Galloway introduces its readers with the idea that video games are actions. In order to play the video game, users must cooperate with a machine in order to achieve a goal that exists in a world of its own. Although users may not always be ‘playing’ the game according to authors Huizinga and Caillois, Galloway suggests that video games are different and that they must be interpreted differently from traditional games. There is this separate factor, the machine, who introduces the idea that a game can be played even when users are not actively interacting with the game. The machine can create gaming elements, such as those creatively pointed out in Upgrade Complete, that immerse intrinsically motivated players into a virtual world of gamic actions (p. 38).
It is interesting to see how Galloway attempts to interpret several definitions of ‘play’ into video game culture. “To arrive at a definition of video games, then, one must take Huizinga and Caillois’s concept of play and view it as it is actually embedded inside algorithmic game machines” (p. 21). Does Galloway mean to say that ‘play’ is programmed into video games and that any video game user is implied to be a player? The definition of play has evolved concurrently with culture (in my opinion), so would this just be the next step in our (the world’s?) definition of play?
And what gets me the most is Galloway’s idea of diegetic machine. Even when a user is not there, the game continues to ‘play’. Although no operator actions are occurring, do machine actions constitute play? Galloway doesn’t answer the question when he brings up the idea of cut scenes and only suggests a different interpretation, but I’m curious as to what he would say if he were to give a direct answer.
Great question about diegetic machine acts. Galloway will answer this more directly in the last chapter of the book (which we’ll read later this semester). Essentially, games that are in permanent diegetic machine act mode are not really games—they are more like pieces of art.
I agree that Galloway’s idea that video games are “actions”. He makes a strong case for the thought that operators must constantly interact with the video game in order to play (page 2). Without constant action, one will either fall into the “ambient” state, or be “killed”.
However, the idea that video games must be separated from traditional games may be outdated. Is there a possibility of syncing video games and traditional games? Should they really be looked at differently? Ihokanso posted about the idea that Galloway’s four quadrants might blur together with the continuous rise of technology (which I agree with). The line between fantasy and reality is diminishing (e.g. better graphics, logical A.I., console controllers shaped like steering wheels, guns, etc.).
In particular, online gaming could be a step back towards more traditional games. Look at simple children’s games (cops and robbers, pretending to be knights, capture the flag). These games are now available online. Instead of pretending though, players can wield video game guns and capture artificial flags (all while playing with real players over the internet). Consider dlucas6’s comment on “Blurring…”, a futuristic video game that places players in a “Matrix”-type setting would allow for more traditional games. Instead of playing with pretend swords (or whatever the tool/weapon may be), players could “wield” realistic items and simply respawn when “killed”. The rise of technology may create video games that are so realistic that the line between traditional and video may shrink.