What do you think?
Rate this book
Historiographies of Game Studies: What It Has Been, What It Could Be
780 pages, Paperback
Published July 24, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 27, 2026
*Disclaimer: I went to grad school with one of the editors* Historiographies of Game Studies is not a book about games. It's a book about studying games, the history of that study and its limitations, and what it could be in the future. That's admittedly a narrower audience, but it's an important difference in purpose to keep in mind.
And wow, does it hit what it's aiming at. This is a absolute giant of an edited collection, with a page count upwards of 700+, and 31 contributors (and even more if you count some of the interviewers and interviewees separately). Edited collections of academic topics can be tricky; too narrow a topic, and the essays seem like they're hitting the same notes. Too large, and the book lacks a sense of unity. It's to the editors' credit that this book doesn't face either problem. It's dozens of different perspectives on what the history of game studies was, and what it's potential could be. In particular, I want to say how impressed I was with the interviews. There are six interviews (maybe seven) throughout the book, each with a veteran scholar who presents a different overview of the game studies field. (For comparison a typical academic essay collection has somewhere between one and zero interviews.) They really give a sense of conversation that spreads over the entire collection--this isn't "the" historiography of game studies, or even "a" historiography, but historiographies plural, and the interviews give a good sense of that. In particular, I really liked the Janet H. Murray interview and the Espen Aarseth interview, as they offered two perspectives on essentially the same events. The interviews make the book feel like an academic conference, in the best possible way.
The book is divided into four parts: Institutions and infrastructure looks at the big picture of game studies, and how it got to be that way; I'd say the first four chapters in particular speak in the context of the founding narratology/ludology debate, and in addition to the two interviews I mentioned, there's a really great breakdown by Emma Vossen on how it felt to come up as a social issues focused game scholar in the wake of the debate, and Jennifer de Winter and Gillian Smith give an interesting history of the game studies mailing list and how it reflects game studies as well (mostly in a derogatory sense). The second section is alternative origin stories, and it examines how we could had had different foundational points for game studies; Bo Ruberg offers a queer reading of Caillois' "Man, Play and Games"; Jaroslav Švelch argues that non-English/Western European figures like Bohuslav Blažek could have been a part of the canon; and Carly Kocurek argues that there could have been a better, more gender-inclusive game studies if the work done by female scholars on girls' play had been considered sufficiently "canonical." The section really drives home how academic canons aren't organic; they're made, through citations and connections.
Methods and Schisms looks at how specific approaches to Game Studies should receive more attention, starting with a really excellent essay from Stephanie C. Jennings on the value of autoethnography for discussing games. (And I particularly loved that she drew on the game I've spent 4 digits worth of hours on, The Binding of Isaac.) In a similar vein, other writers considered analog games (Evan Torner) and playable scholarship (Justin Wigard). Section 4 "Trajectories in the Field" considers where game studies could or should go. This is the section that's slightly guilty of the essay collection overlap I mentioned, as many of the essays here end on a similar note, but there's also a lot of highlights--I loved hearing about Adrienne Shaw's early entry into game studies, and Kishonna L. Gray's interview is excellent; she's a wonderful speaker and that comes through in print inteview as well. Alison Harvey's outline of Canadian Game Studies put together many pieces that I knew vaguely, but never put into words. And I really like Alisha Karabinus' idea of studying the limits of where game studies is now by looking at game course syllabi.
It's an absolute mammoth of a book, and a milestone of game studies scholarship. I hope it's heard, given that it's come out at a time where neoliberalism seems to be consuming the arts in general; I quipped to someone that because of contemporary events, the book feels at times less like historiography and more like an autopsy. That's a bit extreme, so instead, I'll just say that I hope these projected futures come into being, and I hope I can travel to them, and help others in any way I can.
