For my final project, I’ve decided to look at Bethesda Game Studio’s The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. I chose this game because it contains a number of the aspects of gaming we’ve discussed over the course of this semester (as well as some of the elements of counter-gaming that we have discussed more recently), as well as for the strong societal messaging that has been incorporated into the world of Tamriel. For example, for my purposes, I’ve decided to concentrate on how Morrowind deals with the issues of xenophobia and racism, through their depictions of xenophobes, racists and even slaves and those who own them. The only real questions I have for the world at large is where should I look for scholarly readings that I can incorporate into my works, as well as who should start in goal on Wednesday.
Author Archives: Calvin
Just ask Mike Green, he was on the ice the entire time
I’ve found the Galloway reading to be relatively straight-forward so far, which could be due to the experiences I’ve had with video games in my past and what little I remember from taking a programming class in high school; but there was one section that befuddled me to no end. On pages 25-26, where Galloway is quoting Jacques Derrida’s concept of the term “play”, I was very confused as to what point Galloway is trying to raise. I suppose it could be the fact that I don’t see much of a connection between video game theory and the “very nature of language” (pg. 26), or it could be that I am confused at how in the same paragraph the author could say “After citing Levi-Strauss on the practical impossibility of arriving at a total understanding of language…”
In general, I am not so much confused about what Galloway/Derrida is trying to say in this passage as much as I am confused as to how this relates to the points that Galloway is making in this essay. Literally in the passage before he was describing how Half Life had a keyboard set up that directly represented move and expressive acts in clusters of keys, and then all of a sudden we are subjected to an almost nihilist discourse on the nature of language, which is quite exhausting. I am almost left wondering if this section is entirely relevant, as Galloway’s earlier handling of the subject of the definition of play seemed very adequate to me, even though admittedly we did spend a great deal of time reading Huizinga (kind of) and Caillois (no doubt about it).
In totality, talking about diegetic acts of video games, like the reaction of characters in NHL 10 to the impressive hits of Mike “Game Over” Green or the nondiegetic actions of choosing whether to wear the current sweaters of the Caps versus one of the classic eagle jerseys seems to make a lot of sense, but going on a discourse of the nature of language doesn’t. But although I was able to “pause” my reading of Galloway to write this blog in confusion, I know that when it comes time to unpause the game, Mike Green will be on the ice. And as we have all learned, knowing is half the battle.
Jawohl, mein kommandant!
Anyone who has ever played a game with a fixed and intricate rule set will or has experienced the kind of person colloquially referred to as the “Rule Nazi.” This person, very much like the nihilistic player of a game described in the Caillois piece, disrupts the flow of the game; in this case by trying to impart unto the rules his/her own “memory” of how the rules are and how the current way of playing is not true to the original intention of the founders’ words. But just as one cannot adequately argue the “Founder’s Intent” of the United States Constitution, unless you have the grace to play Dungeons & Dragons with Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and the entire creative writing team of Wizards of the Coast, you will never be able to say what the perceived reality of the rules really are and in many cases, you cease to play the game.
But what do these encounters teach us about life in general? As we discussed in class, from an early age we are indirectly taught about the idea of a kind of ‘social contract’ that exists within the nature of human coexistence and how sometimes one goes with the flow of things, rather than abiding by the written word of the law or the rules. As anyone who has travelled on Interstate 95 or 66 can tell you, obeying the speed limit directly is liable to cause you to be involved in a car crash. This can be further exemplified by the occurrence of colloquial “house rules” in various games, such as Monopoly, where the written words are changed or altered in a manner that allows for the players to have the most perceived amount of fun.
New From Fisher-Price!
The development of children’s cognitive and reasoning powers are largely dependent upon the usage of games, as described in the Jay Carty’s post. From the earliest years, children are given basic games, such as the one shown below, to help them learn how to reason through simple tasks, such as which blocks can fit into which holes. Although as adults these games seem simplistic in their nature, if it were possible to think as a toddler would, we would find this game as difficult as trying to carry on a conversation with a native speaker of Klingon (if one can find such a person). Without some form of device that could attract and keep the attention of the infant, trying to learn these skills would be next to impossible.
As Koster describes about this development “We see the statistics on…how many basic aspects of life they master—aspects that are frankly so subtle that we have even forgotten learning them—and we usually fail to appreciate what an amazing feat this is.” This reinforces the fact that without some communication-less form of reinforcement of these basic life skills that we develop at a young age, such as whether or not we can fit into a certain size of pants or whether or not we could really fit through a mouse hole, we would be forced to delay development until communication could be established with children, even though without some method of doing this, this development may never occur.
