In search of a “fifth dimension”

Abstract
The work Les Jeux et les Hommes (1958) by Roger Caillois [1] may help us to get a firmer grip on the actual nature of digital games. Caillois identified four dimensions of games and playing: agôn (competition), alea (chance), mimicry (simulation), and ilinx (vertigo). In light of the new culture of digital games, this paper argues the need for adding another dimension to Caillois four dimensions. This fifth dimension will be labelled repens or sequentially embedded surprise and it will enable us to describe, analyse, and understand the structure and complexities of the more recent digital games more profoundly.

Keywords
Theory on games and playing, Roger Caillois, dimensions and characteristics of computer games, repens.

Introduction
For the last two years I have been studying computer games from all kinds of different angles. One of the major focus points of my past research however, has been traditional theory on games and playing, like the one by Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens, 1938) [3], Roger Caillois (Les Jeux et les Hommes, 1958) [1], and Brian Sutton-Smith (e.g. The Ambiguity of Play, 1997) [7]. The central question throughout the studying of these theories has been if and how these theories can help us in getting a better and firmer grip on the phenomenon of the digital game. It became clear that these theories are helpful in the sense that they provide – be it a limited – vocabulary, a certain way to speak and write about games. These traditional theories are furthermore helpful in the sense that we can pinpoint certain vital differences between non-digital games and digital games. For example, it has been a long held belief that games and playing stand outside the course of normal, productive life. We have witnessed, however, that with the invention and up rise of computer games, games and playing as such have acquired a central place in our present-day life, culture, work, production, economy et cetera. In using the ‘non-digital’ notions on games and playing outlined by, for example, Huizinga and Caillois, we can locate certain differences between non-digital and digital games. These differences manifest themselves on the one hand on the level of the games played and the way these games are played and on the other hand on the level of how games and playing are received and perceived. For example, the fact that the notion of games and playing as something taking place outside the course of normal life is changing, indicates that games and playing as such have changed and are still changing but it also indicates that how people think about games and playing has changed and is indeed still changing.In this paper I will focus on the work by Roger Caillois. Caillois’ classification of games into four different dimensions – competition, chance, vertigo, and simulation – is very helpful and useful, even in relation to digital games. But it seems that something is missing, a vital element or term that can account for that which makes digital games so different from traditional games. In collaboration with my colleagues Jo Wachelder and Johan van de Walle I have come up with a “fifth dimension” that will be necessary in order to make Caillois’ classification suitable for analyzing digital games. This “fifth dimension” should explain and give account of the fact that in a digital game the player is not only subject to competition, chance, vertigo, and simulation, but also to discovery, narrative, and progression. I have chosen the Latin word repens – sequentially embedded surprise – as the name for this fifth dimension.

Published in 2003 in M. Copier en J. Raessens (Eds.), Level Up, Digital Games Research Conference. Universiteit Utrecht: De Longte, pp. 80-90. DiGRA Level Up Conference, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.