Humans are already very literate game players. Play, and structured play has been a core component of our evolution as a species from the very beginning. Games, the kind of games that give definition to a magic circle, are almost as old as our first tools.
But to speak of computer-games literacy is a very different matter. A computer is a tool which–unlike a hammer or a spear, or a wheel–replicates some of our brain’s ability to solve problems. A computer is a machine capable (in the abstract) of thinking, and it can do so largely without our intervention. Therefore, we are forced to consider (at least on a philosophical level) that a computer is a tool with a separate, and fundamentally different kind of intelligence. There are complex, nuanced relationship dynamics between humans and computers.
To be computer literate might mean being able to interface with a computer with ease, to learn software quickly, to perform very complex tasks using a computer, and to even make scripts or program the computer. But is that actual computer literacy?
At about 70 years young, our relationship with computers is still in the ‘honeymoon’ phase. From a language perspective, perhaps we are still proto-writing.
True computer literacy might take a thousand more years, and by that time computers will undoubtedly be of an entirely different nature. Like language now, perhaps in the far future, that separate and fundamentally different kind of intelligence that is the computer, will be integrated into our psyche.
It may be unfair, or even lazy to move the goal post of computer literacy so far into the future. You might be seen as removing yourself from the argument. There are those who are deeply embeded at the bleeding-edge of this topic, working wittingly or unwittingly to expand the boundary of the edge.
So for the sake of intellectual honesty, a computer-literate person is someone near that edge right now, and we shall not worry about the far future.
With that said, what does it mean to be computer-game literate?
Computer games are a means of exploring the complex, nuanced relationship dynamics between humans and computers. Each computer game is a unique lense, through which we might discover something new and interesting about this strange relationship.
One pillar of computer-games literacy is familiarity with the various interfaces through which we interact with the game. A PC is one interface, a mobile phone is another, and there are VR headsets, consoles, handhelds, and perhaps others. A computer-games literate person would not only be aware of these interfaces, but would know generally how to use them, and also have some awareness of the ways in which they constrain or inform the gameplay.
A second pillar of computer-games literacy might be familiarity with modern gameplay conventions. One might be tempted to point toward “platformers”, “item collection”, “leveling up”, or “dialog choices” here. Certainly familiarity with those conventions contributes to literacy, but that level of specificity is distracting.
On a more basic level, conventions which are essentially unique to computer games are: moving an image around on a screen (indeed, the screen is so far the only visual interface for computer games), moving a ‘camera’ or character around in 3D space with artificial boundaries, simulating gravity or other physical forces, animating of representational graphics, theatrical AI, competition between the player and the computer, split-screen, shared-screen, or networked play, the illusion of choice, save points, dynamic sound effects, and more.
Computer simulation in general informs a plethora of gameplay conventions which I won’t dive into with this post.
If there is a third pillar of computer-game literacy, maybe it is an acknowledgement of the complexity and nuance of the human-computer relationship, and an understanding of the role that computer games have in discovering more about that relationship. Maybe also it is an understanding of the artistic merit and expressive capacity of games and computer games.