Games act as a lens for the society that births them. Out of all the articles assigned this week, that is the core takeaway. The evolution of society and the changing of games go hand in hand, more so than other mediums such as books and, later, movies. Games had the benefit of not being coupled to a conception of high culture and in many ways were seen as a lower form of entertainment, only a step away from vices such as gambling. This allows the evolution of games to be far more rapid as they were not shacked to preconceived notions in the same way that novels and later movies were. Games offer a clear and unobstructed view of the culture that created them and by analyzing games you can better analyze the cultures they came from.

The articles this week really attempted to drive home this idea that the changing landscape of American culture was reflected in the games that were created. Early American games from the early and mid 1800s often had a puritanical or religious message to communicate, attempting to disseminate the values that were popularly imparted to children at the time. More importantly, this message changed in the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. A message of economic and personal improvement started to take precedence, displacing the earlier moral espousing.

This evolution of morals struck me in two different ways, the first being how, while games were reflective, they also acted as a good method of early indoctrination and reinforcement of cultural norms. The second thought was one of modern games, both computer and physical, and what that says about modern culture as well as whether the driving force behind game development has evolved.

Games, in their earlier American form, I feel were not just reflective of culture but also acted as a conduit to indoctrinate youth. This premise seems to have started, at least reactivity, through the abandonment of dice and the subsequent adoption of the teetotum as a replacement. Enough members of early American culture viewed dice as a vice or evil that their use in children’s games was removed. The later jump to including more moral or religious tones seems to be an extension of this view of games as a corrupting or negative influence. Games were not just fun in the eyes of adults, game makers and the culture at large. They could be a way to influence and shape the next generation of society.

The obvious direction to take this line of thinking would be to look at modern games and see what they say about today’s society, but I would look at the role and placement of games today. I feel that games have been promoted to a somewhat higher place, more similar to movies and books than to simple divisions for children, and as such have somewhat broadened their social origins. Games from 1900 were usually manufactured by a handful of companies concentrated in one city, New York City, where as today games are designed not only around the US but around the world. This introduces a greater variety of concepts and viewpoints, in my mind moving games away from their duel purposes of children’s entertainment and indoctrination to a far greater variety of stories, experiences and gameplays. In short, games have unshackled themselves from their origins.

As for the individual piece that was most interesting to me, the series of games based around nursery rhymes, like the Little Goldenlocks and the Three Bears game or the Little Red Riding Hood game struck me as interesting. From the pictures they seem to be structurally similar to other games shown, with a simple path populated by either buff or debuff tiles. What interested me was both the notable theme and the derivative gameplay. It seems to me to be a simple cash grab based off of what would now be called a well known intellectual property. In short, they seemed to be the turn of the century equivalent of a movie game or licensed game. Highlights the capitalistic nature of game making and how little it has changed.