Wednesday, January 25, 2006

JungKyuKim_Ch2_Aarseth_Q

Basically, my thoughts are going together with Flook.
‘Ludology’ ‘Narratology’ approaches might be got the meanings as apparatus of measuring game’s structure. From Aarseth essay, Ludology can indicate the importance of game’s mechanism and playing game and Narratology explains the game analysis with ‘plot’ and ‘character’ came from traditional literature criteria.
There is, however, obvious limitation can grab all games. For example, narratology lays the game compellingly below the narrative discourse with no distinction narrative of event and user’s experience. Of course narrative has seemed the golden gauge can analysis stories, but the golden age already gone along with the appearance of DIGITAL.
Again, Game is game.

My question in this context is “let’s think about the reason; why do people enjoy games?”

First – What kind of media attribute make game differently from previous?

Markus Friedl (2002, [Online Game Interactivity Theory]) showed the distinguishing mark with interactivity.

Second - Deci (1975) asserted two motivations (extrinsic/intrinsic) which explain human behavior. “Extrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome.”(p.60). Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of “an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated a person is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external prods, pressures, or rewards.”(p.56)
When considering the chief reasons to play a game, the fun from intrinsic motivation can be clearly distinguished as a leading motivation. This idea of fun is best qualified using models of the Flow theory. And this context along with the instinct of play (J. Huizinga 1971, [Homo Ludens]). Playfulness is the primary desire of human being.

Therefore, from two upper concepts, how related ‘ludology’, ‘narratology’ with game user’s enjoyment, if ludology and narratology have a goal to classify and investigate the game?

5 Comments:

At 11:54 AM, Blogger RAFAEL BRIONES RODRIGUEZ said...

JK I AGREE WITH U, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME WE PLAY VIDEO GAME FOR MORE REASONS THEN HAVING FUN, EVERY TIME I PLAY A GAME (VIDEO) OR GOLF WHAT DRIVES ME IS THE DESIRE TO WIN, REGARDLESS WHAT OR WHO I'M PLAYING, I THINK THE 2 GO TOGETHER HAND BY HAND, I THINK U CAN NOT PLAY A GAME JUST FOR THE KICKS....

 
At 12:40 PM, Blogger JK said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger JK said...

I agree you, Rafael. Win is very important factor for playing game. But the feeling after winning against difficult Enemy or challenge, i think, might be laid same position of the fun.

 
At 2:03 PM, Blogger Donggeol said...

Are you saying to analyze structres such as 'Parallel Path Structure' or 'Branching Structure' is more needed to analyze games in the point of users' views?

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger Curtisgeist said...

One of the differences between some most video games (to a greater or lesser degree) and say, a book, is interactivity, or the ability to "configure".

However, Aarseth spends much of his Essay referring to something else, which he says is a discriminating factor--"simulation." I would not say "simulation" as he does, but use a closely related concept which might make the "simulation" idea more clear by comparison/contrast. The idea is that the computer mediation is different in its ability to automate(be delegated) functions which would be significantly less effective without it. It is a tool of tools, and its ability to takeover technically onerous tasks at a remarkable extent is what distinuishes computer mediation from other forms of mediation. This is not the active domain of "interactivity" or "configuration" but a behind-the-scenes capability of the medium.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home