Battlefields of Play & Games: From a Method of Comparative Ludology to a Strategy of Ecosophic Ludic Architecture

1.1 Game Studies: The Rise of a New Cultural “Ludic Turn”

The notions of Play&Games have emerged in recent years as prominent objects of basic and applied research (even as basic methodological tools) for a wide range of cognitive fields, related both to the social and human sciences and to the “positive” sciences and techno-sciences. Revelatory of this intensified interest in Play&Games is the relatively recent emergence of the interdisciplinary field of Game Studies or Gameology/Ludology, which includes the sector of Game Design, as a field of creative – artistic expression, as well as scientific research (Game-Design Research).

The formation and development of Game Studies can be considered a consequence of the explosive growth of the Video-Game Industry, which, as a productive sector, surpasses the equivalent of Cinema, while, as a field of research, is eminently related, through mutual feedback, to the leaps and bounds in the fields of digital computing and Artificial Intelligence technologies, reasonably assessed as most pivotal in the context of modern cultural conditions, directly affecting all aspects of everyday life. As many media scholars confirm, in the last two decades, life in modern societies has been increasingly overwhelmed by pervasive digital technologies, playful or gamified interactive applications, devices, design practices, construction techniques, as well as by expressive forms, analogies, metaphors, attitudes and social identities derived from video games.

This growing adoption of digital technologies related to games which extend to all areas of daily life (from culture, entertainment, and education, to health, economy, work, production, urban – political management, etc.) constitutes a source of individual and collective experiences, which functions as a means of total cultural reformation, as happened in other times with typography, literature, cinema, and television. Furthermore, these practices are rapidly leading to a kind of coupling between elements of material and digital space, under a new type of “hybrid” space, in a way that tends to question the traditional boundaries of the “magic circle” of play (distinguishing it from the rest of “reality”), to a point that reaches a cultural condition where Play&Games can be understood as “ubiquitous.”

A typical example of this looming new “Ludic Turn” in culture (after the one that occurred around the middle of the twentieth century) is the references to the rise of a “Ludic Society” (Stenros, Montola & Mayra 2007),^[2] to the “Ludification of Culture” (Raessens: 2006, 2012),^[3] to a “Ludic Language,” (Flanagan, 2015),^[4] to a “Ludic Architecture” (Walz, 2010),^[5] to a “Gameful World” (Walz, Deterning, 2015),^[6] reaching to form ideas about the new anthropological type of “Homo Ludens Digitalis^[7]” Accordingly, about 10 years after 2001, when Espen Aarseth announced the “Year Zero” of Game Studies,^[8] Seth Priebatsch (2010) welcomed us into a “Decade of Games,”^[9] while 5 years later Eric Zimmerman (2015) came to speak for a “Ludic Century.”^[10]

2.1 5 + 1 Approaches on Play&Games

Specifically, the research starts from the identification and presentation of six basic theoretical relative (more or less inter-related) approaches, along with their corresponding fields – disciplines. These are further analyzed in more detail in respective chapters, under titles that come from basic key words (functioning as conceptual identifiers). Here follows a brief description of each approach:

A) Play-Theories (Pedagogy-Education, Psychology, Psychoanalysis): Play&Games as a (bio-evolutionary) means of psychosomatic development, education, and therapeutic practice.

Play Theories are mainly associated with fields of Pedagogy and Psychology (developmental, cognitive, social, etc.), along with branches of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis (Playtherapy), as they focus on the importance of Play&Games during the process of bio-psycho-social development of children, in the context of their social environment, highlighting their catalytic role for shaping, maintaining and strengthening their perceptual, learning and creative abilities along with their significance for more effective modern psycho-therapeutic processes.^[11] Play theories also include a variety of distinct approaches regarding bio-evolutionary, social, and psychologic explanations of play and have been recently categorized between classical and contemporary.^[12]

More specifically, classical play theories treat play as a means of Practice-Preparation (K. Groos^[13]), Recreation-Relaxation (M. Lazarus), Release of excessive energy (F. Schiller, H. Spencer), “Recapitulation” (S. Hall) etc., while modern play include theories of Cognition (Piaget,^[14] Vygotsky^[15]), Psychoanalysis (Freud, Ericson, Winnicott^[16]), Stimulation (Berlyne, Ellis^[17]), Bio-functionality (Buytendijk),^[18] “Meta-communication” (Bateson^[19]), etc. In this context, a basic distinction sees play as a means either of personal expression or of social adjustment (or at some place in between).

