Rafael_Ch2_Eskelinen_C

"and perhaps a series of events produced by manipulating equipment and following formal rules constitutes a game"
I think a video game can not be cataloged as a manipulation of equipment, instead of manipulation the right language to use is "Reaction" in a video game we react to the "artificial narrative" presented to us by the game and the rules we follow are not dictated by the player, instead, the rules are followed by the player, following the narrative of the game.

Betsy_Ch2_Aarseth_Q

Aatseth states "digital literature is real literature" and "digital literature is still literature, pure, if not simple. When I can read a Harry Potter novel on my palm pilot, paper is no longer an inegral part of literature's material or ideological foundations."

I agree literature can be placed digitally in different places, websites, palm pilots, readings on iTunes. But my question is, how does the 'publishing' come in to context? Can people essentually publish their own work? Or do you still have to go to a publisher. There is a difference between copywriting, publishing, and just placing on the web for everyone to see digitally. How could or will those lines be drawn?

Nick_Ch2_Aarseth_Q

Aarseth states in his essay, "games are games, a rich and extremely diverse family of practices, and share qualities with performance arts, material arts, and verbal arts" (p. 47). So then, I think it's important to ask why we feel the need to group video games into a different category. Why do we study video games as narrative? I understand (Mark) that video games do have strong narrative components, some more than others, but I think they are clearly their own thing.

Anyway my questions is simply why does academia lump video games into narrative? Or is it just because everything is narrative in this postmodern world of ours?

FLOOK_Ch2_MOULTHROP_I

I think Moulthrop really hits the nail on the head in his chapter on ludology. I got the sense that he deems the traditional models of narrative, story, and drama (as applied to television and film) cannot be used to accurately describe interactive video games. Furthermore, he seems to indicate that academics are having an awkward time trying to classify and investigate the simulation/video game industry.

“A billion dollar industry is as much a cultural as an economic phenomenon.” Despite the fact that traditional investigation has ignored interactive gaming, the cultural relevance is no longer questioned. Therefore, it is interesting to note how academia and others scramble to define, shape, and help steer the technology. My BIG IDEA is simple; why define every detail of the industry and medium? Is it possible to leave this one alone? Instead of academics clambering to add classifications and vocabulary to every nook and cranny of video games, why not let the industry make creative resolutions themselves? Do not force them into models, vocabularies, and other imposed boxes. Let the industry be as creative as it wants to be. The fact that Ludology is even a term bothers me.