Even though I had to read through this book very carefully and take thorough notes to prepare for my debate, I really enjoyed it. What interested me the most about it was how many of Wark’s concepts could be interpreted in different ways and applied to completely opposing viewpoints.
My debate group is arguing against the idea that society has become a gamespace, and part of our instructions mentioned that since we would be arguing against this, we probably would not be able to use any quotes directly from the book to support our case. However, Wark’s concepts are so abstract and complex that a lot of grey area exists in-between for them to be applied to viewpoints that completely contradict his ideas.
Specifically, his breakdown of “analog” and “digital” seemed to really set apart how life used to be from how it is now a “gamespace,” and it sounded like life has become fully digital. However, this was one of the most compelling cases for why life has not become a “gamespace” in my eyes.
I am very interested to see how this book was interpreted by others. I originally thought arguing against the debate question would be hard, but by the end of it I actually wholly agreed with my side.
Game Studies 
Great Take! Yes it was very interesting the fact that Wark’s ideas could be viewed
in so many ways, including the opposite of what one might think.
LikeLike
I definitely agree, as this reading was difficult for me to understand as well. I feel as though Wark’s argument makes more sense to me now, however, I can’t say that I completely agree with him. I feel as though media and society’s interaction with it is very complex as everything cannot be compared to everyone. From my perspective Wark’s theory can be applied more-so to hardcore gamers. The constant interaction with games and the game world can then definitely create that person’s perception of the world and society as a game space. I think that he has a good point but I’m not sure it’s completely applicable.
LikeLike
Great post! I especially agree with your view that W
LikeLike
Great post! I especially agree with your view that Wark’s breakdown of “analog” and “digital” set apart how life used to be from how it is now a “gamespace.”
In our argument against society as a “gamespace,” we asserted that “Games are objective, either something happens or it doesn’t. Either pressing a button will complete an action or it won’t. There is a distinct line between actions and occurrences in games. Life is subjective. the contexts of your actions will always vary. We have variance in life. If you step in a certain direction, you will always move, but it is a mystery whether or not you will step into a road. With analog, you can make the same choice and it will have the same string of results, but the directions in which those results can travel within that string vary depending on the context. With digital, your decisions will distinctly and concretely play out in games based directly on your actions and will always do it the same way.”
Analog: A variation along a line, a difference of more or less.
Digital: Divided by a line, a distinction between either/or.
LikeLike