Once again at 'Under the Mask'. Can't believe that a whole year has passed since I first tested out my ideas on 'egoshooting' and 'becoming' in videogames. This year's conference was better organised and even more enriching and entertaining than it was last year. Some of the presentations, particularly Gavin Stewart's, Steven Conway's and Alec Charles's, I liked and benefited from more than the others. I missed Esther MacCallum-Stewart's paper because I went to hear Steven and Jenna, my co-presenter, later told me that I had missed the best paper in the conference. My loss, but the paper is online so I presume I can read it now. On the entertainment side of it, the constant repartee between Alec and Gavin was already expected from my experience of it last year. The philosophy of computer games as recounted by Ernest Adams (the keynote) certainly entertained although I strongly disagree with most of it. There was one of the usual 'magic circle' debates among the panelists; only this one led to Pride and Prejudice and speculations about whether it was possible to find Darcy's grave. I also enjoyed Esther's description of her WoW battle with the great Espen Aarseth himself. Last but not least, perhaps the most entertaining part was Jenna's adventurous GTA-style driving on the way back. (this is a long post so if you are just after the papers download them from here)

This posting will be in part a response to some ideas I either contest or wish to develop. It will also attempt to provide a general summary of the conference.

Philosophising on Computer Games: An Alternative Response to Ernest Adams

I do not know if there is a 'philosophy of videogames' but I work with two philosophers, in the main, to formulate my own thoughts on games; so though I won't go as far as to point to a 'videogame philosophy', I'll certainly agree that there is an imminent need to think about videogames philosophically. I went to (and presented at) the Games and Philosophy Conference at Potsdam, last year and I was happily rewarded with some of the most philosophically oriented discussions on videogames. When Ernest Adams opened his keynote address on the philosophical roots of computer games, I was expecting more of such discourse. Adams has always appealed to me in the way he bashes the academia for needlessly engaging in the ludology-narratology (non)debate and in the way he understands gameplay as 'difficult to define' rather than trying to define it within a set formula. Therefore, I was surprised when he tossed game studies (if there is such a thing) between the binaries of English and French philosophy as well as the classical and the Romantic.

Videogames, he says, are number-driven and logic-driven. Their orientation is more classical than Romantic. For Adams, videogames (those that tell stories, that is) do create a tussle between the classical and Romantic identities but even these can at best compare to Norse Saga or Victorian novels. Videogames have not had their Modernist or Postmodern text. To back this up, he considers the oft-cited 'postmodern' experience of the break in the fourth wall / magic circle (or whatever you will) and claims that it is not a break in the immersion ( how i hate the word ... shall we call it 'involvement' or something else, please?) because the player is never really immersed. So much for 'flow' and Cszikzentmihalyi (pronounced 'Chicks send me high') then, if one listens to Adams.

As I said earlier, I so disagree with a lot of what he says. Against the French / English philosophy binarism: according to Adams, the philosophy of videogames has nothing to do with Derrida, Bergson and Sartre (because they are French and inductive) and everything to do with Locke, Hume and Whitehead (because they are English and deductive). I am being flippant here but this is how such a binarism sounds. I am not sure what aspects of Bergson's works, Adams considers but he certainly does not take into account how Gilles Deleuze uses, quite effectively, Bergson, Whitehead and Hume to engage in supplementing each other's concepts. The watertight binarism certainly isn't a product of nationality; nor is there a clear-cut binarism of inductive versus deductive. Or even of Classical versus Romantic for that matter. Nietzsche, whom Deleuze reads deeply, says in Ecce Homo that The Birth of Tragedy is his 'most offensively Hegelian' book because of its dialectical opposition of the Apollonian and Dionysiac (roughly corresponding to Classical and Romantic). Nietzsche clarifies that he understands 'Greek tragedy as the Dionysiac chorus which ever anew discharges itself in an Apollonian world of images.' Adams's binarism, therefore, has been challenged and disproved in philosophical terms, over a century ago. He refers to David Thomas's (of 'Buzzcut' fame) article on gaming as belonging to Pre-Socratic philosophy, which Thomas understands as 'all is number' in a very limited sense. As Keith Ansell-Pearson comments, Nietzsche explicitly connects the Dionysiac with the concept of flow and Becoming as stated by Heraclitus, a key Pre-Socratic philosopher. Deleuze goes on to develop Nietzsche's reading into an idea of Becoming that is now of legendary proportion. In my last year's paper at UTM (as well as in many other papers), I have applied the idea of Becoming to videogames, especially to describe the involvement of the player and the machine. However, I digress ...

