Game studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Ludology)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Game theory.

Game studies, ludology' or gaming theory is a discipline that deals with the critical study of games. More specifically, it focuses on game design, players, and their role in society and culture. Game studies is an inter-disciplinary field with researchers and academics from a multitude of other areas such as computer science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, arts and literature, media studies, communication.[citation needed]

Like other media disciplines, such as television studies and film studies, game studies often involves textual analysis and audience theory. Game studies tends to employ more diverse methodologies than these other branches, drawing from both social science and humanities approaches.[citation needed]


Prior to the late-twentieth century (1900s), the academic study of games was rare and limited to fields such as history and anthropology. For example, in the early 1900s Stewart Culin wrote a comprehensive catalog of gaming implements and games from Native American tribes north of Mexico[1] while Johan Huizinga and Roger Caillois explored the importance of games and play as a basic human activity that helps define culture.[2] As the video game revolution took off in the early 1980s, so did academic interest in games, resulting in a field that draws on diverse methodologies and schools of thought.

These influences may be characterized broadly in three ways:[3] the social science approach, the humanities approach, and the industry and engineering approach. In addition to asking different types of questions, each approach tends to use different methods and tools. A large body of social scientists prefer quantitative tools and methods while a smaller group makes use of qualitative research. Academics from the humanities tend to prefer tools and methods that are qualitative. The industry approach is practice-driven and usually less concerned with theory than the other two. Of course, these approaches are not mutually exclusive, and a significant part of game studies research blends them together. Tracy Fullerton and Kenji Ito’s work are examples of interdisciplinary work being pursued in game studies.[4][5]

The youth of the field of game studies is also another reason for blurred boundaries between approaches. Williams, in a call for greater interdisciplinary work in communications-oriented games scholarship, noted how the "study of videogames is poised to repeat the mistakes of past academic inquiry".[6] He argues that the youth of the field means that it is not bound to follow the traditional divisions of scholarly work and that an opportunity exists to rediscover the strengths and contributions that different scholarly traditions can offer.

Social sciences[edit]

Broadly speaking, the social scientific approach has concerned itself with the question of "What do games do to people?" Using tools and methods such as surveys, controlled laboratory experiments, and ethnography researchers have investigated both the positive and negative impacts that playing games could have on people.

Among the possible negative effects of gameplay, perhaps the one most commonly raised by media and the general public has to do with violence in videogames. What are the possible effects that playing videogames, in particular those that feature aggressive or violent elements, might have on children and youth? Social learning theory (e.g., Bandura 1986) suggests that playing aggressive videogames would stimulate aggressive behavior in players in particular because the player is an active participant (as opposed to a passive observer as the case of aggression in film and television). On the other hand, catharsis theory (e.g., Feshbach and Singer, 1971)[clarification needed (missing ref)] implies that playing aggressive videogames would have the opposite effect by channeling latent aggression, resulting in a positive effect on players. Numerous reviews of existing literature have been written and there is not a clear scientific consensus of the effects that playing violent videogames might have (Griffiths 1999; Sherry, 2001),[clarification needed (missing ref)] though Ferguson (2010) concludes that their impact is generally positive.

As for positive effects, educators and learning scientists have also debated how to leverage the motivation students had for playing games as well as exploring the medium of videogames for educational and pedagogical purposes. Malone explored the intrinsically motivating qualities that games have and how they might be useful in designing educational games (Malone, 1980; Malone, 1981). Malone and Lepper (1987) recommended four main heuristics namely challenge, fantasy, curiosity, and control for game designers and researchers to improve the user interaction interface. Kafai had schoolchildren design games to learn computer programming concepts and mathematics (Kafai, 1995; Kafai, 1996).[clarification needed (missing refs)] Similarly, Squire has explored the use of commercial games as a means for engaging disenfranchised students in school (Squire, 2005),[clarification needed (missing ref)] while Gerber has explored how video games shape students' peripheral literacy activities; mainly reading and writing in both online and offline spaces (Gerber, 2009; Gerber & Price, 2011).[clarification needed (missing refs)] In addition to their motivational factors, Gee and Shaffer have argued that certain qualities present in the medium of video games provide valuable opportunities for learning (Gee, 2003; Shaffer, 2006).[clarification needed (missing refs)] Game designers Amy Jo Kim and Jane McGonigal have suggested that platforms which leverage the powerful qualities of video games in non-game contexts can maximize learning.[7][8] Known as the gamification of learning, using game elements in non-game contexts extracts the properties of games from within the game context, and applies them to a learning context such as the classroom.

