Ludology vs. Narratology

After reading Markku Eskelinen's excerpt about the infiltration of narratology in ludology, I found some of his arguments intriguing, but most of them were sounded like pretentious crap. And this was my reaction before reading his rude response to Richard Schechner.. I think his main point that caused me to feel so indignant was how he differentiates between ludology's user time and event time and narratology's story time and discourse time. He expresses these ideas as being totally separate, black and white arguments when really these concepts are so ambiguous.

Throughout this class so far, we've been analyzing interactive media through the terms of story and discourse, narratology's terms. Now Eskelinen is trying to present this idea of user time and event time as if they are completely unrelated. I don't see much of a difference. I mean, sure reading a novel and playing a videogame require different levels of immersion and interaction, but the basic actions are not entirely different; they both utilize a narrative form of some sort. Eskelinen wants to show that just because of the ergotic factor, videogames are on this opposite level, in this totally unconnected realm. I still see story and discourse as easily applicable to videogames. I did question whether there were a "series and sequences of events that do not become or form stories" (Eskelinen 240) in videogames. He uses the example of Tetris. But I beg to differ. I could see Tetris possibly being some kind of experimental, avant-garde narrative. I realize that in Tetris the player only has one objective: to place all the pieces in specific accordance so they line up, clear out, rack up points, and you reach new levels. Eskelinen is basically claiming that because this game never has traditional characters and it never changes events, this is in no way close to a narrative. But what if Tetris' pieces could be considered characters? The pieces could act problematic and rebellious and not fit in properly in any gap you set it in, or they could be compliant and agreeable and fit in just how you want them to. Even Tetris has a sequence of events. The diverse pieces show up at increasing speeds, and no two players would create a story line completely identical.

This takes me to Eskelinen's other point that really annoyed me. He claims that the characters in videogames are unlike a narrative's characters because in videogames "the characters can be dynamic and developing (not only in an interpretative sense)" and "such 'characters' are entirely functional and combinatorial (a means to an end); instead of any intrinsic values, they have only use and exchange values to them. These entities are definitely not acting or behaving like traditional narrators, characters, directors, and actors" (Eskelinen 240). He actually says that characters are more "dynamic and developing" in videogames than in narratives. I think not. The most interesting, memorable characters in literature are complex and dynamic. For example, reading a book in which an unreliable narrator is telling the story creates a realistic mistrust; the reader/interactor experiences uncertainty towards their storyteller and witnesses the narrator change and contradict themselves. The best characters in narratives are multi-faceted, complicated, realistic, and constantly developing throughout a story; they are anything but "traditional." Calling a narrative's characters "traditional" makes them sound predictable and one-dimensional when they can be anything but.