Adams's claim about the player's immersion, i partly support. I have often likened immersion to a dip in the Ganges - under water and fully out of contact with the outside world. That does not happen in games, says Adams and I totally agree. However, if it does not happen in games, neither does it happen in books and movies as Adams seems to claim. Normally I have to challenge the other extreme argument that claims that games are like the Holodeck - hence, this new claim is rather amusing for me. Typically, then this would problematise even the relocation of the fourth wall (after Steven's paper, I shan't say 'breaking' ever again) - for Adams, the experience does not include the deep involvement that Esther pointed to while describing her deep gaming experience which made her oblivious to other passengers on the train. In sum, Adams makes a rather extreme claim for the game experience and it is one that does not account for the deep involvement. I believe that extreme and dialectically opposite positions should consider the experience as being more processual and engage with ideas such as Becoming to explain this.

These problematic conceptions also prompt Adams to conclude that videogames are sans their Modernist or Postmodernist examples and should rather be compared to Pre-modernist literature. However, any literature student will know that chronology does not work as a categorising element in literature - not any more. Consider the Modernist and Postmodern implications of Tristram Shandy or Tom Jones. One more point that I cannot resist making although it is a sort of digression.

Adams claims that Victorians did not use their machine to create art. He has probably forgotten Ada Lovelace who wished to use Babbage's Analytical Engine for 'poetic programming' or weaving artistic patterns with music (in other words, being a computer DJ). Babbage himself used to impress his guests with automata built to entertain. Cultural Babbage offers many examples as does my own article on the subject. Even in the 'steampunk' novels that Adams refers to, there are ample examples: in The Difference Engine, John Keats (otherwise famous in our world) earns his living as a 'clacker' (hacker/programmer) who programs for the cinema.

To return to my main contention, however. Adams neglects many videogame titles that do not correspond to the Norse saga structure that he sees in Duke Nukem or Quake. Many games problematise the idea of good and bad binaries. Max Payne, Stalker (which Adams was consulted on), Fahrenheit, GTA etc in their own ways relate to current theoretical and philosophical positions. In yesterday's conference, ironically most of the philosophers discussed by the presenters were French and postmodern (i use this term loosely and rather unhappily). I've just found out that Adams' paper was first published in 2004 - a year before I started my PhD. It is to my discredit that I did not find it earlier - or else I would challenged it more substantially within my thesis. However, even in in 2004, there were games like Blade Runner that would, in essence, challenge the simple story structure that Adams claims for videogames. It just shows how important it is to start studying the stories in videogames in more depth instead of endless quibbling over things like player studies versus game studies.

Steven Conway Relocates the Fourth Wall

Steven if you are reading this, then you'll see that the masthead of Ludus Ex is all about what you said in the conference. 'I was in a computer game. Funny as hell it was the most horrible thing i could think of'. In fact, even in RL (which one of Sherry Turkle's respondents calls 'another window') I sometimes feel a relocation of an imaginary 'fourth wall' (or nth wall) which in a Phildickian way seems to surround us (assuming that life is an ARG, ha ha).

Back to academic blogging (see i've already relocated the fourth wall).Snap!

