Flow Theory, Evolution & Creativity: or, ‘Fun & Games’

JT Velikovsky University of Western Sydney

Bldg BB, School of Humanities and Communication Arts

Penrith Campus, UWS +612 (0)467 531 743

joetv@bigpond.com

ABSTRACT In this paper videogames and transmedia are examined from the perspectives of both creation (game design) and audience reception (gameplay experience), in light of the theories of the DPFi (Domain, Person Field interaction) systems model of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1988, 1996, 2006, 2014); its herein contended theoretical equivalent, evolutionary epistemology (Popper 1963, DT Campbell 1974, Simonton 2010) and the inherent biocultural evolutionary creative algorithm of selection, variation and transmission-with-heredity; `flow’ theory in creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1975, 1990, 1996) as a determinant of `fun factor’ in games; `narrative transportation’ theory in fiction (Gerrig 1993, Green & Brock 2000, Van Laer et al 2014) as an additional (necessary but not sufficient) determinant of `fun-factor’ in `story’ videogames; and Boyd’s (2009) general theory of creativity in the arts as `cognitive play with pattern’ - ultimately arguing that game play of any kind may potentially enhance animal intelligence, and therefore that videogames as an art form may potentially enhance human intelligence.

Categories and Subject Descriptors K.8.0 – Personal Computing; General: Games.

General Terms Algorithms, Design, Human Factors, Theory.

Keywords Videogames, transmedia, evolutionary epistemology, the DPFi systems model of creativity, intelligence enhancement, memes.

1. INTRODUCTION In the discipline of evocriticism, Brian Boyd (2009) presents an evolutionary account of fiction - and of the arts in general - examining all art as `cognitive play with pattern’ while identifying

its evolutionary adaptation value in terms of survival and reproduction [1]. This paper extends Boyd’s argument, contending that effective (or, successful) videogame design in general is characterized by Csikszentmihalyi’s `flow’ theory [2] [3] [4] [5], whereby the majority of the average players’ skills are closely matched to the successive gameplay challenges presented in the game so as to induce the `flow’ state, as characterized by Csikszentmihalyi’s nine elements of flow experience, or, task enjoyment [5]. This paper also suggests that KR Popper’s [6], DT Campbell’s [7], and DK Simonton’s [8] evolutionary epistemology describes the same phenomenon as Csikszentmihalyi’s DPFi (formerly, DIFi) systems model of creativity involving Domain, Person (or `Individual’) Field interaction [1] [2] [5] [9] [10] ; (see also Simonton (2012) [11]), and that this same general evolutionary theory can explain why some videogames (as with literature, movies, and music) can become canon, due to selection pressure (van Peer 1997; Luhmann 1987). [12] [13] when the `fun factor’ or flow is considered as selection criteria for the adoption of games as canon by the field (the videogame audience, including game critics).

At the centre of the DPFi systems model of creativity [5] [10] are memes (see: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [5]) or, ideas, processes, and products [5] of which, videogames - as memes - can be (and also, include) all three categories. Further to this, if the structure of the meme (i.e. the unit of culture, [14]) is viewed as the holon-parton [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], a closer analysis of videogame structural and relational system elements, and an understanding of how and why certain games spread further in culture and thus become canon is possible, including how videogames are created by game designers in terms of the evolutionary algorithm of selection, variation and transmission-with-heredity in creativity [25], all within biological and cultural - or biocultural, evolutionary systems view. This paper further contends that transmedia (or, narrative content intentionally distributed by creators across games, films, television, novels and other media) represents memetic virality, a process also explained by the evolutionary algorithm and evolutionary epistemology in bioculture, thus creating unity `upwards’ and diversity `downwards’ as the story meme (idea) `speciates’ through different media and yet remains part of the one holistic story universe. Adopting the evolutionary systems theoretical framework [26] enables an analysis of why some games are widely considered more `fun’ to play (or, evoke the `flow’ experience) than others, and thus ultimately become selected by the videogame field as canon, as per van Peer’s (1997) two laws of literary canon [12]. One exaptation of `flow’ theory [2] [4] [5], namely `narrative transportation’ theory [27] [28] [29] [30] is also examined in game story, for the additional `fun’ or contributing

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.

IE2014, December 02 - 03 2014, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM 978-1-4503-2790-9/14/12…$15.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2677758.2677770

flow factor, noting also some key differences in ludology (gameplay) and narratology (story).

2. `FLOW’ THEORY AND FUN IN GAMES In `Engagement in Digital Entertainment Games: A Systematic Review’, [31] the authors review the past ten years of relevant literature and find that:

‘As Brockmyer et al. (2009) acknowledge there is still a lack of consensus about how best to characterise subjective experience in games. The different constructs which have been proposed, enjoyment, immersion, presence, flow and arousal are similar but emphasise slightly different aspects of subjective experience in games. Flow, the best known term for describing the enjoyable subjective experiences of playing games, has a strong focus on cognitive features relating to the task such as challenge, concentration, goals and feedback.’ [31] (bold emphasis mine). Sweetser & Wyeth (2005) present flow theory as an integrated model for assessing user engagement and player enjoyment in `GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games [32] while Chen (2006, 2007) also directly equates `flow’ theory literally to `fun’ in gameplay [33] [34].

Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi et al originally presented `flow’ theory [2] [3] [4]: essentially a theory of happiness, deep enjoyment, or, `fun’ for those immersed in a given task including in the sciences, the arts, composing music, playing chess and mountain climbing among other pursuits. In 1996 Csikszentmihalyi presented a summary list of these specific characteristics typical of the `flow’ state, including:

`(1) There are clear goals every step of the way… (2) There is immediate feedback to one’s actions… (3) There is a balance between challenges and skills… (4) Action and awareness are merged… (5) Distractions are excluded from consciousness… (6) There is no worry of failure… (7) Self-consciousness disappears… (8) The sense of time becomes distorted… [and] (9) The activity becomes autotelic…’ [5].

As Sweetser & Wyeth [32] note, the characteristics that indicate a videogame that is enjoyable (or, fun) to play also tends to evoke some or ideally all of these experiences; the authors also note:

`Many game-players report devoting entire nights or weekends to playing games without being concurrently aware of doing so or consciously deciding to do so [Johnson and Wiles 2003].’ [32]

Stated more simply, immersion in the `flow’ state can equate to having fun playing a videogame - or in other words, the proverb that “time flies when you’re having fun” clearly applies.

