The Expansion of Computer Games Beyond Ludology

The Expansion of Computer
Games Beyond Ludology
Lasse Sandgaard Pallesen
redkeybluekey@gmail.com
2
Abstract:
In this paper, I argue that computer games have expanded beyond the theoretical framework of
ludology. According to this framework, computer games must be understood as games, first and
foremost. Their essential qualities mimic those of traditional non-digital games. Therefore, classic game
theories such as those proposed by Huizinga and Caillois are often used by ludologists to describe what
a computer game is. According to these classic theories, games are systems of play, in which people
engage voluntarily because of their enjoyable nature. The play activity is fundamentally unproductive -
nothing of value is generated, and no contributions to society are present. Furthermore, the activity is
viewed as separate from real-life. As players, we enter into an alternate universe, a magic circle, in
which we accept and adopt the special rules governing the game. Playing implies a focus on these rules
at the expense of the rules of the real world, which tend to fade away. Games have this immersive
quality, which we find inherently enjoyable. It allows our imaginations to flourish and affords
experimental actions to be carried out in a safe environment.
Most computer games fit these characteristics very well. They are games like every other - they
just use the computer as the medium with which people play. The computer gives special affordances to
games such as simulation mechanics and the presentation of elaborate virtual worlds, but the underlying
characteristics of games remain. Ludologists have therefore understandably been particularly focused on
this relation between computer games and games.
However, in recent years, a new trend has emerged. Companies are releasing an increasing num-
ber of computer games that challenge this ludological framework. They force us to reconsider our
understanding of computer games by seeking out and crossing the boundaries set forth by ludology.
These computer games are more than just games. They have expanded to become much more
integrated into our everyday lives. They are platforms for social interaction and trade, venues for
creative endeavors, and tools for content production. They force their players to continuously shift their
focus between game rules and real world rules, as well as allow them to alter the game rules to
drastically personalize and customize the play experience. Players are invited to go beneath the surface
of these games and tinker with their basic mechanics. Thus, these games blur the boundaries between
play vs. work, consumer vs. producer, player vs. developer, and game vs. reality.
The study of computer games needs to reflect this new development. We can no longer view
computer games as inherently separate, unproductive, and safe. They are not always closed systems of
3
play, whose rules are set in stone. Computer games have expanded beyond these ludological ideas - they
have leapt into a new generation.
I wish to draw attention to this new generation of computer games and point out the inadequacies
of the ludological framework. While ludology remains a useful theoretical and analytical tool for most
computer games, it doesn't cover their full range of expression. There is a hole in computer game studies
that needs to be filled, and this paper aims to contribute to this ongoing process.
The paper is structured as follows: After a theoretical account of ludology, in which I propose a
computer game definition from a ludological perspective, I analyze the computer game Little Big
Planet. Here my goal is to investigate specifically how and to what extent the game breaks and modifies
the conventions of traditional games as specified by ludology. Then I draw my attention to other modern
computer games that embody similar nonconformist properties. This leads to a discussion as to how we
should integrate these games into computer game studies. What should the theoretical implications of
the emergence of these modern computer games be? How can we understand them, and where does
ludology fit into the broader picture of computer game theory? Here, I argue that these games can be
viewed as a second generation of computer games and then go on to discuss the central principles
governing this new generation as well as their relationship to traditional games.
4
Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................ 9
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Finding a Game Definition - Two Perspectives ................................................................................................. 9

The Game as an Object- a Formally Defined System of Rules .......................................................................... 10
The Interaction Process of the Game System – Games as State Machines .................................................. 10
The Rules of the Game System – a Categorisation ....................................................................................... 11
The Attributes of Game Rules ....................................................................................................................... 13
Summary of the Game System Perspective .................................................................................................. 15
The Game as an Activity – Play Emerges ........................................................................................................... 16
Play Taking Place Outside the Real World .................................................................................................... 17
The Unproductive Nature of Games ............................................................................................................. 20
The Voluntary Nature of Play ....................................................................................................................... 21
The Progression of Play in Accordance with Rules ....................................................................................... 23
The Uncertain Character of Games .............................................................................................................. 27
Summarization of the Game as Activity Perspective .................................................................................... 28
Computer Games as Games ............................................................................................................................28

The Five Ludic Afordances of the Computer ..................................................................................................... 29
1: The induspatable Enforcement of Rules by the Computer ...................................................................... 29
2: The Simulation Capabilities of the Computer ........................................................................................... 30
3: The Immidiate and Narrow Interaction of Computers ............................................................................. 30
4: The Networking Capabilities of the Computer ......................................................................................... 31
5: The Fictional Worlds Conveyed by Computers ......................................................................................... 32
Ludic Affardances Summed Up ......................................................................................................................... 33
The Formation of the Ludological Game Model ..............................................................................................34
ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................38
Methodological Considerations ......................................................................................................................38

5
Analysis of LBP ................................................................................................................................................39

Introduction to the game .................................................................................................................................. 39
Compliance with Game Characteristic 1: System Components ........................................................................ 40
Compliance with Game Characteristic 2: System Interaction Process .............................................................. 41
Compliance with Game Characteristic 3: System Rules .................................................................................... 42
Compliance with Game Characteristic 4: The Seperate and Immersive Quality .............................................. 45
Compliance with Game Characteristic 5: The Unproductive Quality ................................................................ 47
Compliance with Game Characteristic 6: The Uncertatin Quality .................................................................... 48
Compliance with Game Characteristic 7: The Voluntary Quality ...................................................................... 49
Compliance with Game Characteristic 8: The Emergent Quality ...................................................................... 50
The Analysis Summed Up .................................................................................................................................. 52
Inclusion of Other Computer Games ...............................................................................................................53

The Movies ........................................................................................................................................................ 53
World of Warcraft ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Other Examples ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Reflections about Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................58
DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................... 62
A Theoretical Framework for the Second-Generation Computer Game ..........................................................62

The Blurred Magic Circle ................................................................................................................................... 62
The Game System as a Complex Adaptive System............................................................................................ 67
Configurative Game Actions Elaborated ........................................................................................................... 70
When Free-form Play and Rule-based Gaming Meet ....................................................................................... 71
The Consuming and Producing Player............................................................................................................... 73
Play Motivations ............................................................................................................................................... 75
Final Remarks .................................................................................................................................................... 77
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 79
REFERENCED GAMES AND LITERATURE ............................................................................... 82

6
Introduction
This Master Thesis explores a new trend within computer games. World of Warcraft1, Little Big
Planet2, Warhammer Online3, The Sims 24, Super Smash Brothers: Brawl5, Everquest 26, Halo 37, Far
Cry 28, Boom Blox9, Animal Crossing: City Folk10, and Spore11 represent just a small selection of the
computer games contributing to this trend. Common to them is that they challenge our understanding of
what a computer games is. They break with the fundamental characteristics, which we have traditionally
used to characterize analogue as well as digital games.
What are these fundamental characteristics? According to most game theories, games are a rule-
based activity, in which players participate voluntarily, because they find enjoyment herein. Rules
define a goal to be achieved as well as the authorized means available to a given player to achieve this
goal. The rules are unambiguous – not open to discussion – and the activity is fundamentally
unproductive - not linked to profits. Finally, the activity takes place separate from reality. To play a
game involves the act of temporarily setting aside the rules of the real world in favor of the alternative
rules of the game. This separate dimension is also why the actions we perform inside a game are
generally regarded as being safe. We can afford to make mistakes and act experimentally, because these
actions won’t have undesirable consequences in our real life outside of the game.
Games - analogue as well as digital – generally possess these characteristics. Take the classic
computer game Super Mario Bros.12, for example. Here, rules specify that the goal of the player is to
save the sweet Princess Peach from Bowser, the evil dragon. Rules also specify the tools applicable to
the player. He can make Mario walk, run, jump, and shoot the enemies in his way. The player can’t
change these rules. He must abide by this special universe, in which turtles can be pressed out of their
shells, green pipes lead to underground caves, and beanstalks, reaching all the way to the clouds, beg to
be climbed on. To cope in this world, the player must acccept its weird logic and temporarily forget
about thoughts unrelated to the game. Furthermore, no tangible values are generated by playing. The
1
Blizzard 2004
2
Sony 2008
3
Electronic Arts 2008
4
5
Nintendo 2008
6
Sony 2004
7
Microsoft Game Studios 2007
8
Ubisoft 2008
9
10
Nintendo 2008
11
12
Nintendo 1985
7
coins that Mario collects can’t be converted to real money. Nothing of value has been gained after
playing. No contribution to society has been made. The player has merely received an entertaining
experience.
Super Mario Bros. exemplifies that computer games generally fit into this traditional understand-
ing of games, which has its roots as far back as in 1950, when Huizinga released his groundbreaking
book Homo Ludens13. Though Huizinga naturally didn’t have computer games in mind at this point in
time, his ideas are often brought up within computer game theory. An entire discipline, called ludology,
seeks to understand computer games in light of the much older concept of games. At the heart of this
discipline lies the idea that games are transmedial, that games can exist independent of media. Computer
games are games like all other game variants – they just use the computer as the medium, with which
people play. The computer offers special affordances to games – such as the representation of virtual
worlds and simulations - but the essential, formal attributes contained in a computer game as well as the
activity that it generates don’t deviate from analogue games such as Chess or soccer. First and foremost,
computer games are games, according to ludologists. Their essential attributes are game-related.
We are now in an era where this discipline is challenged. Game designers explore the limits of
what a computer game can be. They release products that contradict the ludological understanding of
computer games. These computer games are more than just games – they are expanded. They are much
more integrated in our daily lives – as platforms for social interaction and trade, as catalysts of creative
endeavors and self-presentation, and as tools for content production. Rather than being immersed in the
game universe, players are forced to continually shift their focus between the game rules and the real-
world rules. This integrated dimension is created by the open structure of the games. As players, we are
given a tremendous amount of freedom to customize and modify the underlying mechanisms of these
games, and then present our creations to countless other players. We are invited to tamper with the
games’ expressions, putting our own personal touch on the game. As a result, these games blur the
boundaries between game activity vs. work, consumer vs. producer, player vs. developer, and game vs.
reality.
This trend is interesting, because it forces us to reconsider our computer game understanding. It
indicates that the ludological understanding of computer games is insufficient in describing the essential
characteristics of computer games. We can no longer cover this field by using words such as separate,
13
Huizinga 1955.
8
unproductive, and safe. Computer games are no longer just closed systems of play, whose rules are set
in stone. They can also take other forms.
It is this inadequacy that has inspired me to write this thesis. We need a theory that captures not
only that computer games have expanded beyond ludology, but also how this development occurs. How
and to what extent are these cross-border computer games different than traditional games? What
specific parts of the ludological discipline appear to be inadequate? And how should we reassess our
understanding of computer games to capture the essence of these computer games? These are the key
issues of this paper.
The paper has a classic three-tier structure with a theoretical, analytical, and a discussion-based
section. In the theroretical one, the ludological understanding of computer games is presented. As
mentioned earlier, it implies a focus on the issue: What is a game? A possible answer is provided by
gathering key, classic game concepts from Huizinga, Caillois, Crawford, Juul, and Salen & Zimmerman
among others. Then, I want to concentrate on what a computer can bring to games – a question, which
ludologists such as Frasca, Juul, and Salen & Zimmerman have dealt with extensively. The entire
theoretical section is summarized with a ludological model of computer games that not only describes
what a computer game is, but also what the computer can bring to games.
In the analysis section, I use this model on an object of analysis – the computer game, Little Big
Planet. Here, the goal is to examine how and to what extent this computer game support and break with
the model. Then I bring forth other cross-border computer games in order to elaborate on the
insufficiencies of ludology.
In the discussion section, I reflect on the results of the analysis by asking the following questions:
What should the theoretical implications of the advent of these computer games be? How can we extend
our computer game understanding to reflect the characteristics of these games? And how does the
ludological framework fit into this expanded understanding? On the basis of the analysis and inspired by
the concept of Web 2.0, I argue that we can consider these computer games as belonging to a second
generation of computer games. Then I go on to discuss the characteristics of this generation compared to
traditional games.
9
Theoretical Framework
Introduction
In this section, I will explain the ludological understanding of computer games. Frasca14, Juul15, and
Salen & Zimmerman16 have written comprehensively about this approach. Their main point is that, first
and foremost, an understanding of computer games should be based on an understanding of the concept
of games. Therefore, existing game theories are a necessary starting point for developing a solid
understanding of computer games. Lantz & Zimmerman point out:
"Because even the most innovative computer game is grounded in

centuries of human play, we will resist the dazzling surfaces and
vertiginous speeds of computer gaming to identify what digital and non-
digital games have in common - a play-centric aesthetics of the game."17
In the following, I will present a number of classic game concepts and theories, and then explain
the ludological approach of considering computer games as games. At the end, I will combine the ideas
in a model that describes what a computer game is from a ludological point of view.
Finding a Game Definition - Two Perspectives

Chess, Pacman18, soccer, poker, Sudoku, and Halo 319 are all manifestations of something that we
normally refer to as games. They show that games are constantly evolving, taking on new and
unexpected forms, thus representing a tremendously comprehensive concept that is hard to describe.
This fact has not kept several theorists from trying to look for universal charateristics that may form the
basis for specific definitions and concepts. In the following, I would like to present a number of these,
and point out their relationships. I will often refer to the game of chess to exemplify how the different
concepts manifest themselves in a specific game. The structure of this explanation is based on Juul’s
and Aarseth’s observations that the study of games can be approached from two perspectives. One
focuses on games as an object – more specifically a formally defined system of rules – while the other
regards games as an activity that people partake in:
14
Frasca 2003. pp. 1-2.
15
Juul 2005. pp. 22-54.
16
Salen & Zimmerman 2003. pp 71-82.
17
Lantz & Zimmerman 1999.
18
Atari 1978
19
Microsoft Game Studios 2007.
10
"[…] "game" can mean two things. A static object or artifact or an

activivty or event that players perform."20
"Games are both object and process; they can’t be read as texts or listened
to as music, they must be played."21
Let’s start by seeing what the first perspective captures.
The Game as an Object- a Formally Defined System of Rules
"Games are intrinsically systemic: all games can be understood as

systems."22
Both Juul, Crawford, and Salen & Zimmerman have investigated games as systems. In short, this
perspective sees games as: "[…] a group of interacting, interrelated, or independent elements forming a
complex whole"23. System Theorist, Littlejohn, can enlighten us further by specifying four elements that
exist in every system.24 The first one is objects. These can be either physical or abstract. In chess they
are physical made up of the pieces and the board. The second element is the attributes of the objects. In
chess, these tell us the start positions of the pieces, as well as how the pieces can move. The third
element is the relationships between objects. In chess, a piece might be in an attack relationship with a
competing piece, which then may be eliminated. A player’s pawn might be threatened by a competing
piece, forcing the player to defend his pawn with another piece. Finally, systems have surroundings, the
fourth element, which denotes the context of the system. If a system is linked to other systems, they are
part of the system surroundings. In chess, the players are part of these surroundings, as their actions
affect the other elements of the system.
The Interaction Process of the Game System – Games as State Machines

The actions of the players are system inputs. They are the players’ ways of interacting with the system.
On the basis of this interaction, the state of the system changes. How the state changes is defined by the
system rules. Juul’s comparison between games and a specfic type of system, a state machine, can
explain this interaction process.
"Briefly stated, a state machine is a machine that has an initial state,

accepts a specific amount of input events, changes state in response to
inputs using a state transistion function (i.e. rules), and produces specific
20
Juul 2005. p. 43.
21
Aarseth 2001.
22
Salen & Zimmerman 2004. p 50.
23
Ibid. p. 50.
24
Littlejohn 1989. p. 41.
11
outputs using an output function. In a literal sense, a game is a state

machine"25
Let’s again use Chess to clarify Juul’s comparison. A game of chess is always in a given state that
corresponds to the current organisation of pieces on the board. The start state, in which the two players’
pieces stand opposite each other, is always the same. The game then accepts an input (a move that is
legal according to the game rules), which changes the state of the game, so that a new arrangement now
applies. If the moved piece stands on the same field as a competing piece, this piece is removed in
accordance with the ”state transition function” of the game. The new arrangement now represents the
output, which the other player sees and reacts to by doing another input, starting the cycle once again
until the game is over.
Juul adds that state machines constitute a "landscape of possibilities"26. From any state machine –
as well as from any game – we can draw a tree that branches out for every input a player carries out. To
play a game is to explore this game tree. The complexity of the tree varies from game to game. In chess,
the possibilities are practically endless, whereas a game like tic-tac-toe is considerably more limited.
Viewing games as state machines certainly seems useful to explain the interaction process be-
tween the game system and the player. It shows how players and game system take turns in giving
feedback to each other. Now I will focus on how rules affect these feedback mechanisms.
The Rules of the Game System – a Categorisation

Neither all state machines nor all games are alike. Some allow for different inputs or generate different
outputs compared to others. This process is basically governed by two types of rules evident in every
game system. They are called the operational and the constituative rules.27 Together they make up the
formal identity of the game system. In short, they define how the system works, thus allowing us to
differentiate one game from another.
"The formal identity of a game allows us to distinguish a game as formally

unique and distinct from other games. This identity emerges from the
relationship between the game's constiuative rules and operational
rules."28
25
Juul 2005. p. 60.
26
Juul 2005. p. 56.
27
Salen & Zimmerman 2004. p. 130
28
12
The operational rules determine the player’s available actions in a given situation. In relation to
the state machine, they control which inputs the system accepts from the player. They also guide the
player on a more general level – by specifying the state needed in order for the player to win. Thus, they
constitute a kind of input ruleset, which define what a player can do in a given situation and what he
must do on a general level. The constituative rules define the underlying logic of the game. They decide
how the game interprets or treats the player’s inputs, in other words controlling the outputs generated by
the game. They are the output ruleset in state machine typology. We can now conclude that players
make inputs – they interact in accordance with the operational rules, which cause changes in the system
in accordance with the constituative rules.
Regarding the operational rules, Salen &Zimmerman adds that these primarily serve to limit the
inputs that the game system accepts:
"If you're playing the dice game Yatzee, think of all the things you could do
with the dice in that game: you could light them on fire, eat them, juggle
them, or make jewelry out of them. But you do not do any of these things.
You do something incredibly narrow and specific."29
Suits agree:
"[…] rules prohibit more efficient means in favor of less efficient means."30
Suits mentions a boxing example to support his point.31 A boxer’s goal is to get his opponent to
remain on the floor for ten seconds. The easiest way to achieve this would involve bringing a gun to the
fight and shooting his opponent in the head. However, such an approach is not allowed, of course. As
Suits points out, boxing is a game because it has rules that limit the more effective means (shooting) in
favor of less effective means (hitting). In chess, where the goal is to capture the opponent’s king, it is
also not allowed to merely throw the opponent’s pieces off the board, so that only the king is left –
defenceless against a large army. The rules restrict this behaviour.
Juul has critisized this view on rules as something that strictly limits player interaction. He states
that rules set up both restrictions and affordances for the player.
"The rules of a game also set up potential actions, actions that are
meaningful inside the game but meaningsless outside. It is the rules of
29
Salen & Zimmerman 2003. p. 122.
30
Suits 1978. p. 34.
31
Ibid.
13
chess that allow the player to perform af checkmate - without the rules,
there is no checkmate, only meaningless moving of pieces across a board.
Rules specifiy limitations and affordances."32
The discussion seems largely to be a matter of perspective. Is the glass half empty or half full? In
theory, rules clearly seem limiting when we see them in relation to the infinite range of interactions
provided by their absence. In this light, chess represents just one specific variant out of an infinite
number of possible rulesets, that are theoretically possible to conjure up from a chessboard and its
pieces. However, in practice, the chance of us inventing a game like chess with all its ingenious rules is
extremely microscopic. Succumbing to the chess rules therefore gives us the opportunity to interact in
ways that we could never dream of without their presence. Whereas Salen & Zimmerman focus solely
on the former perspective, Juul reveals a more nuanced view that takes into account how rules work
both in theory and in practice being both restricting and empowering.
The Attributes of Game Rules

In order for rules to work in a game system, they must possess certain attributes. By comparing Juul’s
and Salen & Zimmerman’s descriptions of these attributes, I have come up with these four.
1) Game rules are explicit and unequivocal:

Game rules must be clearly and explicitly communicated.33 Lacking or ambigous rules can bring the
game to a halt. The state machine crashes. Players start to argue. Juul mentions the game of chess
himself to clarify his point of view. He compares two variants of the most important rule in chess:
1) A player is check-mate, if the his king is in a hopeless situation.

