Would you play a game with me?

Without any doubts, most of people, even once in a life was engaged in some game. No matter video, life or card one, every time game involved human to participate with story and became a player- the one that follow rules, score the goals, participate with a game and get feedback from results of a game. Is everything a game? What is a life? Can we participate with it, without awareness that we are a part of a game?

As we can find out, it is very easy to apply four traits of game like: goal, rules, feedback, and voluntary participation to most of actions done in our society: “if the goal is truly compelling, and if the feedback is motivating enough, we will keep wrestling with the game’s limitations- creatively, sincerely, and enthusiastically- for very long time” (McGonigal,2011:27) So is our life a game? Yes and no. From the first point we have to follow the rules like not killing others, eating to survive; we have a goals to get: work, graduation, or developing skills; voluntary participation is obvious- nobody push us to live; and feedback- information from organisations and people about our achievements. Very opposite point of view is that game expect from us to participate with a pleasure. By doing something, you can achieve goals and have fun. In real life you have to live. There is no other choice. As a player, motivation helps you to improve your character or skills- in real life if you don’t have motivation, life is still going. It happens. If we doing work-which is a part of participation, because we have to, there is not a big fun or pleasure; as McGonigal pointed in her work: “in our lives, hard work is too often something we do because we have to do it- to make a living, to get ahead, to meet someone else’s expectations, or simply because someone else gave us a job to do.” (McGonigal,2011:29)

We can call a game almost every action in our life as long as it will be participated, interactive, and based on four main traits. Unfortunately, life expect from us things that we don’t enjoy, it is very hard to say that living is part of game. In reality we cannot cancel some duties as in The Sims, and also we cannot click to feed our body, cater physiological needs or have a sex.

Bibliography:

McGonigal J. Reality is Broken. London: The Penguin Press, 2011

Gameness of Games

When we think of a game, specifically computer games, we automatically think and comment on the aesthetics, the interactivity and the idea of “winning”. All games share this common feature, but it does not define what a game is.

Theorist Jane Mc Gonigal states that all games share the same four defining traits; a goal: what the player wants/has to achieve. Rules, the regulations and boundaries set for player to adhere to.  Feedback, perhaps a point or score system, rewarding them as they make progress. Finally, there is voluntary participation, the willingness to take part.

Winning is not considered a trait to a game as there are some games that are not to have a winner, nor ever be won. For example, what is considered to be the greatest game in the world, Tetris. “If you play Tetris, you are guaranteed to lose.” (McGonigal, 2011:24) Although there is never a winner, you still get satisfying visual, quantitive and qualitive feedback as the rows disappear when there are enough shapes fit together correctly.

This is exactly what we think of when we think of game, we think of a computer game or a video game.

We tend to be biased towards games and there is that suspicion of players playing a game.

“We know what it really means to play a good game, we can stop reminding each other: This isn’t a game. We can start actively encouraging people instead: This could be a game.” (McGonigal, 2011:34)

However, there is a blurry line that may differentiate a game and reality. How can we be sure that the decisions we make on a daily basis are not one part of a big game?  Without realising, we set ourselves goals, regardless if they are immediate or further on in the future. We are generally restricted by some form of rules imposed on us. The feedback we receive due to the outcome from achieving those goals, which may or may not be rewarding, but they are still there. There is voluntary participation very similar to playing a game, there is always the option to leave and stop playing the game should we choose to.

Bibliography
Mc Gonigal, J., (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC

Definition of a Game

If one was asked to define what a game is, what would come to mind? Initially, someone would most likely say words such as fun and interactive, competitive as well as winning. Yet when put into context, thinking of all types of games, are these characteristics universal? First of all, what qualifies as a game? Scrabble, Chess and ‘World of War Craft’ indeed fall into this category. However, to look past these early examples, a person then has to identify other more abstract versions of games. Some would say life would qualify as a game. A human has goals, aspirations and achievements they plan on meeting each day, as well as years into the future. Not only this, but as a person living in the world today, they have to abide by standards, or rules, as set forth by society and the government. Life now starts to sound quite similar to a game of ‘Sims’ or Chess then an experience all its own.

