Alex's Galloway's book, Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture, is a far ranging collection. While I believe that the
first chapter provides the most useful theory for use in a Composition classroom, I also want to give a (very) brief description of the other essays in case they could be beneficial.Ch. 2: Origins of the First-Person Shooter - Galloway primarily examines the difference between Point of View "subjective" shots in cinema and videogames. Ultimately, he says that, as opposed to movies, games must have a completely created environment.
Ch 3: Social Realism - Galloway searches for the definition of Realist video games by likening their purpose to Italian realist cinema. Ultimately, he finds that such games must relate the gamer's social reality.
Ch. 4: Allegories of Control - Galloway explores the methods of control in videogames (including use of menus) and likens them to the modern social environment.
Ch 5: Countergaming - Galloway suggests a number of ways to subvert videogames as objects to expose their underlying structure.
The first chapter, Gamic Action, Four Movements, concerns me more here. The benefit of this chapter is that it lays out a fairly straightforward system for exploring how videogames work. First, Galloway defines videogames as actions: "Let this be word one for video game theory. Without action, games remain only in the pages of an abstract rule book. Without the active participation of players and machines, video games exist only as static computer code. Video games come into being when the machine is powered up and the software is executed; they exist when enacted" (2). This is an important first step--videogames are not they physical object (the game disk or cartridge, which are both becoming rarer anyhow) or the software. We often think of games as something out there that simply exist, but the truth is that they only come into existence through action--through the running of the code--and through interaction with a player.
From this definition, Galloway goes on to explain what he sees as the two axes of gaming:
Operator/Machinic: "A video game is not simply a fun toy. It is also an algorithmic machine and like all machines functions through specific, codified rules of operation. The player-the "operator"-is the one who must engage with this machine" (Galloway 5). In effect, Galloway is simply referring to how some actions in the game arise from the machine processing the code (the Xbox, computer, etc.), while others are a direct result of user input (usually through a controller or a mouse and keyboard).
Diegetic/Nondiegetic: "The diegesis of a video game is the game's total world of narrative action" (Galloway 8). Thus the split between diegetic and nondiegetic is that which is supposed to be included in the game itself (like characters or actions) that which is not (like menus).
Then Galloway pairs these items so that we have four sets of actions:
Diegetic Machinic: Any action that happens within the games' narrative world, but is not controlled by the user, like cutscenes.
Diegetic Operator: Any action that happens within the games' narrative world and is controlled by the user, like character movement.
Nondiegetic Operator: Any action that does not happen within the games' narrative world and is controlled by the user, like pause menus.
Nondiegetic Machinic: Any action that does not happen within the games' narrative world and is not controlled by the user, like HUDs or system crashes.
In his book, Galloway goes into much greater detail on each of these points and offers numerous examples that fit his definition. What is important for Composition classrooms, however, is how this theory allows us to see games as a number of interacting parts. Rather than just thinking about the game in terms of what happens, we can think of it as a larger object that transgresses the bounds of the narrative. We can also look at how, even while it is driven by player interaction, it still can often move outside of user control. For example, many games feature cutscenes to drive the narrative forward. Typically, these are pre-scripted plot points. Even if the player desired a different event to happen, they are not able to effect that change. Ultimately, we can use this idea to change the initial concept of co-authorship to something more like "constrained" co-authorship. Neither the player nor designer is fully under control, but both act within certain limits.
Source
Galloway, Alexander R. Gaming: Essays On Algorithmic Culture. 1st ed. Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2006. Kindle Edition.
Also worth attention:
Radical Software Group (Galloway is a member)