2) A player is checkmate, if his king is checked and cannot move to an unchecked position.
In contrast to the latter rule, the first must be dismissed as a game rule, because its meaning is
unclear. It would lead to numerous disagreements among players whose perceptions of what a hopeless
situation implies vary. Some will regard the situation as hopeless even before a check situation even
occurs. A really good player might consider his opponent’s situation as hopeless before the game has
even begun. Such unclear rules are damaging to games.
2: Game rules are set in stone from the start
32
Juul 2005. p. 58.
33
Juul 2005. pp. 63 - 64.
14
The rules must not change during the lifespan of the game. The game is likely to collapse due to
disagreements, if a player suddenly decides to change a given chess rule or add a new one. Such a
change would also mean that the game can no longer be characterized as chess. The game’s formal
identity, made up of the operational and constituative rules, would have been altered from being chess to
being a mutation of chess. The fact that game rules are set in stone is inextricably linked with the fact
that games are closed systems:
"First, a game is a closed formal system [that] is complete and self

sufficient as a structure. It is closed because the rules cover all
contingencies encountered in the game."34
According to Littlejohn the surroundings of a closed system – ie. the players in a game - may
change the states of the system, but not the underlying rules that make up the system. The operational
and constituative can’t be changed – only the instantiations allowed by the rules. In other words, the
game tree can be explored in many ways, but new branches cannot be developed. Had games been open
systems, they would allow for actual rule changes – what Murray describes as a higher level of
interaction, called authorship:
"There is a distinction between playing a creative role within an authored

environment and having authorship of the environment itself. […]
Authorship means writing the rules for the interactor's involvement, that
is, the conditions under which things will happen in response to the
participant's actions." 35
But, again, according to ludology, games are closed systems that do not allow authorship - chang-
es to the most fundamental level of a game.
3: Game rules define the possible outcomes of the game and thus its conflict
The aforementioned chess-mate rule shows that rules also specify the winning condition, players strive
for. A fulfilment of this rule ends the game and the cycle of inputs and outputs. Not all games end with
such a fulfilment. A game of Solitaire might fail or a game of chess might end in a draw. In other words,
rules don’t just define winning conditions but, more broadly, what Juul calls quantifiable outcomes. 36
These represent all the end states of the system – all the branches from which no other branch can be
derived.
34
Crawford 1997. p. 7.
35
Murray 1997. p. 152.
36
Juul 2005. p. 38.
15
Juul adds that these outcomes must have different values assigned. Rules must specify, which
outcomes are better to achieve than others. In many games, the possible different outcomes form a
simple binary relationship. A player can lose, which is bad, or win, which is good. Other games have
more complex outcomes such as high scores or the number of dollars won in a game of poker. Here, the
valorization of outcome is placed on a spectrum between good and bad. In any case, the different
players’ respective positive outcomes are often contradictory. In other words, different players have
different goals that cannot all be fulfilled. One’s success is the other’s failure. These different
valorizations of the possible outcomes of the game are what create the game’s overall conflict. Players
fight each other in order to reach the most positive outcome for themselves. 37
Even in one-player games and in cooperative games, where several players fight to reach the same
goal, there is a conflict present. It exists either with another group of players – such as in team sports –
or with the game system itself – such as in Solitaire and in role playing games. In the latter type, the
players must try to control the game system by putting it in a given desirable state. Regardless of game
type, a conflict is present – created by rules the define various quantifiable outcomes, whose
valorizations vary for a given player or party.
4: Rules are repeatable:

Salen & Zimmerman writes that "rules are repeatable."38 This simply means that a game, in theory,
should be playable an infinite number of times – and even in arbitrary contexts. If rules change from one
context to the other, it’s not the same game.
Summary of the Game System Perspective

In summation, the game system perspective captures how games are structured as rule-based systems.
More specifically, it draws attention to three characteristics of games.
 A game is a system with objects that possess specific attributes and form relationships with other
objects in specific surroundings capable of changing said objects.
 The surroundings are made up of players that take part in an interaction process similar to the
ones found in state machines.
37
Juul 2005. p. 40.
38
16
 A game is a closed system governed by rules – its structure or identity is made up of operational
and constituative rules that must possess four qualities: They must be explicit and unequivocal, be
set in stone from the start, define the possible outcomes and thus the conflict, and be repeatable.
Now I will describe the second perspective that regards games as an activity.
The Game as an Activity – Play Emerges
"A game is a system of rules. But once the rules are activated, once
humans enter the system, play begins - and play is something altogether
different than rules. Play is the experience of a rule-system set into motion
by the players' choices and actions."39
Huizinga is broadly recognized as one of the most groundbreaking theorists within this perspec-
tive. Though his book Homo Ludens dates back to 1950, it is often quoted by contemporary computer
game theorists. He presents the following definition of the word "play", which like the Dutch word
"spel", from which it is translated, can refer to the act of playing a game as well as the act of just playing
around informally:
"Play is a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life

as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player
intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest,
and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper
boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules in an orderly
manner.40
Caillois has elaborated on Huizinga’s work and writes the following definition:
"Play is an activity, which is essentially free (voluntary), separate (in time

and space), uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, make-believe".41
By comparing these two definitions we can extract five characteristics as listed below:
39
Lantz og Zimmerman 1999.
40
Huizinga 1955. p. 13.
41
Caillois 1961. pp. 10-11.
17
Five Characteristics of Play
Huizinga’s description Caillois' description
1: It takes place within its "outside ordinary life", "proceeds "separate (in time
own boundaries – outside of within its own boundaries of time and space)", "make-
the real world. and space", "absorbing the player believe"
intensely and utterly"
2: It is unproductive. "connected with no material "unproductive"

interest and no profit can be
gained"
3:It is free. "free" "free (voluntary)"
4: It proceeds in acccordance "fixed rules" "governed by rules"

with rules.
5: Its outcome is uncertain. "uncertain"
In the following, I will systematically elaborate on these characteristics by explaining other theo-
rists’ concepts and applying the ideas to the game of chess.
Play Taking Place Outside the Real World

The quotes above emphasize that the play activity takes place in a special domain outside real life. To
clarify how the activity is cut off from reality, Huizinga introduces the concept of the magic circle. 42 As
soon as play commences, the player enters this magic circle on a cognitive level. He ignores and
distances himself from the rules of the real world, instead surrendering himself to the special logic of the
game. Inside the magic circle, it is the specific rules of the game system that apply. These are formally
defined and clearly separated from those we follow in our daily lives. As soon as we stop playing, the
magic circle is lifted, and we are thrown back to reality, whose rules are no longer on the sideline.
Huizinga adds that the magic circle might have a physical component attached. The white lines on a
soccer pitch or tennis court, the table on which a card game is played, and the stage where a magician
performs represent markers that indicate the boundaries of the game and help us to cognitively create
the magic circle.
42
18
The circle is indeed magic, because something quite magical happens when a game begins. For
the playful child, the action figures get transformed from mere plastic parts to magical creatures with
specific attributes and personalities attached. Chess with its many pieces might function as decoration in
the living room, but as soon as a game has started, the pieces magically change. From being aesthetic
objects, they now take on a specific, functional role on the battelfield, which the board now represents.
The game objects get a whole new meaning inside the magic circle. This is also seen when a yellow ball
crosses a white line. In the real world, this incident doesn’t have to mean anything, but in a tennis match
it can lead to a lost set or even a lost match. Similarly, the word ”accident” has negative connotations in
the real world, but in the game of Scrabble it can generate many valuable points. Thus, game rules carry
meaning to players’ actions, and this meaning is different inside the magic circle compared to outside.
Several game theorists have reproduced Huizinga’s idea of the magic circle. Suits, for example,
introduces the concept "lusory attitude".43 To understand it, we must return to Suit’s boxing example. In
order for the boxing match to play out, the boxers must accept the ruleset of boxing. They must share an
attitude, involving adhearing to the game rules, hereby ignoring the methods that actually are the most
effective in bringing the opponent down. This agreement – this social contract – is what Suits labels the
lusory attitude, and its absence leads to the collapse of the game.
A player’s lusory attitude shares some similarities with his cognitive construction of the magic
circle. In both cases, the attention shifts from the rules of reality to the rules of the game, because they
make sense in the context of the game, and because rule violations destroy the game. Whereas the lusory
attitude strictly emphasizes that the player must choose to accept the rules of this alternate world and put
aside the rules of the real world, because this concious choice constitutes the prerequisite for the
creation and maintenance of the play activity, the magic circle also stresses the immersive effect of
games. The magic circle is not only something we consciously enter into, but also something that we are
immersed by, since the game rules make us temporarily forget about real-life issues.44
Psychologist Apter uses a third analogy to describe the immersive character of play. He mentions
a protective frame.
43
Suits 1978. p. 23.
44
Within storytelling we see a similar phenomenon. As Murray writes, our "willing suspension of disbelief" is a
prerequisite for us to be involved in a story (Murray 1997. pp. 110-112). In fact, she prefers the related concept "active
creation of belief" to describe this mechanism, because it stresses the fact that we consciously let ourselves seduce. On
the other hand, if we refuse to be seduced, the storytelling loses its meaning. A certain susceptibility towards what is
told is necessary. Then, of course, the story can support (or challenge) our seduction. Not unlike the magic circle, the
seduction is created and maintained by a willingness to be seduced, but also through the immersive impact that a story
might have.
19
"You experience a protective frame, which stands between you and the
"real" world, and in its problems, creating an enchanted zone in which, in
the end, you are confident that no harm can come".45
Apter seems to agree with Huizinga and Suits. He just draws our attention to the level of safety
that play invokes. By playing, we can carry out actions, that are otherwise forbidden or frowned upon in
the real world. Play can also provide opportunities to experiment with our identity and explore gender
roles or provide an outlet for aggression and frustration without severe consequences. Thus, play
constitutes some kind of escapism, that temporarily makes us forget about the problems and limitations
of the real world.46
This sense of security is also described by Crawford. For him, games let us engage in a world of
illusions as well as explore alternative action patterns in a carefree manner. Psychologically, there are no
limits as to what emotional states, these action patterns can invoke. We might experience wealthiness in
a game of Monopoly and maybe lose our entire fortune afterwards. These feelings can be immensely
strong, even though the events have no influence on our real-world economy. Games are attractive to us,
largely due to this sense of security:
"Conflict implies danger; danger means risk of harm; harm is undesirable.

Therefore, a game is an artifice for providing the psychological
experiences of conflict and danger while excluding their physical
realizations. In short, a game is a safe way to experience reality.[…] In a
world of relentless cause and effect, of tragic linkages and inevitable
consequences, the disassociation of actions from consequences is a
compelling feature of games."47
Clearly, the safe nature of games is caused by the fact that our playing action have lacking conse-
quences in the real world. However, the statement that consequences are completely absent, which the
qoute above implies, seems not to apply universally. Once again, I agree with Juul’s more nuanced view
described below.
Juul doesn’t deny the safe nature of games but points out that play rarely is completely devoid of
real-life consequences.48 Instead, games have negotiable consequences. In principle, all play activities
might have consequences that go beyond the actual activity. For example, all play activities can be
gambling-related, meaning that players lose or win real money. Players might also establish that the
45
Apter 1991. p. 15.
46
Apter 1991. p. 16.
47
Crawford 1984. p. 28.
48
Juul 2005. pp. 40 - 41.
20
loser must do the dishes or gets punished by having to drink a whole beer quickly. In any of these cases,
the player is affected by the outcome, after the game has ended. If a given play activity is associated
with such real-life consequences, these are defined and negotiated in advance.
At first glance, the notion that play occurs separated from reality seems incompatible with the
notion of negotiable consequences. Won’t the magic circle break when our actions intervene with the
real world? Here, it is important to stress that we are still deeply focused on the game universe and its
rules, even though there are real consequences to our actions. Someone might play differently
depending on whether he just plays for fun or for money or prestige, but focusing on game rules and
setting aside the rules of the real world - thus becoming immersed in the special universe of the game –
remains a key characteristic of play. That is why Juul also mentions the magic circle in this context.
The fact that play is more secure that other activities is not incompatible with the presence of
negotiable consequences. When playing we decide ourselves how and to what extent our activity should
have real-life consequences. Such decisions are impossible in the real world, in which all actions risk
affecting some other aspect of life. Playing is safe, because we know its real-life consequences in
advance – if these are even involved.
The Unproductive Nature of Games

As previously mentioned, both Huizinga and Caillois sees play as unproductive. This characteristic
serves to differentiate play form activities such as work or art. When a game ends, everything related to
the game is reset. Nothing has been harvested or manufactured. No masterpiece is created:
"Play is an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill,

and often of money for the purchase of gambling equipment or eventually
pay for the establishment."49
However, there is a significant difference between the two theorists’ opinion towards the unpro-
ductive nature of games. Whereas Huizinga simply denies that material interests can be involved in a
play activity, Callois implements gambling activities in his definition. Whether taking part in a
blackjack tournament, gambling at a casino, or buying a lotto coupon, we are still taking part in a play
activity, even though a big part of our motivation may be linked to material interests. In these cases, we
might even win material goods by playing. How, then, can Caillois describe the activity as unproduc-
tive? His point is that gambling invovles an exchange of goods, but no goods are actually produced.
49
Caillois 1961. pp. 5-6.
21
They are merely transferred. When working, we contribute to society in some way – our actions have a
valuable effect. This effect is always absent when playing.
On a side note, Caillois' inclusion of gambling activities seems to be completely compatible with
the notion of negotiable consequences. Gambling is a type of play whose consequences regarding
potential material losses and gains are negotiated in advance.
The Voluntary Nature of Play

Play is fundamentally characterized by being voluntary. A player must be able to withdraw from playing
at any time, if he so wishes. Play ceases to exist when a player participates against his will:
”As an obligation or simply an order, it would lose one of its basic

characteristics: the fact that the player devotes himself spontaneously to
the game, of his free will and for his pleasure, each time completely free to
choose, retreat, silence, mediation, idle solitude, or creative activity.”50
The fact that play is voluntary implies that our primary motivation to play is intrinsic.51 Huizinga
states, that we play for our own sake – simply because we like to expose ourselves to the immersive
experience of play.52 The motivation is not linked to external intentions such as satisfying others or
performing a given practical task. In fact, Huizinga critizize those theorists that try to understand play
based on a primarily utilitarian perspective. They describe play as a tool with which to satisfy certain
biological needs. Huizinga mentions that some claim that we play to release excessive energy, while
others say that play helps children exert self-control and cultivates moral and cognitive skills necessary
for the child’s identity development. Play is also seen as an outlet to compensate for deep psychological
frustrations. Huizinga regards all these theories as attacks on our understanding of games. The problem
is that they are based on an incorrect assumption that games are played to satisfy a particular need:
"All these hypotheses have one thing in common: they all start
from the assumption that play must serve something which is not
play, that it must have some kind of biological purpose.53
The fulfilment of such biological needs is far from a constituent property of play, according to
Huizinga. The theories might explain certain effects of play but never our primary motivation to play.
Instead we decide to play in order to be immersed in the aforementioned magic circle, which provides
50
Caillois 1961. p. 6
51
52
53
22
the framework for the special experiences, we may encounter. These experience can only arise, if we
want to them to. If we are controlled by extrinsic motivations or are forced to play againt our will, play
will lose one of its main characteristics – its immersive quality. In short, the voluntary nature of games
is a prerquisite for the its immersive quality.
Several theorists have touched upon Huizinga’s play motivation theory – with a few nuances.
Koster argues that the main attraction of games lies in the basic pleasure of mastering a problem
mentally – without coercion or stress.54 A game appeals to the act of trying to recognize its rulebased
behavioural patterns and then crack its code, solve its mystery, dissolve its conflict. On a basic human
level, we are motivated to bring order to chaos, which is why we seek to develop a pattern recognision
of the game mechanics. Such a mental task requires concentration and focus, thus engulfing us in the
game universe.
Concentration, focus, and immersion are also key words in Csikszentmihalyis’ flow theory.55 He
has observed how some activites, such as painting, mountain-climbing, and gaming, are often carried
out simply because we want to. No financial or prestige-related rewards have to be involved. That is
why these activities can be labelled as autotelic. This word refers to the fact that our driving force
(”telos”) comes from the individual himself (”auto”) rather than an external source. Such activities
might bring us in a state of flow, provided that they have a suitable difficulty level, clearly defined
goals, and feedback mechanisms, while giving us a feeling of control in an otherwise uncertain
situation. The flow state creates a sense of intense immersion, in which our attention and concentration
completely revolve around this particular activity. There is no place for thoughts not related to the
activity. In flow, you feel as if you alone can affect your fate. The idiom ”to be in the zone” summarizes
this state fairly well. Though flow isn’t specifically aimed at games, but has a broader scope,
Csikszentmihalyis specifically mentions games as flow-inducing. Furthermore, the theory is used by
numerous game theorists and designers to understand why we play. 56 57 58
The above-mentioned theories share the idea that play is fundamentally intrinsically motivated.
We play, because we want to explose ourselves to the pleasant, immersive feeling that games provide.
54
Koster 2004. pp. 12 - 34.
55
Csikszentmihalyi 1990.
56
Jones 1998.
57
Sweetser & Wyeth 2005.
58
Chou & Ting 2003.
23
The Progression of Play in Accordance with Rules