Specifically with regard to the nine characteristic of `flow’: (1) In well-designed games, missions or gameplay `levels’ usually include clear goals - often literally `mission objectives’ presented on a UI screen, at every step of the way; (2) There is `immediate feedback to one’s actions’ - as the game control (and in-game feedback) systems are intentionally designed this way; (3) There is a balance between challenges and skills - which is literally referred to customarily in game development as `play-balancing’ so that as game levels progress they also tend to become harder or more challenging while also not too hard, otherwise resulting in player frustration and/or anxiety; (4) Action and awareness are merged - in that the player’s actions and reactions become `automatic’, often depending on player reflexes rather than explicit cognitive processing, as required gameplay actions and reactions can quickly become `instinctive’ through repetition; (5) Distractions are excluded from consciousness - as it is frequently noted that players can become immersed (or, `lost’) in a great (or,

`fun’) game; (6) There is no (significant) worry of failure - as if the player `fails’ or `dies’ in-game, they (often, automatically) re-start the same game level, and have typically also just been `rewarded’ by learning something (about how to survive in the game, or, what not to do next time they retry the level), often via exploration and the same `trial-and-error’ process that is in general terms, characteristic of the scientific method outlined in Popper 1999 [35]; (7) Self-consciousness disappears - as again, if the game is engaging the player’s full attention, `immersion’ occurs; (8) The sense of time becomes distorted - as many players feel as if only around (say) a few minutes have passed, when perhaps it is in fact an hour or more they have been playing a deeply-compelling game; and, (9) The activity becomes autotelic – namely, that the overall gameplay experience is enjoyable as an activity, in and of itself. Csikszentmihalyi [2] presents a model of the `flow’ state (or the flow `channel’) whereby, when a person’s skills are evenly matched to the challenges presented by a task (or related series of tasks), the person may enter the `flow’ state.

Figure 1. Model of the Flow State in Games - © JT Velikovsky

(derived from Csikszentmihalyi, et al, 1975, p. 49)

As many game theorists and researchers have noted [31], this model of `flow’ has obvious applications to gameplay design, and thus gameplay mechanics in general, and arguably has been used (whether consciously, or otherwise) by `analog game’ designers even well before the emergence of digital videogames; as per evolutionary game theory [36], games typically involve rules, goals, and strategies with attached cost/benefit ratios, challenges, and specific skills required to meet these challenges (for example the games of chess, go, draughts, and card games). If the player’s skills are low in comparison to the current game challenge, then, worry - and in extreme cases, anxiety – may result (i.e., top-left areas of the `Flow’ model in Figure 1.). If the opponent’s skills are high and thus the gameplay task-challenge presented (to Player 1 in a 2-player game, noting that `the computer’ may be `Player 2’) is high, the flow state may occur. Alternately if a player’s skills are high and the gameplay challenge is low, the game becomes too easy and again, boredom and/or anxiety can result. One key aim (of many) of a game designer is therefore to co-design the `phase portrait’ of player agency around the structures of the game, with the `typical’ or `average’ player of the game’s projected target-audience always clearly in mind. There are of course outliers: those rare players whose skills are initially impressively-high, and likewise those rare players whose

skills are abnormally-low, both of which extremes can be partly due to genetic and/or biological predispositions, age, personal development and various other causes. Human nature (with a large sample size) is however generally a statistical Normal Curve; certain people `naturally’ can have slightly faster reflexes, and/or even `quicker minds’; others may improve these baseline traits through hours of practice; others are simply less coordinated or gifted in other areas; complicating the overall picture is that employing different gameplay strategies can also sometimes compensate for such deficiencies, or for statistically-significant bio/psycho/social differences in individual players.

A key question may be posed: What - if anything - is the adaptive function or value of `play’ in terms of evolution? Do simulated experiences prepare individuals for similar or related real-world situations? In The Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction, Prof. Brian Boyd (2009) [1] convincingly argues that:

`art is a human adaptation that derives from play, a behavior widespread across animal classes and perhaps universal in mammals. Play evolved through the advantages of flexibility; the amount of play in a species correlates with its flexibility of action. Behaviors like escape and pursuit, attack and defense, and social give-and-take can make life-or-death differences. Creatures with more motivation to practice such behaviors in situations of low urgency can fare better at moments of high urgency. Animals that play repeatedly and exuberantly refine skills, extend repertoires, and sharpen sensitivities. Play therefore has evolved to be highly self-rewarding. Because it is compulsive, animals engage in it again and again, incrementally altering muscle tone and neural wiring, strengthening and increasing speed in synaptic pathways, improving their capacity and performance. Humans uniquely inhabit “the cognitive niche”: we gain most of our advantages from intelligence. We therefore have an appetite for information, and especially for pattern, information that falls into meaningful arrays from which we can make rich inferences…We can define art as cognitive play with pattern. Just as play refines behavioral options over time by being self-rewarding, so art increases cognitive skills, repertoires, and sensitivities. A work of art acts like a playground for the mind, a swing or a slide or a merry-go-round of visual or aural or social pattern. Like play, art succeeds by engaging and rewarding attention, since the more frequent and intense our response, the more powerful the neural consequences.’ [1] (bold emphases mine)

As Boyd notes, play itself (as a `self-rewarding’ or autotelic activity) can evoke the flow state. If videogames involve cognitive (as well as physical) `play with pattern’ - such as recognizing patterns of appearance and behavior of in-game enemies (Non-Player Characters), puzzle-solving, `dangerous’ environments, simulated combat, and so forth – then arguably videogames may indeed increase the player’s intelligence. Gardner [37] [38] argues for at least ten different forms of intelligence, including: visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, naturalistic, moral and existential [39]; while evolutionary psychologists Tooby and Cosmides [40] [41] [42] argue for evolved domain-specific brain modules; also as Garlick (2010) notes, `intelligence’ can in fact be summarized in a single concept, namely: understanding [43]. Arguably some and possibly even all of these traits may be increased by a game that includes physical, cognitive, psychological, social, ecological, ethical, moral and economic elements. Regarding core human `survival and reproduction’ skills, cultural theorist and critic Prof. Henry Jenkins [44] [45] [46] notes that certain key differences in typical `boys’ and `girls’ style games - both in the playground since

antiquity, and similarly in videogames - typically involve, on the `male’ side: (1) battles over territory; (2) elimination of competitors; (3) aggression; and, (4) violence; while on the `female’ side, dominant characteristics of gameplay can include: (1) friendships; (2) communication; (3) nurturing; and (4) physical attractiveness. In the evolutionary biocultural view, such characteristics (for all sexes and genders, including LGBT) may also provide beneficial prepatory advantages in life. As literary Darwinism (or, evocriticism) founder Prof. Joseph Carroll (2013) has noted, `Humans have evolved dispositions for survival, mating, parenting, forming social groups, negotiating dominance hierarchies, engaging in collective action, and participating in shared forms of imagination through stories, songs, dance, and visual images.’ [47]. If, as Carroll’s fellow evocritic Brian Boyd [1] argues, play itself, and `play with pattern’ increases cognitive abilities, this suggests that gameplay of any kind increases such skills, abilities and understanding, this would include videogames. `Fun’ gameplay tasks that result in the `flow’ state therefore may be rewarding not merely for the autotelic experience but also as strategy, skill and intelligence (and therefore, `understanding’) enhancers. This is also the reason that pilots use flight simulators, and that `serious games’ are used to simulate real-world events and processes.

3. NARRATIVE TRANSPORTATION THEORY Noting that videogames often can also involve a narrative to support gameplay (or ludology) – or, to serve as an immersive context for the in-game objectives - one theoretical extension of Csikszentmihalyi’s `flow’ theory is `narrative transportation theory’ [27] [28] [29] [30]. According to Van Laer et al (2014):

`Narrative transportation theory proposes that when consumers lose themselves in a story, their attitudes and intentions change to reflect that story (Green 2008). The mental state of narrative transportation can explain the persuasive effect of stories on consumers (Gerrig 1993), who may experience narrative transportation when certain contextual and personal preconditions are met, as Green and Brock (2002) postulate for the transportation-imagery model… narrative transportation occurs whenever the consumer experiences a feeling of entering a world evoked by the narrative because of empathy for the story characters and imagination of the story plot. Given the implications of stories for the narrative persuasion of consumers, nothing is less innocent than a story.’ [30].

Balakrishnan & Sundar (2014) also examine narrative transportation theory in games, finding:

`greater narrative transportation, although detrimental to spatial presence, contributes significantly to enjoyment. This suggests the need for a highly nuanced approach to game design - the complexity of the narrative and the role of the gamer in that narrative must be carefully considered to strike a fine balance between greater enjoyment and greater spatial presence, especially in games where spatial presence is of critical importance.’ [48] Given how similar `narrative transportation’ theory (1993-2014) is to the `flow’ theory (1975-2014) it was derived from, and with its attendant typical characteristics (for example, becoming immersed, or `lost’ in a story and/or a game), it is perhaps unsurprising that players find `fun’ gameplay with, additionally, a compelling story, to cause the typical `flow’ sensation of “time disappearing”. An engaging novel (or, movie) story has the same effect when `narrative transportation’ occurs for a reader (or audience member). Story and gameplay as separate media-entities

often have independent goals, and yet story (or, narrative) clearly is often seamlessly integrated around game mechanics and specific game level objectives by game designers. One goal of game designers, and game story writers therefore, is to co-design (or `co-adapt’) gameplay and story into a holistic synthesis that evokes the flow state in the player, based primarily on the required skills and presented challenges of the game’s specific gameplay mechanics, and likewise a well-integrated and compelling story potentially can potentially multiply this overall effect. It is perhaps small wonder then that many assert that “videogames can be addictive”, if the `flow’ states equates to `happiness’ or, `fun’ [4]. In 2013 GamesRadar magazine published a canonical list of the 25 `Best Story Games’ as voted by their staff [49]; and yet notably, not all games have - or even require – an explicit narrative, for example Tetris, or computer chess. Importantly Csikszentmihalyi’s `flow’ theory applies not just to game creators and players, but indeed to any individual involved in a creative task, including scientists and artists (also songwriters, novelists, poets, and so on) solving creative problems, and thus clearly including game designers, game writers and all staff at a game development studio (programmers, artists, animators, sound designers, music composers, and so on). Given `creative problem solving’ as a generic task, in broad terms, creativity in the DPFi systems model (Csikszentmihalyi) [5] [9] [10] (Simonton) [11], and in evolutionary epistemology (Popper; DT Campbell, Simonton) [6] [7] [8] appears therefore to function the same way, and creatives (scientists, artists) can be motivated by the `flow’ state, such as when game creators undertake the task of creating a videogame. If a game is created that a significant consensus of players subsequently find `fun’ to play, that specific videogame then competes with other (less `fun’) videogames within the same game genre’s economic retail market space, and thus, due to word-of-mouth (or, social networks) reaches a wider comparative audience than the other, competing games. This process of how a game becomes canon, either as a best-seller, an award-winner, a critical success, or by receiving `classic’ acclaim (such as for example chart-topping games in terms of high sales volume, or GamesRadar’s staff-selected list of `best story games ever’, or DICE Award winning games) is thus perhaps best described by the evolutionary algorithm itself, within the DPFi systems model of creativity [9] [5] [25] [50] [10]. It is to the DPFi systems model and the evolutionary algorithm within it, that we now turn.

