Digital Movies and Digital Games

¶ … digital games is quite relaxing, as no adequate research has been carried out yet, so nearly anything goes. Writing, in general, about gaming and games is also very much similar. Sadly, and with startling cumulative consequences, games are under-theorized. Although there is the work of authors such as Ehrmann, Huizinga, and Caillois, game theory, philosophical ideas such as the work of Wittgenstein, and libraries teeming with research on board games, one can not get far into the field of computer games using only the above resources. As well, if there is, or will be, a proper computer game research field, it can also be said to be at risk of colonization and intrusion from existing scholarly tribes (Eskelinen 2001). Computer games have to be secured against the colonizing effect of textual and narrative analysis. In the case of semiotics, the idea of "text" generalizes to everything in material existence; however, semiotic analysis cannot capture the essence of computer games. Games, within orthodox scholarly circles, are viewed as a phenomenon of a 'lower' level of culture; a few academicians do attempt to 'rescue' games through connecting them with narratives and other high-culture phenomena. This low/high polarity, which is a type of academic 'snobbery', does not result in any interesting methodology or theory, and runs the risk of missing what is truly novel with regards to games (Michael 2011).

The association of stories with games is a controversial issue among gamers, game designers, and academicians in this field, alike. For instance, at a recently-conducted conference for Games Studies, a feud could have been initiated between self-styled ludologists, who intended to shift focus to game-playing mechanics, and narratologists, who aimed to study games, as well as other storytelling modes. The creativity model often linked to digital media isn't one of distinctiveness and novelty, but of diversity and recombination. This model is hardwired to the almost 'supernatural' ability of computers to duplicate and merge texts, sounds, images, and other items from a limitless range of sources. Undeniably, digital media as well as post-structuralist theory, in diverse though interrelated ways, prove that creating and studying something new without, at times, drawing on processes and forms obtained from what can already be found around us, is impossible. Considering this viewpoint, no discipline, genre, or work is independent or distinctive: they are all specific yet vague combinations of other elements, which themselves are non-unique and varied (Jenkins 2004).

Games possess conventions and representational aspects; a large portion of the narrative vs. game conflict revolves around whether or not one must regard conventions or representations as fundamental (Michael 2011). This paper deals with ludology, and how it differs from narratology.

Important terms relevant to the game/movie-hybrid-discussion

Narratology

This term was invented to unify the works of scholars from diverse disciplines with regards to narrative. Research on play and games also faces a similar condition: topics are seen to be studied broadly from diverse disciplines such as anthropology, economy, sociology and psychology. These studies, however, are normally independent, and revolve around small characteristics, without seeking larger patterns of comprehension (Frasca 1999).

Ludology

Espen Aarseth, an advocator of the advent of a modern field of research focused especially on studying games as well as game play, coined the term 'Ludology' rather than framing the game ideas through the lens of established disciplines and other media (Jenkins 2004). Ludology (derived from the Latin ludus, which means 'game', but also means 'school'), was proposed to denote a proposed new field of research on activities pertaining to games and play. Similar to narratology, ludology should also be an independent discipline, free of the media that support the activity (Frasca 1999). The term 'Ludi' was also used in the Nobel Prize winning novel "The Glass Bead Game', by Herman Hesse. The lead character is Magister Ludi, in this philosophical narrative that continually refers to a special 'game' that encompasses all knowledge and is played by an intellectual elite.

Ludology refers to a specific analysis of games, wherein emphasis is placed on the games' formal elements such as attributes, entities, and rule systems. 'Games studies' is the generic term employed to denote the humanistic approach to the study of games. In contrast, ludology is a term normally reserved for formalists; it most frequently stands as an anti-narratology approach- the narratology vs. ludology argument (Michael 2011).

Ludology and narratology differences

Most of the naive comparisons that are made between games and game-narratives normally arise out of definitions for narrative that are too limited, weak, or broad. These comparisons usually boil down to discovery of 'characters' and 'plots' in both these modes (i.e. games and narratives). We must, however, be aware that this is not adequate, as those properties and events can also be found in the field of 'drama', which is clearly a mode of its own. The marginal definition that Gerard Genette and Gerald Prince gave for 'narrative', in essence, states that there have to be two components or aspects to constitute a narrative: 1) a time-based succession of events, and/or plot, if the concept is watered down; and, 2) a narrative setting, such as having narrators as well as characters or 'narratees' (Eskelinen 2001).