A definition for a game is needed to fully encompass all activities that are eligible to be considered a game. In Jane McGonigal’s text Reality is Broken, she defines games by four key qualities: “…a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation” (McGonigal, 2011, p: 21). If thought about, this definition is extremely useful in deciding what a game is and what it is not. Take for instance the previous examples. Scrabble, ‘World of War Craft’ and ‘Sims’ easily meet all the criteria. Now, take the example of life. In life, a person has many personal and professional goals, has the regulations of society, receives feedback on all their actions from childbirth and is voluntary participating because they are alive. In essence, life is also a game. With McGonigal’s traits in hand, it is easy, and mind-boggling, to realize what is clearly game and recognize activities that classify as a game.

                       
Bibliography:

McGonigal, J., (2011.) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and how they can change the world, Penguin Press HC                                                                                        

Definition of Games

   In today’s society we are all familiar with electronic gaming. Whether personally you are involved in playing with games, they are a huge part of enjoyment for some individuals. There are many different types and forms of games to suit different personalities and audiences. Mc Gonigal explains the definition of games and she shows and understanding of how a wide percentage of the population may become addicted to certain games. An important issue that I believe McGonigal argues is that individuals begin to view that they are not as good in reality as they are in games. Bernard Suits shows the understanding of what a game can be defined as “Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles!” McGonigal (2001:21) emphasing how playing games will give the individual a sense of achievement.

Games require active engagement from the gamer, this makes them feel in control and to have the power to make decisions and choices of what the final outcome may be. The gamer begins to feel that there isn’t anything unachievable in games, with this control individuals become confident while playing the game. It has been highlighted that in McGonigal’s view she believes games to become extremely addictive.  “When we’re in a concentrated state of optimistic engagement, it suddenly becomes biologically more possible for us to think positive thoughts, to make social connections, and to build personal strengths. We are actively conditioning our minds and bodies to be happier.” McGonigal (2001:28) this displays enjoyment comes from games because it makes the person feel good and better about themselves, they are able to tackle obstacles and have problems unsolved.   

McGonigal has clearly explained the definition of game, and we should be able to relate to her views and expressions of gaming making our society a better place and individuals will feel super empowered. The main features in a game are to play by rules to reach the goal or target. Games are played for enjoyment and a sense of success when the individual has succeeded and qualified to a certain level.    

Is Our Life A Game?

Jane McGonigal states that in order to understand games we must be aware that there are four traits of a game which she states are “essential to every game” (McGonigal, 2011:22). The first trait is “goal, which is the specific outcome that players work to achieve”. (McGonigal, 2011:21) The second trait is “rules which place limitations on how the players can achieve the goal”. (McGonigal, 2011:21) The third trait is a “feedback system which tells players how close they are to achieving the goal”. (McGonigal, 2011:21) The last trait is “voluntary participation which creates a common ground”. (McGonigal, 2011:21) If we follow these traits we can apply them to everyday life. For example going to a seminar in University can use these traits as you have a goal of achieving a degree; you have rules such as essay deadlines; you get feedback from your lecture and you had a choice about whether you would go the seminar or not. Therefore the question that comes from this is whether life is a game?

McGonigal believes that we need games in our lives to help us enjoy our life. She states that “game-play is the direct emotional opposite of depression”. (McGonigal, 2011:28) Without games in our lives she believes that we would be depressed and wouldn’t be happy with our every day lives. When we play a game we are constantly battling towards the reward at the end and we have to challenge the obstacles that stand in our way. McGonigal states that when we complete a game we move towards “the positive end of the emotional spectrum” (McGonigal, 2011:28) Therefore I believe that gaming is very like our lives as we constantly battle obstacles to achieve the best in life.

Peter Vorderer believes that games have to be interactive, “games are always tired to the player’s perceived ability to interact with the game”. (Vorderer, 2006:14) However McGonigal’s definition leaves interactivity out along with a number of other traits that we would expect to be included “the definition may surprise you for what it lacks:interactivity” (McGonigal, 2011:21) How can games not be interactive? Surely if we are to be voluntary participants and complete the goals that we are given, then we have to interact with the game? Therefore I would have to agree with Vorderer and say that without interaction a game is simply not a game.

McGonigal does explain gaming in an easy and detailed way, although games definitely need interactivity in able to achieve the goals of the games.

Bibliography

McGonigal,J. (2011) ‘Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World’. Penguin Press, New York.

Vorderer,P. (2006) ‘Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses and Consequences’. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey.

What exactly is a Game?

In nowadays almost every person in the world is playing game every day. ‘We have games you can play on your personal computer, your console, your handheld device…not to mention the games we still play on fields or on courts’ (McGonigal, 2011: 20). But what exactly a game is? Do we only play a game using different devices, cards and boards or play it on fields? Do we really know that we are playing a game?

