Mike Arauz is a strategist at The Ludology vs. Narratology Debates
Yesterday, as I was poking around the Game Studies page on Wikipedia, I came across this articulation of a very significant debate within the game studies community:
This made my brain happy. I love a good debate. And this sounds like a great one. It's a healthy debate in which both sides have valid points. On the one hand people love a good story, and many people get sucked into games because they're enthralled by the story. Yet, where would any good game be without rules? And isn't it the structure of the game that ultimately makes us feel like we're actually playing something?
Debates, arguments, discussions, can be an essential part of making our work better. The key is to seek out the most worthy debates, and not argue about inconsequential details.
This disagreement has been called the ludology vs. narratology debates. The narratological view is that games should be understood as novel forms of narrative and can thus be studied using theories of narrative (Murray, 1997; Atkins, 2003). The ludological position is that games should be understood on their own terms. Ludologists have proposed that the study of games should concern the analysis of the abstract and formal systems they describe. In other words, the focus of game studies should be on the rules of a game, not on the representational elements which are only incidental (Aarseth, 2001; Eskelinen, 2001; Eskelinen, 2004).
This made my brain happy. I love a good debate. And this sounds like a great one. It's a healthy debate in which both sides have valid points. On the one hand people love a good story, and many people get sucked into games because they're enthralled by the story. Yet, where would any good game be without rules? And isn't it the structure of the game that ultimately makes us feel like we're actually playing something?
Debates, arguments, discussions, can be an essential part of making our work better. The key is to seek out the most worthy debates, and not argue about inconsequential details.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
|
5 Comments:
discount nike shoes
Like the post Mike. Always good to see someone looking beyond the usual themes and then bringing something interesting back in. I just wrote a post on 'simplicity vs. complexity' and I feel like 'worthy debate vs.inconsequential pointscoring' is born of the same spirit.
(We seem to spend a lot of time in meetings discussing the inconsequential as if it were of consquence. Or is that just me?)
Hope one day ,we can see another super basketball star have been created,we can recall our memory about air jordanexperience,all of cheap jordan shoes us can live in jordan shoes .We can gather there,make our dream come true ,cheers!
if you want to buy the runescape gold or runescape money and the runescape accounts,I think we certainly can satisfy your request.Your choice is our service.
Air Jordan 1
Air Jordan 2
Air Jordan 3
Air Jordan 4
Air Jordan 5
Air Jordan 6
Air Jordan 7
Air Jordan 8
Air Jordan 9
Air Jordan 10
Air Jordan 11
Air Jordan 12
Air Jordan 13
Air Jordan 14
Air Jordan 15
Air Jordan 16
Air Jordan 17
Air Jordan 18
Air Jordan 19
Air Jordan 20
Air Jordan 21
Air Jordan 22
Air Jordan 23
Air Jordan 2k9
Air Jordan 2009
Air Jordan Dub Zeros
Air Jordan Spizikes
Air Jordan 6 Rings (Six Rings)
Air Jordan Fusion 5
Air Jordan Fusion 12
Air Jordan Fusion 20
Post a Comment
<< Home