This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Game Studies — gamestudies.org
games tudies .org
39 min read • original
by Jan Simons
What Ball to Play?
During the las t qu arter of a century, narrativity has been a key concept in the h u manities . Whereas in earlier centuries the world was thou ght of as a s tage, in the las t qu arter of the twentieth century it was conceived as a text woven by the narrative th reads h u man beings read in it in their efforts to make s ens e of their perceptions and experiences . As Roland Barthes wrote, “narrative is international, trans -his torical, trans -cu ltural: it is s imply there, like life its elf” (Barthes , 1977). Narrative became generally cons idered as the core pattern for cognition, comprehens ion and explanation and as the mos t important tool for cons tru ing identities and his tories . The “lingu is tic turn” (Rorty 1992) in the h u manities was a narrative turn as well.
This predominance of narrative in the h u manities is no longer u ncontes ted. I n the late 1980s and early 1990s hypertext theoreticians claimed that interactive, compu ter bas ed media wou ld bring “a textu al mediu m of a new order…, the fourth great techniqu e of writing that will take its place bes ide the ancient papy rus roll, the medieval codex, and the printed book” (Bolter, 1991 ). Whatever kind of “textu ality” new media might bring, it was certainly bou nd to be different from narrative-as - we-knew-it (s ee Landow, 1994). Nowaday s s cholars of games s tudies argu e that narrative theory is no longer appropriate to cope with the form s and formats of new media. Thes e s cholars call for a new paradigm that provis ionally has been baptized “ludology’” (Juu l, 2001 ; F ras ca, 1999; Es kelinen, 2001 ).
I n their efforts to carve ou t a niche on the already highly varied and cons tantly changing palette of the h u manities ludologis ts don’t s h u n s trong langu age. They accus e narratologis ts of “imperialis m,” “academic colonialis m” and “s tory fetis his m” (Aars eth, 2004; Es kelinen, 2004) and ludologis t Es kelinen pokes fu n at narratologis ts : “Lu ckily, ou ts ide theory, people are usu ally excellent at
Game Studies — gamestudies.org
dis tingu is hing between narrative s itu ations and gaming s itu ations : if I th row a ball at you , I don’t expect you to drop it and wait u ntil it s tarts telling s tories ” (Es kelinen, 2004).
I f there is s till anybody waiting, it m us t be for Es kelinen to explain the point of this s tab at narratology. Narratologis ts will be happy to explain to him the difference between the act of th rowing a ball and the act of r ecou nting that (f)act. Becaus e in the heat of the debate ludologis ts s ometimes s eem to have los t s ight of su ch su btle dis tinctions their argu ments agains t narrative and narratology have often been u nnecess arily u nconvincing. Their argu ments are ideologically motivated rather than theoretically grou nded, and don’t hold u p agains t clos er s cru tiny. Althou gh the s torm rais ed by this debate s eem s have withered away after F ras ca’s confess ion that “ludologis ts love s tories too” (F ras ca, 2003a), the issu es at s take s eem to have been bliss fu lly ignored rather than res olved, as tes tified by the occas ional ou tburs t of anti-narratologis m (s ee Aars eth, 2004). Therefore, it might not h urt to take one more look into this matter.
External Observers versus Immersed Players
According to ludologis ts , the major difference between games and narratives is that the former address “external obs ervers ” who apprehend “what has happened,” whereas the latter requ ire “involved players ” who care abou t “what is going to happen” (F ras ca, 2003b). Reader- res pons e res earchers and film theoris ts have argu ed time and again that readers and film s pectators experience events narrated in novels and film s as if they occur in the pres ent, and anyone who has ever s een a Hitchcock movie knows that film s pectators are very m u ch concerned abou t “what is going to happen.” What F ras ca s ees as a categorical dis tinction is merely a matter of pers pective. As cyber-text theoris t Mary-Laure Ryan writes :
When we compos e a narrative, es pecially a narrative bas ed on memory, we usu ally try to repres ent “how things came to be what they are,” and the end is prefigured in the beginning. B u t when we read a narrative, even one in which the end is pres ented before the beginning, we adopt the ou tlook of the characters who are living the plot as their own des tiny. Life is lived pros pectively and told retros pectively, bu t its narrative replay is once again lived pros pectively (Ryan, 2001 ).
A ludologis t wou ld argu e that a reader or film s pectator nevertheless alway s knows that the s tory will come to an already determined end. B u t this too is a merely ps ychological and phenomenological matter. A reader or a film s pectator who is engaged with and cares abou t the characters does not experience s tories very differently from games . As Patrick O’Neill obs erves :
we find m u ch to su pport the contention that… narrative is alway s and in a very central way precis ely a game s tru cture. 2003). s ee als o Juu l. bars and other devices that keep them aware of this . 2003a). I n cons idering the implications of this s tatement. And. Moreover. more importantly. Moreover.” https://www. The des igner of the dramatic world cou ld conclude - becaus e they are des igning the world for the player. Moreover. notices : By watching many players interact with the s y s tem. clocks . their compu ter s creen is clogged with watches . to an “external obs erver” game players often behave like characters in a s tory.world activities actu ally have finite goals with predetermined methods of completion. su ch as qu es ts . pers is tent gameworlds can be des cribed as games of emergence with “minor ‘games of progress ion’ embedded” (Klas tru p. mos t game players als o know that a game will come to an end. nothing nas ty will happen to them. they are ess entially and u navoidably off balance from the very s tart (O’Neill.readability. bu t rather becaus e to an external obs erver it often becomes obvious that the cours es of action open to the player are s cripted into the des ign of the game. game players als o know that whatever happens to their avatars in the gameworld. for ins tance.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. often within an already fixed time limit. B u t the firs t-time player within the world is experiencing agency. “many in. as Lis beth Klas tru p argu es .” whereas in roleplaying games the implicit goal is to acqu ire su fficient “s tats ” to reach a new level (Klas tru p. 1996). fu ndamentally u ns table. even in the cas e of the mos t os tens ibly s olid non-fictional accou nts . not only becaus e the s equ ence of s igns produ ced by a film of a plane landing and a flight s im u lator “look exactly the s ame” (F ras ca. The trick of the trade of game des ign is indeed to make the player believe s he is in control. performances by players in interaction with each other and virtu al gameworlds give ris e to “tellable events . the obs erver has begu n to dis cern the devices that control the plot in the face of player interaction. 2004). Therefore. that the player is not able to form any intentions within the dramatic world that actu ally matter. where the game never s tops and in which there are no clear winners and los ers . 2003.org For the internal actor/participant it. involving its readers in a hermeneu tic contes t in which. [the s tory world] reveals its elf as a world that is entirely provis ional. and wholly ines capable. 2003). Michael Mateas . This obs erver will conclude that the player has no tru e agency. Even in pers is tent gameworlds like Eve r q u e st. I n cas e they might forget. not for the obs erver - that as long as the player experiences a tru e s ens e of interactive freedom (that is agency) trans formation as variety is not an important des ign cons ideration (Mateas .com/articles/ijfarvsj 3/26 .
