Introduction to Part III: Games and Gameworlds

  • John Richard Sageng
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 7)


We describe what a player does or what she experiences with reference to objects and events in the world of the computer game. This means that when we investigate answers to the questions posed in the earlier parts of this book, such as the nature of play versus serious activity, the content of emotions, the morality of a players actions and the relationship between the player and her in-game avatar, we ultimately encounter the following question: What is the reality status of the objects and worlds the player apparently interacts with in computer games? This question also extends to the status of computer games themselves, since they are systems and programs specially designed to present the player with such objects and events. In other words, what is the nature of the artefacts we call computer games or computer game systems?


Computer Game Game World Fictional World Work World Ontological Issue 
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, Espen. 2005. Doors and perception: Fiction vs. simulation in games. Paper presented at Digital Arts and Culture proceedings, IT University of Copenhagen.
  2. Castronova, Edward. 2005. Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Currie, Gregory. 1990a. The nature of fiction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heim, Michael. 1993. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half real: Videogames between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Koepsell, David. 2000. The ontology of cyberspace. Chicago/La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, David. 1978. Truth in fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 37–45.Google Scholar
  8. Searle, John. 1975. The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History 6: 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Walton, Kendall. 1990a. Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Suggestions for Further Reading

  1. Aarseth, Espen. 2005. The perception of doors: Fiction vs simulation in games. In Proceedings of the 6th DAC conference, Copenhagen, December 1st–3rd, 59–62.Google Scholar
  2. Currie, Gregory. 1990b. The nature of fiction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Everett, Anthony. 2005. Against fictional realism. Journal of Philosophy 102: 624–649.Google Scholar
  4. Gaut, Berys. 2010. A philosophy of cinematic art. New York: Cambridge University Press (especially chapter 5).Google Scholar
  5. Juul, Jesper. 2008. The magic circle and the puzzle piece.
  6. Lopes, D.M. 2009. A philosophy of computer art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Meskin, Aaron, and Jon Robson. 2010. Video games and the moving image. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 64(4): 547–563.Google Scholar
  8. Schnieder, Benjamin, and Tatjana von Solodkoff. 2009. In defence of fictional realism. The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Suits, Bernard. 2005. The grasshopper: Games, life and Utopia. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Tavinor, Grant. 2005. Videogames and interactive fictions. Philosophy and Literature 29(1): 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tavinor, Grant. 2009b. The art of videogames. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tavinor, Grant. 2011. Virtual worlds and interactive fictions. In Truth in fiction, ed. Franck Lihoreau. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Thomasson, Amie. 2005. Ingarden and the ontology of cultural objects. In Existence, culture, and persons: The ontology of Roman Ingarden, ed. Arkadiusz Chrudzimski, 115–136. Frankfurt: ontos.Google Scholar
  14. Walton, Kendall. 1990b. Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and IdeasUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations