[mag]

I just read this week's GameSpotting. In it one of them talks about "ludology," or the study of video games. The guy in the GameSpot article actually sounds kind of biased and overly defensive. Here is the article he's talking about. I have to say, I find this view of video games fascinating. And I never knew there were people other than me who were this interested in this sort of stuff. It's kind of ironic given that I just recently put up a new website this week (see my sig) concerning almost the exact same topic. Not sure if I'll be much competition against somebody with a doctorate on the subject, but I can try. Anyway, I would imagine that adventure fans such as yourselves would enjoy this kind of stuff. What's your take on this ludology?

mag

[Erkki]

I agree about the gamespot writer being too defensive. There's a difference between terms/classifications that have developed by themselves among developers, gamers, and gaming press and those that could be created by scientifically studying games.

Although games are cross-discipline and the separate disciplines have been studied before, I think it's great that people are seeing that there's something original about games (not merely interactivity, as interactivity is again a separate field really) that warrants separate treatment.

Have games as such been studied thoroughly before video games by the way? I mean apart from mathematical game theory.

[Erkki]

Also, I think in time this would also help to have more quality communication between gamers as well, if gamers are willing to get more educated about their hobby. (I'm talking about hardcore gamers)
For example I could imagine intelligent discussions at www.ttlg.com 's Thief III Anticipation forum instead of the current "Thief 3 will suck because they removed rope arrows and swimmable water" if both the developers and fans would know a bit about this 'ludology' (I'm talking about a hypothetical future), so they could speak the same language. Whatever 'ludology' turns out to be exactly.

[Marek]

Perhaps the writer is being so defensive because ludologists are seen by gamers as prententious intellectuals who don't play games, and by the developer community as "ivory tower" folks who talk about what games ar without actually making them.

I find it a little humorous how GameSpot approaches something as complicated as ludology with their entertainment consumer-guide mentality. Mind you, I think GameSpot is the best review site there is. But it's kind of fun how they create the suggestion that terms like "frag" and "MMORPG" are the only useful terms when speaking about games. It's also amusing how he says that no professor needs to tell him "how to rate games". Well, he isn't going to tell you, because scientific study is generally not about judging quality. That whole movie ticket story is an example of something that's typically discussed on consumer review sites, but I doubt it'd be a major theme for any ludologist. I think the only bit that accurately reflects what ludology can sometimes be about is that last paragraph.

It's cool that this guy gives the field some attention, but I think the article is a bit too cute and confused and doesn't do justice to what it's about.

Anyway, if you're interested in this stuff, you should check out some of these weblogs and sites:
http://www.gamestudies.org/
http://www.jesperjuul.dk/ (as far as I know the only and first person with a PHD in ludology)
http://www.igda.org/columns/ivorytower/
http://www.gamegirladvance.com/
http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/
http://www.ludonauts.com/
http://ludology.org/

There is definitely an "ivory tower" factor here, as not a single ludologist I know of has created a full commercial game. Some of them make flash games, and while that's enough to know about core concepts, it probably doesn't give them a complete picture of what needs to be communicated in a large scale production. I think most of them are doing good work though. There's a few misguided people, like ... erm ... someone comparing Civilization to western colonization blah blah and it's contrived and 'academic' in a desperate sort of way. But overall it's very interesting.

Oh, I'm halfway through Rules of Play right now, and it's probably the first completely theoretical overview of (computer) games. If you plan to study game design or whatever, this should be the first book to check out.

There was some study of games before, like Johan Huizinga's book Homo Ludens (hi there Intrepid ). But it's not become a big issue until now.

[Starflux]

But it's a bit more complex than that.

Anyway, I'm afraid that they (the ludolologists) will take their analyses too far, as is happening with cinema now. I'm studying movies to some extent on school now, and I sometimes get the feeling that people see things in movies that aren't really there, sometimes thinking (in my eyes unjustified) that things like the lighting and the scenery tell tales of their own and that every little aspect is given immense metaphorical thought... this may be true in some brilliant occasions, but in the average movie I really doubt that...
Maybe this will happen in the gamesworld too, where academists will write huge reports on the deeper meaning of games, and in a following interview with the creator, he or she will say something like: ,,Hey I dunno man, I just wanted to make a crazy fun game..."

