“Gamedicy”: the need of justification from theodicy till videogames

The main attribute of Gods is creation. Thus in each cult and each culture, Gods are creators, and humans are just the crew; therefore, Gods as creators could judge the whole creation.  But our conceptions have changed, and we don’t believe in Gods. So there was necessary a justification of God, a Theodicy. We share Marquard’s thought: “first, in the age of religion, God sat in judgment over humankind; then, in the age of theodicy, humankind sat in judgment over God; finally, in the age of critique, humankind sat in judgment over itself” (Farewell to Matters of Principle, p. 31). So, the question is always around justification: Why is humanity not so good? Ask God; Why do God create such evil world? Ask the humanity; and finally, why do not humanity create a better world? Ask the humankind. It is possible to infer that the main question asked for creation is related to its own justification.

A similar “theodicy” or “gamedicy” is present in videogames world. Not only from people who do not play, but from the same gamers. Thus, first, in the 80’s designers sat in judgment over gamers; in 90’s gamers sat in judgment over games; currently, gamers sat in judgment over games, designers and gamers. Consequently, everything has to find its own justification… except the people who made the critic. Why do have GTA V such map with a big city, instead different cities? Why is not Assassins Creed Unity more innovative? Why is No Man’s Sky soinnovative? Why does Beyond two souls seem too much a film? However, it is not usual ask the other side of this questions, namely: Why should have GTA V different cities? Why should not to be Assassins Creed more conservative? etc. The answer is offered by Marquard again:

[They] once "had" a conscience, but when it is absolutely in advance, it has its conscience behind it; now, instead, it "is" conscience—absolute conscience, in fact. (Farewell to Matters of Principle, p. 31-32)

Odo Marquard (1929-2015)

Marquard’s claim shows that critics hide themselves behind critiques, and they would want to be the selected group which justification is obvious. So, in religion God justifies by himself, but then he needs his justification from another. It is the same thing with videogames. At the beginning, games justifies by their own, but today we need some kind of justification in order to accept any game (as cultural product, as gender, etc.). That means just one thing: Neither God nor games (nor humans) justify currently by themselves, but they get it just through the critics, which critiques give justification.

My point is too close to Marquards, i. e. justification is not the whole reason for a thing. This is not an apology for irrationality, on contrary, it is a defense of life, daily life, which we lives closer to our institution and traditions, than absolute justifications. Our reason is not apart from our life; therefore justifications are related with life. Videogames, and each cultural product is under certain “theodicy”, it ask “why is it not better?”.[1] The philosophical conclusion is that this question is unanswerable at all because there is impossible any absolute justification. 

So, when someone ask a justification about a game, let him play, and then let speak about experiences, not justifications.

you can contact with me:

facebook.com/ixocrito

twitter.com/ixocrito

---

[1] The same thing is about religion. Look for a rational a priori justification of any religion or God means a lost of the current life.