Reading human agency from environmental surfaces is not actually narrative architecture.

I also see a big distinction in 3D game spatial understanding from the spatial understanding from books and from films. The former requires proprioceptive movement through inter related spaces to create an understanding of architecture while the latter does not require the reader or viewer to move through linked spaces. Readers (and cameras) don?t cross thresholds and circumnavigate perimeters on a regular basis. Gamers do.
And I think we can test this by studying whether the hippocampus is activated during say DOOM or QUAKE compared to reading say the HOBBIT (even though it has a 2D map). Has this already been done to death or do I truly not understand? (Maybe both!)
Perhaps I am too biased by the paper NARRATIVE EXPLANATION* by J. David Velleman, it is from an analytical philosophical framework and may not sit well with media studies.
I have written more on this but also,on theatre and meaning in regards to Tronstad’s paper. I like the bifurcation of action from representation, but I have some experience with theatre and with IF design and I suspect the first section has conflated defining attributes of theatre with any metaphorically compressed medium. I wonder if anyone would be interested in reading 1) or 2)…

If an activity is unique does it require unique methods to describe teach and communicate its strengths and weaknesses?

For we don’t typically desribe or criticise games by playing or designing other games (although that would be interesting cf http://www.jesperjuul.dk/gameliberation/ ). We describe the game, we give it cause and effect, we tell our stories or others in experiencing it.

It seems to me more accurate to say these ‘other’ theories CAN directly apply to games, the question is rather whether they are missing something (ludology?) or whether they are in fact becoming something else.
Another rather sly argument may be that film criticism can be related to games (image schemata and the way in film use experiential or phobic triggers to gain audience engagement and reaction RATHER than how they tell or imply narrative) but this in term suggests that film criticism is not or should be merely about narrative.
In short, does narrative include ludology? And is the reading of images an inconsequentual step from reading text? I spoke to someone with an art background, a PhD in literature and halfway through a PhD in visual recognition (in philosophy and psychology) on this matter and he said yes media studies people and psychologists diverge widely on this issue.

Many academics are almost automatically offended by others’ negative comments and evaluations. In my experience, offense is a reaction that most depends on the offendee, not the offender. Seen from the offender’s perspective, it is usually a regrettably unavoidable side effect of their legitimate action. While we as academics may offend, it is not our professional intention. And while we may be offended, we should make an effort to resist and see through our emotional response, which is usually not a valid interpretation of the offender’s intention.

Since silently accepting arguments and statements we know to be wrong or suppressing those we know to be right is not an acceptable academic practice, offense is a normal part of our professional lives. Since eliminating it would inevitably lead to a stale, lifeless discourse, instead we need to learn not to take offense, whatever the intent, as part of our training. Because in the cases where the offense is intended, becoming offended certainly doesn’t help.

I just don’t think we can have professional academic debates without accepting the risk of offense. Hmm, maybe some sort of EULA is needed…

[Speaking in a high-pitched nervous voice:]
Now, you all be nice to each other! You are offending each other.

Just a couple of things:

a) Jesper
“And of course, it?s pretty strange to be criticized (by K?cklich) for not understanding how narratives can operate across media when the whole original argument was based on an examination of transmedial storytelling and how narratives can (fail to) move across media to games.”

Sorry, Jesper, I was not criticizing you personally. The Star Wars example was Henry Jenkins’, and all I said was that ludology [fails] to understand that narratives can operate across different media.” As far as I understand – and I am not an expert, so correct me if I’m wrong – ludology is not very interested in narrative, so this should be like water off a duck’s back to you.

b) Espen
“We don?t need a discipline (there is room, and need, for many), but we can always use more discipline, i.e. better scholarship. Unfortunately, I think just saying this irritates people and causes – at least in part – the ?nasty? mood. There is no ?easy? way to say this…”

The thing that irritates people – it certainly irritates me – is possibly the fact that you fail to make clear who ‘we’ refers to. If this is supposed to mean ‘we can all use more discipline,’ I can only say, ‘Speak for yourself.’ I have enough discipline in my life, thank you very much, and I certainly don’t need more of it.

“[T]he book arrives way behind the current debate. Well, not surprisingly, since it was written three years ago, with no opportunity (for me at least) to update the essays, counter to K?cklich?s strange claim in the review. Funny thing is, K was informed about this in June, but polemisizes as if he didn?t know that the essays are actually old.”