I liked the way in which Conway spoke of the relocation of the fourth wall rather than the breaking of it. He basically proved previous commentators wrong in one neat slash and numerous examples from other media that many game critics hadn't considered. The examples are too many to recount and I sincerely wish I could share his presentation with the readers of Ludus Ex. However, he spoke of how Max Payne refers self-reflexively to its identity as a videogame and how Psycho-Mantis 'reads' the player's mind in a faux-psionic way and makes the player perform acts outside the game in order to defeat him. Other critics would call this being pulled 'out of the game' but Conway contends that it is instead an extension of the game. It could be a contraction or the expansion of the fourth wall but it is still the maintenance of the 'as if' that the play involves. I am not one for magic circles or Hamlets on Holodecks, but Conway, if I read him right, is not either. As far as the play is concerned, I think the idea of the relocation is spot on. To illustrate this in terms of Brechtian 'alienation effect' (Snap! Correct me if I err, Steven. I am not writing like an academic now. The punctuation is intentional and many 'rap' poets relocate the fourth wall thus), in the game, the spectator is being reminded of a reality A that is different from the game's reality B while existing in another reality C which corresponds closely and almost resembles reality A. I agree with the concept of relocation also because it implicitly negates any final watertight (or even semi permeable) boundary which we have to 'break'; instead it shifts the experience to a different level of Becoming. This fits in with my conception of a Deleuzian Becoming, as well.

I was only intrigued that Conway does not refer to Gonzalo Frasca's use of the concept of the 'spect-actor' as borrowed from the drama of Augusto Boal. In a sense, Frasca also seems to support the relocation argument on a more general scale. Frasca talks of 'outmersion' where the player is conscious of being involved in the game and then he describes 'meta-outmersion' where the player is simultaneously conscious also of being 'outmersed'. If the spectator is simultaneously the actor, this is a constant process and the wall (or whatever imaginary membrane) of the act does not really break but it is relocated. All said, however, this is was a very interesting paper from Conway and I would certainly like to read more.

Shifting Boundaries: Gavin Stewart's Presentation on Paratexts and 'Inanimate Alice'

The other paper that I will briefly discuss in Gavin Stewart's. I had never heard Gavin present but I always had a deep respect for his work when he was at my university (i even called him 'sir' for the first two times i met him, he reminds me). Gavin spoke about a website called Inanimate Alice, Genettian ideas of paratext (as (mis)used by Mia Consalvo) and Bioshock game covers. The talk woke me up to the fact that I usually unconsciously take in so much from game covers. Must add this to my post-doc plan. Gavin also eloquently pointed to how even non-game objects are ludic to a degree, as they require. Inanimate Alice can, therefore, be a ludic entity at times. Similarly, ARGs can be a 'real life' entity as well as a ludic entity. It is also interesting to note how the paratexts of games affect our readings and play and also how games themselves work as paratexts. Finally, the often neglected (in my previous theoretical work, especially) element of the market needs to be considered in-depth. I will need to explore this further in my own research and thinking.

General Observations

First, I'd like to thank the organisers for having invited us (Jenna and me). The interest that the event evoked among the many gamers (you wouldn't use this term if you were there at yesterday's debate) was very encouraging. Among the other papers, I enjoyed Alec Charles' paper (thanks for thanking me about 'egoshooters'; credit also goes to my friend Mark Butler). The concept of 'hailing' in Althusserian terms has already been used by Will Slocombe in his essay on ludic agency (Digital Gameplay ed. Nate Garrelts). I am not sure I agree. I've said a lot of about agency already. Click here for an example. Of the others, I thought Maria Baecke could have developed her interesting study a bit more and also that the paper on gamer mothers could have been more representative and supplied more details. I was happy to meet Philip Lin who presented on a somewhat similar topic as ourselves -- the US Army and 'militainment'. Philip is developing his PhD plan now: all the best. Adrienne Shaw presented a interesting case study of Finnish gaming and how it relates to the global experience. We should see more of these coming up... soon, hopefully. Finally, I must say I was slightly disappointed by Vicente Gandasgui's paper on spectatorship. I am not sure King Kong is the best example for game-film comparison and Gandasgui did not seem to be aware of ground-breaking work on cutscenes (such as Rune Klevjer's) and dismissed them by saying that his friends find them boring so they really don't count as parts of the game. He also missed key research in the area – especially by Tanya Krzywinska (who is also a film theorist in her own right) and Michael Nitsche. I am sure he will develop his research further as he progresses with his research in what is a very interesting topic.