art his torians usu ally don’t make paintings or des ign bu ildings and novelis ts . According to Genette. narr ation is concerned with the “temporal and https://www. s ee als o Aars eth. Klas tru p su gges ts to s peak of “the experience of interaction-in-time. 1969). which belong to what one nowaday s calls de sc r iption” (Genette.com/articles/ijfarvsj 4/26 . film bu ffs . narrative repres entations produ ce “des criptions ” of traits and s equ ences of events while a s im u lation “does not s imply retain the - generally audiovisu al - characteris tics of the object bu t it als o includes a model of its behaviors ” which “reacts to certain s tim u li (inpu t data. Readers . only few narratologis ts write novels or make film s . 2003b). joy s tick movements ). becaus e readers or s pectators who are fu lly engaged with a s tory are usu ally not in the bes t pos ition to reflect on its s tru ctural and fu nctional properties . film bu ffs and art lovers who often accus e theoris ts of “des troying” the pleasure of the artwork. a less on that s ome ludologis ts apparently have not yet learned. 2003b. The s ame applies to readers . Another example of over-theorizing experiential as pects of gameplay is the attempt at categorizing narratives as examples of “repres entation” and games as examples of “an alternative to repres entation and narrative: s im u lation” (F ras ca. According to F ras ca. After all. For one thing. many narratologis ts wou ld object to a characterization of narrative as a “des cription” of traits and events . 2003). Gérard Genette dis tingu is hes the “the repres entations of actions and events .org “which wou ld retros pectively make good s tories ” (Klas tru p. This als o convincingly s hows that the differences pointed ou t by ludologis ts between a reader or s pectator of narrative and a game player are a matter of pers pective rather than principle. art lovers . filmmakers . 1997). 2003) - an appropriate reph ras ing of Aars eth’s concept e r godic - as “stor y-living” (Aars eth. according to a s et of conditions ” (F ras ca.readability.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. and pass ionate game players tend to confus e the experience of their beloved objects with a theory thereof. The s ame goes for game players . By emphas izing the importance of the player’s gaming experience ludologis ts s eem to want to s ay that to u nders tand games one needs to have hands -on experience with games . pus hing bu ttons . m us icians . 2003). bu t it reveals its elf as a fallacy when one applies it to narratologis ts . artis ts or architects are usu ally not very articu late when it comes to theorizing their practices . The differences between repres entations and s im u lations are less s traightforward. a s eries of effective interaction events that are naturally connected” (Klas tru p. This requ irement wou ld s afegu ard games s tudies from intrus ions by narratologis ts . There is s ome tru th in this complaint. however.” - “the properly narrative parts of a s tory” - from “repres entations of objects and characters .
Philip Roth examines what might have happened if the Americans wou ld have elected a pres ident who s ympathized with NaziGermany in 1936 and in his film Re d Dawn (1984) John Millius explores what might have happened if the Soviet Union had invaded the USA. I n compu ter s im u lations of evolu tionary process es . cou nterfactu als or hypothetical cons tru ctions (e. and then wait and s ee what happens when the program ru ns u p to thous ands of reiterations . thes e certainly are “models of their behaviors . Neither is it necess ary that a s im u lation can be interactively manipu lated in real time. Langu ages even have s yntactical cons tru ctions for thou ght experiments like thes e. his torical circu m s tances . “th rowing a ball at a narratologis t”). biological features . whereas des cription “sus pends time” and “dis play s the s tory s patially” (Genette. s cientis ts define the ecology’s ontology and the algorithm s of its reprodu ction and s election process . as m u ch as compu ter-generated s im u lations are cons trained by the algorithm s written by the des igner of the model.” The way the characters of a s tory s peak. Whatever textu al or audiovisu al narrative repres entations retain from characters ..g. cu ltural conventions and the cos mology of the u nivers es concocted by au thors . known as conditionals . Narratives . I n su ch s im u lations the role of the s cientis t is confined to that of the external obs erver who analy zes . s criptwriters and filmmakers . provide excellent platform s for thou ght experiments and s im u lations of “models of behavior.g. I n his novel The Plot Against Ame r ica (2004).” This approach of his tory is interes ted in what might have happened if decis ion makers in the pas t wou ld have weighted their chances differently from how they did https://www. 1969).21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. bu t the dis tinction at leas t has the merit of reminding that narratives are too complex to be su bsu med u nder a s ingle label.readability.” Narratives allow the exploration of (or s pecu lation abou t) what wou ld or cou ld have happened u nder even s lightly different conditions (the s ize of Cleopatra’s nos e). on the other hand.” I n its technologically s imples t form a s im u lation can be ru n in the mind by imagining a certain s itu ation (e. and reports after the fact. move and act is cons trained by phy s ical laws . one does n’t need joy s ticks . Fau connnier. Moreover.. “balls can talk”). interprets . for ins tance.com/articles/ijfarvsj 5/26 .org dramatic” parts of a s tory. ps ychological traits .g. bu ttons or other inpu t devices to feed a model with variable parameters or “conditions . His torians have recently begu n to explore the explanatory powers of “virtu al his tory. 1994). feeding this s itu ation imaginarily with certain conditions (e. Genette admits that there are no clearly marked bou ndaries between narration and des cription. The s ame goes for s im u lation. and then s ee what happens (“narratologis t waits u ntil ball s tarts telling s tories ”). actions and events . Not all s im u lations are like flight s im u lators .
narratives often s erve as a means to explore the fu ture. bu t the https://www. More often than not.com/articles/ijfarvsj 6/26 .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. on your definitions of narrative and s im u lation. I n this way.org actu ally.” Narratologis ts might agree that a narrative is a s equ ence of caus ally and ch ronologically linked events . depend on the langu age game you ’re in and the moves you want to make. the cou nterfactu al s cenarios of virtu al his tory are not mere fantas y: “They are s im u lations bas ed on calcu lations abou t the relative probability of plaus ible ou tcomes in a chaotic world (hence ‘virtu al his tory’). This als o applies to term s like “narratology. etc.” too. on the purpos e of narrative and many other bas ic qu es tions . in the mind of the reader or s pectator?).” Virtu al his torians bu ild models and explore alternative narratives jus t as players of one of the Close Combat (Atomic Games ) games replay cru cial epis odes of World War II to explore the cons equ ences of alternative s trategic choices on the part of the war commanders (Atkins 2003). As Edward B ranigan (2006) argu es : One of the purpos es of s eeing and perceiving narratively is to weigh how certain effects that are des ired may be achieved. perceiving narratively operates to draw the fu ture into des ires express ed in the pres ent as well as demons trates how the pres ent was caus ed by the pas t and how the pres ent may have effects in the fu ture (p. in a s tory world. is the s entence “the king died and then the qu een died” a s tory and why is it. More generally.” “narration. Others . how des ire is linked to poss ibilities for being. wild s pecu lations . local theories . The propos ed dis tinction between repres entation and s im u lation is its elf a good example of how categories and definitions are s et u p s trategically in a attempt to re-model the playgrou nd of the h u manities . or why not?). metaphors . academics s eem to be u naware of the “gameness ” of their work and tend to overlook that term s and definitions are provis ional and cons tantly changing labels for s ets of assu mptions . When trying to look ahead. where a narrative is located (in the text. of cours e. tentative des criptions .readability. There is not even a general agreement on what cou nts as a narrative (e. how events may proceed.” “narrative. Mu ch depends .32). pragmatic inferences . in turn. opinions differ. when it comes to filling in the details ..” “repres entation. bold hypothes es . like Gérard Genette argu e that narrative is not what is narrated. however. Thes e narratives cons titu te a domain that narratives and games have in common rather than that it s ets them apart.” “text” and “dis cours e. which. As Nial Fergus on (1997) writes . game players probably weigh the ou tcomes of the alternative choices they are confronted with “narratively.g. bu t.
games are not alway s fictional either. law and the philos ophy of ethics . Both are firmly rooted in the h u manities and therefore tend to cons ider narratives and games primarily as fictional s ymbolic artefacts . as “nonplayable” parts in the form of cu t. p.readability. pers pective. I t does not make m u ch s ens e to dis miss narratology wholes ale and to propos e alternatives like “s im u lation. biology.s cenes . or as report-after-the-fact - s ee Jenkins (2004). Caillois .92) even declared that “ludologis ts love s tories too” and referred to the game.” https://www. However. focalization.org act of narration (Genette.” “equ ilibriu m. John Nas h. jus t as narrative is not confined to fictional dis cours e. Hamilton in the indexes and bibliographies of games s tudies pu blications . 1958). etc. Rather. Moreover. and games s tudies s cholars generally follow Johan Hu izinga and Roger Caillois by s etting games apart from “s erious ” activities (Hu izinga.” Games s tudies s cholars have already admitted that the bou ndaries between games and narrative are not very clear-cu t. 1997.” “u tility. Robert Axelrod or William D. John Maynard Smith. this tradition is very m u ch interes ted in games with ou tcomes that have very s erious non-negotiable cons equ ences . which opens u p a qu ite different area of res earch that is concerned with levels of narration. 1991 ) and perceives or cons tru es them as caus ally and ch ronologically connected (which is the point of the previous ly mentioned s ad example of the royal death s ). B u t althou gh it goes u nder the name game theor y. This tradition comes from mathematics and has fou nd its way into res earch areas su ch as economics . Gonzalo F ras ca (2003a. “Gamenesss” and Game Theory One explanation for the rivalry between ludology and narratology is that they are s iblings . Narratologis ts tend to cons ider novels and fiction film s as prototypical examples of narrative. events . enu nciation. 1983). a different move is requ ired that introdu ces a new game altogether. ou t of curios ity.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. I n order to avoid this trap. are not intrins ically narrative or non-narrative bu t they become s tories becaus e s omeone deem s them “tellable” (Ryan. as backgrou nd information. wou ld brows e the indexes of games s tudies pu blications and who wou ld notice the abs ence of term s like “payoff.s tory controvers y as “a debate that never took place. A game theoris t who. ps ychology. There is another tradition in the s tudy of games for which this qu es tion is a nonissu e. phy s ical s ciences . that narrative often play s a s ignificant role in games (as expos itory introdu ctions . political s ciences .com/articles/ijfarvsj 7/26 . whether his torical or fictional.” The main problem with the ludologis ts ’ s trategy is that it keeps them trapped in the langu age game of the h u manities . one will hardly ever find the names and works of John von Neu mann and Os kar Morgens tern. actu al or virtu al.
Thes e include the “competitive and ru lebas ed activities ” usu ally meant by the word “game” in every day langu age and by games s tudies s cholars . The s ingu lar nou n “theory” points towards a u nified. The plurals in “games s tudies . A game.su m game. political campaigns . agreed u pon ou tcomes or fixed valu es attached to them (qu antifying the “u tilities ” of the players is one of the mos t difficu lt and s pecu lative as pects of game theory).” etc. express the vas t and heterogeneous m u ltitude of approaches . bu t they als o extend to economic competition. This terminological dis tinction captures s ome major differences between game theory and games s tudies . arm s races . ru les are less important than goals and s trategies . 2004) and game theory “the s tudy of m u ltipers on decis ion problem s ” (Gibbons . For game theory. I n this conception of a game. Mos t of thes e s itu ations are not s eparate from.” “zero. bu t it is a label for a u nified mathematical methodology for modelling the s itu ations . bu t part and parcel of every day life.” “perfect information. military s trategies . William s writes . will certainly be puzzled abou t what games s tudies is actu ally all abou t. etc. Game theory is not even interes ted in the particu lar nature of the s trategies available to the players .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. As J.” “mixed s trategies . that is ) games s tudies s cholars bring to bear on the s tudy of a wide collection of types and genres of (mos tly) compu ter games . 1982). a game is any s itu ation in which two or more decis ion makers interact (Os borne. The s itu ations that game theory s tudies have in common are thos e in which decis ion makers try to act in su ch a way that they will get the mos t ou t of it.readability. is not a game becaus e it has s ome s et of features that jointly gu arantee its gameness . mathematical approach to games . I t is not a s ingu lar encompass ing body of ass ertions abou t games . “we then call any conflict a game when we are cons idering it in the light of the theory” (William s . The s ingu lar “game” and the plural “games ” that precede “theory” and “s tudies ” are meant to s tress the different conceptions both domains have of their res earch objects .com/articles/ijfarvsj 8/26 . conflicts of private interes t and pu blic good. Therefore. then. biological evolu tion. and mos t of thes e s itu ations have no clearly defined ru les . the role of rewards and pu nis hments in long-term relations hips . animals fighting over prey. bu t becaus e it can be modelled by game theory. Game theory and games s tudies obvious ly hardly ever met [1 ]. dis ciplines and methodologies (except thos e of game theory. 1992). coordination problem s .” on the other hand. D. taking into accou nt the actions of other decis ion makers that influ ence the ou tcome.” “dominance. the term “game theory” will be us ed here to refer to the mathematical approach of games . bu t it redu ces s itu ations in which decis ion makers are involved to the https://www.org “minimax. and “games s tudies ” to refer to its h u manities bas ed cou nterpart. process es and events game theoris ts want to explore.
as Juu l argu es and Aars eth concurs . and game theoris ts wou ld certainly not u nders tand why games and narratives s hou ld be s itu ated oppos ite of one another.” only cau ght the attention of the wider s cientific comm u nity when it was “dress ed u p” as a s tory by Albert W. “What shou ld the heroine have done?” (The qu es tions rais ed by “virtu al his torians ”). This is becaus e they wis h to s et games and gameplay apart from ordinary and “s erious ” activities . This jus tifies the s ingu lar “game” as the name for the object of game theory . The conflicts . paradoxes and dilemmas trans mitted by narratives . as well as from other cu ltural artefacts . Game theory is m u ch more interes ted in the interactions of decis ion makers than in thos e of definition makers . I t s hou ld come as no surpris e that game theoris ts “love s tories too” becaus e s tories are often abou t characters who face difficu lt decis ions .readability. the object of games s tudies is bes t referred to with a plural. Tu cker in a letter to game theoris t Melvin Dres her (Pou nds tone.” “ru les . 1992. Ironically. imposs ible moral choices and conflicts with rivals . many examples in game theory come from myth s . According to ludologis ts .” “not s erious . s tories .org “normal-form repres entation” of games .com/articles/ijfarvsj 9/26 . the carving ou t of a s pecial niche for games s tudies requ ires the identification of a s et of features that is at the s ame time common to all and exclus ive for all things “gameness . “What was the bes t way to act?”. 2000) becaus e readers .” etc. s o one cou ld s ay that game theory redu ces all s orts of s itu ations to a s ingle form: the payoff matrix. This is a matrix that lis ts the payoffs for every combination of s trategies the players can deploy. On the contrary. game theoris ts love s tories for the reas ons ludologis ts renou nce them.” And features like “negotiable cons equ ences . Game theory’s mos t famous example. Mehlmann 2000). I f one play s by the ru les of academia. Paradoxically. This normal-form repres entation abs tracts away from many of the factors operative in their real world cou nterparts . The nu mber of objects cons idered as candidates for members hip in the category “games ” will alway s exceed the bou ndaries drawn by theoretical and alway s s oon to be revis ited definitions of “gameness . legends .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. games s tudies s cholars are more concerned with “gameness ” than game theory theoris ts . becaus e. s pectators and game theoris ts alike are confronted with qu es tions like: “What wou ld you have done?”. s trategic calcu lations and fortu nes and mis fortu nes narratives abou nd with are the s tu ff of the “mathematics of conflict” (Mehlmann. games and s tories belong to different categories . exclude a great nu mber of s itu ations that game theory is mos t interes ted in. the plot of a s tory cannot be https://www. riddles .” Given the enormous variety of games that games s tudies s cholars s tudy this is a tantalizing tas k. the s o-called “pris oner’s dilemma. Therefore.
