[-empyre-] playing vs productivity (and what does it has to do with videogames?)

[Rafael Trindade]

 Hey, folks,

I am Rafael Trindade, and this is my first time at -empyre-. It's an honor,
and a pleasure to be invited to this month's debate. Thank you.

On the functionality of playing: I do agree with Simon Biggs. Playing is not
aimless - or not essentially aimless. And we can discuss it on an
evolutionary basis. I'm not sure, though, if it's a good idea to formulate
the problem like this:

> However, to sustain this argument it needs to be accepted that high level
> social behaviour is genetically inherited.

At least, not while we are talking about videogames and videogame cultures.
It seems to me that the point is not which means should we use to approach
games in general; we're talking about some* high level social
behaviour*that happens to be called "games" (because they really are,
yes), but
differentiate themselves from another kinds of gaming not only because their
mechanics and materiality, but also because of the sociocultural systems
which they belong to.

I'm not saying that videogames are ontologically different from other games
(or are they? I don't know, maybe not), but sometimes I feel that the
functions they perform are not necessarily the same. Even when I can relate
one experience to another (arcades/gambling houses; "casual"
games/crosswords and such; pokémon/cockfights; level-oriented games/tabletop
RPGs, collections and everything OCD), I feel that
maybe it's different. But I really don't know, I have never thought
seriously about that.

When they are competing in arcades or tournaments, players do want to win
over their colleagues, but I sense that it's not about the competition. It's
not even about bragging. It's about winning, in order to stay *within* the
experience; to keep the thing going on. Of course it is cool to be the best,
of course it's pretty ok to gain some respect; but people would go to
arcades even if they are emptied out, just to enjoy their games; one cannot
say the same about spitting contests and the like. It's not ontologically
about the competition.

It's already known that plot it's not an essential element of videogaming,
one of the reasons given being the impatience shown by players at dialogues
in arcades. I remember now a similar fact - that no one cares about Hall of
Fame status. All the arcades champions are named AAA.

But I'm not sure, maybe there are similar situations outside videogaming.

I just wish to highlight Gabriel Menotti's question: are videogames (now)
still games?


Thanks, and regards,
Rafael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20101130/bd886c37/attachment.html>