Chapter 7 of Understanding Video Games, entitled Player Culture, moves the focus away from the games themselves and onto the people who play them. This subject is an important topic of examination, for games would, as Galloway puts it, simply be inert code without the act of play. The authors, however, offer dubious conclusions, and their ideas in regard to one of their discussion points veer horribly into the offensive.
The authors do start their discussion from valid premises. They realize that while players may organize into groups based on shared affinity for certain games and/or genres, these groupings and sub-cultures are not simply reducible to the games themselves, due to the investment and activity involved. Further, they note that while these cultures are made up of game players, not all game players are a part of these cultures. Already, an issue arises. While the authors acknowledge that not all game players are part of these cultures, they do not discuss the reasoning behind this selectiveness, an indication of the direction, and problems, in their later discussion.
From this point, the discourse shifts to reasons for playing video games. The authors provide the theories of several scholars on this point:
- Juan Alberto Estallo – Games provide a self-esteem boost, concurrent with a symbolic value attached to the games themselves. This boost and perceived value engenders high levels of creativity, heightened capacity for learning, and higher levels of extroversion.
- Mihaly Csikszantmihalyi – Theory of flow, wherein a person enters a state of concentration and satisfaction when applying skills and talents to an enjoyable activity with a personally powerful goal (similar to the perceived value of Estallo’s theory).
- Jonathan Baron – Emotions as motivator or discouragement of the play experience.
- Sherry Turkle – Games offer a chance to experiment with different identities and experience the idea that there is no unified self.
In regard to Turkle’s theory, it is acknowledged that the potential for a dangerous identity schism is present, but she insists that this experimentation of different identities is both curative and illuminating for the player. While I cannot argue against this stance, I do take issue with the authors’ assertion that Turkle provides “an enormous amount of empirical information” (pg. 150). Their idea of empirical information is “stories told by participants in MUDs and role-playing games of various kinds” (p. 150). As there is no mention of Turkle actually observing this play with identities, this is clearly not empirical evidence, but instead anecdotal evidence provided after the fact. It is troubling that no one takes into account the inherent differences between the MUD and MMORPG communities, as treating them as similar experiences would be akin to asking an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons player to discuss the experience of playing Diablo III without ever having played the game.
The authors continue the theories of why people play video games by discussing the notions of grief play and metaculture. Grief players take pleasure from playing for the sole purpose of ruining the experience for others, either by way of breaking the illusion of the fictional world of the game, cheating at the expense of other players, or both. The metaculture is the community surrounding a game, maintaining forums, websites, and the like, and the authors argue that there is a level of prestige associated with certain in-game accomplishments which acts as a social motivator.
My problem with the metacutlure line of reasoning is that the authors claim that this prestige completes an understanding of the act of play, but the entire metaculture idea seems like a result of playing and the desire to play, not a cause. There is no reason to look for prestige amongst a group of people who share a common interest unless one shares that interest as well, even nominally. The other problem inherent in several of these theories is that they only consider multiplayer games. This seems to be a problem with video game studies as a whole, where academics are more interested in the social dynamics of the online space rather than the overwhelming amount of single-player games in existence. Even the authors fall into this trap, despite their assertion of the importance of single-player games at the end of chapter 5 of the book.
Moving on from motivations for play, the discussion then turns to player culture itself. The authors divide player culture into two categories: game communities, where relations between players are established by team play in-game (eg. strategy discussions, informal rules, extra rules, and the like); and metaculture, discussed above. After continuing to discuss these two categories at length, the authors narrow the examination of metaculture to that of fan-created media. In this discussion, they refer to any fan-made works (fan-fiction, fan art, walkthrough write-ups) as ‘poaching’, a way for fans to re-use content from other media in creative ways.
While the term ‘poaching’ is technically a valid one, it does carry negative connotations. These negative views are not held by the majority of game developers, as evidenced by examples like BioWare posting fan-created media on their official website as encouragement, or Seth Killian’s employment at Capcom as a result of his work as a fan. An alternative term, borrowed from other media studies, would be re-mediation, as the characters and settings are transplanted from their original context and re-worked for the new piece. Interestingly, the authors also do not comment on how the interactive nature of video games lends itself more easily to re-mediation, as players are already given a degree of agency over the characters, game world, and development of the game’s story. Nor do they see game mods as part of this movement, but instead something which stands apart, as modders are working with the game and its tools directly. However, machinima artists do the same, and they fall under the purview of fan-created media.
Shifting focus away from fan cultures, the authors decide to tackle the topic of gender in gaming. It is at this point that the chapter falls apart, due to dubious research and derogatory assumptions which lead to biased conclusions. They begin by asserting that the video game industry is ‘overwhelmingly dominated by men’ (pg. 161), and yet proceed to contradict themselves with the following statistics on female gamers (as of 2006): U.S. – 39% of all gamers are female; Western Europe - 25%; Japan – 36%, with 70% of women having what they term a ‘game machine’ at home. These numbers, provided by the authors themselves, clearly contradict their own assertion. Further, since the book’s publication, the rise of mobile gaming, via the iPhone and iPad, as well as the success of the Nintendo Wii, these numbers have risen even further.
