One of the major tenets of believing that a video game is capable of communicating a message comes from a concept that Ian Bogost calls “simulation fever”. When a person plays a video game, they are engaging with a designer’s perspective of reality (or fantasy) through the finite nature of the simulation. Hitting someone in the back of the head in Halo 3 will win a stealth kill, but the same blow to the face is not lethal. That might strike someone as stupid or illogical.
For example, in Modern Warfare 2, a knife attack is an instant-kill no matter where you’re facing. This inadvertently becomes a metaphysical discussion because none of these things are real. It’s just your reaction to a simulated attack’s feedback. Everything is based on artificial rules instead of physics or other external factors. The “simulation fever” here is the player’s reaction to the confines of the game and how its virtual world works. Numerous philosophers including Bogost have explored this connection between ontology (how people define reality) and games, but one of the most important thinkers in this field is also one of the greatest science fiction authors. Through the language of pulp science fiction Philip K. Dick’s work is an exercise in exploring the concept of “simulation fever” when reality itself is not quite working properly.
As an author, Dick’s connection to video games exists both in his beliefs and even in the way that he wrote his stories. In the novel Valis, the protagonist believes that the universe is composed of information that humans through sensory input put into “hypostasis” or an illusionary visual state. In many ways. that’s what a video game actually is, bits of programming given visual representation that we can interact with. Dick would sometimes extend this principle of interacting with pure information by using random systems to generate plots for his own books.
His award winning novel The Man in the High Castle was written by his use of the random system of the I-Ching to decide what each character would do next. What interested Dick was the world that his characters were conflicting with. In his essay, “How to Build a Universe” he writes, “I like to build universes that do fall apart. I like to see them come unglued, and I like to see how the characters in the novels cope with this problem.”
Going back to the discussion on Modern Warfare 2’s knife policy versus Halo 3’s melee strike, how does your awareness that these are simulations and that someone could alter these rules change the conversation? Does the simulation have a duty to be more realistic? Such discussions are not one-way interpretations.If you acknowledge that a game is depicting or even can depict reality, what does that say about reality itself? It’s the same conundrum that is proposed in Blade Runner, which is based on Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The film extends a lot the themes concerning empathy that are present in the book by presenting several different examples of androids, making each one more relatable than the last.
The first, Leon, is mostly violent and disturbing. Others are shown trying to strangle the protagonist, sticking their hands in boiling water as if they had no feeling, or wearing bizarre make-up to makes them seem inhuman. Deckard’s eventual confrontation with Roy, who saves him and laments that his experiences are being lost like “tears in the rain”, coincides with Deckard’s own questions about whether he is a human or an android. Long drunken nights staring at his own family photos along with his relationship with the android Rachel have made him realize that the things that prove his humanity amount to little more than what the androids can claim. The film suggests that accepting that we have commonalities with a simulated person also means accepting the artificial elements of ourselves.
The underlying argument of the film is that the real thing isn’t inherently superior to the fake. The android is not different from the real thing in any meaningful way. The ending to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? has Deckard finding value in a toad he finds in the desert even after he learns that it’s artificial. Dick argues in the The Golden Man, “The external world supposedly consists of a number of different objects, but they can be known as different only because there are different sorts of experiences ‘of’ them. Yet if the experiences are thus distinguishable, there is no need to hold the superfluous hypothesis of external objects.”
Or as Jonathan Lethem phrases it in his introduction to the Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick, looking at the world from this purely philosophical perspective of Dick’s means that nothing exists. There is no perfect representation of reality. Engaging with various perceptions and ideas expands our identity and awareness of reality, but it’s still just us putting an artificial value and standard to what is otherwise pure information.
That’s what makes his work relevant to video games and the argument that they are art. Unlike the characters of The Matrix who reject the simulation out of principle, in most of Dick’s stories, the simulation is just another perspective. Since even what we call reality is subjective in this context, adopting other perspectives isn’t really a problem because there isn’t any one valid interpretation of the world. In the story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”, which the film Total Recall is based on, part of the appeal of purchasing virtual memories is that the experience will be perfect. The agent explains, “You’re not accepting second best. The actual memory, with all its vagueness, omissions, and ellipses, not to say distortions – that’s the second best.”