4. DEFINING `CREATIVITY’ – AND THE SYSTEMS MODEL OF CREATIVITY Possibly due to a dearth of consilience (or interdisciplinary research combining science and the arts) and systems thinking [26], as McIntyre (2012) rightly notes, `Creativity is not what most people think it is.’ [51]. The DPFi systems mechanism (or, evolutionary algorithm) behind creativity itself appears to be a unifying factor across both science and the arts [5] [52] [53] [19] [20] [21]. The simplest version of `the standard definition of creativity’ from the scientific study of creativity within the domain of Psychology is: an idea, process or product (or, a meme in bioculture) that is `new and appropriate’ [54]. A videogame that is judged `creative’ by the field (or, videogame audience) is therefore considered to be `original’ (or, new) and appropriate. `Appropriate’ in this context means: it is indeed still a videogame, without changing or challenging too many current conventions of the domain of videogames. In the classic article Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity [9], and over subsequent years, Csikszentmihalyi [5] [12] [50] [10] presents a model of how creativity in science and the arts works similarly, on

both small (individual) and large (social) scales. Csikszentmihalyi (2006) describes the systems model of creativity:

`An outline of the Systems Model - This environment has two salient aspects: a cultural, or symbolic, aspect which here is called the domain; and a social aspect called the field. Creativity is a process that can be observed only at the intersection where individuals, domains, and fields interact... For creativity to occur, a set of rules and practices must be transmitted from the domain to the individual. The individual must then produce a novel variation in the content of the domain. The variation then must be selected by the field for inclusion in the domain. Creativity occurs when a person makes a change in a domain, a change that will be transmitted through time.’ [50].

This process describes the evolutionary algorithm - of selection, variation and transmission-with-heredity [25] or, viewed another way, `variation, differential survival and reproductive success, and inheritance’ [55]. Therefore with specific regard to videogames, if a consensus (or, a significant majority) of individuals in the videogame field (namely game players, critics, teachers, game developers) recognizes - and agrees - that a specific new game is fun to play, and also is judged `creative’ (new and appropriate) the game is then viewed as canon, or, is selected by an overall consensus in the field (the gameplaying audience) for inclusion into the canon. Notably, some games may also gain a small-yet-loyal fan base, and may be thus generally considered `cult’ canon rather than `popular’ or perhaps `critically acclaimed’ canon; though these distinctions in game culture can often become blurred, and may also overlap: likewise games that simultaneously enjoy `popular’, `critical’ and `cult’ success may well be widely considered `classics’. Over time the popular consensus on particular games can and does change, as the general public’s and critics’ tastes and fashions evolve, and, as what is considered `new’, over time inevitably and gradually becomes `old’ or even clichéd.

Figure 2. Some types of creativity or `canon’ in videogames:

Popular, viral, classic, awards, critical, avant-garde, cult, and - `uncreative’ or `non-canon’. © JT Velikovsky

5. THE DPFi SYSTEMS MODEL AND EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY IN BIOCULTURE One important real-world phenomenon is that videogames that are outstandingly fun to play (or, that deeply immerse the player in the `flow’ state, possibly also using `narrative transportation’) go viral in culture. Individual videogames can be considered as: ideas (the concept of a videogame), processes (including the creation and production of the game, and the gameplay process itself) and, products (a physical game-disc in a box or an online file for download). Ideas, processes and products can all be considered memes in bioculture (see: [11] [3] [5]. Human bioculture is composed of memes (ideas, processes, products) including science, the arts, languages, music, religions, myths, and jokes. Obviously there is no human culture without human society, and no human society without human biology; for this reason `bioculture’ is arguably a more inclusive and accurate term than `culture’ alone, and the notion of a universal human nature [56] [57] [58] [59] can also be considered, and which game designers (and marketers) certainly keep in mind as a statistical Normal Curve while designing, creating, and play-testing games. In short, regarding human nature, people en masse tend to like certain things, and tend to dislike others; these human nature predispositions are likely the result of human bio-psycho-socio-cultural evolution. Successful (or, `fun’) game design caters to what Harvard evolutionary psychologist Prof. Steven Pinker [60] calls picking the evolutionary psychology `locks’ of humans, or, appealing to human universals in gameplay activities, which in this analysis may include: competition, co-operation, pattern recognition, and positive - or even deliberately negative - intellectual, aesthetic and emotional stimulation (such as in popular `survival horror’ or `war/combat’ genre games).

Memes (i.e., ideas, processes and products) are at the centre of the DPFi systems model of creativity [9] [5] [10] and the same DPFi algorithm in memetics can explain why some specific games go viral - as memes - in culture. In Creativity, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) outlines this process, which clearly applies to videogames:

`The role of the Field - What does it take for a new meme to be accepted into the domain? Who has the right to decide whether a new meme is actually an improvement, or simply a mistake to be discarded? In the systems model, the gatekeepers who have the right to add memes to a domain are collectively designated the field. Some domains may have a very small field consisting of a dozen or so scholars across the world. Others, such as electronic engineering, may include many thousands of specialists whose opinion would count in recognizing a viable novelty. For mass-market products such as soft drinks or motion pictures, the field might include not only the small coterie of product developers and critics, but the public at large. For instance, if New Coke is not a part of the culture, it is because although it passed the evaluation of the small field of beverage specialists, it failed to pass the test of public taste.’ [5] Likewise, evolutionary epistemology [7] [6] [35] [19] [20] [21] identifies why some ideas (i.e., knowledge, theories, fashions, styles, art movements, scientific paradigms) spread widely in culture while others do not; likewise when scientific theories, paradigms, or `schools of thought’ are falsified or superseded, they decrease in popularity, as other competing ideas (memes) fill the same evolutionary niche of human minds in the field. Luhmann [13] and van Peer [12] also discuss selection pressure on cultural artifacts (memes, including novels) given that a novel (or, a game) is selected by a consumer at the expense of another

cultural artifact, given finite resources and time. In both designing and analyzing the structure of games, it is therefore possible to view games as memes in culture, and memes (units of culture) themselves, structurally and functionally in bio-psycho-socio-cultural systems, as holon-partons [24].

6. UNITS OF CULTURE (OR: MEMES) AS HOLON-PARTONS Although the domain of Memetics since Richard Dawkins’ landmark work The Selfish Gene (1976) [11] has not yet successfully defined the `unit’ of culture, this paper contends that the structure of the meme - the unit of culture - is the holon-parton.

Figure 3. The holon-parton structure of the meme, the unit of

culture. © JT Velikovsky Creativity scholar Arthur Koestler (1967) defined a `holon’ as something that is a part and a whole at the same time [20]. Quantum physicist Richard P. Feynman [22] [23] independently dubbed the same concept in physics a `parton’ [23]. Koestler [20] also defined a holarchy as a hierarchy of holons, noting the three laws of holarchies, namely that: holon-partons (1) compete and/or co-operate sideways with other holons; (2) integrate with the holon-parton above; and (3) command and control the holon-partons on the level below [19] [20] [21]. These laws are also three of the physical laws of evolution, as seen in the biomathematics of population biology and genetics. A diagram of a holarchy of systems is presented in Figure 4 below, derived from Miller’s Living Systems [60] and Laszlo [26].

Figure 4. An example holarchy-partarchy in biology, derived

from Miller (1978) and Laszlo (1972) © JT Velikovsky

As with competition between organisms of the same species in biology, in bioculture, videogames (as memes, and as inanimate

objects) clearly compete in their `environment’ with other games for player purchasing-dollars and attention, while they also integrate into game genres `above’, and also aim to control and command players’ (attention) on the level `below’. The creation of games as holon-partons, as collections of ideas, processes and products (or, memes) is also shown in Figure 5 below. Memes (ideas, units of culture) are both at the top and bottom of this diagram, as it represents a recursive systems-cybernetic loop over time; the evolutionary algorithm of selection, variation (including combination, mutation and editing) and transmission-with-heredity operates throughout the holarchy below, as an iterative and recursive nonlinear dynamical system.

Figure 5. Holarchy of the videogame domain in bioculture.

© JT Velikovsky There is therefore considerable selection pressure for memes in culture, as there is limited (or, finite) audience attention, money and time in all biocultural domains, and not merely within the domain of videogames. This process of the systems model of creativity, or evolutionary epistemology, or sociocybernetics [26] [62] can be seen as the process of evolution (or, creativity generation) in motion across all human bioculture, operating via the three laws of holarchies in systems. In this view, evolution also operates in bioculture at the level of the meme, when stories (and `story universes’) spread across various media, with transmedia storytelling thus becoming analogous to speciation in biology, although clearly species in biology cannot `naturally’ interbreed without human-aided `artificial selection’ (i.e., genetic engineering).

7. TRANSMEDIA AND EVOLUTION: UNITY AND DIVERSITY `Transmedia storytelling’ has been described by Kinder [63], Jenkins [64], Dena (2009) [65], Gomez (2007) [66], Velikovsky [67] and is formally and legally defined by the Producer’s Guild of America Code of Credits (2010) as: `three (or more) narrative storylines existing within the same fictional universe on [various] platforms’ [68]. Obvious examples include the Star Wars, The Matrix and The Blair Witch Project transmedia story franchises, as narrative universes `distributed’ across movies, games, websites and books. Notably, `transmedia’ is not conventional adaptation of a story to other media (e.g.: a filmed or a game version of a novel), but rather is a story with some similar - and some unique - story elements contained solely within each of the various media platforms. The same laws of the evolutionary algorithm (and thus, holarchies) can be seen to apply to videogames - as to transmedia story-universe narremes, or

components (or, holon-partons of a story universe). Geophysicist Scott Sampson [69] notes, that within evolutionary theory:

`Emphasis has been placed almost entirely on generating diversity, a process referred to as `complexification’, reflecting the reductionist worldview that has driven science for four centuries. Yet science has also begun to explore another key element of evolution: unification, which transcends the biological to encompass the evolution of physical matter. The numerous and dramatic increases in complexity, it turns out, have been achieved largely through a process of integration, with smaller wholes becoming parts of larger wholes. Again and again, we see the progressive development of multipart individuals from simpler forms. Thus, for example, atoms become integrated into molecules, molecules into cells, and cells into organisms. At each higher, emergent stage, older forms are enveloped and incorporated into newer forms, with the end result being a nested, multilevel hierarchy. … Although the process of emergence remains somewhat of a mystery, we can now state with confidence that the epic of evolution has been guided by counterbalancing trends of complexification and unification.’ [69].

This same bio-logic concept in transmedia can be viewed as in Figure 6 below, correlating with the evolutionary notion of `downward causation’ in holon-partons [70]:

Figure 6. Transmedia evolution – unity upwards, and simultaneous diversity downwards. © JT Velikovsky In the diagram above, some Characters and Locations are common to the film, game and novel, while others are platform-unique. In the process of creativity, as these ideas (memes) for additional media (i.e., game, film, novel, website, character weblogs, etc.) occur to - or, are planned by - story creators (and/or game producers), the story diversifies `downwards’ under the canonical enabling constraints of the story universe, while it also unifies `upwards’. The same evolutionary process in bioculture also again therefore appears to be governed by the physical three laws of holarchies; the holon-partons (memes) of games, movies and novels that are each an (`upwards’) integrated part of one `whole transmedia story universe’ (e.g. Star Wars) all `co - operate’ (or operate together) to tell the overall story, and yet as individual media, each meme (game, movie, novel) also competes (sideways) with other games, movies and novels for audience attention as the transmedia story continually `speciates’ downwards (and / or `sideways’) into different media (movies, games, novels, etc.). Boyd (2010) [71] also notes that:

`Artists of any kind will seek to minimize composition effort - by operating within existing artistic modes and traditions, by

recombining available models, by adopting readymade subjects - as much as is compatible with maximizing the attention and status a work can earn. Like artists, audiences too seek a favourable cost-benefit ratio.’ [71].

Thus, both game creators (game designers, writers, producers, marketers) as well as game players aim to maximize their own `cost-benefit ratio’ with individual videogames and storyworlds: game designers aim to create the best possible (and, the most `fun’) game for the least financial (and, time) cost; players also aim to find the games that provide the most fun, and typically seek to purchase them, for the least relative cost. The latter is also where `replay value’ becomes an added benefit in games.

8. GAME DESIGN, AND GAMEPLAY, AS `COGNITIVE PLAY WITH PATTERN’ The use of Boyd’s [1] arguments for art as `cognitive play with pattern’ in this paper raises an obvious assumption: Can videogames even be considered `Art’? Aside from `cognitive play with pattern’ [1], another general definition of `art’ comes from the evocritic (or evolutionary bio-aestheticist) Dennis Dutton’s (2010) The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution [72], whereby Dutton identifies twelve `cluster criteria’ for art: (1) Direct pleasure… (2) Skill and virtuosity… (3) Style… (4) Novelty and creativity… (5) Criticism… (6) Representation… (7) Special focus… (8) Expressive individuality… (9) Emotional saturation… (10) Intellectual challenge… (11) Art traditions and institutions… [and] (12) Imaginative experience. [72].

