Caillois and Koster seem to understand how intrinsically games are connected to real life. Koster describes how games are used to simulate real life activities and skills. This is reinforced by how Caillois splits the majority of games into Agon, Alea, Mimicry and Ilinx. Competition, socially acceptable miming and reaching limits/exploring unknowns (my application of vertigo to life as a game) are all basal parts of the human experience. Not to mention chance is always thrown into the mix somewhere, depending on your spiritual view.

What really intrigued me is this idea of escaping reality in order to learn about life and, in essence, reality. Koster explains how minds like to chunk ideas. Perhaps games and videogames are just a physical manifestation of human’s chunking record from the beginning of time. While many games seem to teach primitive ideas, they are still concepts that all humans need to understand and be able to apply. As technology improves, our ability to convey these ideas through games also increases. Used as a medium for learning, games are an incredibly easy way to teach concepts to children. Could this be why what seven year olds now are learning seems so much more advanced in comparison to what I learned when I was seven? And what kind of effect will this have on children in the future? Are they just chunking already pre-chunked ideas by learning directly from games? Will this cause them to eventually not understand certain basic concepts or become even more advanced human beings?

And where do adults fall in this category? Assuming they have mastered these base reptilian concepts, is this why adults no longer like games? Is this why their games become the challenge of being able to manipulate social situations or compete through jobs and work? And what does that say for adults who still like games and videogames?

I, like Sarah, have had a hard time buying into the idea that games are representations of reality and that we can and do learn valuable lessons from games, particularly video games.

Koster writes “…games teach many skills that are relevant in the corporate setting (58).” I can see where he is coming from. I can see how a game of chess can teach you to look out for an opponent’s moves and plan accordingly. I can see how a game of 21 can teach you when to take the leap and when to stay behind for your own welfare and good.

However, with the emergence of new games like Wii Sports or Super Mario Cart (which I guess really isn’t all new, but new for me!), I can’t see how any valuable lesson can be learned from playing a game like these. I cannot see or understand the driving lesson behind learning how to pitch a fake ball or a drive a fake car and crash and bump into fake characters. But I do see potential. I see the potential in “adding an element to a game” to change it and to perhaps teach us something more.

I particularly like the idea that Koster notes in his book about using games to offer us greater insight into how the modern world works. Maybe we shouldn’t have games that demonize our opponents any more and but instead teach us to work with others and depend on others-we can.

But we don’t. As Koster noted: it is the games that teach the most obsolete skills, not the subtler skills, that gain the most popularity. I really wish that weren’t the case. I really wish that more efforts would be put on “find[ing] a new dimension to add to the gameplay” to teach a little more in the right direction; but tell that to the companies that think it’s okay to market violent fighting games to 11 year old boys.

Not going to lie, I am still a skeptic when it comes to videogames.  I just can’t help it.  When I think videogames, I think of a bunch of teenage guys wasting their lives away in front of a computer or television screen.  Even though I feel this way, Koster is slowly (and I mean very slowly) changing my opinion.  He was most successful at changing my views with his first three chapters where he presented the idea that playing videogames was connected with the process of learning.  I was convinced.  However, I feel that in this last chapter Koster did not do as well in presenting a solid argument.

Koster claims that “we have fun mostly to improve our life skills.”  In a broad sense, I agree.  Personally, activities I find the most fun are sports and spending time with friends (which Koster explained as a grown-up game or way of fun).  Physical health and sufficient social abilities are unquestionably good life skills to possess.

It might be because I don’t understand videogames as much as the average person, but I found it difficult to apply this idea (that I support) to the fun found in videogames.  Do videogmes really aid in the development of central life skills?  If so, which ones?  Would it be possible to acquire all life skills through videogames?  I raise these questions not necessarily to attack Koster’s argument, but because I am curious about what frequent videogame players think of such ideas.

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.

At a certain age, one must discover that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Bob your imaginary friend do not exist. Neither does the tooth fairy… and, oh yeah, the monsters under your bed- just a figment of your imagination. Furthermore, who is better equipped than an adult to set you straight on matters of reality?

Adults are always differentiating between the real world and make believe. An adult serves as “the one who breaks up the game, the one who denounces the absurdity of the rules, [and] now becomes the one who breaks the spell” (Caillois 8). Whether at home, school, or church you can always count on the adult of the group to demand one to ‘grow up and stop playing silly games’.

Both Koster and Caillois introduce the concept that “with age, some games turn serious” (Koster 51) thus posing the questions: Why are some games suddenly considered unacceptable because you turned a year older? How does society deem which “games” and “play” are tolerable based upon age? Why are adults so anxious and entitled to destroy the make believe world of children?

As life progresses an awareness of societal propriety increases. Transformation of games within a collective norm is severely altered by the opinions and beliefs of the surrounding adults. We, as individuals, must strive to accept, renounce, or proclaim the ideals of play under the societal hierarchy.

“Fun is another way of learning.” What a remarkable theory this is yet applies to our daily life more often than we think. Our brain always wants to perform at its optimum level. The subject could be math, chemistry, biology or any subject in the world. When the brain understands the material and becomes interested in moving forward, it stimulates the brain into having “fun.” When a subject, such as a game, becomes too easy or too hard, we tend to get bored since the challenge ahead of us is too much for us to handle or too easy to deal with. This is true for all genres of games, even with goal-oriented sports games. I have been playing NBA and NFL games ever since middle school. When the opponent is destroying me or I am beating them by a large amount, there is no “fun” anymore. However, when the score happens to be very tight and the game comes down to the wire, then the experience goes to a whole different level. Chemicals are indeed sent down my spine to stimulate my senses. The football field or the basketball court becomes a battle field. Even though I know the plays, it’s about finding the pattern to the play-calling and reacting to the situation. The brain constantly exercises its recognition skills and learns to react. The challenge, with countless variables, is enough to keep the game long-lasting as Koster has stated. The brain adapts so well from the practice that it makes decisions even without our knowledge. When this autopilot mode is reached, there is a need of implementing new variables. Recently this is where the gaming-industry is at its best. The industry might have figured out that even though games are “make-believe” or “imaginary” fields that exist in their own world, they are able to provide cognitive challenges, which the brain needs in order to have “fun”. RA

When trying to get down to the purest essence of “fun,” it becomes difficult to quantify something that should be simple.  When Koster describes how many become bored with games that are exceedingly simple or exceedingly difficult, he isolates the true nature of fun.  That is, one can make the connection that in a majority of situations, something is “fun” when it is not only enjoyable to an individual, but it also presents a unique challenge that causes that individual to experience something new or intriguing.  When a game is too simple, we understand all the aspects and angles quickly, and thus it becomes a bore.  Conversely, a game that throws conventions to the wayside and creates a wholly new environment unfamiliar to an individual can sometimes fail to garner the dedication of time and effort requited to fully understand it.

As Koster notes, our brains tend to “chunk” related information learned in order to perform certain simple tasks on an “autopilot” of sorts.  A game in which none of this chunked information could be applied might be considered difficult and undeserving of the time required to truly master the game.  Games, therefore, must strike the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity in order to fall into a category in which a majority of individuals would consider them to be “fun.”  It seems to be the games that can achieve this equilibrium are the ones that acquire the recognition and fans they deserve.

Let us consider the possibility that games are a necessity of childhood.  As a child you are vulnerable and inexperienced in everything, which is why kid’s brains are constantly looking for ways to help them understand the world around them.  As they grow, children learn to automate certain responses to a given situation because they are so familiar with it they know what the proper response is without conscious thought.  This process is instrumental to the successful development of the child because people do things faster if they don’t have to consciously think about it.  This can range from simple things like getting dressed to more complicated tasks like learning how to juggle.  Children do this though games.  Games are the vehicle of play which implies that the action that the child is participating in has no real consequences.  This is important because are games are supposed  provide a safe, relatively carefree environment for children to establish these responses.

It is also important to realize that because everything is so novel for a child you can make a game out of almost anything.  I remember when I was a child my dad used to race me to see who could get dressed the fastest every morning.  While I did not receive any benefits from this game I played it every morning for an entire school year without fail and I don’t know why.  What I do know is that because of this I did learn to dress my self without thinking even when I had to use an iron.

As discussed in class, there are many different ideas about how “play” and “game” are defined. An important point to understand is that every individual has a different viewpoint of what both “play” and “game” mean, because what people identify as “fun” differs greatly from person to person. However, whenever there is something that one defines as a game, it goes without saying that there will be playing involved in said game (for that person at least). What struck me about the reading was the concept that Koster brought up about how a game should neither be too hard, nor too easy. This leads one to consider the type of games they have played throughout their lives and why they played them. It also leads to the simple, yet essential insight that there must be some aspect to any kind of game that keeps the player interested. As we discussed, the point at which the player of the game loses interest due to the game being too hard, to easy, or too repetitive, is the point where that game no longer serves the purpose that games are created for: to give the player enjoyment. Enjoyment is the most important end to videogames, because if the game is not enjoyable, then to the person playing it, it simply becomes like any other task or chore they partake in. Therefore, while it is impossible to define what a game actually is universally (since the definition differs depending on the individual), it is logical to say that a game must provide some type of fun or enjoyment to the player, or else it is no longer serving its original purpose. And at this point, to the player, it is no longer a game at all.

As others have already mentioned, one of the central ideas in this reading, beyond simply introducing the relevant questions of the book, is that a game stops being fun when the brain gets a full grasp of the patterns that are relevant to it. To someone interested in game design, this clearly raises the question, “how do we keep the brain from getting that full grasp of the game?”

While this is a huge question with a lot of possible answers, one that I’ve experienced is “metagame.” A lot goes into metagame, but in simple terms and typical situations metagame is a progression of the game itself and how it is played, based on information that came from outside the game as it is being played right now.

In Starcraft for example, as people’s strategies have evolved in the 12 years since its release, ideas have had entire life cycles. Ideas go from new, confusing ideas to fairly understood ideas to mainstream ideas and finally to failed ideas, without the game itself changing at all, with people following them the whole time. There was probably a time when no one would imagine “fast expanding” (building your economy early at the cost of everything else, especially defense) but once people figured out how to micromanage very weak forces to great effect, that became a common tactic. It can be countered, but the counters can be countered, and the end result is that people don’t bother to counter most of the time. This sort of change keeps the game feeling fresh without the developers actually having to change anything, because it makes it so that the players themselves affect the gameplay. And the players themselves definitely vary and change.

The reading presented the idea that fun is simply the brain learning, or recognizing new patterns. This makes a lot of sense drawing on experience and the examples presented. If a person has seen a game and mastered it, then they understand the pattern and will most likely not want to play it again. If a game is new and presents a clear pattern that can be understood by the player, then they have fun because they are learning the new pattern. If the game lacks in pattern, then it will quickly become redundant. As I was reading, I had the following question: If the brain becomes bored after mastering the pattern, then how can a person play a game over and over again? I then realized that if a game has several different options to start out with, or various choices and decisions to make throughout the game, then the game will offer different challenges for the brain to overcome. Take for example Pokemon for gameboy color, in the beginning the player chooses one of the three pokemon. If the person chooses squirtle first and beats the game, then maybe next time they can choose charmander to make the game a little bit different. It is still the same game but the brain has not learned everything the game has to offer. I’m sure this is something that a game designer would need to keep in mind in order for the game to continue to be a challenge or learning experience.

The characteristics of games and the requirements of fun seem to be a pretty fluid area, but there’s a general consensus on a lot of aspects.  For example, personal or mutual enjoyment is key—or at least mild amusement is necessary.  Another thing, we play purely because we want to and not out of some pressing physiological need like eating or breathing.  And we also seem to agree there is a broad spectrum between pure play, which is a freeform activity, and a game, which is a more structured activity with prescribed or unspoken rules.  Where the road gets sticky is when some nitpick probes deeper and wants to know what it is we enjoy when we’re enjoying something.  Raph Koster suggests, and I agree, that the fun in games stems from the mind’s innate desire and aptitude to conquer patterns.  It instantly explains why tic tac toe is boring about 20 seconds into a match, and why chess is still exciting for those 80 year old masters; there are patterns in both games, but the permutations of those patterns are so limited in tic tac toe that we quickly master them and grow bored.  Chess, however, has a seemingly infinite array of possibilities that begin with moving individual pieces willy-nilly, progress to moving groups of pieces in a premeditated manner, and culminate with a holistic strategy and technique that is continuously honed through a lifetime of repetition and challenge.  Quite simply, games are fun as long as they keep stimulating the pattern-seeking-routine-creating portions of our mind.  -ET