Technopoly
Building on Kevin Kelly's thoughts on the ubiquity of the technium, this podcast considers the technium's influence upon traditional board games. The NY Times article I reference is entitled "In Monopoly Live, a Computer Runs the Game," and originally appeared on February 16th. After creating my podcast, I returned to the Times only to find a similar op-ed piece, which debuted on Feb. 19th entitled "Monopoly on Cheating." Blame it on convergence.
While the title of this podcast also shares a title with a book by Neil Postman, I have not read it. Still, the word seems appropriate for my response.
The music used is from Garageband and entitled "Off Broadway."
For more of his Monopoly-related musings search for:
“Dane Cook – Monopoly.” Perf. Dane Cook. YouTube. 2 March 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu3fxoLNZUs.
Comments
Bonus Comment: Creative Problem Solving
Great Podcast. I've already commented on Allison's, but I will say, I liked your talk of monopoly. I'm sure if Michael hadn't already podcasted this week, he'd be in here talking about his disdain for the game :-).
I present the most creative 'problem solving' around monopoly I've found to date: Thermonuclear Monopoly.
http://forums.cortandfatboy.com/showthread.php?tid=3286
I suppose we could talk plenty about Kelly and the way most technologies aren't used for their initial purpose, but instead I will just leave this here, mostly because I've already had one really long comment and if I keep going this will evolve into a massive dissertation on monopoly, evolution, and Hasbro's tyranny. Instead, I will just let you revel in the glory of thermonuclear monopoly and ponder (as I am right now) if you wish to invest in those awesome nuclear warhead tokens.
Good o'Family Game Night
Compelling podcast! You have such a great tone and present material with such creativity. Also, the Dane Cook clip you chose was one of my favorites. Nice mixing.
The Monopoly (to Technopoly) example made me consider the ways in which technological paths of innovation don't always immediately create new choices, or options, as Kelly hopes they do. Technology can be confining. Is this only temporary? How will users adjust the computer-game? Or will the technology continue to evolve into something more choice-friendly? How much does this have to do with the fact that Monopoly is a finite game, with the aim to win? If the game of the technium is positioned as providing infinite choices, what place is there for finite games? Your podcast opened these questions well and I wonder if the distinction between infinite and finite that Kelly posed needs to be problematized in response to these questions.
He writes, "An infinite game, on the other hand, is played to keep the game going. It does not terminate because there is no winner" (Kelly 353). He continues on the next page, "The goal of the infinite game is to keep playing--to explore every way to play the game..." (354).
But when users control the game, then even finite games can become infinite (or be used infinitely). Replaying the game, adjusting the rules in the next iteration is in some way engaging new choices. Because the game is oriented toward a winner does not mean game experimentation (or teachable moments, as Kristen points out) ends. Perhaps my response to Kelly's distinction here is tempered by the ever-present Risk card table in my garage at home. But finiteness does not seem to preclude innovation when you can choose to keep playing, especially when you can always call, "Best out of seven" to keep the game going.
I'm in sympathy with Jon's comments about chess here. Thanks to both Kristen and Jon for their posts about games. Fun stuff.