[[[This is a post from my Critical Gaming class at UTK.
]]]
 |
| The Turning Test™ |
Through Caillois's writings about play, we were introduced to the concept known as agon, competitive play wherein there is always a loser and a winner that begin on the illusion of an even playing field. Wark took this further with his description of gamespace, wherein agon is overlaid on our reality and at the base of social interaction, wherein there is still a winner and loser but the basis of the outcome isn't necessarily fair or clear. Juxtaposed with these concepts is the world of the video game, where the outcome of competition is part of a set algorithm. It can be argued that these algorithms are warping our expectations of outcomes in reality.
The
Claxtech® Practical Guide Series™ addresses this by theoretically laying out every possible outcome in a straightforward mundane activity, such as in
World of Doors™, a strategy guide devoted to assisting those who seek mastery in the task of opening doors.
While perfection cannot be reached in reality, an algorithm overlaid onto that reality defines an outcome and therefore gives the user something to strive for. So with this guide, one could argue that perfection could be achieved--specifically in regard to opening doors by the standards set by
Claxtech®. The
Claxtech® AGON DIVISION strives for defining the algorithm for all activities so that perfection can always be achieved.
 |
| Claxtech® AGON DIVISION will always be there for you. |
As a physical form, this project would eventually be like a printed and bound strategy guide. The user can always 'play the game' without the guide, but they would otherwise choose to use the guide to exploit the game, to achieve greater completion/perfection, or simply to curb boredom after getting stuck.
The guide opens with a strategy set by the author, Alan Turning, creator of
The Turning Test™, where the user could test anything to ensure whether or not it qualifies as a door by the standards described. The second part of the
Turning Test™ is to use a specific procedure to open the door. This sets a catalyst for the rest of the guide that goes further into depth about interacting with various types of doors, as listed in an exhaustive Door Bestiary. Beyond the bestiary is concept art for kicks.
While there is a theoretical list of all door types possible, there will always be doors that will exist as anomalies beyond the standards set in the book. However, by the standard initially set by defining a door, one could argue that these either are or aren't doors and therefore do not qualify to be part of the algorithm. Doors that I excluded include dog doors and trap doors.
 |
| Alan Turning, who is not related to Alan Turing so stop asking. |
The design style that I chose to express through this project references back to the International Style in design from the 1950s and 60s. The International Style was created in an idealized effort to standardize a style of design that communicated clearly and transparently to any culture. The typeface choice is entirely in Helvetica, the poster child of this era, and one of the most prevalent, possibly generic, typefaces in the world. This era was aggressively bombarded with theories of standardizing a system in which graphic design would exist, as well as to establish the definition of design. Within it existed strict rules and constraints, like the way this book is algorithm-izing a small task in reality.
Doors are, for the most part, designed in a very specific manner and measurement of which most of us are completely unaware. Different countries have different standard door sizes, but do we realize this when we are in those new places? This knowledge does not assist or destroy our ability to use it but rather the door is a device that tends to remain invisible in its workings, just as helvetica is said to be invisible. When the user becomes aware of the door, it is generally because of a problem rather than a challenge. In the same way, the more a user plays a video game, the more they become aware of the algorithm and begin to play the algorithm rather than within the illusion that the game is painted with. It could be argued that doors are invisible to us because we are accustomed to the algorithm of doors themselves.
When minor tasks are broken down exhaustively, we are forced to see every aspect of the activity laid out plainly. But in this moment, we can often see details that were not apparent before. Games begin with rules or boundaries that create challenges that must be overcome whether or not the game or the player sets the goal. In this instance,
Claxtech® has set the boundaries for the user when they go into the activity of opening doors. Before these boundaries existed, one would not have paid attention to any sort of right or wrong way to open the door unless the door did not open for some reason (which is unexpected). Even if one does not follow the guideline set by
Claxtech®, they can still open the door normally, but not, by their standards, properly to fit within the construct of the game.
This is a set of challenges one could overlay into reality, but would it be done with
World of Doors™? The main point isn't necessarily to play
World of Doors™, but rather to make the reader more aware of a complexity that would otherwise not be made aware. Our lives are filled with very complex tasks and activities that run on our own distinct algorithm. I would argue that before video games, we were already inclined to create algorithms to make sense of the world around us. When a door that usually opens does not open or a car that usually runs does not run, we tend to briefly panic that our personal routines have been broken or threatened. The algorithm teaches us to have expectation in reality.
I would like to continue this project someday and explore what it means when an algorithm is directly applied to interact with the unpredictable results of reality in gamespace.
