Week 7 - Virtual Interactivity

If I had to pick one word to describe the common thread from our Lit 220 week 7 readings it would be inter *something.*

To start, Heek reported that gold farming, as a case of scarcity and utility in game creating value in the real world, is a billion dollar luminal business. Heek commented that game designers have patched or created obstacles to gold farming with mixed success. This is a feedback loop from designer to game to player to gamer culture to the analogue reality and back to the game designer that is a perfect example of interlacing virtual and analogue economies. Heek commented on the actuality of the industry, estimating dollar values, work conditions, and social ramifications of the practice. Of note, gold farmers themselves receive less than half of the analogue monies for their virtual labors. There is bias generated against the perceived race of the farmers and they are subjected to being killed repeatedly by regular players. It should be added however that regular players will joyfully kill each other (Horde vs Ally) in the same manner if a scarce resource is being monopolized by any particular individual.

In addition, I would submit that gold farming, at least within theWorld of Warcraft, is only a temporary fix and does not substitute for actual experience or social connections. No amount of gear can substitute for poor play or bad etiquette. Gold farming is not a game for the laborers. When I first ranted against annoying gold farmers in a certain locale, a fellow player suggested that I be more sympathetic to the poor individual who had to sit there forever working on the same stuff. Technically, farming gold or using farmed gold is cheating, and is clearly against the rules cited in most end user license agreements (EULAs).

Consuelo’s introduction is aptly titled, asking whether cheating or not is even the question. I believe the issue is forever locked down under the crossfire of ethical behavior expectations and human survival instincts. Consuelo attempted to define cheating as an advantageous distortion of perceived reality and further discussed some cheating ramifications. Setting aside the philosophical problems with Consuelo’s definition (e.g. what is the difference between perception and reality, and further, what is a distortion of perception anyway?) we are left with an ethical boundary of honesty, specifically that not following game rules in an honest to “real” reality way is cheating. Consuelo suggested that gamers who cheat are denied the real victory over the game. The moral victory and ethical upmanship for those who do not cheat are implicit in this statement.

Importantly, Consuelo developed gaming capital as a lateral concept. He specifically noted that gamers share common symbols in a specific game, thus qualifying them as a subculture and further, that a gaming capital, a system of preferences and dispositions, is a way to understand the gaming phenomenon. He makes the point that the development of gaming capital occurs within a larger framework and that such capital influences the world of games as well as digital culture in general.

After that brief and refreshing foray into cultural liquidity, Consuelo cites Huizinga who stated that the rules of a game are binding and when they are transgressed the whole play-world collapses. This is not always true. For example, in sports, when rules are transgressed, penalties are incurred. The penalties are part of the actual game. Any sports enthusiast can cite historical examples and any street player knows how to make it look like the other player committed a foul. On the other hand, Bowyer, also cited by Consuelo, argues that cheating is a “normal” (Consuelo’s quotes) part of society. Consuelo continues to quote Bowyer, carefully adding selected quote marks, revealing his own cheating bias. I think Consuelo made important parts about the general interactivity within games, but I think that he would have made a little more progress with his arguments against cheating if he would have addressed the fact that it takes a cheater and a cheatee to complete the cheating transaction.

Chen discussed social games, particularly Facebook, or similar ventures, and the games within. She noted that within the non-anonymous framework, social dynamics have more nuance than MMORPGs. Particularly that you have to play the games a little differently. Facebook provides opportunities to notice community leanings, preferences, sickness, health, game activities etc., with more accuracy than the vicinity of a living in a neighborhood allowing for a greater sense of community knowledge. However, this knowledge is based on self report. I have noticed varied degrees of self report in Facebook. And varied degrees of how much information people really want. One friend of mine stated “I just don’t care.”

To the point, here is a Facebook rant:




Finally, Sotamaa discussed gamer-made modifications of computer games, noting that tools and technology enable increased intermediality. Specifically, he analyzed gamer-made designs and mods, i.e. custom content. Examples of gaming culture also include machinima, muds, online gaming, blogs, clan homepages, and walkthroughs. In addition he listed new sets of practices among gamers, particularly etiquettes and social expectations. Which brings me to the original point . . . inter “activity,” inter “communication,” inter “play, “ etc. are all words that describe the phenomenon. You might even describe the gold farming as inter “cheating” since it involves a transaction connecting two liminal activities.

So the main point is that there is increased inter activity within virtual realms. What does that mean to analogue reality? Less cost and more communication? A more vibrant democracy? A fatter population? A higher standard of living across the globe or an increased disparity between socioeconomic classes? I don't know myself. But I am hoping for the best.