Syddansk Universitet: Larsen, Lasse Juel
Syddansk Universitet: Larsen, Lasse Juel
Published in:
Games and Culture
DOI:
10.1177/1555412017700601
Publication date:
2017
Document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Document license
CC BY-NC
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
of Modern Cinema
Abstract
The aim of this article is to advance a conceptual framework of ludification by
separating out current thinking to incorporate two noninteractive cinematic areas—
playful aesthetics and gameful narratives. Ludification is usually associated with the
construction of ludic identities and cultural practices in the usage of new media or
with application of game elements in nongame contexts known as gamification. This
overlooks, on the one hand, the influence of cinematic aesthetics on computer
games and, on the other hand, the extent to which play aspects and computer game
elements imprint and transform the narrative compositional structures of modern
cinema. The present study’s investigation will present an expanded conceptualiza-
tion of ludification, classified by playfulness and gamefulness through interactive/
noninteractive properties, aesthetic forms of expressions, and narrative composi-
tions under the respective headings of gamification and cinemafication. These efforts
unearth five traits of computer game influences on contemporary cinema presented
under the headings, (1) play worlds, (2) ludified quests, (3) controller and interfaces,
(4) play experience, and (5) game structure.
Keywords
ludification, play, computer game, interactivity, aesthetics, narrative, gamification,
cinemafication
1
Department for the Study of Culture, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
2
Social Technology Lab, Faculty of Engineering, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Corresponding Author:
Lasse Juel Larsen, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense 5230, Denmark.
Email: [email protected]
2 Games and Culture XX(X)
Introduction
Ludification is a relatively recent and elusive term associated with research into
aspects of play and how computer games have proliferated and have become woven
into the fabric of modern culture. Exposing and disentangling such intertwined
influences is not without its difficulties. In making the attempt, it is important that
the point of departure should be as clear as possible. The current exploration under-
takes this task with the aim of branching out and creating a conceptual basis to
discuss how computer games are influenced by cinema and especially how computer
games influence the narrative structure of modern cinema. Such an endeavor can be
seen as an attempt to unpack remediating (Bolter & Grusin, 2000) tie-ins between
the mainstream film and game industry (Shaviro, 2010). It should be borne in mind
that the film and game industries are drivers of ludification and that the existing
synergies between them can be regarded as being subject to the logic of ludification.
Even though the starting point is relatively straightforward, further clarification
of the current perception of ludification is needed to fully appreciate the conceptual
framework presented here. The following will sketch out four influential ways of
understanding ludification.
The first addresses ludification from a vantage point focusing on the emergence
of playful identities that are associated with new cultural practices (Raessens, 2006),
which in turn are shaped by how new media is being used and how such usage
reconfigures, reshapes, and transforms media and identity (Frissen, Lammes, De
Lange, De Mul, & Raessens, 2015). Such an approach expresses a change of direc-
tion in research into media and game studies following a cultural shift “from a
predominantly narrative to a predominantly ludic ontology” (Raessens, 2006, p.
54). The impetus to reveal this shift has come from a growing research interest in
the role of play in culture (Raessens, 2014).
Seen through this analytical lens of play is ludification understood as an aspect of
media convergence (Jenkins, 2006) and conceptualized as the flow of content across
numerous media platforms with an emerging participatory culture, where users
playfully engage and traverse spread out content to make meaningful connections
(Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013; Kerr, Kücklich, & Brereton, 2006). Investigations of
ludic identity construction in new media practices have been the predominant driver
in conceptualizations of ludification.
The second regards ludification as gamification (Kirkpatrick, 2015). Like ludifi-
cation, gamification is a new and often hotly debated term (Bogost, 2011, 2014),
whose tentative and porous definition highlights the “use of game design elements in
non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011, para. 1). Gamifica-
tion is associated with similar and even less well-defined terms such as “gameful”
(McGonigal, 2014), “gamified,” and “gamefulness,” which often appear in conjunc-
tion with “design” in phrases such as “gameful design,” “gamified design,” or as
“applied game” or “applied game design” (Schmidt, Emmerich, & Schmidt, 2015), to
mention just a few conceptual compositions from the tip of the gamification iceberg.
Larsen 3
The overall research goal is twofold. The first is to map out a conceptual land-
scape to clarify the current understanding of aspects of play and game and their
influence on culture, identity creation, and gamified applications. The second and
most important is to provide an outline of cinemafication by unearthing ways in
which (1) play aspects are influenced by cinematic aesthetics and (2) how computer
game logic influences the structure of selected cinematic narrative compositions.
