Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes From a Debate That Never Took Place

Gonzalo Frasca's article argues that the widely described "ludology versus narratology" debate in game studies never truly took place, because it rests on a cluster of misunderstandings about terminology, positions, and intentions. Frasca, who identifies himself as a ludologist, contends that the label has been applied inaccurately: "ludology" was not coined by Espen Aarseth or by him, and it was defined in ways that many later scholars took to mean a rejection of narrative. He also notes that few scholars actually self-identify as narrativists, making the supposed opposing camp difficult to locate. The paper is explicitly personal and openly non-neutral in its preference for simulation over narrative, and it frames its contribution as clarification rather than a defense of one side.

The author's central claims are supported by close readings of key texts from figures such as Aarseth, Markku Eskelinen, Jesper Juul, Marie-Laure Ryan, Michael Mateas, and Henry Jenkins. Frasca shows that early ludological writing explicitly aimed to complement rather than replace narratological approaches, and that statements taken as radical, such as Eskelinen's remark that stories are "uninteresting ornaments," are incomplete when read in context. He identifies a recurring "colonialism" concern, in which games scholars resisted importing film and literary frameworks, as a further source of perceived hostility. The discussion of definitions is especially pointed: narrativist critiques often rely on narratological definitions that do not fit games, and Frasca argues that Gerald Prince's definition, applied to Chess, illustrates how unclear terms derail debate.

The conclusion is that the debate's apparent polarization stems from definitional imprecision rather than fundamental disagreement. Frasca argues that ludologists do not reject narrative elements in games, and that accusations of radicalism are unfounded. He acknowledges, however, that narrativists lack a game-appropriate theory of narrative, and that expanding narratology to cover games remains an open challenge. The paper's broader implication is that productive scholarship requires explicit definitions and shared vocabulary before meaningful disagreement about the role of narrative in videogames can occur.