History or Archaeology
I have a friend (thanks Will) who is an archaeologist. We were discussing the difference between history and archaeology, which he summed up as:
- History is mostly looking at the past through textual sources.
- Archaeology is mostly looking at the past through material culture.
Neither is mutually exclusive, and obviously both have something to offer the other. I think we can apply a similar division to games, their design and the conversation (d*scourse) around them.
- Designers who are interested in games-as-they-are-written (or designed).
- Designers who are interested in games-as-they-are-played.
Personally I fall very much into the second camp, but I suspect being able to describe yourself as one or the other is a good way to improve conversations. A lot of time is spent arguing about the Truth of something when instead you could explain you’re working under a different methodological framework. Now you’re doing a cross-disciplinary investigation (or, ‘having a conversation’) and might be able to learn or teach or discover something new.
I think similar can be said about sorts of role-playing games - by widening the gap between different types of game, we can paradoxically increase the connections and comparisons between them.
Importantly, this isn’t a value-statement. Equally, it’s okay to not be interested in one of the categories - that said, deliberately engaging in the less-interesting approach seems like something worth doing time to time.
Of course, given how my interest tends towards earlier games, using these history terms is very funny but entirely coincidental.
If you would like notifications for blogposts and product releases, please sign up for my mailing list.