[Marek]

Ah, I take it you're referring to the classes of Judith Franco. Has she done her speech yet about homoerotic undertones in Gilda? (The walking stick! Yes, of course!) Or about how many times the church bells ring in A Man Escaped?

Erm, so yeah, I know what you mean Fortunately I've not seen that sort of stuff happen much (or at all) during two ludology conferences I attended last year. Let's hope things don't get out of hand.

[Starflux]

I have yet to encounter her experiences with homo-erotic undertones, but this week I have to watch A Man Escaped with the rest of the class. I'll take extra notice of church bells
(I want to make clear though that I really enjoy Semiotics, I think it's a great course. I just don't agree with everything in it, but I hardly let that spoil my fun ^_^)

[Marek]

Yeah, it's tons of fun. Most of the stuff really does make sense, especially stylistic stuff. But sometimes the symbolism can get a little crazy.

A Man Escaped is pretty cool. I once wanted to make an adventure game like that, but I lost all my drawings and I'm sure I'm never going to make it.

[mag]

Thanks for the links, Marek. I'll check those out.

Anyway, you're right that there is the risk of becoming pretentious. That happens quite often with this kind of stuff. On the other hand, when Flux for instance says that they "take their analyses too far," I'm not sure that's really possible. Isn't there more meaning in a piece of art than simply what the artist intended? If somebody can interpret it that way, no matter how far of a stretch it may seem to anybody else, then that's part of the game's meaning. Just a thought.

BTW, does the word "ludology" sound kind of dirty to anybody else?

mag

[Marek]

Originally Posted by mag

BTW, does the word "ludology" sound kind of dirty to anybody else?

I think you may have over-analysed the word

[Starflux]

Well, I just feel that if the 'author' of the movie hasn't put any thought to it, so to speak, than an analist shouldn't seek something into it either. Put simple.

(but it's a little more... )

[Jake]

As much as Marek tries to defend ludology to me I still fear it a LOT. However, its sort of inevitable that something like it would come along, and from reading some of the ludology sites its not that bad. Despite what Marek and Jesper Juul say, there are some ludologists who are ridiculously anti-story in games which seems extremely limiting and foolish but whatever. In the end something like ludology is a necessary evil, just so people can have a properly defined arena to discuss games. I just hope they don't go overboard. Games are really hard to classify, and by over or under thinking it, or by letting someone who is overly biased (say, someone against storytelling in games) do the defining you're going to seriously screw up game theory for a long time.

It will be really frustrating if a few really narrow definitions get "officially" created and people start feeling like they have to play by only those rules, so we have to wait 20 years for "creative geniuses" to come up with "new" ideas which are in fact old ideas that were shut from peoples minds years prior by overthinking everything.*

*that sentence was of course ridiculously overthought, but its frustrating to see that happen in other areas like the ridiculous film theory classes everyone seems to have taken one or two of by now .

[mag]

Originally Posted by Jake
It will be really frustrating if a few really narrow definitions get "officially" created and people start feeling like they have to play by only those rules, so we have to wait 20 years for "creative geniuses" to come up with "new" ideas which are in fact old ideas that were shut from peoples minds years prior by overthinking everything.*

I see your point there. But I think that's why it's important to have more than just a handful of people doing the analysis. Then you have theories to counterbalance other people's theories. For instance, these people who don't like stories in games may have some valid points and have just gone to too far of an extreme with them. So somebody else will come along and present his/her own theory to counter that. This kind of happens in a lot of different fields of study. The big names are the ones that present extreme theories, but the truth usually lies somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Erkki
Have games as such been studied thoroughly before video games by the way? I mean apart from mathematical game theory.

Not that I know of. I mean, how could they be studied in this way before? Previously games were just that. Games. Aside from looking at the craftsmanship of the pieces, I don't know what else there is to study. With the possible exception of role playing games, I believe video games are the first to introduce elements such as storytelling that really can be explored in more depth. And I doubt many people have studied role playing games very thoroughly (although it might be interesting). I could be wrong about that. There may be some kind of game that I'm forgetting about. But I'm pretty sure video games are the first. Kind of makes you reevaluate the difference between game and art.

mag

[Esseb]

Originally Posted by mag

BTW, does the word "ludology" sound kind of dirty to anybody else?

