Gambling and video play
By: My Idea Of Thinks
Tags: Play, Gaming, Psychology, Opinion, Sociology

This article is also available in other languages: 🇩🇪 | 🇫🇷 (click)

For some years now, the video game industry has been gaining more and more importance, and more and more young people are also becoming involved with the topic. Video games became an established hobby and even, it is played in a professional environment. Real competitions are organized (see E-Sport) and a growing mass of people admire their idols from different backgrounds. But where a niche phenomenon becomes suitable for the masses, the monetarization of what was previously manageable but undefiled is not far off. And where previously passion and unconditional enthusiasm prevailed, a new consumer culture is now spreading. A culture that gave up its maturity in order to be constantly unsatisfied and thus can always be milked striving for more and greater stimulation.

However, I do not wish to address this aspect in this article. But first I would like to mention that I like to play video games myself and have already introduced some video games on my “Things” channel. I find the critical examination of these, the associated culture and market together with their perception in a broader public very productive, but now I would like to deal with another phenomenon. In our society, video games or video games are increasingly seen as a substitute for traditional games. But why, should this be a negative development? Because even from the name “video games”, a connection between classic gaming and video games does not seem to be deniable and certainly not one can derive a kind of difference here. But that is precisely the essential point I would like to draw. In this text, I do not want to weigh up video games against classical playing or even give the advocate of one position or another a feeling of paternalism, but rather find a balance between classical playing and video gaming and establish a culture of common understanding and complementarity.

But let’s start all over again. When I write here in the text about “classical play”, I mean that play that we have all unconsciously used for ourselves from childhood to intuitively open up our environment and our borders. I mean that play that, through adaptation and, to a certain extent, putting into role models and other people, shapes our own personality and our view of other people according to their “position in the world and society”, that is, what we recognize as the valid framework. But this playing, almost expresses itself in a subconscious but fundamental human need for playful interaction with other individuals or oneself, and is able to evoke various mass dynamics and put those masses into common states, pluralistic at any time but nevertheless harmonious. Such dynamics can still be seen today, for example, in major sporting events such as football or other sports, which are designed to involve their spectators in the game, not only physically, but also emotionally and sometimes even physically. So you are an active player at all times, even if you are not an actual player. This also shows a fundamental difference compared to rather passive theatre performances or watching videos, because in the best case the viewer is challenged passively.

Up to this aspect, the dividing line between gameplay and video gaming seems peripheral in almost all points and rather the common emphasis seems to be emphasized. On the one hand, however, classical gambling has clearer social, psychological and cognitive effects, and on the other hand, it is above all the fundamental limitations that make the most important distinction between these two “ways of playing”. Of course, normal play activities are also limited by their respective frames of reference. Rather, it is this limitation that makes playing a classic game in its respective context. However, the limitations in the case of classical gambling, mainly refers to the observance of rules, but also playing with these rules. There is always or as a rule an overriding attention, which is designed to ensure the observance of the rules in the respective game, and only due to the fact that generally the rules are also observed, a playful togetherness can be guaranteed at all. However, it is precisely the tension between adhering to these rules and pushing them to the limit or exceeding them that is a fundamental aspect of a playful engagement with the respective sports or other playful activities. To a limited extent, this also applies to board games or other activities, some of which are playful. In video games, however, things look a little different: Although there is also the possibility here to exhaust or even completely violate corresponding rules by programming errors or the like or by the use of corresponding programs, the possibility of being warned in the direct context by an attention is quite small. Especially since, in case of doubt, this warning occurs with a time delay and by means of a complete exclusion from the game or the narrower game context. The excitement and the breaking of rules, derived above all from the overriding context of the game, but with a tendency to preserve the rules in the internal conflict, is therefore not necessarily given in video games. Especially since the intention of video games is often much more malicious or even corresponds to what is meant by a misunderstood performance principle.

Furthermore, it can be stated that it is the following aspect that moves one player to the said playful actions and is a tremendous added value in the shaping of his own psyche within the respective “group understandings” and above all the social contexts: the game, for its own sake. The aim is not to win or to make one’s time as pleasant as possible by oneself, no the actual motivation lies in acting playfully, in cheering, in putting oneself into the game… -that is to say, in finding oneself in the game itself. Of course, it can be argued and certainly it is a valid argument: By monetarizing various sports into mass events, as is evident above all in football, it is also not possible to understand (only) in the context of playing for the sake of the game. On the other hand, however, it can be assumed that very few people in the concrete game in the game situation put their efforts on it and rather the natural direct causal consequences on action are in the foreground, even for professionals, the actual sport is the focus. To emphasize the important difference here: games and sports do not build on capital-related interests, video games (and board games etc.) do. In general it can even be said that in every area of life the following applies: only the one who carries out the respective actions for the sake of the respective action will really be successful in the respective area and will not have to touch his own resources in the process.

Finally, I would like to address a point that seems most obvious, but deserves some lighting. For as indicated, classical playing is also about leaving one’s own role and slipping into another one. Of course, this seems most vivid when playing with smaller children, who adapt social role models and try their hand at them, but the football player also appears at the time of the game, not as his own individual, but as a football player, as a player within the framework of other players, with the same, common, or contrary goal. These role models, after the game, are naturally discarded again and the game itself, takes a back seat. Of course, the game will be played, in case of doubt also long after the respective experience. Enemies in the game, however, are usually discarded and one now sees oneself more as individuals who can cultivate a friendly relationship there. Thus only the one is a player in the positive sense, who can separate those worlds from each other and possesses enough integrity, sportsmanship, in order to preserve his individual, himself in the superordinate context of society. In video games, however, one slips into roles which are differently designed and which also entail freedoms and obligations in the respective character. However, white video games on the one hand have little understanding of actions outside the given game flow, and also limit the player in the design of his respective role. The character development (if available) has to take place as planned and the actions of the players either have no effect at all, or can only unfold their effect in given paths.

In general, it can also be added that video games are already limited on a basic level, the player, and this by the mere fact that they offer a virtual world that cannot take all the intentions of the player into account and the social context, if at all, is only taken into account to a limited extent. Although there are some exceptions to games which limit their playful actions solely by technical limitations and basic game mechanics, in their concrete form they offer “unlimited” possibilities in a playful or game-like form in the classical playful sense. To call its here first and foremost Minecraft. It doesn’t seem surprising that just such a game was sold over 154,000,000 times, and thus became the second most successful game ever.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I have not tried to make any argument against video gaming here. Rather, it seemed important to me to emphasize this distinction and possibly give some food for thought. Of course, video games, unlike films, for example, offer much greater scope for interaction, can certainly provoke playful action, but they do not penetrate the very game instinct, which should have made a decisive contribution to the further development of the human kind itself. Video games can be regarded as an art form and are part of the chain that was previously created by writing, books, radio, television, film production… and that needs the next stage of evolution.

Sources: