Tag Archives: play

The Origin of “Play”

As we have been discussing “play” and what it means for something to actually be classified as “play,” I found it very interesting that video games, according to Stephen Kline, essentially started out from military research. As these “hackers” began to experiment with video games, they turned something that in no way could be considered “play” (wars, fighting, military research, etc…) into the very essence of “play.” There seems to be nothing as serious as fighting a war, and yet, this is how “play” came to be. What if the origin of video games had come from something different entirely? So many of the first video games were “war” themed (shooter games). Would these games have developed differently if the creators of some of the first board games had learned to create video games instead?

Also – as video games really began to develop, I found it interesting how the creation of these games became so competitive so quickly. It was as if the creators knew that video games were not going to die out. Kline mentions that many people thought that the video game fad would not last, but the creators seemed to know they would grow more and more popular. As the video game creators switched companies, made their own companies, re-made games, this “fad” grew more and more until it has become what it is today. My question is, why? Why did people latch onto this craze so quickly and so readily? Why have video games held the interest of people for this long? Perhaps it really is just because we all want to play. But somehow I don’t think the answer could be that simple. Perhaps it has become imbedded in our culture, but I guess I want to know how it came to be imbedded.

Video Games and Play

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.