From interactive to interpassive gaming

Sonia Fizek

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Abstract

In early 2015, Gamasutra, a popular online website featuring a variety of topics on game design and development trends, publishes an article “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play” (Parkin 2015), introducing a niche “idle” games genre to a wider audience. Idle games (e.g. AdVenture Capitalist, Clicker Heroes, or Dreeps, amongst many others), also referred to as passive, self-playing or clicker games, are characterised by automated or delegated gameplay, which makes the player’s participation optional or entirely redundant. In other words, there is minimal or no active engagement required from the player in order for the game to progress.

“Idlers” and other examples of self-playing games have left the gaming and academic community puzzled. After all, until now games have been primarily understood as objects to be actively engaged with, conflicts to be resolved, and meaningful actions to be taken (Huizinga 1949/2002, Caillois 1958/1961, Crawford 1982, Juul 2003, Salen and Zimmerman 2003). Digital games are supposed to be ergodic, requiring a non-trivial effort from their participants (Aarseth 1997; Aarseth and Calleja 2015). If anything else, games have been described as inherently interactive (Crawford 1982; Ermi and Mäyrä 2005), and oftentimes in contrast to non-interactive or less interactive media such as films or books. In other words, most digital games, staged in the medium of a computer, could be described as “explicitly participational” (Manovich 2001, 71).

How then to understand the ludic paradox? How to make sense of games that barely require human agency, effort and the execution of meaningful choices, and yet ask for human attention? In other words, what to do with games that we (mostly) don’t play?

In this paper the author will investigate self-playing games through the lens of interpassivity, a concept developed by Robert Pfaller (1996, 2008, 2011) and taken over by Slavoj Žižek (1997) to describe the aesthetics of delegated enjoyment. While the interactive media invite the observer to participate productively in their reception and take over parts of the artistic effort, interpassive media take the effort of participation away. As Pfaller explains:

Interpassivity is delegated ‘passivity’ - in the sense of delegated pleasure, or delegated consumption. Interpassive people are those who want to delegate their pleasures or their consumption. Interpassive media are all the agents - machines, people, animals, etc. - to whom interpassive people can delegate their pleasures. (2017, 55)

The concept of interpassivity, originally introduced within the context of art, has travelled into many other domains, such as media studies, film studies, political science (Feustel, Koppo, Schölzel 2011); even areas as remote as marketing and business (Walz, Hingston, Andehn 2014). In video games research, interpassivity has remained virtually unnoticed. It has been mentioned as an analytical possibility to understand the avatar-player surrogate relationship through the Žižekian interpretation of Jacque Lacan (Falkowska 2011; Wilson 2003; Thorne 2016). Pfaller’s foundational work has been overlooked altogether. This contribution aims at introducing interpassivity to a wider Game Studies community, and offers an alternative perspective to reflect upon digital games in general, and self-playing games in particular. As the author will argue, with idling and other examples of games with a predominant self-play element, we have arrived at a point, where interactivity, agency, and utter absorption do not suffice anymore as predominant conceptual frameworks to talk about digital games.

References

Aarseth, E. Cybertext - Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Aarseth, E., and Calleja, 2015. “The Word Game: The ontology of an indefinable object.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c85/bdd2216a56e296cdc708af0480c4a20cd21c.pdf?_ga=2.77012053.1158569559.1501311498-1466169220.1501311498.
Caillois, R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. 1958/2001.
Crawford, C. The Art of Computer Game Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Ermi, L., and Mäyrä, F. “Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion.” In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA 2005), Vancouver, Canada, 2005: 15-27.
Falkowska, M. “Gry wideo jako medium - podstawowe kategorie badawcze.” Kultura i Historia (Culture and History Journal), 2011. http://www.kulturaihistoria.umcs.lublin.pl/archives/2390#_ftnref14.
Feustel, R., and Koppo, N., and Schölzel, H., eds. Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin, 2011.
Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. New York: Routledge, 1949/2002: 74.
Juul, J. “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness.” In Proceedings of Digital Games Research Conference (DiGRA 2003), edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens, Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003: 30-45.
Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001: 71.
Parkin, S . “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play.” In Gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/237926/The_rise_of_games_you_mostly_dont_play.php.
Pfaller, R. “Figuren der Erleichterung. Interpassivität heute.” In Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik, edited by R. Feustel, N. Koppo, H. Schölzel, pp. 17-27. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2011.
Pfaller, R. “Um Die Ecke Gelacht”, Falter 41/96, 1996, 71.
Pfaller, R. Ästhetik der Interpassivität. Hamburg: Fundus, Philo Fine Arts, 2008.
Pfaller, R. Interpassivity. The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2017.
Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.
Thorne, S. “Perverse and interpassive gaming: Enjoyment and play in gamespaces.” Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 22 (1), 2016, 106-113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pcs.2016.8.
Walz, M., and Hingston, S., and Andehn, M. “The magic of ethical brands: Interpassivity and the thevish joy of delegated consumption.” Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organisation 14 (1), 2014. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/14-1walzhingstonandehn.pdf.
Wilson, L. “Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.” https://www.academia.edu/1367070/Interactivity_or_interpassivity_A_question_of_agency_in_digital_play.
Žižek, S. The Plague of Fantasies. London: Verso, 1997.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jul 2018
EventDigital Games Research Association Conference 2018: The Game is the Message - University of Turin - Campus Luigi Einaudi, Turin, Italy
Duration: 25 Jul 201828 Jul 2018
http://digra2018.com/
http://digra2018.com

Conference

ConferenceDigital Games Research Association Conference 2018
Abbreviated titleDiGRA 2018
CountryItaly
CityTurin
Period25/07/1828/07/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

interactive media
Berlin
computer game
aesthetics
fine arts
Hamburg
participation
psychoanalytic theory
ontology
political science
community
website
new media
genre
news
marketing
animal
Canada
art
interpretation

Cite this

Fizek, S. (2018). From interactive to interpassive gaming. Paper presented at Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018, Turin, Italy.
Fizek, Sonia. / From interactive to interpassive gaming. Paper presented at Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018, Turin, Italy.
@conference{f37dd546e3b94cd8b847ff723f34722a,
title = "From interactive to interpassive gaming",
abstract = "In early 2015, Gamasutra, a popular online website featuring a variety of topics on game design and development trends, publishes an article “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play” (Parkin 2015), introducing a niche “idle” games genre to a wider audience. Idle games (e.g. AdVenture Capitalist, Clicker Heroes, or Dreeps, amongst many others), also referred to as passive, self-playing or clicker games, are characterised by automated or delegated gameplay, which makes the player’s participation optional or entirely redundant. In other words, there is minimal or no active engagement required from the player in order for the game to progress. “Idlers” and other examples of self-playing games have left the gaming and academic community puzzled. After all, until now games have been primarily understood as objects to be actively engaged with, conflicts to be resolved, and meaningful actions to be taken (Huizinga 1949/2002, Caillois 1958/1961, Crawford 1982, Juul 2003, Salen and Zimmerman 2003). Digital games are supposed to be ergodic, requiring a non-trivial effort from their participants (Aarseth 1997; Aarseth and Calleja 2015). If anything else, games have been described as inherently interactive (Crawford 1982; Ermi and M{\"a}yr{\"a} 2005), and oftentimes in contrast to non-interactive or less interactive media such as films or books. In other words, most digital games, staged in the medium of a computer, could be described as “explicitly participational” (Manovich 2001, 71).How then to understand the ludic paradox? How to make sense of games that barely require human agency, effort and the execution of meaningful choices, and yet ask for human attention? In other words, what to do with games that we (mostly) don’t play?In this paper the author will investigate self-playing games through the lens of interpassivity, a concept developed by Robert Pfaller (1996, 2008, 2011) and taken over by Slavoj Žižek (1997) to describe the aesthetics of delegated enjoyment. While the interactive media invite the observer to participate productively in their reception and take over parts of the artistic effort, interpassive media take the effort of participation away. As Pfaller explains:Interpassivity is delegated ‘passivity’ - in the sense of delegated pleasure, or delegated consumption. Interpassive people are those who want to delegate their pleasures or their consumption. Interpassive media are all the agents - machines, people, animals, etc. - to whom interpassive people can delegate their pleasures. (2017, 55)The concept of interpassivity, originally introduced within the context of art, has travelled into many other domains, such as media studies, film studies, political science (Feustel, Koppo, Sch{\"o}lzel 2011); even areas as remote as marketing and business (Walz, Hingston, Andehn 2014). In video games research, interpassivity has remained virtually unnoticed. It has been mentioned as an analytical possibility to understand the avatar-player surrogate relationship through the Žižekian interpretation of