From Manual to Automated to Digital: On Transmediality,Technological Specificity,and Playful Practice in Mahjong

Abstract

Through a case study of variations in the game of Mahjong differing from each other in terms of the extent of technological assistance involved, this article sheds light on questions of transmediality and technological specificity of games and play. It argues that while the variations in Mahjong can be described as sitting together in a family resemblance, the specificities of the technologies and the sociocultural contexts involved give rise to new kinds of playful practices that are not reducible to the “transmedial Mahjong” but whose understanding nevertheless necessitates knowledge of the rules and conventions of Mahjong. This not only casts critical light on how the “ludological” paradigm of game studies has defined its object of study but also prompts reconsideration of the role of technology when applying perspectives that emphasize the processual nature of games.

Keywords

Mahjong transmediality technology play China

Introduction

The game of Mahjong is an integral part of both contemporary and historical culture in both Hong Kong and greater China. As an extremely popular pastime at all levels and in all corners of Hong Kong society, it has been incorporated into a variety of technocultural contexts. These range from technologically assisted and legally regulated gaming parlors to restaurant backrooms, family gatherings, and the latest smartphones. Some hospitals and elderly care centers in Hong Kong even include “Mahjong therapy” on the residents’ agendas (Cheng, Chan, Yu, 2006).

Mahjong has been around for ages. Imagine Confucius, one of the alleged inventors of Mahjong, time traveling from 500 BC to 2017. If someone handed him a smartphone with Hong Kong Mahjong Club (2014), he just might be able to join in the game, and, if someone showed him a Mahjong movie like Tricky Master (2003), perhaps not all of the plot would be lost on him. Given that the game’s core concept of four players handling tiles around a table has not changed much over time, it is relevant to question the use of a single game title to describe a range of technological specificities that afford distinct, potentially novel forms of playful practice.

Our interest revolves around the possible “transmediality” of Mahjong. In the context of media studies, the notion of transmediality has its roots in discussions about how narratives can move between media (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Rajewski, 2005; Ryan & Thon, 2014; Wolf, 2001). Jenkins (2006) stresses that “transmedia storytelling” is specifically about presenting unique aspects of a story using various media in contrast to repeating the same story on different media. In the discourses of game design and human–computer interaction, “transmedial access” has been used to refer to games that afford players the ability to use a variety of devices (i.e., “media”), for example, both a gaming console and a smartphone to access their ongoing game sessions (Bardzell, Wu, Bardzell, & Quagliara, 2007). Within game studies however, Juul (2003) and Eskelinen (2012) studied how games, specifically, can be transmedial and suggested that “games have their own transmediality that should not [be] confused with or subsumed into other kinds of transmediality” (2012, p. 256). Following Juul and Eskelinen, we consider the notion of transmediality as referring to the idea that the “same game” could be manifested in a number of different material versions: for example, that a table-top analogue Mahjong with tiles, a Mahjong app on a smartphone, and a Mahjong game on a PC could all be, regardless of their differences, considered as games of Mahjong.

In this article, we focus on the phenomenon of Mahjong as a case study through which to shed light on the transmediality and technological specificity of games. We are motivated, on the one hand, by its extremely wide sociocultural acceptance and pervasiveness in society leading to a diversity of forms to be looked at and, on the other hand, by the relative historical rigidity and fixity of its rules and playing contexts. Building on the study of games and game cultures, play theory, and philosophy of technology, we investigate the various technocultural forms that the game takes in Hong Kong and beyond, ranging from single-player mobile “games” to both mechanically assisted and purely manual, physical versions of Mahjong. We ask: (How) does Mahjong move between media? How do the different techno-cultural configurations of Mahjong give rise to variations in gameplay practice? To what extent is it meaningful to describe the Mahjongs one can encounter in everyday life in Hong Kong as one and the same game? Finally, from the analysis of Mahjong, is there something to be learned about transmediality of technological games and play in general?

While the primary contribution of this article is theoretical, pertaining to the concept of transmediality in game studies, the discussion is based on a mix of game analysis from a first-person perspective and ethnographic research on other players. Finding our methodological clues in the notions of “playing research” (Aarseth, 2003) and “empathetic analysis” of games (Leino, 2012a), we look at versions of Mahjong as played by ourselves and relate the insights gained to a set of empirical materials and vice versa. Our empirical materials comprise a survey, interviews, and participant observation notes collected online and in Mahjong parlors, game arcades, restaurant backrooms, beaches, and private residences in Hong Kong.

The outline of this article is as follows. First, we briefly introduce the history of Mahjong, its rules, and its status as a cultural phenomenon in East Asia, particularly in Hong Kong. These are followed by an introduction to the concept of transmediality in the context of games, which also serves to outline the research problem at hand. We then describe our research materials and methodology and proceed to analyze instances of technological involvement in Mahjong. This discussion is structured around two interstices emerging from the material, namely, those between manually and automatically shuffled analogue, physical versions, and between analogue and digital versions of Mahjong. We conclude by feeding back the insights from this analysis onto the concept of transmediality, discussing the implications of our insights on the methodology of game analysis and reflecting upon the role of technological materiality in the evolution of Mahjong and the implications of the notion of transmediality for the study of technological games and play.

The Game of Mahjong

Mahjong, a 136-piece (or more) tile game traditionally for four players, is widely played all across East Asia. While it most likely originates from a Ming Dynasty card game, one myth suggests that Confucius developed the game in around 500 BC. While, regionally, Mahjong rule sets vary slightly, the basic rules are shared by most variations. A Mahjong tile set is similar to a deck of playing cards, which, according to the ethnographer and early games scholar Stewart Culin (1924, quoted in Lyman, 1995, p. 230), originates from Mahjong. A set of Mahjong tiles consists of three different numbered sets of “suited tiles” (bamboo, stones, and characters) and two sets of “honor tiles” (dragons and winds). The goal in Mahjong is to collect tiles and combine them into a winning hand with the maximum worth (“fan value”). A winning hand consists of different “melds,” that is, sets of tiles, such as sets of three identical tiles (“pong”) and/or sets of three suited tiles in sequence (“chow”) in varying combinations and a pair of two identical tiles. The combination of melds in the hand is the most important factor in determining the fan value of a winning hand.

In its traditional analogue and manual form, actual Mahjong gameplay is preceded by certain preparations. These start with a shuffling phase, during which the players’ hands join in a rhythmic and synchronous circular movement—known in Cantonese as “dry swimming” (游乾水, jau4 gon1 seoi2) —to ensure an efficient mixing of the tiles on the table. After the shuffling is complete, each player collects 34 tiles and arranges them into one of the four “walls” (see Figure 1). Preparations continue with the “dealing” phase: One of the players rolls dice to define the location in the walls from where the first tile is picked and players take turns to draw tiles from the wall until each player has 13 tiles, forming their initial “hands” (14 for the starting player). Notably, the preparations have a certain ritualistic character: A strict order of procedure, involving details such as the direction of counting of the tiles on the wall to determine the starting location, must be followed, although deviating from the order would have no significant implications in regard to the randomness achieved.

Figure 1.

Preparations are underway: Tiles are being picked from the four “walls.”

The actual gameplay of Mahjong is turn based. On their turn, a player picks up one tile from the wall and discards one tile into the discard “pile” on the table at the center of the wall. Exceptions to this order occur when a turn “jumps” to a player who is able and wishes to complete a meld. To complete (or, in some cases, amend) a meld, a player can pick up the third (or fourth) tile required for the meld immediately after it has been discarded by another player. After completing a meld, the player discards one tile and passes on the turn. The game continues until one of the players has completed a winning hand. Other players pay to the winner according to the fan value of the hand. How the three nonwinners share the financial loss depends on where the last tile required for the winning hand came from: If the winner picked up the last tile from the wall, the three players pay to the winner in equal shares. If another player discarded the last tile picked up by the winner, the discarding player pays alone. If none of the players have been able to complete a winning hand before the walls have been consumed, the game ends in a tie. Mahjong is usually played in rounds. A round is considered complete when all players around the table have had the chance to start a game once.

Mahjong shares a number of traits and characteristics with games such as Chess, Rummy, Canasta, Bridge, and Poker. For example, all are multiplayer games facilitating social exchanges in and around themselves, involve both chance and skill, make use of physical game elements such as a board and tokens, have been transformed into a variety of digital forms preserving some of their original elements, and may involve gambling. Thus, much of the argument concerning the transmediality and technological specificity of Mahjong in this article could be applied to these similar games, too.

Mahjong as Played in Hong Kong

Mahjong is extremely pervasive as both a casual pastime and a socially acceptable form of gambling in Hong Kong. The local genre of “gambling movies” (Chan, 2010) often portrays imaginary players’ supernatural gambling abilities and virtuosic, mischievous handling of the Mahjong tiles. Despite the fact that in the cultural context of Hong Kong Mahjong-playing often involves money, the game does not appear to carry the stigma of deviant behavior and problematic gambling sometimes associated with, for example, Poker (e.g., Hardy, 2006; Radburn & Horsley 2011). Mahjong functions also as an excuse for getting together and sharing food, drinks, and gossip. Most Hongkongers possess at least rudimentary Mahjong skills commonly acquired at an early age, which, while perhaps not always being sufficient to win significant sums of money in a competitive setting, allow participation in the game for the sake of the social interaction it facilitates. Those who prefer to play Mahjong primarily for financial rather than social gains attend “Mahjong schools” licensed by the Government of Hong Kong. These are de facto venues for legalized Mahjong gambling. (For clarity’s sake, in the following, we shall call these venues Mahjong parlors.)

Various analogue, mechanical, digital, and fictional versions of Mahjong exist, embedded in different sociocultural contexts. At the Mahjong parlors, playing is commonly assisted by an automated shuffling table, which, as we will argue, has prominent effects on the nature of gameplay. Mobile game developers across Asia have converted different local Mahjong rule sets into digital games with varying degrees of narrative content. These mobile versions can be typically seen being played to fill in idle moments in public transport while in transit or during breaks at work. The mobile games often replace human opponents with artificial intelligence (AI) opponents or provide access to online play. Game arcades commonly feature single-player Mahjong machines with touch screen interfaces allowing players to practice their skills against AI opponents and possibly also provide access to online competitive play. The digital versions, we argue, lack many qualities generally associated with Mahjong but afford new kinds of play practices.

Transmedial Mahjong

The wide variety of activities colloquially grouped under the notion of Mahjong—for example, a single-player mobile game, white-knuckle gambling, and a pastime at a family gathering—prompts questions regarding the similarities and differences between these forms. As suggested before, these questions point at the direction of transmediality as defined in the field of game studies (Eskelinen, 2012; Juul, 2003, 2005) rather than to its broader use within media studies that emphasizes stories (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Rajewski, 2005; Ryan & Thon, 2014; Wolf, 2001) or what “transmedial access” means in the field of human–computer interaction (e.g., Bardzell et al., 2007). Juul (2003, 2005) and Eskelinen (2012) suggest that the ways in which games are transmedial differ from those of, for example, stories and can be traced back to games’ ontological makeup. Eskelinen notes that this fundamental difference exists because games require users’ input and build on systemic structures.