while in the invers e trans lation from game to s tory the ru les of the game get los t (Juu l. I t is rather the awareness that they cou ld have made different choices that makes Madame Bovar y (Flau bert. the narration and the gameplay. To illus trate this point. 2004). like oil and water. checkers . Many games actu ally are des igned to make at leas t one of the players meet her virtu al death (e. Aars eth qu otes Mary-Laure Ryan: I nteractors wou ld have to be ou t of their mind--literally and metaphorically--to want to su bmit them s elves to the fate of a heroine who commits su icide as the resu lt of a love affair turned bad. 2004). chess . Pacman (Namco. 2004) This is an odd qu es tion coming from a s cholar who works in a dis cipline that s tudies games like Half-Life (Valve Software. as has already been amply demons trated in practice by games like The Sims s eries (Wright. like Emma Bovary or Anna Karenina. “What player. atmos phere and characters ]. 2001 a).g. ru n over. Any attempt to turn empathy. althou gh non-narrative and non-ludic elements can be trans lated [s etting.org extracted from a game bas ed on that s tory. Car mage ddon (Stainless Games . 1997/1998) in which players cras h cars . are not eas ily mixed” (Aars eth. even virtu ally?” (Aars eth. Emma Bovary and Anna Karenina are jus t less fortu nate players in the game of life whos e fates are recou nted in the novels that bear their names . genu inely felt emotion wou ld in the vas t majority of cas es tres pass the fragile bou ndary that s eparates pleasure from pain (Ryan. The plot versus ru les dis tinction is s imply a non.g. poker. ludologis ts argu e that game players do not identify with their avatars in the gameworld as readers or s pectators of a narrative do with the main characters of a s tory.s tarter. into firs t-pers on. 2000) which are des igned to let s tories emerge and to have players empathize with https://www. Aars eth. cras hed or s hot them s elves .readability. 1877) su ch compelling literature. For ludologis ts like Juu l and Aars eth a plot makes a s tory and ru les make a game. Moreover. 185 7) and Anna Kar enina (Tols toy. Emma and Anna were not driven to their death s by a merciless plot. This obvious ly is an argu ment of the s torytelling ball kind. 1997) and G r and Theft Au to (DMA Des ign. the key elements .u p and s hoot other players and happily and volu ntarily ru n the ris k of being virtu ally m u gged. Moreover. Aars eth concludes : “So. nothing precludes the behaviour of s tory characters to be ru le-bas ed. beat. which relies on mental s im u lation.” Aars eth as ks .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. Tetr i s).. and never the twain s hall meet. Moreover.. 1979)) and there are s ingle-player compu ter games that never can be won by the h u man player bu t have been and s till are h u gely popu lar (e.com/articles/ijfarvsj 10/26 . 1998). 2001 . their death s were the cons equ ences of the u nfortu nate choices they and others made in their lives . “wou ld actu ally commit su icide.
bu t follow from the particu lar s itu ation and the players ’ preferred ou tcomes . who deceive. Ru les can be a part of that reas oning bu t they are not alway s necess ary and almos t never su fficient s ince a players ’ s trategic choices may be cons trained by ru les bu t are not necess arily derivable from them. and the latter are equ ilibriu m s reached by the interactions of decis ion makers (once it is agreed that drivers s hou ld keep to the right or to the left.com/articles/ijfarvsj 11/26 . John von Neu mann’s interes t in game theory was triggered by the “u nru ly” behaviour of poker players . and who have a s et of s trategies at their dis pos al. I n fact. the plot versus ru les dis tinction is bes ide the point. game theoretical examples can perfectly well cons titu te the bas is of engaging narratives as is the cas e in the film s of Lars von Trier which can be des cribed as an infinite s eries of reiterations of the Pris oner’s Dilemma (Simons . Thes e actions are not defined by ru les . After all. the ru les of poker are s ilent abou t thes e deceptive s trategies . the former are part of the cons traints on the s trategies of players . 2007). For games like the nu clear arm s race. s econd-gu ess and us e an almos t infinite repertoire of methods to mis lead the other players . 2003). like in s occer or chess . I n fact. the role of ru les is rather limited and they are certainly not part of the core of “gameness . 1969).21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. no drivers wou ld do better by choos ing the oppos ite s ite or by randomizing their choice).org characters .right s cale in a political election campaign there are no ru les either. blu ff. When you are s tu ck in a thermonu clear conflict. every m u ltiplayer s trategic game is a mind game becaus e players play agains t what they believe other players believe they believe (Os borne. For game theoris ts . Althou gh poker players do all this within a framework of ru les . Game theory is neither concerned with cons titu tive ru les that define an activity that otherwis e cou ld not exis t nor with regu lative ru les that govern pre-exis ting activities (the traffic code. the s etting of prices in a competitive market or the choice of a pos ition on a left. for ins tance) (Searle. Convers ely. For game theory. you may s econd-gu ess your opponent’s moves . or try to get an advantage over your competitor in a market.readability. and RPGs and MMORPGs in which “tellable events ” emerge from the interactions of the players (Klas tru p. Game theory is not interes ted in ru les bu t in reas oning.” Games that leave https://www. For game theory. however. 2004). arm s races and economic competition have no ru les from which the actions of the opponent can be derived: only by as king yours elf what you wou ld do when you were in your opponent’s pos ition and wou ld prefer the ou tcome you assu me your opponent prefers . I n s itu ations like thes e there are only players who prefer certain ou tcomes to others . th rowing a ball is in game theoretical term s not a very rational act. the pris oner’s dilemma. s ince game theory does not assu me that ru les are a necess ary part of a game.
Both game theoris ts and narratologis ts us e the term “his tories ” to refer to the s equ ences of actions and events that make u p a game and a narrative res pectively (Os borne. This is . and becaus e actions - and events generating engines exis t in s tories as well where they go by names like du ty. At firs t s ight. it is not the abs ence or pres ence of action- or event-generating s y s tem s like ru les or algorithm s . Roland Barthes called the former “cardinal fu nctions ” or “kernels ” (Barthes . des ire. precis ely the level where ludologis ts locate the differences between narrative repres entations and s im u lations . and both the s tudy of games and the s tudy of narratives compris e more than the logic of actions and events s equ ences . 2004).org players only choices as s pecified by or derivable from their ru les are for game theoris ts trivial: once you know the correct way to play su ch a game. The interes ts of game theory and narratology converge at the level of his tory or s tory the interes ts of game theory and narratology. Game theory does not deal with games as cu ltural artefacts or commodities brou ght into global circu lation by the entertainment indus tries . Of cours e. I n order to identify thes e kernel events . a narratologis t m us t identify a s tory’s ending and then reas on backwards in order to es tablis h which events m us t have occurred in order to make the occurrence of later events poss ible. They are nodes or hinges in the s tru cture. 1979b). bu t neither do narratology or ludology. the difference between a narrative and a game is merely a matter of pers pective. games and narratives cannot be redu ced to action s equ ences alone. 1978). intentions and other intentional s tates that motivate or govern the behaviour of characters . As Seymour Chatman writes : “Kernels are narrative moments that give ris e to cru xes in the direction taken by events . narratologis ts and game theoris ts take a different pers pective on his tories . The narratologis t’s take on https://www. however. I n order to recons tru ct the caus al and ch ronological chain of events that cons titu tes a narrative narratologis ts dis tingu is h between events that are necess ary for the development of the s tory and thos e that can be deleted withou t des troying its coherence and comprehens ibility. it becomes as predictable as ticktacktoe . Game Theory and Narrative For game theory. or as platform s for exploring qu es tions of identity and s ex u ality. beliefs .com/articles/ijfarvsj 12/26 . branching points which force a movement into one of two (or more) poss ible path s ” (Chatman. becaus e games are not necess arily alway s ru les -bas ed. which are all part of the cu ltural s tudies approaches to games . Whatever els e may s et narratives apart from games .readability.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.
