"MANUFACTURING MIND GAMES: GETTING TO KNOW NEW RHETORIC"
by: Shelley Jane Graff
 | ||
| (Cover of Ian Bogost's book -- Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Video Games)
The rapid
increases of interconnectivity and technological convergence have, and continue
to, dramatically change the ways in which people interact on a global scale. Computers have afforded humanity an entirely
new realm in which one is able to ‘exist.’
This realm is not a physical realm, but a technologically based realm
that seems to dramatically shrink space and reduce time; a place for new mediums
of expression which continue to redefine the practices of human beings
worldwide to flourish. One such new
medium is that of the videogame. The
videogame, though still often viewed as a toy, involves a highly complex system
of functions which appear to have the potential to be organized in some
extremely unique ways.
In the book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames by Ian Bogost,
he discusses the notion that the human experience involves a great deal of
‘processes’ and ‘procedure.’ Bogost
writes: “The computer magnifies the ability to create representations of
processes.” (p. 5) Going on to note that: “The type of procedures that
interest me here are those that present or comment on processes inherent to
human experience.” (Bogost, p. 5) This approach makes a good deal of
sense. After all, this technological
‘realm’ is an arena with the ability to contain the ultimate “controlled
environment” that an intelligent subject could potentially interact with at
this time in history. Complete with its’
own procedural rhetoric.
I once
had the question posed to me: Does one interact with their friends on Facebook;
or does one interact with the Facebook software—which then interacts with your
friends? Or, as Bogost states: “This is
really what we do when we play
videogames: we explore the possibility space its rules afford by manipulating
the game’s controls.” (p. 43) His argument breeds many intriguing questions,
including: to what extent is an interactive computer system able to influence
human behavior? In this way, Bogost sees
a new territory that remains a conceptual ‘no-man’s-land’—while highly
thrilling, it is also riddled with potential hazards.
[Word Count = 335 words total]
|
4 comments:
Interesting ideas on the Bogost chapter. Do you think it is the responsibility of media scholars to create games to maximize the argumentative potential of games or would it be better to recruit consultants onto game projects in order to guide the creation of new IP's in order to influence the world's future in positive ways? Or is there a different solution to satisfying both gaming and academic goals for the future of interactive media?
I believe that one is entering very tricky territory whenever his or her aim is to influence the world's future in positive ways; it is simply so difficult to say that the implementation of any technique will have the desired effect, or go in a completely new direction. (As a famous comedian once said, "I'm sure that the inventor of the ski mask intended for people to use it to ski...not commit armed robbery.") Simultaneously, it is a pleasant idea to think of academics acting as consultants on future game projects, but I know that the reality is that nothing trumps the almighty dollar. So, my best guess would be that the 'following the money' trend is bound to continue. Yet in no way does that undermine the importance of academia in the future of gaming. I believe that the study of subjects does inherently change them, regardless of direct interaction between the two fields. By keeping a critical eye on the evolution of gaming and interactive media, we will be able to realize its potential and hopefully guide its progression accordingly. One can dream, I suppose...
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Haha thanks for your input.
Thank you so very much for taking the time to read-through what I had to say! Plus--(for the record)--your initial response to my post/your line of questioning regarding who is "in charge of," or "responsible for," the future development of video-gaming a legitimate concern as well as a critical point of contention. Any one individual's reaction to such questions of personal responsibility ultimately decides who "should be" behind the scenes directing the future evolution of gaming. However, such media groups are overwhelming composed of extremely large, privately-owned corporate entities which retain the legal right to do whatever they want with their products and have no obligation to express any positive messages in any game--ever. Responsibility on the part of gaming industry is absolutely an area of discussion that deserves the attention of scholarly pursuits - as well as the attention of the entire academic community within the field of communications.
Post a Comment