And so we came away from 'Under the Mask' driving through the heavy spray, tired but quite satisfied with a great gaming day.

All the papers are now available here.

.... So you see Game Studies isn't a baby any more.

Congratulations to Jesper Juul on five fruitful years of forming my thoughts on the ludic and posing conceptual challenges. Juul's post can be read here. Says Juul,

In Tarkovsky's film, the 'Stalker' lies on the grass and on water in the multiple existences that the Zone offers him. In doing so, it is as if he 'becomes' part of the Zone itself. It is this scene from the movie that keeps coming back to me as I remember the three days of the conference in Potsdam. The scene from the movie pretty much sums up what i wished to say about the experience of playing computer games and hence forms a key theme for my paper which attempted to explore ludic action through similarities with Deleuzian conceptions of cinema (though at the same time, keeping in mind the media-specific differences). On another level, the scene also serves as a sort of metaphor for my experience of the conference itself: in my present prosaic world of writing my thesis and my other jobs in the university, it seems like a different yet parallel existence. Never before was i able to meet so many people who had such interesting things to say about computer games.


The chance to meet and discuss my thoughts on gaming with eminent game-studies scholars was invaluable to say the least. It is beyond my ken to discuss all the papers here but I will try to address at least some that I think are more relevant to my own research. The first keynote address by Ian Bogost, especially its highlighting of the relationship between the player and the machine, was extremely interesting. His discussion of speculative realism
The game's relationship to all the various aspects to which it 'plugs-in' reminded me of a Deleuzian assemblage. In such a paradigm, the game would then have to be represented by a shape-changing jigsaw puzzle piece! Stephan Guenzel's analysis of ludic space in terms of what he called the 'space-image' is something that I am looking forward to reading about in more detail. I feel that this will complement my own research on spatiality and temporality. Some other papers that I can still remember fairly clearly are the one's by Gordon Calleja and Bernard Perron - both on the magic circle. Calleja, speaking just after lunch, nevertheless kept the audience awake in his talk about the frontiers of game and reality. I was happy to find him mentioning Case (Neuromancer) while speaking of the frontier metaphor operating in discussions of virtuality and reality. The discussion of the virtual and the real itself, however, was to me less satisfactory, especially where he brought in Deleuze and Levy in a rather sketchy manner. I am hopeful though that he has developed this angle more in his actual paper. Perron's presentation was quite eye-catching even though i am still scratching my head about whether to agree with him or not. Perron spoke interestingly and effectively replaced the concept of the magic circle with that of a 'magic cycle' where he showed games as existing on various levels of a spiral structure. I was happy to see that the narrative was firmly ensconced within his structure.
the palace: the only bit of sightseeing that I managed :)

I think I'll stop trying to summarise the papers ... and end by writing down some general impressions. And i suppose, i should say something about my own paper (which by the way, is available on my website ). Some of my best game research moments happened during this conference and most of them outside the formal conference sessions. For example, I had a really illuminating conversation with Jesper Juul and Richard Bartle at dinner: as such conversations tend to do, this one meandered around a host of topics like cricket, game-design, UK universities and even time in games. Something Bartle casually mentioned while describing his conception of game-design will, i think, remain with me for a long time: he described the design of the MUD as a river - what a lovely metaphor for sandbox games! The other extremely memorable moment was my conversation with Mark Butler. I had a chat with Mark on the train from Potsdam to Berlin - a journey of about forty minutes. In those forty minutes, I discovered one of the keenest minds working on game studies. Mark Butler's research encompasses computer games in terms of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Zizek and finally D & G. I am at present reading his book Would You Like to Play a Game? - which is turning out to be a struggle mostly due to my rather limited German.