This applies to many games in the limited.org a s tory is hence retros pective (as is the narrator’s and his torian’s pers pective. I n zero. the game player s till has every chance to influ ence the ou tcome of an ongoing game.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.su m games . every day s ens e of the word bu t als o to interactions between decis ion makers in which things are more complicated. B u t. How a particu lar game will end may be u nknown to the players bu t for mos t games it is qu ite clear in advance which ou tcomes are poss ible and which are not.com/articles/ijfarvsj 13/26 . this dis tinction confus es the phenomenological experience with a theoretical pers pective. is pros pective becaus e for the gamer the ou tcome of the game is s till hidden in the fu ture. there is a clear winner and a clear los er. The s o-called “normal-form” repres entation of a s imple. for ins tance.su m game like the pris oner’s dilemma is a bi-matrix in which the boxes contain the payoffs of both players for each combination of s trategies : https://www. s ymmetric two-player two.zero. As they argu e. More precis ely. one has to know how it ended (Danto. Martin. again. games s tudies s cholars argu e. B u t of many non. and the winner’s gain is the los er’s loss .zero. it confus es the temporality of a s equ ence of events with its logical s tru cture.readability. 1985 . The point-of-view of the game player on the other hand.s trategy non.su m games with less clearly defined ou tcomes the poss ible ou tcomes can als o be calcu lated and repres ented in advance (that’s the whole point of game theory). 1986)). becaus e in order to be able to tell a s tory or to identify the beginning of a his torical development.
They converge with narratological models of s tories becaus e in order to determine an optimal s trategy a game theoris t (and a game player who calcu lates his or her chances ) has to be able to compare the payoffs of all poss ible ou tcomes of a game and therefore m us t know the s tates a game can poss ibly end in.” and choos e a s trategy The matrixes . The player’s payoffs are lis ted at the terminal points of the game. the bes t s trategies for each player can be fou nd by rendering all poss ible su bs equ ent choices in a treediagram in which where the nodes repres ent the points at which one of the players has to make a choice and the branches repres ent the actions the player can choos e from. By reas oning backwards from the poss ible terminal points .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.The dis tinction between narratology’s retros pective view on s tories and a game player’s pros pective view on a game is als o mis leading becaus e the models of both narratology and game theory are a-temporal.readability.0 Defect 0 . bu t model the choices available to the players and s im u late the reas oning behind the players ’ s trategic choices .” I n su ch a model one can reas on forwards and backwards becaus e the model its elf has no temporal dimens ion: s im u lating a s itu ation is not the s ame as em u lating it. And becaus e it repres ents the choices available to each player and the payoffs of the players for each poss ible combination of s trategies .org Figure 1.2 3. I n extens ive games . it makes it poss ible to ou tline the potential calcu lations of each player. and s ometimes it https://www. Second. This is tru e for s ymmetric two-player two. s patial s im u lations of the logical s tru cture u nderlying s tories and games .” as game theoris ts call this procedure. by “backward indu ction. The method of bBackward reas oning is th us not u niqu e to narratology bu t is a method s hared by both narratology and game theory. however.com/articles/ijfarvsj 14/26 . For a s im u lation it is not necess ary to pres erve the temporality or s equ entiality of its s ource s y s tem. can only be recons tru cted from the ou tcomes preferred by each player. As Martin Os borne (2004) pu ts it: “Time is abs ent from the model. The s trategic calcu lations of each player.s trategy games like the pris oner’s dilemma bu t als o for s o-called extens ive games in which two or more players take turns and make two or more moves . each player can decide what his or her optimal actions are at each “node. The Prisoner’s Dilemma - Cooperate 2.3 1.1 Cooperate Defect The matrix does not predict which choices the players will make bu t it repres ents all “s tates ” in which a one-time playing of the game can end. diagram s and other graphics of game theory do not repres ent actu al gameplay by “real” game players . that is .
Althou gh narratologis ts acknowledge that each kernel in a s tory line is a turning point where the character can choos e between two or more actions . bu t not of the model its elf. Game theoris ts .org is even ess ential not to pres erve its temporal dimens ion. “pros pective” and “retros pective” are s imply meaningless becaus e all poss ible s tates are repres ented s im u ltaneous ly. jus t in cas e…”). from the point of view of narrative. “even for his tories that. or at leas t only exis ts fu nctionally. is a s et of his tories that might or might not or even cou ld not poss ibly occur. bu t I s till intend to move to C. the game will be over. then.” To pu t it another way. of which Roland Barthes wrote that it “tends to ‘dech ronologize’ the narrative continuu m and to ‘relogicize’ it. one cou ld s ay that temporality is only a s tru ctural category of narrative (of dis cours e).”). as an element of a s emiotic s y s tem (Barthes . I n a s patialized s im u lation - a diagrammatic repres entation of the logical s tru cture u nderlying a narrative or a game - term s like “fu ture” and “pas t”. narratologis ts take as the point of departure for backward indu ction the actu ally reached final s tate of an itinerary th rou gh s tate s pace. taking into accou nt the actions of the https://www. what we call time does not exis t. 2004). is jus t one of the poss ible his tories that happens to have actu ally occurred. This als o applies to the analy s is of narrative. I n game theory. or even cou nterfactu al (“if player X moves to B. This entails that for extens ive games . jus t as in langu age [langu e] temporality only exis ts in the form of a s y s tem.com/articles/ijfarvsj 15/26 . A narrative then. 1998). bu t if player X moves to C I will move to C….21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. Time is part of the referent of a s im u lation model. Os borne. backward indu ction takes as it point of departure every final s tate the player prefers to reach. I n that s ens e one cou ld s ay that a narrative is his torical while a s trategy is conditional or hypothetical (“if player X moves to B. I will move to B. I n game theoretical term s narratives can be des cribed as actu ally accomplis hed itineraries th rou gh a game’s s tate s pace the s et of all poss ible s tates or configurations a game can attain (Holland. do not occur” (Os borne. I n other words . 2004).readability. I n game theory a player’s s trategy cons is ts of the complete s et of plans of action that des cribe what a player will do u nder all poss ible circu m s tances . A s trategy. jus t as his torians in general only focus on the actu al decis ions taken by decis ion makers in his tory. on the other hand. 1979). are interes ted in all path s the players can choos e. This is not to deny any differences between narratives and games or between the models of narratology and game theory. whatever actions the other players take (Davis . a player’s s trategy s pecifies an action for every move of the other player after which it is the player’s turn to move. if the s trategy is followed. 1997. on the other hand. narratology usu ally focus es on the actions actu ally chos en by the characters of a s tory.
us e in different media for different purpos es . 1983) as propos ed by Juu l is indeed. theme parks . 1977) with the arcade game Star Wars (Atari. The game theoris t looks at the larger picture. The s tory of a movie is nowaday s one ou t of many poss ible arrangements into which its cons titu tive elements and relations hips can be and actu ally are organized. however.s eries . Rather than trying to keep narratologis ts ou t of games s tudies . To conclude that movies do not “trans late” into games becaus e you cannot “dedu ce the s tory of Star Wars from Star Wars the game” (Juu l. along with many other exis ting and yet to be invented form s and formats . is increas ingly moving towards a conception of narrative as a contingent ass emble of characters . what other his tories were open to her. Strategies and s tories . are all part of the s ame game.readability. a matter of focalization rather than “voice. Players and Characters https://www.” The narratologis t or a his torian looks at the final s tate a protagonis t actu ally arrived at. su ch as video games . books . bu t rather a matter of s cale: narratology is not game theory’s advers ary bu t rather one of its aids which explores s pecific path s th rou gh the entire s tate s pace that cons titu tes the domain of game theory. s ince game players may apply “narrative reas oning” for weighing their chances (B ranigan 2006).” The “logic of narrative. games s tudies s cholars had better follow the example of game theory and welcome the expertis e of narratologis ts in the “logic of narrative.” moreover.org other players . s ettings and actions that can be cons tantly reformatted. bu t s tories can be an important part of the decis ion making process during the gameplay its elf. and then as ks hers elf how he or s he got there and what choices the protagonis t has actu ally made. cartoons .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. I n that s ens e. and whether the protagonis t cou ld have done better than he or s he actu ally did. 2004). are not m u tu ally exclus ive categories . as Henri Jenkins obs erves . 2004). appearances in advertis ements and other pu blic relations gadgets . The difference between narratives and games and narratology and game theory is . in narratological term s . there is not a categorical dis tinction between narratology and game theory. the one-to-one comparis on of the movie Star Wars (Lu cas . F rom this point of view. Narratives and games . televis ion.com/articles/ijfarvsj 16/26 . reconfigured and repackaged for releas e and re. “a pretty old-fas hioned model of the process of adaptation” (Jenkins . Games not only become “s tories ” after the fact. 2001 ) is miss ing how movies and games are “contribu ting to a larger narrative economy” (Jenkins . and as ks hers elf at what final s tates the protagonis t cou ld have arrived.
1995 ). So-called “prop”’ in film s are generally not cons idered as dr amati s pe rsonae .” etc. characters are vehicles onto which they project their own goals . Usu ally protagonis ts of novels or film s can be identified withou t difficu lty as “characters . phy s ical features . and not the more peripheral non-playing characters in games and props in film s .” “a bellboy. For formalis t and s tru cturalis t theories of narrative a character is defined not by his or her ps ychological traits .com/articles/ijfarvsj 17/26 . Althou gh mos t s tories obvious ly evolve arou nd characters . the notion of “character” is notorious ly difficu lt to define. s tories als o abou nd with figures who are only referred to with indefinite nou ns . if anything. pronou ns or proper names in the cas e of literature “‘a cabdriver. This dis tinction clearly depends on the kind of s tories one talks abou t and the approach one takes rather than on s ome intrins ic properties of s tories and s tory characters . film s pectator or game player with theoretical and analytical approaches of fictional characters . bu t - as Lara Croft for Aars eth - by what he or s he does and his or her role in the s tory in which they participate. Characters in games . After all.) or appear only briefly in film s (like cabdrivers .” However. games are not abou t the Other.” “James . not exploration of interpers onal relations hips (except for m u ltiplayer games ). “the polygonal s ignificance of Lara Croft’s phy s iqu e goes beyond the gameplay.” “a cop. According to Aars eth (2004). one may grant games s tudies s cholars that the important differences between game characters and s tory characters concern the protagonis ts of s tories and games . bu t the leas t one can s ay is that one s hou ld be carefu l not to confus e the phenomenological experience of a character by a reader. nurs es and bellboy s and “props ”) and a whole range of aides and advers aries that are s omewhere between the fu lly s pecified protagonis ts and the only vagu ely indicated pass ers -by. Games focus on s elf-mas tery and exploration of the external world. Roland Barthes (1979) calls the level of des cription of the https://www. thes e are the characters game players and readers and s pectators of s tories are s aid to “identify” with. abou t the gameplay.” Aars eth des cribes this difference graphically in his accou nt of playing Lar a Cr oft: “When I play. u nlike literature. bu t what abou t many of the characters in between (Ryan 2001 )? Having s aid that. are fu nctional and not emotionally and ps ychologically characterized entities as their cou nterparts in narratives . experiences and u nders tanding of the game.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. they are abou t the Self.readability.org Another presu med difference between narratives and games concerns the role and s tatus of characters . s ocial s tatus or even gender. B u t that does n’t mean it tells us m u ch. “We might s ay that. “Identification” is a difficu lt and theoretically contes ted notion as well (Smith. does it?” For game players . bu t s ee th rou gh it and pas t it” and adds .” “a nurs e. s kills . cops . one might s ay. I don’t even s ee her body.
readability.org characters of a narrative “des pite being that of the characters … the level of Actions . is a qu ite s terile and obs olete game that nobody can ever win. https://www. F rom this theoretical and analytical point of view. Helper/Opponent (Greimas . F rom a formalis t and s tru cturalis t point of view. 1949) which allegedly was a s ource of ins piration for George Lu cas ’ Star Wars film s . A character does n’t act in a particu lar way becaus e of his or her ps ychological. I t is no coincidence that game des igners had recours e to the “fu nctions ” defined by Vladimir Propp (1970) in his s tudy of Russ ian folktales which wou ld become one of the fu ndaments of s tru cturalis t and s emiotic narratology (Newman. too.com/articles/ijfarvsj 18/26 . Assu ming that the incu mbent narratologis ts will for the time being have the u pper hand. thes e roles bear labels that wou ld not be ou t of place in a des cription of the roles of participants in a game: S u bject/Object. what and how they are becaus e of what they do. what or how they are. This . 1969. the fu nction of a character’s pers onal traits is s imilar as to what the fu nction of the pers onal traits of game characters is for game des igners : “colour. the ps ychological traits of a character are part of the motivation and motivation is from this pers pective a jus tification a poste r ior i that explains and naturalizes the character’s actions (Genette. Conclusion I f one is to go by the writings of s ome games s tudies s cholars . however. bu t he or s he is endowed with certain ps ychological. Bordwell. Donor/Receiver. then. cognitive and phy s ical traits to make his or her actions believable and acceptable. Confronted with a big and res pected player in the academic playgrou nds . thes e s cholars su ccu mbed to the endless academic game of naming and labelling that is des igned to legitimate a s trict divis ion of labour among academic dis ciplines .” I n this res pect. bu t they are who. games s tudies and narratology are like two players involved in a zero. characters in a s tory do not act the way they act becaus e of who.su m game in which one player gains what the other player los es . the concerns and methodologies of narratology and game theory are not as widely divergent as games s tudies s cholars claim. I n an effort to s take ou t an exclus ive niche for games s tudies .” I n s tru cturalis t and s emiotic typologies of characters . games s tudies s cholars s eem to opt for a maximin s trategy. 1985 ). 1966). For s tru cturalis t and formalis t theoris ts . 2004) or to Jos eph Campbell’s more popu lar book The he r o with a Thousand Face s (Campbell. intellectu al or phy s ical endowment. ludologis ts try to “maximize” their own minimal payoff and adopt a defens ive s trategy aimed at deterring narratologis ts (th us minimaximizing the narratologis ts ’ payoff). and the accompanying appropriation and monopolization of objects of s tudies .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.