Yes, I was informed of this early on, and I have discussed it at length with Noah Wardrip-Fruin. My argument in this discussion was (and still is) that as a reviewer my responsibility is primariliy to the reader, not the publisher, or the editor, or the contributors. That means I can only assess the book in terms of its value at the time of publication, because that is what will determine its reception. It would run counter to the idea of a review if I said “Well, the book is totally out of date, but since its not the editor’s fault, you should go and read it anyway.”

In any case, I have alluded to the fact that “academic publishing seems to constantly increase the gap between new media scholarship and its objects of study” in my introductory note to the review, which is meant as a reminder that the idea of publishing writing on new media in book form should maybe be reconsidered. As far as the possibility for updating the content is concerned, this refers to changes on the manuscript as well as the possibility to put updates on the EBR website. It’s a shame that the system does not work (otherwise, we would be having this discussion on EBR), but as far as I understand this was meant, among other things, to give the authors the opportunity to add to their original contribution.

“Even funnier – I wonder what I have done to annoy K so much that he tries to frame me with fictitious agruments as an old fogie who can?t bear to utter a ?negative value judgement? about games.”

There are a couple of things that annoy me about your and Markku Eskelinen’s contributions to First Person, and I think I made them pretty clear in my review. However, careful readers of the sentence the above quote is plucked from will notice that the whole sentence reads: “‘narratologists’ and ‘ludologists’ alike would rather be fragged to bits than make a negative value judgement.” I don’t see why you take this as an attempt to frame you as “an old fogie” (according to Bartleby.com, a fogie is “an old military pensioner,” which makes the whole thing even stranger), when in truth I was trying to make a point about how the whole narralogy-ludotology-debate is distracting us from more intersting issues, such as ideological criticism of games.

So maybe we should take up Jesper’s suggestion and talk methodology instead. That would be much more productive than lobbing insults at one another.

PS: Does the fact that I presented a paper on the afternoon of “a certain day in Sept. 2001” at the same conference as Ragnhild make mine brilliant as well? I admit mine was maybe not “groundbreaking,” but I am sure it had quite a lot of “impact”. Watch your metaphors, Espen, the Department for Homeland Security might be listening in…

Tim, the problem of not having aproper field of game studies is (among other things) that groundbreaking achievements like Tronstad’s don’t get the recognition that they deserve. We don’t need a discipline (there is room, and need, for many), but we can always use more discipline, i.e. better scholarship. Unfortunately, I think just saying this irritates people and causes – at least in part – the “nasty” mood. There is no “easy” way to say this….

As for K?cklich, critics are supposed to be grumpy, and he does make some valid points: the dialog/excerpted/online responses thing doesn’t work well (they should have included it all in the book) and the book arrives way behind the current debate. Well, not surprisingly, since it was written three years ago, with no opportunity (for me at least) to update the essays, counter to K?cklich’s strange claim in the review. Funny thing is, K was informed about this in June, but polemisizes as if he didn’t know that the essays are actually old. Strange.

Even funnier – I wonder what I have done to annoy K so much that he tries to frame me with fictitious agruments as an old fogie who can’t bear to utter a “negative value judgement” about games. Was he asleep in the auditorium when I introduced W. Spector in Tampere in 2002? I have taken much flak from industry people for my second editorial in Game Studies, and spoken negatively about games in countless press and radio interviews (true, 10-15 a year and it gets boring after a while), but of course, why bother to find actual mistakes when it is so much easier to construct imagined ones? The attention is flattering, but I would be more inclined to take K seriously if he were able to focus on the essay at hand, and represent it reliably. It shouldn’t be that hard.

I do think the “ludology-narratology” thing has been genuinely useful in helping shaping the f?eld and getting people to consider their positions – additionally, it has been the interesting angle that mainstream journalists have latched on to.

But perhaps it is a bit tired by now. It also seems that some people really feel that the mood has been nasty at times.

But these loong discussion about how to study games is probably also a reasult of the feeling that game researchers have a lot in common – problem is that we also come from widely different backgrounds at the same time. But strangely, the famous ludology-narratology thing was originally fought very much between people from similar literary or film backgrounds, go figure.

But I have to say that the big picture discussions of method also _are_ really interesting to me, I can’t help it.

Perhaps we need an external enemy to improve group cohesion.