And wow, does it hit what it's aiming at. This is a absolute giant of an edited collection, with a page count upwards of 700+, and 31 contributors (and even more if you count some of the interviewers and interviewees separately). Edited collections of academic topics can be tricky; too narrow a topic, and the essays seem like they're hitting the same notes. Too large, and the book lacks a sense of unity. It's to the editors' credit that this book doesn't face either problem. It's dozens of different perspectives on what the history of game studies was, and what it's potential could be. In particular, I want to say how impressed I was with the interviews. There are six interviews (maybe seven) throughout the book, each with a veteran scholar who presents a different overview of the game studies field. (For comparison a typical academic essay collection has somewhere between one and zero interviews.) They really give a sense of conversation that spreads over the entire collection--this isn't "the" historiography of game studies, or even "a" historiography, but historiographies plural, and the interviews give a good sense of that. In particular, I really liked the Janet H. Murray interview and the Espen Aarseth interview, as they offered two perspectives on essentially the same events. The interviews make the book feel like an academic conference, in the best possible way.
The book is divided into four parts: Institutions and infrastructure looks at the big picture of game studies, and how it got to be that way; I'd say the first four chapters in particular speak in the context of the founding narratology/ludology debate, and in addition to the two interviews I mentioned, there's a really great breakdown by Emma Vossen on how it felt to come up as a social issues focused game scholar in the wake of the debate, and Jennifer de Winter and Gillian Smith give an interesting history of the game studies mailing list and how it reflects game studies as well (mostly in a derogatory sense). The second section is alternative origin stories, and it examines how we could had had different foundational points for game studies; Bo Ruberg offers a queer reading of Caillois' "Man, Play and Games"; Jaroslav Švelch argues that non-English/Western European figures like Bohuslav Blažek could have been a part of the canon; and Carly Kocurek argues that there could have been a better, more gender-inclusive game studies if the work done by female scholars on girls' play had been considered sufficiently "canonical." The section really drives home how academic canons aren't organic; they're made, through citations and connections.
Methods and Schisms looks at how specific approaches to Game Studies should receive more attention, starting with a really excellent essay from Stephanie C. Jennings on the value of autoethnography for discussing games. (And I particularly loved that she drew on the game I've spent 4 digits worth of hours on, The Binding of Isaac.) In a similar vein, other writers considered analog games (Evan Torner) and playable scholarship (Justin Wigard). Section 4 "Trajectories in the Field" considers where game studies could or should go. This is the section that's slightly guilty of the essay collection overlap I mentioned, as many of the essays here end on a similar note, but there's also a lot of highlights--I loved hearing about Adrienne Shaw's early entry into game studies, and Kishonna L. Gray's interview is excellent; she's a wonderful speaker and that comes through in print inteview as well. Alison Harvey's outline of Canadian Game Studies put together many pieces that I knew vaguely, but never put into words. And I really like Alisha Karabinus' idea of studying the limits of where game studies is now by looking at game course syllabi.
It's an absolute mammoth of a book, and a milestone of game studies scholarship. I hope it's heard, given that it's come out at a time where neoliberalism seems to be consuming the arts in general; I quipped to someone that because of contemporary events, the book feels at times less like historiography and more like an autopsy. That's a bit extreme, so instead, I'll just say that I hope these projected futures come into being, and I hope I can travel to them, and help others in any way I can.
June 28, 2026
Brevity is the soul of wit, and it's clear this book has neither. I got about 150 pages in when I noticed that with a competent editor what I just read could've been 60 pages at most.
This book is part autobiographical cry session and part discussions about books (I thought this was about games!), academic fields, and people no one cares about.
If this book focused more on games themselves, and less on ephemeral topics like GamerGate and intersectionality, this might've been worth your time. As it is, it's a work that would have been dated if it released 5 years ago.
This book is part autobiographical cry session and part discussions about books (I thought this was about games!), academic fields, and people no one cares about.
If this book focused more on games themselves, and less on ephemeral topics like GamerGate and intersectionality, this might've been worth your time. As it is, it's a work that would have been dated if it released 5 years ago.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews