An introduction to understanding digital games
Understanding Digital Games (2006)
- ISBN: 1412900344
Available from
Jason Rutter's profile on Mendeley.
or
Available from
Jason Rutter's profile on Mendeley.
Page 1
An introduction to understanding digital games
1 An introduction to understanding
digital games
Jo Bryce and Jason Rutter
Academic interest in digital games has a history dating back to the
early 1980s. Papers such as Hemnes’ (1982) consideration of the appli-
cation of copyright to support creativity in the digital games industry;
the work of Sedlak et al. (1982) exploring the development of social
integration through recreational programming for people with learn-
ing disabilities; the case report by McCowan (1981) of ‘Space Invader
wrist’ (a minor ligament strain which we would probably now refer to
as repetitive strain injury [RSI]); and Sudnow’s (1983) much neglected
book on the process of acquiring ‘digital skill’, indicate how rapidly
researchers were responding to the new leisure technologies. There is
also a pre-history that dates back as far as Alexander Douglas’ PhD –
part of which involved what appears to be the development of the first
computer game in the early 1950s (see Kirriemuir, Chapter 2) – con-
cerned less with social and cultural factors than elements of technology
innovation and system design.
Unfortunately, this resource of digital games analysis is often not
fully credited by contemporary authors. For example, Wolf and Perron
(2003) suggest that their collection would not have previously been
possible because of a lack of academics working on digital games and
Newman (2004) suggests that academics have ignored digital games.
The trope that digital games have been neglected by researchers and
marginalized by the academy is problematic given the lack of sub-
stantive evidence provided. There is, of course, a difference between a
topic being overlooked and being ignored – there is no malice or inten-
tionality in the former. Suggesting that digital games have not received
the academic attention they deserve because they have been framed as
‘a children’s medium’ or ‘mere trifles’ (Newman 2004: 5) is difficult to
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 1
digital games
Jo Bryce and Jason Rutter
Academic interest in digital games has a history dating back to the
early 1980s. Papers such as Hemnes’ (1982) consideration of the appli-
cation of copyright to support creativity in the digital games industry;
the work of Sedlak et al. (1982) exploring the development of social
integration through recreational programming for people with learn-
ing disabilities; the case report by McCowan (1981) of ‘Space Invader
wrist’ (a minor ligament strain which we would probably now refer to
as repetitive strain injury [RSI]); and Sudnow’s (1983) much neglected
book on the process of acquiring ‘digital skill’, indicate how rapidly
researchers were responding to the new leisure technologies. There is
also a pre-history that dates back as far as Alexander Douglas’ PhD –
part of which involved what appears to be the development of the first
computer game in the early 1950s (see Kirriemuir, Chapter 2) – con-
cerned less with social and cultural factors than elements of technology
innovation and system design.
Unfortunately, this resource of digital games analysis is often not
fully credited by contemporary authors. For example, Wolf and Perron
(2003) suggest that their collection would not have previously been
possible because of a lack of academics working on digital games and
Newman (2004) suggests that academics have ignored digital games.
The trope that digital games have been neglected by researchers and
marginalized by the academy is problematic given the lack of sub-
stantive evidence provided. There is, of course, a difference between a
topic being overlooked and being ignored – there is no malice or inten-
tionality in the former. Suggesting that digital games have not received
the academic attention they deserve because they have been framed as
‘a children’s medium’ or ‘mere trifles’ (Newman 2004: 5) is difficult to
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 1
Page 2
accept without sources for these accusations. Neither does such a position
help us explain how digital games are notably different from other
ephemera and mundane practices that researchers have engaged with,
such as music (Hatch and Watson, 1974; Sudnow, 1978) or humour
(Jefferson, 1979; Sacks, 1978 – even Rutter, 2000).
Despite claims concerning a lack of research on digital games, exam-
ining the digital games bibliographies available on the Internet1 makes
it is clear that research on digital games has for some time been the-
matically and disciplinary diverse. Perhaps rather than a shift in the
structure of academia, the recent surge in publications about digital
games reflects the entry of researchers, who grew up in the Pong, Atari,
NES and BBC Micro years, into academia.
A failure to address these existing bodies of digital games literature
in contemporary research carries with it a number of consequences.
First, it removes our ability to build upon this work or, to draw on the
sociologists Robert Merton’s phraseology, removes from us the possi-
bility to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ (1965: 9).2 Second, by not
situating research in what has proceeded, work runs the risk of
unquestioningly assuming that this research has no precedents. This is
a tenuous assumption and one which, unless critically evaluated, runs
the risk of undermining contemporary academic research on digital
gaming. Exploring a similar theme in the introduction to her collection,
Virtual Methods Hine writes about Internet research:
Perspectives for the sociology of scientific knowledge are an important
reminder not to take for granted the discontinuities between what we are
doing now and what has gone before. These distinctions are achieved in
the ways we research and write about the new technologies and the ways
in which we organize our disciplinary boundaries. (Hine, 2005: 6–7)
Through recognizing previous work as well as discontinuities and
understanding these as a process of academic development and evolu-
tion it is, however, possible to show that the amount of research on
digital games in growing. A simple search of articles in the ISI Web of
Knowledge’s database of journal publication shows an almost twofold
increase in peer reviewed papers on digital games when comparing the
periods 1995–1999 and 2000–2004. In the earlier years there were 275
articles containing the phrases computer games(s) or video games(s)
and this rose to 535 during the following five years. While such a com-
parison may not be scientifically rigorous, it does offer an indication of
a significant rise in research and publication activity in the area of
Understanding Digital Games
2
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 2
help us explain how digital games are notably different from other
ephemera and mundane practices that researchers have engaged with,
such as music (Hatch and Watson, 1974; Sudnow, 1978) or humour
(Jefferson, 1979; Sacks, 1978 – even Rutter, 2000).
Despite claims concerning a lack of research on digital games, exam-
ining the digital games bibliographies available on the Internet1 makes
it is clear that research on digital games has for some time been the-
matically and disciplinary diverse. Perhaps rather than a shift in the
structure of academia, the recent surge in publications about digital
games reflects the entry of researchers, who grew up in the Pong, Atari,
NES and BBC Micro years, into academia.
A failure to address these existing bodies of digital games literature
in contemporary research carries with it a number of consequences.
First, it removes our ability to build upon this work or, to draw on the
sociologists Robert Merton’s phraseology, removes from us the possi-
bility to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ (1965: 9).2 Second, by not
situating research in what has proceeded, work runs the risk of
unquestioningly assuming that this research has no precedents. This is
a tenuous assumption and one which, unless critically evaluated, runs
the risk of undermining contemporary academic research on digital
gaming. Exploring a similar theme in the introduction to her collection,
Virtual Methods Hine writes about Internet research:
Perspectives for the sociology of scientific knowledge are an important
reminder not to take for granted the discontinuities between what we are
doing now and what has gone before. These distinctions are achieved in
the ways we research and write about the new technologies and the ways
in which we organize our disciplinary boundaries. (Hine, 2005: 6–7)
Through recognizing previous work as well as discontinuities and
understanding these as a process of academic development and evolu-
tion it is, however, possible to show that the amount of research on
digital games in growing. A simple search of articles in the ISI Web of
Knowledge’s database of journal publication shows an almost twofold
increase in peer reviewed papers on digital games when comparing the
periods 1995–1999 and 2000–2004. In the earlier years there were 275
articles containing the phrases computer games(s) or video games(s)
and this rose to 535 during the following five years. While such a com-
parison may not be scientifically rigorous, it does offer an indication of
a significant rise in research and publication activity in the area of
Understanding Digital Games
2
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 2
Page 3
digital games. This is growth we can expect to be maintained for
sometime, especially as research begins to include developments in new
areas of technological innovation that have game relevance such as
digital television and mobile telecommunications.
This publishing has taken place across disciplines. The growth in
papers about digital games across the sciences, social sciences, and the
arts and humanities serves to highlight the rich diversity of interest in
digital games, as well as the great potential for work that involves
cooperation between different disciplines and methodological per-
spectives. As Wolf and Perron convincingly point out:
[T]he emerging field of video game theory is itself is itself a conver-
gence of a wide variety of approaches including film and television the-
ory, semiotics, performance theory game studies, literary theory,
computer science, theories of hypertext, cybertext, interactivity, iden-
tity, postmodernism, ludology, media theory, narratology, aesthetics
and art theory, psychology, theories of simulacra, and others. (2003: 2)
We could spend time adding systematically to this list but it perhaps
more practical to adopt Aarseth’s approach which suggests that inter-
est in digital games is so broad that a ‘more or less complete list reads
like the A–Z list of subjects from a major university’ (Aarseth, 2003: 1).
