On CBC news (Canada), Greg Hughes has a viewpoint on The future of video gaming.
“Ludology argues that video games are to be understood only in the context of the interface and rules, nothing more or less. Narrativists argue that video games create what’s called “cyberdrama,” in that thay represent a kind of storytelling that immerses the “participant” in characters and story.
If we believe in ludology, the internet-video game model could just be another distraction, a way to continually stimulate already overstimulated minds. Yet it is undeniable that people find meaning in games like Halo 2 and San Andreas, for while they may be electronic and therefore not as “real” as real people, the stories we tell in video games are becoming more real than movie experiences. Why?
Because this time it isn’t Mario or Donkey Kong firing that barrel on screen at faceless villains ? it’s us shooting other people on screen. We’re directly engaged in the experience, a moving character in a sea of digital code. Only this time, it’s not your buddy from down the street ? it’s someone on the other side of the world.”
First of all, interesting to see how the L vs. N thing gets thrown around casually now.
As Derrida said, words just tend to have a life of their own. To the extent that there is an L vs. N conflict, I would say that it’s ludology that’s about “shooting other people on screen” (it’s the real thing), but cyberdrama that downplays such pleasures in favor of precrafted fictions.
I am considering outsourcing this part of the blog to an AI.
Not to dig up this old chesnut again, but…
The more I design, the more the distinction between N and L is blurred. Rules and interface become story-creating tools. Game play becomes narrative in hind sight. It’s not about the trade off between Player vs. Designer authorship – it’s about collaborative narrative construction. The Designer should be helping the Player to construct an interesting story, and the Player can only help the Designer by simply expressing themself within the constrains of rules, exploring the possibility space.
It’d be completely wrong for me to say that people who cling to either N or L exclusively may do the medium a disservice. But people willing to actually state that one is better than the other are the absolute pits.
In the quote, we’re dealing with forced perceptions: game mechanics taking on designer dictated representations which, when combined, imply a further message on the subject matter. Certainly, metaphor is a powerful condiment to game mechanics, but to suggest we would have nothing without them is to undersell the unique power of the medium entirely.
And if he’s honest, the first sentance should read: “Ludology argues that video games can be understood only in the context of the interface and rules, nothing more or less. “
Wow, chalk up another one for reductionist bullshit getting a nice tall soapbox in the mainstream media. Wow, games really do have stories?!? That changes everything!
Like Aubrey says, as a designer if you are going into things with the idea that narrative and mechanics are wholly discrete concepts, you have already lost.
[This post autogenerated by JP’s LISP program, “Narratology VS Ludology Mud-flinging”]
http://blog.humlab.umu.se/archives/2005_01.html#000819 – This video of Aarseth and Jenkins debating was the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.