This reading about play was not as fun as I thought it would be, however despite the tough reading difficulty, it was still quite interesting. Overall, I think it's really fascinating how "play" is something that everyone understands and does constantly, but having anyone actually articulate what "play" is may be impossible.
To me, "play" is one of those things that can't be specifically defined, but can be better understood by through comparisons. Much like we develop an understanding of what it means for us to be "happy" by comparing it to the times when we are "sad", we know we are "playing" by comparing it to times when we are "serious".
And according to the reading, "play" is also (1) freedom (2) imaginary (3) constrained. I found these characteristics of play to be helpful when relating "play" to game design. I would think games primarily function for play, so you could say that when we create (successful) games they must (1) never be forced on a player (2) be separate or create separateness from real life (3) have a distinct set of rules or guidelines.
The other interesting thing about "play" in this reading, for me, was the relationship to representation. How we play or what we play is always some sort of representation - I think. Also in the reading, "representation is really identification". That would mean playing is a way in which we can identify with the world and with each other, and since games are a sort of medium through which we play, games/game design is way more important than I ever thought. Cool beans!
Strange that Huizinga's piece re: play and "fun" is not much fun to read for most people. Why is that? Or does Huizinga play around a little bit? He certainly tries to stretch the boundaries of academia by allowing a new strain of thought to come into "play"!
ReplyDelete