In the beginning of the action-adventure video game Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015), protagonist Lara Croft climbs to the top of a snow-covered mountain in Siberia with her friend, Jonah. Nearing its peak, Lara walks slowly and carefully across a narrow, snow-covered path, her arms embracing herself as very strong winds make her climb more perilous. She later loses her footing, almost falling to her death. The winds grow stronger, and Lara now leans forward as she walks, slower than before, and pushes back at the wind through sheer will. She loses her footing once again, this time sliding all the way back to the end of the cliff where she almost dies, if not for her using her climbing ax in the nick of time to stop her fall. The entire scene is full of dramatic tension, thanks largely to the game’s realistic environment, the characters’ dialogue, and the believable animated performance of Lara Croft’s 3D model.
In his book Shadow of a Mouse: Performance, Belief, and World-making in Animation (2013), Donald Crafton presents a concept he calls animation performativity: “the aesthetic functioning of bodies in ways that cause events to happen on screen, as well as the functioning of movie audience members as co-animators, as fellow performers of the films” (2). This “co-performance” of the audience is key to bringing the characters to life. This can be seen at work in Rise of the Tomb Raider, when the audience sees Lara Croft slowly climbing up the mountain and believes that she is indeed struggling against the force of nature.
Crafton differentiates performance in animation from performance of animation. Performance in animation encompasses “the behaviors, actions, and expressivity of the actors, as well as the dramatic situations, narrative flow, plots, and descriptions presented in the films” while performance of animation refers to the entire process of creating the film (17). Crafton also argues that the performance of animation should be qualified as a conditional performance, with the condition being that the film be completed and projected to its viewers (17).
Crafton’s theory focuses on the relationship between animator, animation, and audience but this fundamentally changes in a video game where the audience, who is also the player, is able to interact with the world through gameplay: a component unique to video games that often refers to “not how a game looks but how it plays: how the player interacts with its rules and experiences the totality of challenges and choices that the game offers” (Juul 216). Gameplay is unique to games, as opposed to other narrative media, as they require the player’s active participation in order to allow players access to further content (216).
Gameplay can also be performative. The terms “performativity” and “performative” are often used to denote that something is similar to a performance, even though it is not intended as such (Schechner 123). An animator’s work is not viewed as a performance in the traditional sense, as the intention is usually not to produce these animations while in front of an audience. The same can be said for gameplay which is not a performance but has the characteristics of one, with the exception of gameplay meant to be watched through recorded playthroughs or online streaming. Richard Schechner talks about performances as restored behaviors or twice-behaved behaviors: “performed actions that are trained for and rehearsed,” which doesn’t just cover intended performances, but daily life rituals as well (28-29). The “performance” of gameplay requires the player to learn and rehearse specific actions repeatedly to complete a task in the game. For instance, Rise of the Tomb Raider requires players to make Lara Croft walk, run, jump, and fight her way through various environments until the player reaches the end of the game.
With this comes a form of animation unique to video games: player character animation: the motion of characters under the player’s control (Cooper 4). These are animations of specific actions that a player character can do through the player’s input, usually through a controller, keyboard, or touch screen. While these animations are created by the game developers, the player has an active role in when and how they will play out.
Studies have been conducted on the unique aspects of video game animation. Jonathan Cooper’s book Game Anim: Video Game Animation Explained (2019) is a comprehensive view of animation within the game development process and introduces animation principles unique to creating player character animation (41). Daniel Johnson explores how video game environments respond to player character animation and how this affects player agency and world building during gameplay (226). Both show the unique relationship between the player, player character animation, and the video game as a performance space.
However, a gap that needs to be addressed is how animation performativity changes when control over the player character animation performed by animators is relinquished to the player. Player-controlled characters are made to serve as players’ avatars in video games, acting as both a surrogate body and identity to inhabit within the game’s world, and as a tool kit that provides abilities that players can use to complete the tasks the game provides (Gee 16-18). Animation styles will be different between game types, and even game development studios, as each will have their own unique goals (Cooper 4). Additionally, player character animation is made to serve the looping process of player-game interaction, which also varies between different genres and developers. Player characters that are controlled by player inputs will come in different modalities, with some directly responding immediately to button presses and others indirectly responding through longer processes such as menus and player directions. As such, I argue that a theory focusing on the animation performativity resulting from this unique relationship is necessary. In line with Crafton’s work, I propose to call this player character animation performativity.
I define player character animation performativity as the aesthetic functioning of animated virtual performing objects placed under the player’s control that cause events to happen and virtual co-performers to respond within the intended limitations of virtual performance spaces. Here, the player character serves as a performing object: defined by Frank Proschan as “material images of humans, animals, or spirits that are created, displayed, or manipulated in narrative or dramatic performance" (qtd. in Bell), similar to puppets or masks. Emma Westecott posits that we can view the relationship between the player and the player character “from a control aesthetic as a form of puppetry in which the player manipulates a player character ranging from the abstract to the superhuman” (3). Raz Greenberg states that games allow players to be their own animators who can “freely animate their avatars” within the environment and freely explore while bypassing the game’s narrative (87-89). In both cases, the player character functions as a performing object. Using performing objects frees the performer from constraint, whether physical (through gravity or corporeal limitation) or conceptual (through freedom from reality and manifest through direct control)” (Westecott 3). This is a trait shared by player character animation, since the player can choose where and when these animations are performed during gameplay. The player character then translates the player’s intentions through their input, using devices such as controllers and keyboards.
Player character animation like Lara Croft’s still qualifies as what Crafton referred to as conditional performance but the conditions are now different. I will refer to these as the Player Character Animation Performativity Loop or PCAP Loop. I derive this from an aspect unique to video games called core gameplay loops: “a set of activities that repeat to move the game forward” (Fullerton 74). The core gameplay loop checks for conditions such as the player’s current position in the world, as well as the player’s input, from which the game decides how to proceed (for example, moving the player character to a different position or affecting an object in the world) (Fullerton 76), effectively bringing change to the virtual space. The loop aspect is also derived from the looping nature of video game animations. The movements of player characters are created from repeatable animation loops made for specific purposes, such as “run” animations and “attack” animations. One of these looping animations is the idle animation which plays when the character is waiting for the player’s input (Cooper 144). Every animated action of the player character transitions from the idle animation. When the action is finished, the player character returns to the idle animation.
The loop is as follows:
The animation must be created by the animators and game developers and implemented as part of the game.
The animation must play as a response to the player’s input with the intent of carrying out a task, causing the player character to act.
The player character’s action must show a change within the virtual performance space. A change in the performance space can be as simple as the player character changing positions in the virtual space by moving, or as complex as changing the environment altogether, such as destroying objects or enemies, or making things appear.
The virtual performance space and/or the other characters inhabiting it must respond to the changes as a co-performer.
Unlike film animations, player character animations are designed to be repeated by the player throughout their gameplay. To interact with the virtual environment, the player uses a device (i.e. a controller, keyboard, or touchscreen). The player’s movement (pressing the buttons or keys, or tapping the screen) is transferred into the game as the player character’s actions (run, jump, etc.) (Huuhka 74). The player character’s movements do not mirror the player’s but instead translate the player’s intentions, shown through repeatable, looping animations triggered by specific inputs from the player (Westcott 4). Because player characters have to move around a fictional world in real time, technical and budget constraints mean that the range of player character animations is “partly determined by convention (i.e. attack, die, etc.) and partly by construction (i.e. run, jump, walk)” (5), and these animations are pre-made and played back whenever appropriate. During gameplay, Lara Croft must be restricted to the same running, jumping, and attacking movements. After the player performs an animation and the game responds, the player animation loops back to the idle pose or idle animation.
PCAP loops parallel core gameplay loops because the animation comes as a form of feedback from the game informing the player that their input has been received. Changes in the world are also shown through animation as non-player characters or objects respond to the player character animation. Enemies, AI-controlled allies, and environmental elements will have their own repeatable loops that play in response to certain actions made by the player character. If enemies see Lara Croft, particularly during segments that require stealth, they will all by default run towards her and attack her, playing their own animation loops.
