After experiencing Animal Crossing, it was easier to understand the main points that Bogost was trying to make when it came to how when play a video game we can take it for its pure enjoyment or also as form of understanding how to relate the video game itself in how our society views it. I cannot say that before this class I was not as most ignorant people who believed that people video games, which includes most of of my friends, were just completely obsessed and had not grown up to let those games go. After seeing the game of Animal Crossing being played it as a completely different experience than just reading about it and trying to understand from the one picture we get in the reading. Even though we didn't get to play the game for a long time, Bogost does a good job of explaining what continues to occur in the game and how we can see it as a form of representing a social situation. The character that one plays with has to work for a boss that will continue to receive many profits from all the hard work that you will be putting into the game. It made me think of the show of Sponge Bob SquarePants. He works at the Krusty Krab, were his boss completely exploits the character of Spongebob from any form of becoming successful economically. We learn from the show that Spongebob is actually talented at working as a cook, but will never be able to get out of his job because Mr. Krab will not let his gold mine leave him.
Another very important made is that is very difficult to see video games as a vehicle of learning because we still view it as a game. The mentality is still that we play just to relax from the tough times that we might have but then after a short period, we need to go to our regular lives, forgetting about the games. The idea of involving video games as a source of learning will occur one day, is just that we will have to wait until more people realize it.
Nice work Jose -- you're definitely pushing towards some important insights about games with this post. Television emphasizes visual experience, positioning us as outside viewers peeping in on Sponge Bob's experiences at the Krusty Krab. Games emphasize control and interaction, positioning us as participants (emphasis on pants) within that experience or situation. As you point out in your post, games and television both offer designed experiences; however, unlike television, games encourage us to occupy those experiences through our interaction with different objects and characters. Moreover, games appeal to a wide variety senses through devices such as the kinect motion sensor that requires players to use their entire body to manipulate the game, the tactile rumble of a controller (often used to hint at clues or things that are concealed from sight), verbally strategizing with headsets, grooving on a dance pad, or even basic reflex-based button input on a controller. The other big observation that you've made here is that because games are participatory media, players seek out games for a variety of reasons. I typically don't play Animal Crossing for its subtle commentary on gender and commerce, but instead as a way to relax -- something akin to raking sand in a zen garden. While Minecraft does make some interesting arguments about post-scarcity economics, I usually play Minecraft because it's like a spatial photoshop or word processor that enables me to think about and construct ideas with limited resources (unlike AutoCAD in which you have unlimited resources) in a three dimensional space. No one way of participating in a game is necessarily more correct than another, and players often play for multiple reasons. Anyway, just some thoughts!
ReplyDelete