Owen

McLuhan's basic postulate is that Western man's games are "a collective rather than private dramatizations of inner life." To explain how he arrives at this conclusion he first compares modern western man (characterized as fearlessly individualistic) with ancient or non-literate cultures (characterized as tribal social structures). This comparison demonstrates how the cultural world-view is reflected in art/games/ritual. This is example is potent because ancient tribal culture had a cosmic orientation that sharply contrasts the individualism of modern man. Therefor, by describing the shift from tribe to individual and the corresponding shift in the nature of games the link becomes obvious.
McLuhan also sees games as a necessary piece of a heathy society; as in the example of today, games are an outlet not available in social and working life. Additionally, "Games are a popular art, collective, social reactions to the main drive or action of any culture."
The most intersting observation is how games serve as a tool for cultural adjustment: "For individualist Western man, much of his "adjustment" to society has the character of a personal surrender to the collective demands. Our games help both to teach us this kind of adjustment and also to provide a release from it." When one considers social life to be a game--looking at usually invisible rules as what they are--it's rules are revealed to be as arbitrary as football. The author discuss war (much like poker) in terms of game but comes short of labeling it a true game, because like the stock market and business, the rules are not fully known by all participants. "Art and games need rules, conventions, and spectators." Where is the spectator in most online or single player video/computer games?