The Art and Value of Gaming

Analysis of "Agency as Art" by C. Thi Nguyen

C. Thi Nguyen's "Agency as Art" is a chapter from his book "Games: Agency as Art" published by Oxford University Press, which is a world-renowned, highly reputable academic publisher. The chapter is certainly worthy of the publishing house and is a finely written, scholarly piece that fits nicely into the expected style of academic writing. In this case, the field into which it applies is the field of game studies and philosophy. The intended audience appears to be scholars, students, and even enthusiasts in the field of game studies, philosophy, and even digital humanities.

Nguyen's main argument is that games are a unique form of art that allow players to explore different forms of agency. What does this mean? Essentially, Nguyen is referring to the idea that games provide a space for players to exercise control, a space where they can make decisions for themselves about their own play, a space where they can experience the consequences of those decisions—interactively—in a way that is wholly different from other forms of art. Nguyen argues that games are not just about achieving arbitrary goals but rather are also about the process of working towards those goals. This process, according to Nguyen, is what makes games a distinctive art form. He states, "A game uses all these elements to sculpt a form of activity. And when we play games, we take on an alternate form of agency" (p. 1). And, just like a film or a play is a collective work of art, a game is also a kind of collective form of art in which the player brings his own agency to the work, just as a dramatist might bring the script, the actor the performance, the set designer a stage, and so on. All of that is part of gaming, too, just in a different medium.

Thus, in the context of these games, "agency" refers to the ability of a player to make choices and take actions within the game world, as an actor might on a stage, or as a director might with a film in the editing room. The agency is his own. From deciding which path to take in an adventure game, to choosing how to interact with other characters in a role-playing game, to developing strategies in a strategy game, all of it is done within the scope of his own agency. For this reason, Nguyen also defines games as a “social technology” because it does involve world building and interaction with other minds, other players, and other ideas (p. 1). The gamer is connecting to the makers of the game via their creation and working within those confines to bring that game to life. Unless the gamer engages, the work is dead and lifeless: it requires the gamer to bring it to life, just as a play by Shakespeare requires actors to bring it to life on the stage or at the very least a reader to bring it to life in the imagination.

However, what really makes this art unique, according to Nguyen, is that it allows players to explore different forms of agency in a structured environment. The rules of the game are situated within a framework in which players can exercise their agency. This makes it different from a performing a play, or making a movie: in each agency is restricted to stage directions or to the script. The goals of the game are what they are and give direction to the actions of the gamer, but the gamer is much freer to develop his own journey or path to the goals than in any other art form.

Thus, what sets Nguyen's perspective apart is his emphasis on the structured environment of games. This structure, he insists, is not merely about achieving set goals but is about the journey towards those goals. As Nguyen eloquently puts it, the gamer is harnessing an “alternate form of agency” that cannot be harnessed in other art forms (1). Here, Nguyen's unique argumentative style is evident in how he integrates various elements to bolster his claims. He doesn not just rely on theoretical assertions but grounds his arguments with practical examples, like the game "Sign," which he uses to show exactly how agency can be demonstrated in a gaming experience. Furthermore, he critically engages with other scholars, such as Bernard Suits and Jane McGonigal, to provide context and depth to his arguments. For instance, his critique of McGonigal's work ("But this mistakes how peculiar game values are..." p. 21) showcases his ability to juxtapose his views against prevailing theories, enhancing the depth of his analysis.

However, while Nguyen's work is well-researched, there's a need for clearer connections between the textual evidence and the claims made. For instance, when Nguyen defines games as "A game tells us to take up a particular goal..." (1), it would be beneficial to elaborate on how this definition underscores the unique agency players experience in games. Similarly, discussing the role of the game designer ("Games, then, are a unique social technology..." 1) can be tied back to the overarching theme of agency and its artistic representation in games.