[-empyre-] Videogames of the oppressed / oppressive games
paolo - molleindustria
paolo at molleindustria.it
Mon Mar 4 03:20:05 EST 2013
Ok, I definitely should tell you a little more about what I do and throw
in some extra conversation starters.
Since playing is time consuming and we are all busy, here's a video
covering most of the games I made until 2010 (texts found on the internet):
You can also find videos and material about the more recent ones like
Unmanned and Phone Story.
Anyway, Molleindustria is a project about games and ideology, it's a bit
of art, media activism, research, and agitp[r]op.
The idea is to apply the culture jamming/tactical media (remember
tactical media?) treatment to videogames: speading radical memes and, in
the process, challenging the language of power, the infrastructures, the
modes, genres and tropes of the dominant discourse which was omnipresent
in videogame culture.
The half joke is that I came up with Molleindustria because I failed at
starting my own television. In the early zerozero - mid Berlusconian age
- we had pirate TV stations popping up in all the major Italian cities
in what came to be known as the Telestreet movement. It wasn't just
television with radical content, but a radically different way of making
There was a nice medium-is-the-message / form-follows-content thing
going on, resonating with software, net.art and hacker culture as well.
There was this idea that the political sphere was boundless: something
we do, and we are subject to, every day and every moment. The half-naked
show girls on prime time television, the charming millionaires of the
soap opera Dallas, the software, the protocols, the fantasies coming
from the booming-and-busting Silicon Valley were no less political than
the occasional vote or the sanctioned spaces for political debate.
And, of course, the demonstrations in the streets, the boycotts, the
occupations, the strikes…
And yes, I am very familiar with Gonzalo Frasca's work. I launched the
project in 2003, the same year September 12th came out and Ian Bogost
started to write about "videogames with an agenda".
One thing I share with them is the idea that videogames are
representational media. They are always about things. There is, of
course, a gradient of abstraction in that a game like SimCity is
unquestionably about cities (or gardening) while a game like Tetris is
about more general themes such as order vs disorder, control &
optimization, or the tragicomical limits of human cognition.
The less abstract are the games, the more they tend to be problematic
and fall under scrutiny. There is a lot of literature discussing the
urbanist ideas advanced by SimCity or the portrayal of contemporary and
historical conflicts in first person shooters or strategy games.
To interpret a game and to make games that mean something, people use a
variety of approaches.
Some aspects can be tackled with traditional storytelling and
narratology. For example, later this week, pop-feminist Anita Sarkeesian
will launch the first installment of "Tropes vs women in games", an
online video series dissecting the representation of women in videogames.
However, there are aspects of games that can't be fully understood by
simply breaking down characters and plots. Games, simulations and
interactive media are systems of rules, and these rules produce meaning
as well: they define the relationships between the purely
representational bits (images, sounds, text…) and the agency of the
players within the system.
To be honest, we are still trying to figure out how this procedural
rhetoric actually works and how people interpret these "texts" with so
many moving parts. But that's the fascinating part.
I'm interested in promoting this kind of procedural literacy through my
games. I believe games can get people used to "think in systems" and
that a holistic, ecological, non-reductionist way of thinking is
desperately needed in our [cliche' alert] increasingly interconnected
world ravaged by global crisis.
Part of this literacy consists in understanding that digital and non
digital models are informed by ideologies and systems of values (when it
comes to scientific simulations the story is a bit more complicated).
They are artful depictions of reality, and as such, we should describe
them not in terms of how "realistic" they are, but in terms of the
arguments they deploy and the narratives they support within the larger
context. This is, by the way, the reason I often use satire, cartoonish
styles, and a rather overt authorial "presence": to defuse the
temptation of interpreting these games as objective.
I feel like I have to mention the issue of representation because there
is another trend, another way to conceive and use games that has more to
do with behavioral change. The marketing power fantasy referred as
"gamification" is part of this trend, but also slightly more legitimized
endeavors like the many exercise games pretending to fight obesity.
This approach is less concerned about the semiotics and the aesthetics
of games, and more focused on games as systems of incentives to produce
actual, quantifiable change in the way players behave outside of the
game (if there is an outside). If you are not familiar with gamification
and the like, imagine attributing arbitrary points and rewards to
certain behaviors, pushing people to voluntary monitor these behaviors,
and then creating the conditions for competition/self-evaluation based
on the score system.
Commentators like Ian Bogost have called bullshit on gamification and I
largely agree. But having worked in marketing in the past, I'm quite
familiar with the structural hype cycles of the field. You have people
overselling techniques to oversell services and products. Everybody is
lying to everybody else on multiple levels, intra- and extra-corporate.
But as a whole the advertising system works because it succeeds at
pervading every corner of the mindscape with the discourse of consumption.
To me it is not too crucial to find out whether or not you can control
people through game-like systems. What's more intriguing is that the
fantasy is out there, strong and loud. Governments and corporations are
investing lots of money in this idea.
Feasible or not, this is the object of desire of contemporary capitalism
and as such it's worth investigating.
Is the fantasy of gamification a testament to the decline of money as
the general, all-encompassing incentive to regulate human relations?
Could it be a premonition of the next power paradigm? We went from a
disciplinary society (the stick) to a society of control (mass
surveillance). Is the society of the incentive (the customized carrot) next?
Is gamification a tension toward the measurement of the unmeasurable
(lifestyle, affects, activism, reputation, self esteem…), being
measurement the precondition of commodification?
More information about the empyre