Game Engines and Game History
_____________________________________________________________
Kinephanos, ISSN 1916-985X
History of Games International Conference Proceedings, January 2014, www.kinephanos.ca
two points from this comparison, and I would like to add one more from the
example of the Game Engine and its history. First, the history of games is in its
infancy. As with the history of computing in 1988, most of game history has
been written to answer questions that arise from first-hand familiarity,
journalism or implications for policy or business affairs. None of this is
unwelcome, of course. However, let me remind you that Mahoney said about
the history of computing written by computer scientists. He wrote that, “while
it is first-hand and expert, it is also guided by the current state of knowledge
and bound by the professional culture.” (114) He meant that decisions or
results that such an author might take as a given, an outside viewer such as a
historian might consider as a choice.
Second, the history of games will develop in more interesting ways if it
finds connections to big questions. From my own selfish perspective, we could
certainly do worse than reflect on some of the questions that have shaped work
in the history of technology. Paraphrasing Mahoney, for our purposes we could
ask, “How has game design evolved, both as an intellectual activity and as a
social role?” or “Are games following a society’s momentum or do they
redirect it by external impulse?” “What are the patterns by which games are
transferred from one culture to another?” And so on. Only by asking such
questions will the history of games find connections to other areas of historical
research and cultural studies, which in turn will invigorate our own work with
fresh perspectives and interpretive frameworks.
Finally, my last point derives from the history of the game engine.
Consider the contrasting view of this topic that we acquire by backing away
from technological determinism and considering Douglas’ notion of
technological irony. This contrast encourages us to look more closely at the
messy interplay of intentions, users and the marketplace. My point is not that
either of these points-of-view is the one and true answer, but rather that we are
still so far from creating a critical mass of divergent ideas and perspectives, our
last three days at this conference notwithstanding. One last quotation from
Mahoney about the history of computing: "What is truly revolutionary about the
computer will become clear only when computing acquires a proper history,