B) Homo-Ludens (Social Anthropology, History): Play&Games as intertemporal cross-cultural phenomena, fundamental parameters of every cultural form-structure.

The title refers to a theoretical approach which sets forth from an anthropological and sociological point of view, based on the homonymous work of the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens, 1938), who attempts to highlight the great and intertemporal importance of the various forms of Play&Games for the emergence, development, and understanding of all socio-cultural complexes.^[20] This work was expanded by the French anthropologist Roger Caillois (Les Jeux et les Hommes, 1958), who proposed a division of play into four types of games (Agon, Alea, Mimicry, Ilinx) depending on the prevailing role of Competition, Chance, Pretense, or Vertigo, respectively.

Additionally, Caillois proposed a conceptual dichotomy between the “tences” of Paidia and Ludus, depending on whether games approach, respectively, the element of cheerful carelessness and spontaneous imagination (without predetermined rules) or that of disciplined seriousness and strenuous (mental and/or physical) effort (with pre-planned rules). Furthermore, Caillois highlighted the importance of a distinction between socially prevailing or marginalized game-types, from where he aspired to form a vision for a general “Sociology based on games” (essentially expanding the established sociological analysis of certain games).^[21]

C) Philosophy of Sports (Sociology, Ethical/Moral – Political – Aesthetical Philosophy): physical Play&Games as objects of historical sociological study and philosophical reflection.

As another distinct approach to Play&Games, in the tradition of Homo Ludens, Philosophy of Sports focuses on sports, which recognizes as a special type-category of physical play/games, essentially distinct from other games, so as to require independent analysis, as objects of historical sociological study and deep philosophical reflection, regarding a wide spectrum of moral–ethical, social, political, aesthetical, cognitive, historical, ontological, and existential issues.

The main issues raised in this context concern the aesthetics of the athletes’ performances and technique, with an emphasis on the concept of excellence, the analysis, and understanding of individual and team strategy, the logic and evolution of regulatory systems, the social values of individual sports, the “metaphysics” of sports as a component of human nature, sports ethics, cheating, violence, the role of spectators, the position of people with disabilities, the relationship between the sexes and races, etc.

Philosophy of Sports has its roots at least in Ancient Greece, but has experienced a revival since the late 1960s, mainly through the works of Howard Slusher (1967),^[22] Paul Weiss (1969),^[23] and Bernard Suits (1973).^[24]

D) (Evolutionary) Game-Theory (Mathematics, Economics, Biology, Informatics, Philosophy): Play&Games as specific mathematical objects, tools of interdisciplinary analytical research.

From a point of view closer to the “positive” sciences and the analytic (Anglo-Saxon) philosophical tradition (typically excluded from traditional game-studies), the well-known approach of “Game Theory” is defined as “the mathematical study of decision-making strategies in mathematical models of conflict or cooperation between intelligent and rational decisions subjects” (R. B. Myerson, 1991^[25]), or more comprehensively as “Interactive Decision Theory.” Since the 1970s, Game-Theory has been gradually applied to Evolutionary Biology and extended to non-rational subjects acting in the context of natural ecosystems, forming the field of Evolutionary Game Theory (Maynard Smith, 1974^[26]).

In the context of Game Theory, games constitute mathematical objects, which should clearly define: a) the players (the number, their position, etc.), b) the information they have at their disposal, c) the actions/operations they can perform, and d) the results (or payoffs) of each operation. Since then, GT has been an “umbrella” term in the context of “Decision Science,” which focuses on the processing of data by the respective actors-players, which can include not only humans but also other living organisms, as well as software programs, “intelligent” machines, etc. It is now widely recognized as an important analytical tool for a multitude of cognitive fields, such as sociology, anthropology, computer science, political science, social psychology, and of course philosophy.^[27]

E) World-Play/Game of the Cosmos (Onto-theology, Continental Philosophy): Play&Games as conceptual tools for a non-metaphysical ontological worldview.