The voluntary nature of games doesn’t mean that play is without restrictions. Suits’ notion of "lusory
attitude" reveals that players agree to follow specific rules. In other words, play is fundamentally
structured by rules. Actually, this characteristic of play represents a meeting place between the two
perspectives: games as systems and games as activity. As previously described, the rules of a game
system seeks to restrict and authorize certain actions. Thus, the formal system of rules influences the
play activity. This section focuses on this influence.
Hunicke, Leblanc & Zubeck have investigated this influence, and their results are summarized by
their MDA model:59
The MDA Model
Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics
The model is meant primarily as a tool to help a game designer understand how specific play
experiences occur as a result of game design. The model is based on the observation that games are
products created by game developers and consumed på players.60
Games as products
Creates Consumes
Game
Developer Player
The difference between games and other consumable media – such as music and movies – is that
the consumption of a game is fundamentally uncertain 61 A game designer can never know exactly how a
given game situation develops, even though he made the game himself. However, he may indirectly
affect the play activity by establishing the game’s mechanics – the first component of the MDA model.
Mechanics simply refers to the formal rules and objects in the game –i.e. the game’s functional design.
59
The model is made from Hunicke, Leblanc & Zubeck 2004. p. 2.
60
The model is made from Hunicke, Leblanc & Zubeck 2004. p. 1.
61
Hunicke, Leblanc & Zubeck 2004. p. 2.
24
This component affects the second component, the dynamics, which is the gameplay of the game – the
specific way in which a given play-through unfolds. In other words, play unfolds on the basis of the
formal structure of the game system. Finally, the dynamics affect the last component, the aesthetics.
These are the different emotional reactions that a player might experience and be motivated by during a
play-through. The strong feeling of being challenged and being immersed in the universe of the game
system is mentioned in this context, which is in line with Huizinga’s, Koster’s and Csikszentmihalyi’s
motivational theories.
If a game designer wants to produce a given emotional response, he must ensure that the formal
structure of the game (mechanics) is designed in order to enable a type of gameplay (dynamics) that
specifically produces the desired emotional reaction (aesthetics). In the world of chess, we see examples
of this process. In professional chess tournaments, the mechanics are changed by adding rules limiting
the amount of time every player has at his disposal. This affects how the game is played. Judicious
decisions are less likely to thrive, and they may be replaced by hasty ones. As a result, the game activity
feels more intense and stressful and is finished more quickly. Thus, a change in the formal structure of
the game – its rules – has indirectly caused a change in the game activity and the players’ emotional
responses. Salen & Zimmerman put it aptly:
"The challenge, of course, is that the experience of play is not something

that a game designer directly creates. Instead, play is an emergent
property that arises from the game as a player engages with the system.
The game designer creates a set of rules, which players inhabit, explore,
and manipulate. It is though inhabiting, exploring, and manipulating the
game's formal structure that players experience play."62
Salen & Zimmerman add that the game activity is formed not only by the formal (operational and
constituative) rules of the games system, but also by another type of rule – the implicit.63 These are the
unwritten rules contained in the game culture and not explicitly formulated. Exempting sportsmanship is
one of them - present in most games. In a casual game of chess, there is typically an implicit rule,
stating that players don’t spend hours on a single move, even if this action is advantageous. Both players
agree that their moves must be done in a reasonable tempo to keep the game interesting. This implicit
rule is not actually written into the ruleset of chess, but affects the game activity nonetheless.
62
Salen & Zimmerman 2004. S. 316.
63
25
Furthermore, implicit rules are contextual.64 A father might let his small child redo a bad move,
but not show the same kind of forbearance to a friend in the local chess club. The fact that implicit rules
have this colluded and contextual nature makes the play process extremely difficult to predict for a
game designer. Therefore, his primary means to shape the game activity lie in determining the
operational and constituative rules. The implicit rules, enforced by players, is connected to a huge
cutural network outside developer control.
Returning to the above quote, we see another central point from Salen & Zimmerman. They see
play as being emergent. This means that the game ruleset allows for numerous unpredictable outcomes.
A relatively simple game such as Tic Tac Toe can be played in 211568 ways.65 A game designer doesn’t
explicitly create all these proceedings – they happen emergently as a result of the created ruleset.
Emergence occurs when "[…]a modest number of rules applied again and again to a limited number of
objects leads to variety, novelty, and surprise.66"
Not all games are equally emergent. The degree to which a ruleset structures play varies consider-
ably from game to game. The most emergent games are labeled as ”games of emergence” by Juul.67
They have a ruleset that allows for an almost infinite number of game proceedings. Players are
encouraged to find creative solutions to the tasks set up by the game. Opposite of this type of game – on
the other side of the spectrum – are the ”games of progression”. They are characterized by possessing a
rigorous set of rules that restrict the player’s options drastically. Here, the challenge is to complete a
series of consecutive tasks, whose solutions are very few and pre-determined by the developer. Every
game can be placed on this spectrum, denoting the degree of rule strictness.
"Progression and emergence are the two extreme ways of creating games.
In practice, most games fall somewhere between the two poles."68
Juul’s spectrum is very similar to another spectrum proposed by Caillois. He has observed that
some games have rulesets that allow for a relatively free range of actions, while others keep players in a
tight leash. Caillois proposes that games are placed on a spectrum between the two poles called ”paidia”
og ”ludus”.69 Paidia is not really compatible with the concept of games, but refers to the activities of
free-form play. Paidia is an independent, improvised, and impulsive activity, whose only goal is to have
64
Ibid.
65
Juul 2005. p. 60.
66
67
Juul 2005. p. 82.
68
Ibid.
69
Caillios 1961. p. 27.
26
fun. Playing house or playing with cars are such activities. They can develop in unpredictable ways,
because they are not controlled by explicit rule structures that demand attention from the participant and
limit his scope of actions. Cars might get flying abilities. The dad might suddenly turn into Superman.
Only the imagination restricts how the paidia activity develops:
"At one extreme, an almost indivisible principle, common to diversion,

turbulence, free improvisation, and carefree gaiety is dominant. It
manifests a kind of uncontrollable fantasy that can be designated by the
term paidia"70
As we get older, we will generally be inclined to move our interests from paidia to ludus activi-
ties71. The carefree sense of play is de-emphasized in favor of more strategic activities. These consist of
complex rule structures, which significantly limit potential actions. The attention of the player is
directed towards these rules, and actions are taken with care and with one clear goal in mind – to bring
him closer to victory. Caillois concludes that the placement of a game on the spectrum between paidia
and ludus depends on how complex the ruleset is. The more complex, the closer the game is to ludus.
Many games are located somewhere in the middle, where relatively free and somewhat creative
solutions play out within firm boundaries. Chess should probably be placed near the ludus pole, though
not completely at it, since a given player can usually choose between several legal moves every turn.
His freedom to choose is less limited than in other games such as Klondike.
Ludus games seem comparable to Juuls’ games of progression. In both cases, the degree of free-
dom is small due to a strict ruleset. The game tree, navigated by the player, has relatively few branches.
Juuls’ games of emergence are not directly compatible with Caillois' notion of paidia activities, since the
latter are not at all subject to rules. They are completely free and nothing needs to be achieved. This is
untrue of games of emergence. Though they do have less restrictive rules than games of progression,
they are still games that define interaction possibilities and goals. Therefore, games of emergence seem
to land somewhere in the middle of Caillois' broader spectrum:
Caillois' Paidia/Ludus Spectrum in relation to Juul’s Spectrum of Games
Paidia Increasing Complexity of the Game Ruleset Ludus
Games of Emergence Games of Progression
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
27
The spectrum shows the relationship not only between the activities paidia and ludus but also
between highly free-form games (games of emergence) and less free-form games (games of progres-
sion). The degree of ruleset complexity determines what type of activity we are dealing with. Thus, the
model shows how rules shape play. Exactly where the games of emergence should be placed on Caillois'
spectrum, is, of course, debatable. I have placed them in the middle to show that they’re quite different
from both paidia and ludus, though they share the winning conditions of ludus. Hereby, I indicate that
games of emergence are the most free-form games you can possibly create.
The Uncertain Character of Games

A feeling of uncertainty is an essential characteristic of the game activity.72 A game, in which all actions
are completely predetermined, shouldn’t be called a game. It would lose all meaning. The game must
have actions whose outcomes are unpredictable and uncertain to some extent. It must have some chaotic
elements ensuring that the play session can lead to different end states. Actually, games cease to exist
once these factors of uncertainty evaporate. In chess, the game ends because the player in check has run
out of options. Likewise, Stratego ends when a player’s army is destroyed and doesn’t present a threat to
the other player anymore.
Salen & Zimmerman also identify uncertainty as a main characteristic of games.73 They describe
two ways in which uncertainty can materialize – on a micro and macro level. On the micro level,
uncertainty exists in the shape of single events determined by random mechanisms in the game. Will the
a player’s dice land on the number 6 in Ludo? Will he recieve a good hand in poker? On the macro
level, uncertainty is linked to the more general proceedings of the game. What might the results of the
football match be? Who will win? When Caillois mentions uncertainty as an important part of any
game, he refers to this macro level uncertainty. Micro level uncertainty, on the other hand, is not a part
of all games. Chess, for instance, doesn’t contain random events. No wheels of fortune, no dice or
anything similar is used in chess.
However, it is possible for a game to invoke a feeling of uncertainty despite the lack of actual
randomness.74 This applies in games so complex that their proceedings are hard to predict for the player.
Chess players often feel insecure how good a recently performed move was, even though chess contains
72
Caillois 1952. p. 7
73
74
Ibid.
28
no actual random elements. The feeling of uncertainty is generated – not by rules – but by strategic
considerations whose consequences seem too incalculable for the player. The feeling is likely to
intensify depending on the number of participating human players, since their decisions are not always
rational and easy to figure out. Poker is probably the ultimate example of a game where the feeling of
uncertainty is extraordinary. Here, players constantly speculate over what cards the competitors have.
Summarization of the Game as Activity Perspective

In summation, this perspectives captures what type of activity games invoke.
 The game activity takes place in a magic circle, in which we are immersed by putting aside
the rules of reality in favor of the rules of the game, and in which we feel a sense of safety
created by the fact that the real-life consequences of our interactions are agreed upon and
known in advance – if at all present.
 The game activity is unpoductive, since no value is generated, but simply exchanged – if at
all present.
 The game activity is always uncertain on a macro level, since no-one knows how it will
end, and sometimes also on a micro level through random mechanisms. Finally, players
might experience feelings of uncertainty due to strategic considerations whose conse-
quences seem incalculable.
 The game activity is voluntary, since it is fundamentally intrinsically motivated and ceases
to exist when a player is forced to play.
 The game activity is emergent since it is structured, though not completely determined, by
operational, constituative, and implicit rules whose complexity determines how emergent
the game activity is – or if it is really a kind of free-form play.
With this summation, the explanation of the game concept ends. In the next section, I will elabo-
rate on the ludologists’ argumentation that computer games should be viewed as games, first and
foremost. I will investigate what happens when computers and games meet.
Computer Games as Games

None of the theories and concepts described above can be exclusively linked to computer games. Some
theorists like Caillois and Huizinga have written their works before the emergence of computer games,
so they have only had analogue games in mind. However, Juul, Salen & Zimmerman, Apter, Crawford,
and Hunicke, Leblanc & Zubeck deal with a notion of games that includes analogue as well as digital
29
games. There is a broad consensus that games can exist independent of media. The fact that a game is
communicated digitally doesn’t change its fundamental status as a game.
"The underlying properties of games and the core challenges of game

design hold true regardless of the medium in which a game manifests."75
Likewise, Juul argues that games are transmedial.76 Just like storytelling, which is transmedial
since many different types of media can tell stories, games are also transmedial because numerous types
of media can be used as tools to play with. Board games use a board and a selection of bricks, card
games use cards, games at casinos use wheels of fortune, roulettes or slot machines among others.
Athletics often use just the human body, and computer games use a computer to communicate the game.
The explained characteristics thus apply for all types of games, including computer games.
The transmediality of games doesn’t mean that all types of media are equally apt as game com-
municators. Diffferent media have different ludic strengths and weaknesses. Just like some media are
particularly qualified in the field of storytelling and in specific genres of storytelling, some types of
media work particularly well to play games with. The important question then becomes: What qualities -
what ludic affordances77 – do the computer possess? What might a computer add to gaming? This
question is answered in the following section. By gathering views from ludologists such as Frasca, Juul,
and Salen & Zimmerman, I will set up five bullet points, each representing one of the ludic affordances
of computers. These should not be understood as essential characteristics of computer games, but rather
as possible reasons why the computer medium seems to be an extraordinary communicator of games.
The Five Ludic Afordances of the Computer
1: The induspatable Enforcement of Rules by the Computer

Juul believes that the computer works especially well as a fascilitator of games 78. In particular, the
requirement that game rules should be unambigous and not open to discussion is easily accomodated,
because the computer acts as a strong and firm rule enforcer. The computer recieves specific commands
through the rules or algorithms programmed into it. Players can’t argue with the computer about these
rules or change them, if they want to. Analogue games such as chess work in a fundamentally different
75
76
Juul 2005. p. 5.
77
The notion of ludic affordances is inspired by Ryan’s notion of "narrative affordances". It describes the story-
conveying abilities of a given type of media (Ryan 2004. p. 2). Ludic affordances thus describe how well a given type
of media communicates games.
78
Juul 2005. p. 38 and p. 52 - 53.
30
manner, since its enforcers are human beings – either the players themselves or a judge. That means that
different rule interpretations or deliberate acts of cheating might occur, thus starting discussions that
bring the game to a halt – temporarily or permanently. This problem is avoided in computer games,
since a computer doesn’t interpret – it just executes code indisputably. This is a universal characteristic
of how computers work, meaning that this ludic affordance – contrary to the other ones – applies
universally to all computer games.
2: The Simulation Capabilities of the Computer

Another ludic affordance is the inhearent simulation abilities of computers.79 According to Frasca a
simulation is a system that replicates some or all of the behavioural patterns of another (source) system.
The simulation doesn’t have to share the audio or visual expression of the source but must constitute a
model of its most important behavioural patterns. Oftentimes simulations can be used to predict how the
more complex source system will react by exposure to certain stimuli. A computer is a great tool to
execute these simulations, because it can easily and quickly keep track of and carry out a huge number
of algorithms. Thus, games fascilitated by a computer can create significantly more complex
experiences than analogue games. A computer games such as Grand Theft Auto 480, which simulates
something so complex as New York city life, takes advantage of these simulation abilities to such an
extent that its manifestation as an anlogue game is completely utopian. The handling of such complex,
automated structures demands computational power:
"In most non-digital games, players have to move the game forward at
every step, by manipulating pieces or behaving according to explicit
instructions outlined by the rules. In a digital game, the program can
automate these procedures and move the game forward without direct
input from a player."81
3: The Immidiate and Narrow Interaction of Computers

This ludic affordance is described by Salen & Zimmerman.82 They believe that one of the most
attractive aspects of digital technologies is the ability to offer narrow input options and immediate
feedback. We see this when pressing the shoot button and then a few milliseconds later hear a loud
noise from our speakers while watching the evil monster fall to his knees – screaming. The computer
can instinctively utilize its multimedial expressions to communicate the effects of our interactions.
79
Frasca 2003. pp. 2-3.
80
Rockstar Games 2008.
81
82
31
Combinations of sound, graphics, as well as haptic83 instruments are available for extremely quick
access by the computer.
The feedback is immediate, and, at the same time, our inputs to the computer are quite narrow. In
pc-games, they are limited to keyboard and mouse, and controllers for consoles have even fewer
buttons. By comparing such simple input possibilities with the numerous, varied, and energetic actions
available in a game of soccer, for instance, we see a huge difference. In this regard, the computer
medium is laden with restrictions. However, this feature is positive for games, according to Salen &
Zimmerman. They go on to mention several popular games, which contrary to soccer, are based on quite
a narrow range of interactions. One of them is bicycle racing:
"A sport such as bicycle racing gives players a very restricted set of
interactions. At the same time, players receive immidiate feedback for
each tiny modification of speed, steering, and the position of their bodies
on their bicycles. Much of the deep engagement that cyclists experience
while racing emerges directly from the narrow but immidiate interactivity
of the sport."84
It is this kind of narrow, yet immidiate interaction that a computer is especially good at bringing
to games. On the other hand, computer games that enable complicated, physical interactions seem
harder to realize in a satisfactory manner.85
4: The Networking Capabilities of the Computer

Computers can be hooked up to local networks or the internet, so that players can play together
independent of geographical location.86 We do see examples of analogue games, whose players are
spread out across the world - such as mail chess, in which the postal service mediates the game activity.
However, the computer makes the interaction process between players much easier, while allowing for
real-time communication between players through text, voice, or videochat, for example. Finally, the
networking capabilities can gather thousands of players in the same virtual game world, thus creating
83
Here, haptics refer to touch impulses coming from the computer to the player. Many computer games are played with
a controller that can vibrate. Games can activate these vibration mechanisms to communicate feedback to the player.
84
Ibid.
85
We do see a prominent trend of releasing computer games with special, physical interaction tools such as guitars,
drum sets, and micro-phones in Guitar Hero: World Tour (Activision 2008) and Rock Band 2 (MTV Games), dance
pads in Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party (Konami 2008), fitness boards in Wii Fit (Nintendo 2008), as well as
motion-sensitive controllers, which many games for Nintendo’s Wii console utilize. However, the interaction remains
relatively simple in relation to the broad scope of actions allowed by many analogue games – sports games in particular.
86
32
expansive social communities. Players, who are physically alone, suddenly have access to a huge social
network.
5: The Fictional Worlds Conveyed by Computers

The computer media can convey fictional worlds:
"In having fictional worlds, video games deviate from traditional non-
electronic games that are mostly abstract, and this is part of the newness
of video games. The interaction between game rules and game fiction is
one of the most imporntant features of video games […]."87
Juul dedicates an entire book to the relation between these two elements: rules and fictional
worlds. Its title, Half-Real, refers to this duality. Computer games are real – they consist of real rules,
with which players engages and interact. Winning or losing in a computer game is a very real event
indeed, experienced by every player. However, computer games also have a fictional dimension. When
a scary enemy is killed in a computer game, the player can’t be convicted for murder in the real world.
The enemy is just a character in a fictional universe.
Of course, we can claim that such fictional worlds also exist in analogue games. Even in chess
there are fictional elements. Two armies at war – each with their own set of soldiers who assidously and
faithfully fight to protect their king – confront each other on a field, where a battle of life and death is
played out, and where sacrifices, rescue actions, captures, and killings happen constantly. But Juul’s
point is that computer games can convey much richer and less abstract fictional worlds due to the
representation capabilities of computers. Through a combination of graphics engine, sound design,
cutscenes, complicated automated rule structures (see the section on simulations above), and haptic
instruments, computer can effectively communicate a fictional world to the player. 88 Analogue games
are much more restricted in this sense.
Fiction simply means: "any kind of imagined world"89. By regarding computer games as creators
of imagined worlds, we move closer to the narrative discourse of game theory. Proponents of this
discourse, the narratologists, take one step further than Juul. They argue that computer games not only
creates fiction but are also providers of great narratives. I won’t elaborate on this discussion, since it is
outside the scope of this thesis, but just stress that other theorists beside Juul have noticed this special
87
Juul 2005. S. 3.
88
Juul 2005. S. 134 - 136.
89
Juul 2005. S. 122.
33
potential of the cmputer to add fictional elements to games. There’s a reason why narrative theories
didn’t get seriously associated with games until games got digitized.
The increased representation capabilities mean that a computer player’s attention is likely to shift
between the rules and the fictional world.90 This occurs most strikingly through the use of cut scenes,
during which the player sits passively and observes how the fiction develops, while his focus on game
rules is minimized. This focus is once again increased, as soon as the cut scene ends and the player
regains control. These attention shifts happen much less frequently in analogue games, where a focus of
rules continue throughout the activity. There are two reasons for this. First of all, as previously
mentioned, the player of analogue games must function as rule enforcers, which naturally demands
attention. Secondly, elements of fiction in analogue games are often absent or so abstract that they’re
uninteresting to the player.
Execeptions do exist, though. Some analogue games, such as the role playing game Warhammer
40.000, have an extensive background story and generate unique fictions in every play-through, whereas
the computer game Tetris91 is without fiction. These exceptions stress that the presence of fictional
worlds is not a defining attribute of computer games, but yet another potential extra feature that the
computer is particularly good at bringing to games.
Ludic Affardances Summed Up

The above explanation of the five ludic affordances of the computer shows what can happen when
games are communicated through a computer:
 A computer can enforce game rules consistently and unambiguosly.

 A computer can simulate complex systems through series of automated executions of algo-
rithms.
 A computer can offer a narrow and immidiate interaction.
 By being hooked up to networks, a computer allows players to communicate and play together
independent of their geographical location.
 A computer can use multimedia to present elaborate fictional worlds.
Games taking advantage of these ludic affordances are fundamentally still games, since they still
fulfil the game criteria as explained earlier. The ludic afffordances simply denote what a computer can
90
Juul 2005. S. 121.
91
Nintendo 1985.
34
add to games. For example, the ability to convey fictional worlds doesn’t undermine the computer
game’s constitution as a game but simply represents a potential extra feature. In similar fashion, the
consistent rule enforcement of computers doesn’t keep the computer game from fulfilling basic
characteristics of games – it is yet another extra feature missing from analogue games.
The Formation of the Ludological Game Model

Up until now, I have explained our traditional understanding of computer games from a ludological
perspective. Such an explanation has implied a focus on the question: What is a game? The answer has
been divided into two perspectives – in accordance with Juuls and Aarseths observations that games can
be understood both as systems and activities. The perspectives reveal a number of basic characteristics
necessary in order to describe something as being a game in a traditional sense. Computer games is a
kind of games that fulfil these characteristics and also adds some extra features missing from analogue
games. On the next page, I have gathered the results of this whole theory section in a model that sums
up how an understanding of computer games can look from a ludological perspective.
The Ludological Model of Computer games
35
A computer game is a game, which is a system of rules, which…

Game Characteristic 1 Game Characteristic 2 Game Characteristic 3
The system elements The interaction process of the system The system rules
…possesses objects that have specific …is dependent on inputs from …constitutes a closed system, controlled by constituative and
attributes and relate to other objects in players, who then become part of an operational rules that must possess four qualities: They must be
specific surroundings made up of players, …and… interaction process with the game …and… explicit and unambigous; be set in stone from the beginning; define the
that can affect these objects… system similar to the one found in a the possible outcomes of the game and thus its conflict; be repeatable…
state machine…
....and generates an activity, which…

Game Characteristic 4 Game Characteristic 5 Game Characteristic 6 Game Characteristic 7 Game Characteristic 8
The separate and immersive The unpoductive nature The uncertain nature of The voluntary nature of The emergent nature of
nature of the game activity of the game activity the game activity the game activity the game activity
… takes place in a magic circle, in … is … is always uncertain on a macro level, since … is voluntary, …is emergent , since it is
which we are immersed by unproductive, no one knows the end state of the game, and since it is structured – though not fully
mentally putting aside the real- since no value sometimes also uncertain on a micro level intrinsically determined – by constituative,
world rules in favor of game rules, is generated through the presence of random motivated and operational, and implicit rules,
and in which we feel a sense of but only mechanisms or through feelings of ceases to exist whose complexity determines
safety because the real-world …and… exchanged – if …and… uncertainty experiened by players due to the …and… when a player is …and… how emergent the game activity
consequences of our game actions at all present… consequences of strategic considerations forced to play … is or if we are really dealing with
are negotiated and known in being incalculable… a kind of free-form play…
advance – if at all present...
…and is played through a computer, which potentially adds…

Ludic Affordance 1: Ludic Affordance 2: Ludic Affordance 3: Ludic Affordance 4: Ludic Affordance 5:
The consistent rule enforce- The simulation capabilities The interaction capabi- The network capabi- The representation of
ment of the computer of the computer lities of the computer lities of the computer fictional worlds
… an enforcement of …a narrow and … network capabilities, so that …representations of

… simulations of complex
game rules that is …and… …and… immediate …and… players can communicate and elaborate fictional
systems through a series of …and…
consistent and interaction… play independent of their worlds through
automated executions of
unambigous… geographical locations… multimedial insruments.
algorithms…
System-related characteristics Activity-related characteristics Ludic affordances of the computer

36
First and foremost, the model regards computer games as belonging to the general phenomenon of
games. By being based on our traditional understanding of games and by mentioning what the computer
can add to games, the model sums up how an understanding of computer games might look like from a
ludological perspective. The model dictates that something is a computer game if it has the eight
characteristics of games and, at the same time, is played on a computer, which possesses several special
attributes utilized to different degrees by a given computer game.
Both Juul and Salen & Zimmerman have also come up with game models by collecting game
concepts from various theorists.92 93
I won’t draw a deep comparison between these models and my
own, but simply point out a few similarities and differences. Especially, the similarities are numerous.
The game as a rule-based system is a common, explicitly formulated characteristic as well as the
interaction process between player and system; the separate dimension is also mentioned by Salen &
Zimmerman with the word "artificial", and is implicit in Juul’s notion of "negotiable consequences";
One of the attributes of game rules – the determination of quantifiable outcomes - makes up a separate
bullet point in Juul’s game model, and the conflict generated by these outcomes is explicitly mentioned
by Salen & Zimmerman. Generally the similarities are prominent, because the same theorists have been
studied. The fact that I have quoted Juul and Salen & Zimmerman extensively naturally contributes
further to these parallels.
Nonetheless, there are significant nuances, concerning what characteristics are emphasized. For
example, the above model highlights that games are both a system and activity as well as the
relationship between these two elements (the emergent characteristic). Furthermore, the attributes of
game rules are not mentioned in either Juuls or Salen & Zimmermans game definitions, although several
paragraphs are dedicated to these attributes in their works. The same applies to the ludic affordances.
These are also frequently mentioned by Juul and Salen & Zimmerman, but not in their respective game
models, which only deal with essential game characteristics. The above model does more. Apart from
defining games, the potential ludic attributes of the computer – the ludic affordances – are also
described. Finally, the fact that the model is divided into boxes means that its particularly useful as a
game analysis model – a means to determine which specific characteristics a given object of analysis
fulfils or breaks with, and which attributes are utilized. Such analytical usability also applies to Juul’s
game model, but Salen & Zimmerman seem to have another agenda; to present an extremely concise
game definition, expressed with a single sentence. However they share the fact, that they can be used to
92
Juul 2005. S. 44
93
Salen & Zimmerman 2004. S. 79-80.
37
describe the ingredients of nearly all computer games - from Pong94 and Super Mario Bros.95 to
Resident Evil96 and Halo: Combat Evolved97. The ludological approach – the act of regarding computer
games as games - seems immediately useful regardless of what shape this apporach might take.
However, in recent years, several game developers have challenged this approach. They create
artifacts that explore the boundaries of what a game is. In the next section, I will focus on these artifacts,
which don’t fit into the ludological understanding of computer games. I will mainly concentrate on
Little Big Planet98 (LBP), after which I will mention several other artifacts that also break with the
conventional game characteristics. During the analysis, I will label these artifacts as computer games,
even though they deviate considerably from this definition according to ludology. This choice has two
reasons. Not only are these games labelled as games in normal, daily speech, our language also seems to
be missing an alternative word that can capture, what these computer games actually are. Not until the
following section, I will discuss if and to what extent it is possible to regard them as computer games.
94
Atari 1972
95
Nintendo 1985
96
Capcom 1996
97
Microsoft Game Studios 2001
98
Sony 2008.
38
Analysis
Introduction
In this analysis section, the game LBP will be examined with regard to the eight characteristics listed in
ludological game model. The model thus functions as my model of analysis. The ludic affordances will
be included whereever they are relevant. The analysis will show which elements contribute or break
with the traditional game characteristics. Other included games, which also rebel against our ludological
understanding of games, will be more superficially examined in order to compare all the special
characteristics of these games.
Methodological Considerations
The following analysis of LBP is artifact-based. In other words, I will focus on the game itself, rather
than conducting surveys and interviews with players. Such otherwise relevant ethnographic studies are
outside the scope of this thesis.
My methodoligical approach seems unprobelematic when analysing LBP as a system. Here, it is

precisely the internal construction of the game that is reviewed. However, when the game activity is
involved – when I analyse whether LBP generates a game activity – the method isn’t without its issues.
The reason is that all the game activities that a single game system generates aren’t alike. No objective
and univesally applicable description of the game activity can be made. Instead, the game activity varies
depending on the context, in which it is played, and the persons playing. A small child might not get the
same experience by playing LBP as a group of serious players. An artifact-based approach - such as the
one I’m doing - can’t capture all the different game activities that LBP actually generates in different
contexts. The appoach is limited in that it only focuses on how players generally are assumed to play
based on the game structure. It can answer how and to what extent the structure of the game appeals to a
game activity as defined by the model of analysis, but not how players actually act – in each specific
game activity. No statistics and no empirical evidence dealing with this actual activity is carried out.
This would require extensive surveys, interviews, and think-aloud methods. A lack of these methods is a
valid point of critisism regarding the analysis, but it has been a necessary compromise for me to take. A
compensatory approach would be to include other people’s ethnographic studies, but for LBP those are
sadly non-existent as of this time due to its recent release. However, various player-based stories about
the game activity of LBP do exist, and some of these have been included to exemplify a given
statement. Furthermore, my personal experiences with the game is also part of the basis of this analysis.
39
Nevertheless, I think that my generally artifact-based approach can provide a rather accurate
answer to the question of whether LBP generates a game activity. As the MDA model shows, game
developers indirectly shape the game activity through their design decisions regarding the mechanics of
the game. Although not all possible game activities can be deduced from this, a valid approximation of
what game activity a game generally generates certainly seems possible. The fact that this approach is
also heavily used in other game theorists’ analyses such as in Juul’s99 and in Salen & Zimmerman’s100
supports its eligibility even more.
Furthermore, the approach actually seems particularly useful for LBP. As I’ll elaborate on later,
players often leave traces of their gaming activity in LBP by creating and modifying content accessible
to all LBP-owners. This feature gives me a unique opportunity to deduce players’ game activity based
on the content created and modified. This content works like footsteps in the snow, as it points back to
the game activity that happened during the creation and modification process. During the analysis, I will
include examples of this content and describe the necessary underlying game activity.
So although the analysis would optimally be based on both the artifact-based and empirical
approach, I believe - on the basis of the above arguments – that the use of only the artifact-based one is
sufficient for the purpose of the analysis.
Analysis of LBP
Introduction to the game

LBP is developed by Media Molecule and was
LBP as a 2D platform game
released in 2008 for Sony’s Playstation 3 console to
glowing reviews. In short, it is a two-dimensional
platform game with comprehensive options for user-
generated content. More specifically, the player takes
on the role of an avatar – a comical character called
Sackboy – who responds to interactions that the
player performs with his controller. Sackboy can be
directed to walk, run, jump and hold on to stuff. These actions are necessary in order to complete the
many default levels built for the game by the developer.
99
Juul 2005. pp. 46 - 47.
100
Salen & Zimmerman. pp. 318 - 323.
40
In addition, the game offers a multitude of

The Decoration of Sackboy’s Room
options for cutomization – ways in which the player
can radically change his Sackboy’s appearance and
personal room as well as create wholly new objects
and levels in the game. These can then be shared and
played with other players online, whereby a huge
social network materializes and constantly evolves.
A player may, at any time, choose to explore a
specific level – be it developer-created or player-created – or make his own levels in the game editor.
Thus, the game consists of two parts, one focused on exploration and one focused on creation. Both can
be played alone or co-operatively with up to three human players, each controlling his tailor-made
version of Sackboy.
Although these two parts are represented by two different game modes in the main menu, they are
closely related. By exploring levels, players bump into many objects, textures, musical scores, and other
tools, that can be acquired for later use in their own creations. Conversely, in the creation mode, the
player can always choose to try out his own creation or invite other players to explore it. Finally, the
player may - regardless of whether he is playing in the exploration or creation mode – bring up a menu
that allows for customisation of his Sackboy. I will elaborate on all these elements below, where I
examine how and to what extent LBP fulfils and challenge the eight essential game characteristics.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 1: System Components Sackboy

Does it make sense to regard LBP as a system with objects that have
attributes, relate to each other, and are influenced by various surroundings?
In fact, the answer here is affirmative. Let’s start by focusing on the most
important object of the game, Scakboy, who is almost always visible on
screen. The picture on the right shows off such a Sackboy – a creature
resembling a mix of a highly disproportionate human being and a stuffed
animal at the same time. This object has several attributes. It can walk, run,
jump, and express feelings such as joy, anger, and wonder. It can also
activate triggers, trample enemies, drive vehicles, dress in different ways, hang on to ropes or even
perish by exposure to dangerous objects such as fire or electrical circuits. These attributes also reveal
that the Sackboy object has relationships with other objects. Triggers, enemies, vehicles, clothes, ropes,
41
and fireballs are all examples of such objects, with which Sackboy interacts. Even the ground, on which
Sackboy walks, is an object whose relationship with Sackboy prevents him from constantly falling.
The complete list of objects in the game is extreme-

The Level Editor in LBP
ly long – not least because players can create their own
objects from the tools of the level editor. Though these
tools are considerably simpler than the ones in actual
modelling programs such as 3D Studio Max, they still
provide ample opportunity for object design and
texturization. A player can even import pictures from the
real world via a camera and then use them as textures.
During this creation process, some internal relationships between objects change. Here, it is the Sackboy
object that acts as a creator and manipulator of game objects - via the controlling player. Sackboy not
only determines the design and placement of objects, but also the internal relationships between them.
For example, deciding which specific door should be activated by a given button, is something that
Sackboy does, thus acting almost like a player-controlled programmer in the creation part.
The player himself makes up the surroundings as in any other game. Via his controller, he deter-
mines everything Sackboy does. Thus, we can conclude that LBP contains the four system components:
objects, attributes, relationships, and surroundings, thereby complying with this first characteristic.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 2: System Interaction Process

During a player’s exploration of levels, the interaction process of the state machine is clearly
visible. In the beginning, Sackboy and the other objects occupy a specific place in a given level. At
some point, the player will interact – most likely by going forward, after which the start state has been
changed. Sackboy is somewhere else after the interaction. This image is output to the television.
Actually, this interaction loop is happening countless times during even a few seconds of going forward.
The game system recieves inputs and generates outputs every frame that a player pushes forward on the
controller. Otherwise, Sackboy wouldn’t be able to stop, once the player stops this action. To the player,
these thousands of interaction loops seem to occur extremely fluidly, due to the speed with which the
computer handles inputs and outputs.
Is this cycle also identifiable in the creation part? Here, the player can push a button to make
Sackboy create an object – a tree for example. An input has changed the state of the game system, as
evidenced by the new output showing the tree in the level. The player reacts to this output through a
42
new input that might texture the tree or add leaves to it. Again, the interaction process is clearly visible.
We can now confirm that LBP can be regarded as a state emachine, thus complying with this second
characteristic of games, whereby its status as an actual game in traditional sense is accentuated even
further.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 3: System Rules

A focus on LBPs rules reveals the first crack of this status. Operational and constituative rules are
present as in any other game, but they don’t possess the four necessary qualities. In this section, I will
describe how operational and constituative rules manifest in LBP and then consider their relationsship to
each of the four qualities. My focus is limited to the most important rules, as a complete rule list is far
too space-consuming.
As earlier stated, the operational rules

Interaction Possibilities in LBP
define what a player can do in a given situation,
and what he must do on a general level in order to
win. These are already described in the game
manual. It acts as a guide or instucttion booklet,
whose purpose is to inform the player of his
interaction possibilities and goals. The former can
be seen on the picture to the right.
The player’s overall objective is to lead

Sackboy through the developer-produced levels.
A level is completed once Sackboy reaches the
finish podium, which typically involvies a trip
from the left to the right through the 2D level.
Upon completion of all levels, a cut scene
communicates the end of the game. The objective has been accomplished.
Contrary to the operational rules, the constituative rules are not explicitly communicated to the
player. They primarily define how the physics system works. How far can Sackboy jump? How quickly
will he fall? How do enemies move? How are they killed? What objects can Sackboy grab a hold of?
What objects are dangerous to him? How does an icy surface impact Sackboys movements? All these
questions are answered by the constituative rules. They tend to be learned gradually though the act of
43
playing the game rather than being explicitly formulated. Only through experimental behaviour can a
player gain sufficient knowledge of the constituative rules.
Compliance with the First Quality of Rules

Are the rules explicit and indisputable. As the aforementined description of the constituative rules
indicate, the rules are not always explicitly formulated to the player. He must gradually learn the rules of
physics by continuously practising and experimenting. The reason why the rules still comply to this first
quality, is that they remain explicit and indisputable to the computer. The computer enforces the rules –
not the players – and it never ”doubts” what to do. The rules are explicitly coded into the game – ready
to be executed by the processor once relevant. The game won’t suddenly break down due to
disagreements or discussions about the game rules As mentioned in the section about the first ludic
affordance, the rule enforcement of the computer is never arguable. Assigning a computer as game
facilitator automatically entails a compliance with this first quality.
Compliance with the Second Quality of Rules

Are the rules set in stone from the start? Here, LBP deviates strongly from traditional games. Though
the opertional rules are set in stone, since new interaction possiblities can’t be invented, and the player’s
goal to reach the end applies to all levels, the constituative rules are strongly interchangeable. This is
seen when a player – after having downloaded a level – decides to modify it. Now he can change vital
constituative rules. He can change the behaviour of monsters, how long a player has at his disposal to
finish the level, what door a given trigger opens or whether the trigger should be inactive. He can even
change gravity or central fictional elements such as what is spoken by game characters, once they meet
Sackboy. Thus, a wholly different level is created. To a given player, a completely different set of
constituative rules apply after the modification The game system has changed on a fundamental level.
The example shows that LBP can’t be described as a closed system, in which a player merely explores a
predetermined game tree governed by rules. Instead LBP allows for rule changes. New branches of the
game tree can be developed on the basis of the modification and networking features of the game. The
game system develops dynamically, becuse its surroundings – its players – have been given the
authority to change it on a fundamental rule-based level.
Compliance with the Third Quality of Rules

As mentioned earlier, the rules establish quantifiable outcomes in LBP. Completing all of the pre-made
levels constitutes an overall positive outcome. On a smaller scale, a completion of a level can also be
regarded as a quantifiable outcome. Here, the player is awarded with points depending on completion
speed and the number of secret crystals collected. The higher the score, the more positive the
44
quantifiable outcome will be, and the more rewards - such as objects used in the creation part - is given.
Finally, a quantifiable outcome also occurs, when Sackboy loses all of his lives. This outcome is
negative, forcing the player to try again. As Juul states, the different valorisations of these quantifiable
outcomes create the underlying game conflict. The player is in conflict with the game system, whose
deadly monsters and dangerous objects try to prevent him from completing the level. The player must
fight the game system to bring it to the specific state that represents the most positive outcome to him –
a completion of the levels with the highest score possible.
LBP diifers from traditional game by not possessing these outcomes in all parts of the game.
Contrary to chess, in which the goal to check-mate the competitor applies constantly, LBP offers the
possibility to completely ignore the overall goal of the game. For example, he is encouraged to make his
own levels. Here, he is not assigned a task to make a specific level, for instance. No challenges or
conflicts are present. Instead he can freely create whatever he wants. Of course, he can set up his own
personal goals such as makinig an extremely dark and scary level, but no operational rules defining a
winning condition is present in the game system. Also in the exploration part of the game, these rules
are sometimes absent. When the player chooses to customize his Sackboy’s appearance, which is always
possible, no approach is correct or best according to the game system. What costume a player chooses
for his Sackboy has no influence on his chances to win. It is merely an aesthetic element in the game
used to express personality. No approximation of a quantifiable outcome is reached, and no conflict is
solved by carrying out these alterations.
The conclusion must be that LBPs rules partly possess this third quality. Quantifiable outcomes
can be located in the game system, but they only apply intermittently. When absent, the conflict that
seems to embody all traditional games fails to materialize.
Compliance with the Fourth Quality of Rules

The fouth quality, specifying that rules be repeatable – that a given game must be playable at any time
with the same rules applicable – is not fulfilled. As earlier mentioned, a player can change important
constituative rules in his created levels. If a player turns on the game at two different points in time, he
is unlikely to experience that the exact same set of rules apply. New levels might be added or deleted,
and existing ones might be modified. Furthermore, the developer contributes with rule changes by
releasing patches – packs of data that work as corrections or improvements to the game. For example,
on October 23 a patch was released, which changed the way Sackboy controlled when equipped with a
45
jetpack101. Once the patch has been download, the player can no longer revert the game system to its
earlier state. The game system is irrevocably altered. New rules apply, while old ones have evaporated.
In this way, both players and developers ensure that the constituative rules are replacable as opposed to
repeatable.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 4: The Seperate and Immersive Quality

In the following sections, I will move focus from whether LBP constitutes a game system to whether it
generates a game activity, starting with LBP’s immersive quality. Does the game fascilitate that the
player can create and maintain a magic circle that cuts off the game activity from the real world?
There are many situatons where player activity reaches into the real world. For example, a player
can use the Playstation 3 camera as a texturing tool by taking pictures of the player himself or of real
objects in his living room. Here, the attention of the player is briefly redirected from the game world to
the real world. What objects shuld be in the picture? How should they be organized? What perspective
should the picture have? What about lighting? Now the player no longer just interacts using the
controller but using objects in the real world.
Another example is found in the exploration part. Completing a level rewards the player with
socalled trophies. These are added to an overall list that can be viewed outside the game – in the main
menu of the console as well as online. The list comprises all of the trophies that the player has won in all
of the games he has played on his console. In this way, player achievements are not only acknowledged
internally in the game, but also in an overall, external system, displaying all his game-related
achievements. The example shows that actions inside the game can have a permanent game-external
influence.
Finally, the creation part generally encourages thoughts

Parody on Super Mario Bros.
unrelated to the ruleset of LBP. There are many examples of
user-generated levels that act as parodies on other games,
movies, or books. Intertextual references to Super Mario Bros.,
The Matrix, as well as the Harry Potter books are plentiful,
showing that players not just focus on LBP’s mechanics, while
creating levels. Extensive knowledge and focus on the
referenced works are also necessary in this process.
101
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=265247
46
Not only are other works parodied, some players’ levels represent their own house – filled with
virtual family members, furniture, accessories and so forth. Others take central episodes in their lives or
even their whole life story as a starting point for level creation. In a level simply named "life", the player
must experience the life of Mmanicmad, the level creator, as he is born in an idyllic family in the
suburbs until he gets his first car and a job in the building industry. Finally, depictions of important
historic events are also prominent. There are levels depicting the first moon landing in 1969, the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, or even the American Civil War in the 1860s. In most cases, events are
depicted with a comical twist such as in the level "World War 2 vs 2", in which Sackboy must kill a
giant Hitler robot – by jumping on it. Levels also have political undertones such as in "LittleBigElection
'08", in which the player is prompted to elect either
Presidential Election
Obama or McCain as president by making Sackboy pull a
lever. Choosing Obama makes cascades of bombs fall
suddenly from the sky, leading to the inevitable death of
Sackboy. Choosing McCain means that Sackboy is
immediately rewarded with dozens of crystals, increasing
his score. Thus, LBP acts as a tool with which players can
express themselves creatively. It fascilitates that real
events can be reproduced and presented to players in a very personal and sometimes retorical manner.
Reality is brought into the game.
The same thing happens when the developer, Media Molecule, releases extra downloadable con-
tent – sometimes for free. In December 2008 – right before Christmas – downloadable Santa costumes
for Sackboy were released. When another PS3 game, called Super Street Fighter Turbo: HD Remix102
came out in November 2008, Media Molecule made sure to upload costumes, imitating the costumes of
this game. In other words, the developer manages to bring events from real life in to the game – just like
players do with their level creations. Both parties make sure that our zeitgeist – the contemporary
tendencies of our world - is reflected in the game to some extent.
Finally, LBP takes advantage of the networking possi-

