As a biology major, I have serious doubts whether there are any sort of connection between video games and the study of life. However while reading the beginning of the first chapter, I develop a different view of the machinistic portion of the video game medium. As described by Alexander Galloway, the medium is created by “organic and nonorganic actors” (p. 5). These two adjectives immediately catch my attention because life also involves organic and inorganic substances. What fascinates me is that nonliving objects, such as, the atom, oxygen, nitrogen and other necessary elements can come together to form a living organism. This idea coincides with the creation of the gaming medium. Parts from a computer that cannot function by itself (motherboard, video card, cooling fan, etc), become usable when it is brought together in the right combination.
The algorithmic codes is another important aspect in developing a video game. These codes are necessary for the game to function as DNA is necessary to carry out the instruction for life. Galloway describes the codes as messages that pass throughout the software (p.4), which reminds me of how the cells in the body send and receive messages via hormones and receptors. The relationship of the machine and operator can also be thought as a symbiotic, mutualistic or even parasitic relationship. For example, a parasitic relationship exists when the player tries to defeat the game while the software obstructs the player by using traps. As I am making these estrange biological connections, I begin to question whether these connections are random and coincidental. I soon discover the term “deep play” and realize that my observation of biology to video games are completely relevant (p.16). If Geertz can connect the Balinese cockfights to the caste system, I certainly can say that the study of life is of great significance to the gaming world.
Something to think about:
Galloway mentions that culture affects the development and evolution of video games. However is the reverse true? Do video games affect culture and if so to what extent or in what ways?
Definitely, some of the principles of biology could apply to videogames. One could even trace the “DNA” of videogames, looking at how they have evolved over time. It’s important to note that when Galloway talks about organic and inorganic, he’s building on the theory of cybernetics. Cybernetics is kind of hard to pin down, but in general, it deals with how humans and machines interact with each other through continual feedback loops.
To answer the question that Que ends her post with, this relates to the quote that we ended class on Tuesday with: “[T]o live today is to know how to use menus”. I believe that video games have affected culture today. I am a person that does not play video games on a regular basis or partake in the culture that comes with it. However, the quote above can be seen in daily life. Menus are found in almost every aspect of culture now. Cell phones, literature with the creation of the Kindle, GPS. Daily aspects of our lives are controlled through the use of menus to continue a certain reliance on technology. How this will continue in the future is debatable, but video games are partially responsible for this. Certain gaming devices, such as the Wii, can be used for different purposes other than gaming. One can watch television, exercise, and other activities all through the use of one menu.
These are integrated into our everyday lives without a second’s hesitation. Through video games, what people want now can be revealed. This can be shown through how video games have shifted from more simplistic games, to more interactive and narrative heavy games. Cell phones, a major part of culture now, have also become more interactive and complex throughout the years especially with the incorporation of applications, “apps”. Menus continue to be a major part of most people’s lives and what would we do without them in this day and age?
As we have stated in class multiple times, games and gaming have the ability to create an entirely new world, but we have yet to question how far is too far (perhaps I’m a bit of a skeptic when it comes to analyses).
You mention the “biological” parallels between video games and life and then go on to refer to all of the different parts, such as codes, controllers, players, etc., that make up the whole. While I agree that Galloway refers to games as a new/different form of life, I think there is another feature that was overlooked. Very early on, Galloway says, “the data issue instructions to the hardware of the machine, which in turn executes those instructions […] performing logical operations on other data, triggering physical devices, and so on” (2). According to Galloway’s explanation, the data is the technological replacement for the human brain and the machine is the replacement of the human body. Perhaps this argument goes too ethical, but it appears to be congruent with cloning or, to be cliché, with the result of the Matrix.
Games were created to be a form of entertainment, but now, for some, they have become a way of life. I would even go so far as to say that video games have the ability to control people. Yes, we can move our avatar and collect tokens, but “the software runs” (2) and people play. The data that flows through the machine is, in actuality, the controller. It determines scenarios, regardless of them being random or predetermined, which we then have to react to. Therefore, it is the game that ultimately holds the power.