Another positive aspect of video games is its conducive character towards the involvement of a person in other cultural activities. The probability of game playing increases with the consumption of other cultural goods (e.g., listening to music or watching television) or active involvement in artistic activities (e.g., writing or visual arts production).[9] Video games by being complementary towards more traditional forms of cultural consumption, inhibit thus value from a cultural perspective.

More sociologically-informed research has sought to move away from simplistic ideas of gaming as either 'negative' or 'positive', but rather seeking to understand its role and location in the complexities of everyday life (Garry Crawford 2012).[10] For example, in her book Life on the Screen, Sherry Turkle explored how people who participated in online multiplayer games such as MUDs, used their experiences with the game to explore personal issues of identity (Turkle, 1995). In her book Play Between Worlds, T. L. Taylor (2006) documents her ethnography of the massively multiplayer online game EverQuest. In doing so, she seeks to understand "the nuanced border relationship that exists between MMOG players and the (game) worlds they inhabit".[11]

Economists are also studying massive multiplayer online games to understand human behavior better. The economic activity in these games is being studied as one would study the economy of a real-earth nation (Castronova, 2001).[clarification needed (missing ref)] Different theories, such as coordination game theory, can be put to the test because games can produce contexts for natural experiments, a high number of participants as well as tightly controlled experimental conditions (Castronova, 2006).[clarification needed (missing ref)] From this perspective, games provide a unique context in which human activity may be explored and better understood. For example, it has been suggested that the very popular MMO World of Warcraft could be used to study the dissemination of infectious diseases because of the accidental spread of a plague-like disease in the gameworld.


In general terms, the humanities approach has concerned itself with the question of "What meanings are made through games?" Using tools and methods such as interviews, ethnographies and participant observation, researchers have investigated the various roles that videogames play in people’s lives and activities together with the meaning they assign to their experiences. For example, Consalvo (2007)[12] explores how players choose to play the games they buy and negotiate how, when, and for what reasons to subvert a game’s rules. It turns out that "cheating" is a complex phenomenon whose meaning is continually negotiated by players, the game industry, and various gaming subcultures that revolve around specific games.

Other researchers have focused on understanding videogames as cultural artifacts with embedded meaning, exploring what the medium of the videogame is, and situating it in context to other forms of human expression. Brenda Laurel’s 1991 book Computers as Theatre, while principally focused on applying tenets of theatre criticism to the design of human-computer interfaces, describes how videogames are the natural result of the "capacity to represent action in which the humans could participate" of computers. Rather than considering the computer as a highly efficient tool for calculating or computing, she proposed understanding the computer as a medium. The thesis of her book attempts to draw parallels between drama and the computer, with computers allowing their users to play equivalent roles to both the drama performer as well as the audience member. Throughout her book, Laurel uses different videogames as exemplars of the many ideas and principles. Henry Jenkins, on the other hand, explores the role that videogames play in a broader context he refers to as transmedia storytelling. In Jenkins' view, content moves between different media, and videogames are a part of the general ecology of storytelling media that include movies, novels, and comic books (Jenkins, 2003). Similarly, Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck (1997) describes the computer as a new medium for the practice of storytelling. By analyzing videogames along with other digital artifacts such as hypertext and interactive chat characters, Murray explores the new expressive possibilities allowed by computers. In particular, she views videogames as part of an expanded concept of storytelling she calls cyberdrama. Espen Aarseth, in his book Cybertext, disagrees with Murray’s idea and holds, "to claim there is no difference between games and narratives is to ignore essential qualities of both categories" (Aarseth, 1997).

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). The idea that a videogame is "radically different to narratives as a cognitive and communicative structure"[13] has led the development of new approaches to criticism that are focused on videogames as well as adapting, repurposing and proposing new ways of studying and theorizing about videogames.[14][15] A recent approach towards game studies starts with an analysis of interface structures and challenges the keyboard-mouse paradigm with what is called "ludic interfaces".

Jesper Juul's Half-Real (2005) explores how videogames blend formal rules with the imaginative experiences provided by fictional worlds. He describes the tensions faced by games studies scholars when choosing to focus on the game or the player of the game. "We can examine the rules as they are found mechanically in the game program or in the manual of a board game, or we can examine the rules as something that players negotiate and learn. We can also treat the fictional world as a set of signs that the game presents, and we can treat the fictional world as something that the game cues the player into imagining and that players then imagine in their own way." Ian Bogost's comparative approach to videogame criticism also stands out as one of the more recent steps in the direction of proposing new ways of studying and theorizing about games. In Unit Operations (2006), he argues for explicating videogames through a new form of criticism that encompasses the programmatic and algorithmic underpinnings of games together with the cultural and ideological units. The studies on video games and sexuality suggests that exposure to the sexualized phantasmagorias of females in video games might consequence in gender stereotyping of females by both males and females.[16]

Industry and engineering approach[edit]

The industry and engineering approach is perhaps the hardest of the three approaches to present. From an engineering perspective, videogames have been the context for a wide variety of technological innovations and advancements in areas such as computer graphics, artificial intelligence, and networking. While the research pursued in these areas is mostly not about games, it is quite common for videogames to be used as a context in which to demonstrate the solutions and problems solved. A counter-example to the above is Mateas and Stern’s Façade, an interactive drama whose design and development resulted in contributions to the field of AI (Mateas, 2002; Mateas and Stern, 2004).

From an industry perspective, a lot of game studies research can be seen as the academic response to the videogame industry’s questions regarding the products it creates and sells. The main question this approach deals with can be summarized as "How can we create better games?" with the accompanying "What makes a game good?". "Good" can be taken to mean many different things: Does the game provide an entertaining and engaging experience to the player? Is the game easy (or for some players, challenging) enough to learn and play? Is the game innovative or does it provide the player with novel experiences? Different approaches to studying this problem have looked at describing how to design games (Crawford, 1984; Rollings and Morris, 2000; Rouse III, 2001), extracting guidelines and rules of thumb for making better games (Fabricatore et al., 2002; Falstein, 2004), abstracting commonalities from games and understanding how they relate to each other (Björk and Holopainen, 2005; Zagal et al., 2005), and studying the gaming experience from the player's point of view (Pagulayan et al., 2003; Sykes and Brown, 2003; Koster, 2004). Much of this research is also dedicated to defining and constructing a vocabulary for describing games and thinking through the design of new ones (Church, 1999; Kreimeier, 2002).

The industrial approach can be characterized as "design" or "product" driven. Methodologically, a wide variety of approaches have been taken. Most often, they are attempts to re-imagine existing practices in other fields and industries to the videogame industry. Pagulayan and colleagues, for example, have worked on developing tools and practices for evaluating usability in games (Pagulayan et al., 2003) while Bjork and Holopainen (2005) borrowing from the literature on software patterns in software engineering toward creating patterns for gameplay. Also, Bateman and Boon, using Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, have conducted research to create tools to help guide the design of games for certain demographic groups by incorporating elements specifically designed to meet their needs.[17]

Other areas of research[edit]

As is common with most academic disciplines, there are a number of more specialized areas or sub-domains of study.