Every game does not tell a story. Games can have expressive, experiential, and abstract forms, and thus be closer akin to modern dance or music than cinema. While some ballets such as The Nutcracker tell stories, storytelling is not a defining or intrinsic characteristic of dance. In the same way, several games (for example, Blix, Snood and Tetris) are merely graphic games that not only do not readily lend themselves to narrative illustration, but also have no necessity for any sort of narrative intervention. To understand such games, other concepts and terms are also required beyond narrative; these include expressive motion and interface design. The very last thing gamers want is to reign in inventive experimentation, which must take place in the initial years of development of a medium (Jenkins 2004).

A plot, story, or back story, does not suffice as 'narration'. Enacting a succession of events gives rise to a performance or drama; recounting a succession of events gives rise to a narrative; producing or playing out a succession of events under specific circumstances and adhering to formal rules gives rise to a game. While this is actually very simple, it is vital too: in games such as Tetris there are event sequences which don't form stories. A very simple reason exists for this: in the case of games, the central temporal relationship is one between event time and user-time, and not a narrative one (i.e. between discourse time and story time) (Eskelinen 2001).

In what appears as a misconception of identifying similar situations or characters in games, narratives, and drama, the situation can be considered as pretty much identical. In the case of computer games, a character that exists within the game can be operated, moved, caused to act, and etc.; discussions can be carried out with other voices or characters; and finally, characters themselves can evolve and/or develop dynamically as one progresses through power-ups and different level upgrades. These entities most definitely do not behave or act like traditional characters, actors, narrators, and/or directors, which are their supposed literary, cinematic and stage counterparts (Eskelinen 2001). Inter-activity can almost be regarded as an opposite to narrative. While the former relies on input from players for its motive power, the latter flows under an author's direction (Adams 1999).

Several games do possess narrative objectives. Minimally, they aim at tapping the emotional remainder of former narrative experiences. They often depend on the familiarity of gamers with the goals and roles of entertainment to orient them to game action. In many instances, game designers aspire to develop a sequence of narrative events for players. In view of these narrative objectives, it may be rational to indicate that some grasp of the relation between narrative and games is essential before understanding game design aesthetics or the nature of modern game culture (Jenkins 2004).

Narrative analysis doesn't have to be rigid, despite some narratologists (with Janet Murray being the most commonly cited example) seemingly promoting specific narrative forms for games. There isn't one, though reducing games to any such form comes at some or other price. Jenkins rightfully argues that designers of games must, therefore, endeavor to develop the processes and forms to be drawn from, rather than decrease them. He also rightfully notes that some of the ludologists themselves can be proven to be much too hasty in reducing narrative to exaggeratedly simplistic models, such as strictly linear systems. Most essentially, his study of spatially-aligned narrative forms offers challenging approaches to modern game design. Simultaneously, however, Jenkins's specified aim of offering an intermediate compromise between narratologists and ludologists leans more toward the former (Jenkins 2004).

Present and different positions

Literature that surrounds gaming and simulation reveals two philosophical approaches, namely, ludology and narratology.

Narratologists represent academics who claim, by and large, that gaming and simulation are intimately linked with stories or narrative; this perspective of theirs attempts to justify their internal workings as well as an individual mind's workings. Ludology, regarded in a similar broad manner, lays emphasis on interactivity, play, and structure in gaming and simulation. Ludologists usually insist that the experience's dependability, immersibility, and genuineness are more vital than narrative aspects (McManus and Feinstein 2006).

Thus far, the conventional and most prevalent approach to game research, from academicians as well as the gaming industry, has been in terms of taking video games to be an extension of narrative and drama. Whilst this conception has been challenged, particularly by gaming experts like Espen Aarseth, and has, occasionally, given rise to a fiery debate, one can still see the narrative theory prevailing. The key dispute, which will be studied, concerns the fact that, unlike conventional media, games are not merely grounded on the basis of representation; rather, they are based on an alternate semiotical structure called simulation. Mechanics of narrative and simulation essentially differ, even if the two share a few common components, such as character, events and setting. More essentially, they both offer different rhetorical possibilities as well (Frasca, Simulation vs. Narrative: Introduction to Ludology 2003).

