What is Videogame Formalism? Exploring the Pillars of Russian Formalism for the Study of Videogames

Jasper V Vught

doi:10.1177/15554120211027475

Abstract

This article provides a general overview of the theoretical foundations of formalism to assess their usefulness for the study of videogames and thereby establish grounds for a more robust approach. After determining that formalism has been used as a go-to term for a variety of ontological and methodological approaches in game studies, this article draws more specifically from Russian Formalism to use the label for a functionalist approach interested in how formal devices in videogames work to cue aesthetic responses. Through an exploration of three pillars of Russian Formalism, a videogame formalism emerges that focuses on the workings of the game as a machine while still taking the aesthetic player response as the methodological starting point and acknowledging the importance of synchronic and diachronic historical perspectives in establishing the functioning of game devices.

Highlights

In game studies, formalism has often been used as an all-embracing term covering a range of methodological and ontological approaches. Willumsen (2018), for instance, shows how formalism is used for three different approaches in game studies: an aesthetic game formalism identified with those scholars looking for a ‘narrativeness’ in games; a game essentialism identified with those scholars interested in finding the ‘gameness’ in games and a formalism as a level of abstraction identified with design scholars or content analysts interested in mapping the constituting elements in games
The literature machine that Russian Formalists speak of does not equal a hierarchically organized structure where one component is more central to its functioning than another but instead consists of a set of interrelating devices, all of which are, at least in principle, important in cueing a reader’s defamiliarizing experience. This distinguishes a videogame formalism based on Russian Formalism from early works focused ongame form
At a local level, where we single out a specific moment in the work, the dominant helps to focus on the more significant motivations during that moment. This idea of the dominant comes from a late phase in Russian Formalism in which the approach moved away from a purposive explanation of literature to a more functional explanation in which all devices work together to shape the material towards an overall form (Steiner, 2014, p. 63–66)

Summary

Introduction

Formalism has often been used as an all-embracing term covering a range of methodological and ontological approaches. Willumsen (2018), for instance, shows how formalism is used for three different approaches in game studies: an aesthetic game formalism identified with those scholars looking for a ‘narrativeness’ in games (cf. Murray, 1997); a game essentialism identified with those scholars interested in finding the ‘gameness’ in games (cf. Juul, 2003) and a formalism as a level of abstraction identified with design scholars or content analysts interested in mapping the constituting elements in games (cf. Lankoski & Bjork, 2015). The literature machine that Russian Formalists speak of does not equal a hierarchically organized structure where one component is more central to its functioning than another (e.g. because rules regulate output) but instead consists of a set of interrelating devices, all of which are, at least in principle, important in cueing a reader’s defamiliarizing experience (see below under dominant) This distinguishes a videogame formalism based on Russian Formalism from early works focused on (video)game form. As Willumsen (2018) notes, scholars like Eskelinen (2001) or Juul (2003) appear to have more ontological than methodological aims, trying to understand the nature and functioning of (video)games that set them apart from other media While these early works in game studies certainly explore a dominant user function (Aarseth, 1997; Eskelinen, 2001), this user function is less of an essence or methodological starting point (as defamiliarization is for the Russian Formalists) and more of a substantiation of an ontological focus on the underlying (and hierarchically organized) text producing machinery. To broaden our understanding of the various ways in which game devices can function to evoke defamiliarization, I draw on Thomashevsky’s (2012) idea of motivation below

Motivation of Game Devices

Conclusion