Li Yang/ Peking University School of Arts

Abstract: This article reviews the humanistic dimension of video game research and its theoretical genealogy. The article traces the evolution of game theory from ancient Greece to the present, including the basic ideas laid by Plato and Aristotle, the game aesthetics of German rationalism, the “phenomenological game ontology” constructed by Gadamer, Fink and Axelroth, the “systems rule ontology” pioneered by von Neumann and Bateson, and the “game attitude theory” or “play sense” theory of French philosopher Jacques Henriault. The article points out that video game research should not be limited to technical and mechanism analysis, but should be integrated with humanistic perspectives such as philosophy, art history, and history, and deeply think about how games reflect human existence and knowledge and ethical issues. Against the background of the booming development of China’s video game industry, this article calls on the academic community to re-focus on the humanistic dimension in the history of game theory, establish historical continuity and theoretical consistency, and promote the in-depth development of video game humanistic research.

Keywords: Game impulse theory, game ontology, system theory, game theory, game attitude theory, video game humanities

Since the earliest electronic game research papers were published in the 1990s, electronic game research has a history of nearly 30 years. Its research focus has long gone through the issues of “de-entertainment” and “legitimization”, and has developed into three stages. In the third stage, it turned to analyzing how game elements penetrate into non-game real-world areas, namely “gamification”. Ian Bogost’s “Game Studies , Year Fifteen: Notes on Thoughts on Formalism” published in 2015 may be a footnote for electronic game research, but in the article, he has this paragraph:

“Ludocentricism” proposes an approach that focuses on the “game” part of games… whereas “ludo-fundamentalism” to me means an ideological current that exaggerates the importance of the game part at the expense of the non-game part. It talks about values, translated into customs (as design); it prescribes the medium through the ideas it proposes. It advances a rhetoric that diminishes the role of the non-game part in the composition of video games.

Bogost distinguishes “game-centrism” from “game fundamentalism” because the study of video games has continuously strengthened the scientific discourse resources of computer-system theory, such as code, program, interaction, media, mechanism, algorithm, etc. One aspect that most game definitions agree on is that games have rules, “games are rule-based activities”, and people voluntarily accept certain artificial restrictions and act according to certain mechanisms to make the activity more pleasant and interesting. For example, through rounds, gloves, helmets and restrictions on hitting positions , boxing becomes a game rather than a street fight. But in articles such as Humanism and Object Technology (2006), Ian Bogost, as a game designer and theorist, does not want the study of video games to move towards cold, lonely professional and technical discussions. Obviously, the ideological resources of video games are not limited to the past 30 JohanHuizinga of the Netherlandsand Roger Caillois of France,which. But before Huizinga of “ludus” in1938, Kant, Schiller and others had already studied games in the form of “aesthetics”. After the establishment of experimental psychology in1879 Karland Herbert SpenceradvancedSchiller’s explanatory framework.However, from Schiller to Huizinga, it is far from enough for the classical game theory. If the different game theories before the history of electronic games can be summarized as coming from the two major thought traditions of philosophy and science, then the classical game theories often mentioned today often come from science, while the neglected game ideas come from the humanities. When Chinese society gradually accepts and understands the positive value of electronic games, the humanities of electronic games are about to emerge. In fact, electronic games have always been in the humanities tradition of binary oppositions such as classical and modern, modeling and graphic, art and technology. Electronic game research is based on technical media and computing systems, and its research will naturally expand to the fields of military, medicine, information science, computers, and competitive sports. However, if the genealogy of game theory is traced, it will inevitably extend to the fields of humanities. The classics and humanities currently advocated by the domestic academic community must also face up to electronic games, and establish historical continuity and theoretical consistency between virtual games (commercial entertainment electronic games), functional games (simulation training, medicine), and gamified reality (military, sports competition). The study of electronic games in the humanities is imminent.

China’s narrow-mindedness and lag in game research are not matched with the rapid development of local electronic games. This is the result of the mainstream of scientific centralism in electronic game research and the alienation and indifference of traditional humanities to electronic games. We can compare games with movies: both have entertainment and popular cultural attributes. The development of China’s film industry corresponds to a large film research team, as well as an open and in-depth film discipline and academic system; in the field of electronic games, there is neither a clear discipline nor a unified academic organization and program, and there is no academic work and representative scholars with representativeness and visibility in the international academic community that can match the influence of “Black Myth: Wukong”. Today, the market size of electronic games has far exceeded that of Chinese movies, and its influence on youth culture is also increasing, even surpassing literature and film. Therefore, electronic game research cannot always be on the margins and maintain an “alternative” posture . We need to connect electronic games with the long-standing humanities, introduce the rich technological culture of Generation Z into the traditions and methods of humanities, and truly lead electronic game research from the perspective of ideas, values ​​and positions.

1. Game Subordination: Imitation and Leisure among the Greeks

Although video games are very different from many gaming activities in human history (some scholars even believe that there are essential differences), starting with Huizinga, we cannot deny the commonality between video games and traditional gaming activities. Therefore, although the West did not develop a systematic game philosophy before the 20th century, starting from ancient Greece, Westerners’ understanding of human gaming activities was based on human spiritual needs and the essence of human nature.

In ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle represented two attitudes towards games. Plato proposed a foundational understanding of “games” ( παιδιά/paidia ). In Book 10 of The Republic, he discussed the concept of art and game activities as mirrors or “imitations” ( mimesis ). It was also in this part that he believed that paintings (including games) were just copies of copies of the ideal world, a reproduction or imitation of reality. Games and art are just shadows or mirrors of reality, without real reality. This is the philosophical basis for his criticism of art and games. However, Plato also discussed the social function of games, especially believing that games can be used as an important tool to cultivate the character of future citizens. Games “have a decisive influence on whether the laws we have already made can be preserved forever… Our legislation on some more serious matters should be as undisturbed as children playing games .” Although Aristotle did not specifically discuss games, he analyzed “leisure” ( σχολή/scholē ) activities. He believed that “leisure” is not laziness, but a free and purposeful activity, a kind of self-realization. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle believed that although entertainment and games are not the ultimate purpose of life, they are necessary for a happy life. In ancient Greece, Heraclitus elevated human game activities to the highest position. He had a famous motto that compared time to a child playing games, “Time is a child playing chess, and the kingship belongs to the child” (Fragment 52 ). This metaphor implies that the operation of the universe is like a game, linking the serious cosmic order with children’s games.

Although ancient Greece did not develop a systematic game theory, people at that time attached great importance to the role of games in education, socialization and understanding of the cosmic order. These ideas provided an important foundation for later game theory scholars from Huizinga to contemporary ones.

1. Game impulse: a physiological and psychological theory of human nature

Since German rationalism, games have been regarded as activities as important as art. In his analysis of common sense in the Critique of Judgment , Kant introduced the concept of free play of the intellect ( freies Spiel ), thereby elevating games to the condition of aesthetic experience (although games in Kant’s sense go beyond activities in the general sense). He believed that the experience of beauty comes from the harmonious play of the two cognitive abilities of imagination and intellect . In aesthetic judgment, these two abilities are not restricted by concepts and are in a state of free play. Games are neither dominated by cognitive purposes nor constrained by practical purposes, and are manifested as “purposeless purposiveness” ( Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck ). The pleasure generated by free play is different from sensory pleasure or moral satisfaction. It is a kind of disinterested pleasure ( interesseloses Wohlgefallen ).

Kant’s view of games had an important influence on Schiller. Today, Schiller’s game theory is a recognized classic theory in the study of electronic games. Schiller explained games as a kind of energy and impulse of human beings. The game impulse is the unity and harmony of the sensual impulse and the formal impulse. The sensual impulse pursues change, reality and feeling, while the formal impulse pursues constancy, form and rationality. The game impulse creates a balance between the two, allowing people to “sublate time in time” , let the form blend into the material, let the reality blend into the form, and thus realize the complete human nature. Like Kant, Schiller unified games with aesthetics. He believed that beauty is neither pure life nor pure form, but the harmonious unity of the two, a “living image”. In the experience of beauty, people are neither bound by sensory needs nor forced by rational laws, but reach a state of freedom, freeing people from the dual constraints of material and moral coercion. Therefore, Schiller made a famous assertion: “Only when a person is a complete person, he plays; only when a person plays, he is completely a person.” Only in the state of playing can people truly realize their complete human nature. Games transcend simple material needs and moral laws, liberate humans from obligations and urgent needs, and enable people to reach the highest state of existence in freedom.