Attempts to appeal to a female audience are then discussed. The authors state that Ms. Pac-Man was an attempt to entice female gamers during the early days of gaming. This ‘fact’ is blatantly untrue. Ms. Pac-Man, the game, is the result of three MIT students who decided to hack the original Pac-Man’s programming. As a result, Ms. Pac-Man, the character, was their attempt to avoid getting sued by the copyright holders by changing the avatar enough to avoid copyright infringement. The authors continue on to say how Barbie games (which they term as girl best-sellers), Tetris, Myst, Frogger (these games termed as ‘neutral’), and music games have been traditionally successful with female gamers. This assumption is based on marketing materials and sales numbers, rather than actual collected data about players.
The authors then move on to actual studies conducted about gender differences in video games. They cite Kafai’s findings, based on experiments and research, that gender differences are more context dependent than innate. Yet, in spite of these findings and methods, the idea is immediately followed up with a citation of Schott and Horrell’s study, which defines several ‘girl-centric’ characteristics looked for in video games. Schott and Horrell do acknowledge, however, that the girls in their study showed a desire for better gender representation and less sexism in video games. The authors do not take into account or mention the wording of the questions asked of the girls in Schott and Horrell’s study, which may have been pre-disposed to certain answers, a constant danger in any survey or experiment of this type. Further, by all indications, neither the authors nor Schott and Horrell make the connection between the desire for better gender representation and a preference for pre-existing games with a-gendered characters as indicative of an awareness of a catering to the male gaze, even when the player-avatar is female.
The chapter then points to two main types of academic research in regard to gender in video games – in-game representation and women as game-players. The authors make this distinction without recognizing the causal link between the two categories. They do, however, state that representation studies are critical of the medium, finding ‘the worst kind of social prejudice and objectification of women’ (pg. 163), with a focus on stereotypical representation of bodies and behaviour, both male and female, with further discussion on the male gaze.
The authors seem to take an oppositional stance to this view. They cite Tracy Dietz’ 1995 study showing that the main female roles in video games are as sex symbols, prizes, or victims of male power (overwhelmingly portrayed in the damsel-in-distress role), as an example of examinations of representation. They then dismiss most of this work by arguing that these studies do not offer any empirical evidence, and focus on games as representational media only. That the authors suggest this notion, combined with their earlier mention of ‘overwhelming empirical evidence’ in Turkle’s study, makes it clear that they are unclear as to the nature of empirical evidence. The roles of women in video games are easily observable, thus making it empirical evidence. Further, the authors themselves argue for the importance of graphics and representation only two chapters earlier.
The authors also argue that the situation has changed since Dietz’s 1995 study, with more female protagonists/co-protagonists, and that both male and female protagonists are portrayed as beautiful. This assertion makes one wonder if the authors are familiar with the concept of the male gaze. Yes, both male and female protagonists are beautiful, they are still represented in different ways. This representation conforms to a specific model of gender portrayal enforcing artificial binaries.
Continuing the focus on appealing to female gamers, the authors cite Brenda Laurel, and the features she outlines as being appealing to female gamers:
- Leading characters who are everyday people, ‘as real to girls as their best friends’.
- Goals of exploration and new experiences, with degrees of success and varying outcomes.
- A focus on multi-sensory immersion, discovery, and strong storylines during play
- Everyday, ‘real-life’ settings, as well as new places to explore.
- Successes stemming from the development of friendships.
Once again, problems arise in this line of reasoning. There is no evidence provided to support these features, at least as far as the authors mention. This list sounds suspiciously like the ideal game is ‘playing house’, leading one to question whether the test subjects (if any; no tests are mentioned) were simply telling the researchers what they wanted to hear.
The focus then shifts from representation to the players themselves. It is pointed out that there is an entry barrier to the hobby for girls based on scarcity of attractive game content and perception of video games as a male-dominated culture. While this is a good point, yet again, the authors do not draw the causal link between lack of attractive content and perception of male-dominated culture. It should also be mentioned that, throughout the discussion, the authors choose to refer to female gamers as ‘girls’ rather than ‘women’ or simply ‘female gamers’.
Another factor referred to as a barrier is the gendering of game spaces and gaming practices. The authors contend that, as arcades are typically male-dominated spaces, and that women prefer domestic spaces for play, women are thus less likely to play certain games, such as first-person shooters. There is so much wrong with this concept. While, yes, arcades are typically male-dominated spaces, they have also become largely extinct and were at the time of publication. Further, once more, the authors do not draw the causal link between avoiding male-dominated spaces and the desire for domestic play space.
The oddest part of the assertion, however, is the logical leap from women showing aversion to arcades meaning women avoid first-person shooters. First-person shooters are traditionally home-based experiences (either on computers or game consoles), and outside of the 1999 Midway-released FPS War, have never had a presence in arcades. It is possible that the authors are referring to light gun games, such as House of the Dead or Buck Hunter, but for the fact that they went out of their way to differentiate between the two types of games in chapter 4. Further, the top Quake player for years was Stevie “Killcreek” Case. In addition to Ms. Case, as of the publication of this book, the Frag Dolls, an all-female professional gaming team, had been active and earning publicity for at least a year.
This notion of women not enjoying certain types of games because they are coded as male-dominated is carried even further by the authors. They express surprise that female EverQuest players enjoy the game not only for the exploration and conversation aspects, but also for the combat and competition, activities the authors consider male-interest activities. There is no consideration given to the idea that these activities are not gender-coded, but are, as Kafai points out, context-dependent.
The chapter concludes by pointing out that there are no video games without players, and that players engage with the games on multiple levels. One can only hope that the authors consider the idea that female and male gamers are given equal importance in this idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment