Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Approaches to the design and academic understanding of virtual worlds that
primarily focus on their affording some forms of 'doing' are common. From the
artistic perspective on game design commonly referred to as 'proceduralism', for
example, the ways in which games allow for the emergence of meaningful
interactive experiences have their foundation in the logical structuring of their
interactivity: the game mechanics. For the 'proceduralists' games disclose to their
players what are effectively artifi cial worlds. Such virtual worlds are mechani-
cally devised by game designers and are considered capable of establishing
unequivocal, interactive relationships with their 'players'. In other words, for the
'proceduralists', digital simulations and videogames can engender predictable
effects on the cognition and the behaviour of the players. This is the ideological
foundation upon which games (and videogames and more generally any kinds of
interactive simulations) can be understood as viable media for delivering informa-
tion, funneling behaviour, and effectively function as persuasive technologies.
From a similar perspective, Miguel Sicart observed, in his 2011 article 'Against
Procedurality', that the allure of 'proceduralism' 'comes from its quasi-scientifi c
discourse, from its effi cient, postmodern argument that ties technology, systems
and reason together, justifying the existence of games as a serious medium for
expression' (Sicart
2011
).
The outlined 'proceduralist' understanding of 'play' can be criticized (and indeed
was criticized) on the basis of its depicting an incomplete and impoverishing picture
of what must instead be recognized as a very fundamental and irreducible activity
(Sicart
2011
). According to the detractors of 'proceduralism', in fact, a valid and
thorough understanding of 'play' is ought to be embraced in all its complexity,
ambiguity and expressivity. The 'proceduralist' approach to 'play' restrictively
focuses on comprehending and predicting quantifi able and performance-oriented
dimensions of 'play'
4
while ignoring the freely creative, ritual, social and transfor-
mative ones that Bernie DeKoven identifi ed as its 'myth domain' (DeKoven
2002
).
In other words, 'proceduralism' is criticized on the basis of its disregard towards
ways of engaging with games and their worlds (regardless of their digital, analogue
or hybrid substrate) that are informal and not strictly deterministic.
When embracing perspectives on 'play' that are broader and looser than the one
outlined above, the job of the game developer cannot be recognized as that of
'designing play' but rather as one that is contributory to 'play' in setting up the stage
for it to emerge (Salen and Zimmermann
2003
, 168). Abandoning a formal and
deterministic understanding of 'play', the fi gure of the game designer can no longer
be associated with that of a divinity capable of creating worlds and controlling the
fates of their inhabitants but is rather identifi able with an earthly scenographer who
sets up constraints and affordances that will be freely appropriated by the actors (the
players) during 'play'. As revelatory examples of this approach, Mary Flanagan uti-
lizes the term 'game' as a synonym for 'play scenario' (
2009
), and according to Ivan
4
For a more in-depth refl ection on the relationship between computer games and instrumental rational-
ity, I recommend reading Paolo Pedercini's blog post titled 'Videogames and the Spirit of Capitalism',
available online at
http://www.molleindustria.org/blog/videogames-and-the-spirit-of-capitalism