It is obvious that Schiller’s game theory has a distinct humanistic color. He opened up two traditions: one is to understand games as life impulses, which was inherited by psychologists and educators in the 19th century; the second is that he emphasized the realization of human complete development and freedom through aesthetic activities and games, and understood games as the highest transcendental activities. This tradition has been shelved for a long time.

1. Evolutionary Taxonomy of Games

In Schiller’s first tradition, game activities were introduced into the scientific study of life impulses and instincts, and combined with biology, evolution and developmental psychology in empirical science, a set of hierarchical game theories based on impulses and surplus energy was established, which we can call “evolutionary taxonomy of games”. These theories believe that games are the original impulse of life. They exist not only in humans but also in most vertebrates, so species must have obvious evolutionary advantages. As a result, theories about human games began to draw on animal games, such as German psychologist Karl Gulus’s “Animal Games” ( Die Spiele der Tiere , 1896 ) and “Human Games” ( Die Spiele der Menschen , 1899 ), as well as Herbert Spencer’s game theory. Frederik JJ Buytendijk ‘s 1932 book “The Nature and Meaning of Games” ( Wesen und Sinn des Spiels ) also discussed the games of animals, children and adults in the framework of evolutionary hierarchy of physiological psychology. In his posthumous work A Philosophy of Play (1920 ) , American management scholar Luther Halsey Gulick believed that games are not just entertainment, but also a natural and necessary part of children and adults’ development and a true expression of human nature. This tendency has been extended to Jean Piaget and DW Winnicott ’s research on children’s games in education and psychotherapy.

In this tradition of thought, the so-called “physiological psychology” lies in the fact that this theory interprets games as an instinct and impulse based on life ability (both words are “ instinkt “ in German), and the so-called “hierarchy” refers to the hierarchical distinction of the game activities of animals, children and adults based on evolution. Gurus believes that the games of humans and animals are based on impulse and energy, but the games of humans come from high-level energy. This view also believes that there is a difference between the games of children and adults, making games a research object for discussing the physical and mental growth and education of people. In his famous “Three Changes of Spirit” theory (i.e. camel-lion-child), Nietzsche contrasted games with children, believing that the spirit will eventually become a child, creating new values ​​and a new beginning in the game. Children represent the spirit of the game and are “sacred affirmation”: “Children are innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-spinning wheel, an original movement, and a sacred affirmation.”

In fact, the emergence of electronic games has made the game hierarchy theory based on physiological ability differences in the past shaky. Games are not an exclusive feature of children during their growth period (games are a kind of life training theory), and people will not stop playing games when they become adults (game education theory). Moreover, adolescents have better reaction and control abilities in electronic games than adults (physiological hierarchy of games theory). Based on the game impulse theory of physiological psychology, although theorists emphasize the creativity of games when explaining human nature and education, they all understand games as a subsidiary, transitional, and temporary activity, and believe that it is subject to scientific laws.

1. Phenomenological Game Ontology

In the 1960s , in the phenomenology and ontological philosophy, Gadamer , Eugen Fink , and Greek-French philosopher Kostas Axelos also took games as objects and conducted systematic reflections. Although their emphases were different, they all interpreted the game phenomenon ontologically, breaking through the game theory of the anthropological paradigm of “Huizinga- Caillois “. They all originated from Heidegger’s phenomenology, but this ontological game philosophy has almost always been absent in subsequent electronic game research. It suspends the presupposition that games are human subsidiary activities, elevates games to the ontological level for interpretation, and forms a triple theoretical dimension with ontological priority, self-manifestation characteristics, and ontological temporality. In this wave of philosophical discussions, the ontological status of games was redefined. From this new ontological position, the autonomous characteristics of games were explained, the binary framework of subject and object was eliminated, and the priority of games at the ontological level was established.

Eugen Fink is a student of Husserl and Heidegger, and is deeply influenced by the phenomenological tradition. Spiel als Weltsymbol , first published in 1960 , represents Fink’s attempt to go beyond Heidegger. In this work, Fink integrates the views of pre-Socratic philosophers such as Heraclitus and Nietzsche, and responds to and develops the concepts of games by Plato, Kant, Schiller and others. “Game” is an important part of Fink’s development of his cosmological philosophy. He uses “game” to understand the relationship between human beings and the world. Game is neither the insignificant leisure and entertainment in the Greek tradition, nor the impulse or high-level energy attached to human physiology in Schiller’s tradition, nor the closed rules defined by Huizinga that are completely independent of reality. He provided a third dimension of game ontology for the previous emphasis on self-sufficient “play” and “game with rules” that emphasized independence: “Our question about games is led to a basic philosophical question. This question is the relationship between man and the world. This relationship is a special manifestation of the relationship between beings in the inner world and the all-encompassing world as a whole.” Players can take games as objects, but they cannot completely “objectify” the rules and mechanisms of the game. In a sense, game activities have become an existential field for the continuous realization of persistence between man and the world.

Coincidentally, Gadamer, also a student of Heidegger, also published Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik in 1960. In this representative work of philosophical hermeneutics, Gadamer first introduced the concept of “game” in the ontological chapter on works of art. He did not continue Schiller’s evolutionary theory of life ability, but defined the game as a “construct” ( Gebilde ) with an ontological status through the proposition that “the subject of the game is not the player, but the game itself.” “The subject of the game is not the player, but the game is only expressed through the player.” In Gadamer’s view, “constructs” refer to those works of art or cultural objects that have been separated from the original situation and have acquired a certain independent existence. Games or artworks are independent entities with their own way of existence, not just passive objects. “The game exerts its magic on the player, it involves the player and keeps him in the game.” As a structure, the game is a temptation and call to the beings, which enables the beings to be realized. This confirms Heidegger’s philosophical schema of “existence calling beings.”

After reading Fink’s “Play as World-Symbol”, Gadamer wrote a long book review “Play and the World”. He praised Fink’s criticism of Plato’s mirror view and imitation theory of games, calling it “the best part of the book”. He recognized Fink’s attempt to transcend metaphysical explanations of games and seek a more fundamental understanding of the world, but he also criticized Fink for “thoroughly insisting on the opposition between games and seriousness, the world of appearances and the real world” , which limited the phenomenon of games and did not fully understand it in the speculative implications it aroused.

As a representative thinker of Marxist philosophy of technology, Axelroth introduced contemporary German thought to France through the famous Midnight Press. On the basis of Fink and Gadamer, he further proposed the concept of “world game” ( monde du jeu ). This “‘world game’ is not a metaphor extracted from human games or games in the world .” It is not a type of game, nor is it a metaphor for the world as a game. “World game” encompasses “existential games” and “nothingness games”. It is not about things in the world, nor about people, but a game played by no one or anything, a way of existence that transcends the traditional metaphysical category. “World game” is not a signifier or a signified, but a general signifier that transcends all specificity.

The ontological game phenomenology believes that games are the transcendental field of the manifestation of existence, reflecting the transcendental dimension of existence’s self-manifestation, which is completely different from the game impulse theory. Gadamer regards games as pure phenomena of “self-expression”, “the existence of all games is often fulfillment ( Einlösung ), pure realization, that is, the energy ( Energeia ) that has its purpose ( Telos ) in itself “. Axelos believes that games realize the “blooming” of existence through “the direction of the world’s opening beyond all things”. The two together reveal the characteristics of games as a medium for the manifestation of existence. Gadamer’s theory of “transformation into constructed objects” is more groundbreaking. He believes that “the transformation into constructed objects means that what existed earlier no longer exists. But this also means that what exists now, what is expressed in artistic games, is something that is always real.”

