Category Archives: Ch 13 Game Model

My 2003 DiGRA Keynote

The world’s first  Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) conference was held in Utrecht in 2003.    Joost Raessens has just unearthed the videos and posted them online. Here is my keynote from that meeting, “What Are Games Made Of? ”

2003 DiGRA jhm

 

The Ambiguity of Game Studies

Here are the slides  from my recent DiGRA’13 keynote, The Ambiguity of Game Studies: Observations on the Collective Process of Inventing a New Discipline,  reminding folks of the intersection of Huizinga’s concept of the magic circle and Victor Turner’s  concept of liminality.

Games as Joint Attentional Scenes

With DiGRA ’13 coming up in 2 weeks, I went searching for an accessible version ringroundrosey from diglib fsu eduof my keynote at DiGRA ’05, for which the short piece “The Last Word on Ludology/Narratology,” which I posted a few weeks ago in text and slides,  was just the preface.  The text of the keynote itself, “Games as Joint Attentional Scenes”  can be found on the Google Books site, since it was published as a chapter in Words in Play edited by Suzanne De Castell and Jennifer Jenson.  Continue reading

The Last Word on Ludology v Narratology (2005) the slides

Here are the slides from the oral version of the DiGRA 2005 Preface to my keynote talk, which was introduced  by Espen which made it more fun for both of us. Continue reading

The Last Word on Ludology v Narratology (2005)

ludologyfightnight

Ian Bogost’s rendering of the great critical struggle.

Recently this image has resurfaced in a talk by Espen Aarseth. I believe that the Ludology/Narratology discussion has moved on.  My favorite sign of the discussion changing occurred   a few years back when Espen announced that he was studying narrative elements in games.  But only last month I had a request for the content of my “preamble” to my DIGRA 2005 talk which I think was published in the Proceedings but may be hard to track down. So I am posting it here, along with a movie version of the slides. Espen introduced me for a keynote speech, and the body of my talk focused on other issues. But I felt a need to begin  by offering the “Last Word on Ludology v Narratology”.

The slides are here and  the essay is below:

Continue reading

Molyneux’s Curiosity Game: why did anyone play?

Now that game auteur Peter Molyneux‘s massively mobile cube clicking game, Robot playing CuriosityCuriosity -What’s Inside the Cube?, is over we are left to puzzle over its odd success.  The gameplay was so mindlessly repetitive that it could be performed by a simple robotAnd yet millions of people downloaded it to their iPhones and iPads and clicked away at billions of pixelated squares, and 30,000  of them were still at it almost six months after the release date when the game came to an end last Sunday.  What would make a human do it?  I think there were 4 main motivators. Continue reading

An example of gamification that isn’t bullshit

With his customary understatement, my Georgia Tech colleague Ian Bogost has famously pointed out that Gamification is Bullshit,  or more precisely “marketing bullshit” whose purpose is “to capture the wild, coveted beast that is videogames and to domesticate it for use in the grey, hopeless wasteland of big business.”  I know what he means and I am also often skeptical of the more benevolent arguments for “gamification,” such Jane McGonigal’s heartfelt argument that games are the best way to ensure human survival in the next century.   What McGonigal ignores is that human culture is already completely gamified – how else to explain the deep pleasure in synchronizing our behavior with one another, in finding symbolic meaning in arbitrary symbols like vocalized sound and scratches in stone? We are hard-wired to enjoy all the things that make up games and we have already used all of those pleasure-producing and obsession-engendering mechanics to shape everything from language to tax codes to  traffic lights to war strategies. For good or bad, the world is already profoundly gamified — so we had better pay attention to the hands we have already been dealt. Continue reading

Is cat poop the same kind of medium as videogames?

There has been a lot of twitter chatter this week about an endearing rant by Darius Kazemi with the arresting title of Fuck Videogames aimed at encouraging frustrated game designers to embrace other forms of creative expression.
fkvideogames

Clearly this is a timely message, and probably a mark of the success that this active community of practice has  had in encouraging creative expression in videogames.

I don’t quarrel with Kazemi’s main point — and in fact I’ve often said that there is no hierarchy of media. No individual book, for example, is more valuable than any individual game (or film or TV show) just because it is expressed in lengthy text passages instead of interactive bits or moving images.   But Kazemi isn’t talking about books or films. He is talking gelato and cat poop — which I do indeed have a problem with.

