Game as language, language as game (game as forum... forum as game?). The thread about games being more than fun might have some bearing on this. Basically, I want to venture a motion that games should be treated as a language, and move on from there to a recognition of how game design could better adapt to this interpretation. Language (or "communication") being the broad term that it is, its not hard to frame an argument for game as language. However, it does risk over simplifying the nature of a game. Does "game as language" mistakenly omit storylike aspects of a game design? I think the definition can accomodate storylike aspects of games, though admittedly many games are more like (interactive) monologues than they are like dialogues. Perhaps the strongest argument for "game as language" would have to be the simple fact that the player is one side of the interface and the game designer is on the other. What is interesting is that game designer and players no longer occupy either one role or the other. That is why a definition of games as languages is needed. Game editing makes it possible to treat games as languages. Game editing is nothing new, but the simplicity of newer engines offers the potential for dialogue that is closer to realtime. In the past, games were more like dream languages, which one could struggle to interpret as meaningful; nowadays, the realism that games offer makes them more useable with reference to our own real world experiences (Games like Morrowind and Never Winter Nights are two recent examples). I would argue that a "game as language" offers the possibility of entertaining "language games" (and with them all the ideologies, stereotypes and cultural assumptions that permetuate our use of "natural" language). Hence the possibility of taking games seriously as much as humorously. Do you see the interpretation as a progression? [edited by - deClavier on May 12, 2002 1:45:35 AM] [edited by - deClavier on May 12, 2002 2:22:51 AM]

"Do you see the interpretation as a progression?"

I''m not certain what exactly you''re asking can you clarify the question?

Does the possibility of entertaining "language games" with the "language of games" become real as a result of the increasing levels of realism that games offer?

Some might argue that "game as language" leads to a concept of games that is too complex. Some might argue that "game as language" over-burdens game developers (with end-user functionality). Some might argue that "game as language" detracts from the _real_ goal, which is to make games the most immersive form of entertainment possible.

I would like to think that "game as language" is a progressive interpretation that validates a game OS approach to game design, rather than a game FX approach, ie. an approach moving towards modability and open-endedness.

[edited by - deClavier on May 12, 2002 1:46:18 AM]

I really like what you''re talking about here, but do you think you could momentarily stop using the term "Game as Language" and provide a more concrete conceptualization of your thoughts?

I agree with bishop_pass - and I say that having read works by Wittgenstien and Derrida etc. which is also why I like the direction of the question.

It would seem to me that modability and open-endedness are more ablicable descriptions for the "game OS" approach than the "game FX" approach, yet the way you''ve phrased it suggests the opposite.

In regards to the different arguments that you''ve laid out: Language is the "immersive" media par excellence and in that light complexity is variable - language can be used in a simple fashion or a complex fashion depending on the context and purpose of the locution. As far as overburdening the developer - that''s just the nature of the beast - increasing complexity is inevitable.

Concrete. ok.

Morrowind''s TES Construction Kit paves the way for games in which the single player experience is not defined by a single developer/s viewpoint but in which each area of the game represents a particular modder''s perspective. Added to this is the potential for players to respond to the game/mods by re-modding them. An environment is created in which the world becomes a representation of a player''s dialogue with other creators of the world.

However, this is still to operate under the assumption that the world must be a coherent reality. Once this is broken down, choice of player/object representation, npcs, colour, music, etc. all become _dynamic_ terms in the conversation between one player and another. Even the rules may come under scrutiny.

Where once one may have been limited to outlining the subversive ideology of a game''s design with critical theory, one may now proactively redesign the game to be more in-line with personal ideological expectations (eg. the imperial race in Morrowind could be _removed_ from its dominant place in the world and _replaced_ with the "dark" race, a micro revolution as a macro argument against racism in the real world).

I think the bit about making arguments against racism takes it a little too far - not that there''s anything wrong with arguing against racism or that those kinds or arguments shouldn''t be made in a game - but I think that introduces a large volume of baggage to the discussion that might get in the way of clarifying the potentials of the idea. That said.