For a game theoris t. on the other hand.readability. topics . games involve qu ite a lot more than action s equ ences .org Game theory has been called u pon to demons trate that a more relaxed view on gameness is poss ible and des irable. etc.com/articles/ijfarvsj 19/26 . s ome games s tudies s cholars feel urged to demons trate that games are not narratives . in an iterated vers ion of this game. bu t an object of academic inqu iry is less defined by its intrins ic. 2003 or Wardrip-F ru in & Harrigan. Games s tudies s cholars cou ld learn from game theoris ts . bu t that gameness is in the eye of the obs erver rather than in the minds of the game players them s elves . one only has to compare the indexes of a games s tudies reader (like. However.. and th us firmly s tay attached to the u mbilical cord that keeps them tied to their parent dis cipline. A game theoris t. it is fair to s ay that thes e are not the main issu es at s take in the debates between narratologis ts and ludologis ts either. that. s trategies and payoff fu nctions . where narratological approaches enjoy a prominent s tatus . Convers ely. games and narratives are not categorically dis tinct entities . 2004) with thos e of their cou nterparts from literary s tudies and film s tudies : s imilarities in term s . and what is at s take. m u tu al cooperation is the more beneficial and more produ ctive s trategy (Axelrod. 1984). wou ld certainly as k hers elf what kind of games are going on in the h u manities . objective properties than by the purpos es . and pers ons immediately catch the eye. depending on the langu age game you ’re in. for example. game theoris ts cou ld learn from games s tudies s cholars . This is not to s ay that game theory and narratology are identical or s tudy the s ame objects . that there is no su ch a thing as “games ” or “gameness ” in its elf. This game theoris t might model the debate as another vers ion of the pris oner’s dilemma in which m u tu al defection is at the s ame time the mos t rational and the leas t des irable ou tcome. s ay. Unfortu nately they choos e to do s o with argu ments that are mainly derived from narrative theory its elf. To convince ones elf of the tight connections between games s tudies and literary and film theory.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. the qu es tions and the methods of analy s is deployed by the res earcher. For game theory. Wolf & Perron. and this surely applies to narratology and https://www. As game theoris ts have demons trated. althou gh game theory does not deal with issu es su ch as games as cu ltural artefacts . the “worldness ” of gameworlds . and game theory and narratology have qu ite a lot in common when it comes to theories and methodologies . the s erious ness with which ludologis ts make their cas e agains t narratology wou ld be an inju nction to model the controvers y as a game). Probably becaus e mos t games s tudies s cholars have a backgrou nd in literary s tudies and film s tudies . gameworlds as comm u nities .
who worked with von Neu mann during World War II . s ince I am an enth us ias tic chess player. if games s tudies s cholars wou ld team u p with game theoris ts . p. Their monu mental Ru les of Play is a “valu able h u b of game. no. The police do not have enou gh evidence to convict them on the principal charge and need a confess ion of at leas t one of both pris oners .readability. bu t rather than providing a meeting grou nd between games s tudies and game theory it aim s at bridging games s tudies methodologies and des ign theory. “Chess is not a game. 2004). You may not be able to work ou t the answers .  Scientis t Jacob B ronows ki. recalls how Von Neu mann. 2006).related references and res ources ” (Järvinen. 13) usu ally refer to as paida. An exception s hou ld be made for Salen & Zimmerman (2004). bu t s imply becaus e in paida there often is no interaction between decis ion makers and becaus e there is nothing at s take.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. however. 1992. not becaus e there are no ru les in this mode of play. it is als o not interes ted in the mode of ‘u nbou nded’ or ‘free’ play that games s tudies s cholars in the wake of Caillois (1958. Notes [1 ] Similar obs ervations were made by Jonas Heide Smith (Heide Smith. Now real games .  This corres ponds to the dis tinction Jes per Juu l (2003a) makes between “games of emergence” and ”games of progress ion. Chess is a well. they might find ou t that they wou ld have a few things to s ay abou t s tories that are of interes t to narratologis ts as well. Real life cons is ts of blu ffing.” he s aid. bu t in theory there m us t be a s olu tion. 6). “are not like that at all. Game theory is jus t one of the many pers pectives on games introdu ced in this book which rather than s ynthes izing thos e tends to m uddle them u p. of as king yours elf what is the other man going to think I mean to do. They offer each pris oner the following choice: if both pris oners https://www. a right procedure in any pos ition. And that is what games are abou t in my theory” (in Pou nds tone.defined form of compu tation. p. And. of little tactics of deception. explained the object of game theory to him during a taxi ride in London: "I naturally s aid to him.” Once a player has mas tered the complex ru les and s kills of a “progress ion game” s he often los es interes t in it.  The Pris oner’s Dilemma is abou t two members of a criminal gang who are arres ted and impris oned in s eparate cells with no means of s peaking or exchanging mess ages to each other. that althou gh game theory is not very m u ch interes ted in ru les . an avid poker player. Real life is not like that. I t s hou ld be noted. “You mean the theory of games like chess .” he s aid.com/articles/ijfarvsj 20/26 .org games s tudies as well.” “No.
Princeton: Princeton Univers ity Press . performance. B ranigan. New York: Bas ic Books . Bordwell.” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. London: Meth u en. More than a game: the compu ter game as fictional form. Atkins .readability. Projecting a camera: langu age games in film theory. hypertext. Edward (2006).org cooperate with each other and remain s ilent. Es pen (1997). ‘Genre trou ble: narrativis m and the art of s im u lation. if one of both pris oners confess es agains t the other. if both pris oners tes tify agains t each other they will both be s entenced on the main charge bu t they will get a dis cou nt on their pu nis hment and they will have to go to pris on for only two years . Paris : Nrf Gallimard. Cambridge: The MI T Press . Noah WardripF ru in & Pat Harrigan. Narration in the fiction film. Ed. Axelrod. the “defector” will go free while his partner will get th ree years in pris on on the main charge.com/articles/ijfarvsj 21/26 . Robert (1984). Roger (1958). Bibliography Aars eth. Campbell. The evolu tion of cooperation. B ranigan. Caillois . Manches ter and New York: Manches ter Univers ity Press . Es pen (2004). and the his tory of writing. Les jeu x et les hommes : le mas qu e et le vertige.” I mage-m us ic-text: ess ay s s elected and trans lated by Stephen Heath. New York: Rou tledge. Writing s pace: the compu ter. London: Fontana Press . Barry (2003). Cybertext: pers pectives on ergodic literature. Narrative comprehens ion and film. Edward (1992). “I ntrodu ction to the s tru ctural analy s is of narratives . Roland (1979). Barthes . they will each be s entenced to a year in pris on for a s maller crime. Jay David (1991 ). Jos eph (1949). https://www. and game. Bolter. The hero with a thous and faces . Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Univers ity Press . NJ: Lawrence Erlbau m. David (1985 ). Hillsdale. London and New York: Rou tledge. Aars eth.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.
