While I wholeheartedly think that science is mostly methodically uniform, there are two things that seem to differentiate the social sciences (or humanities) from the natural sciences. (That would seem to put me on the side of methodical antipositivism, if one is into labeling.) There are two distinct differences between the reality the natural sciences research and the one of social sciences study. While these differences are not immediately apparent, they are easily understandable when pointed out. They also lead to some methodological consequences that must be taken into account. ...

I attended the seminar of Society for Cultural Studies in Finland. It is a two-day seminar, so I’m missing part of it as I’m writing this, but the most interesting part has already ended: game(s) research workshop. There was unfortunately only few presentations on games, but at least some of these were useful for me. I also got to meet some of the games researchers in Finland. In addition, I found a short and cheap (but competent-looking) book on ergodic texts. I’ve been meaning to look for something about that. ...

I held a presentation on games in the National Seminar for Philosophy Students (Filosofian opiskelijoiden kansallinen seminaari, FOKS in Finnish) last saturday. It was mostly just basic stuff on (the study of) games, with some quotes from Wittgenstein, Suits, Juul and Salen & Zimmerman. As an ending I presented a loose argument that a minimum definition of games has to include only three points: separation, conflict and rules. Separation means that a game is in some sense separate from the surrounding reality usually both spatially and temporally. (The line of separation is commonly called ’the magic circle’.) This can also be extended to cover the concept of artificiality commonly associated with games, and Juul’s demand that games must have “negotiable consequences”. ...

When reading about games I’ve come across some very peculiar things that may not entirely be called games, but which resemble them very closely. They also differ from games in interesting ways. What makes them non-games (or a-games) differs, but each example is interesting: Passage seems to be a game of passing through a (randomly generated) maze, but really it is more a story of passing through life. You begin the journey as a young man and encounter a woman; if you touch her, you will begin walking together. If you walk with her, you will not be able to go everywhere - walking with her limits your choices. But at least you’re not walking alone. Passage is more of a work of art than a game (not that they are exclusive categories), worth the few minutes it takes to try it. ...

I recently read Iain M. Banks’ The Player of Games, and besides being a good book it’s got special kicks for anyone into game research. ...

Yesterday we drove some nine hours to deliver stuff. Surprisingly it wasn’t few hours of talking and then endless hours of being bored. We got company and one of us promised that he would run a game for us while we were driving. I was a bit sceptical about it, but I also knew that they had done it once before. We created characters (took us almost four hours) and then played. The game master didn’t drive; the rest of us took turns. The game was Shadowrun, which is relatively rules-heavy, and very dependent on dice. (Dice in a car, brilliant.) It didn’t slow us down significantly. ...