From Lisbeth Klastrup, on the understanding of "ludology"
In Limits of Interpretation, Eco allegedly argues that texts can be read in many different ways, however, based on empirical facts amongst other things, some readings are in the end, more valid or "convincing" than others. As theoretists researching a variety of cultural texts and artefacts, many of the presenters of this conference are trained readers. Some of us have turned our attention primarily to that form of text or cultural artefact which is called games, and many of us at the current point in time struggle not to read these text on the level of meaning, but on the level of _production_ of meaning: what are the limits and defining characterics of games or game worlds, how can we approach them on a very basic analytical level?
We definitely also need "readings of games" as ideological constructs, or narratives or architectural spaces or voids, readings from any imaginable point of view and this conference have presented several interesting readings. They will stand!
I believe, as long as they grounded in the facts of the game: on an analysis of what the game actually presents to the player, how it is design and marketed and consumed and so forth. They will NOT hold if they are based on preconceived ideas of what is politically correct or incorrect in the game or believing that everything is already Narratives etc which were the perspective on reading in general originally opposed by game researchers.
Some of these game researchers, or so-called ludologists, late last century, thus as a primarily rhetorical move argued that games were not narratives as a means of establishing the field of study of games as a study of them as autonomous objects. This does not mean that these ludologists hold the one correct reading of what a game is, rather that they wanted to lay games open to any amount of validated and grounded readings.
The strange thing happening at this conference is that some people seem to have started reading - and I believe - misinterpret the ludologists themselves as certain forms of living academic texts who have only a very limited repertoire of interpretations. We or they in fact don't : at least all the people I know who belongs to the supposed ludologic movement welcome a plurality of perspectives on games and their peers.
To continue to make fruitful dialogue between all the academics who study all forms of digital texts, I think we need to continuously distinguish between the level of production of meaning and the various readings of this meaning. Yes, there is such a thing as a computer or videogame, and it is produced and read in specific ways. At the level of production of academic discourse, there are certain people who have tried to point this body of texts called games. Don't misinterpret this initiative as anything other than an invitation to read and enjoying them in any possible way.
Lisbeth Klastrup
From Susana Pajares Tosca, on the understanding of "ludology".
As one of the Gamestudies editors, I have to say that it is really disappointing how an attempt at actually making games into a serious academic discipline has been confused with colonisation from a certain perspective that everybody calls "ludology". When we asked that games be treated as games, it was a call for people to stop considering them as a subset of another academic discipline (literature, psychology, sociology, you name it). This is not to mean that we cannot use the tools of all these sciences, and others, to look at a multifaceted object that is so fascinating from so many points of view. We want integration, but games should be the focus, not the excuse. That was the whole point.
And now I find that a lot of the papers dealing with games at DAC feel the need to position themselves in the ludology-narratology debate (which I personally consider terribly boring at this stage), and generally to speak against the "ludologists" of Game Studies. This is sad. Look at the journal (not only the varied academic board or editorial board, but specially the articles), you will find about everything, from genre questions to education to narrative questions to interactivity questions to ludology to interviews with designers to AI... I am sorry, but this is not a religion not a school of thought, what unites all the articles we publish is that the focus is games, not an affiliation to a weird sect.
And please send us your papers about all other sorts of stuff that we haven't had the chance to look into yet. As long as the focus is games, we certainly will be happy to consider them. :-)
Susana Pajares Tosca
I well remember my first conferences where I would dutifully put on my name tag, and then be utterly intimated by the old guard who all knew each other, so didn't see the necessity of having to wear their name tags, which had the unfortunate (or intended) effect of gentrifying the conference. Not here please. Just assume that everyone you don't know also don't know you, and would like to know you.
So in a moment of original insight we are providing every delegate at MelbourneDAC with their very own name tag, which comes on a lovely piece of ribbon. Well, more like string. Your name tag is what will let you in to sessions, to morning and afternoon tea, and lunch. No name tag, no entry. This is not because we want a way to police attendance, but because it is the easiest way to ensure people actually wear their name tags. If you see someone with red string, they're a DAC helper, blue string, common folk.