On reading the seventh chapter of Sicart’s Play Matters, I have to wonder how the author would interpret video game mods. It might be getting ahead of things, but if play is appropriation, and the architecture of play trumps game design, then what exactly would a game mod, which appropriates this architecture of play, be? Furthermore, while some “architects” make the tools and abilities to easily modify their creations (aka mod support such as Bethesda Softworks’ various creation kits), others do not include this support. This, however, does not appear to stop dedicated modders from creating and distributing their own tools. So how would either of these categories of modding fit into the text? Mod support given to the players seems like something that would belong in this chapter, as these architects of play understand that their creations will be appropriated. Support added by fans would be more suited for one of the earlier chapters. But then what about architects that realize support is wanted and then add support to suit player needs? I would classify them as architects that understand the need for appropriation, but I am curious as to what Sicart’s take on it would be.
That aside, Sicart’s mention of twitter bots in the eighth and final chapter leads me to wonder how the text would be different if it were written and published now. As the copyright reads 2014, the book and its contents are limited to events and examples from that year and previous. Earlier this year, there was a particular twitter bot that went rampant. Despite Microsoft’s intentions for Tay to learn and mimic a teenager, the internet went and managed to turn it into a neo-nazi in under a day, among other things. Of course, it was then taken down and overhauled, but the tale of Tay going Terminator lives on. This seems like the sort of situation that would make it into Play Matters. Tay’s tweets certainly were expressive, and its eventual viewpoint on things provided quite a bit of insight into the bot’s experiences. The play, in this instance, was the lessons the internet taught to this one chatbot. And, if anything, the entire situation showed that Microsoft did not read this book, as the company apparently had no awareness of the way their systems could be played with.