The claim about a form of transmediality specific to games, that is, about a “ludological” concept of transmediality, builds on conceptualizing games primarily in terms of their immaterial constituents. In Juul’s understanding, games are not tied to any specific medium but “can move between different media—sometimes with ease, sometimes with great difficulty” (Juul, 2005, p. 48). Juul (2005, p. 48) further notes that “there is no set of equipment or material support common to all games.”. Paraphrasing Juul, Eskelinen (2012) goes on to suggest that “instead, there is common immaterial support: the upholding of rules that can be performed by both humans or computers” (p. 253). In other words, Eskelinen postulates that the specific feature of the transmediality of games, compared to transmediality of, for example, stories, is the possibility that the task of upholding both the rules and the game state can be delegated to humans (e.g., the players or a game master with the help of physical devices such as boards, tokens, paper, and pens) and/or computers alike. Juul acknowledges that changes do happen when games move from physical to computer versions and distinguishes two kinds of such movements: “implementation” and “adaptation” (2003, p. 48). In implementations, “all the possible game states in the computer version” are “unambiguously” mapped to correspond with the game states of the physical version. Juul’s example of implementation is card games on computers. In adaptations, meanwhile, important details of the original are lost in translation: Juul uses the example of “sports games on computers” to note that in their cases “much detail is lost because the physics model of the computer program is a simplification of the real world, and in the interface because the video game players’ body is not part of the game state” (2003, pp. 43–44).

To illustrate this concept of transmediality, let us consider Hong Kong Mahjong Club, a single-player Mahjong game for the Android platform and, with around million downloads, the most popular Mahjong app in the Google Play store. From the perspective that assumes games to be transmedial, Hong Kong Mahjong Club and the Mahjong played on a table with physical tiles would be the same game, Hong Kong Mahjong Club is an implementation of the original as in both cases the same rules and game states appear, even if upheld by different means. However, despite their similarities in terms of rules and game states, a number of key differences exist between them. These differences include how tiles are shuffled and dealt; how turns take place; how rules are administered; how scores are counted; how a player’s tiles are arranged in their hand; what kind of information of the game state is available to the player; the pacing of the game; interaction possibilities with other players; visual, auditory, and tactile feedback and feel; and how the gambling elements are integrated, among others. Notably, only some of these differences can be attributed to the “transmedial” aspects of Mahjong, that is, the rules and the game states, but appear in relation to specificities of the material, rather than immaterial, support involved. Hong Kong Mahjong Club and the original game played with tiles on a table are perhaps the two extremities on the continuum of technological involvement in Mahjong. Comparisons between these two contrasting examples already show that there is potentially some play around the games-specific concept of transmediality. In the following sections, by looking at how various other examples of Mahjong situate on this continuum, we hope to highlight some examples of the contribution of materiality to playful practice. We will gain insight into how a single set of original rules has been transformed to match various significantly different technological platforms and play contexts. Finally, we will also be able to evaluate the extent to which the perspective emphasizing the transmediality of games can account for gameplay as an ontological hybrid, “encompassing experiential, processual, and material qualities” (Leino, 2012b, p. 73).

Research Materials and Methodology

We have taken methodological clues from Aarseth’s (2003) notion of “playing research” and combined game analysis with empirical approaches, such as survey, follow-up interviews, and participant observation. This has allowed us to pay attention to Mahjong not only as an abstract system of rules and as actual instances of gameplay activity making use of various technologies but also to Mahjong as a socio and media-cultural phenomenon. This approach appears to be in line with best practices of game studies: Consider how Aarseth, when delineating what could be considered a methodology for game studies, stresses the importance of playing a game as a means of gathering information about it while noting that it should be combined with other sources.

For any kind of game, there are three main ways of acquiring knowledge about it. Firstly, we can study the design, rules and mechanics of the game (…). Secondly, we can observe others play, or read their reports and reviews, and hope that their knowledge is representative and their play competent. Thirdly, we can play the game ourselves. While all methods are valid, the third way is clearly the best, especially if combined or reinforced by the other two. (Aarseth, 2003, p. 3)

As relatively active Mahjong players, we not only have good access to enthusiastic players but also can join the table ourselves. Thus, the game of Mahjong in its various forms—both as activities and experiences we have been part of, and, as technological, ludic, perhaps even textual objects affording hermeneutic analysis—makes up our “primary material” (Aarseth, 2003). In total, we studied eight versions of Mahjong as listed in Table 1. Single-player games are marked with a gray background. Five of the remaining versions are multiplayer configurations of the game. With a nod to Aarseth’s suggestion that “games are performance-oriented, and our own performance might not be the best source, especially when we are analysing it ourselves” (2003, p. 7), we admit that our knowledge of the game remains limited, especially in respect to advanced rules. Thus, we have complemented the insights from game analysis with “secondary materials” (Aarseth, 2003, p. 6) acquired through “nonplaying analysis” methods.

Table 1.

The Versions of Mahjong Studied in this Article.

Physical face-to-face settings (4 players)	Without any mechanical or digital assistance		1
	Using an automatic shuffling table (home, Mahjong parlour or casino)		2
Digital gameplay	On a personal computer	Against real players	3
		Against a computer	4
	On a smartphone	Against real players	5
		Against a computer	6
	In a game arcade or casino	Against real players	7
		Against a computer	8

Our nonplaying analysis methods include participant observation, survey, and follow-up interviews. To acquire broad insights on people’s attitudes toward Mahjong, we conducted a survey online (N = 76). The survey focused on identifying key motivations for playing Mahjong as well as the preferred and most frequently used technologies for playing the game. Our prior assumption was that some players choose to play a digital version of the game for convenience, while they actually prefer playing face-to-face with their friends. While the survey confirmed this single assumption, it also helped to map out a wide range of reasons that players have for choosing or preferring one version of the game over another. Another body of secondary materials consists of short interviews conducted with some of the survey participants (n = 44). These interviews approached the differences between Mahjong technologies in more detail, particularly the extent to which those players who only play with their friends and families have experience of digital versions of the game. Furthermore, we collected participant observation notes from a dozen Mahjong play sessions with friends, colleagues, and acquaintances over the course of one and a half years. During these gameplay sessions, we also took photos and asked questions casually during and after gameplay, addressing players’ attitudes toward different technologies and play contexts. While the participant observation provided an excellent opportunity to try out insights gained from the survey and the interviews, it also had a specific focus of exploring the role of an automatic shuffling table in the gameplay of Mahjong, namely, its effects on social interaction and the player experience.