Jacque Lacan (Falkowska 2011; Wilson 2003; Thorne 2016). Pfaller’s foundational work has been overlooked altogether. This contribution aims at introducing interpassivity to a wider Game Studies community, and offers an alternative perspective to reflect upon digital games in general, and self-playing games in particular. As the author will argue, with idling and other examples of games with a predominant self-play element, we have arrived at a point, where interactivity, agency, and utter absorption do not suffice anymore as predominant conceptual frameworks to talk about digital games.ReferencesAarseth, E. Cybertext - Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.Aarseth, E., and Calleja, 2015. “The Word Game: The ontology of an indefinable object.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c85/bdd2216a56e296cdc708af0480c4a20cd21c.pdf?_ga=2.77012053.1158569559.1501311498-1466169220.1501311498.Caillois, R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. 1958/2001.Crawford, C. The Art of Computer Game Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Ermi, L., and M{\"a}yr{\"a}, F. “Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion.” In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA 2005), Vancouver, Canada, 2005: 15-27.Falkowska, M. “Gry wideo jako medium - podstawowe kategorie badawcze.” Kultura i Historia (Culture and History Journal), 2011. http://www.kulturaihistoria.umcs.lublin.pl/archives/2390#_ftnref14.Feustel, R., and Koppo, N., and Sch{\"o}lzel, H., eds. Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivit{\"a}t zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin, 2011. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. New York: Routledge, 1949/2002: 74. Juul, J. “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness.” In Proceedings of Digital Games Research Conference (DiGRA 2003), edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens, Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003: 30-45.Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001: 71.Parkin, S . “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play.” In Gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/237926/The_rise_of_games_you_mostly_dont_play.php.Pfaller, R. “Figuren der Erleichterung. Interpassivit{\"a}t heute.” In Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivit{\"a}t zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik, edited by R. Feustel, N. Koppo, H. Sch{\"o}lzel, pp. 17-27. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2011.Pfaller, R. “Um Die Ecke Gelacht”, Falter 41/96, 1996, 71.Pfaller, R. {\"A}sthetik der Interpassivit{\"a}t. Hamburg: Fundus, Philo Fine Arts, 2008. Pfaller, R. Interpassivity. The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2017.Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.Thorne, S. “Perverse and interpassive gaming: Enjoyment and play in gamespaces.” Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 22 (1), 2016, 106-113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pcs.2016.8.Walz, M., and Hingston, S., and Andehn, M. “The magic of ethical brands: Interpassivity and the thevish joy of delegated consumption.” Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organisation 14 (1), 2014. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/14-1walzhingstonandehn.pdf. Wilson, L. “Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.” https://www.academia.edu/1367070/Interactivity_or_interpassivity_A_question_of_agency_in_digital_play. Žižek, S. The Plague of Fantasies. London: Verso, 1997.",
author = "Sonia Fizek",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "28",
language = "English",
note = "Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018 : The Game is the Message, DiGRA 2018 ; Conference date: 25-07-2018 Through 28-07-2018",
url = "http://digra2018.com/, http://digra2018.com",

