Game, Ludic factor or narrative?

The established computer game studies have dealt game as a narrative of as a system of rules. According to these studies, the pleasure from computer games comes from the practice following the narrative which is made by game developers or the infinite possibility of game practices by gamer. However, in my opinion, I want to focus on the points that these points are neglecting in terms of the gamer.


The theoretical effort to analyze the game comes from the debate ; is game another structure of Narrative or Ludic factor? These two perspective are the main points of viewing and analyzing games.

Ludologists, who focus on the simulation factor of computer game . argue that simulation in games turns actions into the simple rules , which provide pleasure. Audience feel pleasure by representing their simulated ruled in virtual space. The pleasant factor is the 'system of rules' which make it possible to feel satistied and excited. The pleasure of game can be obtained by the infinite repetition of game performance based on the game system.

Narrotologist, however, insist that the source of the pleasure in game is due to the aesthetic the story which game provide. All games have their own story and the narrative of the game itself gives the audience to feel pleasure. This aesthetic experience is the main factor of the pleasure. By solving problem by believable agent , they feel like they are part of one story. Thus, the narrative of the game is very important in the pleasure of the game


Can these two perspectives of the game explain the pleasant factors and dynamics of the game? I want to focus on the 'gamers' who play the game .


These two perspective; game as a ludic factor and game as a narrative, do not reflect the practices of the gamer. In fact, gamer cannot feel the enriched aesthetic experience provided by the game producer because of the constraint of the games. They are just trying to find the most effective strategy . Rather than learning the simplified and simulated rules , they are searching for the ways which are known as the most effective way . They repeat the effective strategies and perform . It is not embodied with the narrate, they are reproducing same theme based on repeated play.

Contrary to Narratologist's view, the performance based on certain rules are just representation of the predictable story, which are well prepared. Narrraologist ignore that gamers can convey another meaning regardless of the narrative .
Ludiologist just focus on the possibilities of the infinite performance and replayablilty. They neglect the productiveness of the play . Certain discourses are reproduced by the similar patterns of the play.


We need to consider the action of the gamer . The binary approach to game neglect the dynamic factor of the game. Computer games can be explained beyond the pleasures by ludic factors and narrative. Those are reproducing the similar form of the discourse and ideology of the game. We need more diverse views of seeing game .
How can the gamer's behaviors be explained? It remains me as a question.