US 12B — Capstone Paper — Paper #4
Motivations and Contexts of Non-commercial, Experimental or Artistic Computer Games

Overview

Your fourth paper in US12 will be a carefully researched investigation into computer games as a non-commercial, experimental or artistic medium. This paper will be an investigation and analysis of the work of one person/artist (or collaborative group) who has used computer game technology to create a non-commercial, experimental and artistic project. The essay will be based on the student's research into the creator's history and writings; the practices of his/her contemporaries; and the work's predecessors, cultural framework and theoretical models. In this paper, you will insightfully argue why this project was made. Go beyond the obvious and present a rich selection of evidence in a targeted argument.

If you are having a difficult time finding an interesting project to write on, possible people/projects could include: Auriea Harvey and Michael Samyn, Brody Condon, c-level, collapsicon, delire and pix, Eddo Stern, gameLab, Geoffrey Thomas, Indie Game Jam, Maia Engeli and Nina Czegledy, Molleindustria, Nick Montfort, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, Josh Carroll, Robert Coover, Shawn Greenless, Andrew McClain, Olaf Val Mignon, Pappy Boyington, Rebecca Cannon, RSG, THE JAB, yumi-Co, or Natalie Jeremijenko. See Steven Wilson's list for more examples.

In addition to the overview provided above, this paper should:

• Argue. Have a clear and insightful thesis. Make a direct claim.
• Stay focused. Write your paper around a single (1, not 2) experimental computer game or technology that is original and has a unique relationship to some aspect of culture.
• Define your terms. Does your thesis statement depend or challenge terms like "game", "computer game", "the videogame industry", or "play" (for example)? Strengthen your argument by being clear about key terms or ideas in your paper. Be prepared to rethink or redefine what a computer game is.
• Describe. Clearly describe your computer game example. State when it was made, where it was made and who made it. Also clearly describe the context / historical "moment" that the game was made in.
• Compare and contrast. Compare and contrast your example with the creator's context or historical "moment". Articulate similarities and differences between the experimental computer game and the environment in which it was built. Was the game or technology built for a reason? Was it in agreement or opposition to something? How?
• Synthesize. Go beyond comparison and contrast and make an argument. Don't leave the reader saying "So what?". In your synthesis, establish themes that attempt to explain why the experimental or artistic game was made. These themes can drawn from "Perverting Technological Correctness", or you can define your own.
• Have clear topic sentences at the start of each paragraph. Each paragraph should be hammering away at sub-points of your thesis statement - use topic sentences to explicitly define these sub-points.
• Be a "devil's advocate." Strong papers usually take into consideration counter-arguments to their thesis. Consider using a paragraph to acknowledge a weakness in your own argument. After you admit the weakness, provide a strong counter-example to refute it. Vigorously.
• Lean on good sources. Is your argument supported by vague tidbits pulled from someone's MySpace comments? Attempt to use reliable and credible sources of information. Use quotations and sources in a way that thinks about why someone said what they did. Lay out your evidence as if you were in courtroom - choose expert witnesses.
• Label and number your diagrams. Have your paper directly refer to your diagrams by number.
• Avoid using cliches and colloquialisms. In addition to running a spell check, search and delete any references to "the best", "the most amazing", "incredible", "fantastic", "dazzling", "groundbreaking", "completely friggin' cool", "!!!", "the worst ever", etc.
• Have a conclusion that restates your argument.
• Have a bibliography in consistent APA format.
• Submit it properly. To submit your paper, staple together your final version (in the top left corner), and your source analysis assignment behind it. Do not put this bundle in any sort of cover or binder. Make sure your last name is on every page. Submit it (electronically and as hardcopy) on time.

The final paper will be approximately 1500 words long, plus screenshots, illustrations, and citations/annotations. Use Times New Roman 12 point font, or the nearest equivalent on your computer, and double spacing. Put your name, the paper's title, and your discussion section number at the top of the first page, and add a footer on each page of the paper which includes your name.

The Paper's Progress

College-level writing is the product of much thought, study, revision, and hard work. For this paper you will bring to discussion and lecture a "proposal" version of your paper; however, to produce a truly fine piece of writing and research you will need to do much more writing and rewriting that is not brought to class. Also, although some feedback will be provided on your proposal, you will need to do considerable self-editing in order to get a good grade: feedback is intended to push you in a direction. It will not provide you with an exhaustive list of changes required for an "A" paper.

The versions are:

1. Homework: Selecting Two Projects - Review Steven Wilson's index of experimental projects - Intersections of Art, Technology, Science & Culture and pick two projects you're interested in. Due Jan. 23rd 2008, but will not be submitted for a grade.
2. Paper #3 - Source Analysis Assignment. This paper should be thought of as a background to your Paper #4 and will greatly help you in explaining and understanding the "the practices of his/her contemporaries; and the work's predecessors, cultural framework and theoretical models." (Paper #4 prompt.) See the Paper #3 Source Analysis Assignment for details. This is due Jan 30th 2008. Submit electronic copies via EEE and Turnitin by 8:55am, and hardcopy at the start of your discussion section.
3. Draft Version, brought as hardcopy to Discussion on Feb 20th. This version will be peer edited.
4. Final Version, brought to Discussion on Wed, Feb 28th 2008 as hardcopy submitted at the start of your discussion section. Also submit an electronic version via the US12B EEE dropbox before 8:55am. Do not submit electronic files in .docx format.

Good luck... work hard!

Go to the US12B Discussion Website at http://www.conceptlab.com/uci/us12b/

Go to the US12B Syllabus Website at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~frost/US12B/syllabus.html

(Page last modified: Jan 24th 2008 by GDH)