The Ludologist

I tend not to write much about my work-in-progress, but let me try:

One of my basic arguments is that the rules of a game are designed to (and evolve to) be so clear and unambiguous that it is always clear whether a given action is allowed or not.
At the same time, actually playing a card game, board game, or any outdoor game like croquet tends to lead to much discussion about what rules to follow. I have played thousands of games and seen thousands of games played where discussion erupted around these things: Can you shoot the ball through the center hoops of the croquet field in any direction? Can you borrow money from other players in Monopoly? Can you move both clockwise and counterclockwise during the same turn in Trivial Pursuit?

I have seen this arguing about rules so many times, but for academic purposes, I need a source: Did anybody ever write about this? Any anthropological studies?

It is one of those academic moments: It would be much easier if I could quote somebody else saying this. (Perhaps I should write that article myself under pseudonym?)

The alternatives are 1) to plainly claim that that’s the way it is or perhaps 2) to do a microscopic anthropological study:
“Copenhagen, the evening of August 14th 2003. 4 young men are playing croquet on Halmtorvet. As the leader of the game shoots his ball through the center hoops of the playing field, a violent discussion erupts: Must you shoot through the center hoops from a specific angle; do you need to pass through both hoops or is one enough?”

Any sources, any ideas?

Which is the better game, Snood or Bust’a’move?

Let me get that: Bust’a’move (AKA Puzzle Bobble) is a wonderfully simple puzzle game with tons of Japanese cool:

Snood is a cheap, poorly executed ripoff with graphics seemingly done in Windows Paint.

Don’t know why, but a lot of people (especially in North America?) play Snood rather than Bust’a’move, Henry Jenkins here.

Hello? Stop playing Snood and get the real thing instead!

Still, if anyone could explain why a large white worm comes out of Pukadon’s belly when you select him (Super Bust’a’move on PS2) … ehr, what is this supposed to signify?

More details are emerging about Sony’s upcoming game handheld, the PSP.

There seems to be nothing really new about the device, rather it’s an amalgam of current technology and conventional projections for the future:

Sony is taking a page from Nintendo’s GameCube by introducing a new small disc format (60mm), the “Universal Media Disc” (“Universal” apparently means “Proprietary”.)

It will also feature wireless gaming capabilities like the Nokia N-Gage. (Though Wi-Fi rather than Bluetooth.)

This is nice enough, and lots of tech specs pointing to better 3d. But what I’m less sure about is whether we are really always looking for more 3d capabilities? The Gameboy games I enjoy are all 2d: Chu Chu Rocket, Denki Blocks, Zelda, Advance Wars, but the 3d Super Monkey Ball jr. does nothing for me. I could be wrong, but I feel that 2d is more natural when playing on a small device – especially when in a train, car, or on a plane.
My non-corroborated explanation would be that when your body and what you are interfacing with is fixed on a desk and a chair, you can use your brain’s center for motor control to navigate in a 3d game world, but that when your body or the Gameboy is moving, your brain is preoccupied with controlling the body and can’t really spare that energy on the 3d game world.
So this would be the argument that portable gaming will always be primarily 2d.

Similarly, it appears that 3d games take more time getting used to than 2d – I’ve seen lots of small kids (and older non-gamers) having a really hard time interfacing with a 3d world, moving their bodies instead of using the gamepad etc… Is 3d always less casual than 2d? Is Sony barking up the wrong tree?

Here’s a funny one: The new Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life movie is doing not too well at the box office. Paramount pictures have the perfect explanation for this:

“The only thing we can attribute that to is that the gamers were not happy with the latest version of the ‘Tomb Raider’ video game, which is our core audience,” Paramount distribution president Wayne Lewellen said.

Thinking about the previous post:
When I initially began working with computer game theory, it was always easier for me when somebody violently criticized me than when they actually agreed. It seemed kind of awkward when somebody had actually been influenced by something I’d written or said. I am not as manically focused on antagonism these days, but there still are some fuzzy boundaries between 1) what should be a clear reference, 2) what is something that has become a common meme, and 3) what is an idea that is so obvious that everybody has come up with it on their own.
I recently reviewed a paper whose main point was essentially identical to a posting I had made on a mailing list – the author was also on the mailing list. I still don’t know whether it was 1) plagiarism, 2) an idea I had launched into the world that sailed of on its own, or 3) me overestimating my own ingenuity. And I still don’t know how to decide.

Who says theory is boring? In Jorge Luis Borges’ famous & funny short story Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote, the writer Pierre Menard sets out to write a novel identical to Cervantes’ Don Quixote; not another Don Quixote, but the Don Quixote. He succeeds admirably, actually producing an all-new word-for-word copy of Don Quixote:

It is a revelation to compare the Don Quixote of Pierre Menard with that of Miguel de Cervantes. Cervantes, for examples, wrote the following (Part I, Chapter IX):

… truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

This catalog of attributes, written in the seventeenth century, and written by the “ingenious layman” Miguel de Cervantes, is mere rhetorical praise of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes:

… truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

History, the mother of truth! – the idea is staggering. Menard, contemporary of William James, defines history not as a delving into reality but as the very fount of reality. Historical truth, for Menard, is not “what happened”; it is what we believe happened.

Now, game studies is finally catching up, compare a quote from this 2002 article:

Activity Theory offers a theoretical framework with strong intuitive appeal for researchers examining educational games. Growing out of Vgotsky?s discussion of the mediating role of artifacts in cognition (1978), Activity Theory provides a theoretical language for looking at how an educational game or resource mediates players? understandings of other phenomena while acknowledging the social and cultural contexts in which game play is situated.

… with a quote from this new, 2003 article by a different author:

Activity Theory offers a theoretical framework with strong intuitive appeal for researchers examining educational games. Growing out of Vgotsky?s discussion of the mediating role of artifacts in cognition (1978), Activity Theory provides a theoretical language for looking at how an educational game or resource mediates players? understandings of other phenomena while acknowledging the social and cultural contexts in which game play is situated.

… and draw your own conclusions.

The program for the DiGRA games conference in Utrecht November 4-6th is now available.
In something as new as game studies, there is always an open question on whether it will suddenly dry up or whether we will continue to see more in-depth and more interesting research. Fortunately things are looking good, and everybody does seem to get more savvy and clever all the time. Makes me happy.

Yours truly will be speaking on The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness.