Wednesday, January 25, 2006


My opinion is very simple.

The study of ‘Ludology’ and ‘Narratology’ came from traditional literature like JK mentioned below.
However, if we see recent games nowadays, there are new typed of games have been developed and it seems those games are cpompletely hard to be anlayzed with the concepts of ‘Ludology’ and ‘Narratology.’ for example, one new PS2 game named 'Kinetic' is just for working out with webcam. there's no 'plot' or 'character' which programmer created. You, on the screen through the webcam, become a character and play the game without story.

Am I the only one who think there have been already new types of games which we can't easily use our ‘Ludology’ and ‘Narratology’ to analyze those games?


At 11:57 AM, Blogger Curtisgeist said...

I absolutely agree. Narratology and Ludology are basically academic partisan positions which furnish a ground for scholars to base their arguments--not a paradigm but still a grounding for validation. Professors pick a party and use it to qualify their statements--because phenomenological testing of the issues involved are to close to the minds examining them. This is a basic problem for philosphers and scientists of the mind.
Furthermore, these parties "narratology" , "ludology" etc. make claims that their proponents may not really be interested in. Aarseth may with to define ideas very much in line with the concept of ludology, but Moulthrop is clearly more interested in making social/political arguments than deconstructing games as defined by ludology. Similarly, Murray uses cyberdrama as a playground for her rather vague, unprovable ideas rather than an in depth study of anything. Mateas, on the other hand, makes a compelling, reasonable argument for a system that can be in some ways tested. [Note: my response to Liz's question is related to this point.]


Post a Comment

<< Home