By establishing a self-consistent system of meaning, games allow players to suspend and reconstruct reality in “complete presentness”. This transcendence is not an opposition to reality (as Huizinga said), but a secondary “opening” of existence through the creation of a “closed world”. In the dialectical movement of illusion and reality, games become a ritualized field for the self-revelation of existence:

What is transformed into a constituent acquires its full meaning. This transformation is a transformation into the real thing. It does not refer to the transformation in the sense of using witchcraft, which expects to break the spell and return to the original thing, but the transformation itself is salvation and return to the real existence.

For this reason, the three theorists’ analysis of the temporality of games reveals the temporal nature of existence. Axelos emphasizes that “all games are rhythms, and games seem to be incompatible with non-rhythms” , injecting the Heraclitean cosmic rhythm into the ontology of games. Eugen Fink focuses on the reciprocating characteristics of game movements, pointing out that games “renew themselves in constant repetition”, and this paradox aptly interprets the temporal structure of existence. Gadamer links the temporality of games with the “repetitive” tradition of festival activities, “festival activities exist only because they are celebrated. But this does not mean that festival activities have a subjective characteristic. It only exists in the subjectivity of the celebrants” , and constructs the historicity of existence through ritualized repetition. This cyclical rather than linear view of time not only deconstructs teleological time narratives, but also implies that existence achieves its true state of self-sustaining through the rhythmic movement of games.

The game ontology that emerged in the philosophical community in the 1960s has hardly entered the study of video games, but it has provided the humanities of video games with the ideological resources of ontological philosophy. This theory liberates games from the category of anthropology and gives them an ontological constructive function. As Axelos said, “Humans are not allowed to play dice games with the world or include it in calculations.” Games are no longer an appendage of humans, but a fundamental way of human existence. This not only expands the explanatory territory of phenomenology, but also provides a new methodological path for contemporary philosophical thinking on the manifestation of existence. As a primitive phenomenon of self-revelation of existence, games are confirmed here as a philosophical category with ontological dignity.

V. Rules, procedures and mechanisms

Almost at the same time as German phenomenology explored the ontology of games, scientists also advanced their understanding of games. Although John Von Neumann and Gregory Bateson belonged to different disciplines, they both participated in constructing the systemic rule ontology of games. Von Neumann came from the fields of mathematics and economics. In Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944 ) , he used mathematics to explain game strategies. Bateson came from the fields of anthropology, ecology and psychiatry. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972 ), he regarded games as a unique form of communication and analyzed the extremely important role that games play in human cognition, communication and psychological development. There are interesting commonalities in their research on “games” .

Although game researchers have noticed that von Neumann’s game theory is also a form of game theory, it seems that his theory has never been truly incorporated into the spectrum of game research. In fact, game theory is the first to introduce the rule system view into game research from a scientific perspective. Mathematician von Neumann was an excellent poker player, and part of his interest in game theory came from his obsession with poker. He found that the “bluffing” strategy in poker games was particularly interesting. Even if a player has a bad hand, he can win by “bluffing”. This strategy seems illogical, but it has been proven to be optimal in mathematics. He once joked: “If you think mathematics is just simple arithmetic, then you know nothing about poker.” As one of the most influential interdisciplinary thinkers in the 20th century, Bateson believed that thinking not only exists in individual minds, but also extends to a wide range of ecosystems. Bateson advocated a holistic epistemology and opposed the dualism that separates mind from nature - the “frame paradox” of the game just reflects this idea.

Both von Neumann and Bateson viewed games as a “system”, a unique, multi-level information exchange system. Von Neumann distinguished games from games, moves from choices through a strict mathematical framework . He paid special attention to how information structure affects the game process, including “preliminarity” and the ability of players to obtain information. Bateson focused on the “metacommunication” level and proposed the “This is play” framework , which allows such communication to occur at multiple abstract levels at the same time. The two approached the game from different angles, but both realized that the essence of the game lies in understanding the game from the perspective of information theory and system theory. The game creates a special communication environment determined by rules, allowing players (participants) to transmit, receive and interpret signals at different levels. This feature distinguishes games from other types of social activities. They both realized that the frames ( i.e. the limitations of the game) and paradoxes are not defects, but have constructive functions.

