To demonstrate how Games of Empire (Dyer-Witheford, N., & de Peuter, G. (2009). Games of empire. Global capitalism and video games, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota) elaborated an important standpoint within critical game studies, this article discusses the thesis that a specific type of video games perfectly converges with our contemporary modes of representation and praxis, which are best situated within the paradigm of hypermodernity (Lipovetsky, G. (1983). L’ère du vide: Essais sur l’individualisme contemporain. Paris. Gallimard, coll. «Folio essais»; Lipovetsky, G. & Charles, S. (2004). Les temps hypermodernes. Paris: Bernard Grasset, «Nouveau collège de philosophie»). Hypermodernity radicalizes modernity because, within hypermodernity, values such as progress, reason, and happiness are overly ( hyper) actualized rather than surpassed ( post) (Aubert, N. (2006) (dir). L’individu hypermoderne. Toulouse: Eres, coll. «Sociologie clinique»; Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press). Based on an archetypal account, that is, a theoretical model rather than a case study, this article will show how hypermodern video games' commercialization and use within a capitalist context are emblematic of hypermodernity. We will also evaluate how these games promote adaptation to hypermodernity toward an "ideal" becoming-player for Empire. In conclusion, if playing can be seen as the multitude's escape hatch out of the dominant order, this article will explain how hypermodern video games, as a media, may also be viewed as a key site where asymmetrical and unequal relationships replicate within Empire.
Book Review: Playing Nature: Ecology in Video Games. Alenda Y. Chang. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019. ISBN 145296226X