Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
tween drama and dramatic interaction in the operations of causality. But
for my purposes, I see the player's intention as part of the end cause for
the player as a co-creator. Mateas also suggests that “material for action” is
a separate causal chain in that material requires some sort of interactive af-
fordances in order to be usable by the player. I agree that such affordances
are essential, but I see them as being provided by the designer at the level
of enactment. If we look at things this way, we may not need to introduce
additional complexity to the model.
The authors are working toward similar end causes—the representation
of a whole action that produces pleasure. But differences exist. As Mary
Flanagan (2009) observes, many players intend to subvert the game—that
is, to deny the game's authority to set the player's goals. She has produced
many games that deliberately leverage this subversive spirit to increase ac-
tivism and cultural change. Other players may intend more than “winning”
or “experiencing” the whole game; they may intend to fi nd personal mean-
ing that transcends a game's structure. Henry Jenkins, renowned for his
work on fandom and popular culture, makes the point that, in order for
people to become “fans,” they need to be able to appropriate characters,
elements of plot, etc. to construct their own meanings. Jenkins points to
the “slash” phenomenon in
Star Trek
and other cultural properties where
fans construct new stories that are personally relevant by writing stories or
constructing videos from pieces of the originals that have new plots. Much
slash focuses on creating relationships (usually homosexual) or backstories
that are not supported in the offi cial canon (see Jenkins 1992 and 2006a).
Several sources of causality outside the purview of Figure 4.1 will be dis-
cussed ahead.
Interaction among interactors is not new, but it has become much more
complex and signifi cant since the widespread availability of the Internet.
A little history is relevant. The ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects
Agency Network), ancestor to the Internet, was conceived in the early
1960s and fi rst deployed in 1969. Its general goal was to support commu-
nication and collaboration among scientists and companies in their work
on government-related research and development. However, discouraging
purely social communication by users did not prevent it.
Multiple interactors engaging in discourses of all kinds go back at least
to the earliest BBS (Bulletin Board System). An early precursor to dial-up