Jane McGonigal gives us an idea that the game can be called a game only when it meets 4 defining traits; and all at once. ‘All games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation’ (McGonigal, 2011: 21). To see how these 4 traits are fundamental let’s take snooker for instance. While we are playing, we are playing of one's own free will, accepting all the rules, knowing our goals and getting feedback through a score card. We are doing it instead of taking all of the snooker balls and dropping each of them to the pockets using our hands. 

 Seemingly the definition of McGonigal may seem really easy and fully acceptable, however after careful consideration and analysis it becomes more complex. We may think that even our everyday duties can become a game even without knowing about it. For instance our degree is a game. We have a goal to successful finish it. We have rules that are the assignments and exams that we have to pass. We are doing it voluntarily and we getting feedback from our lecturers. However game to be exactly the game has to be interactive. ‘From war simulations to Bullletin Board System style chess to 3D computer games, digital technology has been inherently bound with interactivity and diversion’ (Flanagan, 2009: 226). If we will switch off a video game or just leave a room we would not be able to accept the rule, to gain a goal and received feedbacks. That all is only possible via our interaction using mouse, keyboard, controller or touch screen. 

Jane McGonigal in the book ‘Reality is Broken’ give as a clear idea what really is a game and proved that we sometimes didn’t know that we are playing a game. However on the other hand she suggests that the game can only exist with human interaction what absolutely change our ideas that forms final definition of a game.

Bibliography: 

McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC. 

Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. The MIT Press

What every game needs- a recipe for success

 

There has been serious and in depth study of how games (mainly video games) can affect the human mind. While some have focused on the negative effects of long term gaming, McGonigal instead emphasises the positive results that can accompany gaming. She states when we are playing a game “we are intensely engaged, and this puts us in precisely the right frame of mind and physical condition to generate all kinds of positive emotions and experiences.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 28) However, first she states four key traits which are integrated within every game, be it virtual, digital, non digital, single player or multiplayer. These traits are a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation. Each of these traits plays a separate but vital role in keeping the player enticed and entranced with playing the game.

 

The first trait, a goal, is the players’ main objective for playing the game. Without a goal the player has little reason for interacting with the game. “It focuses their attention and continually orients their participation throughout the game. The goal provides players with a sense of purpose.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 21)  A goal gives the player something to strive for, a reason to continue playing the game.

 

Rules provide a structure for the game. They confine the player to carrying out a task in a particular manner. Without these contradictions the game would be too simple, the player would simply use the easiest method achieving their goal. “By removing or limiting the obvious ways of getting to the goal, the rules push players to explore previously uncharted possibility spaces.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 21)  They have go through a series of voluntary obstacles designed to challenge the player to the height of their skill level. This structure has a positive effect on the players’ ability to strategise. “They unleash creativity and foster strategic thinking.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 21)

 

It would be impossible to judge how close we are to achieving our goals in a game if it there was no feedback system. This is done in various forms such as gaining points or progressing to a new dimension of the game. “Feedback serves as a promise to the players that the goal is definitely achievable, and it provides motivation to keep playing.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 21)  Without a feedback system players would eventually lose motivation from feeling their goal in the game is unobtainable.

 

Finally voluntary participation “requires that everyone who is playing the game knowingly and willingly accepts the goal, the rules, and the feedback.” (Jane McGonigal, 2011: page 21)  This agreement means everyone within the game is on the same terms and agrees on the eventual winner. These four traits define almost every game, with some minor exceptions, regardless of genre, form or purpose.

 

Bibliography

• McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC, (P.19-34)

Reality is broken

Reality is Broken – How Games Provoke Positive Emotion 

We play games to challenge ourselves in both mind and body. Jane McGonigal explains in her writing, “Reality is broken”, how a game can be broken up into four defining traits; a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation.

We play games in an attempt to achieve certain goals and outcomes, however we abide by a set f rules which apply to games. The feedback system works as an aid, which informs us on how we are doing in a game, for example when we play a game on the xbox 360, we are able to access an achievement chart, which tells us what we have achieved and how much we have left to do in order to complete the game and finally we must “Knowingly and willingly accept the goal, the rules and the feedback” (McGonigal, 2011:21)These traits do not only apply to games, but can be applied to real life situations.