Another approach (perhaps the least widespread) concerns a special “metaphorical” meaning Play&Games for philosophy and in particular for the sphere of onto(theo)logy, with ramifications in matters of science, epistemology, politics, ethics, aesthetics, etc. In particular, the approach constitutes a stream of post-modern (meta-philosophical) thinking, closer to the “continental” tradition, which recognizes play as one of the elementary forces of Nature, in a sense that has been proposed as a theoretical vehicle toward a non-metaphysical worldview.

The development of this stream of philosophical thought traces its origin to Heraclitus, especially in the way he provided a main source of inspiration for the philosophy of F. Nietzsche, until reaching its main points of reference in the works of Eugene Fink^[28] (Game as a Symbol of the World, 1960) and Kostas Axelos (The Game of the World, 1969).^[29] The same current can also include aspects of the work of L. Wittgenstein, A. Watts, J. Derrida, G. Deleuse, J. Beaudrillard, L. Irigaray, etc.^[30]

F) (Architectural) Game-Design (Interactive Arts, Design Research): Play&Games as objects of design, means of artistic expression, and educational entertainment (“edutainment”).

In this section, Play&Games are examined as objects of design creation, being the result of specific decision-making (and action-taking) processes on behalf of designers (individuals or groups) with the aim of creating new games, capable of activating interesting, specifically meaningful activities (mainly recreational and educational), through a structured (loosely or strictly) system of rules, goals, mechanisms, modes of interaction, and spatial associations.

Thus, Game Design can generally be defined as the Art of applying design principles and values ​​(functional, aesthetic, and ethical) to the creation (invention, development, and implementation) of a new game.^[31] The game can be designed or improvisational, functioning as a medium, a tool, or a method, with the main purpose of interactive entertainment, but also (alternative) education (Play/Game-Based Learning), artistic expression, intellectual practice, psychotherapeutic – psychoanalytic practice, theoretical – philosophical study, scientific – research experimentation, commercial exploitation, or any combination of these.

2.2 Places of Play: The Space of Play&Games

Choosing a game means choosing an architecture. ^[32]

The above developments could not of course leave the field of architecture and urban planning unaffected. It is indicative that at least during the last 20 years, the publication of studies and discussions focusing on the relationship of play with issues of space, architecture, and urban planning has increased rapidly. On this basis, my approach aspires to synthesize multiple views on the relatively distinct fields of Game Design and Architectural Design, under a single “spatial” lens, proposing the formation of an expanded field of “Architectural Game-Design.”

To this end, my theoretical framework is explicitly based on the notion of “Ludic Architecture,” as proposed by Steffen Walz (2010),^[33] whose work aims to formulate an integrated analytical model for the understanding of the multiple spatiotemporal elements, dimensions, types, modes, and places of play (or “playces”),^[34] in relation to their design process.

The “starting point” of this wider approach is that every game occurs in some kind space.^[35] On that basis, Walz models a conceptual distinction between “PlaySpace” and “GameSpace.” These two aspects include various individual dimensions, which are presented in detail and finally put into correlation. In that context, based on the theory of the pioneer psychologist,^[36] Walz proposes a new “architectural” definition of play, as “a specific kind of rhythmic movement (physical or virtual), which connects the player with a “play-other”, which can be a) other players, b) objects, c) the game environment”.^[37]

2.3 Toward a New “Ludic Architecture”

Based on Walz’s view, my approach aims at formulating a renewed model, which I believe to be enriched, more simplified, and coherent, as it is not based on the (problematic in some aspects^[38]) distinction between Playspace and Gamespace (and their multiple dimensions), but on a new conceptual, structural, and functional distinction among the play-game dimensions of:

1. Space, with its limits and internal movement possibilities;

2. Objects, with their specific qualitative and quantitative properties;

3. Kinds (Forms – Genres), with the particular pleasures they stimulate;

4. Players (Gamers), with their particular preferences – desires for types of enjoyment;

5. Designers, with the particular abilities, principles, and values under which they design;

6. Context, with its Cultural (Historical, Social, Political, etc.) characteristics (Figures 1–4).

Figure 1

Graph-diagram A: the “Micro-Physics” of Play&Games.

Figure 2

Graph-diagram B: Play/Game types.

Figure 3

Table A: A renewed model of kinds of play-pleasures and player-types.

Figure 4

Table B: Types of Play/Games, according to certain criteria.

Departing from this theoretical framing of Play&Games, I make an attempt to present various game types, in relation to a) their scale of address or level of reference (Individual, Collective, and Planetary) and b) their specific spatiotemporal dimensions – modalities. In particular, reference is made to:

1. Imaginary Space Games, which are played in “zero-dimensional” individual mental spaces, i.e., games of fantasy, inspiration, etc., or also collective games of speech, communication, etc., as well as games placed in Possible or Improbable Worlds (Utopias, Dystopias, etc.) or in Outer Space.

2. Real/Actual Space Games, i.e., activities in natural and/or human-made material environments,

3. Symbolic Space Games: Sports and Table-Top/Board Games.

4. Virtual Space Games: Analog (Television games) or Digital (Video-games),

5. Hybrid Space Games: i.e., Pervasive Games (such as “Location-based” and “Augmented/Alternating Reality” games) and multiple Gamification Applications (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5

Table C1: Modes and places of Play&Games.

Figure 6

Table C2: “War (of) Games” (from games of war to the war of games).

3.1 Is War a Game?

“No, War is not a Game!”. Or at least that is the view that seems to dominate the relevant public discourse. The general claim is that, even if war lends its idea as thematic content to games and even if war itself resembles a game (as an expression of a competitive conflict with a quantifiable outcome), this does not mean that war is a game. According to this view, thinking that one is playing a game while actually being at war (and vice versa) may be a tempting idea, but remains misleading, as it relies on the abstract reduction of war to the processes and devices of war technology, in a way that leads not only to the synthesis of physical and virtual war, but also to the complete identification of war and play in general.^[40]

Instead, war games should be understood more as allegorical venues for the unfolding of abstract and mutually agreed-upon competitive contests. In other words, they are simulations of wars. In that sense, war games can be seen and used as practical devices by which one can organize and, through rules, discipline war, thus avoiding its bitter consequences. Thus, war games can provide an outlet for “excess energy” or even “innate” aggression, which could potentially prevent real war. As Walz puts it, “War games are perhaps the only way to wage a war peacefully.”^[41]

However, this perception corresponds rather to the best (pleasant) case. Unfortunately, there is also a worse (unpleasant) case, in which war games can be considered as part of the real war, as another technological means – tool (or even a “weapon”), able to offer a way of training that prepares the player-warriors for the real battlefields. In this context, some views observe that arguments which assert with certainty that war is not a game tend to be rather “circular” or commit the (unconscious) logical fallacy of “begging the question” (assuming what it sets out to prove), thus pointing out that, for an activity to be called play, it is not necessary that it be pleasant, fun, and harmless. In other words, just as a game can be simply boring, indifferent or even irritating, it can also be wild, dangerous, or even murderous. Therefore, the (theoretical) temptation to perceive war descriptively, as (still) a kind of game, remains great.

In fact, when the relevant counterarguments are pushed to the extreme, the differences between play and war tend to boil down to this one: in war, people actually die, while in play (usually) they don’t. However, how sufficient and “expert” is this difference to establish a definition capable of distinguishing the two phenomena in an absolute manner?

Well, based on the above, I believe that a final answer to such a question cannot be given with certainty (at least in the context of such a paper), as its attempt encounters several obstacles, both theoretical and (mainly) psychological, resulting in the (often unconscious) attribution of generalizing and simplistic meanings to concepts governed by relationships of extensive variety and complexity, both within and among themselves. Consequently, I think that, instead of a final answer to the question (which may well be twofold!), it makes more sense to investigate precisely these complex correlations of the two concepts, with their various spatial–social cultural manifestations throughout historical time.

3.2 Toward a Political History of Play

Based on the previous analysis, my research focuses on highlighting the intertemporal relations of Architectural Game Design with the era of (Geo)Politics and War (Technology), attempting a deepening on their historical co-evolution, through a listing of the most characteristic examples of war-games, emphasizing on the multiple ideological tensions that arise within their (battle)field. To that prospect, a general starting comment would highlight the relationship between competitive and cooperative games (along with their political connotations), which in itself, at first glance, seems rather competitive, but on a deeper level can be perceived as cooperative (as the competition is agreed-upon, for the mutual benefit of the opponents’ self-improvement^[42]). In that context, reference is made to games in accordance with the spatial modalities, as follows.

3.3 Symbolic Space War-Games

3.4 Actual Space (“Real”) Games

Following the reference to the evolution of war games in relation to their utility in the fields of real military operations, we could focus on the historical development of actual town-city formations, from the creation of the first fortified cities and the conducting of the political war games that were played in their wider territory, to the Modern Cities and the “everyday-life games” played in their internal public or private spaces (roads, squares, parks, playgrounds, theaters and stadiums, homes, gardens, and even human bodies).

3.5 Digital Space (Video)Games

Indeed, the following decades were characterized by the Digital Revolution and the explosive growth of Digital Video-Games, which were already born in WWII, developed in the 70s by the early “disruptive” programmers (hackers), and exploited since then by the modern mass entertainment industry. It is clear that video-games set new terms and ways of perceiving the functions and meanings of play. However, apart from the introduction of several artistically worthy and pioneering cases, it is a fact that their evolution has come in relative opposition to the expectations of the devotees of the previous vision, to the extent that it has dragged many aspects of play into a gradual departure from the realm of real space (and the associated “risks of accident”), transferring them to the “safety” of virtual representation, yielding controlled interactive environments, vulnerable to pressures for further spectacle and commodification. In short, with Video-Games, the multiple functions of play rather tend to be assimilated by the economic-technical spirit of (meta-fordic) capitalism and mass culture, forming a mega-industry, which is often closely related to modern armies (the so-called “military-industrial complex”).

3.6 Hybrid Space (Pervasive) Games

In the last two decades, there appears a trend of particular interest, prompting the return of games to the materiality of “real” space. The trend manifests itself emphatically in the case of Pervasive Games (Location-based, Augmented/Alternate Reality games, etc.), which are played in “real” space, under a condition of coupling with digital elements (usually provided by special high-tech devices and software). At the same time, a tendency to introduce interactive-entertainment elements (digital and non-digital) and other playful dimensions in real space is increasingly appearing, from squares, parks, and (non-standard) playgrounds, to building constructions, elements of urban equipment, utilitarian objects, exercise equipment, etc. In the same context, we can include the applications of “Gamification.”

3.7 Contemporary Stakes

Despite the undoubted success of game-design and gamification techniques, the specific ways of their implementation and their results are a highly contested issue that provokes intense public debate, both within the game industry and the game-studies community, and more broadly in humanities, social, economic, and political scientific disciplines. In general, the views that make up the collective imagination of our time regarding the role of Play&Games for the future of the world seem to range from (over)optimistic endorsements (which extol the liberating value of play) to fierce (over)pessimistic criticisms (on of their multiple negative social effects), covering the whole range of visions from the utopian hopes of salvation to the dystopian fears of destruction.

3.8 Serious Games

From an intermediate point of view, in recent years, there has been an ever-intensifying effort to “intercept” these dominant trends, from various currents of “militant” ideas and creative proposals, which, without ignoring or underestimating the aforementioned risks, they acknowledge the multiple advantages of games, claiming the creation of alternative types with a high cultural-artistic value, capable of enhancing their entertainment character with multiple educational aspects and broader functional dimensions, bearing a specific ideological sign (relatively unconventional and sometimes explicitly subversive). These trends tend to be summarized under concepts such as Serious Games, Critical Play, and Smart/Just/Sustainable (or even Radical) Gamification.

