Apology: I officially apologize to everybody for being partly responsible that computer game studies are now so often described as a simple conflict between ludology and narratology. What can I say? I’m sorry, it just seemed like a good idea at the time.
Skip to content
My name is Jesper Juul, and I am a Ludologist [researcher of the design, meaning, culture, and politics of games]. This is my blog on game research and other important things.
Certainly we are dealing with a far wider domain than the mechanists vs. the narratologists. I don’t think anyone worries about that.
On that note, which would you describe yourself as? As an academic, you obviously have to stay impartial, but what does the guilty indulgent part of you prefer: the fetus like study of mechanisms in games, or the application of conventional ideas to a new medium?
It’s not an either-or thing. It’s clearly the “mechanics” that are least understood in theoretical terms, but a lot of conventional ideas are at least inspirational as long as one doesn’t forget that they may not work as advertised when applied to games.
Declaring the absolute newness of computer games is of course more fun (manifestos generally have more fun), so that’s the part I prefer, if you ask me that way.
That’s all I wanted to know :)