The answers my friends- are blowin’in the wind….

Fun and play are activities that have been ingrained in humanity since its existence.  Despite the bleak and rugged hardships faced by ancient peoples, evidence exists of the games they played and the objects they crafted to amuse themselves.  While it is clear that human beings need and desire fun- the definition of one of the main ways of achieving that goal has become very unclear recently.  The concept of games has undergone a radical shift away from the traditional definition discussed in the earlier readings for this week and has entered a sphere where the line between real life and the game is either non-existent or blurry at best.

            Huizinga stated on page three of his article that the “intensity of and absorption in play finds no explanation in biological analysis,” he goes on to say further on page five that “pure play is one of the main bases of civilization.”  A point that still rings true today especially given the extensive selection of games and gaming systems and casinos and sporting events and the millions of other things people have created to amuse or distract themselves.  However the concept of play that exists now in relation to the online world is completely different from what Huizinga was writing about.  I wonder if he could have even imagined how far the concept of play would be stretched during this century- and what it would evolve into.  Could Huizinga have even conceived that games and play would cease being occasional diversions for some people and instead almost take the place of the real world?

            Like Huizinga, Crawford also thinks that “games are a fundamental part of human existence,” and later in his article he defines a game as “a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality. By ‘closed’ I mean that the game is complete and self sufficient as a structure. The model world created by the game is internally complete; no reference need be made to agents outside of the game.”  Obviously his definition holds no credence today whatsoever when one considers on-line gaming- though perhaps it is unfair to even compare his definition to today’s gaming environment, after all he was writing when Pong was popular.  Today the agents outside of the game are what make playing (if that is what you call it) Second Life so appealing to people.  And when those outside agents- not foreseen by the game developer, come into play the line between life and the game begin to blur. 

            Crawford’s article further supports this point when he says, “computer games seldom provide a human opponent, and so they lack the social element that other games offer. They can, however, present an illusory personality against which the player must work. And regardless of the computer’s success or failure in synthesizing a social element, the computer can readily make the game a highly interactive experience for the player.”  Here Crawford despite the 20 year time difference is not so far off the mark and actually touches on what has exactly happened with today’s online games.  Because computers have gotten so good at enabling interactivity, other people now have entire existences online and can engage in business as alter egos of themselves or as an entirely new self creation.  Thus the distinction between where the game ends and they begin has become increasingly more difficult to define.  This is especially true as relationships develop within the game and friendships are made through alter egos… Who is really the friend of whom and at what point are you playing verses living real life?

            When Hinton quotes his opponents as saying “Ha-ha, yeah… we live here!” sadly he isn’t kidding and for many there seems to be nothing wrong with living in a game.  Hinton sites how Doom and the Quake created not just a population of enthusiastic game players but also “many thousands of players who didn’t build anything, but spent many hours playing and socializing in the game and outside it in chat rooms and discussion boards.”  Here is evidence of a game leaving the traditional predefined boundaries many of us associate with them- you play a game and then you stop playing and put it away… The end.  Now however there really is no beginning or end, thus does the terms game or play even apply anymore?