[Jason Thompson speaking]: I’m honestly not that excited about it. I think it’s stuck. That was the gambit of the book, that it’s stuck. And I can’t believe that … that, in the same way that game scholars have … ignorantly adopted terminology from other fields like film, literature, philosophy. I mean, “object-oriented ontologies?” Okay, but the very …. Like, that’s a cute blend of comp sci and philosophy but it's just that. So, I think disciplinarity has shaped the contour of the historical arc of game studies in a way that is resulting in a kind of stasis. 

I’m not saying there’s not any good work out there. I think there is. But … I think we’re in this kind of moment of … a kind of … it’s not fiefdom but it’s … domain scholarship. So you can’t say “video games and education” without someone else saying James Paul Gee. And so, you know, like, we’ve gone from this game scholarship defending its project, let’s say fifteen years ago, ten years ago, to now kind of clusters of mapped and … kind of flagged territories. Education, psychology, philosophy. I mean, what passes for the major debate? Proceduralism? My god. That is the exact debate, in my mind, when I teach my students something like formalism, structuralism. It’s really hard not have all of those things come to mind. But that’s part of the problem: If you borrow terms from other disciplines, and I’m a Burke scholar so terms are everything, the power of definition, you’re participating in furthering those ideas that are naturally not part of what you should be discussing. So I think there’s a nascent unnamed discourse and set of terms that are operational but not what’s … have to do with game scholarship. And in that void, everyone seems to make a familiar move. Again, probably informed by disciplinarity and the nature of our jobs as university professors. To reach back into a different discipline. Oh, we can have diagesis, that’s great! But not antiplosis or something. Why? You know. Those are great words but one is associated with film [unintelligible]. 

So in this way, keep … keep growing and wrap your arms around controversy to expand the number of people who will come. And I think it’s time to stop. And if there are going to be these kind of domains of scholarship then to say go for it, but you need to propose some terms that are unique to games as they relate to whatever. And I still think Ken and Judd are still some of the only people who are looking at games as unique forms, which is also interesting. I don’t know if that answers…