Talk about how the logics of political economy, pressure to belong, and practical considerations about exhibitability shape game exhibitions. Feedback is appreciated! My talk from #DiGRANordic2018. It includes the comments that were not on the slides originally to make it easier to read this way so please excuse the text walls in those places. :D

1. Where the logics of political economy and
exhibition meet: Towards an explanation
for the lack of subversive and participatory
practices in game exhibitions
Patrick Prax,
patrick.prax@speldesign.uu.se
Department of Game Design
Uppsala University
1

2. RQ
Why do we not see
more subversive and
participatory
games/gaming in
game exhibitions?

4. The exhibition follows a logic of
displaying successful, professionally
published, games. It omits based on:
– Age (+18)
– Input device (e.g. Keyboard and
mouse)
– -Difficulty or time requirement
– Maintenance (online and updated)
– Genre (MMO, RPG, RTS, …)
Further marginalizes alternative
facets of culture and instead creates
a hegemonic picture of games as
commodities produces by an
industry.

6. Comments
• A focus on the most polished and easily
exhibitable parts of the entire building that
is games and game culture.
• The culture that makes a triple-A industry
possible becomes the margins where in
reality AAA-publishing is the exception from
how games are made.

7. AAA
• Connection between polish,
mass-market appeal, and
ease of exhibition
• Player-made or participatory
games can be buggy, difficult
to start, require
maintenance…
• Also hard to choose what to
exhibit without a published
product.

8. “I realized I need to become best friends with all
the companies in Stockholm. I need to know
gamers. Where are they? What are they doing?
So I spent a lot of time mingling in different
social events.[…] Meeting all the main
stakeholders.” (Interview with curatorial staff)

9. Comments
However, it is important to point out that this approach is likely to result in
only certain stakeholders getting their voices heard.
Modders, player creators, and hobbyist are less represented at these
games industry mingles.

10. “The community is good to work with because
if you get them with you they will love you, but
if you don’t, they will hate you. [...] I wanted to
make an exhibition they [the games industry
and scene] would love.” (Interview with
curatorial staff)

11. Comments
The industry gets a privileged position in defining game history.
There might be a kind of fear of being (portrait as) an outsider (fake geek
girl) and games culture is known to be volatile and toxic. A museum might
need to protect itself and its employees from attacks of various kinds
should it choose to exhibit about for example Gamergate.
Talking about churn, crunch, studios closing after successful releases,
Irrational, Telltale, Rockstar, …will the industry then support the museum?
The exhibition supported the interests and worldviews of the already
visible games industry over those of the less well represented player
creators and without consciously aiming for it reinforced the presentation
of games as commodities instead of participatory culture.

13. Comment
It is important to point out that this is not a
conscious effort on the side of the curators.
That said, this approach of starting with the
perspective of the industry does remind of the
origin of TM as an institution with the aim of
glorifying Swedish industry and technology, a
legacy that is still visible in the structure of the
museum and its funding that is in need of
critical reflection as well.

14. Conclusion
1. Limitations of co-
created games
(polish)
2. Cultural capital
mismatch
3. Economic incentives
and history of the
museum
4. Political pressure

16. Comment
Lets not just use the polished, games because
they are just one side of the story and they
often times share opressive structures like
crunch time or churn of the AAA-industry and
logics of the production of culture for profit.
(Of course these games should not be absent
either.)

18. Comment
The participatory aspect of game creation has
so much creative energy and produces a
considerable amount of the innovation in the
field and we forget or miss-attribute that if we
marginalize these ways of making games.

20. Comment
Instead we should strive for a more inclusive
exhibitions of game history that shows the
messy participatory side of game creation in
all its complex and chaotic beauty.

22. Comment
We instead (or in addition) need to show the
future players that they can also be creators
and that games are not only something we
buy and play but something one can make.
This way “remembering” is a forward-looking
activity that also shapes what games and
gaming culture can be in the future.

23. Where the logics of political economy and
exhibition meet: Towards an explanation
for the lack of subversive and participatory
practices in game exhibitions
Patrick Prax,
patrick.prax@speldesign.uu.se
Department of Game Design
Uppsala University
23