Certain specific (if, not all) videogames, such as typical DICE Award-winning games would indeed appear to satisfy all twelve of Dutton’s suggested cluster criteria. However as Sir Karl Popper has noted, definitions are not important [6]; words are often inadequate to accurately describe real-world phenomena, even as an approximation to reality.

The process of game design itself can certainly be viewed as a form of `cognitive play with pattern’, as game designers create new patterns of gameplay puzzles, traps and hazards, and patterns of behavior for artificially-intelligent Non-Player Characters (or, in-game enemies) and environmental objects in games. Indeed if these patterns are not a variation to some extent of those in past successful games, the game can easily be criticized as merely an `unoriginal’ (or non-creative) `clone’ of other games - or, old wine in new glasses. Likewise, given the agency-structure duality in games [73], on repeat play-throughs (and attempts at game level completion), players can change the precise patterns of their own passage through a game level, adjusting their own tactics and strategies in order to `best’ the game in the shortest time, in the Popperian process of `expectation, and trial-and-error’ that is generally characteristic of the scientific method.

9. CAN VIDEOGAMES INCREASE PLAYER INTELLIGENCE? Capra & Luisi (2014) suggest `intelligence’ is `the capability of solving problems’ [70]. If we consider Gardner’s ten types of intelligence [39]; if we use Tooby and Cosmides’ evolutionary psychology domain-specific brain modules [40] [41] [42]; or as per Garlick (2010) if we consider intelligence merely as meaning `understanding’ [43], videogames do arguably improve problem-solving abilities (such as: how to complete a given game level, with all its sub-problems and challenges presented within the gameplay). In all four above definitions of intelligence, certain videogames would indeed appear to improve intelligence; also extant research demonstrates that the skills acquired through

gameplay can hone and increase such capabilities: in 2013, scientists from Queen Mary University of London and University College London (UCL) tested the cognitive flexibility of 72 volunteers after playing the games Starcraft and The Sims, and concluded that certain types of games (interestingly, Starcraft more so than The Sims) can indeed increase cognitive flexibility, or intelligence [74]. Likewise in Improving Intelligence: A Literature Review, Buschkuehl & Jaeggi note that Basak, Boot, Voss & Kramer (2008) found that real-time strategy video games can slow cognitive decline in older adults (Buschkuehl & Jaeggi 2010) [75]. Conversely, in 2014 Przybylski et al found that badly-designed videogames (or games that deliberately impede player competence) can foster aggression in players [76]. However it is also possible that such frustrating games might also give players the opportunity to learn new coping strategies when in negative emotional states; in itself, possibly a form of emotional intelligence.

10. THE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM IN CREATIVITY: SELECTION, VARIATION AND TRANSMISSION In biological (or, genetic) evolution, genotypes (genes), phenotypes (individuals) and extended phenotypes (biocultural artifacts) are selected (via natural, artificial, unconscious and sexual selection), varied (i.e.: genomes are combined 50%, when DNA strands combine) and transmitted-with-heredity (as the newly-created individual enters the gene pool) and this iterative-and-recursive algorithm repeats (unless the new individual does not reproduce, for any number of reasons) resulting in speciation over time. Likewise, in biocultural (or, memetic) evolution, memes (ideas, processes, products) rather than genotypes, phenotypes and extended phenotypes are selected (when game designers select the better `adapted’ game ideas from culture, and indeed from their own many creative ideas; when story writers select the better `adapted’ story ideas from culture and from their own many ideas); then varied (for example, combining two ideas to create a new idea, such as combing genres of `driving’ games and `shooting’ games to create a `driver-shooter’ genre game) and transmitted into bioculture (when the game is finally released to the public). In this view, all creativity (both genetic and memetic, in bioculture) emerges from the same evolutionary algorithm, with selection pressures operating at all stages and levels of the process and on all system levels of the holarchy-partarchy. Game structures themselves (as memes, or memeplexes) can also be analyzed in terms of their holon-partons, as in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7. Videogame structures as memes - and memeplexes

(or holon-partons – and, holarchy-partarchies). © JT Velikovsky

Each meme (and memeplex) shown above (i.e.: videogame, game level, environment, building, `room’, etc) functions as a holon-parton: integrating into the level above, co-operating and competing on the same level, and commanding and controlling the holon-partons (memes) on the level below. Here too we can see the evolutionary tendency, in that simultaneously unity moves `upwards’, and diversity `downwards’; indeed if not, the game is not a cohesive whole (and may be considered `badly-designed’).

11. CONCLUSIONS Biocultural evolutionary systems theory may therefore suggest that the process of how `fun’ games become canon, and also how the popularity or success of specific canonical videogames - and transmedia – all operate via the DPFi systems model of creativity [9] [5] [10]; its theoretical equivalent in the domain of science, the blind-variation and selective-retention mechanism in evolutionary epistemology [6] [7] [8], and likewise the inherent biocultural evolutionary algorithm in memetics of selection, variation and transmission-with-heredity [25] [8]; and also evidently that `flow’ theory in creativity [2] [4] [5] can equate to the `fun’ factor in games. `Narrative transportation’ theory in fiction [27] [28] [29] [30] also appears to explain some part of the `fun’ factor of `story’ games, and conversely, badly-designed (and/or frustrating) games that are no fun may potentially increase player aggression. In broad view therefore, Brian Boyd’s general theory of creativity in the arts as `cognitive play with pattern’, and the concept of `cost-benefit ratios in the arts’ [1] [71] suggests that gameplay of any kind may potentially enhance animal intelligence, and therefore that certain high-quality (or, fun) videogames may indeed also enhance human intelligence. This line of enquiry therefore adopts a biocultural evolutionary systems approach, aiming to incorporate the holistic integrated biological, cognitive, social, biocultural and ecological view such as that advanced within Laszlo’s systems-theory philosophy [26], also The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision [70], and A Hierarchy of Memes [77]. Suggestions for further research include further consilient studies in this area - namely of how `flow’ enables certain videogames to become canon (whether popular, critical, viral, `classic’ or `cult’ success), and also may enhance human intelligence - using the evolutionary biocultural systems view, and thus also the DPFi (1988-2014) systems model of creativity. One systems-theoretical tool for examining such mechanisms in bioculture includes Creative Practice Theory [78], a synthesis of the DPFi systems model of creativity, and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s practice theory of cultural production [79].

