لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Against "Addiction"
The great damnation of the game [of Chess] has come from those who have been plagued by it. None has expressed so convincingly his sad and resigned self-denial as a minister who in 1680 wrote a letter, giving ten reasons why he refused to play the game. Among them is one of the most beautiful lines in English literature: "It hath not done with me when I have done with it." Truly this one sentence could be the motto for all addictions.-Norman Reider, "Chess Oedipus, and the Mater Dolorosa"
The play of pleasure in games is immensely complex, but we have done our best to trace some of its contours. Before ending this chapter, there is an additional issue we must address: addiction. Addiction and addictive play can mean many things. But by and large, among game designers, addiction is considered a positive trait, the mark of compelling play. In business terms, lots of addicted players mean that a game has a greater chance of being a commercial success.
Meaningful play can become addictive. If a player enjoyed the play of a game, he or she will probably want to play it again. If you create a space of possibility that rewards players for exploration, then you are likely to have players that want to see more permutations of how the rules play out. The same-but-different quality intrinsic to all games is at the core of a game's ability to engross players and bring them back into the magic circle again and again. "Addiction" in this sense is merely shorthand for a game experience that can support this depth of meaningful play. As a game designer, it is flattering to find that players are addicted to your game. It might be that they use your game regularly to relax or unwind. Maybe they find your game a great way to interact with friends. Or perhaps they write fiction around your game's storyline and participate in the fan culture your game has spawned. All of these forms of so-called "addiction" are the mark of dedicated players, of meaningfully engaged people experiencing the play of pleasure provided by a game. At the same time, there are negative connotations to the word "addiction" as well. Medically speaking, addiction is a genuine disorder, whether the addiction is to substances like alcohol or drugs, to negative behaviors like bullying or shoplifting, or to behaviors that are generally considered positive, like exercise or reading. Suffice it to say that the use of term "addiction," when used by professionals in the game industry, does not describe medically pathological behavior. Instead, it refers to engaged and repeated play, to players that enjoy a game and therefore play it more than one time. Because of the negative connotations of the term, the repeatable play of games is sometimes naïvely compared to a genuine medical disorder. But the word "addiction" is a misnomer, as play scholar Brian Sutton-Smith points out: The persistent concentration we are talking about is sometimes mistaken for addiction. But its compulsive quality is the same experience by those who have fallen in love, or are taken by some hobby or sport.... It is not an addiction where what occurs is a surrender to outside forces over which one has no control. We must distinguish such compulsive avocations from addiction. Video games are of this first kind. Our proposal, then, is that video games, like all other forms of exciting play, lead to a compulsive and persistent attendance on the games themselves. In this, they are like all games and all play which has long been noted for holding chil-dren's attention when they should be coming inside for their supper, or leaving the playground to go into school.[21]
Play is intrinsically engaging. But that doesn't mean that it is negatively addictive. It is true that some forms of play can become pathological. People can become compulsive gamblers, or they can spend so many hours in an online MUD that they neglect aspects of their life outside the game. These rare cases, often highly publicized, are the exceptions that prove the rule. The overwhelming majority of play phenomena are not destructively addictive. This is true even for forms of play most commonly associated with pathological addiction, such as gambling. In The Ambiguity of Play, Sutton-Smith presents extensive research on gambling with the conclusion that "the majority of players gamble moderately and with positive results for family life and pleasure."[22] The existence of addictive play disorders doesn't mean that all play is bad for you. Eating disorders and addictions abound. But that doesn't mean that you should avoid the pleasure of dining.
To play is to find free movement within a more rigid structure. When a game activity becomes pathologically addictive, this movement is censured: free movement is shut down, the sense of free choice evaporates, and meaningful play abates. In this experiential sense, when a player becomes medically addicted to some form of play, play as we have defined it no longer exists. In other words, addictive play, in the negative sense used by the medical community, is not really play at all.
One game that flies in the face of some of our ideas about meaningful play and pleasure is the L Game, designed by Edward de Bono, a writer and researcher who focuses on lateral thinking and creative problem-solving. The rules are summarized below.[23]
How to play the L Game
Pieces. The Board is made up of 16 squares. Each player (only 2 can play) has an L piece that he must move when it is his turn. There are also two neutral pieces that either player can move.
Object. The object of the game is to maneuver the other player into a position on the board where he cannot move his L piece.
Starting Position. Proceeding from the starting position, the first player (and each player on each move thereafter) must move the L piece first. When moving, a player may slide, turn or pick up and flip the L piece into any open position other than the one it occupied prior to the move. When the L piece has been moved, a player may move either one (but only one) of the neutral square pieces to any open square on the board. It is not required that the neutral piece be moved, this is up to the player! A player wins the game when his opponent cannot move his L piece.
[21]Brian Sutton-Smith, Toys as Culture (New York: Gardner Press, 1986), p. 69-70. [22]Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 67.
[23]< http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/lgame >.
