As a non-gamer, I found this article pretty interesting. I did not realize how many distinctions there were within the gaming world itself.
Galloway states games are “actions.” “The work itself is a material action.” Games are an entirely new media. They are an “action based” medium, rather than an “interactive” medium. There is a difference between machine acts and operator acts. Yes, they are games, but more importantly they are “software systems.” Actions occur in “diegetic” or “nondiegetic” space (world of narrative action and what is outside of that but not necessarily non gamic.)
Games are the “expression of culture” although not directly. Galloway argues “culture arises in and through play.”
Gamic action can be broken down into:
-“diegetic machine act”–ambience act–shape of process–informatic/atmospheric action
-“nondiegetic machine act”–act of configuration, setup act–algorithm act–stimularion material action
-diegetic operator act”–movement act, expressive act–play action–rule-based, singular action
-“nondiegetic machine act”–disabling act, enabling act, machinic embodiments–code action–swarms, patterning, relationality action
I don’t know if this is true, but I don’t think gamers necessarily analyze their actions in this way. I think its interesting that there can be these categories and there are differences. But I think these distinctions are meant merely for analysis.