In recent years, games have become an essential cultural phenomenon, now recognized as a valuable subject for academic study. Over the past two decades, game studies has grown from a niche area within the humanities into an interdisciplinary field that attracts experts from diverse fields such as cultural studies, media, literature, philosophy, and psychology. This growth brings both enrichment and challenges, as each discipline offers distinct perspectives, objectives, and methods, creating a complex yet vibrant area of study. However, this diversity also introduces challenges, particularly in defining “games” in a way that resonates across disciplines. As Wittgenstein pointed out in 1953, finding a single defining feature for all games remains challenging. This ambiguity complicates collaboration within the field and raises ontological, epistemological, methodological, and political issues, all of which require careful, nuanced solutions.

Humanistic approaches to game analysis have been evolving for nearly four decades, with the first academic articles on games appearing in Europe and the U.S. in the early 1980s. A significant milestone came in 1985 when Mary Ann Buckles produced a pioneering PhD dissertation on Colossal Cave Adventure, a text-based game by Crowther and Woods. Beyond its analysis, Buckles’ work offered insightful reflections on the nature of game analysis, employing five distinct methodologies to explore this unfamiliar textual form. Among her many contributions was the observation that players often use a scientific approach, foreshadowing the “theorycrafting” discussions that would follow years later. Her work remains a foundational yet under-examined contribution to game studies.

This special issue of Game Studies accompanies the Game Analysis Perspectives conference, held at the IT University of Copenhagen in April 2022, which emphasized the need for transparency and methodological rigor in game analysis. The conference’s call for papers highlighted the importance of articulating and developing methods to make the field’s “tacit knowledge” accessible to both

new and experienced researchers. Additionally, game studies’ interdisciplinary nature calls for greater connections across various analytical approaches to enhance inclusivity and coherence in the field.

The six articles in this issue exemplify the diversity within game studies, exploring various perspectives on what games are and how they can be analyzed.

• Daneels, Denoo, Vandewalle, Dupont, and Malliet examine the interdisciplinary nature of game studies, noting challenges such as games’ participatory elements, their multiple interpretations, and a lack of consistent historical methods. They propose DiGAP, a flexible protocol for structuring game analysis that covers key steps like defining research questions, game selection, and analytical framework. This adaptable structure benefits both new and established researchers by promoting rigor and transparency in game studies.
• Kłosiński presents a manual grounded in hermeneutics, focusing on interpretative rather than exhaustive approaches to game analysis. His framework helps researchers from diverse backgrounds perform existential inquiries into games, providing guidance on both broad theoretical questions and specific game-focused inquiries. This approach clarifies hermeneutic methods commonly used in humanistic studies, making them more applicable to game analysis.
• Backe uses a hermeneutic lens to analyze Deathloop, applying the concept of metamodernism to interpret the game as a cultural artifact. His analysis highlights the unique aspects of Deathloop that set it apart from similar games, demonstrating that cultural interpretations should arise from the game’s own elements rather than relying on predefined frameworks.
• Fizek explores games as algorithmic spectacles, proposing a view of games as configurable images that simulate rather than depict reality. She critiques the traditional division between mechanics and visual elements in games, encouraging a comprehensive approach to analyzing games’ visual and computational features.
• Dwyer investigates auditory elements, using “sound walking” as a method to analyze the soundscapes of Watch_Dogs 2. His study illustrates how socioeconomic distinctions in the game are conveyed through sound, showing how auditory cues and player actions contribute to the immersive experience.
• Keever discusses the potential for ideological critique within game analysis, focusing on “agency.” Keever critiques posthuman approaches to agency, instead presenting ideology as a technology that shapes player identity. In his analysis of Outer Wilds, Keever examines how ideology is embedded within the game’s technical and representational design.

Rather than striving for all-encompassing methodologies, these articles embrace games’ complexity and diversity. Some address overarching frameworks, others take open-ended or bespoke approaches, while others focus on specific game genres or elements. This reflects a maturing field, where scholars can navigate the inherent interdisciplinarity of game studies, fostering a more inclusive and nuanced environment for future research.