While the focus of this theory is on the relationship between the player and animation, it also shows how the process of gameplay transforms the relationship between the animations and the animators. Player characters don’t start as performing objects, and performance of animation by the animators still takes place during the game development process. However, this animation is always done with the player in mind, putting into consideration how the game’s camera responds well to the player character’s movement, and how control of the player character should be effortless to the player (Cooper 140). The performance is still conditional, but the condition to complete the performance is now for the player to take control. When the animators complete the animations, and they are integrated into the game rules, the animators relinquish control of the performance, both in and of animation, to the player, the player character transforms into a performing object, and a new relationship between the player and player character is formed.
In order to facilitate player character animation performativity, video games require a performing object in the form of the player character and a virtual performance space that can also function as a co-performer. The following sections will look at both of these components in more detail to determine their role in the PCAP loop.
The performance of the animations depends on the player’s intent within the virtual space. In order to input with intent, player character animation requires that the player is able to make choices within the virtual performing space. Crafton states that every animation performance involves agency: “the ability to cause events to occur, to control other beings, to react to events sentiently, or simply assert autonomy” (58). His interests lay in the agency that both viewers and animators create for animated performers (58). Crafton looks at agency as something generated from the experience of the performance (59). The viewer’s agency comes from how they can interpret or construct meaning out of the performance (72). While viewers are not passive spectators (59), their agency is limited.
Agency in video games, on the other hand, relies on allowing players to have an illusion of choice. In narrative video games, agency is “the term used to describe players’ beliefs that their choices and actions are what drives the events of the story” (Heussner et al. 104). The general goal in creating a narrative-driven game is to make players feel like they affect the story and how it ends (105). In most narrative video games, how stories progress is predetermined, but will require the player to successfully complete certain tasks before they are allowed to progress through the plot. In this case, the player character is the representation of the player’s agency in the game (Westecott 2).
Player agency is achieved by allowing the player to make meaningful choices (Heussner et al. 113). These can be quick choices done during gameplay, such as when to run, jump, dodge, or attack. Some choices can have dire consequences in the overall narrative, such as choosing whether to spare another character’s life or not, while others affect the gameplay and performance experience, such as choosing which weapons to use, or how the player character will navigate certain situations. The latter is most important in player character animation performativity, as it will also affect how the player character is animated. For example, a character wielding a heavy, two-handed axe will move slower than a character wielding a smaller, lighter dagger. In cases where player characters gain access to new equipment or abilities, new choices are made available to the player and with them, new animations. Every time Lara Croft picks up a new weapon, a new set of animations can be performed. Another way games incorporate agency into animation is allowing multiple player character animations to be combined in different ways. Lara Croft can shoot guns while walking, for example. Games such as River City Girls (2019) allow players to string together a combination of light attacks, heavy attacks, and special moves, combining different animations to create their own animation loop.
In order to provide player agency, the game world itself must have its own agency as a co-performer. The game must respond to the player's actions starting with the environment itself. In a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider, environmental elements, such as rocks and trees, are rendered on the screen as you approach them with the elements closer to the player being shown with more detailed textures. This produces an effect where the environment seemingly springs to life and gets animated as the player character approaches (Johnson 227), creating a change in the space as per condition 3 of the PCAP loop. There is also how the environment affects the player character’s movement, with Lara Croft moving slower when trudging through thick snow while strong winds push her back.
Virtual co-performers called non-player characters, or NPCs, will also react to and/or influence a player’s actions. In Rise of the Tomb Raider, some missions require Lara to navigate through enemy territory and take down multiple enemies. Often, these are best done stealthily; if an enemy is isolated, Lara can sneak behind him and attack him from behind, or use her bow and arrow and target his head from a distance, as these attacks won’t make loud sounds that can alert others. Doing this successfully will result in the enemy’s death. Failure to do this will result in Lara being discovered by the enemy, who will then attack her while also alerting other enemies of her presence, leading to a firefight where the player is at a disadvantage. With stealth no longer an option, the player must now change to a different approach, switching to more powerful weaponry such as Lara’s shotgun or machine gun. This back-and-forth makes players perform alongside their virtual co-performers, facilitating the PCAP loop.
