Part 1: Creative Naming Scheme
As animals, one of the many systems we are 'designed' to follow is the effort versus reward complex. In the wild, it told us when hunting down a certain animal would expend more calories than we would gain by eating it, or when a risky path to an un-noteworthy destination might not be worth taking. Inherently linked to the concept of 'reward' is pleasure. Nothing is more pleasurable than a big meal after a long day of work; that work being in the office or hunting down the animal is immaterial. Human psychology is a malleable thing, and we are capable of seeing many more degrees of conceptual removal than might be necessary for other animals.
The process of hunt -> kill -> eat becomes hunt (get employed -> perform labor -> receive payment) -> kill (go to store -> choose food -> use payment to obtain) -> eat. This is the pseudo-Pavlovian societal setup we've built up for ourselves, and the effect of constant conceptual removal from the rigors of survival can start to feed into themselves- a sort of behavioral sink, to borrow John B. Calhoun's vocabulary. The definately-not-food words "I'm Lovin' It" can set the mouth watering, and the commercials containing those words show us images of mocked-up food that would be poisonous to consume. Our instinct to groom grows so much more present that it can often overcome the instinct to live, and we starve or purge ourselves to reach an imaginary goal.
The concept of the video game could not exist outside of this ideological framework- unreal efforts to obtain intangible rewards, yet the pleasure is all too real. In these constructed worlds we are expected to follow the rules set by the builder, the words we use to describe straying from their intentions- "bug", "glitch", "exploit"- they do not have positive connotations. This is not a problem, per-se. A storyteller tells the story, the listener listens, right? However, the primary way that video games are experienced is through player choice. Yet the player is not allowed to actually create their own solutions, they are presented with a false dichotomy where the orchestrator of the situation will not allow you to exercise agency. Choose which person you want to shoot in the head first, but you certainly can't choose to run away, attempt diplomacy, sneak around them, or any other creative solution.
By itself, this is hardly a problem. Adults understand that making a game environment that responds to any conceivable choice by the player is near-to impossible. But - a problem arises when children find themselves presented with a way to engage in high pleasure responses with none of the risk of playing outside. They find themselves being molded from a very young age to comply with the wishes of a far- off 'designer'. They respond to false dichotomies without a moment's thought, never considering to stray from the options presented. When people spend their formative years thinking that 'fun time' means being told what to do, the adults they become will be more susceptible to manipulation, propaganda, and predation by those in society with more power than them.
The process of hunt -> kill -> eat becomes hunt (get employed -> perform labor -> receive payment) -> kill (go to store -> choose food -> use payment to obtain) -> eat. This is the pseudo-Pavlovian societal setup we've built up for ourselves, and the effect of constant conceptual removal from the rigors of survival can start to feed into themselves- a sort of behavioral sink, to borrow John B. Calhoun's vocabulary. The definately-not-food words "I'm Lovin' It" can set the mouth watering, and the commercials containing those words show us images of mocked-up food that would be poisonous to consume. Our instinct to groom grows so much more present that it can often overcome the instinct to live, and we starve or purge ourselves to reach an imaginary goal.
The concept of the video game could not exist outside of this ideological framework- unreal efforts to obtain intangible rewards, yet the pleasure is all too real. In these constructed worlds we are expected to follow the rules set by the builder, the words we use to describe straying from their intentions- "bug", "glitch", "exploit"- they do not have positive connotations. This is not a problem, per-se. A storyteller tells the story, the listener listens, right? However, the primary way that video games are experienced is through player choice. Yet the player is not allowed to actually create their own solutions, they are presented with a false dichotomy where the orchestrator of the situation will not allow you to exercise agency. Choose which person you want to shoot in the head first, but you certainly can't choose to run away, attempt diplomacy, sneak around them, or any other creative solution.
By itself, this is hardly a problem. Adults understand that making a game environment that responds to any conceivable choice by the player is near-to impossible. But - a problem arises when children find themselves presented with a way to engage in high pleasure responses with none of the risk of playing outside. They find themselves being molded from a very young age to comply with the wishes of a far- off 'designer'. They respond to false dichotomies without a moment's thought, never considering to stray from the options presented. When people spend their formative years thinking that 'fun time' means being told what to do, the adults they become will be more susceptible to manipulation, propaganda, and predation by those in society with more power than them.
Comments
Post a Comment