Response: Sherry Turkle Video Games and Computer Holding Power

Calling to mind society’s deepest connections to games, Turkle presents the 1984 stigma attached to computer-based interactive entertainment. The author depicts a market, ambivalent about new technological developments. My first instinct was to dismiss this information as outdated for today’s world. In fact, after a quick Google search, it became obvious to me that similar debates were still taking place. A particular fact caught my eye: those weighing in regarding games and their impact on players often never attempt playing the game. I wonder how many of these individual even try to understand the interface and technology used by the game. These factors should be an integral part of forming opinions about games before passing judgment.

A recurring theme in Turkle’s writing is one also brought to light in McLuhan texts: Narcissus’ fascination with his reflection in a pond of water – a parallel to machines as extensions of the human body. She notes how players become their characters and how the dichotomy of virtual and physical worlds is dissolved for many players. I can apply this logic to Facebook and other online social centric sites. The personas created online are not an online version of their human counterparts. It is more accurate to exclaim that they are but a facet of one’s multifaceted-life. Interviewing gamers leads Turkle to conclude that games exist beyond computer hardware and flesh and blood participants. It seems to me that there is a connection formed between the game’s modus operandi and the minds-eye. An ideal, perfect scenario exists for players. This perfection may be what they stride for. Turkle mentions where gamers face limits. It is in their physical ability, their ability to learn and adapt as well as the machines’ hardware and software confines.

Reading trough Turkle’s mention of “computational specificity” I began to wonder how her arguments compare to some that could be used when discussing traditional game forms. Most games are simulations of societal rules and structures. Levels of emulation vary along with the dedication required by players. It is also inaccurate to remark that games taking place away from the screen are not as immersive as the latest video games. Turkle suggests computational games require more involved participation and strategic thinking. I am in agreement that a greater majority of computer games take advantage of software able to respond to a player’s ability and skill level, while most off-screen pass-times maintain a certain stability. The significant difference is how video games are able to converse with our psyche at a highly powerful level. Turkle illustrates this by calling to mind children playing house and gamers becoming their avatar. This explains withdrawal and depression some gamers feel when detached from their world. As all these virtual landscapes are in fact part of the “real world”. My opinion can thus be explained by describing virtual worlds, games and their characters as being a real part of our physical world. Whether spaces are simulations like Disneyland or “real” like my apartment, they are all experienced and part of my reality.

Turkle elaborates on levels of implication each simulation structure brings about. This is the holding power introduced in the article’s title. I believe all games form holding power. Their forms are all as unique as the game play they offer. Some encourage family time while others create lasting bonds between people worlds apart; others build unaccompanied campaigns through their levels focusing on self-discovery. Games forgotten must be those with the least holding power.

Video Games and Computer Holding Power. Sherry Turkle, 1984