Additionally, the environment also becomes a virtual co-performer due to its interactive nature. Lara can use trees, walls, and other parts of the environment to hide from enemies or protect herself when she is discovered and they are shooting at her. Other elements such as explosive oil barrels can be used to her advantage, as shooting them will cause them to explode and kill the enemies surrounding them. One notable segment has Lara fighting multiple armored enemies while the environment is covered in smoke and surrounded by water. While the smoke obscures the player’s vision, the enemies are armed with heat-detecting laser sights. When Lara touches these lasers, enemies can tell where she is and can attack her. Lara can use the water as cover, diving underneath and emerging where the enemies can’t see her and attack. If she can bring an enemy closer to the water, she can also drag them down and kill them there. The player is given these restrictions and must decide which actions, and therefore which animations, will be performed. By engaging in gameplay, a relationship is formed between the player, the player character as a performing object, and the game as co-performer.
When viewed as a performance space, video games must be seen as settings of action with focus placed on player interaction with the game and game device (Huuhka 73). Unlike traditional narrative media that shows a representation of a world, such as film, video games are simulations that create models based on a source that simulates its behaviors and reacts to stimuli given by the player “according to a set of conditions” (Frasca 222-223). These can refer to the game’s code, the software itself, and mechanics, the game’s formal aspects, such as rules, objects needed, and game space (Fernandez-Vara 5). These are similar to performance rules in the sense that they are “effective only within a specific space” that is designed both for that specific activity and “to include the audience, who are a fundamental part of the performance” (3). The code enforces the mechanics (5) so when combined, they both comprise the system that governs the game world.
To practice game design is to practice system design (Sellers 2). Both games and systems are made up of parts that form “loops of interaction between them to create a persistent whole” (50). Loops are created when these parts interact with each other through their behaviors (51-53). Players are also a part of this system (97) and thus help create more loops the more they interact and with each part. The PCAP loop is also a product of these interactions.
Because the player is an interactor, the video game becomes a co-performer. Video game worlds provide “virtual co-performers” which, in the context of this paper, means anything in the game world that interacts with, is affected by, or can be used by the player outside of the player character during gameplay that will affect the overall performance. Enemies may attack the player onsite, allies may assist the player in battle, and environments may be changed during these interactions, all of which will affect how the player adapts and makes decisions.
An interactive environment is essential to the PCAP loop. The nature of the game’s core loop necessitates continuous action on the player’s part to facilitate changes in the game world. If nothing can be changed anymore, the game can no longer move forward, and the player will eventually stop playing. Having the game as a co-performer, through the behaviors and responses of both the environment and non-player characters, means that there is a constant change in the performance space, which fulfills the third condition of the PCAP loop.
When control of the player character is relinquished to the player, the performance can now be considered both in and of animation. This easily applies to video games like Rise of the Tomb Raider where the player’s inputs result immediately in an action being performed by the avatar on screen. I will refer to the performativity in these games as direct player character animation performativity.
This does not necessarily apply only to video games with one singular player character like Rise of the Tomb Raider. Supergiant games’ Pyre (2017), for example, is an action-role playing game with sports elements. The player must guide a party of exiles looking to win their freedom by winning the Rites: a game played between two teams of three members on a field with a pyre on each end and a shining orb known as the Celestial Orb. Each team must take the orb and launch it into the opposing team’s pyre. In the game’s main campaign, the player takes control of one member at a time, with the member holding the orb being the directly controlled player character, while the opposing team is controlled by the game’s AI. The player can pass the orb to another team member, who then becomes the player character after receiving it. Agency also comes in the form of which characters to use as performing objects, as each member has their own strengths and weaknesses. Some are slow but strong, some are fast but weak, and some have specialties such as flight. Character animations must reflect this; large, slow characters are shown lumbering across the field with more weight while smaller, faster characters can zip around lightly with ease.
With other types of narrative games, however, player inputs do not instantly translate into animation. I will refer to these as indirect player character animation performativity. This raises some questions: If the player has no direct control over the player character’s animation, is the player character still a performing object? And will a theory of player character animation performativity still apply?
To answer this, we must first define what a player character is in this context. We first established player character animation as the animation of player-controlled characters in response to the player’s input. However, we’ve also established that the game itself responds to said input as a co-performer, which includes other characters present in the performance space as virtual co-performers. In designing the system of a game, players can be represented by a singular avatar like Lara Croft, an aggregate avatar, or even nothing at all, acting as an “invisible hand” that directs other characters on-screen (Sellers 97). It is important to distinguish when a character becomes a player-controlled character or a virtual co-performer, how much of the animated performance of both comes from the player’s influence, and how these performances fit into the PCAP loop.
