Playing Together: The Player’s Repertoire, an Obstacle to Learning

  • Steve Dahlskog


Massively multiplayer online games have become a common research subject in game studies. Several of these studies have focused on how the player interacts with the game and other players through the game, but often the fact is neglected that there are other games besides MMOGs that allow players to interact with each other. Two-player off-line games, for example, also allow for interaction between players, both through the game and in the physical world. This chapter focuses on the improvement of skills while such a game is being played. We use interaction analysis to understand how the player learns to play the game and how to play together with someone else. By observing how players interact with each other and with the game in a setting with only two players, we find different learning situations than one would find in a single-player or MMOG environment. These learning situations show that the formulation of an understanding of a game and the incorporation of the game into the player’s repertoire are obstructed by the repertoire itself, and they show that players may have trouble adapting to a reflective playing style. This case study is part of a larger project on situated play with multiplayer off-line and colocated video games.


Interaction Analysis Friendly Character Reflective Process Digital Game Play Session 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



  1. Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. Online Conference Proceedings, Digital Arts and Culture conference. Melbourne 2003. Accessed 15 Dec 2008.
  2. Bennerstedt, U. (2007). Att lära sig ABC i datorspelande: Utveckling genom anpassning. In J. Linderoth (Ed.), Datorspelandets Dynamik – Lekar och roller i en digital kultur (pp. 49–68). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  3. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kellner, D. (2002). New media and new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Linderoth, J. (2004). The meaning of computer gaming: Beyond the idea of the interactive illusion. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  9. Sjöblom, B. (2008). The relevance of rules: Negotiations and accounts in co-operative and ­co-located computer gaming. In Conference Proceedings, “the [player]”, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  10. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar


  1. Doom. (1993). id Software (Dev.); GT Interactive (Pub.).Google Scholar
  2. LEGO Star Wars II. (2006). Traveller’s Tale (Dev.); LucasArts (Pub.).Google Scholar
  3. LEGO Batman. (2008). Traveller’s Tales (Dev.); Warner Bros. Interactive (Pub.).Google Scholar
  4. Lumines. (2005). Q Entertainment (Dev.); Ubisoft (Pub.).Google Scholar
  5. Quake. (1996). id Software (Dev.); Midway (Pub.).Google Scholar
  6. SimCity. (1989). Maxis, Will Wright (Dev.); EA Games (Pub.).Google Scholar
  7. The Sims. (2000). Maxis, Will Wright (Dev.); EA Games (Pub.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of TechnologyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations