![]() We say it like it’s something that doesn’t need saying anymore.īut it does need saying. Everybody already knows that interpretation is subjective, we like say to each other. Even so, many cultural and media critics like to pretend we’re way past this whole objectivity thing. It is no less cherished by much of popular gaming culture (see, for instance, the rampant desires for objective, unbiased video game reviews). The pursuit of objective meaning is a holy tenet of much of academia. That, in turn, must mean that strong methods locate meaning elsewhere-somewhere outside the dark subjective cave of player experience and in the bright objective world of game forms. According to this assumption, methods of criticism that focus on players and their subjective experiences are weak. At its base is a fiercely-defended value: objectivity. Quite the contrary: it was that this opinion is a widespread, domineering one. What made me so livid about the comment wasn’t that it was some lone graduate student tossing out an opinion that I happened to find objectionable. The comment was an approving one: the commenter believed that the article was a fine example of an approach to games criticism that was not “weakened” by a method that focused on the player as a site of meaning-making. I recently saw a comment about an article on academic games criticism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |