Simon T. Kaye

The Massachusetts  Institute of Technology, as part of its very friendly ‘let’s share the knowledge’ Open Course commitments, has been publishing the course design and full reading-list and materials for its Video Game Theory and Analysis class online. It’s just a little bit out of date, but intriguing nonetheless. 

Here it is!

They have listed the course as it appeared in Autumn 2006 and 2007, but the difference is really negligable (they had a few guest speakers in 2007).

Apart from making me want to enrol at MIT (ha!), a bit of scrutiny of the outline and reading-list is quite revealing. 

Perhaps they're learning about games RIGHT NOW?!

First of all, I’d like to point out that any course whose requirements include “complete (or play, at minimum, 70 hours of) a single contemporary videogame or a grouping of games in a particular series or genre (example: Civilization III and IV, plus expansions or online play; the Zelda series, etc.)” can only be a source of massive nerd-joy.

I’ve written a tiny bit on why I think we ought to take ‘gaming’ seriously – in fact, it was more of a declaration of why the broader media and public can’t take the hobby seriously as it stands, based on a criticism of the terminology which we seem to have reversed blindly  into over the years. 

MIT’s course – which is by far the most serious and impressive engagement I’ve ever seen with gaming by a big-time university – lessens the kind of outrage I was throwing about in that other article.

Each student on the course seems to be required to complete a project, based, in the main, on their engagement with a particular videogame and their understanding of it. It’s all listed here – so let’s see what the class of 2007 regarded as the most ‘important’ games of our era.

Knights of the Old Republic. Bioshock. F.E.A.R. Half Life. These are just the PC games. 

Okay, so far, so peachy.

But look a little bit further, and it soon becomes clear that the majority of engagement with these titles – with all of the titles they list, and the works they cite – is intrinsically founded in a narrative understanding of art. Games are viewed as “semiotic domains” for the development of stories. 

There does remain an understanding of the origins of videogames lying somewhere beyond narrative, in an Atari-flicker of puzzles, reflexes and technological joy. But most of this  material seems to place the modern, story-driven game (the game as vehicle for story) atop a pedestal, as if everything else has been evolving toward it.

Agency, and the impact of player participation, is an underlying theme of the course. But it’s treated as a kind of enveloping trick, a facade: the tale is as it is, and the importance of your activities is a clever way of immersing you. Even World of Warcraft is seen in these terms. 

This raises a few questions – first of all, are the folks at MIT right about our hobby? Are games simply the latest presentational package for old-fashioned narrative arcs? (Certainly, in the vast majority of cases, this is true?) 

But do we believe that our hobby is capable of more – that there’s more to the collective media and art generation that is modern games development than creating a plausible (or at least cohesive) space within which to tell stories? 

With these questions in mind (and I’m genuinely puzzled by them) I fully intend to read every book on that list. Do you think they’ll give me a certificate afterwards?