Text Chat
bilities – the fourth ludic affordance – to connect players in
social communities. Levels can be played and created
cooperatively – with up to four players hooked up to the
102
Capcom 2008
47
internet. Voice and text chat are possible, supporting the game’s status as a social platform – a place to
meet new people or keep in touch with friends and family.
All of the above-mentioned examples show that player actions and attention are not constantly
directed towards the game, but sometimes reach outwards and have game-external consequences. Does
this mean that the magic circle is useless to characterize the play experience that LBP generates? Does
LBP demonstrate a complete breakdown of the border between game and reality? Actually, it still
makes sense to use the magic circle to differentiate between the world of the game and the world of
reality. Though, these sometimes overlap – as shown by the examples above – they are not actually
fused together. When we carry out an action in the game, such as killing another game character or
setting a house on fire, we are always aware that these actions are merely game actions. No police come
smashing through our front door beause of this. The consequences of game actions are not at all
comparable to their real life counterparts – in this case murder and arson. As a (healthy) player, we
know that the domain, in which our actions play out, is special, creating a protective frame around us, as
Apter describes.
It is important to note that the game activity not always reaches into the realm of reality. Big parts
of the game force the player to be fully concentrated on the game ruleset – just like in traditional games.
We see this when a player tries to complete one of the pre-produced levels or tries to learn how the
interface of the creation part works. Being focused on LBP’s game mechanics – being immersed in their
logic – is deeply necessary here.
Thus, the creation and maintenance of the magic circle is present in LBP – to a certain extent. The
circle marks the division between the game world and the real world, and the player is well aware of this
division. We voluntarily step into the magic circle at the start of a play session. However, the circle is
not as unbreakable as in traditional games. In many cases, our actions and focus is temporarily moved to
the real world, whose constitution and ruleset are no longer ignored or overidden. In short, the circle
seems to be not fully drawn.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 5: The Unproductive Quality

LBP deviates significantly from this quality. The game activity can be very productive indeed. A player
can create and upload countless levels to be played by others. He creates additional game value to
others, entertained by his levels. Potentially, he is prolonging the lifetime of the game for every player.
Media Molecule have refelected this thought by stating that the amount of user-generated content is
48
meant to ensure significant longevity.103 New content is produced and added every single day. Both
Media Molecule as well as players contribute to the value recieved by players upon purchase.
A player not only creates value for others but potentially also for himself. As earier mentioned, a
player can use the game as a means to express and handle central events in his life. Somewhat akin to a
painter using paintings as his expression tool, a player can utilize LBP’s level creation tools to express
himself creatively. The personal value that this expression outlet generates can take many shapes. For
example, some players use their created levels as exhibitions of their talents for game design. The goal
can be to impress friends or family or even hiring game companies, thus increasing the chance of
employment.104 In this case, LBP is used as a tool for self-promotion. The game supports such self-
promotion endeavors, not only through extensive creation tools, but also by making possible that players
can review and rank levels by awarding them with stars or by tagging them with a given word. Players,
whose levels are particularly well ranked, is put on a special prestigous list available for everyone to see.
The aforementioned level "LittleBigElection '08" reveals another productive behaviour. The game
activity can be used to promote political messages or more generally as a commercial tool. Without
financial spending, players can advertize specific products or services, which, in theory, can reach
millions of people. Such a marketing strategy, typically referred to as viral and often used within social
networks such as youtube.com, can be particularly profitable for the producing individual. In the
discussion section, I will elaborate on games as potential platforms for viral marketing.
Even though a player always has the option to be productive or not, the aforementioned examples
clearly show that the game activity cannot categorically be described as unproductive. The game is not
reset to a given state after each game activity, as Caillois writes. Instead new content keeps getting
produced – content that can be valuable both to the producing and recieving players.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 6: The Uncertatin Quality

LBP complies with this characteristic by containing numerous uncertainty factors. As in any other
game, there is uncertatinty on a macro level. Will the player complete the game? Which levels will he
go through? Which overall score will he end up getting? On the micro level, various random mechanics
contribute to uncertatinty. For example, Sackboy oftentimes bumps into machines, randomly generating
various objects such as bombs or boxes. Also, many situations give rise to feelings of uncertainty. Can
103
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/littlebigplanet/news.html?sid=6166953&tag=result;title;7
104
Media Molecule has expressed intentions of recruiting the most talented players to their company:
http://dailygamesnews.com/2008/09/littlebigplanet-level-creators-could.html
49
Sackboy reach the checkpoint before time runs out? Will the player manage to create the level exacly as
he imagined it?
Furthermore, the creation and upload features contribute to even more uncertatinty. As already
mentioned, they make sure that the game is in a constant, dynamic development. When a player turns on
the game, he will never know what levels have been added or to what extent existing ones have been
modified. He feels uncertain, because the game develops dynamically and unpredictably. Since game
content is far from static, it is hard to keep track of. On the other hand, a chess player will never
experience that the board suddenly changes its shape or that the rules change from day to day. He can
fully rely on the formal structure of the game. No surprises emerge. In this way, LBP actually seems to
contain an extra layer of uncertainty, lacking from tranditional games, because they are static. Thus, we
can conclude that the way in which LBP and traditional games generate uncertainty differ, but the
presence of uncertainty factors remain a common characteristic.
Compliance with Game Characteristic 7: The Voluntary Quality

Does LBP comply with this characteristic? The answer is not a simple yes or no. LBP has been
marketed primarily, though not exclusively, as an entertainment product. Most players – especially
those that primarily explore levels presumably play voluntarily simply for entertainment purposes. As in
other games, our motivation here is intrinsic in accordance with Huizinga’s game-related motivational
theory.
However, the big focus on creation tools means that the game activity can be associated with
different motivations. As earlier mentioned, a player’s creation can constitute a portfolio useful in job
situations or as part of a viral marketing campaign. Furthermore, some universities use the game for
educational purposes – to teach students about game design in general and level design in particular.105
In all cases, the player can naturally refuse to play the game. He is not forced to play. However, the fact
that the game is education- or work-related is likely to pressure him into playing the game to some
extent. Otherwise, his education or career might suffer. The boundary between the player’s voluntary
participation and his fulfilment of a work-related burden is blurred.
These examples do not represent the general tendency of the game activity, but the fact that LBP
is sometimes used in these contexts is interesting and breaks with the conventions of traditional games
that exclusively appeal to voluntary participation.
105
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198106.html?sid=6198106&part=rss&subj=6198106
50
Compliance with Game Characteristic 8: The Emergent Quality

The MDA model, explaining that game developers create the rules from which various game activites
emergently materialize, is insufficient to describe what is going on in LBP. Game rules ("mechanics")
do shape the game activity ("dynamics" and "aesthetics"), for example by limiting the inputs available to
the player. This complies with the MDA model. However, the relationship between rules and game
activity cannot be expressed by a simple one-way influence. During a game activity, the player can
create a level as well as its constituative rules. Thus, rules not only guide the game activity – the
opposite relationship also applies. The rules that are set by a given player in his level during his game
activity shapes other players’ game activity, when they are playing this level. We see a constant
dynamic reciprocal influence between rules and game activity, which reveals that the arrow between
”mechanics” and”dynamics” should go in both directions in LBP’s case.
Just like LBP doesn’t fit onto the MDA model, it is also diffiult to place it on Juuls and Caillois
game spectrum. The problem is that LBP both fascilitates paidia and ludus activities. The creation part
appeals to paidia, in particular. Here, there are few limiting rules, and no actual goal is specified. There
are extensive creative ressources at the player’s disposal. Rules are present, of course, specifying that
3D levels are impossible to create, for example. These restrictions mean that the activity doesn’t belong
to the far left of the spectrum. But the player is still relatively free to develop what he wants. The sheer
aesthetic and design-related variation exuberated by the user-generated levels clearly stresses the
enormous scope of possibilities available. In fact, the activty seems comparable to playing with Legos.
Basic rules specifying how the Legos fit together are present, but otherwise the activity allows for a
tremendous display of creativity. Both activities must generally be described as being more like free-
form play than strict rule-based games due to the lack of a set obejctive and underlying conflict.
Of course, players can set the own objectives in the creation part. Then, the activity considerably
moves away from the paidia pole. The fact that many levels parody other works or events show that
many players set up the realization of a specific parody as their personal objective. In other cases, the
objective might be less explictly developed in a player’s mind. He might simply have a diffuse idea of
producing a level that is simple and easy to complete. Such a goal is less strict, since its realization can
materialize through countless different series of actions. In this case, the activity is a mildly ludus-
oriented.
Exacltly how pronounced this individual creation of goals is – and how explicitly and strictly it is
formed in the minds of players – is difficult to answer. Here, extensive user surveys would be very
beneficial. An exclusively mediacentric analysis, like the one I’m conducting here, cannot answer this
51
question fully. Nonetheless, LBP deviates from traditional games by actually allowing that players can
freely choose which – if any - objective should apply. The objective can be personalized to the player’s
liking or needs or be completely dismissed. By dismissing it, LBP fascilitates a more extreme form of
paidia compared to traditional games, charaterized by explicit goals.
When a player explores levels, the ludus activity is clearly prominent. Now, there is a single
explicit goal – to reach the podium at the end of the level. In most levels, only one way leads to this
goal. A number of sequentially laid out challenges, whose solutions are few, must be completed before
the goal can be reached. Sackboy might have to jump over a pit of lava, then swing himself over
poisonous snakes, and finally kill an evil, mechanical robot tank. Juul’s notion of progression games and
Caillois’ definition of ludus in its strict sense seem to fit particularly well to this part of the game.
Naturally, some levels are a little more open than others, but they all share a relatively obvious linear
structure, restrained by the universal 2D nature of the game. It considerably limits player exploration as
well as his feeling of discovery in favor of a more problem-oriented behavior.
Even in the exploration part, the ludus activity is sometimes broken up. By pushing a single but-
ton, the player activates a customization menu, where he can change the appearance of his Sackboy.
These costumizations have no impact on his chances of completion. They are exclusively aesthetic,
appealing solely to his creative thoughts rather than forcing him to choose a given optimal appearance.
Again, the game activity plays out through creative decision-making rather than goal-oriented
behaviour.
The example reveals the skizophrenic nature of LBP. Sometimes, it is a progression game, gener-
ating strict ludus. At other times, it is clearly paidia-oriented. The game doesn’t belong to one specific
end of the spectrum. Should we then place LBP at the center to accomodate these fluctuations? This
action is also inappropriate. In that case, the game would be classified similarly to the most extreme
games of emergence, which is probably the least accurate description. When LBP activates its ludus-
related elements, the degree of emergence is relatively small and the degree of progression correspond-
ingly large. No matter where we place the game, we run into problems. The model is unsuitable for
LBP, because it doesn’t capture the dynamic fluctuations between paidia and ludus, that the game
actually encourages.
Can we conclude that LBP complies with this last characteristic of games? Had LBP lacked its
customization and creation options, it could be classsified as a traditional, relatively strong progression
game. The rules would strictly shape the game activity, though not completely determine its course.
52
However, the presence of customization and creation options complicate the situation. It means that
sometimes LBP should be described as a toy moreso than a game. A more free and creative activity
replaces the structured and goal-oriented one. That makes LBP skizophrenic.
The Analysis Summed Up

Can LBP be regarded as a computer game as defined by ludology? A better question would probably be
to what extent this is the case. LBP both shares and deviates from some of the central characteristics of
traditional games. It shares a fundamental systemic construction and an interaction process mimicking
that of a state machine. The uncertain characteristic of the game activity is also recognized – even
moreso than normally. On the other hand, the rules don’t manage to comply with all of the four qualities
usually evident in games. Most conspicously, they are not set in stone and not repeatable, because the
player is allowed to add and change existing rules. The game activity can be productive and take place
in less voluntary contexts as opposed to traditional games. Finally, on several occasions, the game
generates free-form play, in which the pursuit of a specified goal is lacking – yet another deviation from
the ludological game definition.
In many cases, the compliance of a given game characteristic is not a simple yes/no question, but
one whose answer is a lot more complex. The presence of the magic circle shows this. A player’s focus
on and accept of the game rules are clearly present. However, sometimes focus is moved away from the
game to the realm of reality, and player actions have consequences external to the game. The magic
circle is broken, though not completely destroyed. An underlying awareness that the player is just
playing a game doesn’t disappear just because reality interferes. Finally, the question of whether game
rules specify quantifiable outcomes is also more compllcated. In some cases, quantifiable outcomes are
present, but at other times they are absent, dissolving the conflict, meaning that this quality is fulfilled
only partially.
Nevertheless, the ludological game model is insufficient in capturing what LBP really is. Before I
investigate the game theoretical implications of this fact, I will elaborate on what inadequacies the
ludological model has. A better understanding can be achieved by including more objects of analysis.
Then it will be appareant that LBP is just one example of a very prominent trend in the game industry.
Many other games released recently and generally regarded as games, also break with the ludological
game model. They can shed more light on the issue.
53
Inclusion of Other Computer Games
The Movies
The Movies106 also breaks with many characteristics of the
The Movies
ludological game model. The player manages a movie
studio in Hollywood. The most common tasks are to design
and maintain the studio, hire a capable staff including
actors, camera men, secretaries, engineers, script writers,
and cleaning personel, and make sure that the employees
are productive and thriving. Setting their wages and
benefits and creating a good work environment is needed.
Otherwise, some staff members will end up stressed or
overweight, which is especially problematic for otherwise promising movie stars. Fortunately, the
player can rectify the situation by sending them to liposuction clinics, plastic surgouns or rehab centers.
Finally, the player must instruct the movies, so that revenue increases and business expands. In short,
the game is a parodic simulation of the processes and work methods taking place in a real movie studio.
The simulation capabilities of the computer is heavily used.
The game deviates from the ludological game model in several ways. It doesn’t contain a specific
goal. The player is indeed rewarded with more money and thus more opportunities to create a better,
more high tech studio, if his movies are well recieved among the virtual cinema goers. However, the
player can never finish the game. It doesn’t possess a final positive outcome, In theory, the player can
continue to make movies and manage his studio for all eternity.
Movie production mimicks the level creation of LBP. The game is almost like a toy for the player,
who is relatively free to create whatever he wants. He can play around with the dialogue, movements,
looks, and props of the actors as well as the general lighting, mise en scene, camera control, and even set
up special effects, music and sound effects in the postproduction phase. The tools provide almost
endless possibilities, clearly revealed by the wealth of genres uploaded to the intenet by players107 The
genres include comedy, action, science-fiction, romance, and horror, showing that the game resembles a
movie creation tool moreso than a traditional game. It is a channel, through which the player can express
himself creatively.
106
Lionhead Studios 2005
107
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22the+movies%22+game&search_type=&aq=f
54
This fact also reveals that the border between the consuming and producing player is blurred.
Players consume the game – they play it and are entertained by it – but they also produce content, that
would not have existed without the consumation. I principle, the players are a producing entity like a
real movie instructor. In both cases, a creative process generates a product to be available to a huge
audience. The players are movie instructors not only in the game but also in the reality to which their
movies are uploaded and seen.
Again, the magic circle is broken though still present to some extent. Game actions clearly have
consequences external to the game. First of all, they affect the people watching it. Secondly, these game
actions can help expand the player’s virtual studio, strengthening his opportunitites to create better and
more advanced movies to his real-life audience.
Game actions don’t just influence reality – the opposite also applies. Like LBP, the created mov-
ies are often parodies on other works. Furthermore, the game developers often reward the player for an
impressive movie uploaded to their website. The reward can be virtual money to be spent on studio
improvements in the game.
Though the realms of reality and game affect each other in several ways, the magic circle is still
present. As a player we can clearly distinguish between these realms, because their rulesets vary so
much. In the game, the player is rewarded with milllions of dollars, happy shareholders, and great
reviews from the esteemed virtual news paper, if a movie is successful. In reality such extreme profits
fail to materialize, and the player might only get a 3-star review on youtube.com or the game website to
which created movies can be uploaded directly from within the game. The scope and nature of the in-
game consequences of our game actions are incomparable to the real-world consequences of said game
actions. This fact serves to uphold the magic circle despite the aforementioned breakdowns.
World of Warcraft
World of Warcraft108 (WoW) is a socalled "massively
multiplayer online role playing game" (MMORPG). In this World of Warcraft
genre, the player takes control of an avatar in a virtual world

