In 1958, an American physicist named William Higinbotham was sitting in his office at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where he worked. He was pondering of a way to cure the boredom of visitors who come to the laboratory, when he realized that one of the computers there could calculate ballistic missle trajectories. He used this idea to create one of the first video games, “Tennis for Two,” which became the predecessor of the most iconic video games “Pong.”
The main display of the classic game “Pong”
Ian Bogost discusses how we tend to separate games from work in a section of his article titled “Play.” He talks about how playing and learning have always been separated, and gives the example of contemporary schooling where children are taught while sitting in desks attentively but also have a separte alliquoted time slot planned into their day (recess) so they can play before continuing to learn. Relating this idea back to video games, Bogost says,”Video games also subscribe to this value model. They are a part of the “entertainment software” industry, and they are generally considered a leisure practice by players and the general public alike” (120). There is a “possibility space” that everyone encounters when they reach out to play, but it is usually associated with rules, or procedures as Bogost later calls them, that regulate what can be done in this space (similar to the rules teachers create for kids at recess). In the same sense, Bogost believes that video games are a tool that allow individuals to navigate this “possibility space” through the procedures that set these contraints in motion. He says, “This is really what we do when we play video games: we explore the possibility space its rules afford by manipulating the symbolic systems the game provides. The rules do not merely create the experience of play-they also construct the meaning of the game” (121).
Ian Bogost playing with an Atari VCS joystick
Because there are many dfferent ways to create procedures for different video games, there are also many different types of games that can be created. Bogost compares Animal Crossing to another game called Doom, which unlike the friendly consumption type model of Animal Crossing instead focuses on the use of weopons. Just because there are games that may not give as beneficial of a learning expereince to the user, this does not eliminate the possibility. As Bogust puts clearly:
“Some games’ procedural representations serves mostly to create an entertainment expereince, a fantastic situation that transports the player to another world. But other games use procedurality to make claims about the cultural, social, or material aspects of human experience. Some do this deliberatelty, while others do it inadvertenetly” (123).
One of the main points of Bogost’s article is his therory of procedural rhetoric. He describes this saying, “I suggest the name procedurual rhetoric for the practice of using processes persuasively, just as verbal rhetoric is the practive of using oratory persuasively and visual rhetoric is the practive of using images persuasuively” (125). He beleives that this idea can be used in the way we create video games and similar programs, and through this, we are able to create games for children and adults that facilitate interest in learning and create and environment where people think critically about social and cultural themes.
Although I agree with much of what Bogost talks about in his article, I beleive that it is necessary to tred carefully when approaching the idea of video game learning. Before the general public will accept the idea of video games being a portal in which our minds will be richly engaged in cultural values, social practices, or interactive learning, there needs to be a shift in the stereotype of what a video game is. To me this seems like an almost impossible task because there are always going to be unproductive video games out there that give a bad name to all the ones that may actually increase our thinking power. In addition, there are also going to be video games out there that claim they will increase your awareness or inteligence relating to a certain subject but may not help whatsoever.
Main advertisement of Luminosity
An example that immediately came to my mind due to its continous advertising is the website Luminosity. This website claims to improve mental performance and brain function through online games. While researching this website I found many people out there that are immediately calling this website out on its “lies.” One person who goes by the name of “thestochasticman” in his blog, discusses this idea of mental exercise in blog post Why Braintraining doesn’t work. He calls out this bad science by defaming the credibility of the neuroscientists who supposedly conducted research that proved the games Luminosity advertises work. He talks about who he is tired of all the marketing behind these type of things, and instead says, “If you really want to mildly stretch your brain, why not do a crossword?” Although I think that advances in technology that are continouly being created have a lot of potential to do a lot of good in the lives of many people, I know that there are always going to be companies and products that try to manipulate that idea in order for them to profit off the public. I guess thats what makes the U.S. what it is, but until there is a shift in this dynamic, I’m not exactly sure how productive people will start being by playing these types of games.