RIB Introduction

Jane McGonigal opens with the idea that gamers in general are fed up with reality . She claims “…as they devote more and more of their free time to game worlds, the “real” world increasingly feels like its missing something.” McGonigal reveals that the real world is missing the feel-good pleasures that games allow players to experience on a consistent basis, which makes sense with the Mass Exodus theory Edward Castronova created. The more games allow players to feel constant gratification, the more gamers there will be. The addictive qualities of games fulfills “…genuine human needs” McGonigal writes. This can be seen through the idea of Herodotus Moral Truths. Where they helped apply a solution to a real-world problem by acting as a distraction. Video games/games can act as an escape, similar to how games made life bearable for the Lydians. That is why they have become so big and continue to grow in popularity.

“We are starving and our games are feeding us.”- McGonigal writes. The real world is pushing people towards video games. She proposes that game developers have the chance to to start fixing real world problems, because games can help create many experiences, I always thought that games were a waste of time. However, the number that McGonigal uses that 61 percent of CEO’s and CFO’s take daily breaks to play video games makes me think that maybe there might be some value from playing these games. These virtual experiences that players accumulate Jane believes can help teach you about “your true self”, which then may help people move past cultural biases. This really made me think that even though they are virtual experiences you still have to problem solve and have to adapt your skills to provide a solution, which could really expand your learning.

 

Pokémon GO Is a game that makes the user feel like they are actually in control of there own destiny. I think McGonigal would make the case that it illustrates her point of being a better version of reality. The Pokémon world has so much mystery with not knowing where Pokémon are, while allowing people to forget about all the other disappointing things in the real world. They just have to focus on having the best Pokémon possible. I myself have not played the game that much but it seems like it can bring people together at the gyms and Poki stops. I think it is actually one of the few games that gets the user to be active. The game is providing people a way to get some exercise while still giving them the enjoyment of a game.

Posted on by Alexander Clinton
Categories: Uncategorized

4 Responses

  1. Rachel Helbling says:
    September 2, 2018 at 5:57 pm

    I agree with what Alex said regarding what McGonigal wrote. The introduction of this book also opened my eyes to see that sometimes games can have more value than you may think. I found the facts about the CEO’s very shocking as well and think it would be very interesting to look deeper into some statistics of these CEO’s/CFO’s who take breaks to play video games and compare them to those who don’t. For example looking at their productivity and focus. I also like what Alex said about pokemon Go and it being a great game. It distracts users from reality, provides some exercise, and is very enjoyable.

  2. Joseph Sterling says:
    September 2, 2018 at 6:25 pm

    While I agree with Alex and Rachel, that the number of high-ranking executives who take game-breaks is indeed high and the results of said breaks need to be looked into, I do find it interesting that the emphasis isn’t on PEOPLE playing games, it’s on CEO’s/CFO’s paying games. Their lives don’t matter anymore than Joe Shmoe, garbage man. It comes back to the belief of many that games don’t have any intrinsic value, or that individual people can’t justify their love of games unless “the powerful” sign off on it. You’re essentially telling people, “I don’t care what you like, only what THEY like; if it’s the same, you got lucky.” I don’t want to live in a world where whether something is “valuable” or “entertaining” is if it is used by the top 5% of the population.

  3. Micaela Willoughby says:
    September 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm

    I really like that you brought up Pokémon GO because I feel that it has a lot to with an important part of gaming that McGonigal didn’t touch on too much in the introduction. One huge part of a lot of games is a sense of community, going on raids together, everyone having a role to play, trading, messaging, coordinating– games make it easier to connect with others because everyone has a common or similar goal. Everyone already has something in common and that commonality is: we like this game, we want to play this game. And in that, a lot of the awkwardness of many IRL social interaction is wiped away. I am sure that is a huge part of the lure of videogames. Pokémon GO as an ARG taking place in our immediate environment brings out a new sense of community, however. I remember when Pokémon GO first came out and it took Richmond by storm. I went to Carytown with some friends and we came across droves of people at gyms and Pokestops. You’d see groups of strangers talking about some rare catch or how much data they were wasting (but how it was oh-so worth it). So, of course, my friends and I pulled out our phones and joined in! It was really an exciting feeling. Then the popularity fizzled out.

    Still I hope the communal aspect of gaming is explored more in this book.

  4. Ahsan Ahmad says:
    September 3, 2018 at 2:16 pm

    I really like the fact that Alexander tied Pokemon Go to the reading topics. In my opinion, Pokemon Go is an excellent example of a modern, could-possibly-cause-social-change game. While not exactly up to the level of McGonigal’s vision, I feel like it is still a bold stepping stone in the celestial staircase to that utopian vision. What I have been contemplating, however, is whether Pokemon Go is a ‘true infinite game’. While it does satisfy some of the prominent traits of an infinite game, (It has no endpoint, just ahead and behind. It also has an infinite number of pokemons to be captured which adds to the ‘infinite game’ effect) I feel that it is only a pseudo-infinite game at best.
    To elaborate, it started out with a bang and everyone was on the streets catching pokemons and having fun; however, the hype died out soon enough. People were able to play it like a finite game: they got their temporary entertainment, reached whatever level they wanted, derived however much outside action and social interaction they wished to derive from it, and then dumped it to their phone’s trash can. Had it been a true infinite game, in my opinion, there would have been a way stronger framework with incentives to continue the play. It would also have to be a flexible, dynamically evolving framework which supports continuity of play regardless of whether people play it like an infinite game or a finite one. I say an evolving framework because, in the definition of an infinite game, it is mentioned that the rules have to be constantly changing. A static game is a mortal game.

    On a side note, this also makes me think about the true power of an infinite game. I wonder if it is even possible for a physical game to be an infinite game. Personally, I’m leaning towards the notion that infinite and finite games exist in the mind of the player. Depending upon the player’s perspective, they would be able to play even a finite game like an infinite one and extract their benefits from it. By extension, a true infinite game would be one that plays out according to the infinite game definition in all cases, regardless of the player’s mindset.

    It would be interesting to learn about an expert’s analysis of Pokemon Go and the infinite game topic and how much it differs from my newbie speculation.