Oh what a brave new world is this. 
So as of recent contemporary gaming is gaining more traction as a respectable pastime. I imagine that we will be soon showing top League players the same sort of veneration as chess masters (/sarcasm). This brings into light an interesting little bit of an observation. As will film before it the popularization of video games will likely introduce a new set of expressive vocabulary to modern language. Now, i'm not referring to slang specifically though i'm sure that gaming slang is far more prevalent in a modern conversation than it was say twenty years ago. What I am referring to is more of a mental mode, or to borrow a term from philosophy: a schema.
There have been several [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/2/174/abstract] studies [http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0034857.pdf] that show how video games impact the mind. We also know that gaming (and play in general) is a major component of human culture and development (Recommended: Homo Ludens). While the play element has not changed, the number of games we play has. In effect, we are building a modern ludic canon to supplement the classical and the exposure to it has really never been higher.
As we gain familiarity with a subject it is natural for us to find parallels within it to other subjects. The infamous car analogy in which IT people must explain everything for instance grew out of the culture of the 1950s, where the technological pastime for the youth culture was automotives. The schema of car mechanics can be used to communicate ideas that are not necessarily intrinsically related to cars. It may even, in some cases, provide surprising insight into the issue just by the act of translation.
Consider, in this light, the idea that it is now gaming itself that has become a common schema. It is difficult for me to imagine a subject that could not be explored through gaming, more over it is difficult for me to imagine a subject that could not be enacted through gaming. Now, here I will draw a needed distinction: I am not referring to the unfortunate trend of 'gamification'. I am instead proposing that gaming has given us a new set of vocabulary (Semiotic symbols) and that this vocabulary will become generation defining.
This leads me to a question that I find interesting and one that has been thrown around outside this context for quite some time: What isn't a game? If most problems can be explained and solved using the vocabulary of gaming, does that make those problems gaming? Thinking back to Bernard Suits' The Grasshopper:Games, Life, and Utopia wherein the Grasshopper of Asop is expanded and given the aspect of the True Player (TM). Within this book, the Grasshopper is a philosophical teacher to whom the virtues of play are absolute.
This is not as strange as it may seem, in fact it is even somewhat explored in the context of the Professional Player. Playing a game, says the grasshopper, is not necessarily playing. Odd wording if I say so myself, but I think that we can use gaming in its stead. Suits uses this passage to expand upon the idea of the lusory attitude, which is an interesting concept but it has more to do with play than with gaming. What I intent to take away from this passage is a good point of rebuttal to the claims that gaming, or even games, have to be fun (thus ruining my own fun of exploring the idea of the gaming schema).
So, those of you who are schooled in games studies or game design might already understand that the current state of games studies is more or less a hodge-podge from just about every single academic discipline under the sun. I can discuss gaming in terms of cybernetic systems, information theory, psychology, physics, medicine, chemistry, etc. This alone should be an indication of just how deeply gaming touches the innate human condition, however I could likely easily put you to task to use gaming to explain any of those disciplines as well. Educational gaming as a genre has always been an interesting oddity that explores this line of thought. However, in somewhat of an odder turn, we can look to games to in fact embody these disciplines. Learning the game enables useful work in the case of fold.it and looking at it, it may not actually be that difficult to consider explaining complex protine behavor in terms of say, Marvel Puzzle Quest (Which my roomate is obsessed with for some odd reason).
As we consider the fact that these sort of systems can be translated into games, it becomes easier to see that games themselves (even independent of traditional narratives) can be an expressive medium at their core. Given how much we internalise games (I can recite the rules of chess and poker by heart, but without a thought I can perform them without flaw) getting to a point where we can model a given subject or issue within the game schema may bring us to truly grok the subject. I imagine this is much how mathematicians view mathematics, or literary theorists view language, however: games allow for the creation of massively simplified rulesets in order to address or solve specific problems. Learning fold.it is massively simpler than learning the science behind it, and yet it still gives you deep insight into the actual mechinisms it simulates.
In this way, I see gaming as a schema that is truly fit for this day and age. Explanations of complex phenomena can be explained with comparatively simpler systems that are natural to internalize.
Now, my particular musings have been very mechanically focused, but I do not deny the narrative aspects of gaming or the amount of social exploration that games allow. The controversies stirred up around themes in games are proof of that, and I would love to hear how you all envision or currently see gaming affecting cultural institutions. I still do seek ideas as to what exactly is gaming, and I'm rather happy to discuss the fine points of the philosophy behind each supposition. I think that this is a subject that is well and worth while discussing and I hope you all will find it interesting and engaging as well.
