DIGRA – Bridging Theory and Design
This roundtable generated quite a discussion, which I wasn’t able to capture in my notes. My notes of the four panelists’ opening statements follow:
Aki Jarvinen
Three processes/purposes for research: Research into design (traditional humanities- and social-style research), research through design (project based), research for design (game design, develop methods)
Stephen Bjork – stepping stones between design and theory
Focus on games (not gamers and gamer communities), focus on designed gameplay (not emergent; game with authors w/ intended gameplay) – “Game play Research†as type of interaction design; artifact and/vs activity. Test theories through design.
Design and Theory
Design – supported by methods, directed by theories
Methods – tested by designing, motivated by theory
Theory – validated by designs, applied by methods
(fluid shift between the three types)
Pirates! game example, where the team shifted between the 3 as they created the game.
Eric Zimmerman
Questioning Game Design + Theory
3 questions:
Game design as master discipline? Should research be relevant for game design? Or should scholars focus on their own field in relation to games without worrying about making sure that the ideas are relevant for game design?
Why the prevalence of formalism? The idea that games can be “known†and formally described. The “essence†of games. What does it leave out? Why this renewed structuralism? Why no ethnography of game design process or game designers?
Design as theoretical investigation? The academy as a possible space for games that would be avoided by the risk-adverse industry.
Slides soon available at: www.ericzimmerman.com
Aarseth
Can’t design, won’t design. On one hand, there is the idea that if you haven’t made a game, you don’t know what you are talking about. On the other hand, academics sometimes see designers as anti-intellectual, which is false as well. Advocate pure theory – long term, few specific goals, (anecdote: “where are you going with this?†“If I knew I wouldn’t take another step in that directionâ€). Practical projects as clutter – disrupts distance from object. Storytelling – no good explanation of the relationship between games and storytelling. Hasn’t been solved by design. Necessary to have a group that isn’t invested in design, but interested in dialoguing with these groups. 3 main channels of communication: pure theorists and designer. Design theorists and working designer. Pure theorists and design theorists. Request to all bloggers that all blogged comments be attributed to “the other Aarseth.â€
2 Responses to DIGRA – Bridging Theory and Design
Leave a Reply
Archives
- February 2016
- April 2014
- March 2014
- April 2013
- March 2012
- January 2012
- March 2011
- February 2011
- February 2009
- January 2008
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
Categories
thanks for these Jason – I linked to them in the comments of my DiGRA post at GTxA.
Too bad we didn’t meet at DiGRA, or if we did and I forgot, I apologize in advance 🙂
I think we missed each other Andrew – the curse of a busy schedule and concurrent sessions. Next time perhaps!