Absolutely

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Jake

there are some ludologists who are ridiculously anti-story in games which seems extremely limiting and foolish but whatever.

Which reminds me... “Story in a game is like story in a porn movie. It’s expected to be there, but it’s not that important.” - John Carmack

[Esseb]

Then again, Carmack makes the equivelant of porn to games.

[Jake]

I think its just important that all the "gameplay is the one true God" people remember that while gameplay is freaking important and good, the emphesis on "gameplay" over other important aspects of a game (story, graphics, music) is kind of a recent thing, and is definitely a trend. Obviously gaming started out being about gameplay gameplay gameplay, ie Pac Man, Missile Command, pong etc are all pretty much no graphics no real story, etc. But, it seems like for a while, say, the golden age of the adventure game, story was king, or at least very important. Then Quake and Myst came along and suddenly it was all about hot graphics. Now, "gameplay" is back. Its kind of cyclical I think.

I'm not saying that discussion about pure gameplay is going to go away, or that it should (it definitely shouldn't), but now that the 3D "revolution" has sort of plateaued suddenly people are talking about gameplay again... conveniently right when game theorists start popping up, but that doesn't mean that the ideas that are in right now should be locked down too hard.

Clearly there are worse alternatives. Imagine what might have happened if the official academicizing of games was building up steam like it is now, except it happened 6-7 years ago, at the height of "3D awesomeness is what makes games good" mania. There are still people who are of that mindset on some blogs and developer forums (the "early/mid 90s FPS is king and all should follow its lead" outlook), and they get laughed at by people talking about "fun" and "gameplay" and "like GTA." So yeah, while there are worse alternatives for which group should/could have started the game theory ball rolling, its still scary the amount of narrowmindedness and trend-followingness that exists.

Surely this post will be taken the wrong way entirely Another thing I dislike about overly academic game discussion is you can't make vague generalizations which happen to make make sense but you don't want to fully back up because you cant be bothered to go research across the net for evidence. I'm sure that if you wanted you could refute every word I've said in my post with facts that point towards something else, and therefore somehow "invalidate" what I've said... which is utter crap since though I haven't gone and cited any specific facts, there's gotta be the tiniest bit of merit at least in what I've written. Fortunately its a forum post and not some sort of actual thing that I care about... but that pisses me off quite a bit as it seems to happen a lot. Whoops I've typed too much in this little "secret" PS. Bye ¬ ¬

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Erkki

Have games as such been studied thoroughly before video games by the way? I mean apart from mathematical game theory.

I don't really think that's really relevant. Video games have just as much in common with movies as with traditional games, and there have been scientific studies about movies. Games are a very interesting subject to study, but it will take some time (probably the next generation of educators who have grown up with games) before the academic world starts to take serious notice of it.

[ragnar]

Just to disappoint you Jake, I'm going to agree with you, more or less at least.

I just don't think that it should be possible to lock down ideas in game theory. Better ideas should always replace lesser ones and sentimentalism towards theories is rather misplaced.

[Jake]

I don't think the intent of any of them is going to be to lock anything down, but given the nature of how most of the film theory courses Ive taken at university goes, that's what ends up happening anyway. Even in practice. Its amazing how many film students Ive talked to online around America and Europe who are repeatedly encouraged time and again in theory and production courses to not make a narrative or genre film.

WTF? I could understand maybe telling students "dont make all narrative and genre films" but instead the attitude is to just close off that approach to filmmaking entirely, and then what you end up with are a bunch of people making structureless dreck (okay some of its good but its the exception) while having no grasp of how to tell a story with, properly edit, or properly direct a film. The ones who come out of these programs who have learned how to do those things despite the system they went through are then considered the bright geniuses of the bunch. Completely ridiculous. I could very easily see that happening to game studies

Where's Marek? he needs to come in and defend everything