Von Neumann emphasized that rules are fundamental to games, and there is a difference between absolute game rules and strategies freely chosen by players . “Each player freely chooses his strategy, that is, the general principle that governs his choice… But the rules of the game are absolute commands. Once they are violated, the whole process is no longer a game defined by these rules.” Bateson directly defines games as a “paradoxical framework”, believing that it is this paradox that can be simultaneously equivalent to and distinguished from “map - territory” that makes games a unique communication activity. “The message ‘This is playing’ establishes a paradoxical frame that is comparable to the Epimenides paradox.” Their thinking all points out such a profound insight: the reason why a game becomes a game is that it can successfully establish a specific framework within which some seemingly contradictory elements (such as the strictness of rules and the freedom of strategy, the authenticity and fictionality of signals) can coexist and produce meaning. Bateson believes that paradox is not only not a problem, but a necessary condition for games and advanced communication.

We can generally understand von Neumann and Bateson’s definition of games as the source of the game ideas of system theory (rules) and information theory (communication form). From these two clues, we can see the game theories that are more familiar to us, such as Bernard Suits and Jesper Juul . The core commonality of these theories is that they reveal that games are not only a form of entertainment, but also a complex cognitive and information system that allows humans to organize experience, communicate information and explore possibilities in a unique way.

1. Playing Feeling: Henry’s “Game Attitude Theory”

However, is the game a closed, self-sufficient system or form? When you are getting bored in an open world game, are you still playing a game? From Huizinga’s “game theory” , you are of course playing a “ game “, and from Roger Caillois’s “play theory” , you are still “playing” a game. However, when you are playing, you completely lose the joy of the game and can’t feel the spirit of the game at all, is it still a game? What is the difference between this behavior and our daily labor and life? This is the “ mental attitude” dimension that French philosopher Jacques Henriot brought to game philosophy .

Henriault’s game works were written in French, which limited his influence in the English-speaking academic community, which was unaware of his theory for a long time. Even today, electronic game research has been developing for nearly 30 years, and many scholars are still very unfamiliar with this name. But in continental Europe, especially in France, Henriault is regarded as one of the important pioneers of game research. His “On Games” ( Le jeu ) published in 1969 , juxtaposed with Johan Huizinga’s “Homo Ludens” ( Homo Ludens , 1938 ) and Roger Caillois’s “Games and Men” ( Les Jeux et les hommes , 1958 ), jointly constructed the classic framework of game theory. In addition to Huizinga’s independent and self-sufficient “game” ( ludus ) and Caillois’s “way of playing” ( jeux ) taxonomy, Henrieut emphasized that the essence of the game lies not in the game itself, nor in the way of playing, but in how the player experiences and understands the game process spiritually, and whether he feels the spirit of the game - Henrieut calls it “mental attitude”, and I summarize it as “play sense”.

Henriault believes that the separability of “I” is closely related to games, and is fundamental. Henriault distinguishes between the nominative “I” ( Je ) and the objective “I” ( Moi ). The nominative “I” ( Je ) expresses the function of the subject and is the verb ability that connects all behaviors, while the objective “I” ( Moi ) refers to the objective content of “what I am”, which is the state of existence for the self and others. This separation creates a “sense of distance”, allowing people to be the subject of action and the object of thinking at the same time. This is the internal and fundamental “interaction” and also determines the “game attitude”. Henriault distinguishes two levels of games: first, the ontological game ( jeu existentiel ), which constitutes the game of self-consciousness within the subject, and the “existence-game” of “I” precedes the actual behavior of playing; second, what we usually call playful practice ( praxis ludique ), which refers to the game activities carried out by people in specific situations. The former is the possible condition of the latter. Henriault pointed out that “ the ‘existence-game’ (l’être-jouant) of ‘I’ ( Je ) precedes ‘play’ (jouer ) and lays the foundation for ‘play’.”

