Read on Twitter
agreed
unfortunately many gamers & game developers still insist that 'the point' of games is "an objective test of skill by which we can rank players' relative success or failure" and not "to have fun" — aka "provide people with a enjoyable narrative/aesthetic/play experience" https://twitter.com/miniver/status/1248950962040893440
unfortunately many gamers & game developers still insist that 'the point' of games is "an objective test of skill by which we can rank players' relative success or failure" and not "to have fun" — aka "provide people with a enjoyable narrative/aesthetic/play experience" https://twitter.com/miniver/status/1248950962040893440
frustratingly, this difference of opinion often goes unseen, with people preferring to argue about what qualifies a person as "a real gamer" rather than having more inclusive, nuanced, and explorative conversations about what constitutes — and what *might* constitute — a "game"
"games as skill test" adherents tend to reject making games more inclusive or adaptable, as this would undermine the value of their own achievements and the extensive sunk cost required to attain them
they get defensive because it feels like *something is being taken from them*
they get defensive because it feels like *something is being taken from them*
further, if competition (a system that produces clearly-defined winners & losers, or player rankings) is a significant motivation for why someone plays games, then any attempt to change that is, for them, quite literally game-breaking; it removes the entire point of the activity
so: to a "games as skilltest" player, people asking for greater affordances in gaming (e.g. adaptability to differing skill levels, time availability, cognition, health, etc.) aren't simply asking for games to become more inclusive
they're demanding that games be *broken*
they're demanding that games be *broken*
and they're not wrong.
at least, not given their understanding of the term "game"
consider: as children how are we introduced to games?
we all begin with "play": unstructured, freeform, explorative
then we are taught "games": structure, rules, and—crucially — winners & losers
at least, not given their understanding of the term "game"
consider: as children how are we introduced to games?
we all begin with "play": unstructured, freeform, explorative
then we are taught "games": structure, rules, and—crucially — winners & losers
the two activities are placed, arbitrarily, into separate categories, each freighted with massive semiotic baggage.
play becomes: childish, feminine, weak
games become: mature, dominant, masculine
— training for an inherently competitive, zero-sum adulthood under capitalism
play becomes: childish, feminine, weak
games become: mature, dominant, masculine
— training for an inherently competitive, zero-sum adulthood under capitalism
all of this happens at a time when we are actively learning to emulate the patterns of the world around us, and building identities based upon our interest & ability at those systems
during those years, games — typically in the form of sport — play a central part in this process
during those years, games — typically in the form of sport — play a central part in this process
agency & achievement are central to identity, and games provide a structured, socially acceptable way to safely* explore this, at least in comparison to outright violence.
*huge caveat here, as many sports are increasingly known to be incredibly unsafe, such as American football
*huge caveat here, as many sports are increasingly known to be incredibly unsafe, such as American football
competition is so central to this process — and the culture at large — that attempts to introduce empathy, no matter how well-intentioned, tend to backfire
e.g. participation trophies *increase* the polarization between the "games as play" and "games as competition" groups
e.g. participation trophies *increase* the polarization between the "games as play" and "games as competition" groups
it should come as no surprise then that so many people reach adulthood confident in their understanding of games as competition
we never gave them any alternate narratives. at least none that were broadly supported throughout our culture
'play' isn't seen as valuable as winning
we never gave them any alternate narratives. at least none that were broadly supported throughout our culture
'play' isn't seen as valuable as winning
to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the only thing that all gamers care about is the competitive aspect of gaming
rather, the culture that informs our understanding of an activity is going to have at least *some* affect on the relationship between that activity and our identity
rather, the culture that informs our understanding of an activity is going to have at least *some* affect on the relationship between that activity and our identity
everyone who plays games does so for different reasons, with multiple motivations existing in varying degrees and changing over time
but the general distinction between a dominant "games as competition" perspective and a dominant "games as play" perspective is still a useful one
but the general distinction between a dominant "games as competition" perspective and a dominant "games as play" perspective is still a useful one
and perhaps most usefully is, I think, the point I opened this thread with:
that these perspectives are often invisible to the person who holds them, existing as a foundational assumption about the intrinsic nature of a thing (games) rather than fluidly variable properties of it
that these perspectives are often invisible to the person who holds them, existing as a foundational assumption about the intrinsic nature of a thing (games) rather than fluidly variable properties of it
