Background. Despite the increasing attention given by scholars and designers to time as a game variable, an overlooked topic is subjective temporality in play.
Aim. This article addresses the issue of subjective temporality in play, with a focus on gaming simulations. The purpose of this article is to shed light on how different ludic elements can influence players’ diachronic identities.
Method. The related concepts of sameness and selfhood are applied in analyzing CITIES: SKYLINES, EUROPA UNIVERSALIS IV and PILLARS OF ETERNITY. A quantitative survey was distributed online among users of the three case studies (n:387 participants). Instrument items included playing habits, sameness and selfhood and the triggering gaming traits.
Results. Specific categories of features are able to foster selfhood and sameness experiences with various outcomes in terms of the subjects’ satisfaction, interpretation and autonomy.
Conclusions. Implications of the study are noteworthy for a) practitioners interested in deepening time routines in games through an audiences’ lens and b) researchers, who may take inspiration to stress and expand the topic with further focuses and research designs.
CanossaC.BjörkS.NelsonM. J. (2014). X-COM: UFO defense vs. XCOM: Enemy unknown. In MateasM.BarnesT.BogostI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-8). Santa Cruz, CA: Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games.
12.
CITIES: SKYLINES. (2015). [Developed by Colossal Order]. Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
13.
ConsalvoM. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
CoveneyP.HighfieldR. (1991). The arrow of time: A voyage through science to solve time’s greatest mystery. Robbinsdale, MN: Fawcett.
15.
CRUSADER KINGS 2. (2012). Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
16.
DennettD. (1992). Consciousness explained. London, England: Back Bay Books.
DesurvireH.WibergC. (2009). Game usability heuristics (PLAY) for evaluating and designing better games: The next iteration. In OzokA. A.ZaphirisP. (Eds.), Online communities (pp. 557-566). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_60
19.
du GayP.HallS.JanesL.MackayH.NegusK. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London, England: SAGE/The Open University Press.
20.
EcoU. (1975). Trattato di Semiotica Generale [A Theory of Semiotics]. Milan, Italy: Bompiani.
21.
EliasS. G.GarfieldR.GutscheraK. R. (2012). Characteristics of games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
ElverdamC.AarsethE. (2007). Game classification and game design: Construction through critical analysis. Games and Culture, 2(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/1555412006286892
23.
EskelinenM. (2001). Towards computer game studies. Digital Creativity, 12(3), 175-183. doi:10.1076/digc.12.3.175.3232
24.
EugeniR. (2010). Semiotica dei media [The semiotics of media]. Rome, Italy: Carocci.
25.
EUROPA UNIVERSALIS IV. (2013). Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
26.
FrascaG. (2003). Simulation versus narrative. In WolfM. J. P.PerronB. (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 221-235). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
FullertonT. (2008). Game design workshop. Boca Raton, CA: CRC Press.
28.
GeeJ. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5-16. doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5
29.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
30.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
31.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
32.
GrecoM.BaldissinN.NoninoF. (2013). An exploratory taxonomy of business games. Simulation & Gaming, 44(5), 645-682. doi:10.1177/1046878113501464
33.
HallS. (1996). Who needs “identity.” In du GayP.HallS. (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1-17). London, England: SAGE/The Open University Press.
34.
HallS. (1997). Representation, meaning and language. In HallS. (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 15-64). London, England: SAGE/The Open University Press.
35.
HeideggerM. (1962). Being and time. London, England: SCM Press.
36.
HuizingaJ. (1938). Homo Ludens: Proeve Ener Bepaling Van Het Spelelement Der Cultuur [Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
37.
HunickeR.LeBlancM.ZubekR. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Northwestern University—Computer Science Division. Retrieved from http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
38.
JuulJ. (2005). Half-real. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
LainemaT. (2010). Theorizing on the treatment of time in simulation gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 41(2), 170-186. doi:10.1177/1046878108319870
41.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
42.
LatourB. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LindleyA. C. (2005). The semiotics of time structure in Ludic space as a foundation for analysis and design. Game Studies, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/
44.
MarradiF. (2007). Metodologia delle scienze sociali [Methodology of Social Sciences]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
45.
MäyräF. (2008). An introduction to game studies. London, England: SAGE.
46.
MorseJ. M.SternP. N.CorbinJ.BowersB.CharmazK.ClarkeA. E. (Eds.). (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
47.
MortensenT. E. (2013). It’s a (quest)ion of timing. In QuandtT.KrögeS. (Eds.), Multiplayer: The social aspects of digital gaming (pp. 124-133). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
MurrayJ. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York, NY: The Free Press.
49.
PILLARS OF ETERNITY. (2015). [Developed by Obsidian Entertainment]. Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
50.
PirovolakisE. (2011). Reading Derrida and Ricoeur: Improbable Encounters between Deconstruction and Hermeneutics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
RaessensJ. (2015). The ludification of culture. In FuchsM.FizekS.RuffinoP.SchrapeN. (Eds.), Rethinking gamification (pp. 91-114). Luphana, Germany: Meason Press.
52.
RicoeurP. (1985). Time and narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53.
RicoeurP. (1990). Soi-mème Comme un Autre [Oneself as another]. Paris, France: Les éditions du Seuil.
54.
RubinJ.ChisnellD. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York, NY: John Wiley.
55.
SalenK.ZimmermanE. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
56.
SchellJ. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
57.
Seif El-NasrM.DrachenA.CanossaA. (Eds.). (2013). Game analytics. Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4769-5
SmithG.AndersonR.KopleckB.LindbladZ.ScottL.WardellA.. . . MateasM. (2011). Situating quests: Design patterns for quest and level design in role-playing games. In SiM.ThueD.AndreE.LesterJ.TanenbaumJ.ZammittoV. (Eds.), Interactive storytelling (pp. 326-329). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25289-1_40
62.
SUPER TIME FORCE ULTRA. (2014). Toronto, Canada: Capybara Games.
63.
SylvesterT. (2013). Designing games: A guide to engineering experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
64.
TarozziM. (2008). Cos’è la grounded theory. Rome, Italy: Carocci.
65.
TOTAL WAR: WARHAMMER. (2016). [Developed by Creative Assembly]. Tokyo, Japan: Sega.
66.
WhitrowG. J. (1988). Time in history. The evolution of our general awareness of time and temporal perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
ZagalJ. P. (2010). Ludoliteracy. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
68.
ZagalJ. P.MateasM. (2010). Time in video games: A survey and analysis. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 844-868. doi:10.1177/1046878110375594
69.
ZimmermanE. (2009). Gaming literacy: Game design as a model for literacy in the twenty-first century. In PerronB.WolfM. J. P. (Eds.), The video game theory reader 2 (pp. 23-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
