Interactive Narrative Strategies in Videogames

---

Frome Jonathan
2018 Chinese DiGRA '18 Abstract Proceedings

 

Ludology, Narratology and Philosophical Hermeneutics

---

Arjoranta Jonne, Karhulahti Veli-Matti
2014 DiGRA Nordic '14: Proceedings of the 2014 International DiGRA Nordic Conference

In this article we present the hermeneutic method as a tool for analyzing game studies discourses. We use Markku Eskelinen’s profusely interpreted “The Gaming Situation” (2001) as a case study. Our premise is that whereas the hermeneutic method is academically well-established, its conscious application is not. It is suggested that with conscious application of the hermeneutic method the persistent and problematic questions in game studies, like those related to narrative, definition, and art, gain potential to be treated with increased sophistication.

 

Experiential Narrative in Game Environments

---

Calleja Gordon
2009 DiGRA '09 - Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory

This paper explores the contentious notion of experiential narrative and proposes the first step in a narrative framework for game environment. It argues for a shift in emphasis from story-telling, the dominant mode of narrative in literature and cinema, to story generation. To this effect the paper forwards a perspective on experiential narrative that is grounded in the specific qualities of the game. This avoids the over-generalization that tends to accompany discussions of experiential narrative while retaining the cognitive dimension in play.

 

Theory Wars: An Argument Against Arguments in the so-called Ludology/Narratology Debate

---

Pearce Celia
2005 DiGRA '05 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play

This paper offers an alternative to the agonistic debate presented by Gonzalo Frasca in “Ludologists Love Stories Too,” in Level Up, DiGRA 2003 Conference Proceedings (Frasca, 2003). While Frasca’s position is that the ludology/narratology debate is spurious and fraught with misunderstandings, his paper simultaneously succeeds in deepening the gap by further polarizing the alleged two sides of a debate that, in Frasca’s words, “never took place.” Furthermore, the paper adds to the misunderstandings by further mis-labeling, mis-quoting and decontextualizing some of the points made by others. In this paper, I argue that there is little value in polarizing scholars into two “camps,” even if one is doing so in an attempt to bridge the gap. As some of the scholars quoted by Frasca (some of whom I will refer to here) have pointed out, the argument is neither interesting nor productive. It begins to sound more like a theological argument than a deep form of discourse—somewhat like saying “communists love capitalism too.” The very act of bestowing the suffix “-ist” is a kind of spell-casting exercise that only serves to reinforce the so-called false polarity that Frasca attempts to critique. And in fact, I am certain that a number of scholars who have been been grouped into the referenced camps—myself among them—would prefer not to be classified in either camp, but be allowed to move freely across the spectrum if ideas that lie between play and narrative without being forced to take a “position” on either end.