}

Fizek, S 2018, 'From interactive to interpassive gaming' Paper presented at Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018, Turin, Italy, 25/07/18 - 28/07/18, .

From interactive to interpassive gaming. / Fizek, Sonia.

2018. Paper presented at Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018, Turin, Italy.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

TY - CONF

T1 - From interactive to interpassive gaming

AU - Fizek, Sonia

PY - 2018/7/28

Y1 - 2018/7/28

N2 - In early 2015, Gamasutra, a popular online website featuring a variety of topics on game design and development trends, publishes an article “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play” (Parkin 2015), introducing a niche “idle” games genre to a wider audience. Idle games (e.g. AdVenture Capitalist, Clicker Heroes, or Dreeps, amongst many others), also referred to as passive, self-playing or clicker games, are characterised by automated or delegated gameplay, which makes the player’s participation optional or entirely redundant. In other words, there is minimal or no active engagement required from the player in order for the game to progress. “Idlers” and other examples of self-playing games have left the gaming and academic community puzzled. After all, until now games have been primarily understood as objects to be actively engaged with, conflicts to be resolved, and meaningful actions to be taken (Huizinga 1949/2002, Caillois 1958/1961, Crawford 1982, Juul 2003, Salen and Zimmerman 2003). Digital games are supposed to be ergodic, requiring a non-trivial effort from their participants (Aarseth 1997; Aarseth and Calleja 2015). If anything else, games have been described as inherently interactive (Crawford 1982; Ermi and Mäyrä 2005), and oftentimes in contrast to non-interactive or less interactive media such as films or books. In other words, most digital games, staged in the medium of a computer, could be described as “explicitly participational” (Manovich 2001, 71).How then to understand the ludic paradox? How to make sense of games that barely require human agency, effort and the execution of meaningful choices, and yet ask for human attention? In other words, what to do with games that we (mostly) don’t play?In this paper the author will investigate self-playing games through the lens of interpassivity, a concept developed by Robert Pfaller (1996, 2008, 2011) and taken over by Slavoj Žižek (1997) to describe the aesthetics of delegated enjoyment. While the interactive media invite the observer to participate productively in their reception and take over parts of the artistic effort, interpassive media take the effort of participation away. As Pfaller explains:Interpassivity is delegated ‘passivity’ - in the sense of delegated pleasure, or delegated consumption. Interpassive people are those who want to delegate their pleasures or their consumption. Interpassive media are all the agents - machines, people, animals, etc. - to whom interpassive people can delegate their pleasures. (2017, 55)The concept of interpassivity, originally introduced within the context of art, has travelled into many other domains, such as media studies, film studies, political science (Feustel, Koppo, Schölzel 2011); even areas as remote as marketing and business (Walz, Hingston, Andehn 2014). In video games research, interpassivity has remained virtually unnoticed. It has been mentioned as an analytical possibility to understand the avatar-player surrogate relationship through the Žižekian interpretation of Jacque Lacan (Falkowska 2011; Wilson 2003; Thorne 2016). Pfaller’s foundational work has been overlooked altogether. This contribution aims at introducing interpassivity to a wider Game Studies community, and offers an alternative perspective to reflect upon digital games in general, and self-playing games in particular. As the author will argue, with idling and other examples of games with a predominant self-play element, we have arrived at a point, where interactivity, agency, and utter absorption do not suffice anymore as predominant conceptual frameworks to talk about digital games.ReferencesAarseth, E. Cybertext - Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.Aarseth, E., and Calleja, 2015. “The Word Game: The ontology of an indefinable object.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c85/bdd2216a56e296cdc708af0480c4a20cd21c.pdf?_ga=2.77012053.1158569559.1501311498-1466169220.1501311498.Caillois, R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. 1958/2001.Crawford, C. The Art of Computer Game Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Ermi, L., and Mäyrä, F. “Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion.” In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA 2005), Vancouver, Canada, 2005: 15-27.Falkowska, M. “Gry wideo jako medium - podstawowe kategorie badawcze.” Kultura i Historia (Culture and History Journal), 2011. http://www.kulturaihistoria.umcs.lublin.pl/archives/2390#_ftnref14.Feustel, R., and Koppo, N., and Schölzel, H., eds. Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin, 2011. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. New York: Routledge, 1949/2002: 74. Juul, J. “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness.” In Proceedings of Digital Games Research Conference (DiGRA 2003), edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens, Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003: 30-45.Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001: 71.Parkin, S . “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play.” In Gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/237926/The_rise_of_games_you_mostly_dont_play.php.Pfaller, R. “Figuren der Erleichterung. Interpassivität heute.” In Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik, edited by R. Feustel, N. Koppo, H. Schölzel, pp. 17-27. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2011.Pfaller, R. “Um Die Ecke Gelacht”, Falter 41/96, 1996, 71.Pfaller, R. Ästhetik der Interpassivität. Hamburg: Fundus, Philo Fine Arts, 2008. Pfaller, R. Interpassivity. The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2017.Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.Thorne, S. “Perverse and interpassive gaming: Enjoyment and play in gamespaces.” Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 22 (1), 2016, 106-113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pcs.2016.8.Walz, M., and Hingston, S., and Andehn, M. “The magic of ethical brands: Interpassivity and the thevish joy of delegated consumption.” Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organisation 14 (1), 2014. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/14-1walzhingstonandehn.pdf. Wilson, L. “Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.” https://www.academia.edu/1367070/Interactivity_or_interpassivity_A_question_of_agency_in_digital_play. Žižek, S. The Plague of Fantasies. London: Verso, 1997.

