Genre and Gaming Literacies

In his chapter “Gaming Literacy”, Eric Zimmerman argues that one can gain a generalized understanding of games and games systems through play and design, and through that understanding can get more enjoyment and knowledge out of games experiences. At its core, I agree with this argument; there are indeed thought processes learned in all games that apply to all other games. However, games and their rules are more often than not incredibly nuanced in their rules of play, and these nuances keep there from being one gaming literacy. Instead, I argue that there are multiple gaming literacies, and that genre can guide those literacies.

First, I want to argue for multiple literacies within the traditional domain of literacy. Literacy is defined as “the ability to read or write”, and this is certainly a binary skill — one can either read or write, or they cannot. However, literacy also exists on a spectrum, with some people being more adept at reading or writing. Even within the spectrum of literacy, some people are better at reading or writing certain types of material. For example, many modern readers find Shakespeare impenetrable when they first begin reading, but those who have read many of his works find them progressively easier to read. These people have gained Shakespearian literacy. The same could be said for scientific writing, technical writing, or any other difficult writing.

This concept can be expanded to game genres as well. Fighting games serve as a good example, since fighting game players have developed a robust vocabulary to discuss shared concepts — neutral, links, plus frames, etc. These terms and the associated concepts would be gibberish to someone new to fighting games, even if they’ve played games in other genres. However, fighting game players, even those who aren’t connected with a larger community of players, have an understanding of these concepts gained simply from playing the games. Neutral is when players are moving around trying to hit each other, links are combos with small input windows, and plus frames are frames where you can act after an attack but your opponent can’t. Someone who’s played many fighting games will likely encounter these, with or without the terminology to describe them.

Recently, I’ve been learning how to play first-person shooters more competitively. I’ve played dozens and dozens of games across genres, and have even played some first-person shooters previously, but the underlying concepts of the genre are a mystery to me. In other words, I’m largely games-illiterate in the first-person shooting genre. However, just like learning how to read, in playing these games with others who are willing to teach I’ve been slowly gaining literacy. Zimmerman, too, points to how gaming literacy is social — learning a game, especially a multiplayer one, is an invitation into the magic circle of that game.

Games, like literature, or film, or music, are varied, which is beautiful. But understanding one game and its systems doesn’t mean that you will quickly understand the systems of a different game. In some ways, games are even more complex than other art forms. The formal elements of Tetris, for example, are completely different from a game like Journey, whereas in literature you are always reading words. This isn’t to say nothing is carried over from one game to another, rather that the journey in learning games one after the other and the concepts formed around those games isn’t as simple as seeing a word in one place repeated in another, since the systems that make up those games don’t repeat as often between games as they do words between different pieces of writing.