[-empyre-] week 2: user-based innovation VS the crystallization of a bro-world?

Tue Dec 7 09:19:07 EST 2010

Hi everyone,

Thank you for the introduction Gabriel.

"Sorry to go to my punk rock roots, but is this topic about making shit up?

Also, when we are talking about this, what research traditions are we
connecting to?

I am not sure I see much from anthropology are ethnographic methods to
operationalize any of this talk. This seems reasonable since we are
talking about culture."

Brock makes a great point to consider. I'd like to start by discussing a subculture I'm very familiar with and use that as a jumping off point. I’ve spent the last two years immersed in the fighting game
scene, and although I believe that many of these observations have universal or
overarching themes that can be found in other similar gaming cultures, I’ll
focus on the fighting game community as the primary example because, not only
do I have the most experience with it, but it’s currently in an interesting
transitionary state (which I’ll go over in a later post). Again, I'll emphasize that these are observations and I'd love to hear feedback, because as Brock (jokingly) pointed out, I'm not a researcher and have little in the way of concrete data aside from my own experiences within this community of players.

 Competitive Gaming

Competitive gaming has been slowly moving towards the
mainstream, StarCraft, Halo and Gears of War, among others, are instrumental
factors in pushing competitive gaming onto the world stage. In reality, very
few players, especially outside of the most popular games, (such as Halo and
StarCraft) have almost no chance to live sustainably for a realistic amount of
time playing video games professionally [1]. Aside from the communal aspects
that arise from immersing oneself in a subculture, which I’ll discuss a bit
more below, why do so many players delve into the world of competitive gaming?
What separates the top players from the casual players?

First and foremost, competing invites self-discovery.
Discovery of ones skill set and abilities, discovery of ones adaptability and
spatial thinking, discovery of where a player finds himself in relative
position skill wise to the rest of his local community and world community [2].
Players learn about themselves and their opponents as they compete, figuring
out and developing tendencies, patterns and styles. When a player loses, they are forced to examine themselves, examine why they lost and re-evaluate their own position within the community. This process of self-examination is magnified with more on the line. In a tournament, when players can take only two losses before elimination, those loses become all the more important and meaningful. The question "why did I lose?", after every possible excuse is thrown at it, leads to "he/she was the better player," which in turn begins the process of weeding out players. They either believe "there is no way I can reach that level" or, "I have to play so I can get better." Why do players strive so hard to become better though? Well as Cynthia and Rafael discussed, the experience of competing, staying immersed in the
atmosphere of the tournament, is often times the most rewarding aspect of
competition, and one of the many reasons players push so hard to win.

The best competitors are the players that have virtually
flawless execution and more experience than the rest of the field. They have achieved mastery of the games interface and know ever rule set and regulation contained within the game, whether subconsciously discovered through playing, or discovered through research (such as character on character match up knowledge). When an
interaction or situation arises in the game, a player must recognize or “read”
it on the fly (experience), and then they must convert on the situation
(execution). Although these components can be broken down further into a
multitude of factors that determine why one top player has the edge over
another (discounting chance), it comes down to reading situations and taking
full advantage of them.

Communal Gaming

Many of the longest lasting gaming communities that exist
now have roots in the arcade scene, such as the classic coin-op, fighting and
rhythm game communities. The arcade scene back in the early 90s was dominated
by fighting games like Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat and Fatal Fury (Capcom,
Midway and SNK would continually release revisions to keep the market satiated).
During this time the fighting game community began to flourish as players
across the US and the world fell in love with this relatively unexplored genre.
The arcade was a perfect place for players to meet at that time, a central
location where people who held a common passion for gaming could have a shared
experience in a communal setting. Compounding this is the content of the games,
the competitive nature of Street Fighter, the 1 on 1 aspect, the thrill of
holding the title of best, even for a short time, while knocking player after
player off the stick and of course, the very real gamble that players were not
only putting their pride on the line, but their money and time as well. This
aspect, that a player is not only gambling his pride, but his money and time on
every match, helped foster some of the intense rivalry that drove the fighting
game scene back in the early to mid 90s and is now missing from casual
competition.

Despite having less on the line, console competition has
become the norm as arcades have all but died out in the US. Despite this, the ritualized
practices from the past have been carried over and are now commonplace within
the fighting game community. “Sessions,” where players meet up at a house to
play casually, have taken place of meeting at an arcade, although the same
practices occur. Players wait their turn in line, anticipating the match with
the best in the room. As Gabriel alluded to in his opening post, often times
the social dynamics that exist outside the experience of the actual game draw
people in just as much as the game itself. In this case, it is the camaraderie and
social atmosphere, as well as the politics that draws players in. Much like any
other social club, players in the fighting game community organize weekly,
monthly and annual events to keep the dynamic of the scene fresh. Play
sessions, local tournaments (locals) and major tournaments (majors) not only
test the skill level of players, but bring players together for a unique shared
experience, similar to a baseball or football game.