Such a perspective highlights how digital games have become of
empirical and theoretical interest for an impressively wide range of
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
3
0
200
150
100
50
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Total Computer game(s) Video games(s)
Figure 1.1 Number of digital games articles published, 1995–2004
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 3
sometime, especially as research begins to include developments in new
areas of technological innovation that have game relevance such as
digital television and mobile telecommunications.
This publishing has taken place across disciplines. The growth in
papers about digital games across the sciences, social sciences, and the
arts and humanities serves to highlight the rich diversity of interest in
digital games, as well as the great potential for work that involves
cooperation between different disciplines and methodological per-
spectives. As Wolf and Perron convincingly point out:
[T]he emerging field of video game theory is itself is itself a conver-
gence of a wide variety of approaches including film and television the-
ory, semiotics, performance theory game studies, literary theory,
computer science, theories of hypertext, cybertext, interactivity, iden-
tity, postmodernism, ludology, media theory, narratology, aesthetics
and art theory, psychology, theories of simulacra, and others. (2003: 2)
We could spend time adding systematically to this list but it perhaps
more practical to adopt Aarseth’s approach which suggests that inter-
est in digital games is so broad that a ‘more or less complete list reads
like the A–Z list of subjects from a major university’ (Aarseth, 2003: 1).
Such a perspective highlights how digital games have become of
empirical and theoretical interest for an impressively wide range of
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
3
0
200
150
100
50
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Total Computer game(s) Video games(s)
Figure 1.1 Number of digital games articles published, 1995–2004
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 3
Page 4
researchers, each of whom bring to the debate a different set of
methodologies, theoretical perspectives and questions they seek to
answer about/with digital games.
This book is an attempt to pull together the diversity and richness of
research on digital games, and the disciplinary tools and approaches
that can be used to investigate them. This collection celebrates the fact
that research on digital games provides great opportunities for explor-
ing the potential links and divides between the different academic
areas, which characterize this emerging disciplinarily diverse field. It
attempts to avoid being over prescriptive about developing a single
approach or set of methods or theoretical assumptions and is struc-
tured to encourage reading across chapters in order to explore the
ways in which different disciplines investigate digital games. This
approach, we hope, will encourage readers to explore both familiar
and innovative paths of research and develop a broad background
knowledge with which to investigate digital games, the practices of
gaming, and the socio-economic and political factors that facilitate and
control it. Our aim is that the chapters will provide the intellectual
resources for multidisciplinary digital games research. We hope that
the variety of theoretical and methodological approaches outlined by
the included authors will provide knowledge of the various discipli-
nary perspectives available to those exploring the field, and encourage
the reader to formulate their own research interests in digital games.
A market context to digital games research
The growth in digital games research may be a reflection of changes out-
side academic research. Indeed, the placing of digital games research
against the backdrop of the global digital games market is not unusual
in writing in the area. The combination of impressive market value and
increasingly powerful technology is a frequent starting point in a sub-
stantial amount of writing on digital games (Bryce and Rutter, 2003;
Kline et al. 2003; Provenzo, 1991).
According to data published by the American-based Entertainment
Software Association (ESA, 2005), the US digital games market was
worth US $7.3 billion dollars3 in 2004. Similar figures suggest that the
value of digital games for Europe was ¤5.6 billion.4 (ELSPA, 2005b) and
highlight the UK as the world’s third largest market for digital games
Understanding Digital Games
4
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 4
methodologies, theoretical perspectives and questions they seek to
answer about/with digital games.
This book is an attempt to pull together the diversity and richness of
research on digital games, and the disciplinary tools and approaches
that can be used to investigate them. This collection celebrates the fact
that research on digital games provides great opportunities for explor-
ing the potential links and divides between the different academic
areas, which characterize this emerging disciplinarily diverse field. It
attempts to avoid being over prescriptive about developing a single
approach or set of methods or theoretical assumptions and is struc-
tured to encourage reading across chapters in order to explore the
ways in which different disciplines investigate digital games. This
approach, we hope, will encourage readers to explore both familiar
and innovative paths of research and develop a broad background
knowledge with which to investigate digital games, the practices of
gaming, and the socio-economic and political factors that facilitate and
control it. Our aim is that the chapters will provide the intellectual
resources for multidisciplinary digital games research. We hope that
the variety of theoretical and methodological approaches outlined by
the included authors will provide knowledge of the various discipli-
nary perspectives available to those exploring the field, and encourage
the reader to formulate their own research interests in digital games.
A market context to digital games research
The growth in digital games research may be a reflection of changes out-
side academic research. Indeed, the placing of digital games research
against the backdrop of the global digital games market is not unusual
in writing in the area. The combination of impressive market value and
increasingly powerful technology is a frequent starting point in a sub-
stantial amount of writing on digital games (Bryce and Rutter, 2003;
Kline et al. 2003; Provenzo, 1991).
According to data published by the American-based Entertainment
Software Association (ESA, 2005), the US digital games market was
worth US $7.3 billion dollars3 in 2004. Similar figures suggest that the
value of digital games for Europe was ¤5.6 billion.4 (ELSPA, 2005b) and
highlight the UK as the world’s third largest market for digital games
Understanding Digital Games
4
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 4
Page 5
(after the USA and Japan). In the UK software and hardware combined
are worth more than £2.2 billion5 (ELSPA, 2005a), with software
accounting for £1.2 billion6 of that figure (ELSPA, 2005b). In the UK,
digital games account for approximately half of the market for toys
and games (Euromonitor, 2004) and, for 2003, the market was esti-
mated at being worth between £1.26 billion (ELSPA, 2004) and £2.1
billion (Euromonitor, 2004).
Such figures are almost ritually introduced at the beginning of many
publications on digital games research and these figures are indeed
impressively large. However, these figures are less frequently placed
within a comparative context through which one can understand their
implications. As research into digital games continues to grow it is use-
ful to revisit these market overviews and question whether they actu-
ally demonstrate as much as we might hope or assume.
To support the idea of digital games as a cultural revolution repre-
sented by market worth, headlines in the press and some academic
discourses claim that digital gaming is now ‘worth more than the tele-
vision or film industry’ (Dimitrov, 2005). However, like many eye
catching headlines, such claims only show part of the picture and
report data in a slightly more spectacular manner than the generators
of the data might be entirely comfortable with. The digital games
market is indeed comparable to box office receipts – but this is just one
element of revenue generated by the film industry. Recognizing that
the market for pre-recorded DVDs in the USA was approximately
equal to the global market for box office takings during 2002 places
such claims into context. When other film industry revenues are added
including hardware sales, video sales and rentals, licences, merchan-
dizing, and so forth, on a global scale, the total market values become
much less symmetrical.
Although a rationale for studying digital games is often based upon
the reported size of the market, it is seldom made clear that the figures
quoted compare to more mundane markets such as insurance, credit
card services, large kitchen appliances or fast food. Comparing figures
from Euromonitor and other industry sources gives a backdrop to the
relative UK and global markets for consumer and business products
and services. In the UK, digital games are worth approximately half
as much again as ‘paints and coatings’, while the fast food market is
worth about three and a half times more.
Such rankings of market values do not necessarily convert neatly
into a similar ordering for unit sales, so we must be careful not to take
market value as a proxy for number of people involved in an activity.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
5
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 5
are worth more than £2.2 billion5 (ELSPA, 2005a), with software
accounting for £1.2 billion6 of that figure (ELSPA, 2005b). In the UK,
digital games account for approximately half of the market for toys
and games (Euromonitor, 2004) and, for 2003, the market was esti-
mated at being worth between £1.26 billion (ELSPA, 2004) and £2.1
billion (Euromonitor, 2004).
Such figures are almost ritually introduced at the beginning of many
publications on digital games research and these figures are indeed
impressively large. However, these figures are less frequently placed
within a comparative context through which one can understand their
implications. As research into digital games continues to grow it is use-
ful to revisit these market overviews and question whether they actu-
ally demonstrate as much as we might hope or assume.
To support the idea of digital games as a cultural revolution repre-
sented by market worth, headlines in the press and some academic
discourses claim that digital gaming is now ‘worth more than the tele-
vision or film industry’ (Dimitrov, 2005). However, like many eye
catching headlines, such claims only show part of the picture and
report data in a slightly more spectacular manner than the generators
of the data might be entirely comfortable with. The digital games
market is indeed comparable to box office receipts – but this is just one
element of revenue generated by the film industry. Recognizing that
the market for pre-recorded DVDs in the USA was approximately
equal to the global market for box office takings during 2002 places
such claims into context. When other film industry revenues are added
including hardware sales, video sales and rentals, licences, merchan-
dizing, and so forth, on a global scale, the total market values become
much less symmetrical.
Although a rationale for studying digital games is often based upon
the reported size of the market, it is seldom made clear that the figures
quoted compare to more mundane markets such as insurance, credit
card services, large kitchen appliances or fast food. Comparing figures
from Euromonitor and other industry sources gives a backdrop to the
relative UK and global markets for consumer and business products
and services. In the UK, digital games are worth approximately half
as much again as ‘paints and coatings’, while the fast food market is
worth about three and a half times more.
Such rankings of market values do not necessarily convert neatly
into a similar ordering for unit sales, so we must be careful not to take
market value as a proxy for number of people involved in an activity.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
5
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 5
Page 6
For example, whereas the average price for a DVD in Europe is
¤10.99 (IVF, 2004), digital games have tended to maintain a relatively
high unit price for consumers. A top level console game may have an
initial shelf price of almost US $50/¤50/£40, while only older titles
released as part of, for example, The Platinum Collection for the
PlayStation 2, Xbox Classics, or Players’ Choice for the GameCube,
have prices comparable to those for general film DVDs.
There has developed a body of work examining digital games as an
economic market (see for example Aoyama and Izushi, 2003; Castronova,
in press; Hayes and Dinsey, 1995; Kline et al., 2003; Readman and
Grantham, 2004), but the success of this work lies in the way it has
developed refined and applied analyses to difference aspects of digital
gaming and games. Each of these authors has taken a different
approach to exploring the economics of the digital games industry,
Understanding Digital Games
6
TABLE 1.1 Value of digital games and other UK markets
Market Annual value Year1
Credit and charge cards (UK) £131.7 billion 2002
Insurance premiums (UK) £125.5 billion n.d.2
Advertising (UK) £16.2 billion 2002
Kitchen appliances (UK) £13.6 billion 2003
Mail order and home shopping (UK) £12.1 billion 2003
DVD sale and rentals (USA) £11.2 billion 20023
Box Office (Global) £11.1 billion 20024
Digital games (Global) £10.2 billion 20025
Newspapers (UK) £7.7 billion 20036
Gambling (UK) £7.7 billion 2003
Fast food and home delivery/takeaway (UK) £7.4 billion 2003
Footwear (UK) £5.1 billion 2003
Courier services (UK) £4.8 billion 2002
Networking hardware (UK) £3.0 billion 2002
DVD and video software (UK) £2.9 billion 20047
Digital games (UK) £2.1 billion 2003
PC business software (UK) £1.6 billion 2002
Paints and coatings (UK) £1.4 billion 2003
Batteries (UK) £0.4 billion 2002
1 Year for which the estimate is given rather year of publication of estimate.
2 Association of British Insurers, see www.abi.org.uk
3 Converted from Digital Entertainment Group’s estimate of US $20.3 billion, see http://www.dvd
information.com
4 Converted from Screen Digest estimate of US $20 billion, see http://www.screendigest.
com/ezine/0311
5 Converted from Screen Digest (2003) estimate of US $18.5 billion.
6 KPMG, see http.//www.kpmg.co.uk/news/detail.cfm?pr=1954
7 IVF (2004).
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 6
¤10.99 (IVF, 2004), digital games have tended to maintain a relatively
high unit price for consumers. A top level console game may have an
initial shelf price of almost US $50/¤50/£40, while only older titles
released as part of, for example, The Platinum Collection for the
PlayStation 2, Xbox Classics, or Players’ Choice for the GameCube,
have prices comparable to those for general film DVDs.
There has developed a body of work examining digital games as an
economic market (see for example Aoyama and Izushi, 2003; Castronova,
in press; Hayes and Dinsey, 1995; Kline et al., 2003; Readman and
Grantham, 2004), but the success of this work lies in the way it has
developed refined and applied analyses to difference aspects of digital
gaming and games. Each of these authors has taken a different
approach to exploring the economics of the digital games industry,
Understanding Digital Games
6
TABLE 1.1 Value of digital games and other UK markets
Market Annual value Year1
Credit and charge cards (UK) £131.7 billion 2002
Insurance premiums (UK) £125.5 billion n.d.2
Advertising (UK) £16.2 billion 2002
Kitchen appliances (UK) £13.6 billion 2003
Mail order and home shopping (UK) £12.1 billion 2003
DVD sale and rentals (USA) £11.2 billion 20023
Box Office (Global) £11.1 billion 20024
Digital games (Global) £10.2 billion 20025
Newspapers (UK) £7.7 billion 20036
Gambling (UK) £7.7 billion 2003
Fast food and home delivery/takeaway (UK) £7.4 billion 2003
Footwear (UK) £5.1 billion 2003
Courier services (UK) £4.8 billion 2002
Networking hardware (UK) £3.0 billion 2002
DVD and video software (UK) £2.9 billion 20047
Digital games (UK) £2.1 billion 2003
PC business software (UK) £1.6 billion 2002
Paints and coatings (UK) £1.4 billion 2003
Batteries (UK) £0.4 billion 2002
1 Year for which the estimate is given rather year of publication of estimate.
2 Association of British Insurers, see www.abi.org.uk
3 Converted from Digital Entertainment Group’s estimate of US $20.3 billion, see http://www.dvd
information.com
4 Converted from Screen Digest estimate of US $20 billion, see http://www.screendigest.
com/ezine/0311
5 Converted from Screen Digest (2003) estimate of US $18.5 billion.
6 KPMG, see http.//www.kpmg.co.uk/news/detail.cfm?pr=1954
7 IVF (2004).
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 6
Page 7
rather than justifying their research through headline figures. This differs
from work that claims, sometimes implicitly, that digital games mar-
kets are notably large, and that this in itself justifies the investigation
of their products as cultural artefacts.
Digital games are undoubtedly a successful market showing an
impressive year-on-year growth, but this does not make them unique
as an object of study – a solely economic rationale for studying games
would, objectively, make them less interesting than washing machines
and other white goods. However, one of the things that differentiate
digital games from many of the other markets in Table 1.1 is that they are
a leisure good purchased with disposable income. For both the economist
and the socio-cultural researcher this opens up a variety of interesting
questions concerning value, consumer choice, networks and so forth that
tend to be hidden when relying on reporting market size alone. It is these
implications, rather than the absolute value of the market itself, which are
perhaps the most interesting of observations to develop.
Digital games as a new research challenge
A number of authors have argued that digital games present a depar-
ture from previous cultural or technological artefacts, and that in order
to understand them we much develop a whole new research and prac-
tical approach (see, for example, Aarseth, 2003; Eskelinen, 2001;
Lowood, 2002). The general rationale of such authors is that digital
games present a new use of technology, which is profoundly linked to
leisure, creativity and play and, as such, are a unique category without
comparison. This has led to claims that, as Wolf (2001: 2) puts it, ‘video
games are already widespread and unique enough [sic] to deserve
their own branch of theory’ (Wolf, 2001: 2).
Wolf stresses the aesthetic content of digital games to suggest that
research into digital games ‘adds new concepts to existing ideas in
moving imagery theory, such as those concerning the game’s interface,
player action, interactivity, navigation, and algorithmic structures’
(2001: 3). However, this emphasis on discontinuity prevents any sig-
nificant comparison with other new technologies. Digital games (or
rather their design and play) may well draw on the issues Wolf high-
lights, but are they really unique in doing so? Do many of these issues
have equal relevance to other forms of multimedia design, head-up
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
7
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 7
from work that claims, sometimes implicitly, that digital games mar-
kets are notably large, and that this in itself justifies the investigation
of their products as cultural artefacts.
Digital games are undoubtedly a successful market showing an
impressive year-on-year growth, but this does not make them unique
as an object of study – a solely economic rationale for studying games
would, objectively, make them less interesting than washing machines
and other white goods. However, one of the things that differentiate
digital games from many of the other markets in Table 1.1 is that they are
a leisure good purchased with disposable income. For both the economist
and the socio-cultural researcher this opens up a variety of interesting
questions concerning value, consumer choice, networks and so forth that
tend to be hidden when relying on reporting market size alone. It is these
implications, rather than the absolute value of the market itself, which are
perhaps the most interesting of observations to develop.
Digital games as a new research challenge
A number of authors have argued that digital games present a depar-
ture from previous cultural or technological artefacts, and that in order
to understand them we much develop a whole new research and prac-
tical approach (see, for example, Aarseth, 2003; Eskelinen, 2001;
Lowood, 2002). The general rationale of such authors is that digital
games present a new use of technology, which is profoundly linked to
leisure, creativity and play and, as such, are a unique category without
comparison. This has led to claims that, as Wolf (2001: 2) puts it, ‘video
games are already widespread and unique enough [sic] to deserve
their own branch of theory’ (Wolf, 2001: 2).
Wolf stresses the aesthetic content of digital games to suggest that
research into digital games ‘adds new concepts to existing ideas in
moving imagery theory, such as those concerning the game’s interface,
player action, interactivity, navigation, and algorithmic structures’
(2001: 3). However, this emphasis on discontinuity prevents any sig-
nificant comparison with other new technologies. Digital games (or
rather their design and play) may well draw on the issues Wolf high-
lights, but are they really unique in doing so? Do many of these issues
have equal relevance to other forms of multimedia design, head-up
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
7
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 7
Page 8
display in fighter planes (or racing driver’s helmets) and programming
structures in general?
Similarly, Aarseth (2003) argues that digital games are intrinsically
different to other types of games. In his manifesto for the study of
games he suggests that the aesthetics of games was not studied prior
to digital games and, as such, it is digital games that have brought this
change as they become ‘much closer to the ideal object of the humani-
ties, the work of art … become visible and textualizable for the aesthetic
observer’ (2003: 1). While a stark contrast between digital games and
their non-digital or earlier equivalents may seem plausible, closer
inspection makes this contrast less straightforward. Indeed, when look-
ing at the development of games it is not clear that a simple digital/
non-digital divide is tenable or where the paradigmatic shift, so clear
to Aarseth, from ‘traditional’ to digital contrast takes place.7
That digital games are unlike other games or sport in the manner in
which they are built upon technology may be true but, made simply,
this assertion can hide the fact that leisure and technology have long
been linked in their development and practice. This relationship
between technology and leisure, whether it be developments in tennis
racket manufacture (the use of graphite-reinforced materials) the devel-
opment (and legislation against) pinball machines in the USA or the
use of technology to restrict access to leisure sites, has been discussed
elsewhere (see Bryce, 2000).
As a games-related example, think of a simple shooting gallery
game, such as one of the numerous Flash and shareware games that
can be found on the Internet. As a game, this could be compared and
contrasted with a game in which rocks are thrown at cans staked along
the top of the fence. It may be clear that the digital game is a techno-
logical simulation of the low technology version of the game. In the
digital game, technology replaces the physical action of throwing.
However, by replacing the rocks with the shooting of an air rifle, we
can mediate the throwing action with technology without going digi-
tal. A move towards mechanical arcade games, such as Midway’s
Submarine (in which the player looks through a periscope and ‘fires’
light at ships which have photosensitive cells on them), further pushes
the mediated and simulated aspects of the game. It is also an example
of a game that cannot be played outside the technological framework.
Of course, Aarseth is wise enough to refine his rhetoric into a more
sustainable understanding of what digital games might be through his
idea of ‘games in virtual environments’ which would include ‘games
from Tetris via Drug Wars to EverQuest, while computerized toys like
Understanding Digital Games
8
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 8
structures in general?
Similarly, Aarseth (2003) argues that digital games are intrinsically
different to other types of games. In his manifesto for the study of
games he suggests that the aesthetics of games was not studied prior
to digital games and, as such, it is digital games that have brought this
change as they become ‘much closer to the ideal object of the humani-
ties, the work of art … become visible and textualizable for the aesthetic
observer’ (2003: 1). While a stark contrast between digital games and
their non-digital or earlier equivalents may seem plausible, closer
inspection makes this contrast less straightforward. Indeed, when look-
ing at the development of games it is not clear that a simple digital/
non-digital divide is tenable or where the paradigmatic shift, so clear
to Aarseth, from ‘traditional’ to digital contrast takes place.7
That digital games are unlike other games or sport in the manner in
which they are built upon technology may be true but, made simply,
this assertion can hide the fact that leisure and technology have long
been linked in their development and practice. This relationship
between technology and leisure, whether it be developments in tennis
racket manufacture (the use of graphite-reinforced materials) the devel-
opment (and legislation against) pinball machines in the USA or the
use of technology to restrict access to leisure sites, has been discussed
elsewhere (see Bryce, 2000).
As a games-related example, think of a simple shooting gallery
game, such as one of the numerous Flash and shareware games that
can be found on the Internet. As a game, this could be compared and
contrasted with a game in which rocks are thrown at cans staked along
the top of the fence. It may be clear that the digital game is a techno-
logical simulation of the low technology version of the game. In the
digital game, technology replaces the physical action of throwing.
However, by replacing the rocks with the shooting of an air rifle, we
can mediate the throwing action with technology without going digi-
tal. A move towards mechanical arcade games, such as Midway’s
Submarine (in which the player looks through a periscope and ‘fires’
light at ships which have photosensitive cells on them), further pushes
the mediated and simulated aspects of the game. It is also an example
of a game that cannot be played outside the technological framework.
Of course, Aarseth is wise enough to refine his rhetoric into a more
sustainable understanding of what digital games might be through his
idea of ‘games in virtual environments’ which would include ‘games
from Tetris via Drug Wars to EverQuest, while computerized toys like
Understanding Digital Games
8
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 8
Page 9
Furby and dice and card games like Blackjack are excluded. Non-
computerized simulation games like Monopoly or Dungeons and
Dragons would not be excluded’ (Aarseth, 2003: 2). However, by shift-
ing his definition Aarseth, intentionally or not, elides the definition of a
phenomenon with his own interest in it. An understanding of game
aesthetics that excludes games that have a massive user base – such as the
version of Solitaire, which has been packaged with successive versions of
Microsoft Windows, or online poker, which with US $15 billion of rev-
enue in 2003 (McClellan, 2004), is worth a similar amount as the entire
digital games industry – runs the risk of using a definition of games
which does not actually include the majority of digital game playing.
This again highlights how drawing boundaries around academic
fields is not necessarily a productive activity. Separating the aesthetic
study of digital games for research into the aesthetics of other games –
such as ‘the beautiful game’ of football/soccer (Inglis and Hughson,
2000) – does not necessarily help engage with that research, nor does
it support mutual understanding with research carried out in other
fields, which may provide insights for the study of digital games.
‘Digital games studies’ or multidisciplinary research?
The social sciences have long recognized that research methods,
whether scientific or social scientific, are not neutral. Based upon
empirical, theoretical and philosophical investigation researchers have
argued that there is no simple way of separating science from the doing
of science (Hine, 2002; Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Lynch, 1993; Merton,
1973). Kuhn (1962) has shown that when doing ‘normal science’ practi-
tioners operate with a general set of shared assumptions governing
how science is done, what understandings it is based upon and the
world view it represents. However, at times anomalies may occur that
call into question this previous paradigm, and present possible new
and competing ones. An example of this was the shift from the under-
standing of space as one in which the Earth was the centre of God’s
creation, around which other heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles,
to a heliocentric model of the solar system with planets having ellipti-
cal paths. The idea of paradigmatic shifts has been associated with the
manner in which science, disciplines and accepted discourses develop
not in a neutral fashion but through political and academic struggle.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
9
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 9
computerized simulation games like Monopoly or Dungeons and
Dragons would not be excluded’ (Aarseth, 2003: 2). However, by shift-
ing his definition Aarseth, intentionally or not, elides the definition of a
phenomenon with his own interest in it. An understanding of game
aesthetics that excludes games that have a massive user base – such as the
version of Solitaire, which has been packaged with successive versions of
Microsoft Windows, or online poker, which with US $15 billion of rev-
enue in 2003 (McClellan, 2004), is worth a similar amount as the entire
digital games industry – runs the risk of using a definition of games
which does not actually include the majority of digital game playing.
This again highlights how drawing boundaries around academic
fields is not necessarily a productive activity. Separating the aesthetic
study of digital games for research into the aesthetics of other games –
such as ‘the beautiful game’ of football/soccer (Inglis and Hughson,
2000) – does not necessarily help engage with that research, nor does
it support mutual understanding with research carried out in other
fields, which may provide insights for the study of digital games.
‘Digital games studies’ or multidisciplinary research?
The social sciences have long recognized that research methods,
whether scientific or social scientific, are not neutral. Based upon
empirical, theoretical and philosophical investigation researchers have
argued that there is no simple way of separating science from the doing
of science (Hine, 2002; Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Lynch, 1993; Merton,
1973). Kuhn (1962) has shown that when doing ‘normal science’ practi-
tioners operate with a general set of shared assumptions governing
how science is done, what understandings it is based upon and the
world view it represents. However, at times anomalies may occur that
call into question this previous paradigm, and present possible new
and competing ones. An example of this was the shift from the under-
standing of space as one in which the Earth was the centre of God’s
creation, around which other heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles,
to a heliocentric model of the solar system with planets having ellipti-
cal paths. The idea of paradigmatic shifts has been associated with the
manner in which science, disciplines and accepted discourses develop
not in a neutral fashion but through political and academic struggle.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
9
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 9
Page 10
Some researchers have argued that research on digital games has the
power to cause paradigmatic shifts within a range of academic disci-
plines and that existing disciplines lack the tools, theory or application
to fully address the research needs of understanding digital games.
These writers have argued for the establishment of something that
might be called ‘computer game studies’ (Raessens and Goldstein,
2005), ‘video game theory’ (Wolf and Perron, 2003) or ‘games studies’
(Aarseth, 2001), but which exists outside the established disciplines of
academic research.
Perhaps the most famous proponent of this perspective has been
Espen Aarseth. In his inaugural editorial for the online journal Game
Studies, Aarseth (2001) drew a proverbial line in the sand, which he
warned researchers not committed to establishing a new research
discipline about crossing. He accused researchers from outside his own
field of ‘colonising’ game studies:
The greatest challenge to computer game studies will no doubt come
from within the academic world. Making room for a new field usually
means reducing the resources of the existing ones, and the existing
fields will also often respond by trying to contain the new area as a sub-
field. Games are not a kind of cinema, or literature, but colonising
attempts from both these fields have already happened, and no doubt
will happen again. And again, until computer game studies emerges as
a clearly self-sustained academic field. To make things more confusing,
the current pseudo-field of ‘new media’ (primarily a strategy to claim
computer-based communication for visual media studies), wants to
subsume computer games as one of its objects. (2001)
Aarseth is clear that the attempt to build game studies as a new and sep-
arate field is as a political as well as academic project. Indeed, an inter-
esting aspect of Kuhn’s paradigmatic shifts – as with the evolution of
new fields, disciplines and university departments – is not merely the
scientific change that underpins it but the recognition that such changes
will profoundly benefit a few and disadvantage others. With new fields
come funding investment, new professorial posts and other resources, as
well as decisions about what forms the central core of the field.
Whether or not research into digital games will consolidate into a
distinct field remains to be seen, but we can be certain that: (1) it will
not happen without active work toward creating a hierarchy of digital
games research and digital games researchers; (2) it will not happen
without the institutionalization of what lies within and without the
Understanding Digital Games
10
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 10
power to cause paradigmatic shifts within a range of academic disci-
plines and that existing disciplines lack the tools, theory or application
to fully address the research needs of understanding digital games.
These writers have argued for the establishment of something that
might be called ‘computer game studies’ (Raessens and Goldstein,
2005), ‘video game theory’ (Wolf and Perron, 2003) or ‘games studies’
(Aarseth, 2001), but which exists outside the established disciplines of
academic research.
Perhaps the most famous proponent of this perspective has been
Espen Aarseth. In his inaugural editorial for the online journal Game
Studies, Aarseth (2001) drew a proverbial line in the sand, which he
warned researchers not committed to establishing a new research
discipline about crossing. He accused researchers from outside his own
field of ‘colonising’ game studies:
The greatest challenge to computer game studies will no doubt come
from within the academic world. Making room for a new field usually
means reducing the resources of the existing ones, and the existing
fields will also often respond by trying to contain the new area as a sub-
field. Games are not a kind of cinema, or literature, but colonising
attempts from both these fields have already happened, and no doubt
will happen again. And again, until computer game studies emerges as
a clearly self-sustained academic field. To make things more confusing,
the current pseudo-field of ‘new media’ (primarily a strategy to claim
computer-based communication for visual media studies), wants to
subsume computer games as one of its objects. (2001)
Aarseth is clear that the attempt to build game studies as a new and sep-
arate field is as a political as well as academic project. Indeed, an inter-
esting aspect of Kuhn’s paradigmatic shifts – as with the evolution of
new fields, disciplines and university departments – is not merely the
scientific change that underpins it but the recognition that such changes
will profoundly benefit a few and disadvantage others. With new fields
come funding investment, new professorial posts and other resources, as
well as decisions about what forms the central core of the field.
Whether or not research into digital games will consolidate into a
distinct field remains to be seen, but we can be certain that: (1) it will
not happen without active work toward creating a hierarchy of digital
games research and digital games researchers; (2) it will not happen
without the institutionalization of what lies within and without the
Understanding Digital Games
10
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 10
Page 11
new field; and (3) it will not happen without the formation of academic
practice that accepts certain methodologies and rejects others; focusing
on certain aspects of digital games while marginalizing competing
viewpoints.
However, given the academic, industrial, consumer and administra-
tive diversity of digital games, would the reification of this dynamic
research field be a productive endeavour, or does such movement seek
to kill the enthusiasm, innovation and interdisciplinarity that currently
characterize a great deal of digital games research?
Would it serve to prevent engagement with the broader develop-
ment in academic interest in ephemeral issues of modern life from the
visual (Ball and Smith, 1992; Emmison and Smith, 2000), the auditory
(Bull, 2000; Bull and Back, 2003) and issues of taste (Bourdieu, 1984:
Warde, 1997). While it has been argued that the study of digital games
has changed certain academic institutions, it is possible to view the
growth in digital games research as simply part of a broader evolution
of academic investigation into the routine and often taken-for-granted
aspects of cultural life.
Discussing the development of cultural studies, David Morley, who
with his colleagues at Birmingham University was highly influential
from the 1970s onwards in laying the foundations for what we now
regard as (British) cultural studies, warned of the dangers ‘of the
installation of a particular orthodoxy’ (Morley, 1992: 2). Warning of the
difficulties in prematurely drawing boundaries around research areas
and translating findings from one area to another (academically, culturally
and geographically) he argued:
It would seem today, especially in the context of the North American
Academy, cultural studies not only has become almost synonymous
with a certain kind of postmodern theorizing but is now also referred
to … simply as ‘theory’. This fetishization of a rather abstract idea of
theory is quite at odds with what Stuart Hall has described as the ‘neces-
sary modesty’ which academic work in this field should properly display.
(1992: 3)
Is the overenthusiasism of academic digital game researchers to
create new disciplines around their own research concerns stoping the
growth of research ideas? Is the keenness of some to erect boundaries
around research into digital games only going to serve in making
multidisciplinary work harder to develop? Will this isolationism retard
the development of new ideas and maintenance of relevance to industry
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
11
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 11
practice that accepts certain methodologies and rejects others; focusing
on certain aspects of digital games while marginalizing competing
viewpoints.
However, given the academic, industrial, consumer and administra-
tive diversity of digital games, would the reification of this dynamic
research field be a productive endeavour, or does such movement seek
to kill the enthusiasm, innovation and interdisciplinarity that currently
characterize a great deal of digital games research?
Would it serve to prevent engagement with the broader develop-
ment in academic interest in ephemeral issues of modern life from the
visual (Ball and Smith, 1992; Emmison and Smith, 2000), the auditory
(Bull, 2000; Bull and Back, 2003) and issues of taste (Bourdieu, 1984:
Warde, 1997). While it has been argued that the study of digital games
has changed certain academic institutions, it is possible to view the
growth in digital games research as simply part of a broader evolution
of academic investigation into the routine and often taken-for-granted
aspects of cultural life.
Discussing the development of cultural studies, David Morley, who
with his colleagues at Birmingham University was highly influential
from the 1970s onwards in laying the foundations for what we now
regard as (British) cultural studies, warned of the dangers ‘of the
installation of a particular orthodoxy’ (Morley, 1992: 2). Warning of the
difficulties in prematurely drawing boundaries around research areas
and translating findings from one area to another (academically, culturally
and geographically) he argued:
It would seem today, especially in the context of the North American
Academy, cultural studies not only has become almost synonymous
with a certain kind of postmodern theorizing but is now also referred
to … simply as ‘theory’. This fetishization of a rather abstract idea of
theory is quite at odds with what Stuart Hall has described as the ‘neces-
sary modesty’ which academic work in this field should properly display.
(1992: 3)
Is the overenthusiasism of academic digital game researchers to
create new disciplines around their own research concerns stoping the
growth of research ideas? Is the keenness of some to erect boundaries
around research into digital games only going to serve in making
multidisciplinary work harder to develop? Will this isolationism retard
the development of new ideas and maintenance of relevance to industry
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
11
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 11
Page 12
and policy users? Taken as a whole, the academic diversity of this
collection would argue so.
The chapters in this book come from a diverse set of academic disci-
plines. One of their notable aspects is not that the authors compete for
ownership of digital games research or present their own fields as
providing definitive insight into digital games, but that they use the
work from their own areas to enable them to answer different ques-
tions about the same phenomenon. The reader of this book is not asked
to pick which of the viewpoints presented is correct to the exclusion of
others, but to understand the multifaceted nature of digital games and
that research methods and analysis must be chosen in line with the
specific questions that one seeks to explore. For example, no amount of
ethnographic-style participation observation with gaming communi-
ties and playing of digital games will help understand the economic
models upon which the contemporary digital games industry is based.
Of course, the converse is also true. Objectively, neither perspective is
more useful until we decide which part of digital gaming we want to
explore and the most appropriate methods for doing so. The chapters
in this collection highlight the manner in which digital games do not
exist in a space hermetically sealed from other aspects of culture, soci-
ety and economics, but that they are a product of them and contribute
to their reproduction and development.
While for convenience we can simplify our model of the world of
digital games, draw largely arbitrary boundaries around the aspects
we are most interested and build our analysis on defined assumptions,
factoids and simplifications, it is important to be clear that these are
products of our analysis are not the object of analysis itself. While it is
often necessary for practical reasons to limit the focus of our investi-
gation or simplify complex phenomena, it is good practice to remem-
ber that these boundaries are part of the research process and the
questions and methods that we choose to ask. By focusing on a specific
element of digital games, whether that be the technology; the onscreen
text; the programmed text; the communities that are part of digital
games; or their use in education, we deepen our understanding of the
area. However, without sharing ideas with others outside specific
research niches, we risk losing sight of the bigger picture upon which
each niche depends for it structure.
One of the reasons why digital games have proved such a dynamic
source of research and analysis in recent years is the manner in which
they sit at a junction between a wide range of established academic
interests. As Alloway and Gilbert point out:
Understanding Digital Games
12
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 12
collection would argue so.
The chapters in this book come from a diverse set of academic disci-
plines. One of their notable aspects is not that the authors compete for
ownership of digital games research or present their own fields as
providing definitive insight into digital games, but that they use the
work from their own areas to enable them to answer different ques-
tions about the same phenomenon. The reader of this book is not asked
to pick which of the viewpoints presented is correct to the exclusion of
others, but to understand the multifaceted nature of digital games and
that research methods and analysis must be chosen in line with the
specific questions that one seeks to explore. For example, no amount of
ethnographic-style participation observation with gaming communi-
ties and playing of digital games will help understand the economic
models upon which the contemporary digital games industry is based.
Of course, the converse is also true. Objectively, neither perspective is
more useful until we decide which part of digital gaming we want to
explore and the most appropriate methods for doing so. The chapters
in this collection highlight the manner in which digital games do not
exist in a space hermetically sealed from other aspects of culture, soci-
ety and economics, but that they are a product of them and contribute
to their reproduction and development.
While for convenience we can simplify our model of the world of
digital games, draw largely arbitrary boundaries around the aspects
we are most interested and build our analysis on defined assumptions,
factoids and simplifications, it is important to be clear that these are
products of our analysis are not the object of analysis itself. While it is
often necessary for practical reasons to limit the focus of our investi-
gation or simplify complex phenomena, it is good practice to remem-
ber that these boundaries are part of the research process and the
questions and methods that we choose to ask. By focusing on a specific
element of digital games, whether that be the technology; the onscreen
text; the programmed text; the communities that are part of digital
games; or their use in education, we deepen our understanding of the
area. However, without sharing ideas with others outside specific
research niches, we risk losing sight of the bigger picture upon which
each niche depends for it structure.
One of the reasons why digital games have proved such a dynamic
source of research and analysis in recent years is the manner in which
they sit at a junction between a wide range of established academic
interests. As Alloway and Gilbert point out:
Understanding Digital Games
12
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 12
Page 13
Video game narratives and the practices associated with video
game culture form part of a complex interplay of discursive practices.
They do not stand alone. They are part of a network of discourses
and social practices that similarly construct violence, aggression,
gender relations, ethnicity and power. It is because they dovetail so
easily that they become so easily ‘naturalized’ in cultural practice.
(1998: 96–7)
By unreflexively giving priority to one aspect of digital games we
run the risk of convincing ourselves that our own perspective is, in
actual fact, the defining one. While trying to understand digital games
we must be aware of avoiding the situation of the six wise (but blind)
men in John Godfrey Saxe’s poem.8
Confronted with an elephant these men touch upon different part of
the animal and make the mistake of assuming that what they have
found represents the whole of the creature. As such, the first man feels
the elephants side and assumes elephants are like walls; the second
touches the tusk and so thinks the elephant is like a spear; the third
concludes the elephant is like a snake having grabbed the moving
trunk; the fourth, feeling the elephant’s knee asserts the animal is like
a tree; the fifth finds the elephant’s ear and so believes the animal to be
like a fan; and the final wise man finds the rope-like tail. Saxe warns
that with the knowledge gathered:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong!
The lesson here, is not that any of the wise men were wrong in what
they discovered or how they understood it, but rather that they did not
see further than their own area. They assumed that their area could
define the whole object and were prepared to take this partial knowl-
edge as evidence of the ultimate perspective. In our attempt to gain a
cohesive picture of digital games it is important that we show a keen-
ness to talk to our fellow researchers and work together to develop and
a deeper understanding of our behemoth. This collection is an attempt
to support and encourage such dialogue in order to strengthen our
understanding of digital games.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
13
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 13
game culture form part of a complex interplay of discursive practices.
They do not stand alone. They are part of a network of discourses
and social practices that similarly construct violence, aggression,
gender relations, ethnicity and power. It is because they dovetail so
easily that they become so easily ‘naturalized’ in cultural practice.
(1998: 96–7)
By unreflexively giving priority to one aspect of digital games we
run the risk of convincing ourselves that our own perspective is, in
actual fact, the defining one. While trying to understand digital games
we must be aware of avoiding the situation of the six wise (but blind)
men in John Godfrey Saxe’s poem.8
Confronted with an elephant these men touch upon different part of
the animal and make the mistake of assuming that what they have
found represents the whole of the creature. As such, the first man feels
the elephants side and assumes elephants are like walls; the second
touches the tusk and so thinks the elephant is like a spear; the third
concludes the elephant is like a snake having grabbed the moving
trunk; the fourth, feeling the elephant’s knee asserts the animal is like
a tree; the fifth finds the elephant’s ear and so believes the animal to be
like a fan; and the final wise man finds the rope-like tail. Saxe warns
that with the knowledge gathered:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong!
The lesson here, is not that any of the wise men were wrong in what
they discovered or how they understood it, but rather that they did not
see further than their own area. They assumed that their area could
define the whole object and were prepared to take this partial knowl-
edge as evidence of the ultimate perspective. In our attempt to gain a
cohesive picture of digital games it is important that we show a keen-
ness to talk to our fellow researchers and work together to develop and
a deeper understanding of our behemoth. This collection is an attempt
to support and encourage such dialogue in order to strengthen our
understanding of digital games.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
13
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 13
Page 14
Relevant web sites
Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning
www.absel.org
Bristol Dyslexia Centre, Net Educational Systems www.dyslexiacentre.
co.uk
Buzzcut www.buzzcut.com
Digiplay Initiative www.digiplay.org.uk
DiGRA (Digital Games Research Association) www.digra.org
DiGRA’s digital games conferences www.gamesconference.org
ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association)
www.elspa.com
Euromonitor www.euromonitor.com
ESA (Entertainment Software Association) www.theesa.com
Games and Culture – A Journal of Interactive Media www.sagepub.com/
journal.aspx?pid=11113
International Association for Game Education and Research (IAGER)
www.iager.org
IGDA (International Game Developers Association) www.igda.org
Hard Core www.digra.org/index.php?topic=HardCore
International Game Journalists Association (IGJA) www.igja.org
International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation www.scit.wlv.ac.
uk/%7Ecm1822/ijigs.htm
ISAGA (International Simulation & Gaming Association) www.
isaga.info
ISI Web of Knowledge isi22.isiknowledge.com
Interactive Software Federation of Europe www.isfe-eu.org
Journal of Game Development www.jogd.com
MEF (Mobile Entertainment Forum) www.m-e-f.org
Slashdot Games games.slashdot.org
TIGA (The Independent Games Developers Association) www.tiga.org
Notes
1 See, for example, http://www.digiplay.org.uk/books.php, http://www.ren-
reynolds.com/bibliography.htm or game-research.com/reference.asp.
2 This idea was revisited by Merton’s son, Robert C. Merton, during his banquet
speech on the occasion of his award for the Nobel prize for economics in 1997. See
http:// nobelprize.org/economics/laurcates/1997/merton-speech.html
3 Approximately ¤5.8 billion or £4 billion.
Understanding Digital Games
14
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 14
Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning
www.absel.org
Bristol Dyslexia Centre, Net Educational Systems www.dyslexiacentre.
co.uk
Buzzcut www.buzzcut.com
Digiplay Initiative www.digiplay.org.uk
DiGRA (Digital Games Research Association) www.digra.org
DiGRA’s digital games conferences www.gamesconference.org
ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association)
www.elspa.com
Euromonitor www.euromonitor.com
ESA (Entertainment Software Association) www.theesa.com
Games and Culture – A Journal of Interactive Media www.sagepub.com/
journal.aspx?pid=11113
International Association for Game Education and Research (IAGER)
www.iager.org
IGDA (International Game Developers Association) www.igda.org
Hard Core www.digra.org/index.php?topic=HardCore
International Game Journalists Association (IGJA) www.igja.org
International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation www.scit.wlv.ac.
uk/%7Ecm1822/ijigs.htm
ISAGA (International Simulation & Gaming Association) www.
isaga.info
ISI Web of Knowledge isi22.isiknowledge.com
Interactive Software Federation of Europe www.isfe-eu.org
Journal of Game Development www.jogd.com
MEF (Mobile Entertainment Forum) www.m-e-f.org
Slashdot Games games.slashdot.org
TIGA (The Independent Games Developers Association) www.tiga.org
Notes
1 See, for example, http://www.digiplay.org.uk/books.php, http://www.ren-
reynolds.com/bibliography.htm or game-research.com/reference.asp.
2 This idea was revisited by Merton’s son, Robert C. Merton, during his banquet
speech on the occasion of his award for the Nobel prize for economics in 1997. See
http:// nobelprize.org/economics/laurcates/1997/merton-speech.html
3 Approximately ¤5.8 billion or £4 billion.
Understanding Digital Games
14
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 14
Page 15
4 Approximately US $7 billion or £3.9 billion.
5 Approximately US $4 billion or ¤3.2 billion.
6 Approximately US $2.2 billion or ¤1.7 billion.
7 What Aarseth’s means by ‘traditional’ here is unclear but, like using ‘natural’
to mean ‘usual’ or refer to that which appears normal, care should be shown in not
using ‘traditional’ when referring not actually to traditions but something which is
chronologically earlier than now. For example, the traditions associated with play-
ing the dreidel game at Hanukkah are not the same as those associated with an
Easter egg hunt. Similarly, a historical view provides a different insight into under-
standing that traditions linked to lacrosse as a game played by Native Americans,
as well as the differences in the UK between rugby league (traditionally a working
class sport) and rugby union (the traditional choice of public, that is fee paying,
schools).
8 Saxe’s poem, ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant’ is based upon a tale originally
Chinese or Indian in origin although its exact heritage is unclear. A Buddhist version
can be found in the Udana but Hindu versions are recorded and the story illustrates
well the Jain notion of Anekanta – the multi-faceted nature of reality.
References
Aarseth, Espen (2001) ‘Computer game studies, year one’, Game Studies,
retrieved 15 March 2005 from: http.//www.gamestudies.org/0101/editor-
ial.html
Aarseth, Espen (2003) ‘Playing research: methodological approaches to game
analysis’, paper presented at MelbourneDAC, the 5th International Digital
Arts and Culture Conference, 19–23 May 2003, Melbourne.
Alloway, N. and Gilbert, P. (1998) ‘Video game culture: playing with masculinity,
violence and pleasure’, in S. Howard (ed.), Wired-up: Young People and the
Electronic Media. London: UCL Press. pp. 95–114.
Aoyama, Y. and Izushi, H. (2003) ‘Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation?
Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese video game
industry’, Research Policy, 32 (3): 423–44.
Ball, M. and Smith, G.W.H. (1992) Analyzing Visual Data. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:
Routledge.
Bryce, J. (2000) ‘The technological transformation of leisure’, Social Science
Computer Review, 79, 1–16.
Bryce, J. and Rutter, J. (2003b) ‘Gender dynamics and the social and spatial
organisation of computer gaming’, Leisure Studies, 22: 1–15.
Bull, M. (2000) Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of
Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
Bull, M. and Back, L. (eds) (2003) The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.
Castronova, E. (in press) Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online
Games. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
15
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 15
5 Approximately US $4 billion or ¤3.2 billion.
6 Approximately US $2.2 billion or ¤1.7 billion.
7 What Aarseth’s means by ‘traditional’ here is unclear but, like using ‘natural’
to mean ‘usual’ or refer to that which appears normal, care should be shown in not
using ‘traditional’ when referring not actually to traditions but something which is
chronologically earlier than now. For example, the traditions associated with play-
ing the dreidel game at Hanukkah are not the same as those associated with an
Easter egg hunt. Similarly, a historical view provides a different insight into under-
standing that traditions linked to lacrosse as a game played by Native Americans,
as well as the differences in the UK between rugby league (traditionally a working
class sport) and rugby union (the traditional choice of public, that is fee paying,
schools).
8 Saxe’s poem, ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant’ is based upon a tale originally
Chinese or Indian in origin although its exact heritage is unclear. A Buddhist version
can be found in the Udana but Hindu versions are recorded and the story illustrates
well the Jain notion of Anekanta – the multi-faceted nature of reality.
References
Aarseth, Espen (2001) ‘Computer game studies, year one’, Game Studies,
retrieved 15 March 2005 from: http.//www.gamestudies.org/0101/editor-
ial.html
Aarseth, Espen (2003) ‘Playing research: methodological approaches to game
analysis’, paper presented at MelbourneDAC, the 5th International Digital
Arts and Culture Conference, 19–23 May 2003, Melbourne.
Alloway, N. and Gilbert, P. (1998) ‘Video game culture: playing with masculinity,
violence and pleasure’, in S. Howard (ed.), Wired-up: Young People and the
Electronic Media. London: UCL Press. pp. 95–114.
Aoyama, Y. and Izushi, H. (2003) ‘Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation?
Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese video game
industry’, Research Policy, 32 (3): 423–44.
Ball, M. and Smith, G.W.H. (1992) Analyzing Visual Data. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:
Routledge.
Bryce, J. (2000) ‘The technological transformation of leisure’, Social Science
Computer Review, 79, 1–16.
Bryce, J. and Rutter, J. (2003b) ‘Gender dynamics and the social and spatial
organisation of computer gaming’, Leisure Studies, 22: 1–15.
Bull, M. (2000) Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of
Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
Bull, M. and Back, L. (eds) (2003) The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.
Castronova, E. (in press) Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online
Games. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
15
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 15
Page 16
Dimitrov, A. (2005) ‘Influence of video games on children’s health’, American
Family physician, 71 (8). Retrieved 21 November 2005 from www.aatp.org/atp/
20050415/lettersonline.html
ELSPA (2004) ‘Video games continue to grow’, press release, 6th January
2004, retrieved 15 March 2005 from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?
mode=view&t=1&id=405
ELSPA (2005a) ‘The UK games industry is in session’, retrieved 15 April 2005
from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?mode=view&t=1&id=528
ELSPA (2005b) ‘The games industry: a UK success story’, retrieved 15 April
2005 from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?mode=view&t=1&id=524
Emmison, M. and Smith, P. (2000) Researching the Visual: Images, Objects, Contexts
and Interactions in Social and Cultural Inquiry. London: Sage.
