To address this challenge, this article moves beyond contrasting definitions, and based on a meta-analysis of foundational publications in game studies and related fields, introduces a two-dimensional mapping along the dimensions of media specificity and user agency. Instead, many contrasting perspectives exist, and this state of affairs is an impediment for current and future research.
There have been misunderstandings regarding “narrative” in relation to games, in part due to the lack of a shared understanding of “narrative” and related terms. This state of affairs puts particular responsibility on scholars to identify the origins of their understanding of video game nar- rative and define their particular usage of the term in contrast to earlier applications. It is therefore essential to scrutinize the particular context and underlying assumptions when approaching the topic.
Limbo playdead unsatisfied professional#
While all legitimate by them- selves, these different usages of “narrative” in the context of video games are often not clearly distinguished in professional or academic dis- course and can lead to considerable confusion. Finally, a number of scholars emphasize the difference to traditional manifestations and there- fore work towards specific theories of video game narrative. Ludonarrative is variously understood as a structural quality of the video game artifact, as an experiential quality during the experience of a video game, or as a high- level framework to understand video games.
A wider scan of related fields reveals additional positions. In the field of video game studies, narrative aspects of video games are often described in contrast to rule-based aspects. The academic discourse has pointed out ontological and phenomenologi- cal differences to more traditional forms of narra- tive, and therefore, the relationship to established scholarship in narratology is complex. Today, no generally accepted definition of video game narrative exists. The goal of this thesis is to explore what certain games mean, to certain players, rather than appeal to a higher, objective sense of true, universal meaning. Therefore, videogame theory should become at least as varied and agile as videogame players themselves. Through close studies of a range of contemporary, mainstream videogames, I conclude that not only are there fundamentally different kinds of videogames which cannot all be adequately served by a single approach, but that players utilise different approaches themselves when playing. Each of these offer fundamentally different ways of addressing videogames as objects and the play of games as a practice, which creates a more nuanced language with which to discuss various kinds of videogames and experiences of play. Finally, I explore three broad videogame-play experiences: ludic play, narrative or dramatic pleasure, and paidic curiosity and exploration. Critics must acknowledge and respect the varied play practices of various kinds of players in exploring what any given videogame means. Following from this, I develop a framework which considers the role of the player as part of the game system, whose attitude will influence their relationship with the videogame.
The analysis of various approaches to videogames, from ludology to unit operations and simulation, places each approach alongside each other to compare and contrast what is gained and lost by adhering to each perspective.
This thesis is a critical examination of videogame theory and of videogames.
0 kommentar(er)
