gcraighobbs /201 /1024

10/24 - Games

Defending Games Against Theoretical Imperialism?

Narratology vs. Ludology: the battlefront of video game theorists. The ludologists want to study games for games sake, to study the mechanics, rules, game space, and play of games. And the narratologists, want to study games within the historical continuum of storytelling media such as cinema. How did these two worlds collide? And what is the current state of their "blood feud"?

Henry Jenkins in Game Design as Narrative Architecture address the debate through compromise. Recognizing the demands of gamers, game designers, and industry executives for unfettered critical control within their chosen creative domain, Jenkins unwittingly absolves this camp by suggesting, "one gets rid of narrative as a framework for thinking about games only at one's own risk."

At what risk? The average game player, deep in game play engaged within a world of fictional risk could care less about the risks of not thinking. I would suggest that games provide the very conditions for "turning off" the critical apparatus. The goal being to disengage from the real world for half-real fictional experiences in which the player has a degree of autonomy and agency, in that world.

Jenkins wishes to inject a degree of narratology within the argument. He does so through causal progression of logical arguments defending the narrative angle. He then attempts to expand the discussion through "spatiality", introducing and arguing for, "an understanding of game designers less as storytellers and more as narrative architects."

In doing so, Jenkins does in fact expand the argument of the narratologists. He does so through a classification of 4 narrative types - evoked, enacted, embedded, and emergent - as they relate to video games. He then concludes with a reiteration of his theoretical premise: to think of game designers as narrative architects.

For the critical theory community, I believe Jenkins argument holds water. As for his other audience - gamers, game designers, and industry executives - I have a greater degree of skepticism that this essay will have any impact whatsoever. The problem is that Jenkins critique lacks specific game examples, and is deeply rooted in theory, not practice. The gaming community is one which seeks agency within their fictional world.

A critical theorist expanding the boundaries of his or her argument pales in comparison to Rock Star Games expanding the boundaries of Grand Theft Auto v.X. Which is to say for gamers, game designers, and industry executives, practice wins over theory every time.

Jesper Juul in Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds takes a post-modern approach in his effort to re-engage the narratologists. His current approach is one of rules and stories. I say re-engage because in 1998 Juul had taken "an alluring position" in game theory by denying fiction a role. At that time he stated, "As you can see, the symbolical or metaphorical meaning of the game is not connected to the program or the gameplay. The relationship is, in a word, arbitrary" (Juul, 1998).

Juul now believes otherwise. In Half-Real, he directly refutes his own argument by including narrative dynamics within the ludologists strict understanding of rules-based gaming. Juul's revised thesis is formidable. He frames the debate within the narratology vs. ludology debate, and then wields history, theory, aesthetics, and a plethora of game examples, even bringing Saussure to the forefront of the argument (thus appealing to the critical/hypertext theorists).

Saussure is an appropriate participant in both Jenkins and Juul's efforts in as much as a structural linguistic effort to understand games is clearly underway. Juul, like Jenkins, seeks to expand the argument outside of the dualistic approach. And in doing so creates a vital game ecology, a general space in which video games can be seen and understood within a larger cultural context.

It is within this magic circle (Juul's term) that we begin to understand the complex dynamics driving game culture, its consumption and critique. Still, I wonder if Juul's 1998 sentiment expressed in the title of my reading notes does not in some way invalidate his compromise with the narratologists, and by extension the hypertext theorists. It seems critical theorists might want to develop tools to defend themselves against ludological imperialism, or suffer the existential fate of the typical game character - impermanence.