Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

Literate Gaming Analysis 86

Posted by Zonk from the throw-the-book-at-them dept.
aderack writes "The first issue of The Gamer's Quarter, a magazine that tries to take a more literary approach to videogames than do current publications, has been released in .pdf format. Included are fourteen lengthy articles, each with a unique perspective; one piece looks at the cultural meaning of Katamari Damacy, while another piece speaks of the writer's gradual acceptance of death as a learning tool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Literate Gaming Analysis More

Literate Gaming Analysis

Comments Filter:
  • "while another piece speaks of the writer's gradual acceptance of death as a learning tool."

    It really sucks. I mean you make a mistake, you die and you don't even get a chance to learn from that mistake. It's like game over, man! How the hell are you supposed to learn from that?

    Oh you mean video game deaths?

  • After reading 3 articles and skimming the rest. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Goosey ( 654680 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:14PM (#11961947) Homepage
    I am impressed. This is definently quality reading, although it does reak of a stench of self importance. It feels like they are trying to use big words for the sake of using big words, however if you can get around that (I did) it is actually very well written and insightful. Very insightful, and leaps and bounds beyond the standard magazine/gamesite review. While I certainly wouldn't recommend reading it to decide if you want to purchase a game (in fact it is written in a way that in order to appreciate it you should have already played the game in question), I would definently recommend it for anyone looking for a deeper more intellectual look then games are often given.
    • Self-importance is not quite the thing, here. More like, a fledging attempt at a critique of game design as if it were a form of art. Critical attempts always end up being self-referencing. The thing makes for good reading, even if one or two of the critics seem way off the deep end.

  • if ever you should RTFA, it is this time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:24PM (#11962014) Journal
    I don't think I've seen that much intelligent discussion about video games in one place ever before.

    The articles are all well-written (saw a typo here and there, though), with insightful content relating personal experiences, gaming epiphanies, reviews of interesting games with novel ideas. It is a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I would without a doubt subscribe to this magazine were it distributed as such.
    • If you RTFW, it says the PDF is free to download and the magazine is going to be in dead-tree format in a week.

      I also wouldn't bother R-ing TF-ing A this time. Basically, take your standard review. Then multiply the length of the review by 20. That's this mag.

  • a pox on all of you lit majors! (Score:5, Funny)

    by violently_ill ( 629903 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:54PM (#11962181)
    you guys are morons if you think this is intelligent discussion. it's just a bunch of hyperemotional lit majors writing in the most convoluted, self-important, cluttered, and cliched style imaginable. for christ's sake, it takes one of the authors most of a page to explain to readers why they don't truly understand the life-affirming, mind-expanding revalation from God that is Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater, before launching into a description of what the DVD case looks like. truly, that is some penetrating and insightful writing...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

  • Gaming needs this. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bitkari ( 195639 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:13AM (#11963048) Homepage
    The writing may appear a little whimsical, but this sort of 'magazine' writing is important for the world of gaming.

    It is nice to have an alternative to the sort of games writing that will only tell us if a game is totally awesome or not, and if the grafixx are 10/10.

    Personally I find this sort of game editorial of value, and indeed cool 2 tha maxxxxx! 93%!!OMG.

  • Pretty good, actually (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wraithfighter ( 604788 ) <mtgfighter@yahoo.com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:29AM (#11963103)
    I was expecting it to be a bit overzealous, but after reading the MGS, PoP, and Sonic articles, I'm rather impressed.

    Sure, I have some specific complaints regarding what they were saying (the PoP author never mentioned the Dahaka), and I was a bit overwhelmed by the massive amount of knowledge that they possessed (especially the Sonic Article. Major fanboy of the originals), but the idea is exactly what is needed.

    It treats video games as something of an art form, which is something that I think is sorely needed. I like the lack of focus on the visuals when compared to the gameplay. In the entire MGS article, he mentioned the graphics only once, to say that they were a bit sluggish when compared to the first two games, because of the massive environments. He spent the other ten pages talking about the gameplay.

    Definitely looking forward to the next issue.

  • More overanalysis. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fondue ( 244902 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @05:15AM (#11963397)
    The back page blurb suggests that at some level they 'get it'. Unfortunately the content seems to be the same old overblown, obvious fanzine crap.

    I'm trying to remember if I've ever read anything interesting that contained a question along the lines of "But what do we mean by 'X'?"
  • "How good the prince moves is the most notable presentation of the Prince of Persia series."

    Hey, they do write very good!