            We play games as a form of escapism from real life and the ‘hard work’ which we associate with it. It becomes a form of recreation. We resent hard work in real life because it is something which we are forced to do in order to survive in the real world. However, McGonigle recognises, “Games make us happy because they are hard work that we choose ourselves and it turns out that almost nothing makes us happier than good hard work” (McGonigal, 2011:28) We have allowed ourselves to believe that playing games is the opposite of work, however it is anything but that. When we play games we become so submerged in that reality that we are put in the right mind frame and begin to create positive emotions and experiences. McGonigal notes that “Our attention systems, our reward centre, our motivation systems, our emotion and memory centres – are fully activated by gameplay” (McGonigal, 2011:28) This means that we condition our bodies and mind to be more positive by focusing solely on being in a state of optimism. Hard work in the real life is associated too much with the possibility of failure and criticism and sometimes it does not challenge us enough. Today’s games industry provides us with the stimulation our minds both crave and need.

Bibliography

• McGonigal, J., (2011.) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and how they can change the world, Penguin Press HC

It's All A Game

Within the extract from Jane McGonigals’ book “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and how they can change the World,” she describes how games have become integrated into our society.

“Almost all of us are biased against games today-even gamers. We can’t help it. This bias is part of our culture, part of our language, and it’s even woven into the way we use the words “game” and “player” in everyday conversation.” (McGonigal, 2011; p20)

This quote by McGonigal, explains how games have become part of our culture and also part of our language, which is evident in the words and phrases we use every day. For example he word, ‘player.’ This word which has a standard meaning in regards if a game, has a very different meaning in everyday life, which clearly shows how games have been woven into society.

McGonigal also defines the four traits of which make up a game. These ‘Four defining traits of a game,’ are characterises of games in which games can be identified with.

Although the four traits of define a game, they can also be applied to life and work. This then brings up the question that, if these traits can be attributed to other things in life as well as games, how can we differentiate between what is a game and what isn’t.

The key features which McGonigal says a game should have are, a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation. Using these traits described by McGonigal, can potentially identify a game when all of the traits match. However, it is clear that McGonial has not listed features such as interactivity, which could potentially define a game from other mediums. McGonigal comments about what her traits lack, “True, these are common features of games, but they are not defining features.” (McGonigal, 2011; p20)

Bibliography

McGonigal, J., (2011.) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and how they can change the world, Penguin Press HC, (p19-34) 

Is Life a Game?

Everyone in today’s society is familiar with gaming. Whether you’re an avid, frequent gamer or whether you just play simplistic games on occasion, everyone is able to get some enjoyment out of the world of gaming as there is something there for everyone.  They come in many different forms and McGonigal states it is ‘part of our culture, part of our language’. (McGonical,  2001: 19)

She also argues that in order to be considered a game, something must possess four defining traits. Firstly, when playing a game there must be certain rules which the ‘player’ has to abide by. Players are constantly working towards a goal, a ‘specific outcome that players work to achieve’. In addition to this, there must be some form of a feedback system where players are able to keep an eye on their progress, whether it be through points or different levels. Lastly, players must ‘willingly accept the goal, the rules and the feedback’ (McGonagall, 2001: 21)

McGonical also tries to argue that competitiveness is not necessarily a trait of gaming, when in fact the thing that encourages us to play is hard work.

            “In a good computer or video game you’re always playing on the very edge of your skill level, always on the brink of falling off” (McGonigal, 2011: 24)

With this in mind, McGonigal then goes on to argue that maybe we should start looking at hard work in real life in the same way. Her reasoning for this stems from her belief that ‘games make us happy because they are hard work’. She attempts to apply the defining traits such as voluntary participation, feedback systems and the goal which gamers work towards to real life. But is this possible? We play games, we enjoy them and in order for us to succeed we must interact with them. Hard work offline is very seldom seen as a game for many reasons. For example, the goals which we set for ourselves in real life are much more long term and less immediate than the ones which we work towards during a game. In addition to this, it would seem that you are able to apply these things to almost anything if you try hard enough. Does this mean that anything we volunteer to do is automatically considered a game, or is McGonigal making too general of a connection? 

___________________________________________

• McGonigal, J., (2011) Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC

The Game of Life?

        Following Jane McGonigal’s four traits for determining a game, it is clear to see that her theory can be applied to almost anything, from work to study, and even life. This begs the question, is life a game or are there specific characteristics of a game, which differentiate it from reality, which she may have missed? McGonigal could have overlooked the fact that although a game involves goals, rules, feedback and voluntary participation, it requires the element of interactivity, as generally all games require active engagement.

