ENGL 680M: New Media

After this week's reading I had to go back and look through Huizinga a second time because I kept trying to define play. It made me think that here we have one answer to the question Nick raised a week or two ago. Can we trick people into doing actual work while they're playing games? (My apologies Nick if that's not the exact question you asked.)

Huizinga's answer appears to be no.

Huizinga argues that one of the main characteristics of play is that it is "free." It's irrational. We can do whatever we want. This reminds me of situations in work environment where bosses suggest that the main activity (sales of widgets) is a game, and "we're all going to have fun playing it." The idea is that we're going to enjoy ourselves when in reality the bosses are just trying to get employees to do their jobs. That's fine but don't sh** and tell me its roses. This is a little bit of the past cynic in me coming out, but I think it's a relevant point. It's hard to appropriate play for work.

Second, Huizinga argues that play is also a break from the ordinary or real. Therefore, if we have to spend 40 hours per week plugged into a machine doing a certain task, I'm guessing that task would start to feel like work. Play would essentially become some other activity.

I also think that we have to be careful if we really were going to use games in this capacity. It's seems like we can't refrain from telling people what they consequences of an activity are but as soon as we do tell them, it seems like we're also breaking that willing suspension of disbelief that is integral to game playing.