filled with other players’ avatars, connected via the internet.
In WoW, a player starts by creating this avatar, choosing his
gender, looks, race, and type - thus its basic abilities. The
108
Blizzard 2004
55
abilities are improved as exploration and battle missions are completed, weapon and armor negotitia-
tions are carried out, and professions such as blacksmithing is learned. Actions can be carried out alone
or - more advantagously – with other players. In this way, WoW appeals to comprehensive social
interaction, supported by numerous ways of communication, including voice chat, text chat, friend lists
and a wealth of different character animations.
Even moreso than LBP, WoW is a social platform. It takes particularly good advantage of the
networking capabilities of the computer, enabling players to meet new people or strengthen existing
friendships relatively easily. A big part of the game activity revolves around such social interactions,
and it is not always WoW-related topics that are discussed. A study by Nardi & Harris shows that WoW
oftentimes is used as a messaging tool not unlike the chat program MSN Messenger. 109 Players chat
about topics both related and unrelated to WoW, as they order their avatars around in the virtual world.
Their attention is not exclusively directed against game mechaniscs, but mixed together with numerous
game external thoughts in a complex manner. Again the magic circle is not fully drawn.
Furthermore, the game enables the formation of so-called "guilds". These are groups, in which
allied members fight together. The study by Nardi & Harris shows, that ingenious traditions and social
guidelines are often associated with these guilds, increasing group cohesiveness. 110 Members might
wear specific clothes or have a specific meeting place in the virtual world. They might even organize
real political demonstrations inside the game111, in which case reality is once again brought into the
game.
WoW also breaks with the game model by not having an explicit goal. A player is presented with
many smaller milestones, such as killing a specific troll or collecting certain feathers. On this micro
level, a quantifiable outcome is identified – the mission can be completed or failed. However, in general
there is no end state available. Even when a player – upon completion of countless missions – reaches
the final level for his avatar, the game just keeps on going.
WoW doesn’t always fascilitate an unproductive behaviour either. Selling an avatar or parts of its
possessions on online auctions is a prominent trend. Among others, the auction site Ebay is home to
these activities. To players using this site, WoW is a way to earn money – not solely an unproductive
and necessarily voluntary endeavor.
109
Nardi & Harris 2006. p. 5.
110
Ibid.
111
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/12/28/world-warcraft-gamers-plan-avatar-march-ron-paul
56
The voluntary nature is also questionable to players of the most serious guilds. Here, commanding
players often require that other members play for a certain amount of time and carry out specific tasks
within a given time frame.112 If players don’t meet these requirements, the guild might be weakened and
vulnerable to competing guilds. That is why some players get expelled from a guild when not investing
sufficient energy or level of cooperation. Here, we see how WoW – through its guild structure
supporting a hierarchial division amongst players – enables the formation of power relationships
potentially limiting player freedom and voluntary participation. We also see how player actions not only
affect how his game unfolds, but also, more broadly, affect his social life in and outside of the game.
Thus, the notion of negotiable consequences seems unsuitable for WoW. Before a game is played,
players don’t necessarily negotiate if or which real-life consequences are at stake. Real-life consequenc-
es can occur outside of the player’s control and without his consent. Just like in the real world the
consequences of our actions are not always negotiable.
Other Examples
Other games also challenge the ludological game model. The way WoW challenges it is visible in most
games belonging to the MMORPG genre such as Everquest113, Guild Wars114, Warhammer Online: Age
of Reckoning115, Tabula Rasa116, and Spore117. Asheron's Call118 takes it one step further, as they - like
Linden Lab’s Second Life119 - let players create their own objects and add coded modules to the game.
These might change the interface of the game or provide extra functionality or even new additional
game modes. Also, Sacred 2: Fallen Angel120 stand out. By proclaiming to be in a practically never-
ending beta, the game puts its players in the role of game testers asked to come up with suggestions to
the developer regarding potential improvements to the game.
The notion of being able to change and add existing code is not new. For a long time, modding
has been a central part of game culture. Modding is about modifying a given game – both its code and
graphics. Some game developers offer direct access to these actions. The best known example to this is
112
Lin & Sun 2003 S. 293.
113
Sony 1999
114
NC Soft 2005
115
Electronics Art 2008.
116
NC Soft 2007
117
Electronics Arts 2008
118
Microsoft 1999
119
Linden Lab 2003
120
Deep Silver 2008
57
Half-Life121, which two students, Minh Lee and Jeff Cliffe, modified into another game called Counter-
Strike. There is a notable difference between modding and the games mentioned in this section, though.
Whereas modding requires significant programming and modelling expertise using various game
development tools, thus being reserved to a small elite of players, the latter has more limited variants of
these tools available in the game itself. Here, their simpler and more user-friendly interface appeals to a
much larger audience.
Furthermore, the idea of making movies from computer games is not limited to The Movies. A
trend called machinima has become popular. Machinima is all about creating movies from virtual
worlds. No real actors, camera men or stage set-ups are necessary. Players simply record their screen, on
which specific game actions pan out and get edited together into a coherent movie. In particular, games
such as Quake122 and Unreal Tournament123 are used for this purpose, since they are especially flexible.
Players can modify code and graphics, thus setting up scenes exactly as imagined.
The well-known game series The Sims - especially The Sims 2124 - should also be mentioned. It is
a life style simulator that utilizes the simulations capabilities of the computer to create a virtual world, in
which the player guides one or more virtual characters as they live out their everyday life. The player
must ensure that they get to eat, work, urinate, socialize and experience entertainment among other
things. The lack of a specific goal, and the options to create objects and characters are also a big part of
this game, and a large, sharing community has arised because of it. Game Developer Will Wright
estimates that 80-90% of the virtual objects that a player has at his disposal is user-generated.125
Whereas LBP fascilitates level creation and The Movies fascilitates movie creation, Guitar Hero:
World Tour126 is a music tool. Via a controller imitating a real guitar, players can place guitar nodes
next to each other. Thus, musical compositions are created. Later on, other players can play through the
created piece with the special guitar controller. In this way, the game supports both a traditional game
activity and a platform for musically creative endeavors.
With the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo have also contributed to the trend. In the main menu of the
console, players can create avatars – so-called Mii’s – which make their appearance across numerous
121
Valve 1996
122
GT Interactive 1996.
123
GT Interactive 1999.
124
Electronics Arts 2000
125
Interview with Will Wright by Becker (Becker 2004).
126
Activision 2008
58
games. One of them, Wii Music127, utilizes the motion-sensitive Wii controller to imitate various
musical instruments such as drums, cow bells, triangles, violin, and piano. The goal is not to play a
given piece correctly – you’re not rewarded or punished for your actions. Instead you’re just encouraged
to jam – to move with the beat. Later, the player can take pictures and record videos of his musical
performance, and then email these to others. In this way, this game also represents a channel, through
which people can express parts of their personality. You can stage yourself through pictures and videos
that almost form a gallery to be viewed by others.
In Wii Fit128, which also incorporates Mii’s, players interacts through body movements The player
stands on a custom-design balance board, whose pressure sensors read his weight and balance. The
game includes numerous fitness exercises such as running, yoga, push-ups, and aerobics, and they are
meant to get the player in better physical shape. No explicit goal is given. The player sets his own goal
to improve his body mass index to a certain extent. Graphs keep track of his progress. The potential
real-life consequences of playing Wii Fit are overt – it can lead to better health. It is a hybrid between a
training machine and a game.
The magic circle is also broken in Animal Crossing: City Folk129. Here, game time moves in sync
with real time by using the built-in clock of the console. So if a player turns on the game on a day in
december, he will see a snow-capped landscape filled with characters in a Christmas mood.
Finally, level creation tools are also present in Microsoft’s Halo 3130, Electronic Arts' Boom
Blox131, Nintendo’s Super Smash Brothers: Brawl132, and Ubisoft’s Far Cry 2133.
Reflections about Analysis Results

To varying degrees, all of the above games break with the ludological game model. Many discrepancies
have been presented. Contrary to traditional games, which manage to comply with all of the
characteristics of the model, these newer games fit the model poorly. Instead they challenge the model
by having extensive creation, customization, socialisation, and upload options. As such, they cannot be
characterized on the same terms as traditional games. They may be labelled as games in daily speech; be
127
Nintendo 2008
128
Nintendo 2008
129
Nintendo 2008
130
Microsoft 2007
131
132
Nintendo 2008
133
Ubisoft 2008
59
marketed as games; be played on a game console; be developed by game developers and reviewed by
game journalists – just like other games. In other words, there is general consensus to regard them as
games, yet they don’t comply with the ludological game model. They seem to indicate that computer
games can take on different shapes as the one formulated by ludology.
As game theorists, how should we handle these deviants? What should the game theoretical im-
plications of the emergence of these games be? As in any other situation where practise and theory are
inconsistent, we are faced with several solution options. We can choose to obey the general consensus,
and determine that these deviants are indeed computer games and that the ludological game model
should be reevaluated and reformulated, so that it also encompasses these games. In that case, the
ludological game model – in its present form - would be regarded as obsolete and insufficient, requiring
a comprehensive revision. The problem with this approach is that it would only focus on the similarities
between traditional games and these newer deviants. The fact is that the latter share some characteristics
with each other – but some of these characteristics are absent in traditional games. Likewise, traditional
games share som characterisitics with each other - as clearly specified by the ludological game model -
but as pointed out in the analysis newer games only occasionally share these – if at all. To put them all
in one basket would be to ignore central characteristics of both. Furthermore, the ludological game
model excellently manages to formulate what a traditional game is. Both old and many newer games fit
the model extraordinarily well, so by overwriting it, we lose a usable theoretical and analytical tool.
We can also decide that these deviant computer games simply don’t belong to the phenomenon of
games, but instead something very different, which is stil undefined. In that case, coming up with a
definition of this new phenomenon would be the next step. The game gevelopers at Nintendo propose
this approach. They have marketed an entire collection of their games as "non-games". ”Non-games” is
somewhat vaguely defined as lacking explicit goals and focusing on creative endeavors at the expense
of a challenging game experience.134 Though Nintendo uses this label as a flashy marketing tool moreso
than in a theoretical discusion, the label clearly shows an intention to distance these products from
traditional computer games. The problem with this approach is that these deviants actually share quite a
few characteristics with traditional games – as reflected both in the analysis and in people’s general
conciousness - by categorising them as games in daily speech. We risk undermining these similarities, if
a completely new concept is invented. Furthermore, this approach won’t capture how these computer
games relate to traditional games.
134
http://cube.ign.com/articles/595/595089p3.html
60
Juul proposes a third model. His starting point is his own ludological game model as mentioned
earlier. He says, that many computer games comply with this model, but a few most be labelled as
border-line. All the games mentioned in this analysis section belong in this category. Juul even
specifically mentions The Sims135, whose sequel I also mentioned. The Sims breaks with Juul’s
principle of quantifiable outcomes, thus making it a borderline case. The same applies to computer
games in the MMORPG genre. The games may share more game charateristics than the phenomena of,
say, traffic or war, which almost completely deviate from being games, but they still don’t comply with
all of Juul’s characteristics.
The notion that something can be a game to varying degrees seems reasonable. The aforemen-
tioned computer games reveal that they don’t comply equally with the ludological game model. But
even though we avoid a completely dichotomic understanding of games by using Juul’s proposition, the
solution remains problematic. First of all, no clear conditions for whether something is borderline is set.
How many of the game characteristics must be challenged? Should we also take into consideration to
what extent a characteristic is challenged? How should we measure this? Juul doesn’t provide clear
answers to these questions, making his notion of border-line games somewhat vague. In principle, we
can mention a huge amount of borderline games that ”almost” comply fully with the model. Thus, the
fact that something is borderline says very little about what we are really dealing with. It is simply a
label that doesn’t describe the phenomenon in a detailed manner. As game theorists, we cannot ignore
these borderline games to such an extent – by simply calling the borderline.
Instead, I will advocate for a fourth model that focuses on these deviant computer games, while
revealing their relationship with traditional games. Inspired by the concept of Web 2.0136, I propose that
we regard these deviants as second-generation computer games. Thus, the usability of the ludological
game model is acknowledged as well as the fact that many newer games have expanded beyond this
model. Computer games can no longer be understood merely as games played on a computer –
sometimes they are much more integrated in our everyday lives – as tools for creative endeavors and as
platforms for social interaction and trade. In the following section I will elaborate on the ingredients of
135
136
Web 2.0 is introduced by O’Reilly (O’Reilly 2005) and refers to a new generation of web sites and applications that
let users co-operate and share information online. Examples include blogs, forums, social network sites such as
facebook.com, movie sharing sites such as youtube.com, knowledge sharing sites such as wikipedia.com, and file
sharing programs such as Emule. These web technologies are not just static conveyers of information as with the first
generation of the Web. Instead, they are dynamic, capable of being constantly updated by its users. They support a
”many to many” communication, thus working as social platforms. In the discussion section, I will elaborate on the
concept of Web 2.0 and explain its relation to the second-generation computer game.
61
these second generation computer games by discussing their relationship to traditional games. How does
the magic circle work in these games? What type of interaction exists? How can we describe the
systemic constitution of the game? To what extent can the player’s role be defined as unproductive and
voluntary? What additional play motivations - apart from the ones mentioned by Huizinga, Koster, and
Csikszentmihalyi - may be involved? The answers to these questions form a theoretical framework for
understanding the nature of the second generation computer game – just like ludology constitutes a
theoretical framework for understanding the first generation computer game.
At this point, it is important to note that by using the notions of first and second generation com-
puter games, I don’t want to lock every game up in any one camp. Some computer games don’t belong
fully in one of these two notions. I use the notion of a second generation in the same way that O’Reilly
uses Web 2.0. Web 2.0 shouldn’t be understood as a label to be put on a website or application, but as a
phenomenon – a gravitational core:
"Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational

core"137.
This core consists of a wealth of principles that make up central development tendencies for the
Web. More and more websites and applications revolve around this core. They come closer to its
principles, while the distance to the principles of Web 1.0 is increased. In the same way, the border
between the first and second generation game isn’t rigid. Like a website can embrace the principles of
Web 2.0 to varying degrees, a computer game can partly embrace the principles of the second
generation computer game. The discussion below explores the core that makes up the second-generation
computer game and that any given game can revolve around. In other words, it explores the prototype of
the second-generation computer game, while revealing the inadequacies of ludology at the same time.138
137
Oreilly 2005.
138
The notions paidia and ludus are also examples of concepts that work as gravitaional cores. They are prototypes –
theoretical constructions – within which a given play or game activity can be placed.
62
Discussion
A Theoretical Framework for the Second-Generation Computer Game

The analysis has shown that the idea that computer games are closed systems of play with rules that are
set in stone and generate an activity separate from reality (taking place in a magic circle), unproductive
(not contributing to society) and voluntary (intrinsically motivated, because it is enjoyable) does not
apply universally. These characteristics are not essential to computer games. Computer games cannot be
reduced to these characteristics – they are something more. We lack a game theory that captures this
fact. This discussion section contributes to filling this computer game-theoretical void.
I’ve already noted that we can view these games as second-generation computer games, but what
does this concept mean? The following answer is developed by including works by various theorists
including Castronova, McGonical, Steinkuehler, Taylor, and Consalvo. Their criticisms of our classical
game understanding provide insight into the nature of the second generation computer game. Let’s start
by exploring how the magic circle is manifested. Does it even make sense to use it on these games?
How might it be modified to better fit the game activity?
The Blurred Magic Circle

The analysis section clearly reveals that the manifestation of magic circle is less obvious compared to
traditional games. The game activity doesn’t take place fully within its own boundaries – totally isolated
and cut off from the real world. All of the above-mentioned games connect to reality in different ways –
either spatially as in LBP when the player takes pictures of real objects in his living room, temporally
when the time in Animal Crossing: City Folk moves in sync with real time, economically when players
sell virtual goods for real money or take advantage of viral marketing campaigns, or socially when
players of MMORPG’s use their game as a social platform. The examples show that a dichotomic
understanding of what constitutes game rules on one hand and real rules on the other hand is unfruitful.
Social rules of etiquette, economical rules of supply and demand, legal rules about property rights for
virtual objects, rules for effective marketing, and even physical rules governing how light reflects on
objects photographed with the LBP camera make up a handful of the rules influencing the game activity,
without being formulated in the game code. The magic circle understood as an entity clearly
demarkating the boundaries of the game and the real world should therefore be ree-valuated in favor of a
more complex model.
63
Contemporary studies of computer games in the MMORPG genre reveal similar points. Consal-
vo139 writes that the games overflow into the real world. Steinkuehler140 refers to the boundary between
game and reality as fluid, and Castronova141 describes how behaviour patterns are never completely
locked up inside the game. Castronova adds that the magic circle should be accompanied by a second
metaphor: a porous membrane. This works as a shield, partly protecting players, since the real-life
consequences of their game actions are generally less drastic than those of equivalent actions in real life.
Also, the metaphor stresses that players constantly move in and out of the membrane on a mental level.
Their focus shifts, because the rules outside the membrane influence the activity inside the membrane.
The inadequacies of the magic circle is elaborated by McGonigal in her study about ubiquitous
computing and pervasive games142. She studies games that incorporate real, physical objects and
environments and utilizes extensive networking technology. Though, these games integrate reality to a
much larger degree than the games of this study, because they actually take place in it – McGonigal’s
description as to how the magic circle operates withinin these games can be transferred unproblemati-
cally. She states that the magic circle is blurred, since, oftentimes, it is impossible for the player to
differentate between which objects are inside and outside of the game. There’s is no clear distinction.
We see the same tendencies – though not as often – in the second generation computer games. When
players set up furniture in their living room in order to take pictures of it for LBP, is this action a part of
the game activity? Is the furniture objects of the game system? When people use WoW as a social
platform – for example to discuss upcoming movies – is this conversation part of the game activity? Is
the act of seeing movies created from ”The Movies” or through machinima part of the game activity?
The fact that these questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no challenges the simple
dichotomic understanding of internal and external game elements, which the magic circle is based on.
Blurring it, as McGonigal does, is a valuable step to a more nuanced understanding.
By blurring the magic circle instead of tossing it away entirely, McGonical stresses that players –
to some extent – still accept and acknowledge that they partake in an activity, unlike completely
mondane activities such as shopping or cooking. The idea that the player incorporates a lusory attitude –
a special attitude welcoming the game world and its rules – remains a central part of the game activity.
A player’s willingness to experiment with his personality – to express himself through avatar creations,
user-generated content, and machinima reveals that they dare to act differently when playing. The player
139
Consalvo 2005. p. 11.
140
Steinkuehler 2008. p 621
141
Castronova 2005. p. 101.
142
McGonical 2006. pp. 217-218 and pp. 321.
64
has indulged in a game world, in which they feel that their actions take place in a more protective
atmosphere.
The lusory attitude is clearly visible in these second-generation computer games, but it seems to
take on a different shape. The reason is that players are invited to customize or change the game system.
Sometimes, objects such as levels, avatars, and virtual objects are created and sometimes the rules of
their behavior is changed through tools inside or outside of the game.143 This means that players get a
kind of meta-conciousness about these games. They get to know how the game is constructed and the
underlying mechanisms controlling its behavior. They learn about game design by more or less
deconstructing system elements and then putting them back together in different ways. In this way,
these games play around with the lusory attitude of the player. The contract – the willingness to follow
the game logic - is constantly undergoing negotiation when the logic can be changed when needed.
Instead of sub-ordinating to a rigid game system, the player must acknowledge its dynamic nature and
notice its construction through his deconstructing behavior.
We actually see a similar tendency within storytelling. Here you operate with a story contract - a
willing suspension of disbelief – which corresponds to the lusory attitude of games. A prominent
postmodern characteristic within storytelling is to break the immersion of the audience. 144 The main
person might begin to speak to the audience, who might even be drawn into the story. Blood splattering
on the camera lense is another example. These approaches provoke the contract without actually tearing
it down. They force us to notice the storytelling act – the structures, that the story is based on – but we
are still aware that a story is unfolding. Just like the second-generation computer game, these stories
produce an ambivalent relationship with their audience, who are neither completely immersed or
completely distanced from the story.
In the same way, the second-generation computer game is neither completely separated from or
completely integrated in the reality surrounding it. Though, it is a lot more integrated than the first
generation computer game, a certain artificiality remains. A weapon in Everquest can only kill within
the specific virtual world that Everquest has. The level creation tools in LBP can only be used inside
LBP. Playing soothing piano music in Wii Music can be achieved by wildly swinging your hands
around. We can’t book an actual flight to Azeroth, the game world in WoW, either. All these examples
143
In the next section these configurative actions will be explained in more detail.
144
Ryan 1999
65
serve to maintain a certain separability from reality, thus justifying a preservation of the magic circle –
in some shape or form.
Ignoring the magic circle completely is also problematic for another reason. The analyzed games
clearly reveal, that sometimes they generate a completely traditional game activity. In these moments,
player attention is directed towards the rules explicitly formulated in the game code. How many life
points does the wizard have left? Can I jump far enough to get over the chasm. Here, the player is right
at the core of the magic circle on a mental level. Later his attention might be moved closer to the edge,
where the cricle is more blurred, because reality intervenes. For example, when a player parodies a work
through a level creation, both the referenced material as well as the game interface might be in focus.
The games fascilitate that players carry out these mental movements – these shifts in focus, where the
formally defined rules of the game occupy the player’s mind to varying degrees. This fact is captured by
the magic circle, if we imagine that players – during their game activity – is situated in different places
in the model below. Sometimes, they are at the core, sometimes they are outside of the circle, and
sometimes they are in-between.
The Blurred Magic Circle
Focus on rules constituted in the game code

Focus on rules constituted in reality
Castronova’s porous membrane doesn’t capture this fact. Though it doesn’t place the game activi-
ty in a domain cut off from the real world, his metaphor is still based on an either-or logic. He argues
that the focus of the player during his game activity can be either inside or outside the membrane at any
given point in time. Thus, the focus shifts that Castranova describes are the ones happening between the
game domain and the real domain - he doesn’t take into consideration to what extent reality intervenes
and affects the game activity. The border between game-intenal and game-external elements are too
rigidly drawn.
66
One of the reasons, why this dichotomical understanding is so prominent in game studies might be
traced back to general internet studies. Here, we see a similar type of exceptionalism, which – through
notions of "cyberspace" and "irl" (in real life) - clearly regards the virtual as seperate from the real. An
explicit example of this understanding is given by Barlow145 and Lastowska146. The view contributes to
the trend of viewing computer games as also taking place in a seperate domain. However lately, the
view has been challenged by Taylor147 and Lehdonvirta148 amongst others. Game studies can learn a lot
from these newer internet studies, arguing that the relationship between the virtual and the real is a lot
more messy and matted, because our offline and online personality is usually reflected in each other in
complicated ways:
"If we look at online spaces historically, for example, we find people

negotiating levels of self-disclosure and performance, multiple forms of
embodiment, the integration of dual (or multiple) communities, webs of
technologies, and the importing of meaningful offline issues and values
into online spaces."149
By making great use of the fourth ludic affordance of the computer, the networking capabilities,
the second-generation computer game exactly represents such online spaces. Here, we can’t simply tuck
away our personality. We are not completely shielded from the real world. The networked nature of the
game means that we can’t avoid communicating snippets of our personality. Simply by interacting with
a game world, in which our foot steps are visible to others, we communicate who we are. An extremely
ingeniously designed level shows off the level creator’s abilities. An MMORPG player using a powerful
avatar to unreasonably slaughter innocent avatars shows off an unsympathetic side of himself. A well-
playing guild indicates the co-operation abilities of its members. The fact that we automatically convey
parts of our offline personality to our online personality, as described by Taylor, is very clear.
Thus, the protective frame that Apter refers to and that is more implicit in Huizinga’s magic circle
is weaker in these games. We can’t always negotiate the real-life consequences of our game activity in
advance, in the way that Juul writes. How many dollars will our avatars be worth? What new social
relations will the game activity generate? How well will our created level, musical piece, or movie be
recieved? Will we be accepted into a specific guild or banned from another one? How effective will our
viral marketing campaign be? The answers to these questions are uncontrollable and unknown to the
145
Barlow 1996
146
Lastowska 2007
147
Taylor 2006. Kap. 6.
148
Lehdonvirta 2008. S. 1-2.
149
Taylor 2006. S 152.
67
player. The consequences is affected by numerous external factors, such as other players’ reactions,
their mood at any given time, supply and demand and so forth. The notion that games constitute a
seperate and safe domain in which game-external influences are manageable and determined in advance
seems highy inappropriate for these games. Thy are far more integrated in reality.
I will now focus on the game system. Just like the game activty cannot be understood as separate ,
the game sytem cannot be understood as a closed entity.
The Game System as a Complex Adaptive System

