43: Medieval Letterings – Gameplay, Argumentum and Conservation

43: Medieval Letterings – Gameplay, Argumentum and Conservation

Tea de Rougemont, @nimblenib, Kings College London Today I’ll be talking about the multimodality of textual artefacts (diegetic, (non)interactive text) written in medieval alphabets in games. We’ll be looking at gameplay use, typography, temporalities, ludo-hermeneutics and more.

Textual artefacts appear traditionally as Latin, Runes or Glagolitic but other variations exist. In gameplay, they are world-building elements requiring no interaction. Archaeological collections to unlock a success, or simple writings on a wall with no added translation. Nowadays, textual artefacts have been given more gameplay freedom. Acting as keyhole elements to finish a puzzle, or elements requiring palaeographical analysis from the player to advance in a quest. Textual artefacts offer semiotic significance and narrative relevance to objectives. Speaking of semiotics, the player might encounter the same alphabet through a distinct typography –the associations will not be the same and the reactions might differ according to players. Colours, shapes and context are changed, leaving authenticity behind. As medievalists, typography enables us to define political boundaries or advances in the writing system. As players, it allows us to create a system of patterns which will translate into game choices. Think of a bloodied lettering on a wall –fight or flight? Authenticity is not an element required in order to transmit gameplay information reliably, and yet games strive to be more historically credible. Textual artefacts encompass those two goals, as a single look at the writing describes past realities and current in game targets. Glagolitic defines a linguistic area as well as a political motive (with Cyrillic in later centuries). Temporally, we can frame the beginning and end. Textual artefacts in game are digital conservations of concepts if not close to authentic typographical representations. Using a Medieval textual artefact inside a game confines the player to using the knowledge they associate with said textual artefact in real life, in the game, as well as a combination of both (argumentum). To infer meaning from a word, a player must be able to read a textual artefact. What if the player does not know how to read it? If a textual artefact cannot be read by everyone, it must be useful for the game in another way. Ascribing value to a game design element is tricky, because it depends on the player’s objectives and play style, as well as the game designer’s intended use of the textual artefact inside the game. Textual artefacts also switch our attitude towards game design elements. We can react to TAs visually, say, but to understand them requires us to read and interpret, see if our expectations are confirmed and start anew – essentially, to start a ludo-hermeneutic circle. The complexity of textual artefacts comes from their duality as program and material. Textual artefacts play by their own rules – they ascribe meaning to the context of the game through their structure and existence: required reading in an otherwise visually (mis)informative environment. Medieval textual artefacts are multimodal with the past/present they represent in real life/in game, active/passive states in players, semiotic meanings and their relationship to the game as a gameplay element. Constrained by player knowledge and the rules of the game, textual artefacts manage to offer freedom.

71