“Single-player games with plenty of weapons to upgrade, skills to gain, and currencies to spend are perhaps the archetypal iteration of this phenomenon, but almost all contemporary games contain some mimetic elements of work and market exchange. They don’t offer fantasies of escape, of imaginative play for its own sake; they offer a fantasy of rules—a rationality otherwise missing from the contemporary wage labor process. Vicky Osterweil has called this type of game a “utopian work simulator”; it doles out rewards at predictable intervals in exchange for our disciplined effort. These rewards can make the game easier, allow us to purchase in-game adornments, signal our achievements to others, and progress in a logical and satisfying trajectory toward an achievable goal. Games remain a form of diversion, but what they divert us from is not our labor, but our disappointment with its volatility, its arbitrariness, its cruelty and unfairness.”
Shorter answer: games give us what real life refuses to give us anymore.
Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose.
They give us autonomy to complete things how we see fit in the frameworks given. They give us an opportunity to master a set of skills. Finally, the story gives us purpose and drive to continue the “work.”
This is partly why it’s been so hard for me to leave my job, haha; my higher-ups fully let me create, find, and/or use any tools I prefer to get the job done.
Capitalism alienates people from their labour. Simulated labour — like in videogames or truck driving/farming sims — returns it to it’s “original” state, which is rewarding and fulfilling. But without the (material) barrier of entry and hurdles (like relatively high required effort) that IRL hobbies have
Just imagine if we got raises and bonuses and gifts as easy in real life as in video games.
Achievement Unlocked: Get a raise!
What the heck is that article? It’s a glorified book report, and it just rambles on and on, presenting points from a book the article author presumably read. Why would I read the article author’s (very lengthy) opinions about a book, when I can just read the original source?
No wonder it’s so long, since he’s just summarizing the points from the book. This article needed an editor.
The article is fairly short, no? or am I missing something
Firefox reader mode estimates 22 – 27 minutes
That’s a shorter read than most good papers and faaar shorter than a book
EDIT: nvm am stoopid
2-7 minutes is a short article. 22-27 minutes is nowhere near what should constitute a short article. This isn’t an article, it’s an essay.
No, that’s not a short read for what amounts to “work conditions bad, art imitates life.” What they said could have been said with a lot less.
Perhaps I just don’t like their writing style, but it reads more like a high school book report to me than a succinct article.
There are multiple sources referenced to weave a new commentary about the relationship between video games and labor for both players and creators 🤷.