Especially the term “Serious Games” is an internationally acknowledged notion referring to games whose purposes go beyond “mere fun,” emphasizing a variety of issues that are considered “serious”^[57] (ecological, scientific-epistemological, sociopolitical, ethical, psychological, etc.), highlighting the special educational value of games, as basic means – tools – methods to the broader direction of Interactive “Edutainment” (Educational Entertainment). Serious games are thought to be able to influence human motivation, as they can create strong memories and transform complex concepts and situations into meaningful physical, mental, and emotional experiences, potentially leading to behavioral changes (in the directions that are considered each time as “desirable”).^[58]

Finding new ways to reduce conflict has never been more urgent. Success will require all of the wisdom that can be drawn from war games over time. It will also take something that the 1964 war games so obviously lacked: the willpower to act on what games can teach.^[59]

4.1 In the End, What is (Not) Play?

Generally, it can be argued that all manifestations of play are governed by a dominant distinction between “free” and “structured” inter-activity, based on the degrees of freedom set by the rules, goals, and means of conducting it. But apart from such abstract descriptions, a general agreement on a final definition of Play&Games is still to be found (and probably it never will), as the attempts to come up with one such definition at some point tend to exhibit certain typical problems, such as:

1. Partiality (the induction of the properties of certain games into elements of the game in general),

2. Anachronism (the foundation of definitions on outdated perceptions of earlier times, which do not take into account more modern ideas and discoveries),

3. Inconsistency, i.e., the (unconscious) adoption of self-contradictory/mutually canceling elements,

4. Subjective assessment and/or psychological/ideological projection (i.e., the overt or latent adoption of an evaluative position by the one defining),

5. The relativity or “perspectiveism” of approaches, i.e., their dependence on the specific goals and specific frameworks of their problematization.

6. Excessive generality (broadening the meaning so much as to include almost everything, resulting in the inability to establish a specific difference, that is, an essential contrastive distinction of play/non-play, which should be a consequence of a definition).

4.2 The Ambiguity of Play

In other words, the concept of a game remains “essentially” open. In some ways, this is not to be perceived necessarily as a “bad” thing at all, insofar perhaps it is precisely this conceptual openness that constitutes the “essence” of playfulness. On that “ground,” my research moves on by highlighting some of the most important and relatively well-known philosophical views on Play&Games, such as:

1. the Indeterminacy of Play, i.e., the impossibility of crystallizing commonly accepted “definitive” definitions, as is emphatically highlighted by f L. Wittgenstein and his view of play as a concept of “family resemblance,”^[65]

2. the Ambiguity of Play, as explained by the integrated approach of B. Sutton-Smith in his same-titled work,^[66]

3. the Subjectivity of Play, as follows from the statement that “the meaning of games is, in part, a function of the ideas of those who think them,”^[67]

4. the Incompleteness of Play, as the concept becomes “vulnerable” to a potentially infinite self-referential reduplication of theoretical “meta-levels” (meta-metagames…), in a way that approximates the reasoning behind the mathematical idea of K. Gödel’s “incompleteness theorem,”

5. the Universality of Play, as outlined by K. Axelos (among others), in the context of his onto-theological approach (“The Game of the Cosmos”).

4.3 The Immanence of Play. From the “Essence” to the “Process” of Play&Games

Odair Faléco observes that, generally, within cultural mythologies, one cannot find references to a “God of Play”. As he argues, if the observation is true, this is probably because “all Gods play!”.^[68] With that in mind, by bringing together the views mentioned above, as a general theoretical conclusion I formulate the hypothesis – proposition that any activity (physical and cultural) is (or can be thought of as) a game: an idea-worldview that could be conceptually rendered succinctly as the Immanence of Play.

Reasonably, toward such an idea a direct objection can be raised: if everything is a game, then the fundamental distinction which is the “mother of meaning” is absent, resulting in the destruction of the concept’s meaning. In my view, this well-known problem can be overcome, or at least bypassed as theoretically meaningless, through a theoretical turn – shifting of the emphasis “from the Essence to the Process” of Play&Games. Simply put, the question of “what is play/game?” can be replaced by questions like “What does a game do? What does it symbolize? How does it work? How is it played? How was it designed? By whom and why? On what terms? In what context?” etc.

This way, such an “all-encompassing” concept of play does not lead to the (self-)negation of its meaning, rather it transfers the dispute of meaning from the pursuit for a “definitive” definition of play, based on a binary (essentialistic) distinction, to the multiple “procedural” distinction among its multiple approaches (comparative ludology), particular kinds (types, forms, genres, modalities, mechanisms, etc.) or even “classes” (scales, levels), where probably has a greater practical (and theoretical) value (Figures 7–9).

Figure 7

Table-diagram A1: Comparative ludology – structure of subjects.

Figure 8

Table-diagram A2: Comparative ludology – conclusions.

Figure 9

Diagrams A1 & AB: Classes – (meta)levels of Play&Games.

Additionally, in this context, one could argue that the idea of an immanent (or ubiquitous) play, as opposed to conventionally binary logic, while adopting a simultaneously monist and pluralist perspective, can go further to find connections, from ancient eastern philosophies regarding the “Coincidence of Opposites” (the “yin-yan” principle), to contemporary scientific complexities, forming a (risky but not uninteresting) idea about a potential quantumness of play.^[69]

4.4 The Political Significance of Play&Games

It is clear that the procedural distinction of the immanent concept of play in multiple particular modalities aspires to highlight the differences between games, in terms of their functional and constructional elements, their projected value standards (moral and aesthetic), their philosophical perspectives – worldviews, along with their (obvious or latent) social and political extensions. These differences also define different relationships among games, which may be characterized by relative or absolute compatibility, incompatibility, or even complete opposition. As R. Caillois puts it:

Every institution functions in part like a game, established each time based on new principles, so that it must expel an old game. The new game responds to other needs, respects other norms and other laws, requires other virtues and behaviors. From this point of view, a revolution appears as a change in the rules of the game.^[70]

So, we see that, games, in addition to being key activities for children’s development, means of entertainment or artistic expression, objects of aesthetic value, and tools for scientific analysis and interpretation of cultural phenomena (or even the natural world), they can also reflect a kind of moral choice, which flows into ways of social intervention, even aiming at political subversion. On this basis, games can be grouped into cooperative guilds – “alliances” or “collusions” (temporary and not), set in the wider field of social competition, thus able to participate in a “higher-order” meta-PowerGame (the result of which could determine – at least to some extent – the historical development of civilization or even the course of the whole natural evolution […]). In other words, “every game is (or can be thought of as) a political game” (especially those claiming apolitical) (Figure 10). Furthermore, one could point out that, probably, the difficulties we face regarding the very definition of play are due to the fact that the definition process itself implies another power (meta-)game […].

Figure 10

Diagram C: The moral politics of game-design rhetorics (based on a similar approach of S. Walz & S. Deterning, 2015).

Based on the above rationale, questions are raised regarding the terms, principles, and values on the basis of which social subjects evaluate each game (as important, interesting, boring, indifferent, dangerous, etc.) and decide (consciously or not) to play it, study it, promote it, or even (re)design it, as suitable for serving their own philosophical (ontological) worldviews, moral values, aesthetic preferences – desires, beliefs, intentions, etc., as they emerge from their “biopsychic chaos,” determining their political (if not military) strategies, to be set in the context of their complex – often conflictual – social relations (Figure 11).

