SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kültür ve İletişim / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 57

Human–Machine Communication in Fantasy Realms: Artificial Intelligence, Narrative Reciprocity, And Ludic Interaction in Baldur’s Gate 3

Fantastik Diyarlarin İnsan–Makine İletişimi: Baldur’s Gate 3’te Yapay Zeka, Anlamsal Karşılıklılık Ve Ludik Etkileşim

Ertuğrul Süngü(Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi)0000-0001-7957-0281
Pages
256–284
Publication Date
2026-03-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ultimately, the study contributes to broader discussions of human–machine relationality by framing AI as both a communicative construct and an aesthetic device.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Communication Studies, and Video Game Studies through Baldur’s Gate 3 (Larian Studios, 2023).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on the Human–Machine Communication (HMC) framework (Guzman and Lewis, 2019), it reconceptualizes AI not as an autonomous generative system but as a designed communicative interface that mediates expression, simulates agency, and co-constructs meaning with players within the boundaries of narrative design.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ultimately, the study contributes to broader discussions of human–machine relationality by framing AI as both a communicative construct and an aesthetic device.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yapay Zeka · Baldur's Gate 3 · Oyun çalışmaları

Abstract

This study explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Communication Studies, and Video Game Studies through Baldur’s Gate 3 (Larian Studios, 2023). Drawing on the Human–Machine Communication (HMC) framework (Guzman and Lewis, 2019), it reconceptualizes AI not as an autonomous generative system but as a designed communicative interface that mediates expression, simulates agency, and co-constructs meaning with players within the boundaries of narrative design. Through close reading and thematic analysis, the research examines how non-playable characters (NPCs) such as Shadowheart, Astarion, and Gale participate in relational, ethical, and affective negotiations that shape the player’s perception of intelligence, empathy, and responsiveness. These exchanges though scripted and algorithmically constrained, produce a convincing illusion of interactivity and emotional reciprocity, reflecting the game’s intricate dialogue systems and approval-based mechanics. Incorporating Bogost’s concept of procedural rhetoric, the study argues that meaning is communicated not only through written dialogue but also through systemic design elements, such as rule-based feedback, branching structures, and affective reward loops that rhetorically perform intelligence. By linking computational design to performative communication, Baldur’s Gate 3 exemplifies how AI-inspired systems function as co-creative agents within expressive media, where technological design becomes an instrument of narrative persuasion and emotional engagement. Ultimately, the study contributes to broader discussions of human–machine relationality by framing AI as both a communicative construct and an aesthetic device.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Baldur’s Gate 3 (Larian Studios, 2023) örneği üzerinden Yapay Zekâ (YZ), İletişim Çalışmaları ve Oyun Çalışmaları’nın kesişim alanını incelemektedir. Guzman ve Lewis’in (2019) İnsan–Makine İletişimi (HMC) çerçevesinden hareketle, YZ yalnızca teknik bir üretim aracı ya da otonom bir sistem olarak değil; ifade biçimlerini aracılık eden, ajansı simüle eden ve oyuncularla birlikte anlamı, duyguyu ve anlatıyı yeniden kuran tasarımsal bir iletişim arayüzü olarak yeniden kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Yakın okuma ve tematik analiz yöntemleriyle yürütülen araştırma, Shadowheart, Astarion ve Gale gibi oynanabilir olmayan karakterlerin (NPC) zekâ, empati ve yanıt verebilirlik algısını biçimlendiren ilişkisel, etik ve duygulanımsal müzakerelere nasıl katıldığını ele almaktadır. Önceden yazılmış ve algoritmik olarak sınırlandırılmış bu etkileşimler, karmaşık diyalog sistemleri, onay temelli mekanikler ve dallanan anlatı yapıları aracılığıyla etkileşim ve duygusal karşılıklılık yanılsaması üretmektedir. Bogost’un “prosedürel retorik” kavramını merkeze alan çalışma, anlamın yalnızca sözel diyaloglar üzerinden değil; kural temelli geri bildirim, duygulanımsal ödül döngüleri ve oyun mekaniği gibi sistemsel unsurlar aracılığıyla da üretildiğini ileri sürmektedir. Baldur’s Gate 3, hesaplamalı tasarım ile performatif iletişimi ilişkilendirerek, YZ odaklı sistemlerin anlatısal ikna, duygusal katılım ve oyuncu deneyiminin eş-yaratıcı unsurları olarak nasıl işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, çalışma YZ’yi hem iletişimsel bir kurgu hem de estetik bir araç olarak konumlandırarak insan–makine ilişkisine dair çağdaş tartışmalara katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Süngü, E. (2026). Human–Machine Communication in Fantasy Realms: Artificial Intelligence, Narrative Reciprocity, And Ludic Interaction in Baldur’s Gate 3. Kültür ve İletişim, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 57, 256–284. https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.1822422

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Ali, W. (2016). Evolution of the video game market: Analysis of the video game target market throughout the years based on its marketing and advertisement. Journal of Game, Game Art and Gamification, 1(1): 27–34.
  2. Appelcline, S. (2014a). Designers & Dragons, Vol. 1: The ‘70s. Evil Hat Productions.
  3. Appelcline, S. (2014b). Designers & Dragons, Vol. 3: The ‘90s. Evil Hat Productions.
  4. Appelcline, S. (2014c). Designers & Dragons, Vol. 4: The ‘00s. Evil Hat Productions.
  5. Arsenault, D. (2009). Video game genre, evolution and innovation. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, 3(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.7557/23.6003
  6. Bailey, C., Pearson, E., Gkatzidou, V., Green, S. (2006). Using video games to develop social, collaborative and communication skills. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278016074 Retrieved: 11.08.2025.
  7. Banas, J. A., Palomares, N. A., Richards, A. S., Keating, D. M., Joyce, N., Rains, S. A. (2022). When machine and bandwagon heuristics compete: Understanding users’ response to conflicting AI and crowdsourced fact-checking. Human Communication Research, 48(3): 430–461. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac010
  8. Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. K. Sereno and C. D. Mortensen (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory, 83–102. New York: Harper and Row.
  9. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101.
  10. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press.
  11. Bonn, N. (2023). The impact of integrating Artificial Intelligence into the video games industry: A case study [Master’s thesis, Käth Royal Institute of Technology]. KTH Digital Repository.
  12. Charles, D., Fyfe, C., Livingstone, D., Mcglinchey, S. (2007). Biologically Inspired Artificial Intelligence for Computer Games. IGI Publishing.
  13. Dehnert, M., Mongeau, P. A. (2022). Persuasion in the age of artificial intelligence: Theories and complications of AI-based persuasion. Human Communication Research, 48(3): 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac006
  14. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., Shelton, A. K. (2016). Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing differences in perceptions of communication quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 65: 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.013
  15. Endacott, J., Leonardi, P. M. (2022). The impression management of artificial agents. *Journal of Communication*, 72(3): 322–341.
  16. Filipović, A. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in video game development. Kultura polisa, 20(3): 50–67. https://doi.org/10.51738/Kpolisa2023.20.3r.50f
  17. Fonstad, K. W. (1990). The Forgotten Realms Atlas. TSR Inc.
  18. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1): 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
  19. Greenham, D. (2018). Close reading: The basics. Routledge.
  20. Gunkel, D. J. (2012). Communication and artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. communication +1, 1(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.7275/R5QJ7F7R
  21. Guzman, A. L., Lewis, S. C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1): 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
  22. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3): 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
  23. Herrnstein Smith, B. (2016). What was “close reading”? The minnesota review, 87: 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-3630844
  24. James, B. R., James, T. M. (2006). A Grand History of the Forgotten Realms. Wizards of the Coast.
  25. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M. Campbell, J., Haag, B. (1993). Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2): 7–26.
  26. Jorapur, A. (2024). The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Gaming. San Jose State University ScholarWorks.
  27. Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. MIT Press.
  28. Lopez Rivero, A. J., Beato, M. E., Muñoz Martínez, C., Cortiñas Vázquez, P. G. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Gaming. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 6(7): 56–63.
  29. Larian Studios. (2023). Baldur’s Gate 3 [Video game]. Larian Studios.
  30. Natale, S. (2021). Communicating through or with: Approaching artificial intelligence from a communication and media studies perspective. Communication Theory, 31(4): 905–910. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa022
  31. Northwood, A. (2023). The rise of artificial intelligence in video games. IEEE Access, 11: 41552–41565.
  32. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1): 21–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596
  33. Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
  34. Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2). https://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart
  35. Simpson, R. (2018). Evolutionary Artificial Intelligence in Video Games. University of Minnesota, Morris.
  36. Sundar, S. S., Lee, E.-J. (2022). Rethinking communication in the era of artificial intelligence. Human Communication Research, 48(3): 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac014
  37. Tavinor, G. (2009). The art of videogames. Wiley-Blackwell.
  38. Togelius, J. (2019). Playing Smart: On Games, Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press.
  39. Rana, P., Bhardwaj, P., Singh, J. (2018). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in video games. International Journal of Computer Applications, 181(19): 1–4.
  40. Xu, D. (2018). Artificial intelligence in games: A brief review. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIBD.2018.8396163
  41. Yannakakis, G. N. (2012). Player Modeling Using Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3): 201–213.
  42. Yannakakis, G. N., Togelius, J. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and Games. Springer.