The protagonist goes to Rekall because he knows that in real life he can never afford to go to Mars and even if he did, he wouldn’t be a super spy saving the world. There isn’t any risk of dying or needing to be qualified to go on this exotic spy adventure. The film constantly plays with this by having Schwarzenegger’s character never really know if what he’s experiencing is real or not. When he finds out that his personality was just a construct to fool the rebel’s psychics, he still rejects his old personality for the artificial one. Even if he was originally a bad guy who went undercover, Schwarzenegger’s character embraces the simulated worldview because he finds it more fulfilling.
One could say the same about a video game like Rock Band which requires just a fraction of the struggle yet still marginally recreates the sensation of being a rock star. Acknowledging that the artificial experience has value is, like the reciprocal acceptance that an android can be human, ultimately an exercise in accepting what is fake about being a rock star in the first place. Being a famous musician is not just a matter of being talented and working hard. The PR, producers, hit songs, and pure luck of succeeding in a highly competitive field reduce the odds of even a great music talent playing in a sold-out stadium. What if you’re not talented enough, you have a family that makes touring impossible, haven’t got the time to practice, or any other number of reasons that make being a star unrealistic? All that Rock Band requires is that you press buttons in sequence, the audience boos and hisses if you mess up. A post at Graffiti Gamer points out that even the game’s visuals visuals are mostly based on rock concert filming techniques. It’s barely a fraction of the real thing, but it’s enough to engage millions of players.
Another take on this concept of finding validity in the artificial experience is when Dick proposes a scenario where there is nothing but the simulation for people to engage with. In the short story “The Days of Perky Pat” (which he expanded into the book The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch), the last groups of humanity are called flukers and live in bomb shelters. All their food and mechanical needs are met by alien allies who drop off goods but otherwise leave them alone. Totally dependent on these handouts, the survivors have nothing to do except play a board game obsessively. Money no longer means anything except for use in the game, “there was no other criterion by which one could tell if he had won or lost.” People spin a wheel and send Perky Pat and her boyfriend Leonard through the normal routine of life before the war. One character muses, “We lived then, like Perky Pat and Leonard do now. This is how it actually was.” Everyone has a unique layout, doll, and accessories, all of which are prized by the survivors. It’s the only way for them to find validation in life after the bombs dropped—by creating a simulation of their old world and succeeding at it like they normally would have.
Eventually it’s discovered that another shelter near Oakland plays a different game with Connie Companion, who is married and lives with her husband in-game. Their version of the game has abandoned money, uses larger dolls, and is generally considered more sophisticated than Perky Pat although “not morally right.” For both groups, what happens in the game is considered to have meaning and status in reality because their lives of being fed by aliens offer neither of those things. Conduct in the game reflects back on the player so that eventually several characters are exiled from the Perky Pat shelter for playing the more mature game. The protagonist muses, “Those Oaklanders; their game, their particular doll, it taught them something. Connie had to grow and it forced them all to grow along with her. Our flukers never learned about that, not from Perky Pat. I wonder if they ever will. She’d have to grow up the way Connie did.”
In some ways, Dick’s fiction also engages with the notion that perhaps reality is a bit overrated. In the short story “The Minority Report”, a police commisioner realizes that he is an aberration in the psychic system. Because he will receive future predictions via cards that tell him where and when murders will happen, he knows that he is going to murder someone a week before it occurs. The psychic system, which works by having 3 psychics vote on the correct timeline, falls apart because the protagonist is aware of and thus capable of changing the future. Two psychics say that he will murder a General, one says that he will not. The protagonist is aware of his own fate because of his unique position with the police, yet he does not change anything because he still decides to complete the murder. He still does what the psychics claimed that he would do, rationally justifying the act when the General tries to prove that the psychic system is flawed and attempts to take control of the police force. An all-powerful awareness of the future does not change anything about your life. You still are adhering to a structured reality that you cannot get away from.
