Metadata

Before beginning this project, we knew that we wanted the student-authors to contribute to the metadata. Practically, this would: 1.) give the cataloger a starting point, 2.) “decolonize” our collections, 3.) educate students about metadata and give them time to reflect on their game, and 4.) recognize that video games are constantly changing.

First, author-provided metadata would give the cataloger a starting point. We did not want to further burden the library’s cataloger at this time. Without the author-provided metadata, the cataloger would need to play the game, which may require game engines and/or specific software to actually run the game. Additionally, a library cataloger may not have video game experience or knowledge to accurately describe the video game within the greater field’s context and the games’ influences. Right now, we want to secure the materials and some descriptions for them. The technology and time hurdles would drastically slow the process for the cataloger. In the future, we hope that the cataloger and metadata librarians could use this as a research opportunity: How accurate is the author-provided metadata? What standardize metadata can and should be applied? Does this method of collecting author-provided metadata produce accurate descriptions for future users? Existing studies have demonstrated that author-provided keywords complement subject headings; however, STEM students tend to provide fewer keywords (Maurer and Shakeri 2016). By providing a very specific framework for requesting metadata, can we increase STEM author keywords?

Within the library and information science field, there’s been a recent trend to “decolonize” collections and give voice to the creators and subjects presented in collections. Author-provided metadata is a simple way to give voice to the authors. EAE is one of the most diverse programs on-campus. Furthermore, by allowing the actual authors to describe the game, it would make the collection extremely unique. Libraries must cultivate unique collections, that would otherwise be inaccessible. In the future, researchers could analyze the changes in language, terms, etc. that the students use to describe their works.

Our third reason was that the students will learn about the basics of metadata. The student-authors must self-reflect and think critically about their game. By completing the archival form’s metadata section, the students consider how their game fits within the existing games fields, but is also unique. What words describe it best?

Finally, we can’t capture future games in what we know now. Author-provided metadata would allow for flexibility for this growing field.

First, we reviewed existing literature on video game collections, metadata, and controlled vocabularies. While reading these articles, we considered their relationship to the EAE students’ thesis games and other final game projects. Jin Ha Lee and colleagues created and tested several schemas and controlled vocabulary terms for commercial video games. The OLAC working group created a best practices document for cataloging video game metadata and genre vocabulary. Finally, the IMLS-supported GAMECIP project presented controlled vocabularies for computer games. Combining the work of these three groups, we created our author-provided metadata table in part 4 of the archival agreement form.

Our project was different compared to the existing video game metadata and controlled vocabulary work because all our content was student-created video games. Unlike many commercial games, thesis games tend to break across genres, themes, and aesthetics. We did not want to be restrictive to future development that may not be represented in current schemas. For example, one thesis team made a 4D game last year and an entire cohort of EAE students created games using alternative controllers. These student-created video games are unique and not necessarily represented in large commercial games. Due to the uniqueness and novelty of student-created video games, we did not propose a controlled vocabulary of keywords for students. Instead of providing indexing options for the students, we left the sections blank for the students to decide their genres, visual styles, etc. Most of these metadata fields are not part of the cataloging records, but we still wanted to ask for the information. For example, the type of game-ending could be added to the description of the game. By requesting a lot of information from the students, the catalogers would have more information about the game.

Second, we shared the archival form with the EAE Library Advisory Taskforce for their review. For the metadata section, we asked them:

• The fields listed are common metadata fields for video games and other digital content. As game experts and creators, are we missing anything?
• Do the fields make sense? Are more definitions needed?

We received feedback from three members and only one mentioned the metadata section. They suggested combining the basic and technical metadata sections into one large table. We agreed with their suggestion and requested all metadata from the student-authors.

We requested the following information in our archival form from the student-authors:

• Title
• Alternative Title [Teams frequently change the name of their game or have an abbreviated title.]
• Edition
• Format – Distribution medium or method
• Platform
• Developer [Student teams usually form LLCs.]
• Distributer
• Release Date
• Official Website
• Game Engine
• Programming Language
• Special Hardware
• Online Capabilities
• System Requirements
• Number of Players
• Target Audience
• Awards/Recognition
• Genre
• Summary/Purpose
• Setting – Location, time-frame, cultural context, etc.
• Point of View – Perspective from which player experiences gameplay: first-person, third-person, etc.
• Dimension – Intended perception of the depth: 2D, 3D, etc.
• Pacing – Methods by which time passes or events take place: real-time, turn-based, etc.
• Estimated time of completion – Average time to complete game
• Visual Style – Predominant and recognizable visual appearance
• Artistic Techniques – Tools used to create the “look”
• Mood – Pervading atmosphere or tone the game evokes or recalls a certain mood or state of mind
• Type of Ending – Characteristics describing how the game ends and/or postgame content

Clarke, R. I., Lee, J. H., & Clark, N. (2017). Why Video Game Genres Fail: A Classificatory Analysis. Games and Culture, 12(5), 445–465.

Donovan, A., Cho, H., Magnifico, C., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Pretty as a pixel: Issues and challenges in developing a controlled vocabulary for video game visual styles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries.

GAme MEtadata and CItation Project (GAMECIP). (2019). GAMECIP. Retrieved from https://gamecip.soe.ucsc.edu/

Lee, J. H., Cho, H., Fox, V., & Perti, A. (2013). User-centered approach in creating a metadata schema for video games and interactive media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Lee, J. H., Clarke, R. I., & Perti, A. (2015). Empirical evaluation of metadata for video games and interactive media. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2609-2625.

Lee, J. H., Tennis, J. T., Clarke, R. I., & Carpenter, M. (2013). Developing a video game metadata schema for the Seattle Interactive Media Museum. International journal on digital libraries, 13(2), 105-117.

Maurer, M. B., & Shakeri, S. (2016). Disciplinary differences: LCSH and keyword assignment for ETDs from different disciplines. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(4), 213-243.

Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (2019). OLAC Video Game Vocabulary. Retrieved from https://olacinc.org/olac-video-game-vocabulary

Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc., Cataloging Policy Committee, Video Game RDA Best Practices Task Force. (April 2018). Best Practices for Cataloging Video Games Using RDA and MARC21, version 1.1. [PDF File]. Retrieved from: https://olacinc.org/sites/default/files/Video%20Game%20Best%20Practices-April-2018%20Revision-a.pdf

Schwing, T., McCutcheon, S., & Maurer, M. B. (2012). Uniqueness matters: Author-supplied keywords and LCSH in the library catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(8), 903-928.

Strader, C. R. (2009). Author-assigned keywords versus library of congress subject headings: Implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(4), 243-250.