CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG 香港城市大學 Workshops of Our Own: Analysing Constraint Play in Digital Games 自製工坊：分析應用於數碼遊戲中的限制性玩法 Submitted to School of Creative Media 創意媒體學院 In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 哲學博士學位 by Johnathan HARRINGTON September 2020 二零二零年九月 ABSTRACT Players are at the heart of games: games are only fully realised when players play them. Contemporary games research has acknowledged players’ importance when discussing games. Player-based research in game studies has been largely oriented either towards specific types of play, or towards analysing players as parts of games. While such approaches have their merits, they background creative traditions shared across different play. Games share players, and there is knowledge to be gleamed from analysing the methods players adopt across different games, especially when these methods are loaded with intent to make something new. In this thesis, I will argue that players design, record, and share their own play methods with other players. Through further research into the Oulipo’s potential contributions to games research, as well as a thorough analysis of current game studies texts on play as method, I will argue that the Oulipo’s concept of constraints can help us better discuss player-based design. I will argue for constraints by analysing various different types of player created play methods. I will outline a descriptive model that discusses these play methods through shared language, and analysed as a single practice with shared commonalities. By the end of this thesis, I will have shown that players’ play methods are often measured and creative. Players create play methods not only to enrich their play, but also to enrich other players’ play and to create new future ways to approach games, and playing them. Furthermore, I will argue that players realise the productive potential in their play, and they record their play both to preserve their adopted methods, but also to realise the creative aspects latent inside their play. ii CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Qualifying Panel and Examination Panel Surname: HARRINGTON First Name: Johnathan Degree: PhD College / Department: School of Creative Media The Qualifying Panel of the above student is composed of: Supervisor(s): Dr. Olli Tapio LEINO School of Creative Media City University of Hong Kong Qualifying Panel Member(s): Dr. Damien CHARRIERAS School of Creative Media City University of Hong Kong Dr. Hector RODRIGUEZ School of Creative Media City University of Hong Kong This thesis has been examined and approved by the following examiners: Dr. Wing Yee Kimburley CHOI School of Creative Media City University of Hong Kong Dr. Olli Tapio LEINO School of Creative Media City University of Hong Kong Prof. Raine KOSKIMAA Department of Music, Art and Culture Studies University of Jväskylä Prof. Mia CONSALVO Department of Communication Studies Concordia University iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Olli Tapio Leino, for reading my work even when it was bad, boring or both. His comments were incredibly insightful, often two steps ahead of where I was at with my own work. His contributions to this thesis cannot be overstated. I would also like to thank everyone else at the School for Creative Media, for providing a stimulating environment for enquiry. A special thank you goes to Maurice Benayoun for hosting seminars with indispensable feedback, and Peter Nelson, for discussing both my work and many other things that come with being in the department. I would like to thank all the people I discussed this thesis with. I will have forgotten many names. Here are some names that I can definitely give an anecdote as to how a given conversation helped my work. Alphabetically, Espen Aarseth, Hans-Joachim Backe, Joleen Blom, Francesca Borg Taylor-East, Kaelan Doyle-Myerscough, Jonathan Fromme, Kristina Jorgensen, Paul Martin, Anh-Thu Nguyen, Rainforest Scully-Blaker, Ea Cristina Willumsen, Hanna Wirman, and Andrei Zanescu. I would like to thank my correspondence at Concordia University. I had originally planned to conduct an exchange here in 2020. However, CoVID-19 happened. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Jonathan Lessard for being very accommodating in our emails back and forth to make this happen. I would also especially like to thank Rilla Khaled and Pippin Barr for being equally accommodating, but also for leading me down this path when they worked at the Institute of Digital Games. They were both incredibly influential to my development. Speaking of, I would like to thank my previous colleagues at the Institute of Digital Games, at the University of Malta. Firstly, for hosting me haphazardly when I needed to leave Hong Kong for a short while. However, for also always being a font of good ideas, discussion and often friendship too. So thank you Jasper Schellekens, Krista Bonello Rutter Giappone, Daniel Vella, and Stefano Gualeni. A special thank you to Gordon Calleja too. I would like to thank my family. They didn’t help too much with the thesis, but I don’t thank them often enough anyway for all they did leading up to this thesis. Now’s as good a time as any. Finally, I would like to thank my significant other, Zimu, for being there when I needed someone to bounce my ideas off of, but mostly for simply being there throughout. iv Thesis Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................1 [1.1] AN OPENING.............................................................................................1 [1.2] HYPOTHESIS..............................................................................................2 [1.3] THESIS OVERVIEW....................................................................................3 [1.3.1] Oulipo, Game Studies and Constraints............................................................3 [1.3.2] Creating Play Methods....................................................................................4 [1.3.3] Post-Play and Post-Thesis...............................................................................6 [1.4] APPROACHES AND DEFINITIONS................................................................7 [1.4.1] General Approach............................................................................................7 [1.4.2] Defining Core Terms......................................................................................10 [1.4.4] Further Understandings.................................................................................14 [1.5] THESIS TAKEAWAYS...............................................................................14 CHAPTER 2: OULIPO AND PLAY..........................................................17 [2.1] OULIPO ON GAMES AND PLAY................................................................19 [2.1.1] Constraints.....................................................................................................20 [2.1.2] Labyrinths......................................................................................................22 [2.1.3] Calvino’s adaptations....................................................................................25 [2.1.4] Perec’s transgressions...................................................................................27 [2.2] THE OULIPO AND THE DIGITAL...............................................................29 [2.2.1] A Digital Oulipo.............................................................................................29 [2.2.2] Beyond the Oulipo: Game Research and Digital Literature..........................32 [2.3] OULIPO IN GAME STUDIES......................................................................35 [2.3.1] Cybertext........................................................................................................36 [2.3.2] The Rhetoric of Video Games........................................................................38 [2.3.3] Georges Perec: A Player’s Manual...............................................................40 [2.3.4] Unraveling Braid...........................................................................................42 [2.3.5] Meta-Gaming.................................................................................................46 [2.3.6] Other work.....................................................................................................49 [2.3.7] Unspoken Conversation.................................................................................50 [2.4] RECAPPING THE OULIPO.........................................................................51 CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINING PLAY...................................................53 [3.1] AN INTRODUCTION TO CONSTRAINTS.....................................................53 [3.1.1] The Next Step.................................................................................................53 [3.1.2] Constrained Play as Works............................................................................55 [3.1.3] Chapter Breakdown.......................................................................................58 [3.2] MATERIAL CONSTRAINTS........................................................................59 [3.2.1] Players’ Materiality.......................................................................................59 [3.2.2] The Base Material Constraint........................................................................61 [3.2.3] Prototypical Material Constraints.................................................................65