I went to a session earlier this week at the MA conference with Ross Parry (University of Leicester) and Mike Gogan (Blitz Games). They were talking about gaming in the museum sector.
Ross brought out a couple of interesting facts at the beginning of the talk:
1. The UK games industry injects £2 billion p/a into the UK economy;
2. 2006 saw a 7% increase in games sold in the UK
In short: gaming is massive news. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last couple of years (without your PSP…) then you probably knew that already. The big question being asked by Ross though is “if this is so huge, then where are museums?”
There are of course some who are doing very cool stuff. The major nationals, including (of course!) the Science Museum are constantly pushing gamey content out there both onto the web and on-kiosk. But it doesn’t feel like the groundswell that it “should” be, given the enormous rise of gaming as an activity out there in the real world.
One of the big questions once you start thinking about gaming is where it starts and ends. Is a quiz a game? Is a 3D environment like Second Life? Is an “interactive” website? UGC? If you assume that anything “interactive” is by definition a game, then the scope for including museum activity becomes that much wider. I’m not sure that anyone goes with this argument, though…
Mike Gogan pointed at realism and engagement being two factors which defined a (successful) game. But “realism” isn’t a part of something like Tetris or Katamari Damacy – often the most compelling games are the weirdest and most disassociated from anything real at all. Engagement, granted, is definitely part of the checklist. But that therefore means, doesn’t it, that Facebook is also a “game”…? Probably not, but I’m not entirely sure why.
Leaving the definitions aside for a moment, the question still remains: where are museums in this space? Ross has a take on this: he believes that the way that the Games Industry talks to museums is essentially flawed – he reckons there needs to be a dialogue between the two sectors in order that each can better understand the other. I think he’s probably right, and so do the Serious Games Initiative who are looking at “…helping to forge productive links between the electronic game industry and projects involving the use of games in education, training, health, and public policy“.
Personally, though, I think the issue is way, way more basic: games are really, really, really expensive to commission and produce. As soon as you start talking “Flash Interactive” (and I’m deliberately focussing on Flash, web-based games because that is the obvious place..), you’re by definition meaning at least £5k and probably way, way more than that to do anything really cool. Five grand is (usually) ok for a national museum or as part of a funded project, but if you’re in a local museum then that is probably a years’ worth of marketing budget. That just isn’t going to wash.
Spending this kind of money would be ok if the debate about the “value” of gaming had already been had, and won. Unfortunately, it hasn’t: although many now believe that games can truly aid learning, there are still voices of dissent – and while this goes on, budget probably won’t be allocated nearly as readily.
Posted by Mike 
I’m here at the Museums Association Exhibition in Glasgow. I seem to have the bug for blogging live from events, and this time I’ve got the luxury of a laptop (and not just my PDA) so I thought I’d shuffle up a quick post.
Posted by Mike 