In the following analysis, we interrelate the primary and secondary materials—that is, the games of Mahjong played and the materials collected through nonplaying analysis. The attitude, with which we have sought to interpret the primary and secondary materials together, is characterized by empathetic understanding and intersubjective solidarity (e.g., Sokolowski, 1999) toward the phenomenon of Mahjong. In the context of game studies, this translates to “empathetic analysis” (Leino, 2012a) of games as played, that is, as material, technological, ludic, and social phenomena: Based on what we know about the game, we have been able to understand what other people have told us, and based on what other people have told us, we have been able to understand the game better. We hope to advocate a perspective that is attuned to the material, the social, and the “ludic” alike: The material specificities of the different artifacts involved, the implications of the artifacts being situated in different use-contexts, and to the nature of the phenomena as implementations and/or adaptations of the “transmedial” Mahjong. From this perspective, we have learned how the various analogue, mechanical, and digital versions of Mahjong analyzed differ in terms of the ways in which they involve tactility, performativity, and ritualistic aspects. We have also observed how these differences lead to affordances for significantly different kinds of play, ranging from competition-oriented skill-based gameplay to improvisational, chaotic, and joyous free-form play. These differences appear most salient around two major interstices on the continuum of technological involvement in Mahjong: between manual and automated shuffling and between physical and computer-based versions. We structure the following analysis and discussion around these interstices.

From Manual to Automated

We will begin by looking at two distinct forms of physical Mahjong play, by comparing a playing situation involving purely manual and analogue Mahjong technology—that is, a table, two dice, and 136–144 tiles—to a mechanically assisted playing situation, namely, an automatic shuffling table. In this section, we will first discuss the effects of the automatic shuffling table on the practices of Mahjong play and proceed to argue that despite the relative invisibility of these effects on the analysis of transmedial Mahjong, the automatic shuffling table has indirect yet profound effects on the gameplay of Mahjong. By suppressing some aspects of playful practice, the automatic shuffling table shapes the nature of gameplay and, if situated in an appropriate use-context, calls for readjusting the rules of the game to fit its affordances. Consequently, we suggest that the invisibility of the automatic shuffling table’s effects is telling of ludology’s shortcomings rather than the insignificance of these effects.

The previously described preparatory phase, which precedes each round of traditional Mahjong, plays an important role in the communal experience of play. Devoid of significant intellectual challenge, it offers a temporary respite from the demands of gameplay and an opportunity for collaboration as tiles are jointly arranged in preparation and anticipation for continuing play.¹ According to the interview participants, in the midst of competitive play sessions, shuffling the tiles together appears as a break, which perhaps eases the transition from one victory or loss to another. During shuffling players start afresh and jointly recognize everyone as a potential next winner. It is clear from participant observation that the preparatory phase is also the natural moment for some of the players around the table to take a break to, for example, finish a conversation or replenish their food and drinks.

Mahjong parlors in Hong Kong commonly utilize automatic shuffling tables. An automatic shuffling table houses a machine that shuffles the tiles poured in through an opening at the center of the table and, in just a few seconds, returns tiles to the table as impeccably arranged walls (see Figure 2). Such fast arrangement is made possible using two sets of tiles in each machine; when one is being shuffled, the other one is already arranged and ready to be returned onto the table. Using an automatic shuffling table significantly alters the communal experience of playing Mahjong, as it shortens the time taken by the preparatory phase and allows the players to skip this phase in between rounds of play. The comparison between manual and automated shuffling highlights two distinct implications of the mechanical assistance: The removal of affordances for activities taking place alongside and in-between competitive play—that is, “metagaming” (Squire & Jenkins, 2003)—and the subsequent shaping of the “types” of play (Caillois, 2001, p. 27) around the Mahjong table. In the following, we shall look at these two implications.

Figure 2.

The automatic shuffling table has prepared four “walls.”

The concept of metagaming helps to unpack some of the differences that result from shortening or removing the preparatory phase. The term is often used among tabletop game players to describe the ways in which players engage in gameplay beyond strictly predetermined sets of rules. All encompassingly, Squire and Jenkins (2003) define it as “the conversation that goes on around the game” (p. 22). Often explicit to a given social context, a player may for instance aim at winning a game using a specific move, perform self-handicapping, or come across as a “fair” player who does not apply “greedy” methods to win. In the context of Mahjong, aspects of metagaming are most visible during the preparatory phase. The preparatory phase, in particular the hand-shuffling, provides a space to negotiate and discuss play styles (e.g., aggressiveness or risk-taking) and other aspects of play dynamics, for example, to comment on someone’s moves in the past round. The time taken to prepare for gameplay is therefore not merely wasted but helps in building suspension and reflecting on previous events. While hand-shuffling appears as a peaceful and possibly relaxing moment in between competitive play sessions, and helps to socialize during the game, it can also be stressful: “My relatives are aggressive when they shuffle. I would like it to be more calm and relaxed,” one player mentions. In this light, one of the most important functions of shuffling as a form of metagaming relates to learning about the other players and their attitudes toward the game. Very often hand-shuffling includes at least an aspect of playful competition as each player is supposed to gather and build the wall in front of themselves. Those with good skills in handling Mahjong tiles can build neat and uniformly shaped walls surprisingly quickly and effortlessly, lifting and moving whole rows of tiles with their hands as if by magic, whereas newbies take time to assemble the walls. Shuffling the tiles, players state, is also a moment of figuring out other players’ styles and how serious they are about the game. This information is vital for adjusting one’s own playing style to the others’ styles; for example, a player with relatively low skill may choose to play defensively against someone, who, based on their shuffling and tile-handling skills, appears to be a seasoned expert. Importantly, this form of metagaming also affords a significant degree of bluffing as being good at handling tiles is not necessarily a sign of good strategic skill. The automatic shuffling table effectively removes these possibilities for metagaming originating from the preparatory phase.

The automatic shuffling table also has implications for the kinds of play (e.g., Caillois, 2001) that take place around the table. While some might consider the preparatory phase as not part of the “actual gameplay” of Mahjong, the actions required by the preparations are by no means devoid of play. It is important to note that even if there are no explicitly competitive elements present during the shuffling “break,” the Mahjong table does not cease to be a Mahjong table and, for example, the seats do not lose their in-game cardinal directions. In other words, the “feeling of being apart together” (Huizinga, 1949, p. 12) persists, and the play community remains during the time it takes to prepare for the next round. To understand the nature of Mahjong play, with its tactile, performative, and ritualistic dimensions, which persist also through the in-between moments, it is meaningful to talk not only about playing Mahjong but also about “playing with” Mahjong (Leino, 2010, pp. 126–133; cf. Möring, 2016).² This implies paying attention not only to what can be described in Caillois’ (2001) terms as the rule-governed “ludus”-oriented play characterized by “gratuitious difficulty” but also to the more free-form “paidea”-oriented play giving rise to “improvisation and joy” (p. 27), and to the chaotic, impulsive, and vertigous form of “ilinx” play (Caillois, 2001, p. 23).

Shuffling can develop into a paideaic form of play: A round of Mahjong can be considered finished when one or more of the players leave the table and the remaining players continue shuffling and playing with the tiles instead of using them in a new round of Mahjong. The tiles afford stacking and therefore the creation of all kinds of structures on the game table (see Figure 3). During participant observations players described how they grew familiar with Mahjong tiles by playing with them as young children. “I treated them like Lego,” says one interviewee. Players mention the auditory qualities related to hand-shuffling. The clatter of Mahjong tiles is indeed quite characteristic of the soundscapes of housing estates, villages, small shops, factories, and garages in Hong Kong. Actual play of Mahjong results in very little sound, but the simultaneous shuffling of the tiles by eight hands creates the recognizable clatter. The sound becomes louder as the shuffling becomes quicker and more efficient and is loud enough to deter some individuals from playing in private homes late at night. One interviewee noted that “the game is not fun without the noise”: Indeed, Mahjong affords the very particular pleasure of shuffling so that maximum noise is emitted, as this supposedly leads to the maximum randomness in the order of the tiles. In Caillois’ terms, the preparatory phase can thus be described as an opportunity for the ilinx play involving the “voluptuous panic” (Caillois, 2001, p. 23) of swirling hands and clattering tiles to temporarily supplant the competition-oriented Mahjong gameplay proper. The playful moments and the loud tactile chaos of hand-shuffling stand in stark contrast to both the physical precision required to skilfully stack the tiles to build the walls from which tiles are picked and to the strategic and calculative thinking required during the main gameplay phase of Mahjong. The automatic shuffling table, by hiding the tiles in its container after a finished game, significantly downplays the potential for these moments of ilinx-like and paideaic playing with to arise.

Figure 3.

Playing with Mahjong tiles.

However, as the implications of the automatic shuffling table described so far have to do with the preparatory phase, it might be tempting to conclude, especially from a “ludological” perspective, that the automatic shuffling table has no effects on Mahjong gameplay proper. Indeed, the introduction of an automatic shuffling table does not seem to change the game’s nature as an implementation (Juul, 2003) of Mahjong. There is, nevertheless, something to be learned from the example of the automatic shuffling table about the relationship between the transmedial game, its material support, and play-context. The automatic shuffling table, if situated in an appropriate use-context, has a profound effect on Mahjong gameplay: It appears to steer gameplay in a more competitive, ludus-oriented direction. By removing the seemingly “unnecessary” preparatory phase, according to one player, the automatic shuffling table “makes it more serious,” provides faster play with a focus on the strategic aspects of the game, and relieves the players from implications of poor and lazy shuffling. One player suggested that an automatic shuffling table is useful “when [they] want to gamble.” In an appropriate context, the indirect effect can be even more substantial, as the following example will demonstrate.