Philip K. Dick’s fiction is a defense of the validity of video games because despite the fact that they are not real, his stories argue that there is still something valid in the artificial. His unique approach to metaphysics, which constantly engages us with humanoid robots and simulacra, taps into Ian Bogost’s “simulation fever” by having his characters react to the world itself in such a manner. Rather than a game’s depiction of reality being rejected, reality itself is what isn’t working for these characters. Bogost contends in Unit Operations, “A simulation is the gap between the rule-based representation of a source system and a user’s subjectivity.” In many forms of art, it is the user’s subjectivity or the that way reality is shown that’s tinkered with. The message is told to us, we see the artist’s version of the world, and we take from it what we like. In games, the space between source and subjectivity is what’s being explored. It’s not just a new perspective that we’re being shown, it’s a new way of acting in a world. One that we often would never be able to experience in real life.
In the short story “I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon” the cryogenic process for a sleeping colonist malfunctions. He is conscious while the rest of his body is frozen on a ten year space flight. To keep him from going insane, the ship’s computer begins to reconstruct his memories and allow him to re-experience his life. Yet each simulation decays and collapses as the colonist finds himself wishing that he’d done things differently. He ultimately decides to go and change his memories entirely. He decides, “If I do that, maybe my life will change so that it turns into something happy. Something that is real.”

From Rock Band (corrected)



























The photo at the bottom is of Guitar Hero, but it’s captioned “From Rock Band.”
Posted by obo on December 7, 2009 at 9:16 am
According to IMDB, Rutger Hauer added the line about “tears in the rain” that you quote here. While not essential, it would be helpful to note that that line is not part of Dick’s original text (at least as far as I can tell). Amazon allows a text search of DADOES and shows no such line in the original.
Posted by Matt Matthews on December 7, 2009 at 10:24 am
Also, and this is being nitpicky, the book Ubik is a great example of Dick’s comment that he likes “to build universes that do fall apart.” I’m biased—Ubik is my favorite Dick novel. A PS1 game was made based on Ubik, but I’ve never played it—it was released in PAL territories only, as far as I know.
Posted by Matt Matthews on December 7, 2009 at 10:29 am
@ obo
Sorry about that, fixed.
@ Matt Matthews
Yeah, I figured referencing the movie instead of the book was going to get me in trouble. I liked Ridley Scott’s interpretation of the book of finding humanity in the robots instead of the book discussing our similarities to machines. Worked a bit better for the underlying argument and I figure most folks are familiar with the film.
Posted by L.B. Jeffries on December 7, 2009 at 11:32 am
vague thesis here… are we drawing the connection that humans are “players” in any given situation, artificial or not? i’ve recently been on a PKD binge and most of the stuff referenced here is fresh in my mind… it seems to me that the Dickian take would be less that there is something ‘valid in the artificial’ but more like (as in the Black Iron Prison theory in VALIS): “what if the real reality we derive our existence from is the HALO 3 universe—but in order to defeat the human cause, the aliens have created a false reality of early 21st century earth to distract us from that conflict—and the reality of the real world can only break through into the illusory universe as a video game? that would mean that to play the video game HALO 3 would be something like a religious or mystical ritual by which we can, by proxy at least, return to our home reality and defend ourselves against the devious extraterrestrial enemy. and that the ‘nerd’ stigma of video games in this world exists only to discourage us from using this ritual—to keep us complacent, defenseless, and ignorant.”
get back to the campaign, ladies and gentlemen—better safe than sorry
Posted by joe on December 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm
That’s definitely one view that incorporates the paranoia and constant questioning of authority that Dick puts into his work. Dick is interesting for metaphysics because once you chuck out that my basic perceptions aren’t reliable, anything goes. I figured he was always grappling with how to get people to start questioning their perceptions much more deeply, so proposing that maybe we’re in a giant reality machine or experiencing some kind of Lao Tzu Butterfly dream was a solid way of pulling people’s basic personal security apart. Star big, then narrow it down to “Also, I think maybe everyone is a robot.”
It’s funny, every prolonged discussion I’ve ever had on P.K. Dick has ended with a variation on, “Well, that’s just like your perception of reality.” His books always end up giving me more questions than answers.
