Play’s Republic

I’m sure we’ll discuss this more in class, but after reading Bogost I’ve been trying to figure out my own conception of “fun” in games and play.

I understand (I think) Bogost’s problem with fun as the sole aim of game development — something about critical thinking and social understanding — but I feel he misses the point. Certainly there is much to games and play that isn’t particularly fun. And certainly, if we use the word fun’ to encompass the entire range of human emotions and interactions we can create some funny sentences. But funny sentences aside, I’m not sure Bogost deals with the notion of finding enjoyment (or enjoyment’) in seemingly un-enjoyable tasks.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to audience. If Bogost is interested in games that frustrate the player in order to teach us about socio-economic hardships and the perils of international military involvement, by all means he should have the right to play them. In fact, more Bogost’s could be a good thing. Diversity in game audiences should bring about better, (possibly less fun,) hopefully more enjoyable games than would otherwise be produced. Variation is something I can hold onto.

However, variation doesn’t seem to be Bogost’s aim, despite his seemingly adaptable and amicable system of unit operations. Though I still can’t say I truly understand unit operations, Bogost seems to have defined one thing and applied another. At first, unit operations appear to support diversity — a realm in which fun, fun’, and boring but educational games can live peacefully — but throughout Bogost’s applications of unit operational theory, there seems to be progressively less and less space for multiple interpretations. Unit operations (at least in my decidedly distanced understanding) imply a privileged reading of sorts. And privileged readings are no fun.

But on the upside, Bogost took a break from writing this week and made Mii caricatures of the remaining American Idol contestants. That’s right.