The Play Research Group, UWE, Bristol
studying the technologies and cultures of games and play
Mo'nonymous on Gaming Horoscope
sethgiddings on '... I have studied...
urbnomad on Hello Kitty Online
urbnomad on Pinky analog pixel a...
Playful Subjects
more about this weblog...
Play Research Group - old page
1up
antimodal
avant game
avant gaming
buzzcut
culture clash
cyberzel's mind
Dave Surman
digiplay initiative
digital girls
digra
educational games research
eludamos
frans goes blog
gamasutra
game code
game research
game studies
game+girl=advance
gameblogs.org
gameology
games and culture
games*design*art*culture
gender & culture
got game?
grandtextauto
grrlgamer
guardian games blog
intelligent artifice
jill/txt
Jonas Heide Smith
joystick.101
ludologica
ludology.org
ludonauts
memorycard
miscellany...
notebook
playability.de
popularculturegaming
reality panic
Sara Mosberg Iversen
selectparks
shinyspinning.com
technophilia
terra incognita
terra nova
the escapist
the ludologist
thinking with my fingers
uwe
videogame visionary
watercoolergames
women gamers
zang.org
zone of influence
today
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
" Fan culture as reciprocal development through play
I have used Juul (on my head be it, apparently), Kampmann Walther, Caillois and Sutton-Smith with varying degrees of success to identify elements of fan production that make it gamelike and a form of play.
Hills and Jenkins speak about aspects of fan culture as playful (using The Velveteen Rabbit for example) but don't, in anything i've read so far, go any further as to why it is a playful activity; getting down to what is happening on a basic level. I would like to suggest that If they did this, and recognised the practices involved in making fan production play, they may be able to resolve some issues of existing fan theory.
So. Trying my best to simplify...
The first issue is from Hills. He thinks Jenkins and Fiske stretch the term 'production' too far and generalise about the activities of fans. I suggest two types of production: 'notional production' (to do with discussion of shows, formation of ideas etc) and what I am calling 'playful production' for now (the production of new texts etc).
Next we have Hills deconstructing the (good) production/(bad) consumption binary in fan theory by 'leaking them together' and accepting that the terms are 'essentially contradictory'. I suggest that now we have identified types of production we can apply Kampmann Walther's Orders of Complexity to fan-production so we have:
consumption (non-play) - notional production (play) - playful production (game)
This then makes consumption one end of a spectrum, rather than a negative binary opposition to positive production; production cannot occur without the fan first consuming the 'toys' of the originating text (characters, settings etc).
Hills' use of Winnicott suggests that fan-production is a healthy, developmental activity. Jenkins' use of Levy suggests that fan-production can be beneficial to media producers' pockets and fans' experiences. So, my transgressions and order complexities can be looped to illustrate a mutually benificial dialogue between consumption and production in fan culture through the process of play.
I hope I haven't over-simplified. If anything needs clarifying, please ask.
Anyway, does anyone have any ideas of further reading? besides Kurt Lancaster's Babylon 5 work which is on my list. Can anyone identify any glaring problems or teeny plot holes in the above?
Thanks.
Andie"
posted on behalf of Andie N.
I am attempting a cybertextual analysis of the second level of Halo (the one called ‘Halo’ in which you crash on the ring’s surface and must gather up the marines). The method I wish to approach this through will begin with Aarseth’s concept Ergodic Literature and Newman’s partial critique of this (‘The Myth of Ergodic Literature’) to discuss Halo as multiple texts, some Ludic and configurative, others Narrative and open to interpretation. These texts will be discussed as either operating simultaneously or bleeding in to one another during the player’s progress. The key elements (aside from positioning the game as far as genre etc. which I recognise is no small act) that I am currently considering are: - The player interpretation of the imperatives set by preceding level and cut scene narrative. - The player interpretation of the levels visual environment as a source of narrative content. - The configurative effect and player interpretation of in game narrative events e.g. npc comments (Cortana’s in particular), the secondary life pod crashes etc. - The physical configuration of the player within the ludic spaces (occurring as separate bubbles of ludic activity during the players navigation of the level) - The configuration of the player’s activity through the non-spatial variables, e.g. possible winning scenarios, combinations of weapons and resources, combinations of npc’s. - The configuration of the player through the interface (focusing only on the xbox version) e.g. possible button combinations dictating possible actions and the speeds at which they can be performed and haptic control pad feedback. If any one has any suggestions, input or useful points of reference for this project I am very eager to hear them. Thanks Adam (adam@illdefined.net)