|Item type||Home library||Collection||Class number||Status||Date due||Barcode||Item reservations|
|Long loan||London College of Communication Main collection||Printed books||794.8 RUG (Browse shelf (Opens below))||Available||54147796|
Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:
Normal0falsefalsefalseMicrosoftInternetExplorer4 In his 2004 book Game Work , Ken S. McAllister proposed a rigorous critical methodology for the discussion of the "video game complex"--the games themselves, their players, the industry that produces them, and those who review and market them. Games, McAllister demonstrated, are viewed and discussed very differently by different factions: as an economic force, as narrative texts, as a facet of popular culture, as a psychological playground, as an ethical and moral force, even as a tool for military training. In Gaming Matters , McAllister and coauthor Judd Ruggill turn from the broader discussion of video game rhetoric to study the video game itself as a medium and the specific features that give rise to games as similar and yet diverse as Pong, Tomb Raider, and Halo. In short, what defines the computer game itself as a medium distinct from all others? Each chapter takes up a different fundamental characteristic of the medium. Games are: * Idiosyncratic, and thus difficult to apprehend using the traditional tools of media study * Irreconcilable, or complex to such a degree that developers, players, and scholars have contradictory ways of describing them * Boring, and therefore obligated to constantly make demands on players' attention * Anachronistic, or built on age-old tropes and forms of play while ironically bound to the most advanced technologies * Duplicitous, or dependent on truth-telling rhetoric even when they are about fictions, fantasies, or lies * Work, or are often better understood as labor rather than play * Alchemical, despite seeming all-too mechanical or predictable Video games are now inarguably a major site of worldwide cultural production. Gaming Matters will neither flatter game enthusiasts nor embolden game detractors in their assessments. But it will provide a vocabulary through which games can be discussed in academic settings and will create an important foundation for future academic discourse.
Bibliography: pages 139-148. - Includes index.
Table of contents provided by Syndetics
- Acknowledgments (p. vii)
- 1 Idiosyncrasy (p. 1)
- 2 Irreconcilability (p. 16)
- 3 Aimlessness (p. 32)
- 4 Anachronism (p. 50)
- 5 Duplicity (p. 63)
- 6 Work (p. 82)
- 7 Alchemy (p. 97)
- Appendix: Gameography (p. 107)
- Notes (p. 121)
- Works Cited (p. 139)
- Index (p. 149)
Reviews provided by Syndetics
CHOICE ReviewThis small volume is big on ideas. Ruggill (Arizona State Univ.) and McAllister (Univ. of Arizona) move beyond the latter's Game Work (CH, Oct'05, 43-0754) to offer seven "prompts" for examining computer games. These prompts are in fact provocations--at times contrarian, never polemic--that engender new ways to think about the objects of study. Three chapters emphasize the difficulties that confront scholars, developers, and players who attempt to discuss computer games, a topical domain that is protean, expansive, and at best challenging to delineate. Spurning received wisdom, a chapter on "aimlessness" argues that computer games are "fundamentally boring"; a chapter on "work" illustrates how computer games can be best understood as labor and not play. A chapter on "anachronism" locates computer games in terms of time (e.g., compressed product-release cycles, play objectives that hearken back to ludic pastimes hundreds of years old), and a chapter on "duplicity" examines how games, the game industry, and gamers are complicit in willing suspensions of disbelief. Unsurprisingly, the authors supply a myriad of references to both game studies scholarship and computer games. The result will please a broad audience. Summing Up: Recommended. Venturesome lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals. N. A. Baker Earlham College
Author notes provided by SyndeticsNormal0falsefalsefalseMicrosoftInternetExplorer4Normal0falsefalsefalseMicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Judd Ethan Ruggill (Arizona State University) and Ken S. McAllister (University of Arizona) co-direct the Learning Games Initiative (LGI), a transdisciplinary, inter-institutional research group that studies, teaches with, and builds computer games. They also curate one of the world's largest research-oriented computer game archives, and have written and lectured extensively on the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration, the politics of digital media, and the importance of play in scholarship.