Framing according to Linderoth

So I've taken time to read through the most interesting parts of Linderoth's book "Datorspelandets mening" about immersion in games. He basically set out to prove that the idea of full immersion (as an illusion of being in another world) is non-achievable, and wraps up the book by concluding that he is right - the idea of reaching an illusive state while playing games is an illusion itself. In the pursuit of proving this, Linderoth makes use of theories such as Caillois' taxonomy, Goffman's framing, Gibson's affordances, and Juul's fiction and rules... exactly like us, which makes the book quite valuable to us!

Linderoth speaks of framing as the internal and external dynamics of a game. According to his observations (of children playing games), the internal dynamics follow this pattern:

1. Frame confusion: the conflict of playing the game from a fiction frame (mimicry) or a rule frame (pursuing the goals of the game). This could also refer to whether it is reasonable to use fiction knowledge to understand the affordances (hence the rules) of the game.

2. Fiction breakdown: the discovery of the fact that the fictional world is inconsistent (or non-coherent if using the terminology of Juul). For example that some of the doors in GTA4 is possible to open while others is not.

3. Requesting compliance (överensstämmelse): realizing the constraints of the game but playing with the thought of a wider range of affordances.

4. Comical discrepancy (oförenlighet): realizing that terms or thoughts within one frame might have a completely different meaning in another frame, and realizing the comical aspect of that fact.

The pattern of external dynamics according to Linderoth is all about the social dynamics of the players (all his observations is of two or more children playing at the same time), as if playing the game takes place on an arena extending into the real world. While I think this conclusion is relevant, Linderoth only exemplifies with offline multiplayer games (Mario Kart 64, SSBM, Agent Under Fire), which is not really applicable to our case. Still the nature of the comments observed is quit interesting: negotiating about whether you're a successful player or a failure, inscribing characteristics of a character onto oneself (or avoiding the goofiness or sissyness of a character by referring to its affordances), or maintaining a friendly frame by cooperating in a game with competitive nature (mixing social frame with rule frame).

---

Playing a game according to Linderoth is moving back and forth between a primary framework (competitive/rule frame) and keyed/secondary framework (mimicry frame). First of all, he considers rule oriented frameworks to be primary frameworks (not referring to any of our real world framework, for example we do not necessarily refer to a 'soccer frame' when playing a soccer game), which does not fall in line with our theories (which I think is a reason to reconsider our theories rather than discredit his). Secondly, he does not at all speak of vertigo (or chance) despite referring to Caillois, which I think we should take in consideration (I do still think that vertigo is related to games like ME, but to include it in a framing/immersion model might be too much). Additionally Linderoth speaks of aesthetically oriented frameworks (being drawn into a game by the graphics), which I think is quite relevant and something we should consider.

Among other things Linderoth states that as a player goes on playing a game, he/she eventually moves from playing fiction oriented to playing rule oriented - the same conclusion as Juul has.