[雙語翻譯]--游戲外文翻譯--游戲認(rèn)同，或游戲文化（節(jié)選）

1、1850 單詞， 單詞，1 萬英文字符， 萬英文字符，3100 漢字 漢字出處： 出處：Raessens J F F. Playful Identities, or the Ludification of Culture[J]. Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media, 2006, 1(1):52-57.Playful Identities,or the Ludificati

2、on of CultureJoost RaessensOne of the main aims of game studies is to investigate to what extent and in what ways computer games are currently transforming the understanding of and the actual construction of personal an

3、d cultural identities. Computer games and other digital technologies such as mobile phones and the Internet seem to stimulate playful goals and to facilitate the construction of playful identities. This transformation

4、 advances the ludification of today’s culture in the spirit of Johan Huizinga’s homo ludens.Keywords: play; identity; narratology; ludologyIn 2001, the first academic, peer-reviewed (online) journal dedicated to comput

5、er game research, Game Studies, came out. According to editor in chief Espen Aarseth, this was “Year One of Computer Game Studies” as an international, academic field.1 This claim was based on the success of the first

6、 international scholarly conference on computer games, Computer Games and Digital Textualities, organized by the IT University of Copenhagen in March of the same year.2 The year before, the MIT Program in Comparative M

7、edia Studies, directed by Henry Jenkins, had organized a national conference, Computer and Video Games Come of Age, in cooperation with the International Digital Software Association.3 These two theorists, Aarseth and

8、Jenkins, both of them crucial to the emergence of game studies, faced each other in a debate held in Sweden in 2005.4 This debate will serve as a point of reference for my discussion of the current state of game studie

9、s in this article. In answering the question, why game studies now, I will also refer to the academic work in game studies that I have been involved in since my appointment to the Faculty of the Humanities, Utrecht Uni

10、versity, the Netherlands, in 1998.Why Game Studies Now?It is important to study computer games (including arcade games, console, and handheld video games) now because like television and music, they have become a phenom

11、enon of great cultural importance. As Jenkins stated in the debate, games are technologically, economically, aesthetically, socially, and culturally important: “This is a medium that anyone who wants to understand wher

12、e our culture is at, has to look at.” The computer game industry has a large impact on our culture, and as statistics show, it is the fastest growing entertainment industry, rivaling the film industry in revenues. Worl

13、dwide turnover is estimated at around $20 billion. As children spend more and more time on computer games, we witness a struggle of what attention- economists call “eyeball hours.” Research done by the Dutch Social and

14、 Cultural Planning Office shows that in 2004, young people spent roughly the same amount of time on media as in the 1970s. Every week, they have 45 hours at their disposal for lei- sure activities, 19 hours of which th

15、ey spend on media. This means that the time spent on playing computer games is no longer spent on say, reading books, magazines, and newspapers.5As Robert Edward Davis (1976) showed, “new” media such as motion pictures

16、, radio, and television have always been promoted and attacked in popular argument since their introduction but only studied academically in detail much later. One of the main aims of our University Program, New Media

17、and Digital Culture, is to investi- gate to what extent and in what ways computer games are currently transforming our understanding of as well as the actual construction of personal and cultural identities. We study t

18、he impact of massive multiplayer online role-playing games, such as World of Warcraft; historical simulation games, such as Civilization and Age of Empire; and first-person shooter games, such as America’s Army and inv

19、estigate whether these games offer an opportunity for a renaissance shift in today’s culture (Rushkoff, 2005). In September 2005, Valerie Frissen, Jos de Mul (both from the Faculty of Philosophy, Erasmus University Ro

20、tterdam, the Netherlands), and I started Playful Identities, a research program funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Because digital technologies seem to stimulate “playful goals” (Vattimo, 1

21、998) or “the play element in culture” (Huizinga, 1955), we investigate the ways in which mobile phones, the Internet, and computer games not only facilitate the construction of these playful identities but and deconstru

22、ction of pregiven identities and the construction of new playful identities (Raessens, 2005).Why Game Studies Now?The acceptance and proliferation of competing frameworks of interpretation seem to be the major character

23、istics of game studies within the humanities. This begs the question whether there are objective rules and standards for determining which interpretations are best (Eco, 1992, 1994). An interesting difference of opinio

24、n on this subject emerged in the Aarseth-Jenkins debate. According to Jenkins, new empirical evidence can force game researchers in general to modify or refine their research pro- grams: “If they are smart, they change

25、 the tool to fit what they are looking at, if they are bad, it is a cookie cutter that only sees those things that their tool allows them to look at to begin with.” Aarseth on the other hand argued that new empirical e

26、vidence predominantly proves narratology to be “not really a good model for studying and understanding” computer games and that we are witnessing “a transitional phase, a paradigm shift.” In “Computer Game Studies, Yea

27、r One,” Aarseth already stated that “The de- bate about narratives and narratology’s relevance to game studies . . . shows the very early stage we are still in” (see Note 1). Referring to “the struggle of controlling a

28、nd shaping the theoretical paradigms,” Aarseth defended the idea that computer games should be studied as a new discipline instead of within existing fields such as cinema and literature who are only “colonising” games

29、.What interests me most in this debate are the following methodological questions. Do we as an academic community of game researchers accept the coexistence of competing frameworks of interpretation, in accordance with

30、 the tradition of the humanities? This seems to be Jenkins’s position, and it is one I agree with, when he states that both narratology and ludology can be equally productive. Or, do we adhere to the para- digmatic cha

31、racter of academic progress following Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science? This seems to be Aarseth’s position when he rules out narratology as an out- dated paradigm. If we want game studies to really come of age acad