The philosopher’s version of Godwin’s law:
As a philosophy discussion grows longer, the probability of someone asking, “but what is reality?” approaches one.
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.
The philosopher’s version of Godwin’s law:
As a philosophy discussion grows longer, the probability of someone asking, “but what is reality?” approaches one.
This week I am keynoting at the Philosophy of Computer Games conference in Potsdam, May 8-10.
My talk is Who Made the Magic Circle? Seeking the Solvable Part of the Game-Player Problem.
If the early days of game studies concerned the issue of games and stories, recent discussions appear to be focused on the issue of games and players. This is a discussion of methods and of the object of study: Should we discuss players or should we discuss games? There are two possible perspectives on this: The common “segregationist” perspective implies that games are structures separate from players, structures that players can subsequently subvert. In this talk, I will make the case for an alternative “integrationist” perspective wherein games are chosen and upheld by players, and where players will happily create formal rule systems and boundaries around the playing activity.
I will argue that the question of games and players must therefore be decomposed into a set of smaller problems, each of which must be answered with different methods.
It’s a meta-talk! Looking forwards to the conference.
Not a survey of the question, but I have been reading Junot Díaz‘ The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, whose title character is, of course, a geek in every way. What is special is how this matter-of-factly spills into the narrator’s use of video game (and role-playing game) references for illustration:
When the young Beli meets the man later known as The Gangster, she:
Shrieked: No. Me. Toques. … Then let him have it with a stack of cocktail napkins and almost a hundred plastic olive rapiers, and when those were done dancing on the tile she unleashed on of the great Street Fighter chain attacks of all time.
Later, when Trujillo is assasinated we hear:
Shot at twenty-seven times – what a Dominican Number – and suffering from four hundred hit points of damage, a mortally wounded Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina is said to have taken two steps towards his birthplace, San Cristóbal, for, as we know, all children, whether good or bad, eventually find their way home, but thinking better of it he turned back toward La Capital, to his beloved city, and fell for the last time.
Richard Bartle has a really amazingly wonderful opinion piece in the Guardian with the above title: We’ve won: get over it
I’m talking to you, you self-righteous politicians and newspaper columnists, you relics who beat on computer games: you’ve already lost. Enjoy your carping while you can, because tomorrow you’re gone.
According to the UK Statistics Authority, the median age of the UK population is 39. Half the people who live here were born in 1969 or later. The BBC microcomputer was released in 1981, when those 1969ers were 12. It was ubiquitous in schools; it introduced a generation to computers. It introduced a generation to computer games.
Half the UK population has grown up playing computer games. They aren’t addicted, they aren’t psychopathic killers, and they resent those boneheads – that’s you – who imply that they are addicted and are psychopathic killers.
Next year, that 1969 will be 1970; the year after, it’ll be 1971.
Dwell on this, you smug, out-of-touch, proud-to-be-innumerate fossils: half the UK population thinks games are fun and cool, and you don’t. Those born in 1990 get the vote this year.
(Via the Gamesnetwork list.)
I have just had a “riposte” published on EBR for the Second Person anthology.
In response to James Wallis’ article “Making Games That Make Stories”, my short piece is “Why Make Games That Make Stories?“:
Wallis makes a number of excellent observations about story-making games, the type of story-game where players explicitly create or co-create a story. He discusses story games that make only very broken stories and shows how the genre knowledge of players can be instrumental for actual game play.
So let me ask the “ludological” question: Why?
More
Waxy.org has unexpectedly posted the story of the unknown sequel to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy text adventure – Milliways.
Hitchhiker’s is probably my favorite text adventure of all time and the blog post has comments from a large number of old Infocom employees. This is a special occasion.
It’s one of those things I have seen so many times in game designs, my own, those of students, or anybody else: In the middle of the screen, right in the players’ field of vision, you have placed a giant GUI element communicating something really important such as time left. And players don’t see it.
They don’t understand how much time is left, they are confused when time runs out. You ask them afterwards and they don’t quite believe that there even was a timer there.
This is a good example of that effect:
(Via Free Williamsburg.)
Title: What Makes Casual Games so Appealing, so Attractive: Looking for ‘the Casual’ in Casual Video Games
Abstract: Given that video games are as wonderful as they are, why would someone choose not to play video games? It seems that video games for a long period of time have alienated a large part of the population by way of their themes, their assumptions about the player’s familiarity with video game conventions, and by the demands games have placed on the player’s time. With the Nintendo Wii, Guitar Hero, and downloadable games like Diner Dash, however, video games appear to be reaching beyond the traditional game audience. In this talk, I will discuss why many people do not play video games, and identify the broader appeal of today’s casual games.
Details:
Thursday, April 10
06:00 PM to 08:00 PM
Columbia University
2960 Broadway
New York, NY – 10027
Room: Thompson Hall, Room 510 at Teachers College, Columbia University, between Broadway and Amsterdam on 120th Street. Check in with security (located in between Broadway and Amsterdam on 120th) and they will direct you the correct room.