Figure 11

Table D: Categories of design values in the wider field of “Architectural Game-Design” (based on the relative models of Ivar Holm (2006)).⁷²

In a similar vein, as put by Nick Dyer-Witherford and Greig de Peuter in Games of Empire (2009):

Games have always served the Empire: from Cicero’s claim that the gladiatorial games cultivated the martial virtues demanded by Rome, to the Duke of Wellington’s fictitious claim that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the fields of Eton, to the war games of the Prussian generals in preparation for the Schlieffen Plan of World War I. But the Games have also been turned against the Empire in a variety of ways, ranging from the bloodshed of the Spartacus rebellion to more noble forms of revenge, such as the West Indian cricketers defeating their British colonial overlords.^[71]

Essentially, the above analysis attempts to highlight the inevitability of an evaluative (political) choice between the various genres and multiple modalities of Play&Games, as well as the importance of the principles and criteria involved in the process of such a choice, as objects for further investigation in the context of a design practice. As such, it can be seen as a way to justify the author’s decision to focus on the kind of games described subsequently.

5.1 Toward an Ecotopia of Play

Games’ philosopher Bernard Suits once went so far as to argue that “Games are the purpose of life!” His argument could be summarized as follows: if we imagine our lives in a utopia, by definition free of all problems, what else would we do but play games? Essentially, with this phrase Suits made a connection (perhaps the first) of games with the concept of utopia.^[75]

Nowadays, long after the emergence of the environmental movement, it is clear that a modern utopia can only be “ecological”, hence the term “Ecotopia”. However, in contrast to a “true” Utopia, in the sense of a “perfect” ( = unachievable) society, the concept of Ecotopia describes a society that is feasible, realizable in the “here and now,” which will always remain imperfect and evolving, as it will be guided by subjective intentions and values, that are inseparable from contradictions and conflicts.

It is clear that ecological thinking is constitutively in dialogue with a concept of utopia, as a source of hope and dreams. However, this does not mean a mere fantasizing process dealing with the impractical. Instead, ecology’s great contribution to radical thought lies precisely in the question of applicability. Not only because, based on this, it can more effectively criticize the unsustainable current model, but because it deals with the study of the objective possibilities and conditions for their application.

One of the key-point issues of Political Ecology is concerned with “the problem of transition,” that is, with the strategic process through which a society could be led to the “semi-ideal” of an ecotopia, in a way that takes into account the individual, social, and environmental components of the wider ecological issue. In particular, it is interested both in the (material – objective) transition of the means of energy and production (which is connected to the present capitalist organization of societies), but also in an emotional-value transition (imaginary – subjective), considering that the ecological issue requires a new moral and political imaginary, within which all psycho-mental, socio-political, and ecological challenges will be integrated.^[76]

Given this, the ultimate claim of my research endeavor aims to extend Suits’ original argument by highlighting games, not simply as the purpose of living in an unachievable utopia, but as the preeminent means of transitioning to an achievable ecotopia meant as the Playscape of Regenerative Cultures.^[77]

5.2 Potential Challenges and Limitations

Apart from the generally “(over-)optimistic” view of the presented subject, it is true that, in terms of its design and execution process, as well as its results, it may be faced with a series of potential challenges, limitations, as well as ethical risks, such as:

1. Difficulty in convincing many doubtful local and regional stakeholders into including such techniques in large-scale projects,

2. Difficulty in convincing the strong advocates of both arguing sides (opposers and defenders of Gamification) to make “mutual compromises,” in order for the whole concept to be able to function to a larger extent.

3. Dependence on high-tech gadgets, the production of which may involve actions that contribute to the ecological destruction of other places or to the labor exploitation of vulnerable population groups or wider social injustice, while at the same time, their frequent use can be connected to complex individual problems (psycho-intellectual and physical), with wider social ramifications.

4. Unwanted (latent) provocation of digital inequalities and social alienation, due to significant differences between different social groups and individuals, in terms of the ability to use the products, depending on social, ideological, and economic status, physical or even mental capacity.

5. Risk of personal data diffusion and proliferation of digital surveillance methods, due to special parameters of digital software, which could record and store human actions and then make them available in an opaque manner and purpose to interested third-parties.

It is clear that, throughout all relative research and design processes, every possible effort should be made to mitigate such potential problems, both “internally,” that is, through the integration of these issues into the basic design criteria that will shape the specific mechanisms of the games to be developed, as well as “externally,” that is, through the formation of appropriate proposals at an institutional level.