III A man-flu’s best friend

I haven’t blogged in a while, using a cliché excuse of a man flu which, to the utter enjoyment of my peers has had me coughing and snivelling in class since last Friday. I have not let it keep me away from my studies, or my classes, meaning my notebook is full of exciting information and new methods of thinking that I will stretch over a couple of blog entries;



Paidea Vs Ludus – Who reigns supreme?


In one of our classes a while ago now, we were introduced to; “Videogames” by James Newman. Newman tries to define what a digital game is, with talk about how scholars of media and film would evaluate a game as an ‘interactive narrative’ and how those who study videogames would describe them much differently – showing how they are unique and separate from these other forms of media, even though they do indeed borrow heavily from those media types.

There is also a lot of discussion on what can be called a computer game, furby for example. It is computer controlled and you do indeed interact with it, fitting a lot of the criteria’s required for what would be classified as a computer game. It is more of a computer toy as it is controlled by pre-set information to respond based on your interactions, in the same fashion a game would, it is limited to those actions. You can only do what it wants.

However this is also different from a game, as you have the option of how to go about your tasks, the option to play the game how you like and do things the way you see best. Unlike with a furby, the only option you have is to allow it to do its thing, leaving you to watch it perform for you – which is a different type of interaction.

It continues to talk about developer stamps, how a game can look unique to that designer, how the role of videogames has evolved and grown from arcades and penny pushing gameplay, the sole goal of being the best, to the home consoles, with a much grander range of win conditions and more. However the topic of paidea and ludus stand above it all.

Ludus is an obvious element in any form of game. A structured method of how you can achieve the win state, rules that define how the game is played - how the player acts and reacts to situations. Ludus is obvious in any game imaginable;

• Tag – One person is the chaser and has to catch everyone else. The only way to lose is to forfeit, but it’s the opponents you play with that will entice you to play harder, they will goad you into chasing them, getting closer to you and taking the risk of getting caught.

• Chess – You have a game board and units that each have their own rules. You cannot deviate from these rules, they must be followed or else the game breaks. One simple goal – take their leader and nothing else matters.

• Sonic – You have 4 controls; left, right, jump and spin. You’re on a set track and the only goal is to get to the end.

• Supreme Commander – You have a leader unit, capable of building everything else. Your goal is to use whatever resources are available to you to destroy the enemy utterly. There’s no option to go off on your own and make sand castles, no choice to call it a draw or move off the game field.

All these games are great examples of Ludus, and there are many more. Paidea may seem like it has no place in games. In a sense, it’s like free play in primary school, the choice to do anything that pleases, make up your own game with any system of rules, do what you want to do whether you have a foreseeable outcome or not – All for fun / pleasure.

That way of thinking about paidea, makes it seem like it can have no place in a game. When can you make up your own rules, or play a game without a goal? In recent times, games have certainly evolved to allow the player free will. It’s a highly sought after goal for games developers – adding immense replay value.
Newman uses SimCity as a good example, but it has been called more of a software toy than a game and personally I think there are far better examples, although they were made with a sandbox setting in mind. Games are now being created with a large, living and persistent world. Real world politics and economics are being developed into these games and are having an effect on how the AI reacts to the player. It makes it seem like paidea, free choice to do as you please.

A great example would be the X series of games, X3: Terran Conflict being the latest and most advanced instalment. Like SimCity, there is debate about whether or not this is a game; it could be a software toy or just a simple simulation with the player thrown into the middle. But no, it’s a game, following rules with a full universe or mythology build around it.

There is a main storyline or quest to the game and once that’s completed the game is finished. Although you are free to continue your exploration of the universe, that’s the game over, the goal you set out to complete has been finished. That’s the ludus side of the game. However they haven’t stopped their, theirs the inclusion of hundreds of mini quests each with a background storyline to it that have nothing to do with the games main quest and you won’t find them if you don’t deviate from the games set paths and rules.

Other than that, there is a full universe for you to interact with. Trading for example has a big effect on the game. You can decide to build your own empire, your own trading can change the prices of items, cause the casual npc to respond differently towards you or other npcs. You are given the free will to do almost literally whatever you want to the universe that they created. You can choose whether or not to follow the path the designers set, or veer off and do your own thing – randomly start shooting people, talking to people.

And yet, I cannot stop thinking how, it’s all an illusion. It is easy to say – I played SimCity and I made a city to look this way, or that way. But in the end, the game is made for you to follow X amount of rules to get to that destination. Its free play, but there is always an objective; otherwise there would be no moving forward. At all times you know what you’re aiming for, and you create your own structure, your own form of ludus to get that custom victory – and indeed you can fail against your own rules.

Quite likely I just over analysed the meanings, or missed the point entirely, but if ludus is the following of rules to get to a goal, and paidea is the free will to do whatever you want at any time, and then paidea will always create ludus. Looking at it that way, any game built with a rules in an environment where you can choose how to use those rules to play the game your way – has obvious paidea qualities. But will always remain a ludus game. You’re just following the rules a different set of rules that the developers left, hidden in the game for the player to discover.

Now it seems like I am just going in circles so I will leave it here and blog up the rest of my notes at a later date, as this blog is so much bigger than I had planned 

SM – iHK
‘;..;’