Video game pre-history[edit]

An emerging field of study (Oliver Grau, 2004, and others) looks at the "pre-history" of video games, suggesting that the origins of modern digital games lie in: fairground attractions and sideshows such as shooting games; early "Coney Island"-style pleasure parks with elements such as large roller-coasters and "haunted house" simulations; nineteenth century landscape simulations such as dioramas, panoramas, planetariums, and stereographs; and amusement arcades that had mechanical game machines and also peep-show film machines.[18]

Meta-study on violence in video games[edit]

A meta-study (Anderson and Bushman, 2001) was first applied in 2001 to test whether playing violent video games could lead to aggressive behavior. The result suggested that exposure to violent video games could cause increases in aggression. However, Psychologist Jonathan Freedman stressed that this research was limited and it was problematic that strong claims were made. In recent years, a large number of meta-studies have been applied, but there remains very little consensus on the issue.[19]

Virtual economies in gaming[edit]

Main article: Virtual economy

Massive multiplayer online games can give economists clues about the real world. Markets based on digital information can be fully tracked as they are used by players, and thus real problems in the economy, such as inflation, deflation and even recession. The solutions the game designers come up with can therefore be studied with full information, and experiments can be performed where the economy can be studied as a whole. These games allow the economists to be omniscient, they can find every piece of information they need to study the economy, while in the real world they have to work with presumptions.

The game EVE online was studied in such way by Yanis Varoufakis, former Finance Minister of Greece and Valve's in-house economist, who stated: “The future is going to be in experimentation and simulation — and video game communities give us a chance to do all that.” Economists observed that during a recession the absence of a minimum wage make the labour market bounce quickly, and suddenly, the economy is back to growing. [20] [21]


  1. ^ Culin, S. (1907). Games of the North American Indians. Twenty fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1902-1903. Government Printing Office: 1-840. 
  2. ^ Huizinga, Johan (1938). Homo Ludens. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & zoon N.V. 
  3. ^ Konzack, Lars (2007). "Rhetorics of Computer and Video Game Research" in Williams & Smith (ed.) The Players' Realm: Studies on the Culture of Video Games and gaming. McFarland.
  4. ^ Fullerton, Tracy (2005). The Play's the Thing: Practicing Play as Community Foundation and Design Technique (PDF). Vancouver, Canada: DiGRA. 
  5. ^ Ito, Kenji (2005). Possibilities of Non-Commercial Games: The Case of Amateur Role Playing Games Designers in Japan (PDF). Vancouver, Canada: DiGRA. pp. 135–145. 
  6. ^ Williams, D (2005). "Bridging the methodological divide in game research". Simulation & Gaming 36 (4): 447–463. doi:10.1177/1046878105282275. 
  7. ^ Kim, Amy Jo. "Smart Gamification". Retrieved 8 March 2014. 
  8. ^ McGonigal, Jane (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Press. 
  9. ^ Borowiecki, Karol J. and Juan Prieto-Rodriguez (2015). Video Games Playing: A substitute for cultural consumptions? Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(3): 239-58.
  10. ^ Crawford, G. (2012). Video Gamers. London: Routledge. 
  11. ^ Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play Between Worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
  12. ^ Consalvo, Mia (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262033657. 
  13. ^ Aarseth, Espen (2001). "Computer Game Studies, Year One". Game Studies 1 (1).
  14. ^ Konzack, Lars (2002). Computer Game Criticism: A Method for Computer Game analysis. In Mäyrä (ed.) CGDC Conference Proceedings. Tampere University Press. p. 89-100.
  15. ^ Costikyan, greg (2002). I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games. In Mäyrä (ed.) CGDC Conference Proceedings. Tampere University Press. p. 9-34.
  16. ^ Raj, Sony Jalarajan; Kalorth, Nithin; Kim, Jongsung (2014). "THE VIDEO GAMER’S DILEMMA: ENTERTAINMENT VERSUS MORALITY" (PDF). ResearchersWorld -Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce: 1–7. 
  17. ^ Bateman, C.; Boon, R. (2006). 21st Century Game Design. Hingham, Mass: Charles River Media. 
  18. ^ Grau, Oliver (2004). Virtual Art. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-57223-1. 
  19. ^ Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon (2013). Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415977210. 
  20. ^
  21. ^

Works cited[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Professional associations[edit]

Academic journals[edit]