The game system of these second-generation computer games is opened up. Players are invited to
configure or change the game system, from which their game activity develops. Regardless of whether
such configurative game actions is carried out inside the game – as in LBP, outside the game through
external tools such as with Miis or modding in general, or indirectly through requests from players to
devolopers as in Sacred 2: Fallen Angel, central objects as well as their attributes and relationships are
open to customization. Sometimes, it is just the looks of objects that are configured – as when a player
applies textures on an object in LBP or assigns a customized shirt to a Sims character. Objects might
also be added to the game system as when a new level is created or a new avatar is made. In other cases,
the formal identity of the game – its operational and constituative rules – accept changes. Here, the
attributes of the objects and the relationships are changed as evidenced by the level creation tools in
LBP, the interface modifications of Asheron’s Call, requests to developers about downloadable patches,
and modding in general. In any case, the system in all these second-generation games is not a static
entity, but in constant development. Murray’s concept of "authorship" seems particularly apllicable
here. The players don’t just interact with the game system. They touch upon something deeper. They are
co-authors in the broadest sense of the word – co-developers of the game system together with many
other players.
The fact that players affect the game system must necessarily mean that the culture surrounding
them also affects the game system - indirectly. When players reconstruct the US Presidential Election in
LBP, create Star Wars-based avatars in The Sims, arrange birthday parties in Animal Crossing: City
Folk, or parody the newest blockbuster movie in The Movies, these actions are based on certain cultural
- and often contemporary – events. The game system is affected by the players who are affected by their
cultural background.
When a player is given authority to configure the game system, he also gets the opportunity to
transform the cultural and social structures surrounding the game. A machinima movie might become
68
the new, exciting topic on an internet forum. A level about the US Presidential Election can have an
actual influence on voters’ attitudes – or might be given an award. An Everquest avatar on sale might
generate intense activity on an auction site. Thus, player actions can be based on retorical, social, or
economical motivations, whose cultural effects can be significant.
This cultural reproduction – the fact that the game system both reflects and changes its cultural
context in dynamic ways – cannot be conveyed by viewing games in isolation – as closed systems.
Instead, I will turn to sociology, where Holland’s concept of complex adaptive systems" (CAS) seems
particularly relevant.
"A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a dynamic network of many agents

(which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in
parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are
doing. The control of a CAS tends to be highly dispersed and
decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has
to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves.
The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of
decisions made every moment by many individual agents.150
And Dooley adds:
"A CAS behaves/evolves according to three key principles: order is

emergent as opposed to predetermined, the system's history is irreversible,
and the system's future is often unpredictable."151
Examples of such systems are plentiful – from stock markets to ant colonies and from ecosystems
to the human brain. They share a constant dynamic development both reflecting and transforming forces
external to the system. Agents are responsible for these influences. For example, brain cells are the
agents activated in the brain both when we save information from our surroundings (whereby the
influence is directed towards the system – the system reflects the surroundings), and when we
communicate this information to our surroundings (whereby the influence is directed towards the
surroundings – the system transforms the surroundings). The brain cell agents fascilitate this two-way
interaction – this reproduction of information.
There are many good reasons for also viewing the second-generation computer game as a CAS.
Here, players constitute agents. They provide changes to the game system based on their cultural
background. Thus, the game system is going to reflect the culture. At the same time, players carry the
150
Cited from: Michael 2007. P. 106.
151
Dooley 1996.
69
expressions of the game into the world. Just like with the human brain, a form of reproduction is
present, allowing the game system and its cultural surroundings to be in a constant, dynamic interaction
with each other.
This reciprocal relationship can only materialize through decentralized control, as the quote from
Holland states. Though the second-generation computer game isn’t completely decentralized, since the
developers always have the final say in terms of censoring or deleting content or closing down a server,
the influences on the game system is still shared by a huge amount of players. The fact that all players
have equal creation and modification opportunities and that everybody brings along their own cultural
bagage, means that the complex, game systemic changes are both irrevocable and very difficult to
predict, just like Dooley states. For example, nobody knows what user-generated levels the players will
have access to tomorrow, and no-one can bring the game system back to a previous state. The
developments possibilities of the game are enourmous, because the number of agents acting and reacting
to each other is so huge.
As the quote from Holland also states, situations of structured behaviour do occur through agents’
co-operation and competition. All of the games mentioned have these social tendencies. Players arrange
tactical meetings on the web, exchange experiences on forums, create virtual objects co-operatively,
discuss their creations, hold competitions, and set up challenges for each other. This trend is most
prominent in WoW, where the aforementioned creation of game-internal traditions is examplary. Here,
no changes to the formal identity of the game is made, but still the game activity is affected significant-
ly. A social, cultural convention about doing a specific action develops, governing the game activity that
players experience. The conventions develops, because the rulesets of these games are so loosely
constructed that players can invent wholly new ways of playing. The comprehensive ways of creating
the looks of avatars, choosing profession and race, selecting weapons and armor, traversing huge
landscapes and communicating with other players all support the creation of such homogenous, social
guidelines – such ingenious, implicit rules. In an otherwise complex, changing game system, pockets of
organized behaviour is established on the basis of player communication inside and outside of the game.
Furthermore, the idea that the structure of the game system is emergent seems reasonable. In
these games, not only the game activity is emergent – the game system itself also develops in an
emergent manner based on players’ decisions. In this way, emergence is multiplied. The game activity
plays out emergently on the basis of the system, which also develops emergently on the basis of player’s
configurative game actions.
70
By viewing these games as CAS we still acknowledge their fundamental systemic constitution, as
evidenced by the analysis of LBP. At the same time, we point out that these games are not closed,
unaprroachable systems, but open, emergent, and relatively decentralized ones, accepting vast changes.
Thus, they can both reflect and alter external cultural and social forces, not written in any game code.
This cultural reproduction is made possible by enabling system configurative game actions – in other
words, Murray’s notion of authorship.
With this in mind, Huizinga’s quote, saying that the game activity develops ”[…] according to
fixed rules in an orderly manner”152, seems inappropriate. Neither fixed rules nor order characterize the
second-generation computer game. Here, rules are far from fixed, and always so loose that they allow
players to shape the game system in highly creative ways. When huge amounts of people – each
contributing with creative inputs colored by their own cultural backgrounds – take part in this activity,
chaos is a lot more suitable than order.
Of course, not all game systems are equally complex and adaptive. The amount of supported
system configurative actions varies – as does the number of players involved. However, a certain
amount of tinkering with game mechanics is a common trait. Regardless of whether objects in the game
system are created, or rules for their attributes are defined or modified, these actions serve to change the
game system for all players involved due to the connected nature of these games. Herein lies the
prerequisite for the game system to break out of its closed off limits and open up.
Configurative Game Actions Elaborated

The above paragraph mentions that system-configurative game actions are a central characteristic of
these games. The customization options are so deep that the game system is permanently changed –
authorship is made possible. The fact that these actions can change cultral structures around the game
has also been established. In other words, when the result of a system-configurative game action –
whether it be the creation of an avatar, an interface, a virtual object, a level, or the modification of game
rules – is communicated or distributed to others, a cultural influence can occur.
However, we can also identify another type of configurative game action, that can also bring
about cultural change. We can change cultural structures - not only by configuring the game system, but
also by configuring the social guidelines belonging to the game. The pockets of organized behavior
mentioned earlier arise because of such social-configurative game actions. Here, it is the implicit rules
152
Huizinga 1950. S. 13.
71
rather than the structure of the game system that is under negotiation. Examples include the creation of
traditions as well as a guild leader’s orders to the other guild members in a WoW community. During
players’ cooperative level, movie, or music creation phase, social agreements as to how the creation
should be formed is also worked out. Of course, such implicit rules, not written in game code, is also
formed in traditional games. A chess champion might release books about his preferred openings, and a
soccer coach might come up with new free kick combinations. But in the second-generation computer
games these opportunities are multiplied due to extensive communication tools and loose rule structures.
The games share a level of free-form play, from which players can invent completely new ways of
playing. They can create their own personalized behavior patterns. When these are communicated to
others, cultural changes can happen – just like with the system-configurative game actions. The political
demonstrations taking place in WoW show this potential very clearly.
Thus, configurative game actions occur both on a game systemic and on a social level. The former
is made possible by the opennes of the game system. The latter is made possible by the non-strict ruleset
and extensive communication possibilities in and outside of the game. At any time, the second-
generation computer game can generate such configurative game actions that can drastically change the
ways in which the game is played – be it the game system or the social conventions that are changed.
In this way, the second-generation computer game is in constant development. It enables the
performance of new creative actions, which shape subsequent instantiations of the game. This
procedural dimension is actually, in some way, compatible with Juul’s game tree metaphor. We might
imagine an extremely complex tree, on which people are constantly creating and finding their own
branches, whose existence is then communicated to others, who can then navigate on these. Branches
can also be cut, as when content is deleted, or colored, as when content is modified. The complex and
dynamic nature of the second-generation computer games demands such bizarre metaphores to be
unravelled.
Furthermore, the metaphore clearly shows that these games can’t just be reset after each game
activity, as Caillois states. Player actions take place in a domain, where their consequences don’t just
disappear as a specific game activity ends. They have lasting effects on the game.
When Free-form Play and Rule-based Gaming Meet

Normally, it is only in free-form play, that we have such configurative opportunitites – such a potential
to change the structure, from which the activity stems. A child’s creative act of playing with cars is one
example. Here, the activity is practically only limited by the child’s imagination. The child is above the
72
ruleset, which is far from rigid. It can be bended in so many ways. The second-generation computer
game share this lack of being bounded by rules. Here, there are no quantifiable outcomes and thus no
conflict to be solved. Still, it cannot be simply reduced to free-form play. As players, we are constantly
evaluated. WoW is filled with numbers depicting our avatar’s level. The Sims 2 constantly presents
graphs of the well-being of our avatars. The Wii Music avatars smile, when we move with the beat. The
virtual Wii Fit trainer complements our tenacity when the first pound is lost. And a user-generated level
or movie in LBP or The Movies can be rated from one to five stars by thousands of critical players.
Though these are hardly examples of quantifiable outcomes, they clearly show the underlying game
evaluation mechanisms that remain intact. As players, we cannot escape these as in free-form play. The
fact that these games also sometimes possess game modes that produce more traditional game activities
and allow for players to pursue individually set up goals, merely serve to complicate the relationship
even further.
This makes it difficult to definitively place a specific second-generation game on the paidia/ludus
spectrum - as already stated in the case of LBP. Pockets of relatively free-form play as well as more
strict traditional gaming activities are mixed together in complicated ways – switching to take over from
each other. Players are neither partaking in padia or ludus or anything in-between these two phenomena.
Even a model, such as Caillois’ paidia/ludus spectrum, which doesn’t regard the acts of free-form play
and rule-based gaming as a dichotomic relationship but as two poles of a spectrum, cannot capture the
complex dynamics of these games.
Fortunately, Kerr & Steeves can enlighten us in this regard. They propose that many online spaces
constitute "virtual playgrounds".153 The authors use this term primarily about websites such as
ellegirl.com, where children and teenagers can communicate. They can chat, play games, or exchange
photos and movies with each other. Whereas such activities used to take place in outdoor playgrounds, it
is now happening on the web.
A virtual playground is fitting for the second-generation computer game for multiple reasons. On
a playground, relatively free-form play can unfold within certain set limits determined by the objects –
rollercoasters, swingsets, playhouses, and sandboxes - from which it is built. But more rule-based game
activities can suddenly develop. Children might arrange football matches, running duels, or hopscotch
competitions. Sometimes the game mechanics are more subtle as when children implicitly compete
about making the most impressive sand castle or the most daring jump. What’s more, children can add
153
Kerr & Steeves 2005. p. 91.
73
their own objects – their own toys – to the playground and let these be part of the activities. Thus, the
playground sets up a wealth of possiblities for partaking in conventional play activities as well as invent
new variations. A similar sense of freedom is present in the second-generation computer game, which
shares the creative endeavors and configurative game actions and underlying game mechanisms as
mentioned above.
The concept of a virtual playground is also useful for another reason. All the included games
function as social platforms to some extent. Like the Web 2.0 websites that Kerr & Steeves mention,
these games produce much co-operation and communication. The ways in which implicit rules are
formed in WoW guilds, levels are created cooperatively, maachinima videos are reviewed and
discussed, and trades with virtual objects are carried out all reveal the presence of this vast social
dimension. Players not only compete with each other online, but are encouraged to cooperate, talk
together, and distribute content. Extensive communication tools such as text or voice chat are available,
enablling the exchange of virtual objects, information, and ideas.
In conclusion, the concept of the virtual playground can clarify how the second-generation com-
puter game acts as social platforms, and how free-form play and rule-based activities start and develop.
But this concept alone isn’t enough. These games are not just playgrounds, but also potential market
places and production tools. The next section emphasizes these two aspects.
The Consuming and Producing Player

We have seen how configurative game actions open up the game system. This section discusses how the
same actions shape the player’s role as consumer and producer.
Contrary to the first-generation computer game this role is not merely consumer-based. Consuma-
tion is still an important feature. After all, the game is bought after which people gain value from them –
usually in the shape of entertainment value. However, players are more than just consumers. The
configurative game actions provide a vast creative freedom to produce new levels, new stories, new
characters, and new interfaces.
Castronova has extensively researched this economical dimension of many modern computer
games from the MMORPG genre.154 He observes how virtual objects created during a game activity is
sold and bought for real money on auctions. These games contain reward structures, functioning as
154
Castronova 2001. S. 1.
74
economical systems, in which players dedicate time and energy to gather virtual objects that are
attractive to others. These objects might then be sold to a buyer. More specifically, Castronova
calculated that, in 2001, players in Everquest earned values corrresponding to 3.42 dollars per hour on
average. This meant that the virtual world of the game could be placed on a 77th place on the list
depicting the strongest economies in the world. This trend has lead to an increase in new commercial
companies largely in Mexico, Hong Kong, and Eastern Europe, where people are hired for the sole
purpose of "goldfarming" – of harvesting as much virtual gold as quickly as possible.155
Clearly, games like Everquest and WoW represent extreme examples in this context. Not all the
mentioned games have such complex economic systems attached. However, they share the option to
produce content, from which others can gain value. The configurative possibilities mean that players can
utilize these games as tools for production. They can leave their role as a consumer whose game activity
is undeniably restricted by the game system, and instead take control over the game universe presented
to them.
Coleman & Dyer-Witheford have focused on this trend. They describe how the computer game
medium in its infancy represented a common ressource (”a commons”), which a large community could
enjoy. Computer games would often travel from onw university to the next, where students played them
and modified them considerably. These communities embraced mantras such as "information wants to
be free"156 thus making sure that the games remained shared as opposed to owned. However, this trend
disappeared in the mid 80s, when the popularity of computer games increased dramatically. They got
commercialized, now representing goods - ("a commodity") – a potential money maker, as opposed to a
common ressource. According to the authors, this shift is:
"[…] one from a multidimensional media model, in which cultural creation

is conceived as the outcome of practices varied, hybrid and, in many
cases, not identifiable, to a unidimensional model that sharply
compartmentalizes producers and consumers."157
However, we now see pockets of a resurgance to old habits.158 Many modern games are not exclu-
sively a product, but should be labelled as "commodity-commons". They are indeed formally owned by
publishers, but their development and the events occuring within them, is largely controlled by the
155
Thompson 2005
156
Ibid. p. 936
157
Coleman & Dyer-Witheford 2007. p. 947
158
Ibid. p. 943
75
players. A big part of the value that a given player draws from the game comes from other players’
producing behavior:
"The inteaction of the players provides the substance of their virtual

worlds, creating behaviour patterns, social rules and collective
institutions. The vibrancy of the online community determines whether a
game persists and becomes profitable."159
Most second-generation computer game developers show off a conspicous interest in drawing
upon the enormous resource that players make up. They realize, that players can not only act as social
incentives for other players, they can also be used to give feedback about possible game improvements
or act as amateur producers of game content. In any case, players are considered as a form of free labor,
contributing to the value increase and potential lifetime of the game.160
Looking at Oreilly's Web 2.0, we see that this two-way communication characterizes much of our
digital culture – from editing tools for music and video to internet distributions mechanisms and the
whole open source movement.161. All these phenomena are part of Web 2.0, whose basic idea is to
"harness the power of user contribution, collective intelligence, and network effects."162Websites such
as wikipedia.com and youtube.com are obvious examples of this approach. Players are given immense
authority to add, change, or delete content – with only few restrictions. Exactly the same kind of
configurative actions are present here, and the boundary between consumer and producer is blurred as a
result.
This renders the MDA-model inadequate, since it only captures players’ consuming roles. As
mentioned in the theory section, games are regarded as created by game developers, whose determina-
tion of "mechanics" influence what game activity, players will experience. Here, the player is subject to
the system created for him. After the next section, I will present a modified MDA model, which takes
into consideration players’ producing roles and summarizes many of the other points from the entire
discussion section at the same time.
Play Motivations
The second-generation computer games indicate that the motivations can reach beyond the intrinsic
ones, mentioned by Huizinga, Csikszentmihalyi, and Koster. Apart from the obvious financial
159
Ibid. p. 944
160
Ibid. p. 944
161
In short, open source software is free software whose code is publicly available and customizable.
162
O'Reilly 2006.
76
motivations, that are associated with productive behavior, Postigo states another motivation factor.163
For example, big parts of the modding culture constitutes a huge gift economy, where players are
primarily motivated by the social and cultural prestige that comes from their game actions and leads to
increased self-esteem. The social community that develops once a group of players gather around a
common project is also a central motivation factor. Sometimes, these recognisions and social contacts
can be transferred to financial capital such as prizes or a job in the game industry. Thus, Postigo’s main
point is that producing players can expand both their social, cultural, and financial capital.
This expanded view, which does not simply regard the game activity as motivated by entertain-
ment cravings (i.e to enter a flow state and get immersed in the game universe and the underlying
problem solving process) is also mentioned by Kraus.164 Having fun is still an important part of the
game activity, but not the only one. He mentions ("fellowship"), which corresponds to Postigo’s social
motivations, as well as ("self-expression"). This motivation seems particularly relevant for the second-
generation computer game.
Self-expression is about showing off aspects of one’s personality.165 Not all human beings have
equal needs in this regard, but, generally, we will seek some sort of confirmation from the surroundings.
The second-generation computer game enables such approaches. Its tools for configurative game actions
allow for creative endeavors, that can be channeled in to self-promotion. In the LBP analysis, I
mentioned the user-generated level called "life", which shows off "Mmanicmads" life. The options to
send videos of musical performances in Wii Music are exemplary. Most MMORPGs have extensive
options to customize the looks of avatars, whereby our personal expression can be carried into the game.
So, in summary, an understanding of games as motivated solely by entertainment is unfulfilling.

