Game Play

This week’s readings were very informative. I learned quite a bit about game play (The Case for Play by Bartlett) and game literacy, theories, and teaching about games (Game Literacy in Theory and Practice by Buckingham/ Burn).

For example, Bartlett’s article focuses on how children pretend to play, and the benefits therein such has improved cognitive, and memory skills, while reviewing the works of Piaget, Peter Smith as well as Edward Miller, to help frame the debate from different perspectives. Additionally, what I found interesting was Bartlett’s questioning on what was missing within various testing on children’s play, while looking at what these test did not test for. I think this deeper analysis helped to provide further insight into how young people think/interact and the impact on their creativity, and some implications.

Transitioning to Buckingham and Burn’s article was also an interesting and insightful read, as well as being a good complement to the Barlett article. I really enjoyed learning about about the implications of the use of computer games/internet/ other forms of media as teaching tools to reach young people. Additionally, while teaching about games, one is able to understand some of the cultural norms that develop as a result. Furthermore, the section on game literacy helped to frame my understanding on how literacy is understand through the use of technology. Yet, the authors are quick to note that when explaining game literacy, its important to address central questions such as: Is it just a way of talking about how people learn and play, or is it much broader?

Prior to reading this article, I had no clue that computer games are almost “invariably multi-modal context- which is t say that they often combine different communicative modes, such as still and moving images, sound and music, speech and writing, and so further.” This point was further expanded by the introduction of various scholars who have debated the merits of game theory, while looking at how games themselves are played, and the analysis of game literacy.

Personally, I found the second have of the article most insightful. The discussion on literacy as critical social practice, added to my limited knowledge relating to the players of games, coupled with how games are made, the culture of game play (who plays these games and why, as well as gender identities) transitioning to game structures: levels, obstacles, rewards and win-lose states. Finally, the concluding remarks provided a good synthesis to what was learned in the article, and how game literacy may impact the understanding of education.

Collectively, both articles were thought generating and meaningful. I am also reminded of another reading, albeit not required for this class, but nonetheless helped too explore game theory, and who maybe the intended audience once games are constructed:

Constance Steinkuehler's (2006) defines “The Mangle of Play” as essentially being the game that is played by users as not being the game that the developers had in mind at inception, but rather the outcome of a ‘mangle of production and consumption,’ coupled with human intentions, broader social norms, cultural practices, and even chance. Game developers and designers may potentially imagine a specific type of users during the design process of the game, which in turns may lead to the development of a template for how that technology should be used.

I too think it’s important to consider who develops the games, what they hope users will do with the technology, what they will learn, how the game impacts the user, and to what extent they hope the users will not do. Yet, it is also clear that developers cannot predict how their technology will be used, and by whom. Given these uncertainties, I found Steinkhueler’s article an interesting and thought provoking read being that I rarely pay attention to these types of issues when thinking/using games. Furthermore, not being a “game techie person”, but more of a casual player/user, the article was insightful, providing me with a framework for better understanding the effects of game design, play, the users, and culture within virtual worlds/spaces.

I would be remiss not to say however, that, at some points in the article, I did find my mind wondering, mainly because, one can only write so such about game design. Although the article was brief, someone less acquainted with video technology and conceptualization, may not potentially fully grasped, or relate to all points.

Let me add that my last point was not to question, raise objection or critique the article, but to point out that to the average person (such as myself), might not necessarily keep interest with this article give that it seems to be targeted to a specific audience. Nonetheless, because I knew I was responsible for writing this blog, I found myself having to re-read, re-focusing, and “trying” to grasp to the overall message therein, specifically: The difference between the software and games, and the increasing mangle of play, leads to the unpredictability in how games are taken up, and developed is especially apparent in online gaming creation/content. Additionally, another point I found of interest can be found on the last page: “By the time this short essay is circulated, the practices I have described will have evolved and the descriptions I’ve will no longer be accurate or complete” (p. 211). From this statement, I inferred that media technology is always evolving, and that present technology (games) becomes outdated once they are marketed/made available to the public.