        If you find yourself in a human body, you were brought here to play the game of human life. Through video games players can build high-level characters in some fictional world, overflowing with superpowers and tremendous wealth, while their real life character wallows around at a low level, in an out-of-shape, emotionless state. It can be extremely easy to fall into this trap at some point, as we tend to prefer living through an idealised version of ourselves instead of experiencing the harsh reality of everyday life. Nevertheless, having such figures to aspire to be like can be very beneficial when reflecting on our own lives – “we are actively conditioning our minds and bodies to be happier.” (McGonigal, 2011: 28)

        Although perceived much differently in the working world, games can be aptly described as ‘hard work’. The work ethic we subconsciously possess when gaming would be invaluable if transferable to real life.

 “Gamers don’t want to game the system. Gamers want to play the game. They want to explore and learn and improve. They’re volunteering for unnecessary hard work – and they genuinely care about the outcome of their effort.” (McGonigal, 2011: 27).

We would perform at our best when maintaining the perspective that life is the ultimate game, filled with consequences and crucial choices.

        No virtual reality can contend with the compelling decisions that real life offers everyday. A game that includes randomness and setbacks is much more enjoyable. It’s the ambiguity and effort that makes life so gratifying because the ultimate reward is the experience of playing, not the gold we collect.

Bibliography

McGonigal, J. (2011) ‘Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World’. Penguin Press, New York.

Reality is an RPG

Is reality in fact broken? I have to disagree with the title of Jane McGonigal’s book, “Reality is Broken” as when was there a perception of a fixed reality? How did it break? And why have we not fixed it? In fact reality is just straight forward; it is what we perceive as real. So when a video game is created it becomes real within its space either on a screen, board or field and we control this reality with our senses and knowledge.

Now to address the key concept of the reading, “all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation.” (McGonigal, 2011: 21). These concepts are easily applied to every form of game, such as board games, sports and video games. They are also applicable to everyday life in the roles we play within society, for example I assume the role of student by going to university, which I voluntarily attending for lectures and seminars, I gain feedback form my marks and lecturer comments and my goal is to obtain a degree. McGonigal presents us with Noël Coward’s idea of “Work being more fun than fun.” (McGonigal, 2011: 31), she believes in that having trying to have fun we are creating a stressful situation for ourselves, but “When we choose our hard work, we enjoy the stimulation and activation.” (McGonigal, 2011: 32). This is evident within capitalist society as we see the drive people have to establish careers/businesses, follow the rules and regulation established by the state, gain feedback from employers and consumers and achieve the highest capital. People spend vast time and effort to win the capitalist game believing it will pay off and make them happy. This idea is best demonstrated by the board game monopoly.  

In short we are all playing the game that is life; we all follow the rules, get comfort in feedback from family, friends and acquaintances and expect to gain something for our efforts. Though some may argue that life is involuntary, but we all have to participate in some form to gain anything and achieve a fulfilling life.

Bibliography 

McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC, (P.19-34)

The Game of Life?

In Reality is Broken, Jane McGonigal initially paints a clear picture about what a game is, by stating that all games have four defining traits: “a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation” (McGonigal, 2011: 21). When you apply these traits to any game, it is evident that this definition makes sense. All games have these four things, even though, as McGonigal points out, there can be other traits involved, such as interactivity and competition (McGonigal, 2011:21).

However, McGonigal begins to blur the lines between what we know as generic games, and what could possibly be included in this category as well, making the definition increasingly more ambiguous. Instead of games being separate from the mundane activities of everyday life, McGonigal seems to be suggesting that everything we do could potentially be a game. Voluntary participation could possibly be where the lines blur the most. For something to be a game, we must volunteer to be a part of it (McGonigal, 2011: 21). However, when it comes to most things in life, we volunteer to do them; we are not actually forced. We technically have the choice to not go to school or to not go to work. Therefore, there is a possibility that everything is a game.

Although her tone is quite positive about this, we must question the negative issues that could arise from this. The four traits used to describe a game could easily be applied to the act of war and terrorist attacks. Therefore, these must be considered ‘games’ as well, which would be considered by many as an inappropriate comment to make on such devastating issues.

However, even though she suggests that everything could be a game, McGonigal seems to believe that there is still a difference, although the only real suggestion towards knowing whether it’s a game or not is the sense that “when we’re playing a game, we just know it” (McGonigal, 2011: 20).

Bibliography
McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. London: The Penguin Press

Everything's a Game?

McGonigal uses four traits in an attempt to define exactly what a game is: a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation. These traits are easily understood by looking at common games, take for example a game of golf. McGonigal identifies that there is a clear goal: to get the ball into the hole. She goes on to say that you play the game willingly, following a set of rules and you get feedback through the use of a score card, (McGonigal, 2011: 20-21). However, after considering these traits in detail, it soon becomes apparent that a game is, by her definition, so much more complex than we first think. When we break it down, it seems that everyday tasks are, in fact, a game.

“This definition may surprise you for what it lacks: interactivity, graphics, narrative, rewards, competition, virtual environments, or the idea of winning...”, (McGonigal, 2011:21). She writes off the idea that games have to be interactive. Yet, how can a game function without active engagement? If we were playing a video game and decided to leave the room, nothing would happen. The goal would not be achieved. We would not be following the rules. No feedback would be received. The game can only exist with interaction, which is a flaw in McGonigal's statement. As for the lack of competition, she again misses a vital point. In a sports game, we are competing against the other. This much is obvious. But even in a game with one player, a person is in competition with his/her self, to become better or to achieve more. 

The main criticism of McGonigal’s text is that she has developed an over simplified definition which has taken the idea of a game entirely out of context. If it was down only to these four traits, making a cup of coffee would be a game. Although she makes some good points on what a game is, her definition definitely needs revised to include ideas on interactivity and competition, which she merely dismisses.

Bibliography

McGonigal, J., (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC, (P.19-34)

Life's A Game

Can we say life is a game? Following McGonigal’s traits (goal, rules, feedback and voluntary participation), it maybe is (McGonigal, 2011).

The goal of life isn’t known at the beginning, just like in ‘Portal’ (McGonigal, 2011), and is subjective, but there is one.

It has also rules. We can’t get out of certain scientific facts like gravity and we are limited to what our body can do, although there are exceptions of changing them, e.g. airplanes or fitness.
Several feedback systems indicate how ‘successful’ we play the game of life: graduating, earning money, having friends, ... .
An object of critique lies in the forth trait: voluntary participation. We haven’t chosen to play this game; we didn’t choose to be born. But on the other hand we can also argue that you don’t have to take part in a game from the beginning. You can actively participate after you already got involved in it, like for instance car punching games.

In the line of McGonigal’s definition, we can also find Costikyan who defines games as: “a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal (Flanagan, 2009; pp. 6)”. This even fits better in seeing life as a game, because it goes around the problem of voluntary participation.

But what are the consequences if we see life as a game? Is reality a game? Is life even real? When speaking about cyborgification, we already mentioned the ‘Body without Organs’ (Shaw, 2008; pp. 93). We are nothing more than our mind. And it’s this mind that perhaps just creates a reality. We can’t be sure that ‘reality’ exists.

According to that view, perhaps Salen and Zimmerman have a better definition of games: “A system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome (Flanagan, 2009; pp. 7)”. Important here is the notion of ‘artificial’, and ‘conflict shouldn’t be understand as something outrageous.

To conclude, we can say that life is a sort of game. Following the idealistic philosophy, reality is a state of mind containing several games at multiple levels.

 

References:

 McGonigal, J. (2011)  What Exactly Is a Game?, in Reality Is Broken. New York: The Penguin    Press, pp. 19-34.

Flanagan, M. (2009) Critical Play: Radical Game Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 4-7.

Shaw, D. (2008) Technoculture: The Key Concepts. Oxford: Oxford Berg Press, pp. 93.

Transparent Immediacy - embracing your virtual self

        The rising commonality of computer usage over the past twenty years has made the keyboard and mouse feel so natural that they have become fitting substitutes for virtual reality as it was envisaged in the past. However, they are beginning to lose relevance and requirement with the evolution of virtual technologies. Playing a video game, for example, involves a user projecting themselves and entering into a narrative space, becoming enraptured with virtual objects which occupy part of the conscious mind. This feature of immersive involvement is gradually finding its way into many new media forms to revolutionise modern technology.

        As we move towards more realistic and immersive forms of digital technology, there are emerging programs designed to change our perception of technology in its relation to reality. The term ‘transparent immediacy’ relates to the disappearance of the tools and technologies which could make wholly captivating virtual reality possible: “enthusiasts promise us transparent, perceptual immediacy … they expect virtual reality to diminish and ultimately to deny the mediating presence of the computer and its interface.” (Bolter, 2000: 22/23). Transparent immediacy can be seen as interfaceless ‘new media’; the idea is to make the user lose awareness of the medium in favour of becoming engrossed with the objects or spaces being represented. As with modern touchscreen computers, the tools required to perform on-screen tasks are lessening and the medium itself could one day become intangible.

        Although virtual reality is typically envisaged as being used recreationally, it could prove to have effective modern medicinal uses such as virtual psychotherapy and aiding people with weight loss. Individuals can strongly identify with cyber representations of themselves (avatars), which can in turn influence health and appearance. A cyber alter-ego could have a positive influence on a person's life, i.e. people seeking to lose weight could create fitter avatars to help visualize themselves as slimmer and healthier. Harnessing the power of the virtual world could lead to many new forms of treatment.

Bibliography

Bolter, Jay David (2000). ‘Remediation: Understanding New Media’ (New Ed.), MIT Press.

In person or through the screen?

Digital era diametrically change our understanding and way of reception of any media product. By developing skills and progress in technology, old ways of transmission and production are not enough. As long as New Media became a part of the culture an old media has to change and became easily available. This shift brings the world into wide possibilities to access different sources but, is it possible that viewer will get the same impression of what he sees on the screen as it would be in person.

It was more than obvious that old media content have to turn into digital version. This transformation brings sources closer to viewer and gives wide opportunity for more people to experience culture products. Computers are kind of gate to access digital version of text or photographs what is pointed in Bolter book: “In these cases, the electronic medium is not set in opposition to painting…; instead, the computer is offered as a new means of gaining access to these older materials” (Bolter, 2000,p.45)

There is no doubt, that idea of remediation which state about the shift and transformation old in New is very successful, but aspect of reception will never be the same as during contact in reality. Computer as a machine brings content closer to the viewer but at the same time is a barrier, which is hard to eliminate. An interaction between human and computer is necessary. As long as viewer have to click or scroll to get a content, presence of machine is hard to unnoticed. Furthermore, cources available online or in digital version have got lover quality, colours may differ from the original and very often text is hard to read.

It is very easy to notice that, as Bolter said “content of older media could simply be poured into the new one” (Bolter,2000,p.45) but there is always a risk of difference. Possibility to see Lady with an Ermine on the screen can help develop knowledge about object but experience of standing in front of real painting in conjunction with ‘aura’ might be more valuable.

Bolter J. D., Remediation: Understanding New Media New Ed., MIT Press, 2000

Virtual Reality

Without a doubt, we are living in the era of advanced technology that allows us to move to virtual reality through the different type of media and technology even just for a moment, sometimes without knowing about that.  

 

Really often we forget about the real life and we feel for a moment as a part of the story that being telling. It’s being moved to laugh at a comedy movie or forgetting our own self while experiencing virtual reality. ‘For gamers, the experience is one of immediacy: the character becomes a vehicle for their direct experience of the game world’ (Jenkins, 2006: p: 126). For example in game such as Call of Duty the gamer feels as a part of the game, is in the virtual reality because of the first person point of view as well as because of using interfaces such as mouse, keyboard or controller to control the movement, shooting and ability to change the weapon. ‘At the Heart of VR [virtual reality] is an experience- the experience of being in a virtual world or remote location’ (Bolter, Grusin, 2000: p: 22). This is exactly what the virtual reality in games gives to us.

‘In today’s virtual reality systems, the viewer must wear a bulky head-mounted display, a helmet with eye pieces for each eye’ (Bolter, Grusin, 2000: p: 22). It means that the only possible way to experience the virtual reality is through the different interfaces, by mouse for instance while playing the game; but main aim of virtual reality is forgot about the use of any interfaces, so in this way people are not able to be free in the virtual reality. On the other hand to create the sense of virtual reality it is crucially important to remove all ruptures and faults in technology. Despite the fact that we are living in the era of highly development technology it still contains a lot of ruptures such as slow frames rates, jagged graphic and system crashes. In this way it seems that to take a part in the virtual reality without any interfaces we will still have to wait. 

Bibliography:

Bolter, J.D & Grusin R., (2000) Remediation: Understanding New Media New Ed. (MIT Press)

Jenkins, H., (2008) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide Revised (NYU Press)