These tournaments are also a hold over from the time when players
competed in arcades. Players gathered in arcades, developing a hierarchy based
upon skill. Once established, players would travel to different arcades,
testing their skills against “foreign” competitors, allying themselves with
their fellow arcade sparring partners. This practice has evolved, now there are
state, coast and national rivalries, as, for instance, Florida faces Virginia,
the East Coast plays the West Coast and the US squares off against Japan. As
fighting games enter the mainstream, once local arenas for competition become
national venues. The community grows, especially with the aid of the internet,
where players in remote areas with a distinct lack of competition can link up
with other players across the world and discuss strategy, fighting game
politics and plan to meet up [3]. The prior intimacy, secrecy and underground
nature of the overall scene starts to fall away. As this subculture evolves and
grows overtime, it develops a history, notable figures, and rivalries, aspects
that can be seen and tracked by new and old players alike (again with the aid
of the internet almost all events become public as information is disseminated). The subculture develops its own
memes, unique slang and associated styles. A large part of the enjoyment
players get from the scene is learning the intricacies associated with the
community. The fighting game subculture is known for the traits and mannerisms
of its participants, and because of this, new entrants take on the traits of
the trendsetters, and as the new entrants become veterans, it becomes cyclical in nature.
At what point though, as a subculture grows and its traditions and rituals change, does it start to lose its original identity? Can this be avoided, should it be avoided? As Daniel queried:
"Now, new markets are opening up.  New frontiers are emerging.  How do 
modern "hardcore gamers" react to a new audience delighted to discover 
games for the first time?  The same way that any established tribe 
reacts to newcomers that make them question their identity.  With 
bigotry and hate." 
A starting point, more to come.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/sports/othersports/02video.html

[2] http://www.sureyoucanfight.com/?p=85

[3] http://www.shoryuken.com

- Ian

> From: gabriel.menotti at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:37:06 +0000
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: [-empyre-] week 2: user-based innovation VS the crystallization of	a bro-world?
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In the last week, we have seen how the automatized rules of videogames
> crystallize sort of sociotechnical fields around them – not only for
> playing, but also for the creation of new gaming systems (titles,
> genres, platforms). Julian Kücklich called attention to the early
> history of gaming being one of almost transgressive innovation and
> experimentation with the machine’s possibilities. Daniel Cook has
> shown how the establishment of the “bro-world” industry trimmed down
> this experimentation, crystallizing certain modes of play to attend
> the mainstream audience, creating a sort of closed loop between
> development and consumption. Thus, experimentation is pushed to
> “minor” genres such as casual and social games.
> 
> In the next two weeks, we will be talking about these possibilities of
> experimentation in terms of the different subcultures that revolve
> around gaming. In this first one, we will deal with forms of
> innovation that are not generated by game developers, but by the
> players themselves, as they subvert or build new “rulesets” over the
> machine’s and foster supplementary modes of “playing” – e.g. machinima
> production, chiptune music and fighting games championships.
> 
> These practices seem to challenge the idea of playing as a form of
> pure participation or immersion in a given system, evoked by Rafael
> Trindade, Cynthia Rubin and others (which I'd relate to
> cinematographic/literary suspension of disbelief). They present
> playing as a form of appropriating the system and pushing it further.
> In that sense, are these practices a sort of “human executable
> multi-player rules” that Daniel was wondering about – protocols of
> engagement that are negotiated not directly with the machine, but
> between their users? What kind of feedback do they produce to the core
> of videogame development?
> 
> To introduce these questions in our debate, this week’s guests are:
> 
> * Kevin Driscoll
> Kevin Driscoll's recent research addresses the historicization of
> internet protocols, Wikipedia's changing editorial community, the
> ethnographic value of writing code, and the technical innovations of
> young people of color in hip-hop. He is currently a PhD student at the
> Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of
> Southern California and formerly taught mathematics and computer
> science at Prospect Hill Academy Charter School in Cambridge, MA.
> http://kevindriscoll.info/
> 
> * Ian Cofino
> Ian Cofino is a motion designer and filmmaker from New York. He
> graduated in 2009 from SUNY Purchase School of Art and Design with a
> BFA specializing in Graphic Design. He is currently finishing
> postproduction on his independent film “I Got Next” which is a
> documentary that follows 4 fighting game players across a year of
> tournaments as they balance real life with their passion for fighting
> games. He works and freelances in the New York area.
> 
> Best!
> Menotti
> 
> PS: Joshua Diaz apologizes that he couldn’t participate due to the
> change of dates, but he said he would be popping up eventually. =)
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20101206/dfaa2319/attachment.html>