  • Sure (Score:2)

    by Lu Xun ( 615093 )
    Who wants to bet that the word 'pwned' appears at least once? As in:

    "The crux of the emotional impact of this game is clear: achieving the stated goal of the game, that is, to defeat your similarly-armed enemy in an equal contest, and utilizing the chat key in the 'pre-game' stage of the subsequent round, broadcasting to every player the following statement, to signify your dominance over your chosen opponent: pwned."
  • This isn't bad, for an non-peer reviwed fan journal. But if "literate thought about video games" is something any of you are seriously interested in, you need to join the conversations that already exist in academia. You need to read the ludology/narratology debate - Janet Murray, Espen Aarseth, and the like. You need to read other theory too - Lacan, Zizek, some Marxist theory - other stuff that will let your thought about video games fit in with literate thought in general. And you need to do more than ru
    • i wish i could sit down with you for a while and re-teach you all the things you think you know. please, please, please read this short essay [nyu.edu] by Richard Dawkins.

      then join me in fighting the real revolution.
      • Hm. I didn't realize Dawkins was so blithely pro-Sokal. You'd think that he'd have a bit more sympathy for the fact that it's just as horrible (If not moreso) to deliberately send erroneous information to an academic journal than it is to fail to catch said information.

        As for Sokal's book, having read it, I have to say, his utter failure to understand most of the theory that he's criticizing doesn't do any wonders for his argument.
        • oh, wow. you're deep into it, aren't you? well, if sokal's book didn't convince you then i'm wasting my time trying to unplug you from the postmodernist matrix. there is a critical point in the development of every academic where so much time and energy has been invested in a particular subject that it becomes impossible to let go of what has been "learned", even when the subject has been shown incontrovertibly to be bullshit. look at how marxism endures to this very day, despite fundamental flaws in marx's
          • Yeah. if only Marxism were enduring in any sort of politically activist way in the academy.

            As for Sokal... he presents out of context quotes and dismisses the rest of books as "unintelligible," when in fact he means "I didn't understand them." And he accuses people of intellectual fraud when, in fact, he's the one who has deliberately and knowingly tried to publish fraudulent results. Minimal does not even begin to describe my sympathy for his cause.

            How much Derrida have you read? Foucault? Lacan? Deleuze
            • this is where i have to question whether or not you actually read sokal's book, or are condemning it based on secondary source evidence of your own. sokal makes very clear that his criticism is confined to the areas of physics, mathematics, and other scientific areas where he has expertise. he does not criticize derrida's deconstruction of shakespeare, for example.

              physicists and mathematicians are two groups of people for which i have tremendous respect. if they can't understand this psychobabble, that's s
              • Well then I'm even more baffled. If you're not extending Sokal's critique to non-scientific concepts, where did this discussion even start? Because I certainly didn't bring in the science. I was saying that, before doing literate readings of video games and declaring that you've got something going, you should probably read the existing conversations on video games within the academic community. So I don't see how Sokal's attack on the flawed understanding of science is relevent at all.

                Then again, I also n
                • i'm currently reading "a house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science" (1998). which contains essays by the following authors:
                  --paul boghossian, chair of the philosophy at NYU
                  --allan franklin, physicist and participant in philosophy of science program at the university of colorodo
                  --paul gross, molecular biologist at the university of virginia
                  --john huth, physicist at harvard
                  --margaret c. jacob, professor of the history and sociology of science at the university of pennsylvania
                  --philip kit
                  • Cultural studies professors did and have written responses to Sokal's attacks. The problem is, the things being written in the various fields Sokal attacks are hard. It's not surprising that their responses are also hard. The fact of the matter is, Sokal is basically taking a bunch of hard stuff and, among other things, complaining that it's hard and he can't understand it. This criticism would have no weight at all if applied to, say, physics. What is it about philosophy that makes the "It's dense and inco
                    • let me get this straight. you're saying that the reason why no one defended sokal's targets is that the responses were too hard to write. geez, it's only been 7 years. you keep trying to limit this critique to just sokal, but i've clearly pointed out that many other prominent scientists and philosophers think the postmodernists are full of shit. for example, when jacques derrida was awarded an honorary phD from cambridge, 20 of the world's most prominent philosophers signed a letter of protest (read about i
                    • So because some of the world's most prominant philosophers think Derrida is bad, he is? I suppose pointing out that it would be trivial to find 20 of the worlds most prominant philosophers who have written articles about and supporting Derrida would be foolish?

                      And you misread what I was saying as an attack on the scientific method. I can't imagine an emotional/non-mathematical science either. You confuse identifying something with having a solution, or thinking a solution is possible. Coming up with a soci

Slashdot Top Deals

Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.

Close