FK in the Coffee has found, and how to recognize meaningful criticism like what he's searching for.

It's the wrong dichotomy,

[FK in the Coffee]

Starsrift, I think you might be conflating technical/design analyses of games with games criticism at points in your post. Game developers certainly stand to benefit from these sorts of articles, and some can be immensely helpful in breaking down great/flawed design choices in other games. In the same way, an article on great cinematography, excellent musicianship, or great literature outlining why each is so successful can be incredibly beneficial to aspiring artists, but it is not “criticism” in the way I meant it in the first post.

Some of the most excellent pieces of criticism hold a mirror to entire fields, media, schools of thought, and force readers to consider implications of the works they criticize in a much broader context. Analysis can be an element of criticism, certainly, but criticism isn't necessarily confined to analysis. Essays like “A Room of One's Own” may state a thesis centered around one field (in Woolf's case, literature), but the the lens through which the author writes the criticism (feminism, in this example) colors the work as much as anything else.

Fortunately, it seems games criticism is slowly developing its own lenses (feminism also being heavily prominent as of late), but my main concern was how viewing a game through that lens can lend itself to change within the field in the same way. There hasn't quite been a “Room of One's Own” for games yet, and I think it will certainly to be interesting to see how the practice will develop, especially at such a vital time in the cultural evolution of games.

[Jordgubben]

But assuming the above to be true just raises another question: Why now? Why does 'video' games change this?

because videogames are a new multimedia form and can do things other games can't. i mean, film is not strictly speaking anything "new", it's a hybrid of theater and photography.

This is one piece of the puzzle, but far from the final one. It the possibilities of the medium was the only cause then the attention from academics would have risen in the late 1970s (with the emergence of the first multi-game home consoles).

I thought about it some more and I think the answer is actually pretty simple: It's really about MOAR Moneyz.

U.S. video game market revenues 1973-2013

(Source: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry?file=US_Inflation-Adjusted_Revenues.png)

[Pfotegeist]

I'm not sure if this is more appropriate here or in the writing section of the website. It's possible many game tropes are spurred on because they generated so much ludonarrative dissonance that immersion ended and serious criticism began. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VideogameTropes

It isn't nearly as scholarly or well thought out as gamasutra sounds, but it gives you a wiki style of interesting complaints to browse.  Not all of them make sense. Some are just untrue.

Often times the tropes spur on parody after parody because it's almost better than brand recognition. I no longer have to explain this oversight, everyone expected it.

[valrus]

Game-related research *is* becoming more prevalent in academia -- I know academics who have worked on gaming in several fields -- but I don't think we're going to find much gaming criticism in academia any time soon.  There are various challenges to getting it going within academia (regarding publication, funding, etc.) and a lack of those challenges where gaming criticism already goes on (that is, the internet).

It's not that people wouldn't want to do gaming criticism alongside literary criticism, but it would be very hard to succeed in a tenure bid in the absence of high-impact-factor gaming crit journals, funding agencies amenable to that kind of research, etc.  But then there's a chicken-and-egg problem, in that, in the absence of a critical mass of established, tenured academics working in that field, journals and funding agencies aren't going to believe it's a worthy subject.  (So just imagine, I'm putting together a grant for my federal humanities and social science agency, in order to show my department that my research is the kind of thing that can bring in grants and thus support my position, support postdocs and grad students under me, etc.  I'm going to need to cite my past work, and other relevant publications on the same topic, so that the committee can even determine what the question is, determine whether I'm capable of answering it, etc.  If my publications, and those that I cite, are in nobody journals, or they're just articles on Rock Paper Shotgun or something, then the committee will be suspicious that this is genuinely publishable work.  Also, my federal humanities and social science agency has been tightening the belt lately anyway; the bar for getting a grant is set really high.)

This will change over time -- it's not insurmountable, and people are slowly surmounting it -- but it's going to change slowly.  Meanwhile, the internet goes very fast, and that's why we see this on the internet and not so much in academia.

[gimymblert]

People talk about quantitative values to support there they qualitative values, change the qualitative and the quantitative don't make any sense anymore.

And anyone who say that art criticism isn't backed by math is largely ignorant of how art work IMHO

Art and math had little distinction back then, it's only recently they part away for political reason on the surface, on the underground they are making love more furiously than ever.


BTW if the quantitative conclusions goes too far for the qualitative taste of the person look at him backpedalling, especially when weird conclusion or success that contradict his statement appear.


Also look at all supposed ludologue avoiding referring (for qualitative reason) the biggest advance in the realm of game design lately
http://www.jorisdormans.nl/articles.php made by academia nonetheless and as hard quantitative as you get.

[Elsaess]

Yes, a few people have mentioned that there is a games quarter to academia. A couple of months ago I wrote a paper using some sources that tried to bridge the divide between cinema and videogames. Can't go into it now, but I'll get back to this thread at some point. I know some of my academic supervisors have a strong interest in games, too.

[Drof]

Oh games-related academia is very strong. I work with a university which treats it as a pretty big deal. There are incentives from companies like Valve to crack eggs like Flow so they can incorporate it into their games. In fact, if you haven't yet, check out some papers on a subject you're interested in. It's actually less dry than you might imagine.

But the question was specifically on a critical academic review. While I'm only writing an undergrad paper, I'm actually doing exactly that and the answer is... probably never, no.

