Reaction to Bogost
Video games have become increasingly popular in the past decade or so. They allow players to learn, create, or simply distract themselves. Ian Bogost’s paper “The Rhetoric of Video Games” addresses the different purposes video games can serve and the merits each one possesses. Bogost stresses that we must examine video games with a critical eye to determine their underlying meanings and how they function in our society. It is clear that video games often serve more than one purpose, but I do not think it is necessary to go digging for those meanings.
Bogost’s paper mainly focuses on the lessons video games pose. According to him, his first example, the game Animal Crossing, demonstrates a link between debt and acquisition in the real world. The player’s main focus in the game is upgrading and paying off their house, which is something we can easily relate to. The problem is, the more the player pays off their debt, the more they can upgrade their home and buy more products, which makes them need to pay off their debt again. As Bogost says, “buying more living space not only creates more debt, it also drives the impulse to acquire more goods. More goods demand even more space, creating a vicious cycle.” This is a very valid point he makes, but for most players it is probably the farthest thing from their minds. The players are only interested in playing the game, whether it is to pass the time, distract themselves, or simply because they enjoy living another life in the digital world. So while Bogost is correct in pointing out the correlation between the game and the real world, that connection was probably made to invest consumers in the game and keep them playing it, rather than to teach them about how the world works. The lesson is just a hidden bonus, and because of its subtlety, we do not need to dwell on it too much. By presenting the lesson in a game, we slowly absorb the message and internalize it without the need to go searching for it, unlike Bogost’s suggestion.
In contrast, the other games Bogost detailed such as America’s Army: Operations and Take Back Illinois were clearly made to promote a specific idea or purpose. America’s Army was designed to generate interest in joining the US Army by giving players a sense of how the army works, almost up close and personal, and begin instilling the Army’s desired traits in them (following orders, relying on teamwork, etc.). Take Back Illinois was commissioned in 2004 to educate voters on public policy issues in the upcoming election. Its purpose was to present the information in an engaging way that allowed players to understand the policies. For both America’s Army and Take Back Illinois, the element of fun was an added perk. Their existence was meant to educate and teach, but their method of presentation allowed them to be enjoyable experiences that made them reach wider audiences. In that way, it is unnecessary to go looking for the meaning and the fun within those games, making Bogost’s argument obsolete.
Some other examples of video games meant to teach that Bogost did not mention include the typing games created when computer became more popular and accessible. I still remember playing those games to learn how to most efficiently type on a computer, but it never felt like work or a task I had to complete. It was fun game that happened to teach me how to type at the same time. Likewise, the Nintendo Wii game Wii Fit is meant to promote health and fitness as desirable hobbies for players. To do that, the creators made fun games that players enjoy playing, so that it feels less like a dreaded workout. Under the same umbrella of following multiple agendas, the Nintendo Wii game series Just Dance mostly serve to entertain the player(s). Music is all around our society and oftentimes contagious, so it is not surprising that people would jump at the chance to play a game and follow choreographed dance moves to some of their favorite songs. Underneath the surface, however, these games also prompt active lifestyles. When dancing enthusiastically and vigorously, the action can be an intense workout, so almost without realizing it, the players are being nudged toward being healthier. Both of these video games are very subtle in their agendas while still retaining their meaning and importance, so it does not seem necessary to critically analyze them like Bogost wants to.
Bogost’s paper brings up interesting points about each of the video games he addresses and the deeper meanings they convey. He says we must “learn to play critically, to suss out the meaning they carry, both on and under the surface,” but that is not always the right approach. When we go looking for meaning or something deeper, we encounter resistance or confusion. Instead, if we let it be and enjoy the experience of playing these video games, we will understand the messages they convey without that additional effort that causes problems. In some instances, analyzing video games may be necessary to really squeeze out every drop of meaning, but most of the time it is not required. Whatever the case, video games cannot simply be called distractions and things to be grown out of. Besides, many other forms of media may seem at first glance to be only entertainment—like books and movies—but simultaneously convey deep themes and messages. That fact has already been recognized in these mediums, however, which is the main difference between them and video games. What should happen is that we should normalize video games and the impacts they can have on our lives, instead of treating them as a something to be looked down upon when they are in fact on the same level as those other forms of media. Overall, I think this is what Bogost is trying to share in his paper.
Tara's Blog 