If situated in a competitive use-context with skilled players, the automatic shuffling table warrants the rules of the game to be readjusted to fit its affordances. Mahjong parlors in Hong Kong commonly make use of the automatic shuffling table along with a ruleset according to which the maximum fan value of a winning hand is capped at a relatively low level. This discourages attempts to collect high-value hands and encourages ending the game as early as possible. These rules lead to very fast rounds, especially when combined with the automatic shuffling table’s ability to do away with breaks between individual games. Supposedly, enforcing this ruleset is in the interest of the parlor owner who takes their cut from each winning hand and thus benefits from more rounds being played. On the one hand, the cap on fan value could of course be introduced also when playing at home with manual shuffling but without an automatic shuffling table, it would lead to repeated shuffling, wall-building, chatting, replenishing of food and drinks, and so on ad nauseam. On the other hand, if an automated shuffling table was used without the cap on fan value, its effects would likely be as described above: removing aspects of the gameplay situation which some players may prefer and functioning as a show-piece to be marveled at during breaks. The phenomenon of “Mahjong with fast rounds” arises from a constellation of factors: a particular set of rules, a particular technological materiality, and a particular use-context, including the various motivations of the people involved. The example of Mahjong with fast rounds resonates with Malaby’s (2007) notion of games as processual and always in the process of becoming but calls attention not only to how players reshape the game but also to the role of technological materiality in the reshaping. For a “ludological” analysis, the effects of the automatic shuffling table are visible only indirectly, for example, in how the automatic shuffling steers gameplay in a competitive direction and invites the rules to be readjusted in relation to its affordances. Thus, while Mahjong with fast rounds exemplifies how “games move between media,” it appears to be neither an adaptation nor an implementation (Juul, 2003) of the original. This is perhaps symptomatic not of the insignificance of the effects of the automatic shuffling table but rather of the inability of the ludological perspective to cope with the fluidity of games encountered in the wild, and, to access the material, technological, and sociocultural dimensions of gameplay.

At this point, we propose that while “transmedial Mahjong” can be seen being played on both sides of the interstice between manual and automated shuffling, on each side it takes a very different form due to the material support that makes it possible. What remains to be investigated is the extent to which transmedial Mahjong persists over the second interstice, between analogue and digital.

From Physical to Digital

We follow the trajectory of increased automation by including digital versions of Mahjong in the analysis. Looking beyond the second interstice, we observe that the transformations that were already visible in the comparison between manual and automated forms of play develop further, and, new aspects come into play: The intellectual challenge is significantly altered. The new aspects originate, we argue, in the nature of digital versions of Mahjong as computer games rather than as implementations of Mahjong in particular. We also observe how the digital versions’ nature as computer games warrants not only highlighting them as lesser forms of physical versions but also “positively” describing them in their own right.

By studying the differences between physical and digital versions of Mahjong, we can see how digital versions, through their material affordances, solidify both the suppression of metagaming and the emphasis on competitive and “serious” play over free-form, improvisational, and chaotic forms of play. While the players of an analogue, physical version of Mahjong can do whatever they like with the tiles—including “treating them like Lego” as mentioned previously—only some of these possibilities are relevant to the “game of Mahjong,” let alone allowed by the rules. In contrast, the computerized versions of Mahjong—like Hong Kong Mahjong Club—do not afford handling the tiles in any other way than the one sanctioned by the rules of the game. As the only affordances implemented are those relevant to the rules of Mahjong, everything related to the tactility of the tiles discussed previously in connection with the automatic shuffling table—the paidea and ilinx-related pleasures of shuffling, the ritualistic aspects of wall-building, and the performative dimension of handling one’s tiles in a particular way—are absent from digital versions of the game. Thus, it is not surprising that our interviews suggested that digital versions are targeted at very serious players. “Digital is really fast and can be really hard,” one informant said, while another stated that they have “no patience to play with a computer, as I’m not that professional.” The digital versions, like the automatic shuffling table, steer the focus of the game in a more competitive and goal-oriented direction. While the automatic shuffling table is able to shape the nature of gameplay only indirectly, digital versions do it directly by constraining the affordances available to the player.

The physical–digital divide further marks a distinction between communal and largely anonymous play. While the automatic shuffling table has an undeniable impact on gameplay as described previously, what nevertheless remains on both sides of the automatic–manual interstice is the chatter and exchanges during actual play. Like with many tabletop and card games, people gather to play Mahjong in order to meet and enjoy each other’s company. The survey results strongly suggest that social interaction is one of the key reasons for playing face-to-face. One-quarter of the respondents chose this as the main reason for playing Mahjong, while more than one-third marked it as one of the “other reasons” for playing (alongside one main reason). In the eight digital versions of Mahjong we looked at, affordances for interaction between people vary. Multiplayer versions may also allow friends to play together or stay anonymous and hidden behind their virtual representations. A digital Mahjong game may be a multiplayer online game with a chat function or a single-player version against AI opponents with or without an online leaderboard. Some interviewed players described situations in which they have been unsure if they have been playing against AI or humans. Given the constrained affordances for both performative styles of play and social exchanges in digital versions of Mahjong, it is easy to relate to how our informants describe how playing the digital versions of Mahjong is devoid of the fun moments of throwing tiles in exaggerated frustration over losing a game or observing opponents’ facial expressions in order to predict their next moves.

While the changes described so far are similar to those in the interstice of manual and automated shuffling, we can also describe implications that are specific to the technological form(s) of the digital versions of Mahjong. These pertain to the nature of intellectual challenge in the digital versions. In the analogue version, it is easy to lose an opportunity to complete a meld if one does not fully focus on the tiles that other players are discarding. In the analogue, physical version of Mahjong, successful players are those who observe the tiles discarded by others and count the amounts of each type of tiles on the table in order to make predictions regarding the likelihood of the appearance of their desired type of tiles. These kinds of “skill rules” (Suits, 1978, p. 37) are obsolete when playing the digital versions, which commonly prompt the player to complete a meld when an opportunity arises. They may also present the discarded tiles neatly arranged on the table so that it is easy for the player to see which tiles still remain to be picked up. For this reason, an informant described how “the computer version helps me in playing, but I don’t like it.” Due to taking care of both the rules and the game state, the digital version is able to make visible and available more aspects of the game state than a player may be able to grasp without help. In short, the digital versions significantly downplay the aspects of Mahjong as an imperfect information game (cf. Woods 2007, p. 10). Not having to count tiles on the table and the possible immediate courses of action afforded by the current game state, the player can focus on longer term strategic thinking about her moves. In addition to suggesting melds, digital versions of the game typically also organize the player’s own tiles according to suit. While most players consider this as helping them understand the melds they can anticipate completing, others feel constrained as they are unable to arrange the tiles according to their preferences. Nevertheless, players do not need to spend time arranging the tiles in their hand. Thus, we may observe that due to the specific affordances of the digital versions of Mahjong, the intellectual challenge they offer can be described as significantly different from the challenge in the analogue version.

