(Posting this after everybody else.)
Julian Dibbell’s new article at the New York Times on Chinese Gold Farmer.
As already Roger Caillois was on to, professionalization raises the basic question, Is it still a game?
And, apparently, yes, sort of.
It is hard, in any case, for Zhou to say where the line between work and play falls in a gold farmer’s daily routines. “I am here the full 12 hours every day,” he told me, offhandedly killing a passing deer with a single crushing blow. “It’s not all work. But there’s not a big difference between play and work.”
I turned to Wang Huachen, who remained intent on manipulating an arsenal of combat spells, and asked again how it was possible that in these circumstances anybody could, as he put it, “have sometimes a playful attitude”?
He didn’t even look up from his screen. “I cannot explain,” he said. “It just feels that way.”
*
As a video game theorist, I can sympathize with the line of reasoning. I get similar questions on occasion:
Q: Are games still fun when you are studying them professionally?
A: Yes.
Some games have actually become more fun. When playing a game that really isn’t that good, I can think about more interesting theoretical perspectives on the game. On the other hand, I do rely on a continuing supply of quirky games. Where would we be without Rhythm Tengoku?