Good games

For this week’s readings, we looked at various games that extend their purposes further than entertainment. In the Davis reading, many important concepts were introduced, however, the idea that games could be used for pedological purposes was brought up and warranted. In the following readings there are important points made to prove that video games have rhetorical purposes and can/should be implemented in a classroom. For example, Bogost makes the argument that games do in fact have claims to real world criticisms and should therefore be taken into serious consideration when looking at rhetorical analysis. In both readings Bogost makes the claim that organism’s reactions towards incentives allow for a connection in an educational based setting. Furthermore, Gee offers examples of how gaming could propel a student’s learning in a more virtual experience. The concepts that are introduced opens up a possibility to what can be achieved if executed in a more critical sense. Alexander and Ballentine both have readings that would recognize that video game software is much more complex than audiences are aware of, and thus show their presence in rhetorical argument. This then offers a way for educational entity to recognize the significance games have over users.

            I found a few of these readings interesting (and relatable). In the second reading by Bogost, he brings up a handful of games that seem disconnected when thinking about rhetorical analysis. Games like The Sims and Animal Crossingshad always confused me with game play. Are they not more or less gamers living their mundane only through a screen? However, Bogost calls this “human practice” or “human experiences” (pg 123). These terms are categorized as “procedurality,” and while they may seem to fall below the pedagogical sense, Bogost recognized how they could be used as teaching tools. The term allows gamers to represent themselves as anything! Literally anything, even yourself setting the house on fire and having a fiddling match with death (lol). The idea that living through a virtual world offers a space for users to grasp a better understanding of a different perspective. Even so, Bogost gives us much more to look for when understanding visual and auditory communication, and it can become even more useful in the future. This then allows the gaming world to interject itself into a teaching one. But Bogost also acknowledges gamer software is “not automatically rich, sophisticated statements about the world around us” (pg137). Meaningful games can have a much stronger impact on communication, and though I was wrong about the games I originally criticized, it does put into perspective that not all games have a critical scope on what is actually happening in the world. But as rhetoric is presented in almost everything, it would be difficult to make the claim that such games don’t exists; I’d rather focus my attention on “good games” as Gee highlights.

Gee use his experience of watching his child play a game to understand how we could take a very serious pedological approach to gaming. Gee’s reading seemed presented to me as a handbook on why children should be playing good games for educational purposes. Or even as a lesson plan for teachers thinking about supplementing their teachings with games. Often, I thought about my own experiences of my children while reading this (Mario Odyssey is their jam right now), and I often wondered, how and why my children’s preferences leaned more towards games than reading from a paper book. Sure, my children were entertained, but as Gee puts it “they [the games] feel “doable,” but challenging. This state is highly motivating for learners. School is often too easy for some students and too hard for others” (pg. 36). And while I understand that games could be a leeway for much more important subjects, this idea of children learning virtually via games does not seem too out of the ordinary during these times. This brings me to my question(s) this week:

Games seem to possess a lot of different features and modes when considering rhetoric. They focus on auditory, textual, and visual aspects, along with interactivity. Why then do you suppose games are not used more in contemporary learning? Even when games are generally associated to children, shouldn’t children then be playing more learning games? Shouldn’t teachers be exploring this even more during the pandemic?