Today’s Plan:
- Calendar Review
- Analysis Paper Expectations
- Reading an academic article
Calendar Review
Friday, February 1st: Assignment details for the analytical paper. Homework: Play your game, write in your journal, invest 30 minutes into your paper.
Monday, February 4th: Computer Lab. Research on your game. Homework: craft a literature review.
Wednesday, February 6th: APA workshop. Homework: complete draft of Sicart paper. Bring a paper copy to class on Friday.
Friday, February 8th: Peer review Sicart drafts. Homework: Revised Sicart papers due Sunday at 11:59am.
Analysis Paper Expectations
Now it is time to draft and develop our first major paper: the ethical analysis paper. This paper will apply Sicart’s theory of ethical gaming to a specific game. Your task is to evaluate Sicart’s theory, to give the reader an argument as to whether game X is an ethical game according to Sicart’s criteria. At the same time, you might argue that game X is an ethical game despite the fact that it doesn’t match up with Sicart’s criteria. There is a range of possibilities for this paper–and it is impossible for me to anticipate how your game, your sensibilities, your arguments will play out.
But I can introduce you to the format of an analysis essay. They go something like this:
- Introduction [What was the object of my analysis? What lens did I apply to it? What were the results?]
- Literature Review [What have other writers said about this object?]
- Theoretical Frame [What is my lens for examining something? What was I looking for/through? Upon what theory did I orient my examination?]
- Results/Analysis/Application/Witty Names
- Conclusion
I imagine you will want me to put a length on this paper. Note: teachers in writing studies HATE putting lengths on papers. Papers are as long as they need to be to say the things that have to be said. But in an effort to make you happy, I will suggest that this paper is conference length, which is 7-10 pages double-spaced, not counting the title page, abstract, or references list. That’s roughly 2000-3000 words. Your paper might be shorter than that. It CANNOT be longer. I will fail a paper that is longer than 3000 words.
Hopefully you see how the Sicart section can translate into the theoretical frame. You want to revise that Sicart material down and make sure you have two or three criteria to apply to your game. That could include:
- The importance of player complicity and investment and how a game might develop them
- The importance of meaningful choice and what makes a choice meaningful [FOR SICART]
- The notion of cognitive friction and how SICART TRANSLATES A DESIGN CONCEPT INTO GAMING
I graded the Sicart papers according to some structural criteria, by I didn’t score the quality of your summaries. My marginal comments should indicate whether I think you have a workable framework. If I told you that a quote felt forced, or misrepresented, or was underdeveloped, then you have work to do. You have to re-read the Sicart (and use the index) and further develop your framework. Your framework has to read like a clear list of things that Sicart looks for in games.
I will provide a more extensive rubric for the paper on Monday.
Today I want to examine two published essays that can serve as structural models for your work.
Homework
Play. Read. Write. Revise.
I will have office hours Tuesday from 12:30 to 3:00. This is an opportunity to bring me a paper draft. To tell me “I don’t understand Sicart.” To ask me where Sicart discusses a specific idea.
