Literacy is a word often associated with proficiency in language and the study of literature. Curiously enough it can be applied to almost anything. Literacy, literally the ability to read, is used to describe one's familiarity with or understanding of a great deal of things. Computer literate, film literate, advertising literate, body language literate, math literate, business literate, fishing literate, dishwashing literate and so on. Of course some things are less likely to be described as having a 'readability' than others but one word you don't often hear being conjuncted with literacy is game. Specifically videogames but it can apply to any game or sport. Game literacy is something that might become a more common term in years to come and I'm here to offer some light on the subject.
There are three principal areas where I believe game literacy is important to bring up which all might help gamers and non-gamers alike better understand what it is that gives games their appeal and what potentials they bring for us. The first is in the defining of gaming's two demographics, that of the hardcore and the casual gamer. The two groups are brought up often but I feel they are still ill-defined terms which can lead to mistakes and disagreements when it comes to discussing the two groups. A common definition offered is that of willingness to spend time playing or rather the hours per week invested in any gaming activity. Casuals presumably play much less and less often than a hardcore gamer and both demographics will probably stick to their own types of games. There is some truth in this but there are casual players who will play almost as much Bejeweled as a hardcore player will Call of Duty: Black Ops in a given week. Some people even play so called hardcore games like Black Ops or World of Warcraft casually and some games blur the lines of the two group like the addictive Animal Crossing or Pokemon.
What, then, distinguishes the two types? Literacy. Or at least I believe this to be the case. You see the more someone becomes familiar or proficient with the rules and paradigms of a media or activity such as reading, the more literate they are said to become. And while it sounds strange, some hardcore gamers are often so literate they could be considered scholastic experts on the medium. Literacy in gaming depends on various criteria. How much time you invest in learning and playing games, the amount of different games you have played, the amount of different genres you have played and how familiar you are with the common designs, mechanics and rules of games. A casual player cannot really be said to have a breadth and depth of understanding of games on par with a hardcore player. Notice also this definition means that someone who exclusively plays one type of game or even just one game is inherently more casual/less hardcore than someone who plays a wide range of titles because their literacy is limited to one genre. Skill in one game is not equal to a deep understanding of games as a medium. If the literary scholar is widely read the hardcore player is widely 'played'. To go even further you could say someone who has never played a game is game illiterate. Often critics (some, not all) of games as a medium have never really picked up a controller for more than an hour, dismissing the time required to learn anything about them as a waste.
This leads me to the second area where game literacy is important, in the great games are/aren't art debate. As I said earlier you can pretty much be 'literate' in any subject or activity but what often separates art from just paintings or just stories is the literacy involved below the surface in both the creation by artists and the application of prior knowledge by critics and scholars. In order to read (or write) a novel critically one must not only be able to read the language it is written in but also have a vast background knowledge in literary theory and/or be well read across many types of literature. The same is true for many forms of media and is a key feature of art. This has led to some problems for games in their classification as art. Those who are incredibly familiar with art are unlikely to be game literate and not understand the arguments for games as art and only a handful of people are game literate and would champion the cause for games as art. Many designers don't really consider themselves artists yet they are probably more game literate than anyone else. Promoting literacy as a key component of understanding games as an art form is of utmost importance which leads me to the third and final area where literacy is perhaps most relevant.
Education. This is probably one of the most genuinely exciting applications for gaming at the moment and not because I'd rather play games all day than read a book but because games are amazing at teaching people things with minimal effort. Consider the last game you played and enjoyed and compare it to the last subject you learned whether in a school lesson or through a series of lectures given at a university or other educational body. How long did it take you to learn everything in the game compared to the syllabus of your given subject. Which did you enjoy more? Were you even aware you were learning anything at all when playing the game? You may notice the next time you play a game or learn something your proficiency for learning itself (in other words, your literacy) has increased and you can read the system ahead of time which shortens the often lengthy learning experience, makes it enjoyably fluid and provides you with even more knowledge for tackling future goals.
The goals of great teaching and great game design are confluent and it's power is only just being realised by educational establishments who, to be frank, have been stuck in the didactic, exam-based, daycare model that has been so omnipresent for more than a century. Literacy in games might feasibly help our literacy in any area as long as there is a well designed game there to show us the way. Unfortunately 'edutainment' titles in the past have felt they do not need to be engaging necessarily because of the outdated conceit that learning isn't fun. Game developers and publishers are also not willing to create games that are educational at their core (apart from having tutorials telling you how to aim a gun of course) because their demographic also has a stigma that education automatically means no fun.
Thankfully we have some pioneers leading the charge, demonstrating literacy is something important, fun to acquire and entirely possible. Recently in a lecture to the Games for Learning Institute by Valve Corporation founder Gabe Newell, Newell put forward this question. If Portal 2, a commercially and critically successful game can teach principles of momentum, mechanical physics and teamwork without a single lecture or grading system, why can't a game do the same for curriculum based learning. What's stopping designers making a quality game that also teaches us valuable life skills or qualifications and what's stopping schools from incorporating these games into their daily learning models? Nintendo have also innovated when it comes to games that make learning easy with their Brain Training series being one of the most popular on the DS shipping millions worldwide and helping people of all ages revise basic maths, literacy and puzzle solving. Scribblenauts improves vocabulary, Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft improve map reading and RPGs of all types improve basic math skills via the tons of variables in stats.
The old argument that games are useful because they improve hand eye coordination is quickly being replaced by the argument that they are useful because they can actually teach you how to learn with absolutely no requirement other than the player is also willing to be a learner. I believe game literacy is a a skill rivaled only by the basic pillars of learning and the highest echelons of education and is something to be strived for and proud to have.
I'd like to hear people's opinions on the topic of game literacy.
Please follow: http://lokjip.blogspot.com/ for regular game reviews and articles about gaming.
There are three principal areas where I believe game literacy is important to bring up which all might help gamers and non-gamers alike better understand what it is that gives games their appeal and what potentials they bring for us. The first is in the defining of gaming's two demographics, that of the hardcore and the casual gamer. The two groups are brought up often but I feel they are still ill-defined terms which can lead to mistakes and disagreements when it comes to discussing the two groups. A common definition offered is that of willingness to spend time playing or rather the hours per week invested in any gaming activity. Casuals presumably play much less and less often than a hardcore gamer and both demographics will probably stick to their own types of games. There is some truth in this but there are casual players who will play almost as much Bejeweled as a hardcore player will Call of Duty: Black Ops in a given week. Some people even play so called hardcore games like Black Ops or World of Warcraft casually and some games blur the lines of the two group like the addictive Animal Crossing or Pokemon.
What, then, distinguishes the two types? Literacy. Or at least I believe this to be the case. You see the more someone becomes familiar or proficient with the rules and paradigms of a media or activity such as reading, the more literate they are said to become. And while it sounds strange, some hardcore gamers are often so literate they could be considered scholastic experts on the medium. Literacy in gaming depends on various criteria. How much time you invest in learning and playing games, the amount of different games you have played, the amount of different genres you have played and how familiar you are with the common designs, mechanics and rules of games. A casual player cannot really be said to have a breadth and depth of understanding of games on par with a hardcore player. Notice also this definition means that someone who exclusively plays one type of game or even just one game is inherently more casual/less hardcore than someone who plays a wide range of titles because their literacy is limited to one genre. Skill in one game is not equal to a deep understanding of games as a medium. If the literary scholar is widely read the hardcore player is widely 'played'. To go even further you could say someone who has never played a game is game illiterate. Often critics (some, not all) of games as a medium have never really picked up a controller for more than an hour, dismissing the time required to learn anything about them as a waste.
This leads me to the second area where game literacy is important, in the great games are/aren't art debate. As I said earlier you can pretty much be 'literate' in any subject or activity but what often separates art from just paintings or just stories is the literacy involved below the surface in both the creation by artists and the application of prior knowledge by critics and scholars. In order to read (or write) a novel critically one must not only be able to read the language it is written in but also have a vast background knowledge in literary theory and/or be well read across many types of literature. The same is true for many forms of media and is a key feature of art. This has led to some problems for games in their classification as art. Those who are incredibly familiar with art are unlikely to be game literate and not understand the arguments for games as art and only a handful of people are game literate and would champion the cause for games as art. Many designers don't really consider themselves artists yet they are probably more game literate than anyone else. Promoting literacy as a key component of understanding games as an art form is of utmost importance which leads me to the third and final area where literacy is perhaps most relevant.
Education. This is probably one of the most genuinely exciting applications for gaming at the moment and not because I'd rather play games all day than read a book but because games are amazing at teaching people things with minimal effort. Consider the last game you played and enjoyed and compare it to the last subject you learned whether in a school lesson or through a series of lectures given at a university or other educational body. How long did it take you to learn everything in the game compared to the syllabus of your given subject. Which did you enjoy more? Were you even aware you were learning anything at all when playing the game? You may notice the next time you play a game or learn something your proficiency for learning itself (in other words, your literacy) has increased and you can read the system ahead of time which shortens the often lengthy learning experience, makes it enjoyably fluid and provides you with even more knowledge for tackling future goals.
The goals of great teaching and great game design are confluent and it's power is only just being realised by educational establishments who, to be frank, have been stuck in the didactic, exam-based, daycare model that has been so omnipresent for more than a century. Literacy in games might feasibly help our literacy in any area as long as there is a well designed game there to show us the way. Unfortunately 'edutainment' titles in the past have felt they do not need to be engaging necessarily because of the outdated conceit that learning isn't fun. Game developers and publishers are also not willing to create games that are educational at their core (apart from having tutorials telling you how to aim a gun of course) because their demographic also has a stigma that education automatically means no fun.
Thankfully we have some pioneers leading the charge, demonstrating literacy is something important, fun to acquire and entirely possible. Recently in a lecture to the Games for Learning Institute by Valve Corporation founder Gabe Newell, Newell put forward this question. If Portal 2, a commercially and critically successful game can teach principles of momentum, mechanical physics and teamwork without a single lecture or grading system, why can't a game do the same for curriculum based learning. What's stopping designers making a quality game that also teaches us valuable life skills or qualifications and what's stopping schools from incorporating these games into their daily learning models? Nintendo have also innovated when it comes to games that make learning easy with their Brain Training series being one of the most popular on the DS shipping millions worldwide and helping people of all ages revise basic maths, literacy and puzzle solving. Scribblenauts improves vocabulary, Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft improve map reading and RPGs of all types improve basic math skills via the tons of variables in stats.
The old argument that games are useful because they improve hand eye coordination is quickly being replaced by the argument that they are useful because they can actually teach you how to learn with absolutely no requirement other than the player is also willing to be a learner. I believe game literacy is a a skill rivaled only by the basic pillars of learning and the highest echelons of education and is something to be strived for and proud to have.
I'd like to hear people's opinions on the topic of game literacy.
Please follow: http://lokjip.blogspot.com/ for regular game reviews and articles about gaming.
