Games as Artefacts vs Games as Activity

There are two ways to talk about Games, both important and necessary to get an understanding of what games are and how to talk about them. The problem is that this dichotomy is often disregarded or forgotten about when discussing or writing about certain issues and aspects of games. The two approaches I am talking about are the player-centric and the game as an artefact. 

Player- Centric 

When analysing from a player centric perspective the player-game relation is in the foreground. Terms like player experience and player behaviour come to mind. The most common methods when analysing with an interest in the player-game relation are most often more subjective and individual. Qualitative methods such as player observations, interviews, surveys, play tests are most common to examine a game phenomenon.  The data drawn from these methods can be either used to analyse individual cases and get a very close look into the world of specific players from which one can receive insight, or a mass of data can be evaluated and compared for a general assertion.
This way of analysing games leads to unique insights and opinions. The researcher can with the right method and question can make statements on how games and gamers relate, shape and partake in the shaping of a shared culture. Designers can use these studies to get a grasp of how gamers react to different games and phenomena created in and through games. They can therefore develop their games according to these insights which are not only made by researchers but additionally provided by playtests. The outcomes of such studies can reach from a small to a bigger scale and address a large number of topics which are then opened up for interpretation and further research.
However, this method alone does not get us any closer to the question what a game is and what it potentially can be. 

Games as Artefacts

In discussions about games the player seems to inhabit a dominant role. Any phenomenon talked about often relates back to what the player does. However, this is not often beneficial in order to understand what a game is and how these phenomena can be related within the field of games. In other academic disciplines such as literature or film studies this problem seems to be minor due to the rather passive role of the onlooker and/or reader even if they have to do interpretational work. Whereas, due to the active role of the player this distinction seems to be much harder to make even though a game can be read without thinking of a player. This way of analysing game is player independent and therefore more objective. The questions posed and the feel for the outcome is more precise since the methods are less prone to arbitrariness. Most often researchers work with in-depth or comparative analysis of specific phenomena. They work with what is there and what can be interpreted; hence the outcome is clear and open to be argued with. Through these kinds of analysis terminologies, taxonomies and definitions are created which shape the understanding of how to think and talk about games. One of the examples would be how genres are created, even though this might not be an academic phenomenon (nonetheless of academic interest). Genres describe games in a way a taxonomy would, which can be explained as a system for naming and organizing things, especially plants and animals, into groups that share similar qualities and the connected question is How many different cases can be distinguished? (Backe, 2014, lecture material). For these insights no player relation is necessary. Games have certain features which can be grouped together and distinguished from each other and doing so seems to be both logical and natural.

Now, I am not claiming that one approach is more important or valuable than the other, but undoubtedly they are both necessary for a successful academic research field. To look at games as artefacts and create a research basis with analysis tools and definitions is necessary to understand the medium. The player-centric model can relate the phenomena defined and argued about to the actual activity of playing, its cultural meaning and how it influences players and the industry. As any field of research, especially in humanistics and social science there are no final answers. Every research outcome can be discussed, criticised and challenged in a lively academic discourse which leads to a better understanding of the medium of games. 

References and further Reading

Backe. (2014). Lecture material. Retreived from: https://prezi.com/q2gfaunwp_la/taxonomies-typologies/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

Lindley. (2003) Game Taxonomies: A High Level Framework for Game Analysis and Design. Retreived from: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131205/game_taxonomies_a_high_level_.php

Nacke, L. E., & Drachen, A. (2011). Towards a framework of player experience research. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Evaluating Player Experience in Games at FDG (Vol. 11).