Discussion of readings for session 9: ArchaeGaming

[gabrielbodard]

• Colleen Morgan. 2016. "The Lessons of Pokémon Go for Heritage." Available: https://colleen-morgan.com/2016/07/22/pokemon-go/
• Jeremy Huggett. 2020. "Virtually Real or Really Virtual: Towards a Heritage Metaverse." Studies in Digital Heritage 4(1), 1–15. Available: https://doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v4i1.26218

[Ghilaevansky]

The article by Colleen Morgan (2016) was a cool take on Pokemon Go's affect on heritage. I agree that augmented reality creates and enhances an interest and awareness in archaeological sites such as Stonehenge. There are however some negative sides to Pokemon Go, as I remember in 2016 there were some fatal cases of people trying to catch the things in the game and they got hit by a car and even walked off a cliff because they were so focused on the screen. On the positive side of things, the game brings light to archaeology and heritage but on the other hand, people might not get the full experience at the site if they are glued to a phone screen.

The Jeremy Huggett (2020) article opened my eyes to VR and Heritage. I never really knew much about that world, since I wasn't a gamer. The extent to my experience with video games is Mario Kart. But I was always open to learning how to play other video games like Call of Duty, etc. Virtual reality allows us to create scenarios and experiment with visualising heritage. sites.

[ellie919]

An interesting point from the Huggett article is the idea that being too realistic can detract from immersive elements of the game; Huggett encourages ‘loose-realism’ instead. They talk about the benefits of analogue methods of presentation such as drawing or watercolours, for improving the sense of ‘presence’ in the virtual environment. A point which we saw in 3D modelling is the importance of acknowledging that every reconstruction is an interpretation, allowing users to see how decisions were made and participate in those decisions. This is evident in the Catalhoyuk project animation, where users can change the height of the ceilings, for example, and see what effect that has on the surroundings.

[molmay]

I really enjoyed Morgan’s blog post about pokemon go as all too often common scepticism about and patronisation of digital technologies largely aimed towards the younger generations goes ignored. Morgan rightly points out both the need for digital novelty that many institutions or heritage locations contend with nowadays, but also the need to create a real-life experience so compelling that digital technology is ignored. One might think that such an approach is contradictory, but I think it’s really the best way to cater to a wider audience - if a family of four is to visit stonehenge, for example, it wouldn’t be out of the question to suggest that at least one of those four wouldn’t actually be that interested in stonehenge. Offering digital opportunities such as interactive gaming experiences therefore provides secondary experiences to ensure all parties enjoy their trip.
I also think there would be great application for a game where one could check off different heritage spots based on the model of Pokemon Go - there could be ‘levels’ or pathways that the user could choose depending on their own interests, such as different eras from history, and one could then be set the task of collecting virtual items at various heritage locations around the country that relate to that era. For example, there could be a Roman section in which you would collect tiles of a famous mosaic by visiting local Roman ruins or findspots.

[katie-goodman]

I too like the way Morgan's article recognises the ways in which games 'implore people to go outside, to use augmented reality to enhance and enchant heritage sites'. Though not a gamer, I am interested in the ways learning can be made fun, to the point where people don't even realise they're learning! What better way to encourage people to engage with histories otherwise neglected or deemed "boring"?!
I particularly enjoyed Huggett's argument for 'loose-realism'. I feel it is important for the user/player to remember that they are engaging with an actual historical site. The possible trivialising of the past in digital environments surely distances us further? However, the fact that in some (most) cases digital visualisations are interpretive, should be made as clear as possible. I am a huge advocate for historical accuracy, and I believe incorrect or ambiguous narratives should be disclosed - otherwise, this too furthers the gap between us and the actual past.