Well, I must say that I’ve found the reading to be fascinating. The text from First Person was really interesting in how it went into what games are and aren’t. Games really are diverse: They’re art, but not one form of art, as they are many forms. They have text usually, some have visuals, some are translations of films and books, and they are all interactive. I also found one other quote interesting. “We might say that unlike literature, games are not about the Other, they are about the Self.” I find this to be very true. In the game, you’re not merely playing that character, you control that character. You make them live, and you move them forward in life. It is this kind of personal touch that you don’t really get from a novel or film. In games like The Sims, you don’t just see what others are doing, and you don’t just control them, you build their world. There’s an omnipotence factor as well.
In the next chapter of G4M3R 7H30RY, I enjoyed reading about The Sims. This idea of the “allegorithm” is a pretty fresh look at things. A metaphor with a strict process, very true for a lot of games. I’m liking this interactive text, it really pulls you in, and it’s easy to read. Wark does a fantastic job of drawing the reader in, and I like the comment system also.
April 11, 2007 at 12:46 am
I’m nodding my head at pretty everything you’re saying here, Connor. I too was struck by Aarseth’s declaration that games are mostly “about the Self.” When I first read this essay a couple of months ago, that was the moment the chill went down my spine. It’s interesting to think about games as exercises in not only self-hood, but ultimately selfishness. And not in a good/bad way, either, as a simple affirmation of self, of existing in gamespace as a way to assert our being.