Falksonomy

Recently comments similar to “except I’m old so i don’t know how to play games like you” or “But you younger people just know how to play games, and I won’t be able to understand them” have saturated the classrooms I’ve been in. The disconnect between professors speaking on the subject of games, and those who play games feels as great a divide as the grand canyon. What is it that is scaring everyone away from the actual “doing” of games? One possible explanation is the lack of common vocabulary, or work describing the basic nuts and bolts of games. There is no universal game lingo dictionary, at least not in print.

One guiding principle that should always be followed when speaking to, or writing for, any group is making sure to clearly define what is being discussed. So the blame here can fall both on the shoulders of folks like myself, who blaze through comments in classes with “well when I was raiding, the dps meters showed that I was doing fine, but someone missed a sheep and we all died.” Anyone who doesn’t play, or hasn’t played an extensive amount of World of Warcraft will be completely lost by comments such as that, and rightly so. However, another important guiding principle is the ability to ask questions; inquiry is everything. When comments are made, people should be asking “whats a raid?” “wait, sheep? are you a farmer?” or “DPS? is that some form of cleaner or something?” Funniness aside, the ability to step out of that shell and say “I’m confused. I need some clarification, and some help” would greatly benefit a lot of people, both those who know and do not know what is being discussed.

As for the fear of doing, James Paul Gee in “What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy” says that it is both possible, and in fact, not difficult to learn to play and therefore understand these games. He says that through bringing prior literacies into new environments (in this case games) one can actively build an understanding of and therefore learn to play games. This “bridge building” as he calls it, requires three factors:

“1. The learner must be enticed to try, even if he or she already has good grounds to be affraid to try.

2. The learner must be enticed to put in lots of effort even if he or she begins with no motivation to do so.

3. The learner must achieve some meaningful success when he or she has expended this effort.”

What will motivate people to go through with the process? For academics, at least in a telecommunications department, there is already an enticement to try: The extensive amount of games research going on in thier own classrooms, in courses designed originally around other media, should be prompting them to try to become familiar with the subject matter. Not for themselves necessarily, but for the ability to continue to teach on the same level as before.

If the desire is truly to be able to learn to communicate with a new batch of students, or in some cases, I’m sure, to feel less self conscious in the classroom, the enticement to put in lots of effort exists. Those with no games knowledge or experience are quickly going to become lost or confused when it comes to a lot of what is coming up for the future. Perhaps Kuhn was right though, and I’m being optimistic: maybe dinosaurs really will die, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.

Finally, because most games that can be played anymore are in the Gee sense “good games” (they encourage active and critical learning and therefore facilitate advancement on the part of the player in knowledge expandable to not only other games, but other domains of literacy in their own life), it should not be difficult to find something that peaks one’s fancy. World of Warcraft or LOTRO do not need to be starting points if the goal is for general literacy of the function of games. Gee played a Wellsian steam punk single player game to start with - which appealed to his own literary and academic fancies. One walk down the games isle at Best Buy can be almost dizzying in the choice of titles and genres available for play. There literally is almost something for everyone.

Closing the divide between game players, academics, and game playing academics is going to be an important part of the future in research in this area, and all of those involved must take active steps to facilitate this change. Until the vocabulary is built, and a general understanding is had, I fear we’re going to spend quite a bit more time talking but not communicating as words and phrases and information bounce off of, and fly past each other.