Foucault’s account of disciplinary societies is characterised by “organizations of vast spaces of enclosure”. He has identified that these “disciplinary societies” are transiting into “societies of control” which has more diffused and mobile forms of control. I think this same progression from spaces of enclosure to diffused boundaries can also be seen from the evolution of the conceptualization of play. Huizinga’s original idea about play as a “magic circle” which is a separate and independent sphere of human activity matches the idea of “spaces of enclosure” of disciplinary societies. The ludification of today’s life means that boundaries are blurred between real world and game. Play is no longer restricted to the “magic circle”; play can occur within the context of real life e.g. Foursquare whereby players can be crowned “mayors” by checking into a location more than anyone else.
I feel that this chapter ties in extremely well with what we’ve learnt from previous chapters, especially Chapter 2 on play material. The networked bio-control society is analogous to the game world whereby all information is accessible to the designer/program which will make appropriate adjustments to the state of the game world based on the player’s actions.
If Daikoku City were a game, it would be a sandbox game. The glasses and the augmented reality platform provide the resources for the players to play with and the players set their own player objectives and create ad-hoc games such as hacker showdowns. Nonetheless, there are certain fundamental rules in this game. Glitches in the form of “obsolete spaces” and “illegals” are not tolerated and there are anti-virus systems in place in the form of “Saatchi enforcers” which will hunt down and eliminate or reformat the glitches. Nonetheless, “Saatchi enforcers” too has their glitches – they are unable to enter shrines and schools. And this glitch is exploited extensively by the children to protect their virtual pets.
The Megamass’ glasses are the key apparatus within Daikoku City which facilitates many unique actions and behaviours. For Agamben, “that which results from […] the relentless fight between living beings and apparatuses” (i.e. subject) is overdetermined by the apparatus and this leads to a constellation of human behaviour that is shallow “desubjectivity”. There are instances in which his argument is supported such as when the kids are so reliant on the glasses that they become unmotivated to do anything without their glasses or when children get into accident due to mistakes in the overlaying of digital data. Nonetheless, I find it an unfair comments because humans have the ability to choose to not use the apparatus (this choice was exercised by the parents when they took the children’s glasses) whereas the apparatus does not have the agency to choose not to be used.
The augmented reality of the Daikoku City offers an abundance of digital play material which can be modified or transformed, borrowed, customized or hacked. The use of “Kuro Bug Spray” is one instance of ludic mutation whereby the digital material of Daikoku City is hacked and deconstructed in order for the children to gain access to the “obsolete spaces”. Another example of ludic mutation can be found in the collection and combining of metabugs. Metabugs is a manifestation of software bugs (i.e. glitch) but they can be combined to form something new and beautiful. This creation process is an act of creative remaking. Metatags are not naturally occurring objects and has to be handmade from metabugs. The varied abilities and power of the metatags makes one in awe of the level of sophistication of the act of creative remaking.
Question: What exactly does the “manoeuvrability” refer to? >.< I think it's improvisation but I'm not sure.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Ethno Post #4
MacKenzie’s paper deals with the blurring of the line between “real world” and “game”. He wrote that the many areas of the “real world” are like games of agon whereby people compete with each other in other to attain higher value than others.
It gets a little confusing when he said the “reigning ideology imagines the world as a level playing field”. It is unclear whether the reigning ideology refers to reigning ideology of games or of real world. I would choose to go with the latter interpretation and therefore, I think he said that games are the “sole remaining ideal” because the premise of a game matches the reigning ideology of the real world. In a game, all players start off equal.
Also, due to the dramatic nature of his proclaimations, I feel that he tends to generalise. He wrote “Play becomes everything to which it was once opposed. It is work, it is serious, it is morality, it is necessity.” First of all, I do not believe that play and work/seriousness/morality/necessity are mutually exclusive. I feel that he has an extremely purist view of what play is and I do not agree with it. I believe that play and work can co-exist because play is a way of doing things with a certain attitude, the subject matter may be work, may be serious, may be moral, may be necessary but the approach can still be play-like.
Julian Dibbell’s article offers interesting insights as to how people function in a world where the lines between working and playing games are blurred. His observations of the Chinese gold farmers provide evidence that play and work can co-exist. One of the gold famer said: “[The work] can be boring, but I still have sometimes a playful attitude”. Another case was when one of the gold farmers continued playing in WoW after working hours to build up his own character.
