Ludo-narrativism as Bogost’s proceduralism in the light of the ludology-narratology debate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/2391-8551.1.09Keywords:
ludology vs narratology debate, Ian Bogost, proceduralismAbstract
The ludology-narratology dispute has been dismissed and neglected by many researchers. Theorists on both sides of the conflict created theories assimilating the concepts of their opponents. However, in my opinion, Ian Bogost — a scientist not involved in the dispute — has the most interesting solution to the problem. Bogost’s basic concepts — unit operations comparative criticism and procedural rhetoric theory – combine interpretations of game rules with those of narratives. The achievements of Bogost seem less known and appreciated in the Polish game studies. In this article, I will present the basic theories from Bogost’s main books: Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism and Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames in the context of ludology versus narratology debate.
References
Aarseth, Espen, 2001, Computer Game Studies, Year One, „Game Studies” http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html
Google Scholar
Aarseth, Espen, 2010, Badanie zabawy: metodologia analizy gier, przeł. M. Filiciak, [w:] Filiciak Mirosław (red.) Światy z pikseli. Antologia studiów nad grami komputerowymi, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SWPS Academica.
Google Scholar
Bogost, Ian, 2006, Unit operations. An approach to videogame criticism, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6997.001.0001
Bogost, Ian, 2007, Persuasive Games. The Expressive Power of Videogames, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5334.001.0001
Eskelinen, Markku, 2001, The Gaming Situation, „Game Studies” http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/
Google Scholar
Frasca, Gonzalo, 1999, Ludology meet Narratology: Similitude and differences between (video) games and narrative, http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm.
Google Scholar
Frasca, Gonzalo, 2003, Ludologist love stories too, Digital Games Research Conference 2003 Proceedings, http://www.ludology.org/articles/frasca_levelUp2003.pdf
Google Scholar
Juul, Jesper, 2008, Co potrafią, a czego nie potrafią gry komputerowe, przeł. Piotr Wojcieszuk, “Wiedza i Edukacja”,
Google Scholar
Juul, Jesper, 2001, Games Telling stories? – A brief note on games and narratives, „Game Studies”, http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Google Scholar
Manovich, Lev, 2006, Język nowych mediów, przeł. P. Cypryański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Google Scholar
Murray, Janet, 1998, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Pearce, Celia, 2003, Towards a Game Theory of Games, [w:] Pat Harrigan i Noah Wardrip-Fruin (red.), First Person. New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Pearce, Celia, 2005, Theory Wars: An Argument Against Arguments in the so-called Ludology/Narratology Debate, http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/PearcePubs/PearceDiGRA05.pdf
Google Scholar
Ryan, Marie-Laure, 2001, Beyond Myth and Metaphor* — The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, „Game Studies”, http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Google Scholar
Sicart, Miguel, 2011, Against Procedurality, „Game Studies”, http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap.
Google Scholar
Aleksiej Pażytnow, 1989, Tetris [GameBoy], USA: Nintendo.
Google Scholar
Maxis, 2000, The Sims [PC], USA: Electronic Arts.
Google Scholar
Maxis, 2001, The Sims: Hot Date [PC], USA: Electronic Arts.
Google Scholar
Nintendo, 1985, Super Mario Bros [NES], USA: Nintendo.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
