In the article “The Rhetoric of Video Games” Bogost talks about the concept of play and how it has been misunderstood. Many people dismiss play as a children's activity that they will eventually grow out of but ignore the ways that play has taught us many things about ourselves and the world around us. Even when considering adults who play video games, it is seen as a distraction or a tool for relaxation rather than a possibility space. Play is defined as “the free space of movement within a more rigid structure… play refers to the ‘possibility space’ created by constraints of all kinds” (Bogost, 120). Play and possibility space give children the means to use their imagination and creativity to help them construct their own meaning of the game.
The way that Bogost defines play is new to me and I find it really interesting. When considering that definition while I think of some of the games that I played as a child and even sometimes now I see them in a very different light. For example, I used to play the game Simon Says as a kid and I still play that game with my students at work all the time. I have always looked at it as just a simple mindless game that I knew everyone would be able to play, but now I can see it as so much more. Simone Says allows kids to learn how to pay close attention, follow directions, and can even introduce them to some leadership skills. There are rules within the game that the kids must follow like you have to do the said action after “Simon says” but if they don't say “Simon says” then the student should not do the action. These are the basic rules but when thinking about the possibility space within the game the rest is up to the people playing to decide what kind of action should be done or how to decide when a person is out.
Bogost, Ian. “The Rhetoric of Video Games." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 117–140. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.117
Hey Alix,
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the Bogost article, I was the exact same way. My mind instantly started recalling a bunch of games I played as a child that felt stupid, but actually had meaning. I think that is something really cool that is brought up in the Salen and Zimmerman reading from this week. They made the point that play “transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action. All play means something” (Salen, Zimmerman, 59). I love that line. "All play means something." If play is so important and meaningful, how can we navigate play in an effective manner. The readings from this week got me thinking about how we can promote play for the next generation, and how we can do it in a way that is respectful to many different viewpoints. We won't just be able to go to some anti-screen parents and tell them to let their child play games for ten hours a day.
Also, I was impressed by what you said about Simon Says. That is one of the games I forgot about, but you're so right!
Zimmerman, Eric, and Katie Salen. “Game Design and Meaningful Play.” Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2010, pp. 59–79.
Delete