I think I get Galloway?

So I had a hard time picking out a passage for this particular post, because I feel like I understand where Galloway is coming from. There were certain passages about the cockfighting and what not that required some extra glances to sink into my brain, but most of Galloway’s ideas seemed to mesh seamlessly.

However, on page 35-36 the following passage gave me a little trouble “The HUD is uncomfortable in its two-dimensionality, but forever there it will stay, in a relationship of incommensurability with the world of the game, and a metaphor for the very nature of play itself. The play of the nondiegetic machine act is therefore a play within the various semiotic layers of the video game. It is form playing with other form.”

While Galloway does qualify his statement beforehand, one clear exception to the rule is Metroid Prime for the cube. I think the word I get stuck on here is incommensurability, which would imply that the HUD is completely and utterly separated from the world of the game. ¬†Also, the fact that Galloway describes it as “uncomfortable in its two-dimensionality.” I understand the point he is trying to make; that it is base level machine work giving you further input on how to execute your mission in a game. However, I would disagree that it is not part of the game world. Metriod Prime offers a great example of this, especially in just the small effects like the water evaporating off of the visor after its been wet. However, even in other games where the HUD could consist of just a map and a health bar, I think it would almost be impossible to play the game without those elements. So should they really be considered in a relationship of incommensurability if they are absolutely necessary for the world of the game to function?