Videogames for Humans
a scholarly work by Merritt Kopas
Videogames for Humans: Twine Authors in Conversation is an anthology of readings of video games created in interactive fiction authoring tool Twine. The collection was curated and edited by merritt k and published by Instar Books in 2015. It features readings of 27 games by creatives and critics. The book features works by many LGBTQ contributors and was shortlisted for the Anthology Prize at the 28th Lambda Literary Awards.
Contents
In the introduction, merritt k, the editor, recalls her discovery of Twine in 2012 through the works of Anna Anthropy. Twine is a free software tool which allows users to create interactive fiction video games without any programming knowledge. Twine outputs the work as an HTML file, allowing the game to be played in a web browser.
k writes about how Twine's accessibility and ease of use enables a wider audience to create games, expanding the types of stories that games can tell. k highlights, for example, the prominence of trans women creatives working in Twine, and argues that, as a text-based platform, Twine can better explore sex in its stories without falling into the uncanny valley of typical video game depictions.
The bulk of the book follows, consisting of 27 readings of Twine games by creators and critics, each a chapter long.
The public source identifies “Videogames for Humans” as a scholarly work by Merritt Kopas. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Videogames, Humans and scholarly.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Videogames for Humans”, the useful work is to connect “a scholarly work by Merritt Kopas” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 25, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q52693532. 1 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 1 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2015 and 2012.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Videogames for Humans”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Videogames for Humans primary sources, Videogames for Humans archive and Videogames research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Videogames for Humans”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Videogames for Humans” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.