Culture Clash

(May 2006)

Academics Anonymous

Defining “game scholar”

I happen to be acquainted with a woman who teaches at a major Midwestern university. She does not, by any account, fall into the commonly-held stereotype of “college professor.” She's got a bar code tattooed on her foot. She owns nothing made of tweed, nor anything with suede or leather elbow pads. She listens to Slipknot. She's turned the receipt of traffic tickets into a highly self-gratifying personal hobby. She also contributes to books with titles like “Evidence-Based Behavioral Interventions in Oncology.” She is ridiculously, unfairly intelligent and highly regarded in her field… even though she's the opposite of all the imagery associated with university academics.

Stereotyping has a bad connotation, but it's actually a natural part of human cognition. The brain organizes things into groups and patterns for easy classification and identification: professor = ink-stained intellectual, not Slipknot-listening, citation-getting riot grrl. Provided the brain is willing to reclassify based on new information, the concept of stereotyping is just fine.

In the games industry, many developers are quick to angrily and often rudely stereotype academics as frustrated wannabe game makers. They just assume that a person who studies games secretly wishes to create them, but was foiled in their ambition. Indeed, developers are often so abusive and so close-minded in this matter that I can only assume they somehow feel threatened by academics, as though afraid a ravening horde of tweed-clad scholars will descend on the industry's development arm brandishing torches and pitchforks. But the stereotype of academics shamefacedly “falling back” on game studies as a way to be involved with games without actually making them is simply erroneous. Most academics are not failed developers, and many don't have any desire to make games at all. There are people who simply want to play with, write about, speak on and ponder the importance of games.

It's easier to describe what a game academic is not than what he or she is. Specimens vary. Game scholars can certainly be tweedy intellectuals whose research is so mired in theoretical reflection that their findings, though valuable, may lack immediate practical application to the development world. They can be learned critics, apologists and experts on the game experience who actually don't generate scholarly research in the classical sense but are directly responsible for deep and relevant analytical discussion of games – the medium's Roger Eberts and Leo Braudys. They can be teachers of the humanist side of gaming, something that desperately needs to find its way into game education curricula. But one thing that all academic breeds share is the ability to promote, defend, understand and enhance the medium of the video game.

Xenophobia is common throughout all industries. Insular communities tend to be protective of their shared wisdom and suspicious of outsiders. They believe that only their own confederates can possibly contribute anything of value, even when it's applicable across multiple disciplines and incontrovertibly proven. Game developers are as naturally distrustful of advice-spewing xenomorphs as anyone else would be. The challenge faced by academics, therefore, is to alter the perception that they're intruding on something they have no place in.

What is a game scholar? A game scholar can be whatever the development community wants it to be, provided the community ditches its animosity and considers the possibility that scholarship can be tangibly beneficial. One application of game studies is to help make better games by better understanding the medium. We've already seen it in a few places – think about Microsoft's HCI and usability labcoats working with Bungie on Halo, or behavioral scientists colluding with developers to make next-gen MMOs even more engaging. The application of film theory and criticism to motion picture production has resulted in better movies, and a deeper understanding among filmmakers of what ingredients go into quality film. And while the games industry too often looks to cinema as a basis for self-definition, in this case the comparison is apt. An understanding of the theoretical and critical context of games will help the medium evolve to provide ever more meaningful and impactful game experiences.

And it's very, very important that this happen. A medium that doesn't evolve will quickly lose its luster. It's a never-ending challenge in all entertainment; over time, consumers become increasingly savvy about how to consume and what to expect. If the medium doesn't stay at least one step ahead of them, consumers become dissatisfied and may choose to spend their money elsewhere. A piece of entertainment that can no longer reliably affect its audience is not long for the world. That's where academia comes in, because academics study not just games, but audiences and the relationship between the two. While developers do the heavy lifting of actually creating the games that people play, they can look to others to provide insight on how to make their games the best they can possibly be. Only by understanding the strengths of yesterday's games can we make tomorrow's better. That is the role of the academic.

One thing to keep in mind is that “scholars” of the game experience come in many shapes and sizes, and they may not all be about making games better. Practical academics are definitely going to be more useful to developers than intensely theoretical ones, though all scholarship will ultimately add some kind of value to the medium. The fact of the matter is that contemplative navel-gazing has led to some pretty amazing advancements in a wide selection of disciplines, which is exactly why pure scholarship exists. Simple experimentation, research and study often gives rise to discovery. If the only innovations in the world were the ones that people consciously sat down intending to produce, the world would be short quite a few innovations. Understanding and reflection breeds progress and enhancement.

History tells us that many developers remain dubious about game academia, and very averse to the postulation that academics can help produce better games. Whether they feel threatened by academics or just nastily and loudly fail to see their value is anyone's guess, but there's no point in browbeating non-adopters. They're welcome to continue merrily on their own trajectory to eventual success or failure, and good luck to them. Future academics will study their fate. Meanwhile, the rest of the industry will be over here proving that it's possible to produce game experiences so powerful that life itself seems occasionally trite by comparison.