His use of Bertrand Russell's example of the game of Cricket being understood by one person and rightfully assuming the other party knew the rules seems out of place to me (pg 19-20). Russell was concerned more with language and the way certain words or concepts can entail specific rules or attributes. I realize he's trying to make a connection with how people can understand concepts, but I'm sure there are other more fitting examples and much more available quotes to use.
So far, I'm not really impressed by the author's attempt at exploring concepts related to gaming. Between last week's pettiness about vocabulary, he launches into this knot of a discussion about a culture.
I do agree that games have an outer-lying culture around the inner workings of the game. However, I'm unclear whether he's tying this in to our overall culture or if it's simply a bubble around the act of playing videogames? He uses examples from people discussing the greater view of a culture and seems to be trying to apply it to the act of playing games. Does anyone else get the feeling that he's trying to make a point but never quite gets to it?
I actually had similar views on the book. I felt like I was reading a book about the culture behind video games written by an anthropologist more used to studying natives in Belize or something. That approach just does not apply to studies on gaming.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you detected a serious Anglophilic obsession from this author? there are several places where he implies that the British are the world's most sophisticated people, that cricket example being just one of them.
If you have a BA in philosophy and you're still getting confused then I'm worried about myself trying to get through this book haha.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the whole cricket assumption as I'm not really sure how that you're able to add that into videogames? Seems like a random thought from the author like you and vukcic stated. I also find it amusing that he's trying to get a feel from the world culture experts and applying to videogames? Seems like a tough reach, even for a author of a videogame book.
I don't really feel like the idea is wrong, per se. I can see where he's trying to go with it and what he had in mind. The trouble is that he doesn't really follow a path to his conclusion, if he has a conclusion in mind at all. I've read the philosophers he references and I'm having trouble because at some point he's talking about how language works and another point he's talking about how culture works.
ReplyDelete