The aim is to advance an expanded framework for the elusive concept of ludification
(see Table 1).
. . . we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life as
being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is
an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It
proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules
Larsen 5
and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which intend to
surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world
by disguise or other means. (p. 13)
Feenberg, 2009, p. 111), involving the delicate balancing acts of playing and gaming
simultaneously.
In that way, Grimes and Feenberg’s play mode and game mode resemble Mala-
by’s “cultural form” and “mode of cultural experience,” which could be said to
unfold in an overlapping continuum that keeps both aspects open for ongoing
configurations.
Yet Grimes and Feenberg (2009) go one step further. They carve out ways in
which the process of social rationalization passes from play mode to game mode. It
does so by virtue of five properties:
Zubek, 2004), and (7) Perhaps most notably, how are formal game elements
understood?
Many of these questions are under debate and have yet to be answered unequi-
vocally. Of particular interest in the present instance are the questions related to
game properties, namely, its reward system, interactivity, and player experiences,
since they address key elements of gamification and clearly set gamification apart
from playful identity creation and new media practices.
Gamification is heavily concerned with reward systems as motivational drivers
for behavioral changes. Yet almost all research on gamification refrains from
explaining how a reward system should or could be designed beyond giving the
player a badge for a job well done. But details about how to design a reward system
have already been identified and explained as clearly demonstrated by Hopson
(2001). He outlines how reward systems can be designed through tasks/assign-
ments/quests with either/or fixed and variable ratios and intervals (Larsen, 2012).
When translated into the reality of practical application, the reward system sounds
something like this: Game Presents the player with a quest of killing Orcs or
solving Math assignments (Larsen, 2012). In both cases, rewards are distributed
through a fixed ratio. Such a scenario can be coupled with a variable ratio that
ensures rewards after each player action. Every time the player kills an orc or solves
a math problem, a reward presents itself. This model can be expanded by fixed or
variable time released rewards so that the player receives rewards either after a fixed
or a random time period. This is called layering rewards according to fixed and
variable ratios. Layered rewards are heavily invoked in MMOGs, including World of
Warcraft (2004). Such a system creates correlation between object meaning, game
progression, and new rewards to ensure player motivation and engagement. This
description is far from exhaustive, but it demonstrates how particularities of one of
the key elements in gamification are seldom satisfactory described even though it
has been brought into focus and analyzed.
Another example of lack of clarity relates to interactivity, which, while often
referred to as a key component of computer games, is rarely explained. Yet Crawford
(2003) has illustrated interactivity as being similar to having a conversation with
another human being. His point is that interactivity depends on a fluent exchange
between player input and system response or, as Crawford writes when defining
interactivity, it is “a cyclic process in which two active agents alternately (and meta-
phorically) listen, think, and speak” (p. 76). The challenge of interactivity is respon-
siveness. The system should ideally respond “as if” or in just as “lively” a way as a
human counterpart. This presents a difficult task even for triple A game producers.
This fluent dialogue between player input and system response is overlooked or
neglected in relation to gamification. This formal description of interactivity says little
about player experience or how players or users feel when interacting with a particular
game or gamified system. This article claims that interactivity is associated with how a
particular system feels when engaged with. This feel is often referred to as game feel
and, like reward systems and interactivity, it has been addressed in game studies.
10 Games and Culture XX(X)
Swink (2009) has defined game feel as “real-time control of virtual objects in
a simulated space, with interactions emphasized by polish” (p. 6). The definition
needs a bit of unpacking. Real-time control of virtual objects more or less
covers interactivity involved in handling objects and experiencing how they
respond (the input–output cycle mentioned above). Simulated space concerns
the virtual space and how objects behave, while polish points to particular ways
of experiencing the digital objects. Polish is also called juice (Jonasson & Purho,
2012). Generally speaking, polish/juice directs the players’ experience of digital
objects. Are they perceived as heavy or light, easy or difficult to break or
shatter, or are perceived as alive or dead? Sketching out complexities of reward
systems, interactivity, and player experience points to a further need for clar-
ification in relation to both the applicative and conceptual dimension of
gamification.
In spite of design and conceptual shortcomings offers gamification valuable
insights. Firstly, it indicates how playfulness and gamefulness operate in the ludic
turn. Secondly, it addresses the ongoing efforts of gamifying existing activities.
