Blog post 2

Blog post two  
Emma Martin 
  
Ian Bogost argued against the definition of play, using video games as persuasion in his article, The Rhetoric of Video Games. According to Bogost “play is often considered a children's activity, a trifle that occupies or distracts kids and which they eventually grow out of, turning to more serious pursuits” 

( Bogost, 120 ). What I understand from this definition and how it is perceived in our society is,  play relates more to children, and isn’t necessarily supposed to be lessons or impactful to an individual, it is suggested to be an act of entertainment at one's leisure. With this definition, I immediately think of my human development class and how we learned the importance of play to a child's cognitive development. This leads me to question if play is so crucial to a child's development, then how is it not just as important and impactful to adults? Bogost questions the same and continues to argue that play is more than just entertainment, especially and more specifically when it comes to video games, stating that often video games are viewed as “interruptions to learning and social life, acting as a leech on normal childhood development” but this idea really “ is rather a by-product of a misunderstanding of the nature of play”

( Bogost, 120 ). I agree with this statement because of my experience with playing video games and how some were very educational, such as the games on the website cool math games. Although I would use this website for my own enjoyment, I also gained skills and expanded my knowledge as I practiced challenging math concepts. Other games can be just as impactful to us as individuals, teaching people of all ages different lessons that they can incorporate into their life. Animal Crossing was an example Bogost used as he explained the deeper lesson of capitalism rather than it being just a charming town life game, suggesting that “Video games make arguments about how social or cultural systems work in the world or how they could not work or don’t work” and that “ we need to play video games in order to understand the possibility spaces their rules create, and then to explore those possibility spaces and accept, challenge or reject them in our daily lives” ( Bogost, 137 ).  This last statement was most intriguing to me because I never thought about video games in this way before. I admit I originally viewed play purely just for entertainment, but now I have a new perspective. 
I believe that these rules throughout video games can teach one a lot about personal morals and values. I think of my younger brother with this example, he has been playing Minecraft since a very young age and has developed an online community. Through this online community, he learned a lot about himself. He understood what the basic ethical rules are when one plays a multiplayer game, such as respecting others' boundaries and having compassion and kindness towards others. Through both negative and positive interactions he faced, he learned how to collaborate and problem solve, which taught him to understand what his own values and good is, aligning him to act upon protecting and promoting that good. He continues to benefit from his experience and learns skills he will need throughout life without realizing the lessons that are being taught as he plays with his friends.

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