Let us first consider turn-based roleplaying games like Final Fantasy VII (1997) for example. These games require players to control a party of multiple characters during battle, often through a menu system, and the player is given different choices for each character to do depending on what they feel is the best strategy to win. The player can have one character attack with weapons, another use magic, and so on, and only after selecting these options will their animations be played. Here, player agency comes from giving commands for player characters to follow, hoping to end with what the code and mechanics considers a good outcome. The player still inputs their choices through button presses, but it does not happen instantaneously like in action games like Tomb Raider where pressing a jump button instantly makes Lara Croft jump. These types of action games also require players to react immediately to enemy actions, such as dodging enemy fire and retaliating with their own attacks as soon as an opportunity presents itself. In contrast, the pace of the gameplay in turn-based role-playing games is slower, giving players more time to think about the best possible actions for their player characters to take during each turn. We can categorize this as indirect player character animation performativity because while the characters did not instantly react to the input, there is a clear interaction loop between the player and the game where the intent of the player translates to a specific action. The animation also fulfills all the conditions of the PCAP loop as the turn-based nature of the battle ensures that both the game and the player will take turns responding to each other, leading to changes in the performance space, such as player characters or enemies losing health, dying, or getting healed or revived.
The same applies to a sub-genre called tactical role-playing games, such as Triangle Strategy (2022), which require players to carefully position their party of characters in relation to the enemy within a grid, similar to a game of chess. Here the player once again uses a menu to determine what action the character will take, and the appropriate animations are shown. These play like more elaborate versions of the turn-based RPG where the position of a player character within a stage, and its distance from other player characters and NPCs, can affect whether an animation will be played, such as sword attacks requiring the player character is right next to an opponent, or magic spells requiring the opponent to be within a specific range. Once again, there is a clear interaction loop translating player intent to a character’s animation. The PCAP loop is also more clearly seen here as both player characters and non-player characters are constantly moving within the space.
Then we have real-time strategy games like Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (2002). Here, the player functions more as a commander, clicking on the map to direct one or multiple characters, referred to as units, to where to go or who to attack. These characters have programmed, automated behaviors, that can be triggered depending on where the player directs them to. Worker type units, such as orc peons or human peasants, can be directed to thickets of trees to harvest lumber, or mines to gather gold, both of which are required to build structures to train and upgrade troops. These actions will automatically continue until they are interrupted, either by being attacked or killed, or if the player requires them to stop and do something else. Units will also automatically attack enemies if they are in a certain range. Players can make use of this by leaving their units near their base to attack any intruders, or by taking them to the enemy base and bringing the fight to them. In this case, these player characters function more as virtual co-performers with pre-programmed behaviors than as player-controlled characters. The player’s interaction in the loop comes in the form of strategy and management, gathering resources, and producing and upgrading units and directing them to attack and defend. These units are still instruments of the player, and the performance space changes and responds to how they are directed by the player. The PCAP loop conditions are still fulfilled.
A notable case study for indirect animation performativity is Enix's Wonder Project J (1994), a game that belongs to the life-simulator genre but with role-playing elements. The story takes place in a world where both humans and robots coexist. However, the two races have slowly grown to mistrust each other. Its main character is Pino, a human-like, robot child who was created to learn what it means to be human. However, before he can be completed, his creator was arrested by the government. The goal of the game is for Pino to become more human by activating “virtue circuits” in his body through completing challenges and helping people, and to eventually help build a better relationship between humans and robots.
Pino is not directly controlled by the player. Instead, Pino is accompanied by a small, fairy-like robot named Tinker, who serves as the mediator between him and the player, and functions as the player’s pointer. The player can bring Tinker to an object to attract Pino’s attention and make him interact with it, after which the player can either praise or punish him, depending on what he does. When an object is new to him, Pino will most likely use it incorrectly and punishing him will let him know he’s wrong. Letting him interact with the object again will make him try something else. Praising him when he finally uses it correctly will help him learn it. All of these are communicated through Pino’s many expressive animations.
