The aim of this article is to present an updated version of our previous theory of gameplay. “Gameplay” is a term often used without a clear definition or consistent application. In this article, we propose categorizing gameplay into three distinct yet interconnected layers: the first emphasizing temporality, the second highlighting spatiality, and the third pinpointing emotion as anchor point. Our model and understanding are influenced by the philosophy of phenomenology, particularly Husserl's objective examination of the first-person perspective in perceptual experience—a commendable approach for blending formalism with real-time experience without resorting to subjectivism or psychologism. We offer an analytical and methodological framework for understanding gameplay, relying on micro-tensions to elucidate gameplay as a structural entity as well as an experiential phenomenon. As we shall demonstrate, micro-tensions are present within each of the three layers, paving the way for the entirety of gameplay—referred to by gamers as “great gameplay.”
AarsethE. (2000). Allegories of space—The question of space in computer games. In EskelinenM.KoskimaaR. (Eds.), Cybertext yearbook. (pp. 152–171) Saarijärvi. Gummerus Printing.
2.
AarsethE. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
BaylissP. (2007). Notes toward a sense of embodied gameplay. In Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference (Vol. 4, pp. 96–102). Japan:University of Tokyo.
5.
BolterJ. D.GrusinR. (2000). Remediation—Understanding new media. MIT Press.
6.
BurgunK. (2012). Game design theory: A new philosophy for understanding games. CRC Press.
7.
BurgunK. (2015). Clockwork game design (1st ed.). Focal Press.
8.
BuytendijkF. J. J. (1933). Wesen und Sinn des Spiels. Das Spielen des Menschen und der Tiere als Erscheinungsform der Lebenstriebe. Kurt Wolff Verlag/DerNeue Geist.
9.
CailloisR. (2001). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press.
ConsalvoM. (2005). Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles: Studying games and ethics. International Review of Information Ethics, 4, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.29173/irie162
13.
CorneliussenH. G.RettbergJ. W. (2008). Digital culture, play, and identity. MIT Press.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety—Experiencing flow in work and play. Jossey-Bass.
17.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow—The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
18.
De KovenB. (2013). The well-played game. MIT Press.
19.
DourishP. (2001). Where the action is—The foundations of embodied interaction. A Bradford Book. MIT Press.
20.
DreyfusH. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world. A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time, division 1. MIT Press.
21.
EastinM. S.GriffithsP. R. (2009). Unreal: Hostile expectations from social gameplay. New Media & Society, 11, 509–531. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809102958
22.
EliasG. S.GarfieldR.GutscheraK. R. (2012). Characteristics of games. MIT Press.
FullertonT. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
27.
GadamerH. G. (2006). Truth and method. Continuum.
28.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach US about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
GibsonJ. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
30.
HeideggerM. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Max Niemeye.
31.
HeideggerM. (2010). Being and time. SUNY Press.
32.
HuizingaJ. (2014). Homo Ludens – A study of the Play-Element in Culture. Martino Publishing.
33.
HusserlE. (1931). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Macmillan.
34.
HusserlE. (2001). Logical Investigations, Vol. 1 and 2. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
35.
IsbisterK. (2017). How games move US—Emotion by design. Playful Thinking Series MIT Press.
36.
JørgensenK. (2013). Gameworld interfaces. MIT Press.
37.
JuulJ. (2003). The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In CopierM.RaessensJ. (Eds.), Level up: Digital games research conference proceedings (pp. 30–45). Utrecht. https://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/
38.
KirkpatrickG. (2004). Critical technology: A social theory of personal computing. Ashgate.
39.
KirkpatrickG. (2011). Aesthetic theory and the video game. Manchester University Press.
40.
KirschnerD.WiliamsP. J. (2014). Measuring video game engagement through gameplay reviews. Simulation and Gaming, 45, 593–610. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554185
41.
KosterR. (2013). Theory of fun for game design (2nd ed.). O’Reilly Media.
42.
KoudelaH.SchaerfT. M.LathleanT.MurphyA.WelchM. (2024). Investigating the emergence of collective states within rugby sevens gameplay. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2306068
43.
KouratorasM. (2020). Existential dramaturgy and video games: A formalistic approach to Telltale’s ‘The Walking Dead’ as existentialist gameplay. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 16(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794713.2020.1758457
44.
LankoskiP., & BjörkS. (Eds.). (2015). Game research methods: An overview. ETC Press.
LebedF. (2021). On the philosophical definition of human play by the tools of qualitative content analysis. Sport. Ethics & Philosophy: Journal of the British Philosophy of Sport Association, 15(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2019.1649300
48.
LeinoT. (2012). Untangling Gameplay: An account of experience, activity and materiality within computer game play in the philosophy of computer games. In SagengJ. R. (Ed.), The philosophy of computer games. (pp. 57–75) Springer.
RambuschJ., JakobsenP., & PargmanD. (2007). Exploring E-sports:A case study of gameplay in counter-strike. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference. Japan. The University of Tokyo. (Vol. 4, pp. 157–164).
61.
RogersS. (2014). Level up! The guide to great video game design (2nd ed.). Wiley.
62.
RutterJ.BryceJ. (2006). Understanding digital games. Sage.
63.
SalenK.ZimmermanE. (2004). Rules of play—Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
64.
SchellJ. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
SicartM. (2009). The Ethics of Computer Games. MIT Press.
67.
SicartM. (2013). Beyond Choices. The Design of Ethical Gameplay. MIT Press.
68.
SicartM. (2014). Play matters. MIT Press.
69.
StruttJ. (1801). The Sports and Pastimes of The People of England. A new, enlarged, and corrected ed. by J.C. Cox. Methuen & Co., 1903.
70.
SuitsB. (2005). The grasshopper: Games, life and Utopia. Thomas Hurka Books.
71.
Sutton-SmithB. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.
72.
SwinkS. (2009). Game feel: A game designer’s guide to virtual sensation. CRC Press.
73.
UptonB. (2015). The aesthetic of play. MIT Press.
74.
WaltherB. K. (2024) Dasein’s Coming of Age: An Interpretation of Heidegger’s Being and Time as a Novel. (In press).
75.
WaltherB. K.LarsenL. J. (2020b). Bicycle kicks and camp sites: Towards a phenomenological theory of game feel with special attention towards ‘rhythm’. Convergence, 26(5–6), 1248–1268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856519885033
76.
YeeN. (2014). Proteus paradox. Yale University Press.
