Skepticus: One more thing, Grasshopper!

Grasshopper: Yes?

S: Could you summarize our dialogue in 350 words?

G: I’m sorry, Skepticus, but I don’t think I understand. Why would you want to do something like that?

S: Well, I just recalled that the article requires an abstract of 350 words, and I know you are good with small talk.

G: Oh my. You must be aware that cutting the dialogue in 350 words misses our whole point, which was not to provide a definition for the videogame, but to participate in the process of defining it.

S: I am certainly aware of that, but I cannot break the rules. Every article must have an abstract.

G: Well, ok then. How about saying that you suggest performance evaluation as the aspect that distinguishes videogames from games?

S: I think they want a bit more.

G: Then just add that you employ the rhetoric of Socratic dialogue, and that you also make some defending notes for using it as an instrument for academic communication.

S: Are you sure about the latter part? We did not make too many “defending notes” on that topic, to be honest.

G: I guess the article itself functions as the “defending note” here, provided the reader finds it productive. And that’s a gaming journal, right? I’m sure they see the importance of exploring the ongoing ludification of culture in the scholarly field as well.

S: I will think about that. I might instead mention the part where we discuss computational artifactuality as the element that enables performance evaluation, or perhaps the problematization of “winning” and “losing” in videogames.

G: You can work that out; just remember not to overlook it. The abstract is, after all, the most read section of every article.