So as of recent contemporary gaming is gaining more traction as a respectable pastime. I imagine that we will be soon showing top League players the same sort of veneration as chess masters (/sarcasm). This brings into light an interesting little bit of an observation. As will film before it the popularization of video games will likely introduce a new set of expressive vocabulary to modern language. Now, i'm not referring to slang specifically though i'm sure that gaming slang is far more prevalent in a modern conversation than it was say twenty years ago. What I am referring to is more of a mental mode, or to borrow a term from philosophy: a schema.
There have been several [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/2/174/abstract] studies [http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0034857.pdf] that show how video games impact the mind. We also know that gaming (and play in general) is a major component of human culture and development (Recommended: Homo Ludens). While the play element has not changed, the number of games we play has. In effect, we are building a modern ludic canon to supplement the classical and the exposure to it has really never been higher.
As we gain familiarity with a subject it is natural for us to find parallels within it to other subjects. The infamous car analogy in which IT people must explain everything for instance grew out of the culture of the 1950s, where the technological pastime for the youth culture was automotives. The schema of car mechanics can be used to communicate ideas that are not necessarily intrinsically related to cars. It may even, in some cases, provide surprising insight into the issue just by the act of translation.
Consider, in this light, the idea that it is now gaming itself that has become a common schema. It is difficult for me to imagine a subject that could not be explored through gaming, more over it is difficult for me to imagine a subject that could not be enacted through gaming. Now, here I will draw a needed distinction: I am not referring to the unfortunate trend of 'gamification'. I am instead proposing that gaming has given us a new set of vocabulary (Semiotic symbols) and that this vocabulary will become generation defining.
This leads me to a question that I find interesting and one that has been thrown around outside this context for quite some time: What isn't a game? If most problems can be explained and solved using the vocabulary of gaming, does that make those problems gaming? Thinking back to Bernard Suits' The Grasshopper:Games, Life, and Utopia wherein the Grasshopper of Asop is expanded and given the aspect of the True Player (TM). Within this book, the Grasshopper is a philosophical teacher to whom the virtues of play are absolute.
The entire book is devoted to explaining this mindset and definition, so forgive my paraphrase here. However, one of the reasons that, to the grasshopper, gathering and saving food can not be play is because it is not being done for its own sake. It is not being done for the fun of it. This may be on the surface a bit of a daming notion to my idea that nearly everything can be processed with a gaming schema. However: It simply highlights to me a categorical distinction between play and gaming.Grasshopper (Bernard Suits) said:
This is not as strange as it may seem, in fact it is even somewhat explored in the context of the Professional Player. Playing a game, says the grasshopper, is not necessarily playing. Odd wording if I say so myself, but I think that we can use gaming in its stead. Suits uses this passage to expand upon the idea of the lusory attitude, which is an interesting concept but it has more to do with play than with gaming. What I intent to take away from this passage is a good point of rebuttal to the claims that gaming, or even games, have to be fun (thus ruining my own fun of exploring the idea of the gaming schema).
So, those of you who are schooled in games studies or game design might already understand that the current state of games studies is more or less a hodge-podge from just about every single academic discipline under the sun. I can discuss gaming in terms of cybernetic systems, information theory, psychology, physics, medicine, chemistry, etc. This alone should be an indication of just how deeply gaming touches the innate human condition, however I could likely easily put you to task to use gaming to explain any of those disciplines as well. Educational gaming as a genre has always been an interesting oddity that explores this line of thought. However, in somewhat of an odder turn, we can look to games to in fact embody these disciplines. Learning the game enables useful work in the case of fold.it and looking at it, it may not actually be that difficult to consider explaining complex protine behavor in terms of say, Marvel Puzzle Quest (Which my roomate is obsessed with for some odd reason).
As we consider the fact that these sort of systems can be translated into games, it becomes easier to see that games themselves (even independent of traditional narratives) can be an expressive medium at their core. Given how much we internalise games (I can recite the rules of chess and poker by heart, but without a thought I can perform them without flaw) getting to a point where we can model a given subject or issue within the game schema may bring us to truly grok the subject. I imagine this is much how mathematicians view mathematics, or literary theorists view language, however: games allow for the creation of massively simplified rulesets in order to address or solve specific problems. Learning fold.it is massively simpler than learning the science behind it, and yet it still gives you deep insight into the actual mechinisms it simulates.
In this way, I see gaming as a schema that is truly fit for this day and age. Explanations of complex phenomena can be explained with comparatively simpler systems that are natural to internalize.
Now, my particular musings have been very mechanically focused, but I do not deny the narrative aspects of gaming or the amount of social exploration that games allow. The controversies stirred up around themes in games are proof of that, and I would love to hear how you all envision or currently see gaming affecting cultural institutions. I still do seek ideas as to what exactly is gaming, and I'm rather happy to discuss the fine points of the philosophy behind each supposition. I think that this is a subject that is well and worth while discussing and I hope you all will find it interesting and engaging as well.