Me: i was reading this tonight
Me: i was feeling out how joel goodwin feels
Me: i think i like where he takes it
Me: how much about games criticism do you read
Julian: not much
Me: LUDOLOGY VS NARRATOLOGY: THE FUNNEST ARGUMENT
Julian: man I hate it when things become binary
Julian: that said, I was thinking that I don’t want my game-playing to be interactive infographs either, you know?
Me: ah, here it is!
Narrow definitions of games are perfectly valid within little contextual spaces. Ludology can have its rules-based framework. Narratology is free to pursue games through narrative. Art games can co-exist with the FPS, the RTS and the platformer. They don’t have to compete. Why can’t we have different theories for different situations, each one handling their own definition of game?
Every voice and viewpoint is valuable. What’s so maddening are the destructive attempts to own the word game. Mathematics blossomed into a thousand different branches, so has games and so should the theory. Some will care about narrative. Some will care about rules. Some will care about player experience. Some will care about monetization. And some will try to change the world.
There’s enough space for everyone.
Julian: music is kind of like that too
Julian: hardcore music theorists are all about structure (and usually against tonality)
Me: i inadvertently read that the wrong way
Me: as people who are not hardcore into music theory,
Me: but rather, into hardcore music……… theory
(This all came up because Julian had actually sent me this, and I became very, “oh, hmm.” )
(P.S. If you happily follow all Goodwin’s endnotes, you might suddenly discover it is a quarter after 10pm and you have not yet washed a single dish or glass.)