4.21.2004
musing Liestol
I enjoyed this chapter because it motivated an analysis of cultural implications of games. At the same time, I was frustrated with the lack of concrete opinions on behalf of Liestol. The chapter meandered around exciting ideas, but never drew them together in a conclusive manner. So I will offer up some of mine.
Can games be "read" in similiar ways as other artifacts of popular culture? Liestol does not answer one way or another. She focuses on summarizing cultural interpretations, but then backs away from making any claims. I believe that the game creators arent doing anything new, culturally speaking. A form of entertainment is created that the participant navigates/experience. Duke Nukem is a very similiar experience to popular Hollywood action movies. You are subjectivly relating to the main character. In the same way that you take on the experiences of the main character, you play out the experiences in the game. Both forums funnel you through pre-written values, options, meanings. (In this case misogynist hyper-masculinist themes)
A point that is specific to games and worth further investigation is where the game creates the illusion of choosing an experience. In the conclusion, Liestol states that play is both object (allowing detachment from actions/choices) and a relationship (to the actions and choices). The detachment mirrors other media filtering processes, we ignore the racism to laugh with the sitcom, or we tune out the political message to feel the drama. However, the relationship to playing and choosing scenerios is a distinction from other pop culture artifacts. What does it mean to be immersed in a subjective game with limited options for action/purpose? Leistol's discussion about the Boy Scouts states that a fundamental concept for Boy Scout activities: "These were games in which boys, without really being aware of it, assume responsiblity for theri own education through active participation." But then she discredits that same effect in game playing. I disagree.
Duke Nukem thwarts that question of responsiblity by sarcastic remarks when a player pauses to contemplate their role, urging action without thought. The fact that this is built into the game demonstrates that players will stop to think about what their role is, what they can/nt do. And the fact that its not encouraged is an indicator that your relationship is in fact being constructed as well as your action. So, without being aware of it, players are actively educated through participation, though in this case it is to detach ones actions from resposibility.
Another point worth thinking about: the level of detachment. In the case of a film or novel, one can be disappointed if the hero you relate to does something you would never have done, but in the game, you are forced to do it.
p.s. Liestol's theories answering why people play these games (identity crisis, home sweet home, technophobia) are LAME and justify the perpetuation of shitty sexist ideology. :)
Can games be "read" in similiar ways as other artifacts of popular culture? Liestol does not answer one way or another. She focuses on summarizing cultural interpretations, but then backs away from making any claims. I believe that the game creators arent doing anything new, culturally speaking. A form of entertainment is created that the participant navigates/experience. Duke Nukem is a very similiar experience to popular Hollywood action movies. You are subjectivly relating to the main character. In the same way that you take on the experiences of the main character, you play out the experiences in the game. Both forums funnel you through pre-written values, options, meanings. (In this case misogynist hyper-masculinist themes)
A point that is specific to games and worth further investigation is where the game creates the illusion of choosing an experience. In the conclusion, Liestol states that play is both object (allowing detachment from actions/choices) and a relationship (to the actions and choices). The detachment mirrors other media filtering processes, we ignore the racism to laugh with the sitcom, or we tune out the political message to feel the drama. However, the relationship to playing and choosing scenerios is a distinction from other pop culture artifacts. What does it mean to be immersed in a subjective game with limited options for action/purpose? Leistol's discussion about the Boy Scouts states that a fundamental concept for Boy Scout activities: "These were games in which boys, without really being aware of it, assume responsiblity for theri own education through active participation." But then she discredits that same effect in game playing. I disagree.
Duke Nukem thwarts that question of responsiblity by sarcastic remarks when a player pauses to contemplate their role, urging action without thought. The fact that this is built into the game demonstrates that players will stop to think about what their role is, what they can/nt do. And the fact that its not encouraged is an indicator that your relationship is in fact being constructed as well as your action. So, without being aware of it, players are actively educated through participation, though in this case it is to detach ones actions from resposibility.
Another point worth thinking about: the level of detachment. In the case of a film or novel, one can be disappointed if the hero you relate to does something you would never have done, but in the game, you are forced to do it.
p.s. Liestol's theories answering why people play these games (identity crisis, home sweet home, technophobia) are LAME and justify the perpetuation of shitty sexist ideology. :)
