What was perhaps most interesting about this panel was actually what was not said. The panel in many respects represented the (dis)connect between departments and disciplines surrounding (video)game development. One presenter seemed to even embody the kind of (inter)disciplinary divide. One panelist actually said they didn’t understand why they were even on this particular panel, though I thought it was abundantly clear why they were. The (dis)connect between code/engineering, design, and art, which are so prevalent in the videogame industry was perfectly represented between the presenters.
What bothered me about it though, was that for the most part the divide was not explicitly questioned. Even when I asked them to speak about it, only one presenter addressed the issue. One of the presenters mentioned “compartmentalization” as a limiting factor of bringing games into curriculum, yet seeing the disconnect between their students and other disciplines was clear.
There was also an interesting conversation about game design, critical thinking, and young adults involved in the (co)production of New Media. Unfortunately the conversation eventually landed on brain scans of students engaging with New Media, one of the more untested, unproven, and problematic means by which to study engagement or mental processes.
I was also concerned by what was generally discussed as the “consumer/producer” division. In many ways things like Blogger and Facebook have brought new people into the (co)producer role of media production. What I hesitate about is that in many cases students still see themselves bound in by platforms, rather than attempting to stress them or push them in new directions. Perhaps I’m creating a heirarchy of production and ultimately saying that some kinds of production matter than others, and this is important because the kinds of production I’m encouraging pushes at critique I suppose. Maybe that is elitist or marginalizing, but I’m not sure how to resolve that.