Narratology, or narrative study, can be traced back as far as Aristotle; this idea can be seen in games and toys ever since they came into existence. This field covers an extensive gamut of epistemologies, disciplines (such as literature, organizational theory and drama), and techniques (such as discourse analysis). One can trace its foundations in social science literature back to the application of narratology in this area of research on models utilized for designing computer game and simulation. This model is one that depicts how people behave, build reality, reflect and learn. Narrative organizes and develops meanings for anything and everything entering an individual's brain via the activities of constructing, living, or construing. Therefore, narrative constitutes the form by which one organizes personal experiences and memory of social happenings. That is, narrative, in short, assists individuals in constructing knowledge via a recursivity process. Recursivity implies an iterative manner of learning, uniting the activities of pondering over information and collective knowledge-building (McManus and Feinstein 2006).

The underlying logic behind separating ludology and narratology is in disagreement with the above-mentioned assertion, as it indicates a connection between them, a likely "inter-paradigm" argument. Many aspects of ludology have, inadvertently, already been described in the previous sections. Ludology has also been defined; nevertheless, the numerous differing definitions for ludology require further explanation. Juul (2005) states that: as is common with standard terms, one can find numerous conflicting inferences of ludology. Five of the most common inferences of ludology, at present, are as follows:

Study of games;

Study of games in the form of rules, paying no attention to their fictional matter;

Study of games using a powerful anti-narrative standpoint (i.e. against blind usage of conventional narratology, but incorporating games' fictional content);

A collection of individuals around the journal 'Game Studies' (a decidedly incorrect interpretation);

Experts at Copenhagen's Game Research Centre (another wrong inference).

The ludologist gaming approach primarily revolves around the characteristics of game process, interactive structure, and gaming conventions. Almost all games can be defined in terms of sets of rules to determine the end result of events: drawing a card, moving a chess piece forward by one square, rolling a 20-sided die, modifying the outcome of some generated random number sequence and comparing with target, etc. On the other hand, narratologists, while admitting that games possess structural components, assert that one can best understand games through the stories described by them, with 'story' meaning something more like "mimesis" than like "drama." This story can be some disordered remainder, as with using cards that display royal figures in the game of poker, or fundamental to the structure of the game, as with games involving role-playing. Some ludologists contend that gaming and simulation aren't narratives at all, as their features are not consistent with existing narratology definitions (for example, that a game is a game, and a story is a story, and such cultural artifacts lead to radically different essences). The key intent of traditionalist narratology is to achieve interactivity- this seems to be a common objective shared by expansionists and ludologists, as well (McManus and Feinstein 2006).

Important names in the ludology vs. narratology- debate

McKenzie Wark

Born on the 10th of September, 1961, McKenzie Wark is a scholar and writer of Australian origin. He is renowned for his written works on Situationist International, critical theory, media theory, and new media. The most popular works of Wark are Gamer Theory and A Hacker Manifesto (Wikipedia 2015).

Henry Jenkins

Henry Jenkins is Provost Professor of Communication, Journalism, Cinematic Arts and Education at the University of Southern California (USC). He began working at USC from fall of 2009, after serving as Director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Comparative Media Studies Program and Peter de Florez Professor of Humanities for a decade previously. Jenkins is principal investigator of Project New Media Literacies (NML), which is a group that was founded under the MacArthur Initiative on Digital Media and Learning. He is also actively engaged in the Convergence Culture Consortium, which is a staff network seeking to construct bridges between media industry and academicians to assist with updating and reorganizing consumer relationships in a participatory culture age. He is also engaged in USC with development of a new venture in research focused on youth, public engagement, and participatory culture (Henry n.d.).

Janet Murray

Janet Murray is a Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Literature, Media, and Communication. Prior to joining the institution in 1999, Janet served as Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Center for Educational Computing Initiatives; here, she was professor of humanities, and headed advanced ventures in interactive design since 1971. Janet is renowned as one of the initial developers of humanities computer applications, and is a pivotal digital media theoretician, as well as a promoter of new digital-media learning initiatives (Wikipedia 2015).