Chalmers response
I apologize to everyone, and particulary the discussion leaders, for the very late post.
In this paper's conclusions it is difficult to see the difference
between learning about game-play and learning about the technology,
infrastructure, negotiaion of meaning in use of systems. Games have
rules and the change in use of the system over time exists within a
response to those rules. there is no attempt made by the authors to
reconcile this. At the same time the paper does not read as though it
is intended for a game design audience. At the end they say they are
able to uncover "how features of the system and the setting were used
in players' interaction with each other." But then the features of
the system seems to focus in on features of the game.
The paper mentions embodied interaction once but I do not see their
demonstration of the embodiment of the interaction. They describe 180
turns, hiding behind trees, looking up and around then looking down.
But are these embodiment?
I also find perplexing their use of the new media old media dichotomy.
I do appreciate their suggestion of putting more information into the
player's hands, although this is not something that their game
actually demonstrates.
I'm confused about the use of games for research as demonstrated
here. I agree that it is productive, but I'm not sure if the
justification, motivation, and contribution of the game as research
has been articulated well here. I'd like to read something that
articulates that well so that I might get a good example of that.