I sincerely apologize for the title of the post but I saw an opportunity and I took it.
In class, we discussed orders of determination.
Second Order-Why do we have that response
Third Order: narrative of that response
Topic:”Video Games Are Better Without Characters” By Ian Bogost
First Order: I do not like this.
Bogost makes assumption that the exclusion of women from gaming stems from an “obsession with personal identification”. He also asks “What if the real fight against monocultural bias and blinkeredness does not involve the accelerated indulgence of identification, but the abdication of our own selfish, individual desires in the interest of participating in systems larger than ourselves? ” I’m not sure if I understand his point. What would be the purpose of the “abdication of our own selfish desires in the interest of participating in systems larger than ourselves”? Is he saying that this will allow gamers an avenue from which women and others individuals can be included? The problem is not our interest in the individual. Gamers do not exclude women because they refuse to accept other identities other than the male ones that they have grown attached to. It is because these men are sexist and maybe have some serious psychological issues that inhibits than from respecting anyone that is different from themselves. Maybe I should not give them the benefit of the doubt, they probably just don’t know how or don’t want to. Being able to accept and interact with other individuals is not even a matter of empathy.
Third Order: I am still confused on this order.
Breaking from the orders and from the previous spiel, I do not see the draw of non-character based games. For me, it would be like reading about a rock and the purpose of a game is a narrative. Games without narratives are like the Build section of The Sims.