Play vs. Procedures

Emil Hammar

    Research output: Contribution to conference - NOT published in proceeding or journalPaperResearchpeer-review


    Through the theories of play by Gadamer (2004) and Henricks (2006), I will show how the relationship between play and game can be understood as dialectic and disruptive, thus challenging understandings of how the procedures of games determine player activity and vice versa. As such, I posit some analytical consequences for understandings of digital games as procedurally fixed (Boghost, 2006; Flannagan, 2009; Bathwaite & Sharp, 2010). That is, if digital games are argued to be procedurally fixed and if play is an appropriative and dialectic activity, then it could be argued that the latter affects and alters the former, and vice versa. Consequently, if the appointed procedures of a game are no longer fixed and rigid in their conveyance of meaning, qua the appropriative and dissolving nature of play, then understandings of games as conveying a fixed meaning through their procedures are inadequate in capturing the complexity of how games convey their meaning to the player and how players interpret and configure this meaning.
    Translated title of the contributionLeg kontra Procedurer
    Original languageEnglish
    Publication date29 Sep 2013
    Number of pages7
    Publication statusPublished - 29 Sep 2013
    EventFROG - Future & Reality of Games 2013: Context Matters - Wien, Austria
    Duration: 27 Sep 201328 Sep 2013
    Conference number: 7


    ConferenceFROG - Future & Reality of Games 2013
    Internet address

    Cite this