AB - In early 2015, Gamasutra, a popular online website featuring a variety of topics on game design and development trends, publishes an article “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play” (Parkin 2015), introducing a niche “idle” games genre to a wider audience. Idle games (e.g. AdVenture Capitalist, Clicker Heroes, or Dreeps, amongst many others), also referred to as passive, self-playing or clicker games, are characterised by automated or delegated gameplay, which makes the player’s participation optional or entirely redundant. In other words, there is minimal or no active engagement required from the player in order for the game to progress. “Idlers” and other examples of self-playing games have left the gaming and academic community puzzled. After all, until now games have been primarily understood as objects to be actively engaged with, conflicts to be resolved, and meaningful actions to be taken (Huizinga 1949/2002, Caillois 1958/1961, Crawford 1982, Juul 2003, Salen and Zimmerman 2003). Digital games are supposed to be ergodic, requiring a non-trivial effort from their participants (Aarseth 1997; Aarseth and Calleja 2015). If anything else, games have been described as inherently interactive (Crawford 1982; Ermi and Mäyrä 2005), and oftentimes in contrast to non-interactive or less interactive media such as films or books. In other words, most digital games, staged in the medium of a computer, could be described as “explicitly participational” (Manovich 2001, 71).How then to understand the ludic paradox? How to make sense of games that barely require human agency, effort and the execution of meaningful choices, and yet ask for human attention? In other words, what to do with games that we (mostly) don’t play?In this paper the author will investigate self-playing games through the lens of interpassivity, a concept developed by Robert Pfaller (1996, 2008, 2011) and taken over by Slavoj Žižek (1997) to describe the aesthetics of delegated enjoyment. While the interactive media invite the observer to participate productively in their reception and take over parts of the artistic effort, interpassive media take the effort of participation away. As Pfaller explains:Interpassivity is delegated ‘passivity’ - in the sense of delegated pleasure, or delegated consumption. Interpassive people are those who want to delegate their pleasures or their consumption. Interpassive media are all the agents - machines, people, animals, etc. - to whom interpassive people can delegate their pleasures. (2017, 55)The concept of interpassivity, originally introduced within the context of art, has travelled into many other domains, such as media studies, film studies, political science (Feustel, Koppo, Schölzel 2011); even areas as remote as marketing and business (Walz, Hingston, Andehn 2014). In video games research, interpassivity has remained virtually unnoticed. It has been mentioned as an analytical possibility to understand the avatar-player surrogate relationship through the Žižekian interpretation of Jacque Lacan (Falkowska 2011; Wilson 2003; Thorne 2016). Pfaller’s foundational work has been overlooked altogether. This contribution aims at introducing interpassivity to a wider Game Studies community, and offers an alternative perspective to reflect upon digital games in general, and self-playing games in particular. As the author will argue, with idling and other examples of games with a predominant self-play element, we have arrived at a point, where interactivity, agency, and utter absorption do not suffice anymore as predominant conceptual frameworks to talk about digital games.ReferencesAarseth, E. Cybertext - Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.Aarseth, E., and Calleja, 2015. “The Word Game: The ontology of an indefinable object.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c85/bdd2216a56e296cdc708af0480c4a20cd21c.pdf?_ga=2.77012053.1158569559.1501311498-1466169220.1501311498.Caillois, R. Man, Play and Games. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. 1958/2001.Crawford, C. The Art of Computer Game Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Ermi, L., and Mäyrä, F. “Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion.” In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA 2005), Vancouver, Canada, 2005: 15-27.Falkowska, M. “Gry wideo jako medium - podstawowe kategorie badawcze.” Kultura i Historia (Culture and History Journal), 2011. http://www.kulturaihistoria.umcs.lublin.pl/archives/2390#_ftnref14.Feustel, R., and Koppo, N., and Schölzel, H., eds. Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin, 2011. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. New York: Routledge, 1949/2002: 74. Juul, J. “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness.” In Proceedings of Digital Games Research Conference (DiGRA 2003), edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens, Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003: 30-45.Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001: 71.Parkin, S . “The rise of games you (mostly) don’t play.” In Gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/237926/The_rise_of_games_you_mostly_dont_play.php.Pfaller, R. “Figuren der Erleichterung. Interpassivität heute.” In Wir sind nie aktiv gewesen. Interpassivität zwischen Kunst- und Gesellschaftskritik, edited by R. Feustel, N. Koppo, H. Schölzel, pp. 17-27. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2011.Pfaller, R. “Um Die Ecke Gelacht”, Falter 41/96, 1996, 71.Pfaller, R. Ästhetik der Interpassivität. Hamburg: Fundus, Philo Fine Arts, 2008. Pfaller, R. Interpassivity. The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2017.Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.Thorne, S. “Perverse and interpassive gaming: Enjoyment and play in gamespaces.” Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 22 (1), 2016, 106-113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pcs.2016.8.Walz, M., and Hingston, S., and Andehn, M. “The magic of ethical brands: Interpassivity and the thevish joy of delegated consumption.” Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organisation 14 (1), 2014. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/14-1walzhingstonandehn.pdf. Wilson, L. “Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.” https://www.academia.edu/1367070/Interactivity_or_interpassivity_A_question_of_agency_in_digital_play. Žižek, S. The Plague of Fantasies. London: Verso, 1997.

M3 - Paper

ER -

Fizek S. From interactive to interpassive gaming. 2018. Paper presented at Digital Games Research Association Conference 2018, Turin, Italy.