The transformation of the intellectual challenge seems to originate from the specificity of the digital versions of Mahjong first and foremost as computer games rather than as versions of Mahjong. As the analogue, physical version of Mahjong requires the players to enforce the rules, they are required to have a basic level of Mahjong skill: If the players do not handle tiles according to the “constitutive rules” (Suits, 1978, p. 37) of Mahjong, there will be no Mahjong gameplay. In Hong Kong Mahjong Club, the distinction between constitutive rules and materiality is rendered obsolete, as is the case also in other (single-player) computer games, as noted by Consalvo (2007, p. 85) and Leino (2012a). Hong Kong Mahjong Club is an example of a game in which “the limitations of the game structure are limitations in principle as much as in reality” (Woods, 2007, p. 6), where the artifact itself, through the ways in which it responds to players’ actions, presents enough challenge to not necessitate additional rules, which would transform the activity into a game. Hong Kong Mahjong Club is an “automated skill-tester” (Woods 2007, p. 8) or a machine to evaluate effort (Karhulahti, 2013) and performance (Karhulahti, 2015). In digital versions of Mahjong, like Hong Kong Mahjong Club, the transmedial game appears only in a benevolent description—we may refer to rules as descriptions of the software’s behavior, rather than as normative instructions.

While the digital versions inevitably lack some aspects of the analogue, physical Mahjong, it is worthwhile to subject them also to a “positive” description in their own right: to pay attention to how the affordances that are specific to their technological form facilitate new forms of play practices that are absent in the analogue, physical version. Single-player digital versions invite playing styles that would trouble or not make sense to other players: unlimited breaks, pausing the game, and making irrational moves just for the fun of it. A digital version of Mahjong further affords being situated in use contexts in which the table and the over one hundred physical tiles would prove difficult, such as public transport. While a session of analogue Mahjong played face-to-face typically takes at least a few hours and requires continuous attention and presence, digital versions can be played in a fragmented manner and practically anywhere. Digital versions of the game typically add some human-like characteristics to the representations of the AI opponents, such as a human voice calling for melds or cartoonish portraits representing opponents. One informant described being attracted to the funny characters in a mobile game. Digital versions also commonly include audiovisual special effects. Some Japan-made digital versions of Mahjong represent one’s opponents by manga characters in various stages of undress.

Conclusions

We have looked at two major interstices on the continuum of technological involvement in Mahjong and discussed their specificities in relation to the concept of transmediality. To summarize, Mahjong does indeed move between media and assumes new forms within various different technological and sociocultural configurations. Different setups emphasize some of its aspects while attenuating others. The specificities of the various technological artifacts involved in versions of Mahjong not only significantly shape and steer the nature of gameplay activities they are involved in, but also afford additional forms of activity—some of which are playful, social, ritualistic, and performative—specific to their technological materiality.

Our analysis illustrates the applicability of Wittgenstein’s notion of “family resemblance” to the description of games and playful practice (cf. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith & Tosca, 2008, pp. 23–24; Aarseth, 2011; Aarseth & Calleja, 2015; Arjoranta, 2014; Calleja, 2011; Feige, 2012; ): What we may colloquially refer to as the game of Mahjong that can be encountered in its various forms in everyday life and that translates to various media, is in fact best described as a family resemblance uniting all these forms of activity. Notably, only some of these activities can be meaningfully referred to as games, let alone as implementations or adaptations of the assumed “transmedial Mahjong.” These forms, some digital and some analogue by nature, are united in the family resemblance of Mahjong. While they are irreducible to the rules and conventions of Mahjong, they nevertheless necessitate knowledge of these rules and conventions to be fully understood. In terms of methodology, we agree with Aarseth’s (2003) proposition regarding the fundamental importance of play in game analysis and criticism, and suggest augmenting it by observing how the insights gained through research-play can resonate beyond the actual game involved—as is the case for insights gained from playing Mahjong according to its rules helping to understand the less rule-governed activities on the fringes of the Mahjong family.

Our analysis of the forms of play emerging within the family of Mahjong supports Malaby’s (2007) assertion of games’ processual nature: “Every game is an ongoing process. As it is played, it always contains the potential for generating new practices and new meanings, possibly refiguring the game itself” (p. 102). However, our analysis suggests that it is necessary to ask questions concerning also the role of technology in the refiguration. In addition to understanding the refiguration through attributing agency to the players and their cultural contexts, it appears worthwhile to include in the “dance of agency” (Pickering, 1995, p. 24) also the technological materiality facilitating gameplay. Giddings and Kennedy (2008), when writing about their playful experience with the technological materiality of Lego Star Wars (2005), noted how certain ambiguities in the interface of PlayStation 2 controllers and the player–avatar relationship in the game afforded transforming their gameplay into what resembled an improvisational performance. As the analysis of Giddings and Kennedy as well as our own, demonstrates, the technology facilitating gameplay is not simply a transparent support, as suggested by the perspective emphasizing transmediality (Eskelinen, 2012; Juul, 2003). Instead, it can have profound effects on gameplay and even spark new forms of playful practice. Thus, we can consider the technologies facilitating play as foci of game analysis in themselves, even if their effects are only indirectly associated with the object of study delineated by the assumed “transmedial” game involved. In other words, in unraveling the family resemblance of Mahjong, the game of Mahjong should be an important reference point, but by no means the only one.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This work would not be here without all the people who have played Mahjong with us in the past years and for the specific purpose of this research. We are grateful to Vicky Lee for several valuable conversations and for cross-cultural support in collecting and interpreting interview materials. We wish to thank all participants of the Gaming East Asia Conference at Princeton University in April 2016 for their most helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this paper was substantially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. CityU 11405314, PI: Leino).

Notes

References

Aarseth

(2003, 8). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis [Special issue: DAC Conference Papers]. Fine Art Forum, 17, 1–8.

Aarseth

(2011). “Define real, moron!” some remarks on game ontologies. In Günzel

Liebe

Mersch

(Eds.), DIGAREC Keynote-Lectures 2009/10. DIGAREC Series 06, pp. 60–68. Potsdam, Germany: Potsdam UP.

Aarseth

Calleja

(2015). The word game: The ontology of an indefinable object. In Zagal

J.P.

MacCallum-Stewart

Togelius

(Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), June 22–25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA,USA.

Arjoranta

(2014). Game definitions: A Wittgensteinian approach. Game Studies, 14. Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1401/articles/arjoranta.

Bardzell

Quagliara

(2007). Transmedial interactions and digital games. In Proceedings of ACE’07 (pp. 307–308). Salzburg, Austria, 6 13–15, 2007. New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1255047.1255141

Caillois

(2001). Man, play and games. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Calleja

(2011). In-game: From immersion to incorporation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chan

(2010). Gamblers and tricksters: The forgotten gambling films of the 1970s. Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 4, 89–104.

Cheng

S. T.

Chan

A. C. M.

E. C. S.

(2006). An exploratory study of the effect of Mahjong on the cognitive functioning of persons with dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 611–617.

10.

Consalvo

(2007). Cheating. Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press.

11.

Culin

(1924, 9). The game of Ma-Jong. Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, XI, 153–68.

12.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen

Smith

J. H.

Tosca

S. P.

(2008). Understanding video games. The essential introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Eskelinen

(2012). Cybertext poetics: The critical landscape of new media literary theory. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

14.

Feige

D. M.

(2012). Computer games as works of art. In Fromme

Unger

(Eds.). Computer games and new media cultures: A handbook on digital game studies (pp. 93–106). New York, NY: Springer.

15.

Giddings

Kennedy

H. W.

(2008). Little Jesuses and fuckoff robots: On aesthetics, cybernetics, and not being very good at Lego star wars. In Swalwell

Wilson

(Eds.). The pleasures of computer gaming: Essays on cultural history, theory and aesthetics (pp. 13–32). Jefferson: NC: McFarland.

16.

Hardy

T. W.

(2006). A minute to learn and a lifetime to master: Implications of the poker craze for college campuses. New Directions for Student Services, 113, 33–41.

17.

Huizinga

(1949). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

18.

Jenkins

(2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

19.

Juul

(2003). The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In Copier

Raessens

(Eds.). Level up: Digital games research conference proceedings (pp. 30–45). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University.

20.

Juul

(2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

21.

Karhulahti

V. M.

(2013). A kinesthetic theory of videogames: Time-critical challenge and aporetic rhematic. Game Studies, 13. Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1301/articles/karhulahti_kinesthetic_theory_of_the_videogame

22.

Karhulahti

V. M.

(2015). Defining the videogame. Game Studies, 15. Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1502/articles/karhulahti

23.

Leino

O. T

. (2010). Emotions in play. On the constitution of emotion in solitary computer game play (PhD dissertation), IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

24.

Leino

O. T.

(2012a). Death loop as a feature. Game Studies, 12. Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1202/articles/death_loop_as_a_feature

25.

Leino

O. T.

(2012b). Untangling gameplay: An account of experience, activity, and materiality within computer game play. In Sageng

J. R.

Fossheim

H. J.

Larsen

T. M.

(Eds.). The philosophy of computer games (philosophy of engineering and technology) (pp. 57–75). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Lyman

S. M.

(1995). Color, culture, civilization. race and minority issues in American society. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

27.

Malaby

(2007). Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture, 2, 95–113.

28.

Möring

2016. Understanding single player computer games as experimental systems. Presented at Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, November 1–4, 2016. Msida, Malta: University of Malta.

29.

Newman

(2008). Playing with videogames. London, UK: Routledge.

30.

Pickering

. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Radburn

Horsley

(2011). Gamblers, grinders, and mavericks: The use of membership categorisation to manage identity by professional poker players. Journal of Gambling Issues, 26, 30–50.

32.

Rajewski

I. O.

(2005). Intermediality, intertextuality, and remediation: A literary perspective on intermediality. Intermédialité—Historie et théorie des arts, des lettres et des techniques, 6, 43–64.

33.

Recax Technology Limited. (2014). Hong Kong Mahjong Club. Google Play: Android platform.

34.

Ryan

M. L

Thon

J. N.

(2014). Storyworlds across media: Toward a media-conscious narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

35.

Sokolowski

(1999). Introduction to phenomenology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Squire

Jenkins

(2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3, 7–33.

37.

Suits

(1978). Grasshopper: Games, life, and Utopia. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

38.

Traveller’s Tales & Griptonite Games. (2005). Lego Star Wars: The Video Game. Eidos Interactive: USA. Platform: PlayStation 2.

39.

Wolf

M. J. P.

(2001). The medium of the videogame. Austin: University of Texas Press.

40.

Wong

Jing

. (1999). The Tricky Master. Hong Kong: Universe Laser & Video.

41.

Woods

(2007). Playing with an other: The ethics of the magic circle. In Koskimaa

Eskelinen

(Eds.). Cybertext yearbook 2007: Ludology . Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä Press.