Tinker functions as the player-controlled character while Pino functions as the player’s virtual co-performer who responds to and learns from the player’s input. The player is able to provide Pino with items that help increase certain attributes, such as his health, kindness, and strength, all of which are required to help Pino fulfill certain tasks and make the plot move forward. This makes Pino a performing object and getting the correct responses from interacting with him is needed to bring changes to the performance space and facilitate the PCAP loop.
While previous examples show that the use of direct or indirect animation performativity may depend on genre conventions, genres and animation performativity types are not mutually exclusive. Games that primarily use indirect animation performativity can incorporate elements of direct animation performativity and vice versa. An example of the former is Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (1996), which follows conventions of turn-based role-playing games but with the addition of timed hits: by pressing the ‘A’ button at the precise moment a player character’s attack hits an enemy, more damage can be dealt. This also affects the animation; Mario’s attack animation, which is normally a regular punch, gets an additional uppercut animation when timed correctly. Special moves will also require timed hits to be executed correctly. In Mario’s next RPG outing, Paper Mario (2000), this mechanic will be further expanded by having each party member require unique button presses for their attacks. One party member, a female ghost named Lady Bow, has an attack that requires the player to rapidly tilt the controller’s joystick to the left until a gauge is filled in order to slap an enemy multiple times. How well the player performs this will dictate how many slaps she performs and by extension, how much damage she can do.
Some games also primarily use direct animation performativity while adding indirect animation elements. Square Enix’s The World Ends with You (2007), released for the Nintendo DS, uses both of the console’s two screens during combat with the player character Neku being controlled using a stylus on the lower touch screen and a partner character being controlled using the console’s buttons in the upper screen simultaneously. If the player decides not to control partner characters, then the game will make them move and fight on their own. In Star Ocean: The Second Story R (2023), players can bring a party of up to four characters into battle but can directly control only one while the rest of the party act independently. Players can choose strategies for each character, such as focusing on attacking or healing, that will influence how they perform alongside the player character. Both cases of automated characters are still considered examples of indirect animation performativity because they still operate based on the player’s intentions.
A notable use of combined direct and indirect animation performativity can be found in Platinum Games’ action-adventure game Astral Chain (2019). The game’s player character is controlled directly, making it fall under direct player character animation. What sets Astral Chain apart from other action games are the Legions: powerful creatures that the player can summon for assistance.
When it appears, a Legion is shown tethered to a chain connected to the player character’s arm. Summoning a Legion during battle will make it automatically attack nearby enemies, providing the player with an AI-controlled ally. However, the player can also make the Legion move or use it directly as a weapon or tool. Making a Legion circle an enemy, for example, will wrap the chain around it, trapping it and making it easier to attack. Each Legion has its own special function; the Arrow Legion allows players to aim and shoot arrows from a distance and the Beast Legion, which resembles a dog, can be used as a mount for the player, to name a few. They can also learn different abilities that the player can trigger during battle. The Legions can instantly change from independent virtual co-performer, to another player character, to an extension of the player character, showing a seamless transition between direct and indirect animation performances. We also see here that the use of direct and indirect animation performativities is intrinsically tied to how code and mechanics create limitations for the construction of player characters as performing objects.
The varied use of direct and indirect animation performativity shows that there are multiple considerations that go into player character animation and game design as a whole. What is key to both types of performativities is how the interaction loops created by the player and the game are able to create a PCAP loop. The types of interactions and resulting animations discussed in this section are by no means exhaustive, but they serve to illustrate that there are many possibilities in which game animators and designers can implement animation into the systems and interactions they build.
I defined video game animation performativity as the aesthetic functioning of animated virtual performing objects placed under the player’s control that cause events to happen and virtual co-performers to respond within the intended limitations of virtual performance spaces. While animators have initially performed these animations during the game development process, control over the performance is relinquished to players, transforming the character into a performing object and turning the virtual environment into a co-performer. The player character becomes an extension of the player; a tool that translates the player’s intentions onscreen both directly and indirectly through designed behaviors and looping interactions that lead to constant changes in the performance space that I have called the PCAP loop. The different modalities in which players interact with video games and the varied uses of direct and indirect animation performativity makes player character animation a notable area of interest in animation studies as the continuing development of video game technology and animation software, combined with innovations in game design, art direction, and the use of the PCAP loop, will contribute to unique animated performances as the medium and industry continues to grow.
I argue that this makes a theory in player character animation performativity necessary to open more conversations regarding the role of animation in the video game space. Further evolution of video game technology will likely affect this theory moving forward. For example, augmented reality games, or AR games, are able to integrate real, physical spaces into their worlds, changing how players approach the performance space depending on where they are. Virtual Reality games, or VR games, make the translation of player inputs even more seamless. Using VR headsets, players are able to insert themselves into the action and deliver a performance directly through their bodies. Both of these are beyond the scope of this paper but warrant further study.
Bell, John. “Puppets, Masks, and Performing Objects at the End of the Century.” Puppets, Masks, and Performing Objects, Edited by John Bell, MIT Press, 2001, pp. 5-17.
Cooper, Jonathan. Game Anim: Video Game Animation Explained. CRC Press, 2021.
Crafton, Donald. Shadow of a Mouse: Performance, Belief, and World-Making in Animation. University of California Press, 2013.
Fernandez-Vara, Clara. “Play’s the Thing.” Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009, 1-4 Sep 2009, http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/plays-the-thing-a-framework-to-study-videogames-as-performance/
Frasca, Gonzalo. "Simulation versus narrative: Introduction to ludology." The Video Game Theory Reader, Edited by Mark J.P. Wolf and Bernard Perron, Routledge, 2013, pp. 221-235
Fizek, Sonia. “Interpassivity and the Joy of Delegated Play in Idle Games.” Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, Vol. 3, no. 3, 2018, pp. 137-163.
Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.
Greenberg, Raz. “The Animation of Gamers and the Gamers as Animators in Sierra On-Line’s Adventure Games.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 16, no. 1-2, 2021, pp. 83-95.
Heussner, Tobias, et al. The Game Narrative Toolbox. Focal Press, 2015.
Huuhka, Marleena. "Playing is Performing: Video Games as Performance." Einspielungen: Prozesse und Situationen digitalen Spielens (2020): 59-78.
Gee, James Paul. Unified Discourse Analysis: Reality, Virtual Worlds and Video Games. Routledge, 2015.
Johnson, Daniel. "Worlds in and of motion: Agency and animation at the margins of video game aesthetics." Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, Vol. 9, no. 3, 2017, pp. 225-241.
Juul, Jesper. Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press, 2005.
Schechner, Richard. Performance Studies: An Introduction. Routledge, 2013.
Sellers, Michael. Advanced Game Design: A Systems Approach. Addison Wesley, 2018.
Westecott, Emma. “The player character as performing object.” , Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009, 1-4 Sep 2009, http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/the-player-character-as-performing-object/
Almanic Corporation: Wonder Project J, for Nintendo Super Famicom, Enix, 1994.
Blizzard Entertainment: Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, for Windows PC, Blizzard Entertainment, 2002.
Crystal Dynamics: Rise of the Tomb Raider, for Windows PC, Square Enix, 2015.
Gamehive: Tap Titans, for Mobile, Gamehive, 2014.
Intelligent Systems: Paper Mario, for Nintendo 64, Nintendo, 2000.
Lilith Games: AFK Arena, for Mobile, Lilith Games, 2018.
Platinum Games: Astral Chain, for Nintendo Switch, Nintendo, 2019
Sparkgame: The Legend of Mushroom: Rush, for Mobile, Sparkgame, 2024.
Squaresoft: Final Fantasy VII. for Sony Playstation, Squaresoft, 1997.
Squaresoft: Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. for Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Nintendo, 1996.
Square Enix: Star Ocean: The Second Story R, for Nintendo Switch, Square Enix, 2023.
Square Enix: Triangle Strategy, for Nintendo Switch, Square Enix, 2022.
Square Enix: The World Ends With You, for Nintendo DS, Square Enix, 2007.
Supergiant Games: Pyre, for Windows PC, Supergiant Games, 2017.
Wayforward: River City Girls, for Nintendo Switch, Arc System Works, 2019.