This week’s reading” “A Research-Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy” was quite interesting. As a formerly avid fan of open-world role-playing video games (I would probably still be one if I had the time), I have always been fascinated by the immense amount of writing and creativity that goes into the development of such games. It is, frankly, mind-boggling to consider that each quest, line of dialogue, item description, and so on was actively considered by a writer or team of writers. Perhaps most impressive of all is the fact that–unless the video game is not very good–all of the content contained within it feels unified thematically and stylistically. This, I believe, is mainly what sets game writing aside from other forms of writing.

In his paper, Seth Andrew Hudson more-or-less outlines the bones of a curriculum for a game writing pedagogy. First, however, he set out to understand what exactly sets game writing aside from other forms of writing. This, he deemed necessary, given the relatively small amount of relevant literature on the subject. He described such texts and the heart of his dilemma as follows: “these texts [texts related to game writing] are of limited use to researchers or educators looking to develop and enhance pedagogy. ‘There is nothing like game writing’ captures the common sentiment of these texts” (Hudson 4). In order to develop a better understanding of why game writing is “nothing like” any other form of writing, Hudson interviewed seven game writers in an attempt to outline areas of competency. These areas are as follows: writing and storytelling, communication and collaboration, understanding systems and dynamics, tool proficiency, and understanding play.

The writing and storytelling area of competency is rather self-explanatory, but I found the other categories to be quite interesting. First off, and as I mentioned previously, collaboration is a key competency for game writers. Most games, as Hudson points out, were not created in a week by a few individuals in a basement as is often the stereotype. In contrast, most games (especially large and detailed ones) draw the creative input of dozens–or even hundreds–of writers with their own contributions and visions. Due to this, communication and organizational skills are, no doubt, exceptionally important. In addition to being talented writers and communicators, however, game writers must also be somewhat familiar with the tools of the industry (how to actually make a game, use technology effectively, etc.). This, I imagine, is one of the most difficult aspects of the gaming industry and what likely scares many writers away. Finally, game writers must “understand play”. While films, television, and novels have their own rules; video games are no different. If a writer wishes to write a video game quest/ storyline like a novel they will almost certainly create a final product that does not lend well to actual gameplay even if the story itself is good.

All in all, game writing is far different from most other forms of writing and has many unique demands. As a result, game writing cannot be studied or taught in the same way as other forms of writing.

A Research- Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy

The reading this week was another digestible piece. This was a break through reading, personally. I was finally able to see writing our research proposal as a manageable task. I wouldn’t want to research the topic used, but it was interesting and I found my self actually wondering what was going to be discovered through the research. I had no difficulties understanding the information and it was nice to see an example of what’s to come for us.

Okay now getting into the reading. Basically the researcher wanted to know or “debunk” the idea that “there is nothing like game writing”. His goal was to figure out what it means to write for games, but was also humbly approaching the topic, open to learning any new information about the process and teachings of game writing. The methodology he used for his study was phenomenological interviews.

I appreciated how the interviews were conducted. They were semi- structured, meaning the interviews had pre-planned structured questions but the researcher also allowed for the interviewee the freedom to almost guide the conversation naturally. Having this approach is the best way to conduct interviews in my opinion. This just seems like the best way to get the most genuine answers. I kept putting myself in the shoes of the interviewee and I would not give thorough responds if I felt like the interviewer was sticking to a strict script. All participants were also kept anonymous, which aids to the comfort of being able to be honest with responses.

One thing I questioned from the study was the sample size that was interviewed? I would assume that having more people would make trends more accurate… Is that always the case? Does having a smaller group jeopardize the validity of the study ? The researcher here had only 7 different individuals. If thats okay I think I would be interested in doing something similar. Using phenomenology I guess I could see why it might be okay. You’re looking more at what the person saying about their experience not so much what they do.

I think… lol

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Rz1KJ3Ul3qWuhsOVNUJcOUVldPDAfYEz5A3_hGKup0/edit?usp=sharing HELLO FRIENDS, THIS IS MY LINK TO THE REFLECTION PAPER FOR HUDSON I WILL SHARE MY PRESENTATION LATER, BECAUSE TRUTH BE TOLD IM STILL TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY.