Comments on: Fuel Efficiency as a Game (AKA: Games are the Poetry of Action)

By: Brennan Young

Brennan Young — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:10:39 +0000

Oh yes, and of course ‘hypermiling’ is a kind of hack, I suppose.

By: Brennan Young

Brennan Young — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:02:57 +0000

I always liked “poetry is organised violence against language” – Barthes

I can’t remember if ‘language’ is translated from ‘langue’ or ‘parole’ – presumably it is ‘langue’ (the rule system) rather than ‘parole’ (the actual communication).

If it is ‘langue’, then I suppose Barthes’ definition would only apply to ‘hacks’ and ‘cheats’, which, for some people, is the most ‘artful’ way of playing any game. There was that ‘ludology of the oppressed’ – Brazillian kids turning the controller round to have more of a challenge on an otherwise boring game, which is something similar. (I forget the researcher who brought that to our attention, but I’m sure you know).

If ‘parole’, then it is perhaps closer to ‘poetry of action’.

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:31:29 +0000

All right – I am afraid I cannot disagree with you no matter how hard I try :)

By: olli

olli — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:06:19 +0000

i am not thinking otherwise. cars have infinite number of properties. for example, as the sun now begins its descent set toward sweden, all the cars i see have a sort of yellowy glow on them. ;)

i thought that in a world with an infinite amount of things to be said about games, the topic of this thread was the idea of viewing them as the poetry of action, including but not limited to the idea’s feasibility for furthering the cause of computer games research.

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:17:53 +0000

It is interesting – this is exactly the kind of discussion I find myself having at conferences, and it almost seems to be about basic grammar.

If I say that “cars are vehicles”, it does not in any way imply that cars do not have other properties such as having engines, seats, or that they are not embedded in a socio-political context etc..

Likewise, if I say “Games are the poetry of action”, there is nowhere any implication that this is the only thing to be said about games.

Why would you think otherwise?

By: olli

olli — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:02:34 +0000

i haven’t intended to advocate the “only one type” position. you write up there that “Games are[…]”. should i have read your original post as meaning “Apart from being many other things, games are also[…]”?

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:42:47 +0000

Well, as you are pointing out, focus means emphasis, but not dismissal.

Aren’t you working from a “there can only be one”-assumption; that there can only ever be one level or type of description of anything? This is your assumption, not mine.

By: olli

olli — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:53:17 +0000

unpacking a metaphor can be challenging, acknowledged. i’ll try anyway. ;)

when something is in focus, something else is out of focus. it’s easier to make observations about that which is in focus. depending on the focal length(?), the object out of focus might be so blurry one would not really be able to observe it at all. in case everything is equally in focus, one should probably look for another metaphor with more suitable descriptive abilities.

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:14:00 +0000

Isn’t there a difference between “focus” and “dismissal”? I talked about focus?

By: olli

olli — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:57:25 +0000

Jesper,

With consequences I refer to “what the action can achieve” in
“[…]focus on the qualities of action itself rather than on what the action can achieve”.

With dismissal I refer to that which can happen to one thing when one focuses on another.