art, technology, and games
o b j e c t i v e
- examine the role of technology as a force for cultural maintenance and change
a r t i f a c t
According to Jane McGonigal’s presentation on why gaming can create a better world she suggests that in games individuals are “the most likely to stick to a problem as long as it takes – to get up after failure and try again,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She then contrasts that with real life stating, “In real life when we face failure, when we confront obstacles, we often don’t feel that way; we feel overcome; we feel overwhelmed; we feel anxious, maybe depressed, frustrated or cynical – we never experience those feelings when we’re playing games. They just don’t exist in games,” (McGonigal, TED2010). She made a point to identify character level-specific quests and problems as one of the motivating factors – the knowledge that your character won’t be overwhelmed whatever opposition you encounter, despite having to work hard to achieve your goals, because the obstacles are scaled to your relative in-game level.
Do you also think the fact that games have pre-established storylines, ultimate outcomes, and predetermined solutions or sets of solutions contributes to this sense of optimism? In real life this doesn’t exist: there are problems, and we hope to eventually discover solutions, but they aren’t predetermined — there are no guarantees. The inherent knowledge that there is a solution does not exist.
My other question relates back to our study of horror. Do you think the comfortable distance – the fact that the game world is knowably fake, like the act of viewing a horror movie (whatever fear exists is “safe” and can be overcome by the knowledge that you are watching a screen, are safe, and what is about to happen isn’t real) promotes this optimism and hopeful attitude? A gamer knows if they attempt a task and fail (maybe die), they have ample opportunity to make another attempt – generally at no real cost to themselves, their character or gameplay. This is maybe especially true if you know when to save your game – valuable progress isn’t even forfeited.
I also thought McGonigal’s anecdote about the invention of the first dice game had an interesting tie-in to this week’s reading. It was said that Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, cited the king of Lydia as being the first inventor of games as a means of enduring a drought season: one day his subjects would eat, the next they would play dice as in order to distract them from the limited number foodstuff resources (McGonigal, TED2010).
In our reading Jones suggests that “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized. Only as part of the general ‘non-expert’ culture can such patterns contribute significantly to maintenance and/or change,” (Jones, p21). Do you think McGonigal’s claims about the origin of gaming validate this theory? And if so, what is the individual non-expert’s role in contributing towards the evolution of gaming’s practical, real-world value or application?
r e f l e c t i o n + f u t u r e g o a l s
I can say with absolute certainty that I have never considered gaming in a cultural context — not outside the conventionally accepted belief that violent video games lead to dissociative behavior in long-term and early exposed gamers. I found McGonigal’s presentation to be informative and fascinating and absolutely love encountering new concepts. I probably sound like an asshole, but I kind of exist up in my head — and have my entire life — and it’s not often that I encounter a concept I haven’t already considered in some capacity at this point (years of philosophy/art/etc studies), so this was truly enthralling.
I watched some program recently where a professional basketball player spoke about his son’s obsession with video games and how he was supportive because he believed it would eventually develop into a professional kind of gaming as well. I found this really interesting because I found myself asking, why? Then asking myself why there needed to be a practical explanation: an ability to hurl a ball into a hoop doesn’t require a practical life application, why should gaming? Enter Jane McGonigal.
This is definitely a topic I want to discuss with folks and something I will continue to follow in my future. I am curious to see how real-life application manifest as a result of gaming, and how/if society will support it.
I do know there are phone apps that function as workout programs designed in the fashion of video games — you level, etc as you make progress and acquire various achievements. I wonder how this sort of thing would function in academia? In the professional environment?