Not because you can't 'prove' things about games. I mean, that's true, but all of games-related academia is more about finding the most accurate lens, similar to Psychology. It's more because there's not really a point from an academics perspective to discuss anything close to resembling a normal critique. Critical reviews are pretty uncommon, and they're the closest equivalent - in it, we use a game as a central point to talk about something completely different.

Academia wants to further the field it goes into, because the more it's cited and shown at conferences the more prestige the associated university receives (which I think is important for government funding here). The only reason I'm using critical review is to apply my theory that game mechanics telling stories is a significant enough phenomena that it should be inserted into Brand's taxonomy of narratives. The paper isn't really concerned with whether the game is any good or not because there's no reason to.

I'm not well-versed in other media's academia, but I've seen nothing so far which would suggest that critical reviews would be any different for films or books, so if we aren't seeing them, I'm gonna guess we never will.

Note this isn't stopping anyone from making a non peer-reviewed paper using all the techniques of a normal academic paper to explain the qualities of a game. But that's a lot more work than filming a half hour video of you talking while playing a game.

[gimymblert]

Also can't talk about it without mention Janet Murray and the very influential "Hamlet in the holodeck".

[Dragonmaw]

I really don't understand everybody's obsession with "flow".

[Drof]

I really don't understand everybody's obsession with "flow".

I simply find it a refreshing amount of clarity from 'immersion' which has been poorly defined so far. It also has a lot to do with the interest curve, which I just find fascinating.

[starsrift]

Metrics are important, don't get me wrong, but you're overstating just how valuable they are.

I strongly disagree with this characterization of quantitative analysis and I feel it makes your argument incorrect. But ultimately, I'm not really that interested in quibbling over the definition of ludology. And wonderfully, we don't have to agree. Cheers.

Starsrift, I think you might be conflating technical/design analyses of games with games criticism at points in your post.

Very much so, yes, perhaps to a flaw. I'm a technical person.

Fortunately, it seems games criticism is slowly developing its own lenses (feminism also being heavily prominent as of late), but my main concern was how viewing a game through that lens can lend itself to change within the field in the same way. There hasn't quite been a “Room of One's Own” for games yet, and I think it will certainly to be interesting to see how the practice will develop, especially at such a vital time in the cultural evolution of games.

Kind of different than your original post, but interesting. How do you feel about Cow Clicker (as satire) and The Stanley Parable?

[s0]

I really don't understand everybody's obsession with "flow".

i guess its an ok-ish theory but im extremely wary of people using it as some sort of "formula for good game design". even if you take commercial success as a measure of quality, minecraft (which lacks both challenge and clear goals), is bigger than all of the indie platformers usually described as having "good flow" combined.

http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/995

[Pfotegeist]

I really don't understand everybody's obsession with "flow".

i guess its an ok-ish theory but im extremely wary of people using it as some sort of "formula for good game design". even if you take commercial success as a measure of quality, minecraft (which lacks both challenge and clear goals), is bigger than all of the indie platformers usually described as having "good flow" combined.

http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/995

This was interesting because "flow" sounds like telling people busy work is fun. Of course telling people what is fun is flawed.

Busy work is work which you already know how to do and you're assigned a repetitive task that takes approximately an hour to reinforce the idea it's important.

[TammiDev]

I'm studying my Masters in Information Studies: Game Studies which focuses on Serious Games (games for education, health et cetera). I think the biggest problem with critically reviewing games is that there is no one definition for games. Dr. Erik van der Spek gave a beautiful talk where he started with a definition and showed a game that didn't fit that description and repeated 6 times to illustrate the problem. So when you have no definition for what a game is how do you create guidelines/ rules to critically review any game?

I am working on my thesis and my goal is that any developer can take something useful from it and choose whether to incorporate it into the game or not. A clear do or don't, scientifically backed up with statistical research. For now I feel that's the best I can do, the rest goes over my head for now. I am excited to see what the field looks like a few years from now.

[Dragonmaw]

I'm studying my Masters in Information Studies: Game Studies which focuses on Serious Games (games for education, health et cetera). I think the biggest problem with critically reviewing games is that there is no one definition for games. Dr. Erik van der Spek gave a beautiful talk where he started with a definition and showed a game that didn't fit that description and repeated 6 times to illustrate the problem. So when you have no definition for what a game is how do you create guidelines/ rules to critically review any game?

Another educational games person! Do you follow ISAGA?

I really don't understand everybody's obsession with "flow".

i guess its an ok-ish theory but im extremely wary of people using it as some sort of "formula for good game design". even if you take commercial success as a measure of quality, minecraft (which lacks both challenge and clear goals), is bigger than all of the indie platformers usually described as having "good flow" combined.

http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/995

Yeah, Lana lays out a pretty good argument against the current definition of flow in that piece. It's important reading.

I think the problem with flow as exists, though, is that it's too generic. It's like the definition of porno; you'll know it when you see it. Without decent criteria that we can point to, the concept is nothing more than a buzzword, similar to "gameplay."

[mks]

[...]
I think the problem with flow as exists, though, is that it's too generic. It's like the definition of porno; you'll know it when you see it. Without decent criteria that we can point to, the concept is nothing more than a buzzword, similar to "gameplay."

I agree.
The concept of flow seems to be really easy to understand if you encounter it, but becomes harder to understand and to implement into your game design the more you push for it.
In the end it boils down to one thing: if you made a game ppl like playing, these ppl enter the zone anyway. No need to force flow at all costs into your game because it'll be there regardless what you try to achieve it (if your game has an enjoyable game loop at least).