Elliot Heatwole on Networked Media

I’ve been promising to write this post for a couple of weeks now but I have been experiencing a few difficulties in sourcing appropriate articles for coming up with an authoritative definition of video games, narrative and the way the two interact (or are one in the same).  I think the most effective way of describing the discourse as well as my opinions on it is to introduce certain concepts plus corresponding literature and then summarise with my own opinions.

Narratology vs. Ludology

A key problem with the discourse is that no one can seem to agree on major points in the narratology vs. ludology debate.  In one of the most peculiar twists in modern academics, it appears that the primary reason this debate lacks resolution is simply because the narratology camp, and consequently their contribution to the discourse, are for the most part imagined.  That’s not to say the narratologists don’t exist; just that there is little evidence for their existence from within video game studies.  They’re always external.  In, Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate that never took place, Gonzalo Frasca (2003) identifies the source of the confusion.  He is quickly countered by Celia Pearce (2005) in Theory Wars: An Argument Against Arguments in the so-called Ludology/Narratology Debate.  More of a disagreement in terms of abstract claims and verification rather than of key concepts.

Narrative

Jesper Juul is very well respected in some circles.  These are circles that I’m not a part of.  Here are some things he says about the separation between games and narrative:

From the ’98 Digital Arts & Culture conference that Adrian mentioned in the lecture

Him on irreconcilabilities between games and narrative

For another perspective, check out Jenkins (2004) talking about Game Design as Narrative Architecture. Pay special attention to what he says about hypertext theorists.

Theoretical Applications

There also seems to be a problem in that there are very few producer-theorists out there.  Dan Pinchbeck, responsible for the several-times-mentioned Dear Esther (2012) applies theories directly to game production (or more accurately develops games as a research methodology).  His PhD thesis is behind a paywall at the moment but if I find an alternative source I’ll post it here.

My Opinions

1. Video games arenotgames.

A game is an interactive system with success/failure conditions.  The games we talk about when we refer to video games are interactive, virtual representations of some form of diegesis.  Many of these are heavily systematised; certain conditions must be met before certain sequences, regions or outcomes can occur, however the system in itself is not the primary descriptor of the interaction – the environment is.  Furthermore, there is some confusion about what constitutes a video game.  To compare Tetris to something like Heavy Rain (2010) or Dear Esther would be akin to comparing security camera footage to a feature film.  When considered in this fashion, the ‘games’ can only be analysed based on their points of commonality, which is essentially modes of interactive systematisation.  When we filter all video games into a single category what we essentially do is limit the discursive space they can occupy, even when these spaces are usually leagues apart.

2. Video games cannot be ‘won’.

3. All narrative is generative.

This entry was posted on 25/09/2013 at 3:56 pm and is filed under Networked Media.