Henriault’s discovery of the separability of “I” is crucial. Precisely because “I” is separable internally, players imagine themselves as others, project themselves onto future or possible states, create actions and participate in their own actions, and the game becomes a source of creativity. Henriault calls it “poetry of action” ( poésie de l’action ). In the game, “what is transformed is not the object, but the subject” . People create and reshape themselves through games, and are both “authors of actions” and “participants in actions”. Players can “watch themselves doing things”. They are both the subject of the game and the object of observation, monitoring and evaluation. They are both the implementers of the actions and aware that they are players. This duality enables players to maintain a balance between “immersion participation” and “detachment”. The game allows us to clearly feel that the “I who plays” and the “I in the game” are separable. The actions of “I” always seem to be unable to “control the actors in the game as I please”, but these two “I”s are actually unified in the gameplay mechanism according to the rules established by the victory conditions. The spirit of the game lies in the victory of “I” in experiencing the separation of the self that is difficult to unify.

Henri believes that it is precisely because of this inherent distance and self-reflection in human existence that games are possible. Games are not just something people do, but also the fundamental characteristic of what makes people human. This view not only responds to Schiller’s complete view of human nature, but also saves games from the behaviorist model of impulse and drive. Like German game phenomenology, it is elevated to the level of ontology, and regards games as the key to understanding the essence of human existence.

From the perspective of “playing sense”, games involve a dynamic balance between freedom, rules and uncertainty. Henriyo believes that the core of the game lies in the subjective experience of the participants, not the external rules or the topology of the gameplay. He analyzed how games are both detached from reality and interact with it, emphasizing that games are the expression field of human creativity and imagination, and established a theoretical bridge between anthropological ritual activities and German philosophy. The essence of games lies in “the non-necessity of voluntary acceptance”, and this view has influenced later scholars’ analysis of game motivation. The shadow of Henriyo can be seen in the views of contemporary game scholars such as Bernard Schutz and Jesper Juhl, especially when they discuss game rules and player agency, there is no trace of having read Henriyo. Henriyo’s game theory deepens people’s understanding of game experience through a phenomenological perspective, and becomes an important link and node between anthropological game theory and existential game philosophy.

1. The Humanities of Video Games

The rise of “humanities” during the Renaissance in Europe corresponds to the rediscovery of rationality, existential value and creativity. After the Enlightenment, the humanities became a system of thought and knowledge that expressed human values ​​in contrast to science, pursuing the exploration of truth, morality and beauty from the complex reality, and emphasizing human dignity and potential. Although video games rely on information science and digital interactive technology, they are essentially different from other art and cultural forms, but they are also creating new culture and history. Video game research has always been unable to get rid of the dimension of philosophy (such as Bogost, Galloway, etc.). Philosophy guides us to ask how video games reflect human existence, knowledge and ethics, and to what extent they simulate human thinking and life world. In exploring free will and game ontology, The Stanley Parable ( Galactic Cafe, 2013 ) surpasses other games with the same theme of the same period. From free will to capital alienation, it makes a wonderful summary of the nature of human nature and the nature of games. Detroit: Become Human ( Quantic Dream, 2018 ) explores topics such as artificial intelligence, free will and human rights, prompting players to think about what is “human nature” (Figure 1 ). Starting from the phenomenological game ontology, video game research should go beyond the framework of instrumental rationality established through behavioral psychology, cybernetics and systems theory, and turn the observation of video games to more fundamental ontological issues. Video games should not only be regarded as cultural products or entertainment media, but should be understood as a unique field of existence. The study of video games should focus on the essence of digital existence, that is, video games create a new way of existence, and how this digital existence changes the traditional reality / fantasy binary opposition. The autonomy of the game world should be rethought: How to understand the self-determination and self-sufficiency of the video game world? Is the game world really a “closed game world” as Axelos said, with its own logic and rules? Or is it a field of existence that is constantly closed and opened-I play, so I exist? Algorithmic issues are becoming more and more central in the advancement of computing science and technology, so what is the relationship between algorithms and existence? Is the subjectivity displayed by video games really heading towards irreversible systemic alienation determined by huge forces, as predicted by Foucault, Deleuze and others? Or is it that computer algorithms, as the foundation of the video game world, have constructed a new form of “existence”? Can algorithms be understood as the ontological foundation of the game world?