Continue reading

Games and the pleasure of synchronized behavior

Synchronizing your behavior with a single mysterious multi-player companion is a new convention of interaction in thatgamecompany’s Journey (2012)

Thatgamecompany’ award-winning Playstation game  Journey (2012)provides a poetic and evocative experience that makes players feel as if they have lived through the classic stages of life from joyous exploratory childhood through challenging and dangerous adulthood, successful and golden middle life, and the impotence and paralysis of old age, ending with an ecstatic sequence that many have found suggestive of an ascent into heaven. It communicates this lifetime of experiences without language, wholly through movement, gestures, landscape changes, and orchestral music.

Continue reading

Where Are Gaming’s Role Models?

Warren Spector is a game designer and critic who has been advocating for more expressive games for over a decade. He has just started a new column with a familiar lament: Where Are Gaming’s Role Models?  Warren, who began his career expecting to be a film critic, points to a column by  NY Times critic Brooks Barnes about Hollywood stars  like Ben Affleck and George Clooney who persuade studios to let them make movies with serious social content. What would it take, he asks, to get the same kind of role models in the game industry?

It is not surprising that a question about games is framed as a deficit of heroes — role models of exemplary individuals. It is also not surprising that Spector should turn to an older narrative medium (and the most awarded Hollywood films of 2012) for evidence of more mature story lines:

Can you imagine a game about a guy on a spiritual quest in a boat with a tiger? How about two old people struggling with the pain of love and aging? Or the story behind a raid to kill the world’s most notorious terrorist? Okay, we could probably do an okay job of that last one, though probably not the events leading up to it – do you water board that guy or not? Seriously? But you get my point.

It is funny to imagine how the pitches for such imaginary games would be received by the big game companies. But we should also remember that  Ben Affleck (Argo) and Katherine Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) had a long tradition of serious war films to point to, including classic hits like Casablanca or Bridge on the River Kwai, in which disgust for war and admiration of  heroic self-sacrifice are interwoven in complex moral patterns.   Ang Lee’s highly original Life of Pi  exists in a number of similarly long  traditions including  human/beast moral fables like King Kong and ET and  journey/survival films like Lifeboat or Cast Away.  And of course there is no lack of French movies about Amour  — including many about the  amour of aging lovers  — for Michael Haneke to reference.

More importantly, each of these cinematic traditions can trace its roots back to much less serious adventure stories or soap operas, which would display the pattern that Warren describes when he says that

in 30 years of making games I’ve never been anything less than awestruck at the intelligence of the people playing and making what often seem like mindless entertainments.

In fact, I would argue that you can’t get to serious, engaged, complex story-telling without a strong tradition of “mindless entertainments” that lots of people watch and lots of people are rewarded for creating. That is what is called a tradition of practice for the makers and a popular genre (hence watchable/playable mindlessly) for the consumers.  And such formulaic traditions of practice are absolutely necessary to the creation of  socially important works  that actually engage and move people .

In Hamlet on the Holodeck,  I pointed out that the soliloquy that Shakespeare uses in Hamlet to explore the isolation of the modern consciousness and depths of his tragic hero’s self-doubts, began as a stage device for letting the audience in on the evil intentions of the villains in the bloody,  formulaic genre of the revenge play —  which were pretty much the equivalent of the mind-numbing  zombie games that Warren considers the nadir of current popular entertainment. No revenge plays, no soliloquys for Hamlet; no blockbuster videogames, no mechanics for expressive serious games that actually engage and move people.

I share Warren’s impatience and I applaud his efforts to nurture a more “grown up” game practice. But it may be that  the stealth mechanics  tradition of  Deus X  or the survival choices of The Walking Dead  ipad game  will prove to be foundational  to the creation of the culturally impactful games that Warren is asking for.  I’m very glad that we also have non-violent, artistically captivating  games  like the highly successful Journey with its  poetic shout mechanics and mindful play. (Maybe Jenova Chen is the hero Warren is looking for.) But even though I may not want to play kind of games Warren is making fun of, there is something to be said for the development of the conventions of interaction in a lively practice of mindless commercial entertainment.