I am very sorry that this blog post is extremely late. I somehow missed it when it was due.
“Grotesque.” “Squalor.” “Arbitrary anguish.” Bogost uses adjectives that are seemingly the antithesis of what games are supposed to represent. He lures readers in with a brash hook that eventually leads to his point that we use video games as a devices we operate. This disconnect from reality and lack of rewards differentiate games from sports such as football. While Bogost builds up games as something we merely control, he eventually destroys the idea that we enjoy it because boardgames such as Monopoly and chess brings only anguish in defeat rather than glory like a football match. His point is odd and can easily be refuted but by doing this, Bogost forces the reader into a state of confusion and expects them to oppose his views.
After the introduction, Bogost begins going into a humorous definition of Flappy Bird and its simple stupidity. He leads this into how the game is detached of affection for its players. Its beauty comes simply from its repetitiveness much like trying to fix and unfixable real problem, in this anecdote a sink. The simplicity and idiocy of games like Flappy Bird reveals the broad definition of what it is to be a game. Despite calling the game disgusting or useless, Bogost goes against his earlier statement or rather expands on it by telling the reader that they are not stupid for playing stupid games.
The structure of Bogost’s chapters heavily revolve around the same main themes: a brash or outlandish statement, logos examples and definition of the subject pertaining the statement, a pathos appeal through more examples or anecdotes, and wraps up with a general statement that sometimes contradicts the brash statement that he sets up.