Introduction
This article began as an investigative probe into the pleasure of playing digital games, as an attempt at comprehending why play is such a consuming and pervasive practice within contemporary culture. Following this question naturally led to much research on the psychology of the player, where the notion of effectance is discussed as maintaining a primary role in our enjoyment, as Klimmt and Hartmann explain:
Most games allow players to modify the game world substantially through only a few inputs. For example, in a combat game, players often need only a few mouseclicks to fire a powerful weapon and cause spectacular destruction. The ability to cause such significant change in the game environment supports the perception of effectance, as players can regard themselves as the most important (if not the only) causal agent in the environment... As White (1959) argued, the resulting feelings of efficacy are very pleasurable and rewarding. Therefore, effectance is valuable for explaining the enjoyment of playing computer games. (2006: p.138)
It would be logical to assume from this quote that the more one has an affect within the game, the more they enjoy the experience. Yet through empirical observation of users, this was found to be a false assertion. If consistently given too much effectance, the gamer becomes bored, as the challenge of the game became negligible; too long a period of little effectance caused frustration, as the gamer felt unable to meet the challenge. This shows many correlations with Csikszentmihalyi's idea of the 'flow state' (2002), a dreamlike yet intensely focused state of consciousness where the user's skill perfectly matches the challenge presented. This was found to be an extremely pleasurable experience and is also often described in sport and digital game culture as 'being in the zone' (Conway, 2010).
Also, though a lack of effectance would at first seem to be opposing a sense of pleasure, it was soon discovered that the denial, limitation or gradual removal of effectance was another key component of the gamesplaying experience, one that is immensely popular and evident in a wide variety of digital games. To this end I introduced the terms hyper-ludicity (above, beyond usual play) and contra-ludicity (less, resisting usual play) to clearly communicate the current state of the game's fluctuating ludic system.
Hyper-Ludicity, Contra-Ludicity & Aesthetics
To clearly outline the concept, let us consider the time-honoured schoolyard game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. The rock always beats the scissors, the scissors always beats the paper, the paper always beats the rock. Therefore, each game object (rock, paper, scissors) maintains the same degree of ludicity throughout the game; rock can never beat paper, paper can never beat scissors. Yet certain games, and especially digital games, commonly break this standard ludicity, either imbuing certain characters, items, objects or environments with ludicity, or conversely turning these categories against ludicity, as resisting the capability to for action, and thus in many cases the ability to be an effective agent within the gamespace.
If we examine the game of Tetris (Pajitnov, 1984), we find a clear example of contra-ludicity. The game begins and the player takes control of each tetromino as it moves towards the bottom of the screen. The objective is to form complete lines of blocks so they delete themselves, creating new space for more tetrominoes to fit. Yet, the more successful the player is at this task, the more the game becomes contra-ludic, attempting to resist the user, to stop play. As the levels progress, the tetrominoes fall faster and faster until even the most skilled player cannot continue play. The escalating contra-ludicity of the ludic system reaches its final state of complete resistance where effect or interaction on the player's part is totally nullified.
This game design paradigm was extremely popular in the arcades of the late 70s and early 80s, with hits such as Space Invaders (Taito Corporation, 1978) and Pac-Man (Namco, 1980) adopting a similar schematic, and can be seen today in multiplayer scenarios such as Halo 3: ODST's (Bungie, 2009) 'firefight' mode and Gears of War 2's (Epic Games, 2008) 'horde' variation, where waves of enemies continuously attack the users until they are inevitably overwhelmed.
The pleasure of hyper and contra-ludic design can be broadly corroborated with two of the four tenets of game design outlined by Caillois (2001), agon and ilinx. The joy of competition, agon, 'a combat in which equality of chances is artificially created, in order that adversaries should confront each other under ideal conditions, susceptible of giving precise and incontestable value to the winner's triumph' (Caillois, 2001: p.14) is paramount to the pleasure of many contra-ludic games, as the high-score board serves to clearly demonstrate the 'incontestable value' of the victor's prowess, providing a favourable form of self-conception ("I'm the best at this") and gratification, alongside the accompanying social rewards (Stebbins, 1992).
Of course this operates similarly within game structures that contain hyper-ludic features. If we discuss the earlier-mentioned Pac-Man, the 'power pellet' is a hyper-ludic item that provides the user with new functions, in this instance the ability to eat the ghosts that thus far have been terrorizing the powerless user. Yet knowing when to activate these rare items for the largest gain is a significant part of the advanced user's strategy if they are to achieve 'perfect play', and thus the implementation of hyper-ludic features can broaden the learning curve of a game as these often hidden items or rules must be fully understood by the user if they are to achieve the highest score.
The ilinx, 'based on the pursuit of vertigo and which consist of an attempt to momentarily destroy the stability of perception and inflict a kind of voluptuous panic upon an otherwise lucid mind' (Caillois, 2001: p.23) is evident in the audio-visual signification of contra-ludicity; enemies become more numerous, and may move faster, the music adopts a higher tempo, colours may begin to transform or develop mercurial properties, and so on. This destabilisation of the player's sensory perception is a joy in itself, attested to by anyone who has experienced the visceral thrill of the firework display.
Digital games that enter the hyper-ludic state commonly initiate a similar set of audio-visual stimuli to alter and unbalance the gamer's perception. The Pac-Man power pellet mentioned above has an accompanying visual effect, signifying the elevation to hyper-ludicity, whilst features such as the 'gamebreaker' mode in the FIFA Street series (EA Canada, 2005-2008) adopts a hallucinogenic colour scheme to communicate the new possibilities of the hyper-ludic football, now capable of knocking down avatars and winning the match outright with a single shot. Such rare moments of ilinx excite the user not only for their audio-graphical spectacle, or their enhancement of effect, but also because they are, in the appropriate circumstances, a social display to other players, instilling a sense of awe or (if playing as the opposition) fear of the user's newly-acquired power. It is in such moments that multiplayer games reach their social peak, as players excitedly cheer one another on, or if competing, (often with a self-conscious irony) plead for mercy.
I will now provide an overview of the common implementations of hyper-ludicity and contra-ludicity within three genres; the televisual sub-genre of the football (soccer) videogame, the role-playing game (RPG) and the first-person shooter (FPS).