Thirdly, it manifests itself on an epistemic level as the ideological driving force
behind the ongoing applicative and ludic transformations. Fourthly, both the appli-
cative and the epistemic level deliver fuel to ludic identity and to culture creation,
since they take place through playful applications and gamified systems and thereby
intertwining gamification and ludification.
Together, gamification and ludification could be said to act in a circular and
recursive formation accelerating and expanding the ludic presence of game-like
traits outside the realm of games engaged with playful attitudes.
Play Worlds
Play worlds can be outlined from Huizinga’s definition of play. An exemplary case
is the Mission Impossible universe from the TV series (1966–1973, 1988–1990)
and movie installments. They are all organized according to similar ritualistic
patterns. In Ghost Protocol (2011), the protagonist Ethan Hunts crosses the line
separating everyday life from a play world where he is hero, a savior of the world.
Hunt enters the magic circle of play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Zimmerman,
2014) by voluntarily accepting a secret mission placing himself and his Impossible
Larsen 13
Mission Force (IMF) group outside normal life and firmly in a scenario abiding by
its own rules.
This is especially evident each time Hunt receives a mission. This is always
communicated in the same recognizable way by structuring the content in same
order. Each mission statement contains an identification of Hunt followed by a
mission requiring a break-in to a particular space within a specific time frame—the
Kremlin in Ghost Protocol (2011) and the Vatican in Mission: Impossible III
(2006)—to affirm, steal, or retrieve something or somebody. The mission statement
always ends by emphasizing that Hunt and his team will be disowned if captured or
killed thereby stressing their secrecy.
Acting out missions often centers on dressing up and impersonating villains by
pretending. Dressing up emphasizes the continuous “play” with identities, from the
initial mission confirmation of Hunt being Hunt to the identification of the villain.
Dressing up and impersonating is, by the way, one of the most salient features of
Mission Impossible. Not only can disguised members of IMF mimic the visual
appearance of alleged villains, but they can also impersonate voices making them
impossible to distinguish from the real thing and in so doing enact a pivotal aspect of
play (Larsen, 2015; Sutton-Smith, 2001).
Taken together, the Mission Impossible universe exhibits a play world character-
ized by voluntary actions taking place outside everyday life within a specific time
and space frame in a specific enactment as a secret group separated from everyday
world by disguise. All words in italics point to crucial aspects of Huizinga’s defi-
nition of play and justify a classification of the fictional universe of Mission Impos-
sible as a play world.
Ludified Quests
The main challenge of conceptualizing ludified quests lies in separating them from
the well-known traditional quest (Todorov, 1971/1995). The formal quest scheme
(Tosca, 2003) is about transporting the player’s avatar from Point A (beginning) to
Point B (end) through Point C (challenge/conflict) just as when Jumpman (later
Mario) has to defeat Donkey Kong to reach The Lady (later Pauline) in the Donkey
Kong (1981) arcade game or the later Mario game installments. Such a quest tem-
plate fits many games and many narratives.
Ludified quest is dependent on vertical intertextual game references, as is the case
in the movie Getaway (2013).
In Getaway, the ex-racing car driver Brent Magna is being forced to drive a
Mustang Shelby through the city of Sofia completing a series of quests to satisfy
the kidnappers of his wife. One quest is a drive, control, and speed test, where
Magna has to get from Points A to B in less than 4 min. Driving recklessly
through a densely populated city completing a timed quest places the scenario
very close to the highly proclaimed and debated computer game series Grand
Theft Auto (GTA; Rockstar 1997–2014). As in the computer game GTA, Magna
14 Games and Culture XX(X)
crashes his car into police cars with screeching tires and people fleeing to avoid
being hit by the vehicle. The vertical intertextual similarities between the movie
Getaway and the GTA series show how the traditional quest scheme is trans-
formed from standard quest to ludified scheme and in the process describes how
formal quests are ludified.
Play Experience
Play experience as the fourth aspect of gameful narratives can be found in the
mainstream sci-fi movie Edge of Tomorrow (2014). The narrative composition
enacts the play experience and the structure of a particular computer game genre,
real-time strategy (RTS) games.
This section is concerned with tracing and unearthing the formal structure of play
experience in the narrative composition.
