Reading the first two chapters of Gee, it was nice to see some of my favorite topics: physics, Pikmin, and Gamecube references. While I hadn’t owned a game console for a long time, I do remember the game Pikmin, which I at some point, probably at a friend’s house. It was one of the first games I had ever played that felt intelligently designed. It was intuitive, strange, and comfortable all at the same time. Today Gee might have written about Little Big Planet, or something of the like, but it was nice to recall those early gaming days.
Of interest, for me, was the differentiation between the internal and the external semiotic domains. The internal semiotic domain, according to Gee, is framed in light of the content of the game being played, to be able to recognize a specific type of game is the internal semiotic domain. Being able to recognize a specific type of gamer on the other hand, is part of the external semiotic domain. I don’t know if I was entirely comfortable with this distinction. On the one hand, it provides a valuable way of describing the hierarchy of gamers with respect to the hierarchy of games. On the other hand, despite the paragraphs on 32 which draw the tw
o realms together, I feel like the distinction splits up the game designers from the game players in a way which does not always hold true, or is at least problematic in a deeper consideration of game design.
I also want to be able to use the course not only to talk about the games of the “true” gamers, but also of the gamers that hold a low rung in the external semiotic domain. This includes the large number of gamers who play sports games, those who wii games, or even flash computer games. What should we make of these types of gamers? Is their play style less conducive to what Gee calls the “active” play or even the “critical” play? If so, how can the popularity of those games be tapped into in order to create a game that gets outside the usual gamer hierarchies but is still able to inspire a critical play style?
The first answer to these questions is that I imagine that it isn’t possible. These low rungs of gamers play games the same way that some people read romance novels or watch sit coms: they do it to escape. At least, to a point, that’s what I do. I play Madden and NCAA Football quite a bit, and I play it when I only want to do a certain kind of critical thinking. I often multi-task while I play, listening to podcasts or audiobooks, but I’m not sure if I am learning anything by playing the game itself. The experience, for myself and (I assume) for others, relates to what Gee describes as the “Lifeworld.”
The Lifeworld is Gee’s way of explaining how all areas of understanding are underpinned by a level of social construction. Even the “real world” is no more real than the cult-ure of academia or video games. The difference is that the semiotic components of Lifeworlds are more easily taken for granted since they are more readily available to us. This means everything from our privilege of light over darkness to the construction of individual identities can only be understood within a particular context.
Cool.
Those who play Madden, including myself, see football as a part of our Lifeworld (to differing extents of course). Football was here before we were born, and (pending the lockout agreement) will be here when we die. In many ways our football teams come to represent a sense of civic identity or of a located identity that comes along with it’s own set of songs, colors, and personalities. But football, ( so it might seem to a Madden player) is closer to the Lifeworld than an the life of an elf priest. By playing Madden, then, they are able to connect the semiotic domains of “real” and “imaginary” in the same way as fantasy sports teams. Again, I don’t know if there is any considerable amount of active or critical play going on in these regions, but there is a vibrant game community here that looks down on gamers as gamers look down on them.
Are there elements of critical gameplay in Madden? To some extent Madden-ites might challenge themselves by using the minigames or the extraneous gameplay modes. For instance there is a gameplay mode which challenges universities to compete for the most points by playing against each other online. This mode prompts not only the online gameplay, but also a small change in what the players spend time doing (?). Also, I don’t play much online, but I imagine that playing online takes a different kind of savy and knowledge of social cues than playing in single player at home. There would not only be a conversational aspect, but also a judgment on the gameplay style in order to play. And to think of a critical, “meta” thinking level for fantasy football is easier, since the ability to trade players effectively takes a knowledge of both the football game and the fantasy game in order for it all to come together. There is also a strong social aspect to it, of course, and team owners might consider coercing other team owners using things from the real “lifeworld.”
I’m not trying to say that it’s the same type of critical learning, or that these games engender critical learning to the same extent. I am only trying to consider how a large facet of gaming culture might benefit from games in a similar way as we are reading about in Gee.
photos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikmin
http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/2009/04/john-madden-has.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/2009/06/bears_madden_team_player_ratings.html
Possible Discussion Questions:
What are the current delineations for what makes a "true gamer"? How do those delineations shift depending on the audience? What might be considered a badge of the "true gamer" (gamertags, apparel choices, pov, etc.)
In the first 2 chapters, Gee identifies with the baby boomer generation, and explains his more drastic learning curve when compared to his children who were born as "digital natives." What are the deeper classifications within this digital native-ity (i.e. internet native, facebook native, twitter native, etc.)?
Gee talks about the technological synthesis of computer and console gaming. How has/will mobile gaming create tensions and impinge on the boundaries in the gaming community?
No comments:
Post a Comment