During this week’s readings, meaningful play was broken down, described, and analyzed in a multitude of ways. In the reading “Game and Design and Meaningful Play” by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, they talk about how “play doesn’t just come from the game itself, but from the way that players interact with the game in order to play it…meaningful play emerges from the interaction between players and the system of the game, as well as from the context in which the game is played” (Salen and Zimmerman, pg. 60). Each player has choices to make and the system of the game can influence these choices, based on the desired outcome and the context in which the game is played. The action that each player makes can also influence the system in which the game is played. When it comes to communication ethics, I view communication as a form of play, and vice versa. Every game has a system and a set of rules. Communication, amongst different cultures, has their own system and set of rules. Each individual has their own ‘system of communication’ that is influenced by their own narratives and cultural backgrounds. The article “Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility to Game Studies” by Samantha Blackmon did a great job of showing the way that communication and play are influenced by each person’s narrative. The article talks about the Slave Tetris game and how most people did not see the problem with a game that has “kids stack human beings for ‘efficient’ transport across the ocean” (Blackmon), because they viewed it as an educational opportunity, in order to teach kids about the slave trade, instead of considering who might be offended by the game.
After reading about the way that ‘meaningful play’ can influence communication, I immediately thought about the game “Cards Against Humanity”. In the card game, each individual has to weigh out the aspect of their own humor with what could possibly be offensive to someone in the room. These aspects are influenced by each person's own narrative and their cultural background. Despite the creator of the game trying to create a ‘taboo humor’ effect, it is evident while playing the game that there is a possibility of someone being offended by the cards that are played, which then influences the interaction between players. For example, if the game were played by CIS white men, the context of the game would be different in comparison to a group of LGBTQ members in regards to each individuals experience. This is because the game was made with the intention of being funny, without considering who might be offended by each card played.
I love your example of Cards Against Humanity because it really is a game about finding what "meaning" the dealer is wanting. Do they want something funny, taboo, accurate- it's completely subject to that persons opinion at the time.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of another similar game called Incohearent, where they have funny or common phrases or taglines but spelled super wonky and exaggerated and the other player has to sound it out to figure out what the phrase actually is. It's always hilarious during, with a big lightbulb moment at the end when they finally get it. The comedy comes from watching someone struggle to understand the meaning behind what they're saying. One minute a phrase that looks like a bunch of jibberish in an instant becomes an ah-ha moment where they fully understand what they've been trying to say.