The game itself exists independently of the individual, following a spontaneous order in terms of chances and rules. When a decision is made to participate in a game, the act itself is driven by a clear purpose, such as participation, experience or victory. This order produces an alignment of advantages, underpinned by the design of the game’s rules and the operation of its procedures. The player, in this process, appears to metamorphose into a digital entity, endowed with roles to facilitate the game’s objectives.In essence, the programmed player and the ‘self-programmed’ game are reciprocally fulfilling, establishing a cyclical and dynamic relationship (pivotal questions to ponder include: ‘Am I the player of the game, or is the game the player of me?’ or ‘Is the game the player of me?’). The game is a dynamic of mutual fulfilment.
Cheating, as a behavioural response to the game’s logic, is characterised by a spectrum between conformity and rebellion. A particularly salient example of this phenomenon is the incorporation of cheating as a deliberate component within the design of a game, a practice that has been observed among certain game developers. This ‘prejudgement of prejudgement’ conceptually transforms cheating from being primarily a challenge to the rules to becoming a multifaceted mechanism of competition and confrontation. The dynamic interplay between cheating and counter-cheating establishes a paradigm of prejudice and counter-prejudice between players and designers. This phenomenon underscores the assertion that games are not merely a form of entertainment; they serve as a metaphor for our relationship with technology, order, and rules. Players establish more intricate interactions with developers in this design, and cheating evolves from mere rebellion to a means of innovation and rule-challenging.
Interestingly, cheating can be seen in some ways as a reaction or adjustment to social devices. It is a metaphor for a broader social phenomenon that is not just a confrontation between players and developers, but an interaction between multiple social devices. The design of a game is not entirely up to the individual developer; it is often governed by larger social systems, such as corporate goals, industry norms, or even societal expectations of game content. These devices exist to maintain some sort of order while also providing a specific game experience for the player. Like the often-heard logic of ‘hard work leads to success’ in society, cheating demonstrates how individuals can find their own breaks within the framework of the rules. This reveals a deep sense of freedom: an awareness of the devices behind the rules and an attempt to redefine the boundaries of these devices in a personalised way. This phenomenon is not limited to games; it is also reflected in many social situations. This phenomenon is not limited to games; it is also reflected in many social situations. For example, at work, certain fixed systems are essentially a ‘game’. We are expected to follow the rules and fulfil the objectives, but at the same time, we try to find a way out through innovation or adaptation to achieve our own advantage. This behaviour is both an attempt to comply with the rules and a quest for freedom. To be more specific, some office scenarios require employees to keep their mobile phones unmoved by Bluetooth signals in order to clock in, and some people bypass the rules by setting up two mobile phones to simulate Bluetooth signals. Such behaviour is also essentially a fine-tuning and renegotiation of the socio-technical apparatus. Perhaps at this level, cheating behaviour can be seen as an attempt to see how individuals find a way to break within the framework of established rules. It reflects the individual’s search for freedom within the established order and reveals an awareness of the rules: the individual is aware of the social apparatus behind the rules and redefines the boundaries of the rules in a personalised way.
Along these lines, or when we realise that games are mirrors, mapping our social and behavioural patterns, cheating reveals a complex relationship between the consciousness of the human subject and the socio-technical apparatus. What can we do about it? Behaviour such as cheating is not only a challenge to the rules, but also an attempt to seek freedom and self-expression within the framework of technology and rules. This phenomenon is a reminder that there is always a delicate balance and game between rules and freedom. However, as players, we do not necessarily have to fully accept the rules set by the game. In other words, playing a game can be not limited to winning, but one can choose to subvert the rules, or even not to play the game in the established way. This freedom to rewrite the rules of the game embodies a challenge to the established order and an attempt to liberate oneself from the logic of the game. This attempt is not just out of rebellion against the rules, but also to find the deeper logic and meaning behind the game. It is not only the game itself that we are participating in, but also larger social devices. These devices program human beings to unconsciously submit to the logic of technology. Contemporary players thus not only need to be sensitive to the rules of the game, but also learn to find themselves within the larger system and to counteract this programmed force with some kind of freedom. As we reflect on the rules of the game and explore our freedom, it actually extends beyond the level of the game and into the larger society and culture. It makes us start to rethink how to find a balance with self, society and technology in an era dominated by technology.
#Academic JourneyLast modified on 2024-11-30