Paidea, Ludus and Videogames

Who would've thought that Ancient Greek, Latin and Computer Games go so well together? (but I'll get to that later). To be able to talk about the terms  "Paidea" and "Ludus"  I first want to talk about how Newman defines and classifies game in Chapter 2 of his "Videogames" book : "What is a video game? Rules, puzzles and simulations: defining the object of study."

Firstly I have to say that James Newman's "Videogames" book is one very hard to follow, not because it might use complicated terms or analogies, but because every two sentences there is a reference to something someone wrote. For a person not used to reading this kind of work, where almost every sentence is accredited to someone, but reading the whole work and the person's ideas and then at the end be presented with a bibliography, this book is a very difficult one to grasp, considering that with every mention of someone I loose track of my ideas and I get confused about who that person is and where does his idea start and where Newman took over. 

So, getting over the little bit of confusion the chapter left me with, I found the reading both interesting and relevant to the study of games design. When done with the chapter I could understand the evolution of games as interactive entertainment (as Costikyan has it : "Interactive entertainment means games!"), how it was immersed into the popular culture, what do games actually imply the player to behave like and what players expect a game to be like.

Starting with the first : Evolution of games as interactive entertainment, I have to say that Costikyan in his article "I have no words & I must design"  gives a straight to the point and compeling explanation of why any kind of interactive entertainment IS a game, and nothing else, by saying that what is viewed as entertainment is, outside the gaming area' non-interactive because it doesn't require the implication of the viewer, or the one who is entertained, and not all that is interactive it's necessarily entertaining. Thus, the only one that combines the two are games, be they video or boardgames.
Now the question arises, what is a videogame? Would anything with a digital/video interface incorporated be eligible for the title of video games? I would disagree with that, because, in my own opinion, a Furby or a Tamagotchi ( what he gives us as examples) are not games. They are toys with which you can interact and create games, but by themselves they are toys. They have a minimum amount of interaction required from the owner, there is no struggle for a goal, (I don't really believe they have any goals)  and from an entertaining point of view they can get boring pretty fast, thus leaving in their description only : A toy which requires minimum interaction from the user. If  I were to develop a game in which I use a Furby as an avatar of a player and I set myself goals, then they could be viewed as part of a game, but I believe never as a stand alone game.

Seeing now that not all that have some form of digital implementation can be called a videogame ( or even a game) and returning to Costikyan's definition of a game : "A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals" (2004:24) ; where should we actually classify videogames? Should they be thrown in along with film and television, due to the digital/video display, or be viewed as an extension of non-digital games? I would say both. Computer games are certainly an extension of non-digital games, using the same basic principles that define all games, but the way they are presented, delivered and viewed upon by both general public and target public set them very close to a movie and television area. 

But to make games more familiar and appealing to the majority, there were critics, games developers and people who wrote papers based on games studies  who orientated their analyses around similar classifications that were turned into game types :   

• Action & Adventure 
• Driving & Racing
• First-Person Shooter (FPS) 
• Platform & Puzzle
• Roleplaying
• Strategy & Simulations
• Sports & Beat'em-ups. 

This types helped players and future players to pick a certain game style they are comfortable with and made it easier for players to understand the game, the mechanics and what was required of them.
To this type of classification of games, those who introduced computer games to popular culture also attributed genres which are specific to other ares like film or literature with which the general public is already familiar with (Horror, Fantasy, Sci-fi, Historical, Realistic, Psychological.) to games, to make them seem more in touch with players preferences.

Also there has been adopted a sorta-kinda system close to "auterism", system in which names of certain videogames designers and/or producers dominate. The term "auteur" comes from French and as Wikipedia has it : <<In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision, as if they were the primary "auteur" ...  In some cases, film producers are considered to exert a similar "auteur" influence on films they have produced. >> However is not clear if remembarance of names is felt through the creation of unique characteristics of their games (be they aesthetic , formal, or they just managed to create a game which has that "certain right feel to it") or whether the allusion to film is simply stylistic and indicative of a further attempt to gain credibility by association with other more known types of media.

Thus there were two types of major classifications that were selected for and pinned on computer games and putting these two together you get a very easy way of deciding which type of game is more appropriate for you and so introducing the general public to gaming and boosting the industry in the ranks of popular culture.

Now, coming back to "Paidea" & "Ludus".  

One of the means to differenciate types of games is by taking into consideration the location of play and all  that derives form that : types of experience, structure, engagement and social interaction. As Huzinga described them in his  work :"Homo Ludens" (1950) : "Paidea" stands for free-play, the kind of play you get with a sandbox game like "Minecraft" or "Spore" and "Ludus" stands for a game that imposes restrictions from the start, that has a strict set of rules and pre-set goals.
In his book, Newman started talking about this system firstly by comparing coin operated arcade machines with home playing systems. This is a very easy comparison to follow, since knowing that a coin-op system will always restrain it's player by limiting his time of play and also making the experience more intense by forcing the player to adopt a more fast, straight to the point approach to the game. The arcade environment also puts pressure on the player because it forces him to struggle more to reach his goal, due to the limited time pf play. Also an arcade gaming experience is most likely than not to become a public performance as there are observers gathering around the player. And as most of us surely have noted, all the games that are placed in an arcade are purely  "ludic" games, being fast paced, with an enormous amount of  restrictions both in the physical world and in the game world and with a set goal that the player need to complete in a given time and space.

I tend to classify every other game that is not a simulator or a sandbox game (or "Everquest" because it doesn't really have an ending or a specific main goal) a ludic game. These range from RPG's to RTS's and TBS's and FPS's and Racing games and Adventure Games ... everything except Simulator games and Sandbox games (in my opinion). In a very wide assessment they all start form the same basic premise : they have a set goal which the player must reach ( in a given amount of time or space in some games) and you start with a set of rules and a given world that impose restrictions upon the player.
In a sandbox/simulator you are given 90 to 100% control over everything: your world, your character, your goals, this meaning that you play the game for your own pleasure and entertainment, going at your own pace, playing in an environment in which you are comfortable, most likely using a home gaming system.  The best two examples of which I can think of at the moment are "Spore" and "Minecraft" which I mentioned earlier. Both of this games start from a slightly different premise :

• In Spore you have to create your own creature and set a complete evolutionary track for it, observing it and guiding it till it becomes either a raging conqueror of galaxies or a peaceful diplomat (It was created by the developers of "The Sims" "Sim City" and the almost unknown "Sim Earth")  

• In Minecraft you as a player are given control over everything and are free to do whatever you want in that digital world. You can build, dig, mine, create, experiment, destroy, explore, discover etc. 

Both of these games can easily jump from a paidea type of game to a ludus type of game by creating your own goals, but in essence the games started as just games for the players pleasure, games that you can start now and pick up again in a month without fear of loosing or not making any progress, games that can truly last forever ( or until you set you Minecraft universe on fire with lava )



                               "You have to play the game before it will reveal its nature"
                                                              (Jessen 1998:38)