The first part of this reflection contains my original thoughts on defining play as shared in my post "The productive struggles in defining play". Below is my new found respect for similar productive struggles tackling "game".
Defining Play:
After
a recent class I became Wildly obsessed with trying to define play. I
crowdsourced my co-workers and came away with some pretty interesting
conversations. In an exchange of ideas I had a co-worker ask, "well how
do you define what animals do? For example, when we see two lion cubs
playing is that play?" My other coworker said "no that is actually
practicing, they are practicing fighting but, we've labeled it adorable
play". Which then sent me on a thought process of playing as practice,
which as it turns out some researchers and intellectuals have already
discussed. I read “In the Laws,
for example, Plato views play as a form of anticipatory socialization.
If children were to become builders, he suggested, they should play at
building houses”(Brehonyk, 2008). I found this was similar to how lions
play in our discussion. I then stumbled on some research papers that
detailed a brief history of play which I found as a good starting point
for my own definition.
First
the classical theories. Dr. Verenikina, Harris and Lysaght writes
“according to the earliest classical theory, ‘surplus energy’, humans
play when they have excess energy, Schiller, a German philosopher,
defined play as the aimless expenditure of exuberant energy” (Verenikina, Harris,& Lysaght, 2003)
The
theory above was then questioned to mean quite the opposite sometime
later. “Play as recreation or relaxation theory, like the surplus
concept relates to energy levels. However, the recreation school of
thought theorized play serves to restore energy. The last classical
theory I wanted to highlight was the Recapitulation Theory.
Recapitulation claimed children play to relive the evolutionary past,
like swinging, climbing, and fighting which all come from what they view
as our ‘animal stage’.(Verenikina, Harris,& Lysaght, 2003)
After
reading these, I gained insight to the historical concepts of “play”
but mostly from a rudimentary level focused on energy expulsion. This
still did not help me with the creation of my own definition. It was
hard for me to use the classical theories in forming my own meaning.
This lead me to my brief review of modern theories.
After going through more research I found the psychoanalytical concept.
“Focusing
on the emotional domain of development psychoanalytic theorists such as
Anna and Sigmund Freud looked at play in terms of catharsis.( which if
you needed a reminder definition like I did is: the process of
releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed
emotions.) Psychoanalytic perspectives explain the value of play in
allowing children to express negative emotions that relate to situation
in which they have no control. Play is seen to provide a safe context
for expressing these emotion and gaining a sense of control”(Verenikina, Harris,& Lysaght, 2003)
While
sometimes I couldn't quite wrap my head around psychoanalytics this
definition brought up some interesting thoughts. Does gaming create a
controlled sense of power for the player? Is that part of the draw? Is
that why we can harness the power of gaming or play in education for
positive learning results? To be honest, personally I have no idea, that
is where deeper research on my part is needed. I am new to this entire
field study and taking it one day at a time.
I found John Huizinga (1950) discussed a new understanding of play as an activity that exists only for its own sake.
“According
to Huizinga, an activity is play if it is fully absorbing, includes
elements of uncertainty, involves a sense of illusion or exaggeration,
but most importantly, true play has to exist outside of ordinary life. I
like this definition. Furthermore, I enjoyed the modern definition of
play as being “characterised as a spontaneous, self-initiated, and
self-regulated activity of young children, which is relatively risk free
and not necessarily goal-oriented. Play is intrinsically motivated” (Verenikina, Harris,& Lysaght, 2003)
Alot of the information tied play to early childhood development.
Below you will find more thoughts on play in a specific childhood
development theory from Theories of play. Retrieved from http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Th-W/Theories-of-Play.html
Expansion of Social Contacts or Relationships with Others
Play
is the work of childhood. Even if you disagree with the paradox, it is
clear that infants and toddlers relate with others through play. Moms
and Dads play with little babies. Older infants explore their immediate
surroundings by playing with toys. Toddlers like to run, jump, and
climb - a form of sensorimotor play. Young children learn to relate to
peers using simple games such as Simon Says. The ext lists 6 criteria
that define the nature of play in childhood.
- Child's play is intrinsically motivated because youngsters find it enjoyable.
- Child's play is pragmatic. Children are more interested in the process of playing than in the product of play.
- Child's play is creative and nonliteral; it resembles real-life activities but is not bound by reality.
- Rules govern most of children's play, but they are implicit. When children are playing "school" they all seem to understand the rules, but seldom are they stated as in a game of chess.
- Spontaneity is an important element of child's play, it occurs freely and is under the control of the child.
- Play is a behavior that is free of emotional distress.
While
this was a good start to understanding why children play, I have a hard
time explaining what it is that makes me still like to (and want to)
play as a thirty year old (with no signs of slowing down). I disagree
with play as a behavior that is free of emotional distress. I have seen
play between children grow into emotional distress on more than one
occasion, which may just be an outcome of interaction instead of the
play itself. There is a game called Dark Souls, that is painfully
difficult, on purpose. So difficult in fact, I have gotten emotionally
stressed trying to beat it, part of the stress was I was being beaten,
and it touched on a feeling of inadequacy for not being able to best a
mere game. When I lose to another person I can say to myself train
harder, or that person is better than you, when losing while playing a
game I don’t find that same comfort. I find that to contradict play is
free of emotional distress. I think the more video games embrace the art
of interactive storytelling, the more emotions they will be able to
illicit in this new modern age of technology ‘play’.
Those
6 criteria are defining the nature of play in childhood. I began to
think maybe we can define the nature of play in adults. When I started
to search if any type of research has been done into the nature of play
in adults, I found a little bit of a dead end. Maybe someone can help me
find research for this topic if any exists, and if not maybe someone
can direct me how to be the first to start researching haha. It is
possible that the extensive research done on "play" mostly what it is
and what it isn't, is non age specific. I did find papers detailing the
importance of having an imagination as an adult, which would lead me to
believe there is an importance that adults still engage in play on some
level.
To
answer the question what is play I find myself being sucked into the
popular world of researchers and academics before me defining what play
is not. I do not want to do that, I want to define what play is to me.
Play to me is safe escapism where i'm free to correlate my own meanings
and create my own reality. This just happens to be possible with
playing educational games, simulations, role playing, and other forms of
"games". I can create my own civilization and play economics, but its
still a safe escape where I can create my own understanding and not
worry about bankrupting actual people or starting a geopolitical war.
Similar to playing 'war', I would be safe. I would also have created an
escape where I can pretend to be the hero. I said in the class
discussion a definition I'd like to stick with, Play is the ability to
engage in a set of actions and interactions where learning, and other
outcomes are achieved through a non traditional approach that focuses
more on imagination, engagement, and participation in alternate
realities. All of this is to achieve a desired outcome. Outcomes that
can be reward, learning, or relaxation based. Whether its competitive,
goal oriented, simulation, high score or open ended. I guess I think of
play as an open ended definition that can't be pigeon holed to mean
unproductive or outcome-less b/c a structured play like we're engaging
in right now (I stated this during a class session in Second Life, where
we were virtually having this ‘play’ discussion, ironic right!) can be
both.
For
my definition of game, I'd like to follow the classical definitions. A
game is something that has rules, definitions, outcomes or goals.
Something that has an achievable effect that makes participants want to
'do' something, be it, win, gain points, or avoid a bad outcome that
would result by failing to adhere to the rules.
Updated:
When you think you have a handle on something as complex as defining game and play you should know you’ve only scratched the surface of a deep abyss of possibilities. That is how I felt after reading Narrative, Games, and Theory by Jan Simons http://gamestudies.org/0701/articles/simons
I
feel back at square one with Plato all over again. I still feel
confident in my personal feelings regarding play. Game, however is
becoming an elusive theoretical idea thanks to Simons. I believe the
creation of narrative to all elements of play adds to the level of
escapism the players can feel. In my opinion narrative is present in
games and that gaming should help grow how narratives are shared and
told in the future. The difference can be found in genre types of games
and gaming. There is not “one” game type but many game types. Much like
there is not just one style of narrative.
Now
that my personal thoughts on gaming having a rightful place amongst
narrative have been shared, the circle of discussion around game has
changed for me since reading Simons thoughts. My ignorance to describe
what a game is, was reflected by a limited view on how far we use the
term game. In introduction to economics you’ll find that in order for an
economic system to work the rules of the game must be followed.
Economically speaking those rules are to make rational choices and
decisions for the greater good of society. I shouldn’t drive south down a
north expressway just because it would be faster. The rules of the
game apply to private property right as well. The question I can now ask
is, what game are they talking about? What is the game economics is
speaking of? Is it life, economics itself, free markets, choice, social
behavior? Is everything a game? Am I playing a game right now writing
my thoughts in hopes to win some sort of notoriety and respect or in
hopes of finding my niche for a doctorate degree? Sure I am, but i’m
also doing it for other reasons that may not be gamified. Game has such
a far reaching transformative definition base on many different topics
that just saying games have rules and goals is foolish. We should
respect that games and gaming are in all academic corners of the earth.
Instead of what game is, its harder to describe something that isn’t a
game. It’s hard to describe an instance that doesn’t have some sort of
underlining rule set. (ethics, society are ground rules set forth in
life). I might have to make a cop-out reflection here. I don’t think we
can define game until, what is, and is not a game is clearly,
definitively, and exactly defined(can it ever be?). Until someone can
find the boundaries of how far “game” can reach to be expressed for
something we may not be able to define it with exactness. We have to
find the distant outer rim boundary, that edge that says after this mark
game has no defining characteristic with anything else, but all things
prior to this mark define game. For me space’s end point and trying to
define game have a lot in common. I feel that I’ll forever be the
hamster in the wheel trying to show what game is and what it isn’t. To
me games share common traits but not one hundred percent of one game
transfers over to the other. Simons talks about something similar when
describing game theory but she didn’t share that game theory has a
common feature of interdependence. The economics library says that game
theory games all share interdependence for all outcomes. The reason is
because every participant depends on the choices of all the other
participants. This seems to me like a rule that is being followed within
the confines of game theory. Simons points out that Game Theories birth
was founded because of unruly behavior, such as poker bluffs. My point
is while the rules may seem non existent, are there not still societal
rules put forth that still confines us. For example, in the prisoners
dilemma I’ve heard some economist point out that two best friends that
may have grown up as street kids and formed an unbreakable bond would
never find themselves in the quadrants where essentially the player rats
out the other player for zero jail time. What rule is this? Its a rule
created in their game of life called loyalty.
So
in the end I am no closer to being the first one to define games or
play than I was last week, but I love the open discussion about both.
References:
BREHONY, K. (2008). Theories of play. Retrieved from
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Th-W/Theories-of-Play.html
Gordon, G. (2010). What is play? In search of a universal definition. Play and Culture, 8, 1-21.
Verenikina, I., Harris, P., & Lysaght, P. (2003). Child's play: computer games, theories of play
and children's development. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
No comments:
Post a Comment