Larsen 15
Game Structure
As I have already pointed out, the structural layering of the invading Mimic force in
Edge of Tomorrow is similar to the game structure of RTS games such as the Star-
Craft series (1998–2009), the Warcraft series (1994–2014), or the Command and
Conquer series (1995–2013). The Omega (AI) sends waves of Mimics (equivalent to
Zerg rush in StarCraft), while Cage and Vrataski (players) try to counter the attacks.
In The Art of Computer Game Design (Crawford, 1982), Crawford highlights a
number of computer game design techniques based on computer properties. They all
serve to put pressure on the player. This is done (1) by using vast resources, under-
stood as the computer’s ability to create endless numbers of enemies; 2) by present-
ing limited information to the player, he or she is held in partial darkness; (3) by
increasing pace, unit respawn times, and movement speed; (4) by asymmetrical
relationship between computer and player (each side having different strengths and
weaknesses); and (5) by using indirection (triangularity), which means presenting a
special unit for the player to create a choice (Fullerton, Swain, & Hoffman, 2004;
Meier, 2012) between following the current action or changing course and going
after the special unit. Indirection (triangularity) creates a “mixed offensive-
defensive relationship” (Crawford, 1982, p. 62).
In Edge of Tomorrow, all five design technics can be found: (1) the Omega/AI
controls vast resources in the form of huge numbers of Mimics, (2) the players’ (Cage/
Vrataski) actions are based on limited information (Mimics hide in the ground [similar
to the Zergs in the StarCraft series]), (3) mimics move with overwhelming speed, (4)
there are asymmetrical relationships (a) between two players (Cage/Vrataski) against
an army of vast resources and (b) in the possession of an asymmetrical ability (or game
mechanic: (Burgun, 2015; Sicart, 2008), the ability to control time. The time-reset
mechanic shifts from Mimic to Cage and later in the movie back to the Mimics again,
and (5) in the final encounter with the Omega, an a Mimic is present enacting a
triangular relationship, creating a choice scenario where Cage/Vrataski have to deter-
mine whether to pursue the a Mimic to regain time-reset mechanic or go for the final
kill (known as an a strike in game communities) by destroying the Omega knowing
Larsen 17
they will die trying. Such similarities between computer game elements and modern
cinema expose the dynamics of structural ludification.
Conclusion
This article has presented a conceptual framework of ludification as an answer to the
elusive question “What is ludification?,” especially as regards the ludification of
modern cinema.
Until recently, ludification has been investigated mainly for its ludic significance
for playful identity creation as an expression of new participatory dynamics, pat-
terns, and strategies in media practices. Such an approach has been set against the
widely applied dimension known as gamification, especially when conceived as
converting nongame content and contexts into game-like scenarios. There have been
discussions about ways to position the concepts of ludification and gamification
relative to each other, and especially which term should be considered as overarch-
ing (Walz & Deterding, 2014). This article has proposed placing ludic identity and
playful media practices parallel to applied game aspects on nongame content and
context under the heading of gamification as shown in Table 1. Such a step opens up
avenues for horizontally expanding conceptualizing by including two identified and
equally important areas of ludic influences. These two areas constitute oppositional
channels of influences wandering between modern cinema and computer games.
They have been called playful aesthetics and gameful narratives.
Playful aesthetics is concerned with investigating and tracing how cinematic
effects are being adapted and utilized in computer games. Cut-scenes and voice-
over techniques demonstrated direct adaptation, while game mechanics exhibited
complex indirect conversions of established cinematic aesthetics.
Gameful narratives constitute the prime concern of this article and reflect ways in
which narrative compositions of modern cinema are more or less explicitly being struc-
turally effected by computer game elements. Five such structural influences have been
identified. These were identified as follows: play worlds, ludified quests, controller and
interfaces, player experience, and game structure, all pointing to different aspects of
computer game elements that influence the narrative composition of modern cinema.
Future work should focus on continuing unearthing, identifying, and clarifying
additional aspects of computer game elements and their influence on modern
cinema. Especially from the proposed structural level where the influence is far less
obvious than on the semantic level, where computer games frame the narration as in
the abovementioned cases Tron series, Gamer, or Wreck-It Ralph highlight.
Finally, to get at a clear grasp of the complexities of ludification, the dynamic
influences that mutually effect cinema and computer games (playful aesthetics and
gameful narratives) have been placed together under the heading of cinemafication
(Table 1) in contrast to gamification, thereby outlining the otherwise porous and
elusive concept known as ludification, giving it substance and presenting it in a
ramified conceptual framework.