Granted, Huizinga does recognize that other motivations besides the comfortable immersiveness can be
present, but the fact that their importance is heavily de-emphasized seems harder to accept in the
second-generation computer game. Entertainment remains a central part of the compelling power of
these games, but both economical, cultural, social, and creative motivations seem to apply heavily as
well.
163
Postigo 2003. p. 595.
164
Kraus 2001. p. 27 - 30.
165
Ibid. p. 29.
77
Final Remarks
The goal of this thesis – to expand our concept of computer games and point out the inadequacies of
ludology – is now almost reached. We just need to construct an overview of the characteristics of the
second-generation computer game. Therefore, I’ve developed the model below, which is modified from
Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubeck’s MDA model.
The Modified MDA Model for the Second-generation Computer Game
Cultural Context
Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics

(Complex, (Blurred magic
adaptive system) circle)
The bullets below serve to elaborate on this model as well as summarize the highlights of the discussion
section. The second-generation computer game is characterized by the following:
 As in traditional games, it possesses a game system, from which a game activity develops
emergently and influences the feelings that a player is experiencing and is motivated by ("mechan-
ics"  "dynamics"  "aesthetics"). Thus, the game has a consuming dimension.
 It represents a complex adaptive system characterized by a relatively decentralized control and an
emergent development based upon players who are constantly acting and reacting to each other.
 It supports system-configurative game actions, because we can create and change game systemic
elements, thus allowing us to take on a producing role ("mechanics"  "dynamics"), and making
the game into a ”commodity-commons”. The original MDA model is therefore inadequate. Rules
are not repeatable or set in stone.
 Its system-configurative game actions can both reflect the cultural context as when we parody or
reproduce elements of our culture and transform the cultural context, as when we publish machini-
ma videos, created levels, and virtual objects with effective retorical, social or economical inten-
tions. ("dynamics"  "cultural context") ("dynamics"  " cultural context ")
 It supports social-configurative game actions moreso than traditional games, because it possesses
extensive communication options as well as pockets of free-form play, which lead to wholly
78
innovative ways of playing. When this behavior is communicated to others, it is a social-

configurative game action. Here it is the implicit rules rather than the game system that are being
negotiated.
 Its social-configurative game actions can both reflect and change the cultural context, as revealed
by the performance of political demonstrations in WoW, for example ("dynamics"  "cultural
context") ("dynamics"  "cultural context")
 It can be understood as a virtual playground that works as a social platform, on which relatively
free-form play as well as a more strict game activity are infiltrated in each other in complex ways.
On a playground, the paidia/ludus spectrum is inadequate, and quantifiable outcomes only some-
times present.
 It is a lot more integrated in reality. Negotiable consequences are sometimes dissolved, and the
magic circle is blurred. By doing this, we indicate that during a game activity we are sometimes
focused on game mechanics and sometimes on real rules that suddenly enter into our conciousness.
Futhermore, the system-configurative possibilities mean that we get a meta-consciousness that
breaks the immersion by forcing us to notice the underlying structure of the game. However, our
"lusory attitude" doesn’t disappear. An awareness that we are merely playing a game remains a core
characteristic, which maintains the presence of a blurred magic circle.
 Our play motivations don’t always revolve around entertainment and immersiveness and are not
always intrinsic. Improving our social, cultural, and economical capital as well as the act of self-
promotion are also important.
The above bullets describe the core of the second-generation computer game. A game like LBP
definitely represents an exceptionally clear manifestation of the second-generation computer game,
whereas other games, such as Wii Fit, are more borderline cases. In particular, two factors seem to
detemine to what extent a computer game approaches the second-generation core. The first one is the
degree to which a game takes advantage of the networking capabilities of the computer. Just like Web
2.0 takes advantage of ”the strengths of the web”166, these games extensively use of the fourth ludic
affordance of the computer. Without the online communcation tools in WoW, without the distribution
mechanisms in LBP, without the upload and download features of The Sims and The Movies, and
without the options to send pictures and videos to friends in Wii Music, these games would lose a big
part of what makes them expanded. They would resemble traditional computer games much more,
because important possibilities for extensive social interaction, for self-promotion, for the many
166
O’Reilly 2005.
79
reproductions of cultural events, for viral marketing, and for a generally productive behavior would be
limited or even absent.
The second central factor is the degree to which the game supports configurative game actions. A
high degree is necessary to enable us to personalize the game, thus reflecting and changing the cultural
context – as in WoW, where the social-configurative game actions are prominent, or LBP, where the
system-configurative game actions play out. Obviously, network integration and configurative
possibilities are not the only parameters determining whether a computer game approaches the second-
generation core (the amount of players playing as well as the degree of censorship enforced by the
developer or publisher also play a role), but they seem especially significant. A lack of them would
significantly move the game towards the first-generation core – the prototype of the ludology-fulfilling
computer game.
Just like the concepts of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 and the concepts of paidia and ludus, the concepts
of first and second-generation computer games should be understood as theoretical constructions – as
gravitational cores or prototypes. By regarding traditional, ludology-fulfilling computer games as
revolving around a first-generation core, and the expanded computer games as revolving around a
second-generation core, a more integrating computer game theory has been presented.
Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate how and to what extent computer games have
developed beyond ludology. According to this discipline, computer games should be understood as
games, first and foremost. Games are transmedial, and computer games are games mediated by the
computer. More specifically, this view entails that computer games are closed systems, in which
formally defined and set rules allow players to interact within a special universe cut off from reality. By
agreeing to follow these rules, players enter into a magic circle – an unspoiled game domain - in which
his actions are safe, because he can control their real-life consequences. The activity is fundamentally
unproductive, voluntary, and intrinsically motivated, since it’s motivated by the basic human enjoyment
of bringing order to chaos – of solving the conflict presented by the game system. This proces immerses
the player, so that reality temporarily fades away on a concious level.
All these game characteristics have been explained in the theory section of the thesis, and gath-
ered in a model – the ludological game model. It describes what a computer game is by setting up eight
80
game characteristics as well as what the computer can bring to games – its ludic affordances. Most
computer games comply with this model – but not all.
Especially during the last couple of years, computer games have developed into a cultual phe-
nomenon that breaks out of the boundaries of ludology. By utilising the ludological game model in the
analysis of LBP and by drawing upon other modern computer games, we see this new tendency. The
general problem, we are faced with when applying ludology to these games, is ludology’s insistence of
investigating games in isolation. This approach is meaningful, when dealing with computer games that
actually contitute closed systems and generate an activity cut off from reality. In that case, computer
games can fittingly be described with notions of set rules, quantifiable outcomes, and negotiable
consequences. Here, ludology is a useful theoretical and analytical tool. However, these new and
expanded computer games are far from closed. We can’t ignore the social and cultural context that these
games are situated in, because this context is heavily reflected in and changed by the game system
through our interactions. This means that many of ludology’s theories and concepts should be modified,
set aside or expanded with new concepts, in order for us to gain a fruitful understanding of these games.
In order for our game theory to reflect these new tendencies, my argument is to integrate the
concepts of first- and second-generation computer games. These should be understood as theoretical
constructions on the same terms as concepts like Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Whereas the first-generation
computer game is covered by concepts and theories of ludology, the second-generation computer game
– with central parameters including a high degree of network integration and extensive configurative
possibilities – is a more complex phenomenon, revealing the necessity of using non-dichotomic models.
The border between game and reality is blurred. Even through we are well aware that we are just
playing, we can’t ignore the inclusion of reality that more or less takes up a place in our mind at any
given time. Therefore, the magic circle is blurred. One of the most important messages within modern
internet science is that the relationship between our online and offline life is interwoven in complex
ways and constantly negotiated, meaning that our identity and social relations transcend the domains in
question. The same tendencies apply for the second-generation computer game, whereby the
fundamental safety that characterizes traditional games, is challenged. But a total elimination of the
magic circle is not happening. Just as these games are far from seperated from reality, they are also far
from being completely integrated in them. A certain game-like artificiality remains, and oftentimes
underlying game mechanisms, evaluating the player, are found.
81
Thus the border between free-form play and rule-based game is also blurred. The games support
that we – as if on a virtual playground – can partake in activities, where free-form play and rule-based
games are intervowen, and where we can invent new variations of these. Furthermore, these virtual
playgrounds act as social platforms through the presence of extensive ways of communicating.
Also the border between consumer and producer is blurred. These games are ”commodity-
commons”. They are both a product and a common platform for production due to their many
configurative features. Not only are the social structures surrounding the game highly alterable, because
of comprehensive possibilities to communicate and play in a free-form manner, the game system itself
can also be changed. That is why the game is in constant development. Via its players, whose creative
actions don’t occur in a vacuum but is conditioned by their cultural background, the game can
potentially both reflect and change reality. There is a cultural interaction, which allows us to view these
games as complex, adaptive systems characterized by openness, decentralisation, and mutability. The
lack of a rigid rule structure means that players can use these games as tools for production and
communication and to express themselves in creative ways. They can promote ideas, products or even
their own personality to an extent that ludology doesn’t capture at all.
In these ways, computer games have expanded beyond ludology.

82
Referenced Games and Literature
Computer Games
Activision 2008: Guitar Hero: World Tour
Atari 1972: Pong
Atari 1978: Pacman
Blizzard 2004: World of Warcraft
Capcom 1996: Resident Evil
Capcom 2008: Street Fighter 2 Turbo: HD Remix
Deep Silver 2008: Sacred 2
Electronic Arts 2000: The Sims
Electronic Arts 2008: Boom Blox
Electronic Arts 2008: Spore
Electronic Arts 2008: The Sims 2
Electronic Arts 2008: Warhammer Online
GT Interactive 1996: Quake
GT Interactive 1999: Unreal Tournament
Konami 2008: Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party
Linden Lab 2003: Second Life
Lionhead Studios 2005: The Movies
Microsoft Game Studios 1999: Asheron's Call
Microsoft Game Studios 2001: Halo: Combat Evolved
Microsoft Game Studios 2007: Halo 3
MTV Games 2008: Rockband 2
NC Soft 2005: Guild Wars
NC Soft 2007: Tabula Rasa

83
Nintendo 1985: Super Mario Bros.
Nintendo 1985: Tetris
Nintendo 2008: Animal Crossing: City Folk
Nintendo 2008: Wii Music
Nintendo 2008: Wii Fit
Nintendo 2008: Super Smash Brothers: Brawl
Rockstar Game Studios 2008: Grand Theft Auto 4
Sony 2000: Everquest
Sony 2008: Everquest 2
Sony 2008: Little Big Planet
Ubisoft 2008: Far Cry 2
Valve 1996: Half-Life
Texts
Aarseth 2001: "Computer Game Studies, Year One" in The international Journal of Computer Game
Research, Volume 1, Issue 1. Localized on 02/10/09 on: http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html
Apter, M. 1991: "A Structure-Phenomenology of Play" in Adult Play: A Reversal Theory Approach. Sweets
and Zeitlinger. Amsterdam.
Barlow, J. P. 1996: "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace Localisizeed on 02/10/09 on:
http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Becker, D. 2001: "The Secret Behind "The Sims"". Localized on 02/10/09 on:http://news.cnet.com/2008-
1082-254218.html
Coleman, S. & Dyer-Witheford, N. 2007: "Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and
contestation in videogame culture" in Media Culture Society, Issue 29, Pp. 933-953. Localized on 02/10/09
on: http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/6/934
Caillois, R. 1961: Man, Play and Games. Schocken Books. New York.
Castronova, E. 2001: "Virtual Worlds: A First-hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian
Frontier" in The Gruter Institute Working Papers on Law, Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, issue 2.
Localised on 02/10/09 on: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=giwp
Castronova, E. 2005: Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games.
University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
84
Chou, T. J. & Ting, C. C. 2003: "The Role of Flow Experience in Cyber-Game Addiction" in Cyberpsychol-
ogy & Behaviour, Volume 6, Issue 6, 2003. Mary Ann Liebet Inc. Publishers. New York. Localized on
02/10/09 on:
http://www.digitalworlds.ufl.edu/academics/IRS/The%20Role%20of%20Flow%20Experience%20in%20Cy
ber-Game%20Addiction.pdf
Chris, C.1984: The Art of Computer Game Design. McGraw-Hill. Berkeley.
Consalvo, M. 2005. "Rule Sets, Cheating, and Magic Circles: Studying Games and Ethics". Localized on
02/10/09 on: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~consalvo/Consalvo.pdf
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1991: Flow – Optimaloplevelsens psykologi. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Copenhagen.
David, B. A. & Konsynski, B. R. 2007: “Virtual worlds: multi-disciplinary research opportunities” in ACM
SIGMIS Database Volume 38, Issue 4, S. 17-25. Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1314234.1314239.
Dooley, K. 1996: "Complex Adaptive Systems: A Nominal Definition". Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~kdooley/casopdef.html
Frasca, G. 2003: "Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology" Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://www.ludology.org/articles/VGT_final.pdf
Huizinga, J. 1955: Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press. Boston.
Hunicke, R. & LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R. 2004: "MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game
Research". Localized on 02/10/09 on: http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
Jones, M. 1998: “Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments.” Localized on 02/10/09

on: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html
Juul, J. 2005: Half-Rreal: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Kerr, I. & Steeves, V. 2005: "Virtual Playgrounds and BuddyBots: A Data-Minefield for Tinys and
Tweenies" in Canadian Journal of Law & Technology, issue 4, S. 91-105. Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol4_no2/pdfarticles/steeves.pdf
Koster, R. 2005: A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press. Scottsdale.
Kraus, R. 2001: Recreation & Leisure in Modern Society. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Massachusetts.
Lantz, F. & Zimmerman, E. 1999: "Rules, Play, and Culture: Towards an Aesthetics of Games Localized on
02/10/09 on: http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/RulesPlayCulture.htm
Lastowka, F. Gregory 2007. “Rules of Play”, presented on AoIR 8, October 17.

http://terranova.blogs.com/RulesofPlay.pdf
Lehdonvirta, L. 2008: "Virtual Worlds Don’t Exist" presented on the seminar: "Breaking the Magic Circle"
10-11 April 2008 at Helsinki Institute for Information Technology. Finland Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://virtual-economy.org/files/Lehdonvirta-VWDE.pdf
Lin . & Sun C, Tinn, . 2003: "Exploring Clan Culture: Social Enclaves and Cooperation in Online Games".
Localized on 02/10/09 on: http://minime.cis.nctu.edu.tw/data/2003-1.pdf
85
Littlejohn, S. 1989: Theories of Human Communication, Wadsworth Publishing Company. Belmont.
McGonical, J. E. 2006: "This Might Be a Game - Ubiquitous Play and Performance at the Turn of the
Twenty-First Century". Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://avantgame.com/McGonigal_THIS_MIGHT_BE_A_GAME_sm.pdf
Michael, L. A. 2007: The Principles of Existence & Beyond. Lulu Press. London.
Murray, J. 1998: Hamlet on the Holodeck. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Nardi, B. 2006: "Collaborative Play in World of Warcraft" i Web Congress, Latin American Volume 4, Oct.
2006 Issue. Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4022074/4022075/04022084.pdf?isnumber=4022075&p
rod=CNF&arnumber=4022084&arSt=3&ared=3&arAuthor=Bonnie+Nardi
O'Reilly, T. 2005: "What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software". Localized on 02/10/09 on: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-
web-20.html
O'Reilly, T. 2006: "Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again". Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html
Postigo, . 2003: ”From Pong to Planet Quake: Post-industrial Transitions from Leisure to Work” in
Information, Communication, and Society, issue 6, volume 4, S. 593-607.
Ryan, M. L. 1999: "Immersion vs. Interactivity: Virtual Reality and Literary Theory" in SubStance Issue 89,
Volume 28, S. 110-137. Locald on 02/10/09 on:
http://muse.jhu.edu.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/journals/postmodern_culture/v005/5.1ryan.html
Ryan, M. L. 2004: Narrative across Media. University of Nebraska Press. Nebraska.
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. 2004: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Steinkuehler, C. A. 2008: "Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games" in

Leu, D. & Coiro, J. & Lankshear, C. & Knobel, K. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New
Literacies. Mahwah. Erlbaum. Localized on 02/10/09 on:
http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/Steinkuehler_NEWLIT.doc
Sweetser, P. & Wyeth, P. 2005: "GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games"
Localized on 02/10/09 on: http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jchen/p3a-
sweet-
ser.pdf_sid=GOHl46N4qqA&mbox=INBOX&charset=escaped_unicode&uid=5902&number=4&filename=
p3a-sweetser.pdf
Suits, B. 1978: Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. David R. Godine. Boston.
Taylor, T. L. 2006: Play between Worlds - Exploring Online Game Culture. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Thompson, T. 2005: "All Work and No Play in Virtual Sweatshops" in Guardian Weekly, 25–31 March
Edition. The Guardian. London.
86
Websites
http:/www.dailygamesnews.com
http://dailygamesnews.com/2008/09/littlebigplanet-level-creators-could.html
http:/www.eurogamer.net
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=265247
http:/www.gamepolitics.com
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/12/28/world-warcraft-gamers-plan-avatar-march-ron-paul
http:/www.gamespot.com
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198106.html?sid=6198106&part=rss&subj=6198106
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/littlebigplanet/news.html?sid=6166953&tag=result;title;7
http:/www.ign.com
http://cube.ign.com/articles/595/595089p3.html

The Expansion of Computer Games Beyond Ludology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Expansion of Computer Games Beyond Ludology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Expansion of Computer

Games Beyond Ludology

Lasse Sandgaard Pallesen

Finding a Game Definition - Two Perspectives ................................................................................................. 9

Computer Games as Games ............................................................................................................................28

The Formation of the Ludological Game Model ..............................................................................................34

Methodological Considerations ......................................................................................................................38

Analysis of LBP ................................................................................................................................................39

Inclusion of Other Computer Games ...............................................................................................................53

Reflections about Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................58

A Theoretical Framework for the Second-Generation Computer Game ..........................................................62

REFERENCED GAMES AND LITERATURE ............................................................................... 82

"Because even the most innovative computer game is grounded in

Finding a Game Definition - Two Perspectives

"[…] "game" can mean two things. A static object or artifact or an

Let’s start by seeing what the first perspective captures.

The Game as an Object- a Formally Defined System of Rules

"Games are intrinsically systemic: all games can be understood as

The Interaction Process of the Game System – Games as State Machines

"Briefly stated, a state machine is a machine that has an initial state,

outputs using an output function. In a literal sense, a game is a state

The Rules of the Game System – a Categorisation

"The formal identity of a game allows us to distinguish a game as formally

The Attributes of Game Rules

1) Game rules are explicit and unequivocal:

1) A player is check-mate, if the his king is in a hopeless situation.

2: Game rules are set in stone from the start

"First, a game is a closed formal system [that] is complete and self

"There is a distinction between playing a creative role within an authored

4: Rules are repeatable:

Summary of the Game System Perspective

The Game as an Activity – Play Emerges

"Play is a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life

"Play is an activity, which is essentially free (voluntary), separate (in time

Five Characteristics of Play

Huizinga’s description Caillois' description

2: It is unproductive. "connected with no material "unproductive"

3:It is free. "free" "free (voluntary)"

4: It proceeds in acccordance "fixed rules" "governed by rules"

5: Its outcome is uncertain. "uncertain"

Play Taking Place Outside the Real World

"Conflict implies danger; danger means risk of harm; harm is undesirable.

The Unproductive Nature of Games

"Play is an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill,

The Voluntary Nature of Play

”As an obligation or simply an order, it would lose one of its basic

The Progression of Play in Accordance with Rules

The MDA Model

Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics

"The challenge, of course, is that the experience of play is not something

"At one extreme, an almost indivisible principle, common to diversion,

Caillois' Paidia/Ludus Spectrum in relation to Juul’s Spectrum of Games

Paidia Increasing Complexity of the Game Ruleset Ludus

Games of Emergence Games of Progression

The Uncertain Character of Games

Summarization of the Game as Activity Perspective

Computer Games as Games

"The underlying properties of games and the core challenges of game

The Five Ludic Afordances of the Computer

1: The induspatable Enforcement of Rules by the Computer

2: The Simulation Capabilities of the Computer

3: The Immidiate and Narrow Interaction of Computers

4: The Networking Capabilities of the Computer

5: The Fictional Worlds Conveyed by Computers