[caption id=“attachment_589” align=“aligncenter” width=“580” caption=“Click for the blog of the V&A/RCA History of Design course”][/caption]

What is game design history? What makes it different to game design criticism or video game history?

Design history vs. Art history

Design history sounds like it must be similar to art history. In many ways it is; design historians often use art historical theories. Design history has a different set of concerns to art history. Design history looks at objects not as motifs, but as material, manufactured, traded and socially active goods. It's about making, selling and buying, while art history is (arguably) about seeing.

Game art vs. Game design

This distinction is to some extent reflected in the difference between game design and game art. Game art is about expression, visuality and concepts, whereas game design is about execution, user experience, programming, distribution, and marketing. It is concerned with how the game works, rather than what the game looks like.

Design criticism vs. Design history

Criticism is concerned with value judgments, while history is about discourse. As historian, the questions I ask about games revolve around the relationship between objects and stories. What stories do objects tell about their makers and users? How did the story of their making affect their design? What kind of story do we tell about their context if we see history through the lens of the object? I take a great deal of inspiration from theories about game criticism and game making, but my concern is different; not how should games be made, but why have they been made the way they are?

Game design history vs. the history of games

People who write about the history of games tend to look at console generations and business relationships to discuss how games have changed. They taxonomise, categorise and conserve games from the past to preserve their memory and contribute a broader perspective on what video games are and what they can be.

Game design history builds on those taxonomies, and complicates them to ask not just what changed, but how and why? It challenges technological and social determinisms, and blends a variety of disciplinary perspectives with primary research, to create a challenging narrative that answers to bigger issues about design and culture.