18 Games and Culture XX(X)
Funding.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis.
Proceedings of Digital Arts and Culture Conference, Game Approaches/Spil-veje,
August 28–29, 2003.
Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind. London, England: Jason Aronson.
Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: Exploitationware. In Gamasutra. Retrieved December 4,
2015, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_exploita
tionware.php
Bogost, I. (2014). Why gamification is bullshit. In P. S. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The
gameful world. (pp. 65–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Burgun, K. (2014). Randomness and game design. Keithburgun.net. Retrieved August 2,
2017, from http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/
Burgun, K. (2015). Clockwork game design. Burlington, MA: Focal Press, Taylor & Francis.
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Original work
published 1958).
Costikyan, G. (2002). I have no words & I must design: Toward a critical vocabulary for
games. Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, Tampere
University Press, Finland.
Costikyan, G. (2007). Games, storytelling, and breaking the string at electronic book review.
Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstper
son/storyish
Costikyan, G. (2013). Uncertainty in games. Playful thinking series. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press..
Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/*stewart/cs583/ACGD_ArtComputerGameDesign_
ChrisCrawford_1982.pdf
Crawford, C. (2003). On game design. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety—Experiencing flow in work and
play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In MindTrek Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15).
Larsen 19
Howells, S. (2002). Watching a game, playing a movie: When media collide. In G. King & T.
Krzywinska (Eds.), Screenplay. (pp. 110–122). London and New York: Wallflower Press.
Huizinga, J. (2014). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Mansfield Centre,
CT: Martino. (Original work published 1938).
Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design
and game research. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.cs.northwestern.
edu/*hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011). “Gamification” from the perspective of service marketing
CHI 2011. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/04/14-Huotari.pdf.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture—Where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media. New York: New York University Press.
Jonasson, M., & Purho, P. (2012). Juice it or lose it. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼Fy0aCDmgnxg
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real—Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Juul, J. (2013). The art of failure—An essay on the pain of playing video games, playful
thinking series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kerr, A., Kücklich, J., & Brereton, P. (2006). New media—New pleasures? International
Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 63–82.
Kinder, M. (2002). Narrative equivocations between movies and games. In D. Harries (Ed.),
The new media book. (pp. 119–132). London: British Film Institute (BFI).
King, G., & Krzywinska, T. (2002). Cinema/videogames/interfaces. In G. King & T.
Krzywinska (Eds.), Screenplay. (pp. 1–33). London and New York: Wallflower Press.
King, G., & Krzywinska, T. (2006) Film studies and digital games. In J. Rutter & J. Bryce
(Eds.), Understanding digital games. (pp. 112–129). London, UK: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, G. (2011). Aesthetic theory and the video game. New York, NY: Manchester
University Press.
Kirkpatrick, G. (2015). Ludefaction: Fracking of the radical imaginary. Games and Culture
10, 507–524.
Klastrup, L., & Tosca, S. (2004). Transmedial worlds—Rethinking cyberworld design.
Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Cyberworlds (pp. 409–416). Los
Alamitos, California: IEEEE Computer Society.
Koster, R. (2004). Theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press.
Kristeva, J. (1980). The desire of language. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Kücklich, J. (2006). Literary theory and digital games. In J. Rutter & J. Bryce (Eds.),
Understanding digital games. (pp. 95–112). London UK: Sage.
Larsen, J. L. (2012). Objects of desire: A reading of the reward system in world of warcraft.
Eludamos journal of computer game culture (Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 15–24).
Larsen, J. L. (2015). Play and space - towards a formal definition of play. International journal
of play. Taylor & Francis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21594937.2015.
1060567.
Larsen 21
Larsen, J. L. (2016). Collision thrills: Unpacking the aesthetics of action in computer games.
Computer games and communication, 1(1), 41–52.
Lindtner, S., & Dourish, P. (2011). The promise of play: A new approach to productive play.
Games and Culture, 6, 453–478.
Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture, 2,
95–113.
Malaby, T. M. (2009). Anthropology and play: The contours of playful experience. New
Literary History, 40, 205–218.
Mäyrä, F. (2012). An introduction to game studies—Games in culture. London, England: Sage.
McGonigal, J. (2014). I’m not playful, I’m gameful In P. S. Walz & Deterding (Eds.), The
gameful world. (pp. 653–659). USA: MIT Press.
Meier, S. (2012). Sid Meier on how to see games as sets of interesting decisions. In
Gamasutra. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/
news/164869/GDC_2012_Sid_Meier_on_how_to_see_games_as_sets_of_interesting_
decisions.php
Mukherjee, S. (2015). Video games and storytelling—Reading games and playing books.
London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mulvey, L. (2009). Death 24x a second—Stillness and the moving image. London, England:
Reaktion Books.
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck—The future of narrative in cyperspace.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Raessens, J. (2006). Playful identities or the ludification of culture. Games and Culture,
1, 52–57.
Raessens, J. (2014). The ludification of culture. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, & N.
Schrape (Eds.), Rethinking gamification. (pp. 91–119). Germany: Meson Press.
Roig, A., Cornelio, G. S., Ardèvol, E., Alsina, P., & Pagès, R. (2009). Videogame as media practice:
An exploration of the intersections between play and audiovisual culture. Convergence: The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15, 89–103.
Ryan, M. (2006). Avatars of story. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play—Game design fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design—A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Schmidt, R., Emmerich, K., & Schmidt, B. (2015) Applied games—In search of a new
definition. Proceedings ICEC, LNCS (Vol. 9353, pp. 100–111). Berlin, Germany:
Springer.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2014). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Shaviro, S. (2010). Post-cinematic affect. London, England: Zero books.
Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies. Retrieved from http://gamestu
dies.org/0802/articles/sicart
22 Games and Culture XX(X)
Sicart, M. (2014). Play matters. Playful thinking series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Silverman, M., & Simon, B. (2009). Discipline and dragon kill points in the online power
game. Games and Culture, 4, 353–378.
Sirlin, D. (2008). Balancing multiplayer games, part 2. Viable options. Retrieved January 22, 2016,
from http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-2-viable-options.html
Stevens, P. (1978). Play and work: A false dichotomy. The Association for the anthropolo-
gical Study of Play, 5, 17–22.
Stork, M. (2013). Chaos cinema: Assaultive action aesthetics. Media Fields Journal Critical
Explorations in Media and Space. Retrieved January 7, 2015, from http://mediafieldsjour
nal.squarespace.com/chaos-cinema/
Sutton-Smith, B. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.
Swink, S. (2009). Game feel: A game designer’s guide to virtual sensation. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Morgan Kaufmann Game Design Books.
Todorov, T. (1995). The poetics of prose. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Original
work published 1971).
Tong, W. L., & Tan, M. C. C. (2002). Vision and virtuality: The construction of narrative
space in film and computer games. In G. King & T. Krzywinska (Eds.), Screenplay. (pp.
98–110). London: Wallflower Press.
Tosca, S. (2003). The quest problem in computer games. Proceedings for technologies for
interactive digital storytelling and entertainment (TIDSE). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Retrieved June 17, 2016, from http://www.it-c.dk/people/tosca/quest.htm
Trammell, A., & Gilbert, A. (2014). Extending play to critical media studies. Games and
Culture, 9, 391–405.
Walter, B. K. (2003). Playing and gaming: Reflections and classifications. In Game studies
the International Journal of Computer Game Research (Vol. 3, No. 1). Retrieved
December 8, 2015, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/walther/
Walter, B. K. (2011). Reflections on the philosophy of pervasive gaming with special emphasis
on rules, gameplay, and virtuality. The Fibreculture Journal. Retrieved December 14, 2015,
from http://nineteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-134-reflections-on-the-philosophy-of-perva
sive-gaming%E2%80%94with-special-emphasis-on-rules-gameplay-and-virtuality/
Walz, P. S., & Deterding, S. (2014). Introduction to the gameful world. In P. S. Walz & S.
Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world. (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.).
New York, NY: Scribners.
Zimmerman, E. (2014). Jerked around by the magic circle—Clearing the air ten years later.
Gamasutra.com. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/135063/jerked_
around_by_the_magic_circle_.php?print¼1
Ludography
Author Biography
Lasse Juel Larsen received his PhD in learning, play, and computer games in 2013. He is
currently teaching at the Department for the Study of Culture and at the Faculty of Engineering
as a research assistant. He has been the main driver in establishing the interdisciplinary Social
Technology Lab. His current research focuses on game design and development, computer
game aesthetics, playful interactions (transmedia worlds, wearables), play, and learning theory.