Ludology, Narrativity, and Ludonarrative Dissonance [video responses to Errant Signal]
Not too long ago, Errant Signal put out a video where he echoed Gonzalo Frasca’s comments regarding the ludology vs narrativity debate. Quoting Frasca, Errant Signal suggests that said debate, whose opening skirmishes are chronicled in Game Studies, “did not happen” because there was no “debate” as to whether games “should be narrative or ludic”. And that’s true. At no point was there a formal moderated debate where game devs argued whether games should be about stories or about play. But there was, and there still is, a very real conversation regarding whether video games are best understood as stories or as games. You can find my full rebuttal below:
In his same video, Errant Signal agreed with Jim Sterling and suggested that the term Ludonarrative Dissonance is useless and should be discarded because it predisposes the critic to make negative assessments about the game. Again, I disagree. Ludonarrative dissonance is a useful term, as long as it is considered as existing within a framework. My full argument below:
Posted on February 19, 2015, in Media Commentary, Video Game Commentary and tagged errant signal, game stories, games, games and narrative, games as play, ludic games, Ludology, ludology narratology debate, Ludonarrative Dissonance, ludonarrative harmony, ludonarrativity, video games. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.