On games as games as games and nothing else

Markku Eskelinen, an independent scholar and self-professed "ludologist", in his response to Jenkins' paper "Game Design as Narrative Architecture", says:

According to the well-known phrase of David Bordwell, narration is "the process whereby the film's sjuzet and style interact in the course of cueing and constraining the spectator's construction of the fabula." In games there are other kinds of dominant cues and constraints: rules, goals, the necessary manipulation of equipment, and the effect of possible other players for starters. This means that information is distributed differently (invested in formal rules, for example), it is to be obtained differently (by manipulating the equipment) and it is to be used differently (in moving towards the goal).

By systematically ignoring and downplaying the importance of these and other formal differences between games and narratives as well as the resulting cognitive differences, Jenkins runs the risk of reducing his comparative media studies into repetitive media studies: seeing, seeking, and finding stories, and nothing but stories, everywhere. Such pannarrativism could hardly serve any useful ludological or narratological purpose.

Do you agree with Eskelinen's dismissal of Jenkins' approach? Why/why not?

In a way, Eskelinen’s reply to Jenkins is rather myopic in itself. In his response to Jenkins, a short summation of his own view regarding games as a medium of narrative discourse can be seen here:

“To the detriment of [Jenkins’] approach, there are no specific narrative contents, only contents. Consequently, only some combinations and arrangements of events and existents become game elements; others become stories or performance art.”

In my opinion, Eskelinen is guilty of a similar reductionist philosophy of games being games, and other art being other art. He admits that some elements from art, performance, narrative and play can make a game, but it does not make it either form.

Jenkins, in his paper “Game design as narrative architecture”, admits that:

1. yes, not all games tell stories, though many do,
2. games don’t have to tell stories to be good games,
3. playing a game doesn’t make it all about experiencing a story,
4. and games as a narrative medium are unique from other media.

Why I find Eskelinen’s critique of Jenkins unfairly harsh is partly because he seems to ignore Jenkins’ acceptance of the limitations of a game to tell a story.

In his paper, Jenkins also discusses how games can tell stories, but in markedly different ways – for example, touching on the concepts of games designed to use space, environment and embedded narratives to tell a story. Eskelinen dismisses all this as being useless, and says that these elements are game by-products. He also makes it sound like Jenkins is fully advocating games as the best way to tell a story, but this certainly isn’t the case – at least not what I gathered when reading Jenkins.

Jenkins, in my opinion, was trying to find a middle ground between the ludologists and narratologists, since the two fields have commonly been philosophically mutually exclusive (in that, they are always discussed in the same voice, but distinctly drawn as different).

While I do not agree with Eskelinen’s blunt dismissal of Jenkins’ attempt to draw a balance which ludologists and narratologists can share, I do agree with Eskelinen that in some sense, Jenkins’ approach is somewhat superficial.

Spatial and environmental elements are, more often than not, functional by-product of games - they certainly help in storytelling in the game, but are not necessarily the original purpose of their existence. In other words, they weren’t there for the sake of the narrative anyway.

It would have been helpful though, for Eskelinen, in his reponse, to have addressed these issues with some ideas of his own, instead of plain dismissing Jenkins.