The Ivory Tower

February 2004

Dungeons, Dragons, and Ivory Towers

Chaim Gingold

Previous Ivory Tower columns have called for increased communication between game developers and game researchers. From a purely selfish point of view, as someone who likes to make things, I want an academic discourse of games to be relevant to game production. By the same token, intelligently reflecting upon production and design practice is key to ensuring the creation of creative games and a vibrant game industry. Game developers and academics, by engaging one another, can help both of their practices mature. But what does it mean to have conversations with one another? If we're going to play together, what are the rules of the game, and what are the motivations of its players?

First, we need to think about how the academic and commercial worlds currently interact.

1. How We Play

1.1. Consumption of Research. The game industry consumes a great deal of academic research while producing games. The domain of this research, however, is computer science. A graphics programmer can read a single SIGGRAPH paper and quickly master a technique that may have taken a PhD student years of work to develop. Does it make sense for the game industry to consume research outside of the traditional domains of computer science, such as graphics, algorithms, software engineering, and artificial intelligence? This is an open question and a challenge for game researchers.

1.2. Artifacts for Study. Game researchers study games; without game developers, they have nothing to study.

1.3. Justification of Research. Researchers often justify their work based upon industry need. A large quantity of computer graphics research in academia is predicated on the existence of industries such as computer games and digital film effects. Real world problems, such as those that face the film and game industries, are often a starting point and justification for academic research in computer graphics.

1.4. Hiring. The game industry hires many college graduates. For a game studio, developing relationships with the right institutions and professors is key to finding the brightest people to hire. Likewise, it is important for academics to build relationships with companies to ensure their graduates can find internships and jobs.

1.5. Education. If industry hires people who have been trained in the academy, which seems to be the norm, industry should care about what their hires know and are taught, right? The IGDA has a curriculum initiative, a collaborative effort between developers and academics, which discusses topics relevant to teaching games and game development. It follows that it is important for game developers to find out what is being taught in schools, and discuss curriculum with teachers. Likewise, it is critical for educators to be aware of industry practice. What is the development process used in a game studio? How do people from multiple backgrounds work together to create a game? Educators and developers have a shared interest in tuning academic curriculum to the real world.

1.6. Cultural Legitimacy. Simply in and of itself, an academic discourse of games declares that making and playing games is a culturally legitimate practice, worthy of study and respect. The last thing the game industry wants is to end up marginalized like the comic book industry. Cultural legitimacy is key to defending video games from the latest wave of political and legal demonization. As Henry Jenkins pointed out in his Ivory Tower column, Hollywood was eager to legitimize itself by working with educational institutions. It is important for the long term health of the game industry to find similar ways to legitimize itself. Game theorists are also in the trenches, defending the game industry from free speech infringement. Henry Jenkins has appeared before congress and debated violence in popular media with congressmen. Out of simple self-interest, the game industry should encourage academics engaged in this kind of work.

2. What's Missing?

Having looked at how we play right now, what can we improve on? Where are the hidden opportunities for discussion and growth?

2.1. Analysis. I'd like to see more academics rise to the challenge of doing close analysis of games. English and art departments in universities dedicate a great deal of time to studying and understanding what makes masters like Shakespeare and Picasso good. This is important not just to art historians, but to students and teachers in the studio. In art studios and creative writing workshops, the work of masters is analyzed as part of the educational process. The Ludologica project seems like a step in the direction of game analysis, but we have only begun to scratch the surface what is possible. We need to understand what makes the greatest video games so great, and focus on what is unique to the digital medium. It's one thing to apply film theory to the cut-scenes in Metal Gear Solid, but how can we make sense of the playfulness and interactivity of Super Mario Bros.? The study of games will have reached maturity when game designers can turn to academic studies of games as a way to improve their practice, just as game programmers make use of computer science research.

2.2. Experimental Games. Academics have a luxury that real developers do not: they have more freedom to make experimental games. The ways in which student and experimental films are made and appreciated in academia is a model to emulate. Academia is a world in which the creation, appreciation, and dissemination of experimental game work can thrive. Studying games is more than just playing and writing about them. How can we make games that are in themselves studies of games?

2.3. Cross-pollination. It is common for students to intern at game companies. Maxis, a division of Electronic Arts, has begun experimenting with new ways to engage academics. Some students from Carnegie Mellon University recently gave a talk here on emotion and games. Maxis has begun inviting academics to give presentations, which should help start many new and interesting conversations. It would be great for the industry at large to find more ways to invite academics into its world, seek out people doing relevant research, invite them to present their work, and possibly fund such work or bring professors on as employees. The opposite is also true: academics can do more to bring developers into their world. I was disappointed by the lack of game industry attendance at Level-Up. Part of the problem is developer's busy schedules, but a more focused effort to bring developers into the fold might have paid off handsomely. Where were the industry's most cherished reflective practitioners? Where were the industry champions of experimental game development?

2.4. Leveraged Research. There is untapped potential for the game industry to leverage the many hours of open exploration available to researchers to answer questions relevant to development. Academics study everything from development process and marketing to game design, graphics techniques, and legal issues surrounding games. Relevant research should be encouraged, and the justification of research based upon industry needs is an obvious entry point. Funding research is one technique, but simply engaging academics in conversation and supplying them with data like market studies or production documents would pay huge dividends. Likewise, academics should try to locate and engage developers who might be interested in their work. As a game developer, all you have to do is find out who is doing research that is relevant to your work, send them an email, and start talking.

--
Chaim Gingold
Chaim Gingold is a child of the emerging relationship between industry and academia. He recently completed a masters degree from Georgia Tech’s Information Design & Technology program, interned at Maxis, and now works there as an associate game designer. His masters thesis tried to figure out what makes Super Mario Bros., SimCity, and The Sims so good. Email him or visit his web page.