Gold farmers came into existence because the virtual items within the game are valued by the players in the game. Therefore, this presents a business opportunity for gold farmers who can play the game to collect the virtual items in the game and sell them to other players.
Compared to other MMORPG, Endless Forest does not have an in-game economy. I feel that this happens primarily due to the game design of Endless Forest itself. MacKenzie wrote of games reward players who can best intuit and internalise the game algorithms and mechanics. In Endless Forest, this reward takes the form of spells that can be cast on the player’s avatar to alter the appearance. However, unlike most MMORPG, the game does not support trading. Therefore, while there may be demand for certain spells, there is no easy solution to supporting that.
Another aspect that contributes to the lack of in-game economy is the game design of Endless Forest itself. The peace and freedom advocated by the game design of Endless Forest does not weld well with commercial aspects as revealed in one player’s comment on the game forum in response to the fact that the creators of the game faced financial difficulties funding new features of Endless Forest.
The player said, “I can't say that I really would want to have to PAY to play here... I might consider it if it was a small amount and would keep things going... but I think it would take away from the feel of things in our world, it would destroy some of the feelings of peace & freedom that we have now.”
Seminar question: Where was the philosophical basis for thinking that play and work are mutually exclusive?
It gets a little confusing when he said the “reigning ideology imagines the world as a level playing field”. It is unclear whether the reigning ideology refers to reigning ideology of games or of real world. I would choose to go with the latter interpretation and therefore, I think he said that games are the “sole remaining ideal” because the premise of a game matches the reigning ideology of the real world. In a game, all players start off equal.
Also, due to the dramatic nature of his proclaimations, I feel that he tends to generalise. He wrote “Play becomes everything to which it was once opposed. It is work, it is serious, it is morality, it is necessity.” First of all, I do not believe that play and work/seriousness/morality/necessity are mutually exclusive. I feel that he has an extremely purist view of what play is and I do not agree with it. I believe that play and work can co-exist because play is a way of doing things with a certain attitude, the subject matter may be work, may be serious, may be moral, may be necessary but the approach can still be play-like.
Julian Dibbell’s article offers interesting insights as to how people function in a world where the lines between working and playing games are blurred. His observations of the Chinese gold farmers provide evidence that play and work can co-exist. One of the gold famer said: “[The work] can be boring, but I still have sometimes a playful attitude”. Another case was when one of the gold farmers continued playing in WoW after working hours to build up his own character.
Gold farmers came into existence because the virtual items within the game are valued by the players in the game. Therefore, this presents a business opportunity for gold farmers who can play the game to collect the virtual items in the game and sell them to other players.
Compared to other MMORPG, Endless Forest does not have an in-game economy. I feel that this happens primarily due to the game design of Endless Forest itself. MacKenzie wrote of games reward players who can best intuit and internalise the game algorithms and mechanics. In Endless Forest, this reward takes the form of spells that can be cast on the player’s avatar to alter the appearance. However, unlike most MMORPG, the game does not support trading. Therefore, while there may be demand for certain spells, there is no easy solution to supporting that.
Another aspect that contributes to the lack of in-game economy is the game design of Endless Forest itself. The peace and freedom advocated by the game design of Endless Forest does not weld well with commercial aspects as revealed in one player’s comment on the game forum in response to the fact that the creators of the game faced financial difficulties funding new features of Endless Forest.
The player said, “I can't say that I really would want to have to PAY to play here... I might consider it if it was a small amount and would keep things going... but I think it would take away from the feel of things in our world, it would destroy some of the feelings of peace & freedom that we have now.”
Seminar question: Where was the philosophical basis for thinking that play and work are mutually exclusive?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Ethno Post #3
In the context of this week’s readings, a serious game is a game which bridges the play sphere with the real world through its play mechanics. It is not enough that game digitally simulate lively processes such as traffic and weather changes. A core play mechanic is defined as something that advances the progress of a game. This core play mechanic should exist both within and outside the game and may be significant action/issue.
A core play mechanic, by itself very definition, suggests that the interaction is repeated by the player in order to advance in the game. This can lead to a state of flow, therefore accounting for the claims of practical movement exerting a “mesmerizing pull”. This is because flow can be induced by direct and immediate feedback of actions. The act of performing a game action which directly advances the player in the game can be considered to fulfil this criterion, thus resulting in players being in a state of flow. Bogost calls this “procedural rhetoric”. This may be problematic for the game if the game aims to be critical of a real-world issue. Players’ enjoyment of the game may diminish the critical impact of the game on them e.g. in the case of the McDonalds game.
