Source Code and Formal Analysis: A Hermeneutic Reading of Passage

• Bibliography
• Abstract
• Notes

Bibliography

Willumsen, E. C. (2016). Source Code and Formal Analysis: A Hermeneutic Reading of Passage. DiGRA/FDG.

Abstract

White-box analysis of video games is not an integrated part of the formal analysis. Rather, few scholars have investigated how an analysis of the source code can inform a hermeneutic reading of the game. In this paper I will present a reading of the source code of Passage (Rohrer, 2007), argue for why a focus on authorial intention is unnecessary when investigating the symbolism and metaphors of a game, and illustrate how the whitebox analysis can inform the formal analysis of the executed game. Finally, I shall discuss how the source code relates to the game as a ‘work’, and how it can be used for studies of symbolism and metaphors. Thus I will conclude that it is indeed a valuable method for game studies, albeit needing more studies on the textual relation between executed game

Notes

White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of software testing that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing).

• white-box testing is a necessary part of a complete analysis of a game, but not necessarily a necessary one
• only few have attempted to do a hermeneutic reading of a game’s source code and most of them based their analysis on a notion of intentionality and authorship
• these notions of authorial intent have been critiqued as a fallacy

“if the game manages to communicate what the author intended, there should be no need for studying this intention. If the game fails in doing so, the researcher must go outside the game” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 2)

• in games it is often not possible to pinpoint a single author (even less so a nationality)

“If the author can’t be defined, one cannot talk about authorial intent as such.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 3)

• the death of the author (barthes) is mentioned, a discourse I might have to look at. Foucault also says, one should rather concentrate on the work, on not its relationship with its author.
• see also Authorial intent - Wikipedia on this discourse, but I see that this is still heavily debated.
• the author intents to show that source code can be interpreted without authorial paratexts, and avoid intentional fallacy
• there is a large chunk of highly relevant writting that I’ll just include here

“Naming can be seen as a part of the code aesthetics, and can therefore be studied in relation to program comprehension, however in the following analysis, I will search to make sense of method and variable names as parts of a formal analysis of video games. My argument is that much meaning can be interpreted from the code itself, and that much of this meaning may not be immediately evident in the executed game. As such, some of the things that are usually interpreted on an abstract and symbolic level in the traditional game analysis will be hardcoded into the game’s source code through naming. I believe that this allows us to disregard author statements and other secondary sources in which the programmers and/or creators express their intent and meaning of the game, and instead uncover this meaning simply through an analysis of the code.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 5)

“As with any other game example, large parts of Passage’s code are not relevant for this investigation. The few lines that are useful for the analysis have been found by playing through the game, interpreting symbolism and metaphors, and returning to the code to see if any of this is spelled out in the code.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 5)

• those two paragraphs point to method and how to approach cirtical code analysis in video games research
• the naming of variables and functions  offers clear pointer to things that might be ambiguous in the executed game (ie the player becoming a gravestone, meaning death, but in the sourcecode it is clearly written that the player is dead)
• reading gender and relationship stereotyping form source code!

---

1. reading into the source code can add to understand metaphors and symbols that are ambiguous. “Moreover, it enforces a focus on games as second order design – that which is designed by an author is not the executed game but the source code.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 8)
2. reading structures that are present but not visible in the game

• source code is a different “text” then the executed game; it can be several hypo- or paratexts (code, comments) to the main text, the executed game
• lol, fml:

“Neither hypotext, cybertext, nor paratext may be the right ways to make sense of the relationship between the game and its code, and hence what status the source code should have in the formal analysis.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 9)

• leaving with an open question on authorship in video games

“Moreover, in order to justify how white-box analysis can avoid the intentional fallacy, we must study in depth whether game designers and programmers can be understood as heuristic authors, whether we have to accept the author as an individual, at least for cases where the game is made by one person, or if there is a third, advantageous way of conceptualizing (the) author(s) of video games.” (Willumsen, 2016, p. 9)