My own session was chaired by Mark (which was fortunate as having a fellow Deleuzian chairing the session always is). Personally, i feel that my presentation did its job and despite my over-accelerated pace a lot of people got the gist of what i was saying. Pace the game-designers and the many whom i left restless, Deleuzian theory is perhaps the most germane single set of theoretical assumptions that help describe the ludic process in videogames.It is difficult to absorb Deleuze and he often is kept out of the common philosophy diet - so I'm more than happy to have had evoked the response that i got. I was asked some great questions: particularly one by Professor Mersch about the face in the FPS game which still has me scratching my head. Even from those who didn't ask me anything, I had some responses like 'I'm not sure how Deleuze is relevant to my approach to game studies but now i feel that he is terribly relevant ... somehow' : guys, you don't know how happy this makes me. I was in the selfsame situation and saying the same things not so many days ago and this kind of gives me the feeling that I'm not alone in feeling how i do. Finally, for those whom i left stranded on 'Deleuze island' :) , i'm sure they will be able to build bridges and to plug-in to numerous planes in the various assemblages around them.

I've got to get back to writing about 'immersion' (again!) for my current chapter: quite a depressing change from the stimulating conversations that i had with game studies researchers in Potsdam. There are quite a few people whom I' haven't managed to name in this post - however, they have indeed 'made, shaped and quickened' some of the opinions that i hold now. Both my co-speakers and the students at Potsdam have made my visit more than fabulous and I will jump at a chance to go back. Only this time I have promised myself some sightseeing.

Those who have reached as far as this, my apologies for writing such a long and rambling post. I thought I'd write down whatever came to my mind in whichever desultory manner ... a week has already passed and the memories are growing dim.

Finally, a blog. This blog has been on the cards for quite a while now- at least, since the last GameCity festival in Nottingham. The objective is to spread the word (and the play, which as I argue, cannot be kept separate) of my research amongst the wider game studies research community and to get the ever so valuable feedback. I've been thinking critically about computer games for a while now, having published my first paper on the Alice books and computer games in 2000. I travelled from Calcutta to Nottingham in 2005 to do my PhD on computer games at Trent uni. And I've moved on a lot from all those early papers. That's because Game Studies itself has moved on much further and much faster in the last three years. So instead of the brick wall of steadily held opinions, my research has become more fluid. Three words define my research and this blog :Work in Progress.

Ludo ex: Indian version of ludo painted on a handkerchief (Chamba, Rajasthan)

A few words about the title ... Ludus ex Machina/Game in the Machine: not the best translation because there seems to be a confusion of prepositions. However, this isn't any confusion - this is play. It is apt that for a site on playing, the title itself is in play. 'Ex Machina' translates as 'from the machine' but in case of the computer game, the game that 'emerges from' the computer (machine) is also originarily always 'in the machine' because the ludic and the machinic are originarily interrelated. The diminutive 'Ludus ex' is another kind of play: the more common meanings of 'ex' are 'former' or in case of the letter 'x', a variable in an equation. Both of these come into play in this context. The game (ludus) is always a thing of the past or an 'ex ludus'; it is always a deferral since it is already over by the time we conceive of it as ludic. This act of differance also indicates the variability of the letter 'x'. Always, the game in its instant-to instant conception is experienced as different - 'a ludus x'. Finally, the obvious link: 'Ludus ex' is a borrowing from the Greek concept of 'Deus ex Machina', defined by the OED as 'A power, event, or person arriving in the nick of time to solve a difficulty; a providential (often rather contrived) interposition, esp. in a novel or play'. Literally, this was done in Greek plays by swinging a character, usually a god, onto the stage using some machinery. Ludus ex speaks about how the machinic is involved in the narrative and has been so since the very beginning of art, whether it is by actually throwing a troubleshooting character into the plot or by some other device. It says that art (and the narrative) is machinic ... always was. In the computer game (albeit it must be said, in some more than others), a person (player) is always arriving to solve a difficulty and always creating a narrative within the machine.

Jesus Christ Denton! I've forgotten the main source of the title. Deus Ex, of course! The game, I mean, in case there is anybody who didn't guess already. Why have that for the main source ? You'll need to play it to know.