In Wark’s novel Gamer Theory, he describes how gamespace imagines the world. According to Wark, gamespace imagines the world as a level playing field, where everything in life can be seen as a series of games where God is the game designer. Every action is seen as a means to an end; there are rules, scores, teams, and even big leagues. The entire concept revolves around triumphing over rivals and “winning” each of these games to move onto the next level in your life. Actions and processes can be seen as algorithmic. I believe that society cannot be a gamespace for a number of reasons. Some arguments are cited in Wark’s book.
The first reason society cannot be considered a gamespace: In order for reality to be considered a game, it has to fall into the assumption that the games are “devoid of all obviousness and seriousness” (Paolo Virno pg 14). Wark even applies this to being fired. This is obviously not devoid of seriousness, nor can it always be assumed that this outcome would not be obvious. Games are characterized by their allowance of choice, just as life, but games imply that each choice you make will have no repercussions outside of that game. Each action you take in life influences the next. The butterfly effect undermines this point of view. Reality cannot be a game because it does have repercussions and they are serious. “a real victory for imaginary stakes” (Wark 7).
Secondly, games must be won or lost. there is no developer for life whose intentions are placed within life. There is no one to create paths or goals for you. There is no right or wrong choice either. Of course, you can make a choice and you can die, just like in a video game. But this can only be seen as winning or losing based on your own perceptions. For someone who wants to die, this outcome is a win. For someone whose goal is to live until they are 100, this could be seen as a loss. However, for the entirety of life to be seen as a game, there needs to be an objective concept of winning or losing that can be applied to the whole population. There are controlling institutions, but there are none that can ultimately decide each choice in life for you or concretely place set, algorithmic consequences for things you do. There is no invariance or accuracy in real life like in games (gamespace). Outcomes and circumstances are not guaranteed or predetermined.
To this point, Wark constantly claims that gamers do not play to win. That they play within games to explore possibilities and themselves. However, this does not matter. This is merely representative of how people act. According to Jenkins, people will project their own meanings into games and derive their own meanings out of them. The mere existence of a realm where you CAN win, where people have the option to play in a way that’s solely based on winning, separates games from the real world. It does not matter that people will place their own meanings on it. That’s a side effect, a mental side quest if you will, of playing games. Every person in the real world places their own meanings onto things. The difference between life and games is that you cannot objectively win life, but you can a game, whether your true intention was to just goof around in the game or not.
The third point to the argument that society is not a gamespace is personified in this quote: “leisure is work” (pg 156).
Our reality is not a gamespace. It does not resemble game play or mechanics. If anything, games are a reflection of US and how WE operate. Game mechanics mimic the ways our brain works in order to make games easily accessible to us. our entertainment is structured in the same way and requires us to use our brain in the same way as our work because that’s how we hare conditioned to operate. It is not games that are seeping into our lives; it is work that is influencing games.
“Now art and sport become work disguised as games, or is it games disguised as work” (pg 156).
Game Studies 