Today's e-mail asked: What is it with you all and games?

My answer, slightly expanded, read: I think most human beings need some sort of competition in their lives. It's demonstrably psychologically satisfying. That's part of why I enjoy games: they allow their players to playfully enjoy that satisfaction, safely. I would guess that people who don't play games are more likely to compete with others in ways that are more socially destructive (capitalism, acquisition, elitist oneupmanship, stealing one another's spouses, etc.).

(Possible theory: excellence in the more destructive forms of social competition is often taken as a badge of success. Perhaps the common perception of gamers as "losers" has to do with an avoidance of these forms of competition?)

A second reason is that games are systems, and I'm interested in the way systems work, and have been for a long time, probably about as long as I've been seriously interested in games. Playing a game is an exploration of the way a system works—within the constraints and rules of the game "world", what moves are the ones that will produce the desired outcome? What are effective ways of manipulating this system? Playing Icehouse with Trevor when I was in New Orleans this fall really reminded me of how delightful this exploration can be when shared with another person.

(Making up games deals with the fun of the flipside—conceiving rule-matrices that might be fun to play within.)

A third reason, this one the brainchild of my friend Jon, is that games expose us to situations that we might not experience otherwise, which enables us to test out particular sets of behaviors without serious consequences. (Play in general fulfills this role, games are merely a formal method of doing it.) This testing-out process in turn can influence the way we behave when we leave the gamespace and return to daily life. Traditionally, it is children who need to test out behaviors the most-- since they're learning how the world works --which may be why play and games are generally considered to be childish pursuits. But a person who thinks of learning, growing, and evolving as a lifelong process might find value in continuing to play.

(Role-playing games are particularly unique in this regard; they allow us to test out aspects of whole new identities.)

Labels: game_commentary, play, pleasure

Wednesday, October 30, 2002
8:59 PM
0 comments

Last night I talked to Rich about nihilistic suburban daredevils, as part of a larger discussion about the general way that team sports seem to be in cultural decline. It seems that the "extreme" sports which are on the cultural rise—skateboarding, mountain biking, surfing, snowboarding—all showcase individual performance rather than team performance.

This also fits in with another conversation I had last night, this one with K., about musicians. This year I've added a number of musicians to my circle of contacts: I met a bunch when I went to Minneapolis, and this past weekend I helped to bring some others to town, and I even had the opportunity to record with them briefly. I've also met a handful of people who run small labels or operate clubs. I've consistently been surprised at how friendly all of these people are, how willing they seem to be to make conversation with strangers, and how open they are to the possibility of collaboration or creative exchange. K. and I considered that much of this might have to do with the fact that playing music is traditionally a democratic, collaborative act.

I'm putting these thoughts into the "play" file.

Labels: play

Thursday, August 22, 2002
2:19 PM
0 comments

Well, to judge from the comments on my post about adulthood, most of you feel like play is an important component of an "adult" life. And I agree.

But this raises the question: why does play seem to be missing from so many adult lives?

Is it just because play requires people to put themselves out there on a limb, to expose an emotional side, something adults are often reluctant to do?

Jon remarks that play helps helps people learn, and also helps prepare them for future unexpected events. But our society tends to think of "learning" as the province of the young: adults generally are not encouraged to continue learning, and the sheer force of daily habit tends to reduce the frequency of unexpected events that crop up. Are these part of the reasons why people discontinue the practice of play?

Jon also mentions that play helps to refine social skills. But does the average adult need to continue to refine these skills? Is this part of why gamers are often culturally stereotyped as socially inept, doomed to forever remain in gamespace, like some sort of permanent remedial class?

If play is a human need, including for adults, where are the institutions that capitalize upon this need? What would constitute an adult "play center?" (Dave and Busters? The local bowling alley?) What would constitute an "adult kindergarten?" Are there other institutions that take our need for play, and channel it into activities that do not exactly qualify as "classic" (collective) play? (Like, say, one of those companies that lets you parachute out of a plane.)

DBauler defines play as "an activity undertaken for no other primary goal than for one's own satisfaction." As humans get older, and develop more thoroughly into individuals, what constitutes satisfaction for them begins to vary more widely. Perhaps this is why our early-life tendency towards collective play begins to wane, replaced by personally-satisfying behaviors? Are hobbies a form of play? Is woodworking play? Is fishing? Is watching NASCAR? Is playing Playstation?

When adults play with their children, is that play or something different?

Labels: adulthood, play

Sunday, June 16, 2002
7:24 PM
0 comments