Figure 1 Screenshot of the game “Detroit: Become Human”

The combination of video games and history is full of possibilities. We need to ask how video games record and summarize the historical events we have experienced together to form social and cultural memories, and how video games shape the present through history. This is already the most important part of current video game research. Ghost of Tsushima ( Worldwide Studios , 2020 ) reinterprets Japan’s feudal era and pays tribute to Japan’s traditional samurai culture and traditional aesthetics (Figure 2 ). The Sid Meier’s Civilazation series uses games to let players understand world history, cultural achievements, and the rise and fall of different civilizations. 1979 Revolution : Black Friday (iNK Stories, 2016 ) is a realistic narrative adventure game based on the Islamic Revolution that actually took place in Iran in 1979. One of the important contents of the game is to use a camera to record the revolution, showing players a large number of real historical archives.

Figure 2 Screenshot of the game “Ghost of Tsushima”

The humanities of video games must redefine the subject of history in the context of technology. Based on the insight that “the subject of the game is the game itself”, video game research should rethink the relationship between players and games. Players are no longer the “controllers” and “actors” of the game, but “participants” who are attracted to and integrated into the video game. This relationship has changed our understanding of subjectivity. The game is like an “interpellation” of the subject , constructing the potential content of the subject in the game. A kind of “collective subjectivity” is also presented in multiplayer online games ( MMOs ). Multiplayer players reach a unified will and action strategy through planned actions based on tasks, character settings and story lines. The behavior of the player group is aggregated into a whole similar to a “subject” to a certain extent, as if it has a unified will or intelligence. Can this help us understand the formation mode of collective memory of people in the digital interactive era? Or has it created a new type of intersubjectivity? With the exponential development of artificial intelligence, how do AI characters participate in constructing the subjectivity of the video game world? Can game AI be understood as a special existence?

The possibility of video games participating in art history research is even richer. Many video games have realized the use, appropriation and re-creation of shapes, patterns, symbols and styles in art history. “Assassin ‘s Creed: Unity” ( Ubisoft, 2014 ) recreates the Notre Dame de Paris in the 18th century. Along with the mission, players have to climb various parts of this famous Gothic building, including its iconic twin towers, flying buttresses and spires, and can appreciate the charm of Notre Dame de Paris from many positions and angles that cannot be achieved in reality (Figure 3 ). “ The Procession to Calvary “ ( Joe Richardson, 2020 ) is named after Rembrandt’s work of the same name. Players transform into Bellona , ​​the goddess of war in the painting, to embark on an adventure. The game uses a large number of classic Renaissance paintings, which are appropriated, parodied, and edited, and placed in a violent puzzle game in the form of humorous animations, forming a special visual narrative style (Figure 4 ) . Driven by digital art history, a large number of artworks and cultural heritage have been digitized. When the data of art history are rendered, simulated and interactive through game engines, the observation methods and research means of art history will inevitably change.

Figure 3 Notre Dame de Paris in Assassin’s Creed: Unity

Figure 4 Promotional video of “The Passion”

In the past 30 years of electronic game research, although scholars, perspectives, and concepts from the humanities have always been involved, the methodology that emphasizes games as rules, mechanisms, procedures, and systems has always dominated the mainstream. From the perspective of the humanities, electronic games should be an important way for humans to express and explore thoughts and experiences, a modern cultural expression form that combines interactive technology, visual arts, music, and narrative, and contains the possibility of philosophical and historical development. As an expression of technological media, electronic games are bound to have a close relationship with the issues that the humanities are most concerned about, helping us understand the meaning of human survival in a highly technological era and reflect on the culture and various problems of technological society. (Original text see “Chinese Art” 2025 Issue 2, Issue 145, Notes omitted)