I like the idea of dynamically (re)creating the representations used by the game - and subjecting the rules to scrutiny and modification as well. I think that kind of power would make an excellent target - for example, one could set up a game so that once a player has reached a particular level they would begin to have powers to modify the game with increasing influence as they continued onward. This gives a whole new meaning to the idea of "magic".

You''ve also opened up the idea of communication between players as well as that between the player and the game itself (ie the game designer). In so far as we construct our ''real world'' realities through language, it would also seem that in a game aspiring to language this should also be a major consideration. A person can make up a new word - but unless another person recognizes it as a word and uses it - the made up word is just jibberish.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that I really know where I want to go with this. I think it might be useful to distinguish between language internal to the game from language external to the game.

Externally, the language of the game amounts to changing values (textures, characters, responses, etc.) within an accepted syntagmatic structure (quest/hero narrative, equilibrium/return to harmony narrative, etc.). A game language can be paralleled with existing languages (economics, social systems, archetypal relations, etc.) because the game communicates certain values that the player must react to in order to win/complete the game. This fact makes games a powerful language because players must parallel their experience with the designer's own and are beset with more controlled conditions of response. It also makes games a more localized language because only players of the game are able to understand its language. That games are localized languages in turn means that they are more likely to be reactive (antithetic or synthetic for existing languages); however, MMORPGs present the possibility that game languages may ultimately exist as an independent language whose function is to facilitate the negotion of purely emotional or abstract experiences.

Internally, the language of the game amounts to syntagmatic sequences (set of key presses, set of plot choices, etc.) which are accepted with the game's paradigmatic structure (player as spaceship, player as pinball machine, etc.). Internal game languages can perhaps most easily be paralleled with an exploration of self (as a persistent - though not solely - equilibrium narrative, etc.). There are recent developments which suggest that internal game languages can also be paralleled with a construction of self as well (Creatures, Black & White, Robot wars, etc.) though this is usually only true in a very narrow sense. The trouble is that internal game languages are much weaker as languages because, if we do parallel them with self-motivated exercises, to be successful they rely on largely parallel selves between the designer and player. I think this is really what I wanted to move away from when I suggested that games be defined as languages, as it was the external sense of language I had in mind.

Despite a preference for using games as external languages, the notion of external language being introduced into the internal game language does yield some interesting avenues of exploration. Just what is it that a player communicates to enemies with his/er gun? Isn't it entirely possible that instead of reacting to this communication, enemies could proactively respond with a change in behaviour? I suggested in a thread about space shooters that perhaps the player could influence targets to attack one another or become magnetic to their detriment, for example. Are there other ways in which _influence_ (via some form of language) could be given more prominence than _power_ (player choices about the gameworld's normal functioning)?

[edited by - deClavier on May 13, 2002 8:02:15 PM]

I think what you''ve proposed makes more sense when the word ''discourse'' is used instead of language - or is at least brought in as a clarifying term where the distinction is merited.

I looked up the meaning of the words discourse and language. I would agree that discourse is the better term than internal language, since a game''s internal language is more about the communication of ideas and, as discourse, implied. You are also right that a lot of the time I was more concerned with discourse than with language. However, I think the concept of a game''s external language is more closely related to the concept of language in general. I would say this because the player/designer is able to construct the basic elements of their communication from whatever they like, the only condition being that the player is given the operating principle/s that allows them to interact with the meaning of the program/game. The player uses language internally as well (constructing solutions/words for the game), of course, but that is largely dead communication since no feedback loop is involved.

In any case, the player can''t hope to be _involved_ at the level of discourse without some control over the language, which the construction of the game constitutes, and that is why the consideration of "game as language" is important where the goal is to facilitate player immersion (or similar). Examples of game development following this lead might be anything from games where player constructs their own attack combos (that they can show off to other players)... to games where the player constructs their own in-game movies... to games where the player creates additions to the game by the playing of it (by recording their actions and then disembodying them as an npc, for example)... to games where the player develops structures that simply incorporate game elements in new ways (by "teaching" npcs to find food in a new location, creating new paths and new relationships of dependency, for example)... to games where players define their own skills/skill macros/skill trees, etc.