NY: Dover Pu blications . Arth ur C. Genette.org Chatman. Noah Wardrip-F ru in & Pat Harrigan.org: video game theory. available on: http://www.org. (1985 ).21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.ludology.com/articles/ijfarvsj 22/26 . I thaca and London: Cornell Univers ity Press . Mark Wolf & Bernard Perron. Niall (ed.” Level. Utrecht: Utrecht Univers ity.: The MI T Press . “Towards compu ter game s tudies . Ju ly 2001 .org. The Mathematics of Games of Strategy: Theory and Applications Englewood Cliffs . Game theory: a nontechnical introdu ction. (1961 ). Greg (1994) ‘I have no words & I m us t des ign’. Markku (2004). Es kelinen. Ma. Story and dis cours e: narrative s tru cture in fiction and film. Figures III . Gonzalo (1999).u p: Digital Games Res earch Conference. Davis . (1997). 2006. F ras ca. Retrieved Febru ary 28. Genette.readability. Retrieved March 23. in: I nteractive Fantas y #2. Gonzalo (2003a). Cambridge. Marinka Copier & Joos t Raess ens . Gérard (1983). M. Es kelinen.cos tik. Mineola. Markku (2001 ). 2006. Danto. Paris : Éditions du Seu il. NJ: Prentice. “Ludologis ts love s tories . Virtu al his tory: alternatives and cou nterfactu als . Genette. Cos tikyan. Fergus on. http://www. Paris : Éditions du Seu il.html . Morton D. ‘The gaming s itu ation.Hall. 2006. “Ludology meets narratology: s imilitude and differences between (video)games and narrative. Retrieved March 22. Gonzalo (2003b). Narration and knowledge (including the integral text of Analytical philos ophy of his tory) New York: Colu mbia Univers ity Press .’ in Game Studies Vol. F ras ca. New York and London: Rou tledge.” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory.) (1997).com/nowords . Ed. and game. https://www. Ed.games tudies . www. 2 Issu e 1 . ‘Sim u lation versus narrative. Figures II . performance. New York: Bas ic Books . Dres her.’ The video game theory reader. F ras ca. Ed.” Ludology. Gérard (1972). Seymour (1978). Gérard (1969). too: notes from a debate that never took place. Paris : Éditions du Seu il. Nou veau dis cours du récit.
u p: Digital Games Res earch Conference. Marinka Copier & Joos t Raess ens . Jenkins . performance. Aki (2004).) (1994). John H. Jonas (2006). Ju ly 2001 . Half. ‘A poetics of virtu al worlds ’. “The game. Issu e 6. Emergence: from chaos to order. Copenhagen: I T Univers ity of Copenhagen. Järvinen.pdf. Cambridge. Klas tru p. Jes per (2003a).org Juu l. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univers ity Press .readability. (Ph.” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. Eds .com/articles/ijfarvsj 23/26 . 1 Issu e 1 . A primer in game theory.real: video games between real ru les and fictional worlds . and game. Greimas . Am s terdam: Pandora. George P. Paris : Librairie Larouss e. Juu l. Vol. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Utrecht: Utrecht Univers ity. the world: looking for a heart of gameness . Ma: Pers eus Books . Homo ludens : proeve ener bepaling van het s pelelement der cu ltuur.21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.au /dac/papers /Klas tru p. Johan (1997 ). A. the player. Game Studies . Juu l. Lis beth (2003). 6.” Level. Retrieved Ju ne 1 . Hyper/text/theory. (ed. Vol. Jes per (2003b). Noah Wardrip-F ru in & Pat Harrigan. 4. Greimas .” Game Studies . Vol. Ed.edu . diss ertation). Paris : Hachette Univers ité.’ in Game Studies . Heide Smith.: The MI T Press . (1998). Sémantiqu e s tru cturale: recherché de méthode. Jes per (2001 ). Robert (1992). https://www.rmit. MelbourneDAC 2003. Hu izinga. Sémiotiqu e: Dictionnaire Rais onné de la Théorie du Langage. ‘A meaningfu l read: ru les of play reviewed’.D.org Gibbons . Landow. Issu e 1 .games tudies . Ma. (1966). “Game des ign as narrative architecture. Algirdas Ju lien & Jos eph Courtés (1979). 2007. Cambridge. http://www. November. “The games economis ts play - implications of economic game theory for the s tudy of compu ter games . Henry (2004). http://hyprtext.J. ‘Games telling s tories ? - A brief note on games and narratives . The I nternational Journal of Compu ter Game Res earch. Holland.
‘A preliminary poetics for interactive drama and games . Pris oner’s dilemma: John von Neu mann. Pou nds tone. Noah Wardrip-F ru in & Pat Harrigan. irony. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press . Maynard Smith. https://www. Michael (2004). Evolu tion and the theory of games . Murray. O’Neill. “F rom Game. Mateas .” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. Contingency. Wallace (1986).” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. and game. Rorty. Vladimir (1970). Hamlet on the Holodeck: the fu ture of narrative in cybers pace. Janet (2004). and the puzzle of the bomb.s tory to cyberdrama. London and New York: Rou tledge. and game. James (2004). The game’s afoot! Game theory in myth and paradox. and s olidarity.com/articles/ijfarvsj 24/26 . New York: Anchor Books .21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. Celia (2004). Janet (1997). Noah Wardrip-F ru in & Pat Harrigan. Paris : Éditions du Seu il. Rhode Is land: The American Mathematical Society. Ed. Patrick (1996). Providence. Richard (1989). New York and Oxford: Oxford Univers ity Press . performance. Morphologie du conte. Martin J. Ed. “Towards a game theory of game. Mehlmann. Ed. Cambridge: The MI T Press . Fictions of dis cours e: reading narrative theory. I thaca and London: Cornell Univers ity Press . Videogames . Recent theories of narrative. Newman.readability. (2004).org Martin. Cambridge. An introdu ction to game theory. performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press . Cambridge: The MI T Press . performance. Os borne. Ma: The MI T Press . Alexander (2000). Noah WardripF ru in & Pat Harrigan.’ Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. Pearce. William (1992). John (1982). and game. game theory. Murray. Propp. Cambridge: The MI T Press . Toronto: Univers ity of Toronto Press .
Ju ly 2001 . New York and London: Rou tledge.” Game Studies Vol. Am s terdam: Am s terdam Univers ity Press .com/articles/ijfarvsj 25/26 . (ed. Cambridge: The MI T Press . Cambridge.) (1992 ).) (2003). Marie-Laure (2001 b). “Narrative.: The MI T Press . Cambridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press . Wolf. Engaging characters : fiction. interactivity. The video game theory reader.P. Aus tin: The Univers ity of Texas Press . Narrative as virtu al reality: immers ion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Issu e 1 . Playing the waves : Lars von Trier’s game cinema. Marie-Laure (2001 a). Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Univers ity Press . Smith. White. Salen. emotion. https://www.org Rorty. Ryan. performance. & Bernard Perron (eds . Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins Univers ity Press .org. http://www. Ed. P. J. Ryan.) (1997). New York: Dover Pu blications . Ru les of play: game des ign fu ndamentals . Theory of games and economic behavior.D. Uk: Clarendon Press . (ed. (1982) [195 4]. Wolf. Richard M. Simons . Von Neu mann. Searle. and game.readability. The mediu m of the video game. and games : four nau ghty concepts in need of dis cipline. The content of the form:narrative dis cours e and his torical repres entation.” Firs t pers on: new media as s tory. John (1969).21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univers ity Press . Speech acts : an ess ay in the philos ophy of langu age. Chicago and London: The Univers ity of Chicago Press . Mark J.games tudies . Ma. The lingu is tic turn: ess ay s in philos ophical method (with two retros pective ess ay s ). John & Os kar Morgens tern (1944). 1 . William s . and the cinema. Jan (2007). play. “Beyond myth and metaphor: the cas e of narrative in digital media. Hay den (1987). Mark J. Zimmerman. Murray (1995 ). Katie and Eric Zimmerman (2004). Noah Wardrip-F ru in & Pat Harrigan. The compleat s trategy s t: being a primer on the theory of games of s trategy. Eric (2004). Oxford.
21/1/2014 Game Studies — gamestudies.readability.org Original URL: http://games tudies .com/articles/ijfarvsj 26/26 .o rg/07 01 /articles /s imon s https://www.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.