Gamer Theory

McKenzie Wark introduces the ABC theory for gamers; "A primer, rather, in thinking about a world made over as a gamespace, made over as an imperfect copy of the game. The game might not be utopia, but it might be the only thing left with which to play against gamespace" (24). Wark is taking us into the gaming world, starting with level one. I am a little confused as I begin to read because none of Gamer Theory is dedicated or contributed to science or theory. Rather Wark is embarking in an untapped realm of gamespace. The behind the scenes world of gamespace and virtual reality is explored. The writing style and format is not traditional in the sense that there are no page numbers. Instead there are numbered paragraphs and chapters. The second chapter Allegory, analyzes the computer generated game The Sims. From the perspective of the gamer, you are immersed into a virtual world of controlling a family. This family simulation consists of the parents, managing the children, jobs, money, and all the other necessities. Designed to mimic the operations of a typical family in real life. Somehow you are playing in the game world and running a family at the same time.

Do we live in a gamespace? One must consider the passage of time in the game world and real life. When behind the computer screen or TV, a certain amount of control is in your hand. You have the ability to pause, stop, and or restart. Granted you must successfully complete the campaign or level to move on, however, the degree of difficulty can be adjusted at times. Now consider real life... There is no pause button or way to just magically put a hold on everything. Time cannot be rewound or fast forwarded. The passage of time is key here and the difference must be distinguished between reality and gamespace. Last time I checked there is one chance in life and very difficult to try and start over.

Does the game world keep on going or extend in some manner beyond the levels? I would like to readdress that Wark's work should be taken with a grain of salt. As previously mentioned, there is no firm science or theory that supports his claims. Take it for how you interpret it.