Posted by L.B. Jeffries on December 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“There is no perfect representation of reality. Engaging with various perceptions and ideas expands our identity and awareness of reality, but it’s still just us putting an artificial value and standard to what is otherwise pure information.”
Are we only capable of immersing ourself in “simulated” experience, such as what games provide, if we first believe in the subjective nature of reality? Or do you think that through engaging in video games one can glean a more malleable understanding of reality?
I find that akin to dreams, games and sci-fi help to diminish the immense weight I erroneously give to this one perspective of reality - as if it were the only one, or worse, the right one.
Posted by Eris from Toronto on December 8, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Great piece. It seems rarely discussed that, to Dick, there was no empirical truth and fighting for it was a lost cause. Fictions are by nature artificial realities, but that doesn’t mean they are in any way inferior to prescribed ultimate realities. I don’t know if he would defend video games though, because the user is unable to redefine rules except in realtion to his quotidian reality exogenous to the game.
Posted by Timothy Gabriele from Philadelphia, PA on December 9, 2009 at 9:56 am
Actually, Blade Runner pretty much did away with using a world with un-empathetic androids to examine human empathy. So, in the book at least (the thing that was actually written by Dick), the android was different from the real thing in an EXTREMELY meaningful way.
So did you just leave all of that stuff from DADOES? out on purpose, or did you not read the book? I mean, there was huge issue of empathy for one, then there was the emotion simulator machine and Iran talking about how using simulated emotions resulted in ‘absence of appropriate affect’ - a symptom of mental illness - in fact, at the ending there is this sentence: “No need to turn on the mood organ [for Deckard], Iran realized as she pressed the button which made the windows of the bedroom opaque.”
I can’t really say more about the use of the empathy box and its ultimate effect on Deckard without spoiling the book for anyone here who hasn’t read it. (I’m sure a whole debate could arise from the fact that it displays a ‘fake’ repeating video of Mercer and has pain simulations, but the main point of it is the feelings of empathy coming from all of the connected humans - it is supposed to aid them in returning to real emotions in real life)
Posted by pyrocow on January 8, 2010 at 6:28 pm
@ pyrocow
I didn’t mention the stuff in DADOES because I have a minimum word count to be mindful of and, if you bother to read the comments above, I already said that I found the film a better example of the overall point I was making. The book bothered me because at the end of the day, it was mostly about how humans are no better than machines. While such arguments have their place, it wasn’t one I felt like making.
It isn’t really possible for me to write a coherent column while aptly covering every aspect of Dick’s fiction or doing justice to his work. It is too large. If you’re going to pedantically nitpick the things I left out, there is a mountain of stuff I ditched from his short fiction and novels in order to make the larger point about video games in a reasonable length of text.
Go write your own post or bother someone else with this trivial bullshit.
Posted by L.B. Jeffries on January 9, 2010 at 12:09 am
Aw, damnit I’m being an asshole again. Sorry. I didn’t rely on the book because quite honestly, I found it kind of disturbing and racist when re-reading it for this article. I’m not going to argue the point, but on the very specific topic of DADOES, I actively chose to stick with the movie. I’m sorry if you wanted to have a longer chat about its implications about humanity and relating to it. I was casting my net wide for this piece and drawing on multiple angles, preferring them simple and concise for the sake of the larger argument.
Posted by L.B. Jeffries on January 9, 2010 at 12:21 am
I have to apologize for being a bit aggressive in my post, it’s just that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is one of my favorite books. The exploration of empathy and the value of genuine emotion (that is not to say that artificial experience has no value) is what made the book serious to me, made it more than just a bunch of robots and laser guns. So when that valuable and serious part of the book was left out of the article, I got a little worked up.
I really enjoyed Blade Runner, but it was a pretty loose adaptation (which is why my experience of it wasn’t tainted by thoughts of how the book was better), so I don’t consider it to be interchangeable with the novel.
Anyway, I do think that video games are a viable art form, and the trouble they have with being taken seriously seems pretty similar to the troubles science fiction writers have had with being taken seriously. Here’s a video with Dick himself discussing the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s23dZCZ2vk
Posted by pyrocow on January 9, 2010 at 3:31 am