12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Dr Michael Meany of University of Newcastle NSW for informing me of IE2004, and also to Distinguished Professors Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Dean Keith Simonton; also to Professors Brian Boyd, Joseph Carroll, Dan Dennett and Sue Blackmore; Drs Phillip McIntyre and Susan Kerrigan; Professors Henry Jenkins and Marsha Kinder, Dr Christy Dena, Dr Ernest W Adams, Noah Falstein, Jesse Schell, also Chris Mosely and Marcus Gibson, Tim Peterson and Dr Martin Farncombe for all the helpful discussions. Any errors are the author’s alone.

13. REFERENCES [1] Boyd, B. 2009. On The Origin Of Stories: Evolution,

Cognition, and Fiction, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2009, pp. 13-15)

[2] Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, 1st edn, The Jossey-Bass Behavioral Science series, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

[3] Csikszentmihalyi, M & Massimini, F. 1985. 'On The Psychological Selection Of Bio-Cultural Information', New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, 115-38.

[4] Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1st edn, Harper & Row, New York.

[5] Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1st edn, HarperCollins, New York. (1996, pp.111-3)

[6] Popper, KR 1963, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Essays and Lectures), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. (see p.29 for Popper’s argument that definitions are not important.)

[7] Campbell, DT 1974, 'Evolutionary Epistemology', in PA Schlipp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, La Salle, Illinois, vol. 1, 413-59.

[8] Simonton, DK. 2010. 'Creative Thought as Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention: Combinatorial Models of Exceptional Creativity', Physics of Life Reviews, vol. 7 (June), no. 2, 156-79.

[9] Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. 'Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity', in RJ Sternberg (ed.), The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, New York, 325–39.

[10] Csikszentmihalyi, M 2014, 'The Systems Model of Creativity and Its Applications', in DK Simonton (ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Genius, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, 533-545.

[11] Simonton, DK. 2012. 'Fields, Domains, and Individuals (chapter)', in MD Mumford (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, 67-86.

[12] Van Peer, W. 1997. 'Two Laws of Literary Canon: Growth and Predictability in Canon Formation', Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, vol. 30, no. 2, 113-32.

[13] Luhmann, N. 1987. Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

[14] Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[15] Dennett, DC. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon & Schuster, New York.

[16] Blackmore, SJ 1999, The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[17] Blackmore, SJ 2006, 'Memes, Creativity and Consciousness', Aesthetica Magazine, vol. 13 (May, June, July), no. 50.

[18] Blackmore, SJ 2007, `Memes, Minds and Imagination’, SusanBlackmore.co.uk, Oxford University Press, viewed 30th July 2014, <http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ImaginativeMinds2007.htm>

[19] Koestler, A 1964, The Act of Creation, Hutchinson, London.

[20] Koestler, A. 1967. The Ghost In The Machine, Hutchinson, London. (see p.48 for the definition of the holon)

[21] Koestler, A. 1978. Janus: A Summing Up, Hutchinson, London.

[22] Feynman, RP. 1972. Photon-hadron Interactions, Frontiers in Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Reading, Mass.

[23] Feynman, RP [1975] in 2005, Don't You Have Time To Think?, Allen Lane (Penguin), London. (see p. 278 for `partons’)

[24] Velikovsky, JT. 2013, 2014. `The Holon-Parton Structure of the Meme (and, Narreme): A Structure for the Unit of Culture’, in StoryAlity, Wordpress.com, Sydney. http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/storyality-100-the-holonic-structure-of-the-meme-the-unit-of-culture/

[25] Csikszentmihalyi, M & Wolfe, R. 2000. 'New Conceptions and Research Approaches to Creativity: Implications for a Systems Perspective of Creativity in Education', in KA Heller, FJ Mönks, R Subotnik & RJ Sternberg (eds), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2nd ed. edn, Elsevier, Amsterdam; Oxford.

[26] Laszlo, E. 1972. Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, Gordon and Breach, New York. For details of the `evolutionary systems view’ in physics, biology and society, see in particular, pp. 88-97, and pp. 176-80 in Laszlo 1972.

[27] Gerrig, RJ. 1993. Experiencing Narrative Worlds, Yale University Press, New Haven.

[28] Green, MC & Brock, TC. 2000. 'The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 79, 701–21.

[29] Green, MC, Chatham, C & Sestir, MA. 2012. 'Emotion and Transportation into Fact and Fiction', Scientific Study of Literature, vol. 2, no. 1, 37 – 59

[30] Van Laer, T, De Ruyter, K, Visconti, LM & Wetzels, M. 2014. 'The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’ Narrative Transportation', Journal Of Consumer Research, vol. 40, 797-817. See p.798 for the quote.

[31] Boyle, EA, Connolly, TM, Hainey, T & Boyle, JM 2012, 'Engagement in Digital Entertainment Games: A Systematic Review', Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, pp. 771-80. (for the cited excerpt see Boyle et al 2012, p. 778)

[32] Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). `GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games’, Computers in Entertainment, 3 (3), 1–24. See also p. 10.

[33] Chen, J (2006), `Flow In Games: Flow Theory’, JenovaChen.com, http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/flowtheory.htm (accessed 14th August 2014)

[34] Chen, J. (2007) `Flow In Games (and Everything Else)’, Communications Of The ACM, April 2007, Vol. 50 (4).

[35] Popper, KR. 1999. All Life is Problem Solving, Routledge, London; New York. See p. 3 for science as `trial and error’.

[36] Maynard Smith, J. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.

[37] Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York.

[38] Gardner, H. 1991. The Unschooled Mind: How children think and how schools should teach, Basic Books Inc., New York.

[39] Smith, M. 2002, 2008. Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences and Education, YMCA George Williams College (infed.org), accessed 8th August 2014,

http://infed.org/mobi/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-and-education/

[40] Cosmides, L, Tooby, J. 1997. 'The Multimodular Nature of Human Intelligence', in A Schiebel & JW Schopf (eds.), Origin and Evolution of Intelligence, Center for the Study of the Evolution and Origin of Life, UCLA, Los Angeles.

