Deconstructing Ludology

Disclaimer: I apologize if this seems fragmented. I'm writing this on a supply of allergy meds.

So, Markku Eskelinen and the ideas surrounding Ludology seem like a dead horse by now. We've already established that most--if not all--of us either don't like his work or aren't convinced Towards Computer Game Studies is a valuable work of scholarship. While I don't exactly disagree, I'm more interested in trying to understand why his opinions are met with such open hostility, and what (if any) scholarship can be extracted from his essay.

So, if we consider Towards Computer Game Studies something of a flagship for Ludology's self-proclaimed maiden voyage into the glorious uncharted territory of the Computer Game (and while that may seem like an unfair judgement, ludology itself is a very contemporary school of thought created upon the platform of direct resistance to narratology), we run into basic problems with premises. Eskelinen's premises.

Eskelinen's justifications for "resisting" the lumbering intellectual juggernaut that is narratology are twofold, both problematic. First, for Eskelinen, the study of games is tautological. "It should be self evident that we can't apply print narratology, hypertext theory, film, or theater and drama studies to computer games" (239). Why, Markku? Why is this self-evident?

The reason, he answers, is illuminated in the second fallacy: An oversimplified definition of narrative theory. Narrative theory is packaged neatly in a severely truncated definition that, incidentally, becomes a perfectly convenient vehicle to launch his argument that games "are not static or interpretive but ergodic" (242), which is in itself a fallacy, because narrative is further defined--strictly--as a recollection of prior events by a narrator to a narratee, and nothing else. Why does the umbrella of narratology exclude "ergodic" analysis except by Eskelinen's wishful thinking? Again, we return to the tautological argument. Here, I'll simplify it a little through illustration:

------------------------------

Reader: So, explain to me again, why can't basic narrative theory be applied to video games?
Markku: Because. I just told you. Narratives are about storytelling and "we can't find narrative situations in most games."
Reader: Yes we can. Games have events and existents as well. Just because those events and existents aren't perfect replications of traditional literary examples doesn't mean the theory of narratology needs to be rejected completely.
Markku: You're an idiot. Yes it does.
Reader: No I'm not. And why?
Markku: Because games are games.
Reader: . . . . .
Markku: I'll explain this to you like I'd explain it to a child: Turn based strategy games such as civilization seem to favor causal relations over temporal ones to create event structures that have remarkable similarities to complex board games. We are talking here about quantitative differences: at once extreme, there are multiple and highly interdependent chains of events with a complex tactical and strategic calculus, and at the other end looser chains of completed action episodes and stimulus-response cylces with no or minimal cumulative consequences.
Reader: ....Uh, what?
Markku: Get a dictionary.
[At this point, Markku Eskelinen returns to sipping an overpriced espresso, wearing a self-assured look of absolute confidence.]

--------------------------

Alright. I was exaggerating just a little bit (but not that much). One of the main problems with the essay is that hatred towards the Narratological camp is inextricable from scholarly discourse over computer game studies. Ad hominem becomes inseparable from intellectual engagement. This, coupled with an unnecessarily verbose writing style, makes me question the type of audience Eskelinen intended to read his work. My guess is he's preaching to the choir: Ludologists who already agree with most everything he has to say. (And if you're still doubtful of the ad hominem, remember that Eskelinen's verbal dueling with other literary critics are fully published alongside his works, and most of his responses are dismissive or downright insulting.)

Just for fun, let's deconstruct his big rant on Civilizations. To me, what he's basically saying is this:

Games like Civ are based on cause-effect relationships. It's like a board game, really. You take turns doing things and setting up an active strategy. Really, games like Civilization exist outside the boundaries of Narratology, because they don't just tell one story. There are complex, multifaceted events happening simultaneously. You can't just take a game of civilization and transcribe it to a story form.

Well, maybe you can. And even if you can't, the events-existents model of Story/Discourse doesn't have to be completely destroyed. See, ergodic, "configurative" mediums aren't mutually exclusive from interpretive, narrative theories. The theory of narratology just has to be augmented in order to take the configurative medium into consideration. Seymour Chatman couldn't have dealt with the non-trivial narratological structures in, say, Halo (And yes. They're there. Can you imagine Halo without Spartans? I can't.) but Marie-Laure Ryan can, and does.

Painting a portrait of narratology as this dusty, outdated old narrative theory that needs to be incinerated in the blazing dawn of a new era is, quite frankly, a very basic fallacy that devalues Eskelinen's argument into one of delusion. In other words, there is no conflict between narratologists and ludologists, except in the minds of Aarseth and Eskelinen. Never mind that Eskelinen's argument is itself riddled with more holes than the Bonny and Clyde Death Car (mostly fallacies of tautology, ad hominem, and, you know, the fact that ludology itself is a totally arbitrary and ultimately unnecessary subdivision of narratology).

It isn't as if Towards Computer Game Studies is completely without value. The distinction between configurative and interpretive structures is an important one when studying games. I just wish his work of scholarship wasn't so damaged by weak, unscholarly rhetoric.

It's okay, Markku. The big bad mouth-breathing narratologists aren't going to steal your job. I swear.