Eskelinen, M. (2001) ‘Towards computer game studies’, Digital Creativity,
12 (3): 175–83.
ESA (2005) ‘Essential facts about the computer and video game industry’,
retrieved 26 May 2005 from: www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf
Euromonitor (2004) Toys and Games in UK. London: Euromonitor International.
Hatch, D.J. and Watson, D.R. (1974) ‘Hearing the blues: an essay in the soci-
ology of music’, Acta Sociologica, 17: 162–78.
Hayes, M. and Dinsey, S. (1995) Games War: Video Games – A Business Review.
London: Bowerdean Publishing Company Ltd.
Hemnes, T.M.S. (1982) ‘The adaptation of copyright law to video games’,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 131: 171–233.
Hine, C. 2002 ‘Cyberscience and social boundaries: the implications of labora-
tory talk on the Internet’, Sociological Research Online, 7 (2), retrieved
15 April 2005 from: www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/hine.html.
Hine, C. (ed.) (2005) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet.
Oxford: Berg.
Inglis, D. and Hughson, J. (2000) ‘The beautiful game and the proto-aesthetics
of the everyday’, Cultural Values, 4 (3): 279–97.
IVF (2004) ‘European video market: the industry overview’, retrieved 15 April
2005 from: www.ivf-video.org/EuropeanOverview2004.pdf
Jefferson, G. (1979) ‘A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent
acceptance/ declination’, in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in
Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. pp. 79–96.
Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N. and de Peuter, G. (2003) Digital Play: The Interaction
of Technology, Culture, and Marketing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lowood, H. (2002) ‘Shall we play a game: thoughts on the computer game
archive of the future’, retrieved 15 April 2005 from: www.stanford.edu/%7
Elowood/Texts/shall_game.pdf
Understanding Digital Games
16
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 16
Family physician, 71 (8). Retrieved 21 November 2005 from www.aatp.org/atp/
20050415/lettersonline.html
ELSPA (2004) ‘Video games continue to grow’, press release, 6th January
2004, retrieved 15 March 2005 from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?
mode=view&t=1&id=405
ELSPA (2005a) ‘The UK games industry is in session’, retrieved 15 April 2005
from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?mode=view&t=1&id=528
ELSPA (2005b) ‘The games industry: a UK success story’, retrieved 15 April
2005 from: www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?mode=view&t=1&id=524
Emmison, M. and Smith, P. (2000) Researching the Visual: Images, Objects, Contexts
and Interactions in Social and Cultural Inquiry. London: Sage.
Eskelinen, M. (2001) ‘Towards computer game studies’, Digital Creativity,
12 (3): 175–83.
ESA (2005) ‘Essential facts about the computer and video game industry’,
retrieved 26 May 2005 from: www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf
Euromonitor (2004) Toys and Games in UK. London: Euromonitor International.
Hatch, D.J. and Watson, D.R. (1974) ‘Hearing the blues: an essay in the soci-
ology of music’, Acta Sociologica, 17: 162–78.
Hayes, M. and Dinsey, S. (1995) Games War: Video Games – A Business Review.
London: Bowerdean Publishing Company Ltd.
Hemnes, T.M.S. (1982) ‘The adaptation of copyright law to video games’,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 131: 171–233.
Hine, C. 2002 ‘Cyberscience and social boundaries: the implications of labora-
tory talk on the Internet’, Sociological Research Online, 7 (2), retrieved
15 April 2005 from: www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/hine.html.
Hine, C. (ed.) (2005) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet.
Oxford: Berg.
Inglis, D. and Hughson, J. (2000) ‘The beautiful game and the proto-aesthetics
of the everyday’, Cultural Values, 4 (3): 279–97.
IVF (2004) ‘European video market: the industry overview’, retrieved 15 April
2005 from: www.ivf-video.org/EuropeanOverview2004.pdf
Jefferson, G. (1979) ‘A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent
acceptance/ declination’, in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in
Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. pp. 79–96.
Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N. and de Peuter, G. (2003) Digital Play: The Interaction
of Technology, Culture, and Marketing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lowood, H. (2002) ‘Shall we play a game: thoughts on the computer game
archive of the future’, retrieved 15 April 2005 from: www.stanford.edu/%7
Elowood/Texts/shall_game.pdf
Understanding Digital Games
16
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 16
Page 17
Lynch, M. (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and
Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McClellan, J. (2004) ‘The hot favourite’, Guardian Unlimited, retrieved 15 April 2005
from: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/horseracing/story/0,10149, 1182988,
00.html
McCowan, T.C. (1981) ‘Space invaders wrist’, New England Journal of Medicine,
304: 1368.
Merton, R.K. (1965) On the Shoulders of Giants. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Inves-
tigations, ed. N.W. Storer. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Morley, D. (1992) Television Audience and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Newman, J. (2004) Videogames. London: Routeldge.
Provenzo, E.F. (1991) Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Computer Game
Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Readman, J. and Grantham, A. (2004) ‘Strategy frameworks and the positioning of
UK electronic games super developers’, Centre for Research in Innovation
Management working paper, University of Brighton, retrieved 15 April 2005 from:
http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/publications/abstracts/ 041abs.shtml
Rutter, J. (2000) ‘The introductions of stand-up per formers: comparing comedy
compères’, Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (4): 463–83.
Sacks, H. (1978) ‘Some technical considerations of a dirty joke’, in J.N. Schenkein
(ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York:
Academic Press. pp. 249–70.
Sedlak, R.A., Doyle, M. and Schloss, P. (1982) ‘Video games – a training and
generalization demonstration with severely retarded adolescents’, Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 17: 332–6.
Sudnow, D. (1978) Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sudnow, D. (1983) Pilgrim in the Microworld. New York: Warner Books.
Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and
Commodity Culture. London: Sage.
Wolf, M.J.P. (ed.) (2001) The Medium of the Video Game. Austin, TX: University
of Texas.
Wolf, M.J.P. and Perron, B. (2003) The Video Game Theory Reader. London:
Routledge.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
17
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 17
Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McClellan, J. (2004) ‘The hot favourite’, Guardian Unlimited, retrieved 15 April 2005
from: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/horseracing/story/0,10149, 1182988,
00.html
McCowan, T.C. (1981) ‘Space invaders wrist’, New England Journal of Medicine,
304: 1368.
Merton, R.K. (1965) On the Shoulders of Giants. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Inves-
tigations, ed. N.W. Storer. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Morley, D. (1992) Television Audience and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Newman, J. (2004) Videogames. London: Routeldge.
Provenzo, E.F. (1991) Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Raessens, J. and Goldstein, J. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Computer Game
Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Readman, J. and Grantham, A. (2004) ‘Strategy frameworks and the positioning of
UK electronic games super developers’, Centre for Research in Innovation
Management working paper, University of Brighton, retrieved 15 April 2005 from:
http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/publications/abstracts/ 041abs.shtml
Rutter, J. (2000) ‘The introductions of stand-up per formers: comparing comedy
compères’, Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (4): 463–83.
Sacks, H. (1978) ‘Some technical considerations of a dirty joke’, in J.N. Schenkein
(ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York:
Academic Press. pp. 249–70.
Sedlak, R.A., Doyle, M. and Schloss, P. (1982) ‘Video games – a training and
generalization demonstration with severely retarded adolescents’, Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 17: 332–6.
Sudnow, D. (1978) Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sudnow, D. (1983) Pilgrim in the Microworld. New York: Warner Books.
Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and
Commodity Culture. London: Sage.
Wolf, M.J.P. (ed.) (2001) The Medium of the Video Game. Austin, TX: University
of Texas.
Wolf, M.J.P. and Perron, B. (2003) The Video Game Theory Reader. London:
Routledge.
An Introduction to Understanding Digital Games
17
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 17
Page 18
Rutter-3386-Chapter-01.qxd 2/3/2006 8:20 PM Page 18
Sign up today - FREE
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more
- All your research in one place
- Add and import papers easily
- Access it anywhere, anytime
Start using Mendeley in seconds!
Readership Statistics
15 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
33% Social Sciences
20% Education
by Academic Status
33% Ph.D. Student
27% Researcher (at an Academic Institution)
13% Student (Master)
by Country
13% Spain
13% France
7% Belgium
Groups
 |