In earlier sections of this volume, contributors have touched on the importance of simulation as a framework for understanding new forms of computer media. This section develops a critical consideration of simulation as it is practiced in computer media (from videogames to interactive art to the ìagentsî of artificial intelligence); each author presenting a framework in which simulations can become more meaningfully socially situated.
The history of computer simulation media (both graphical, as in
flight simulation, and artificially intelligent, as in battlefield
simulation) includes an extended intimate connection to the military. As
well though, this historyís highest profile elements have arisen through
a connection to the entertainment industries, via film special effects
and computer games. Neither of these connections have provided a
suitable foundation for the types of critical practices advocated by
this sectionís contributors. Perhaps for this reason, each essayist
draws into their discussion of simulation critical perspectives rarely
heard in this context ó ranging from interactive political theater, to
theories of physical training, to narrative psychology.
1
Although the most famous theorist of simulation is the French
thinker Jean Baudrillard, the simulation discussed by him is a cultural
phenomenon, not a computational one ó and as such is fully existent in
old media as well as new. More germane to the discussion here are the
works of Bill Nichols and Lev Manovich. Both Nichols and Manovich
outline ways in which simulation differs from other formal traditions,
especially from the film/video tradition from which their work arises.
Nicholsís widely reprinted ìThe Work of Culture in the Age of Cybernetic
Systemsî (1988) set out to update Walter Benjaminís famous 1935 essay
ìThe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductionî (1969) for the
world of computation, intellectual property law, genetics, space
weaponry, and
Pac-Man
ó connecting simulation to the wider social world of
multinational capitalism. Manovichís
The Language of New Media
(2001) outlined a history of simulation, with the word
considered in two senses. In the first sense, simulation is seen to be
continuous with the artistic traditions of frescoes, dioramas, and the
Baroque ñ an immersion in a virtual universe. In another sense,
simulationís history is a series of attempts to model other orders of
reality beyond the visual: physics, economics, psychology. In either
sense, simulation must be understood using different terms than those
developed for other media.
2
But even post-Nichols and Manovich, some theorists continue to
operate from the assumption that simulation media (such as games) are
best understood through analogy with representation media (such as film)
ó that
Counter-Strike
can be approached via
Delta Force.
Simon Penny
opens this section with a position on this argument, which
initially dovetails with Espen Aarsethís in this volume. But Penny soon
diverges fundamentally from Aarseth, as well as from Nichols and
Manovich, as he focuses on the consequences of simulative enaction ó
consequences ethically different from those of traditional media
consumption. This focus on ethics, and on the potential impact of
simulative action on real-world action, continues with
Gonzalo Frascaís essay
. Frasca proposes that the political simulations of
playwright/theorist Augusto Boal might guide the creation of computer
game simulations that engage the sociopolitical circumstances of their
designer and players. Pennyís and Frascaís approaches could be
characterized as Critical Technical Practices (CTP) ñ procedures
incorporating the working methods of both technical research and
cultural critique ó though neither essayist uses the term.
Phoebe Sengers
, in this sectionís final essay, characterizes her work
explicitly as CTP. Sengers attempts to formulate new designs for AI
agents; such agents, although central to much AI practice (and to many
cyberdramatic visions), have customarily engaged in intricate internal
behavior that can be difficult for an observer to interpret. Sengersís
solution to this problem may be viewed as the inverse of the earlier
concern: while theorists trained on film and literature may see
simulation too much in terms of narrative, it may be that computer
scientists see it too little in these terms.
3
Response
Ian Bogost's response to
Critical Simulation
References: Literature
Benjamin, Walter (translated by Harry Zohn) (1969). ìThe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.î In Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books.
Manovich, Lev (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nichols, Bill (1988). ìThe Work of Culture in the Age of Cybernetic Systems,î Screen 21, no.1 (Winter 1988): 22-46.
Wizards of the Coast (2000). "Open Game License Version 1.0a."
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
.
References: Games
Basic Role Playing: The Chaosium System. Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis; Chaosium. 2002.
Girl Genius: The Works. James Ernest; Cheapass Games/James Ernest Games. 2001.
GURPS. Steve Jackson et al.; Steve Jackson Games. 1986.
Maginor. Reiner Knizia; Fantasy Flight Games. 2001.
Mystery of the Abbey. Bruno Faidutti and Serge Laget; Days of Wonder. 2003.
Vegas. Reiner Knizia; Ravensburger Germany. 1996.
Xxxenophile. James Ernest; Slag-Blah Entertainment. 1996