However, at the same time, if managed properly, the mesmerizing pull of the core play mechanics can make the game and its message powerfully compelling e.g. Under Ash. The core play mechanics of the game repeatedly reinforces the sense of powerlessness of the protagonist and helps to generate empathy for the plight faced by the people in the real world who are in the same position as the main character of the game.
In cases when the procedural rhetoric of the game mesmerizes the players instead of inducing critical thinking or reflection on the part of the player, the reading suggests that this can be rectified by an interruption in the flow of play. This can be intentionally though a sabotage installed by the designer or an unmaking of the game initiated by the players.
I feel that Endless Forest is arguably a serious game but a unique case of serious game without a core play mechanics. Its “seriousness” comes from the “sabotage” installed by the designer.
Although the creators of Endless Forest may not have intended it to be so, I feel that Endless Forest can be viewed as a critique of verbal communication in games and perhaps even in real life. The lack of a chat function in Endless Forest and the deer’s lack of speaking abilities is the “sabotage” installed by the designer to forces player who wishes to communicate to rethink interactions and how to craft meaningful interactions which communicates their intended message. Attempting to communicate non-verbally in Endless Forest and being misunderstood by other most of the time has made me more appreciative of the value of words as a means of communication. The real world issue that Endless Forest could have been critiquing might have been the abuse of chat functions in games which is flooded with spam or other types of inappropriate messages.
Aside from procedural rhetoric, the creation of a tranquil environment may also reduce the critical impact of the game as in the case of Endless Forest. Its tranquil environment and lack of core play mechanic results in some players being unmotivated to interact with other players. They explore the game world to relax and may have thus missed out on the critical dimension of the game.
Seminar Question: In the reading, a serious game bridges the play sphere and the real world and tends to attempt to make a critic of some aspect of the real world. However, if there is a self-reflexive game which critiques the nature of game itself, can it be considered a serious game?
A core play mechanic, by itself very definition, suggests that the interaction is repeated by the player in order to advance in the game. This can lead to a state of flow, therefore accounting for the claims of practical movement exerting a “mesmerizing pull”. This is because flow can be induced by direct and immediate feedback of actions. The act of performing a game action which directly advances the player in the game can be considered to fulfil this criterion, thus resulting in players being in a state of flow. Bogost calls this “procedural rhetoric”. This may be problematic for the game if the game aims to be critical of a real-world issue. Players’ enjoyment of the game may diminish the critical impact of the game on them e.g. in the case of the McDonalds game.
However, at the same time, if managed properly, the mesmerizing pull of the core play mechanics can make the game and its message powerfully compelling e.g. Under Ash. The core play mechanics of the game repeatedly reinforces the sense of powerlessness of the protagonist and helps to generate empathy for the plight faced by the people in the real world who are in the same position as the main character of the game.
In cases when the procedural rhetoric of the game mesmerizes the players instead of inducing critical thinking or reflection on the part of the player, the reading suggests that this can be rectified by an interruption in the flow of play. This can be intentionally though a sabotage installed by the designer or an unmaking of the game initiated by the players.
I feel that Endless Forest is arguably a serious game but a unique case of serious game without a core play mechanics. Its “seriousness” comes from the “sabotage” installed by the designer.
Although the creators of Endless Forest may not have intended it to be so, I feel that Endless Forest can be viewed as a critique of verbal communication in games and perhaps even in real life. The lack of a chat function in Endless Forest and the deer’s lack of speaking abilities is the “sabotage” installed by the designer to forces player who wishes to communicate to rethink interactions and how to craft meaningful interactions which communicates their intended message. Attempting to communicate non-verbally in Endless Forest and being misunderstood by other most of the time has made me more appreciative of the value of words as a means of communication. The real world issue that Endless Forest could have been critiquing might have been the abuse of chat functions in games which is flooded with spam or other types of inappropriate messages.
Aside from procedural rhetoric, the creation of a tranquil environment may also reduce the critical impact of the game as in the case of Endless Forest. Its tranquil environment and lack of core play mechanic results in some players being unmotivated to interact with other players. They explore the game world to relax and may have thus missed out on the critical dimension of the game.
Seminar Question: In the reading, a serious game bridges the play sphere and the real world and tends to attempt to make a critic of some aspect of the real world. However, if there is a self-reflexive game which critiques the nature of game itself, can it be considered a serious game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)