[41] Tooby, J & Cosmides, L. 2005. 'Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Pyschology', in D Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

[42] Tooby J & Cosmides L. 2010. ‘Does Beauty Build Adapted Minds?’ in Boyd, B, Carroll, J & Gottschall, J (eds), Evolution, Literature and Film: A Reader, Columbia University Press, New York, 174-183.

[43] Garlick, D. 2010. Intelligence and the Brain: Solving the Mystery of Why People Differ in IQ and How a Child Can Be a Genius, Aesop Press, Burbank. (p. 11)

[44] Jenkins, H. 2001. 'Videogames on the Threshold of Art’, guest lecture, University of South Australia, Magill campus, 13th June 2001, Adelaide.

[45] Jenkins, H. 2004. First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.; London.

[46] Jenkins, H. 2007. The Wow Climax: Tracing the Emotional Impact of Popular Culture, New York University Press, New York.

[47] Carroll, J. 2013. 'Correcting for The Corrections: A Darwinian Critique of a Foucauldian Novel', Style, vol. 47, no. 1, 87-118. (see p. 90)

[48] Balakrishnan, Bimal & Sundar, S. Shyam (2011) `Where Am I? How Can I Get There? Impact of Navigability and Narrative Transportation on Spatial Presence’, Human–Computer Interaction, 26:3, 161-204. DOI = http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2011.601689 (see p.197)

[49] GamesRadar Staff. 2013. `The Best Videogame Stories Ever’, GamesRadar.com, http://www.gamesradar.com/, http://www.gamesradar.com/the-best-videogame-stories-ever/ accessed 14th August 2014

[50] Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2006. 'A Systems Perspective on Creativity', in J Henry (ed.), Creative Management and Development, SAGE, London, 3-17. (see p.3)

[51] McIntyre, P. 2012. Creativity and Cultural Production: Issues for Media Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke; New York. (p. 3)

[52] Simonton, DK 2004, Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.

[53] Simonton, DK 2011, Great Flicks: Scientific Studies of Cinematic Creativity and Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford.

[54] Runco, MA & Jaeger, GJ. 2012. 'The Standard Definition of Creativity', Creativity Research Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, 92-6.

[55] Bateson (2014) in Capra, F & Luisi, PL 2014, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (see p.200)

[56] Wilson, EO. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, 1st edn, Knopf: Distributed by Random House, New York.

[57] Carroll, J. 1995. Evolution and Literary Theory, University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

[58] Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Viking, New York.

[59] Brown, DE. 1991. Human Universals, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

[60] Pinker, S. 1997. How The Mind Works, Norton, New York. [61] Miller, JG. 1978. Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York. [62] Luhmann, N. 1995. Social Systems, Writing Science,

Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.

[63] Kinder, M. 1991. Playing With Power In Movies, Television, And Video Games: From Muppet Babies To Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, University of California Press, Berkeley.

[64] Jenkins, H. 2003. Transmedia Storytelling, MIT Technology Review, MIT, viewed 8th August 24th 2014, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/401760/transmedia-storytelling

[65] Dena, C. 2009. Transmedia Practice: Theorising The Practice Of Expressing A Fictional World Across Distinct Media And Environments, Department of Media and Communications, PhD Thesis, Sydney: University of Sydney, University of Sydney, http://www.christydena.com/phd/

[66] Gomez, J. 2007. The 8 Defining Characteristics of a Transmedia Production, PGANMC, viewed 8th August 2014, http://pganmc.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/pga-member-jeff-gomez-left-assembled.html

[67] Velikovsky JT. 2014. In: Transmedia Practice: A Collective Approach, (eds:) Polson D, Cook A-M, Velikovsky JT, & Brackin A. ID-Press, London.

[68] PGA. 2010. Producers Guild Of America Code Of Credits - New Media, PGA, http://www.producersguild.org/?page=coc_nm#transmedia

[69] Sampson S. 2010. `Evolution Changes Everything’ in Brockman, J (ed), This Will Change Everything: Ideas That Will Shape the Future, 1st edn, Harper Perennial, New York, NY.

[70] Capra, F & Luisi, PL. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

(see p. 206 for `downward causation’; see p. 250 for intelligence as problem-solving)

[71] Boyd, B. 2010. 'Art and Evolution: The Avant-Garde as Test Case – Spiegelman in The Narrative Corpse', in B Boyd, J Carroll & J Gottschall (eds), Evolution, Literature and Film: A Reader, Columbia University Press, New York. (see p. 238)

[72] Dutton, D. 2010. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford. (see pp. 51-61 for the twelve `cluster criteria’ for “art”.)

[73] Velikovsky JT. 2012. 'Animation and Narrative in Videogames: A case study – Looney Tunes: Acme Arsenal', Animation Practice, Process & Production, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 11-48 (38). (see pp. 39-41 for `agency-structure’ duality.)

[74] Glass, Brian D., Maddox, Todd W., Love, Bradley C. 2013. `Real-Time Strategy Game Training: Emergence of a Cognitive Flexibility Trait’, PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (8): e70350 DOI = 10.1371/journal.pone.0070350

[75] Buschkuehl M & Jaeggi SM. 2010. `Improving Intelligence: A Literature Review.’ Swiss Medical Weekly. May; 140 (19-20), 266-72. DOI = smw-12852.

[76] Przybylski, Andrew K.; Deci, Edward L.; Rigby, C. Scott; Ryan, Richard M. 2014. `Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 106 (3), Mar 2014, pp. 441-457. DOI = 10.1037/a0034820

[77] Velikovsky JT. 2014. `A Hierarchy of Memes’, in Practical Memetics, (ed: Dr Martin Farncombe). http://www.practicalmemetics.com/index.php/memetics-101/202-mem-101-holons.html?showall=1&limitstart= accessed 14th August 2014.

[78] Velikovsky, JT. 2012. `Creative Practice Theory’, in StoryAlity, Wordpress.com, Sydney. http://storyality.wordpress.com/creative-practice-theory/

[79] Bourdieu, P & Johnson, RE. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Columbia University Press, New York.