In multi-player games the audiences are the players, i.e. the actors as well. What it means to be an actor and an audience of self at the same time is probably a philosophical question beyond the scope of this writer and certainly this paper. Therefore, to keep the discussion on a simple level, the real time human input and subsequent reception of that information by self and others will be viewed purely as information exchange.
There is not a current aesthetic for judging the dual actor and audience phenomena in video games. However the art movement of Relational Art has an aesthetic for inter human relations. Some of its aesthetic aspects seem to apply to video games. It was developed by Nicolas Bourriaud, an art critic, to help understand a type of art created in the 1990s to respond to the dehumanizing elements of increased technology and urbanization. The art was unique because its main goal was not a particular fixed form, but rather creating situations that would allow people to form new human relations. Bourriaud’s definition of the relational aesthetic is “aesthetic theory consisting in judging artworks on the basis of the inter-human relations which they represent, produce or prompt” (p 12).
Additionally, Bourriaud noted that art is not static, i.e. that it changes according to the needs and artists of the time and that in this time. Art should teach us how to inhabit the world in a better way, rather than to construct it according to a preconceived notion (p 13). Artwork can be an interstice in human relations which “fits more or less harmoniously and openly into the overall system, but suggests other trading possibilities” (p. 16). Further, Bourriaud proposed that art should seek inter human commerce that is not the same as “communication zones that are imposed upon us” (p. 16).
Hypothesis
Video games may well have a relational aesthetic. Specifically, my hypothesis is that the World of Warcraft video game demonstrates a relational esthetic. The hypothesis will be proved or disproved with evidence drawn from first person observation of player to player relations within the game. Two possible approaches to this information would be (a) from a relational aesthetic framework, and (b) from a literary critique framework.
Methodology
A relational aesthetic was drawn from Bourriaud’s 1998 relational art aesthetic and formatted into a rubric designed for game player response. The literary critique framework consists of a series of questions suggested by a reading of Julian Kücklich’s 1998 discussion of literary theory and computer games. The Relational Aesthetic Rubric for Video Games (RARVG) was designed to elicit nominative information about in game relations and rough estimates of usage of inter human relations, although several questions that request an essay response. It is meant to gather the information that will support the hypothesis that World of Warcraft demonstrates a relational aesthetic. In contrast, the Literary Critique Framework for Video Games (LCFVG) is an incomplete source of open ended questions designed to elicit the meaning of the video game play experience from the player viewpoint. It was not designed to specifically support the hypothesis that World of Warcraft exhibits a relational aesthetic, but rather to provide a richer reference of player experience and culture. Since answers seem to beget questions, it will be likely that more questions will be added. It is possible that such a body of questions and subsequent answers might be reviewed to generate a general video game aesthetic, which might include a relational aesthetic as well.
The definition of relations for the RARVG is directly from the Merriam-Webster Online, which gives a definition of relationship as a state of affairs between those having relations or dealings. While relations may also be described by feelings of connectedness of mutuality, these descriptors limit the relations construct. In video games, player to player information exchanges provide the substance of relations. In fact the amount of information exchanged could be precisely measured by technology if that was the goal. Additionally, human experience is egocentric, specifically, whatever happens to a human, they can only interpret it from their own point of view. As such, relationship need not be defined by a mutual exchange of information, but more simply, the reception or transmission of information with another human.
The RARVG separates inter human relations into the categories of micro, mini, casual, transitional, and macro. The following chart gives descriptions and examples for each type of category.
The RARVG demographics questions include game name, estimated time played, and a question that is designed to elicit the genre shape of hybrid games. Question four lists thirty-five specific player interactions and requests players to circle whether or not that utility is available in that game. They are then asked to rate how frequently they use each specific type of interaction. There are also blanks to fill in interactions that might not have been specified. Question five asks players to identify symbols of interaction, such as maps, visual displays, etc. Question six asks players to identify gathering places, customs, and activities. Both of these questions also ask players to rate frequency of use and have write in spaces. Question seven asks further questions about social customs. Questions eight and nine ask about activities that tend to alienate and how that is dealt within the game. Question ten asks about collective situations. Question eleven asks about elements of the game that require subjectivity. Finally, the last question asks players to quantify each different type of relation over the course of the time they have played the game.
Interpretation of the RARVG is expected to be mostly descriptive. In any case, the quantifications would be difficult to compare across games, because they are based on total time played. However, a series of positive answers would show that the game has a relational aesthetic and would show the ways it was relational.
The Literary Critique Framework for Video Games (LCFVG) currently lists 133 questions and is certainly not a closed set. The main purpose is to understand how the player experiences the game and what it means to them. The meaning the player experiences as they play is what makes the game a human interaction. It would be very interesting in multiplayer games to see how the meaning for one player influences the meaning for another player and that would require at least a set of two players to research and another set of questions. Nevertheless, it is likely that the meanings for players do influence the game experience for other players, which is another indication that video games have a relational aesthetic. The LCFVG questions are mostly open ended and fall roughly into the categories of plot, rules, avatar, learning the rules, code, text, narrative, illusion/immersion, progression/middle game, culture, and end game. These questions elicit how the player interacts with the game. Unfortunately it is not in the scope of this study to approach the LCFVG question set at this time.
Analysis of World of Warcraft with the Relational Aesthetic Rubric
World of Warcraft (WoW) is a MMORPG published by Blizzard Entertainment. Predated by other MMORPGs, and MUDs (Multiuser Dungeons), WoW was released in 2004, and had two subsequent expansion sets, The Burning Crusade, released in 2007, and the Wrath of the Lich King, released in 2008. I started playing the game in April 2006, and thus have been playing for three years now. The game statistics show that I have played a total of 122 days with my major avatars (24 hour days). This does not include the time I have spent withavatars I have deleted or any of my 40 or so “alternate toons.”
WoW is a hybrid game, incorporating elements from several genres of games. On a scale of one to ten for each genre, I would rate WoW as 10/10 for a role playing game, 10/10 for an adventure game, 6/10 for an action game, 5/10 for a strategy game, and 0/10 for a simulation game.
WoW has many ways for players to interact player to player. Every player has continual access to the visual positions, name, and guild name of other player avatars in the game vicinity. Additionally, players can right click on avatars within close range to access a menu which gives options of: set focus, whisper, inspect, comparing achievements, trade, follow, or duel. The interactivity is heightened a bit because the other player can see which avatar is focusing on him. Also when focused on another avatar, a player can “focus on their focus” with the “f” keystroke.
Other faction avatar information that is available includes character name, guild name, hit points, and health status. Chat channels provide a continuous source of player to player interaction. There are always warnings when your faction town is being attacked. Players advertise for groups or selling or buying. In addition, at times players will give social commentary. At least on the Horde faction, the chat can also be inane or raw. Just the same, it is pure human interaction, uncensored and unedited. Any player may open a chat channel and invite others to join, basically an invitation only chat room. Guild chats function a little differently in that only guild members have access. Finally guild officer chats require officer status to participate.
Players receive text notification of entry or departure in player chat channels but not general channels. Friend lists allow players to enter names of friends or names of players to be ignored. Players are notified whenever friends enter or leave the game. Players are protected from any postings or whispers of ignored players. Players cannot remove their names from other player friends lists however and ignored players and their visual actions will still be evident if they are in the vicinity. I use player access, chat channels, and friend lists continuously while I am playing WoW.
Player to player texting provides substantial WoW player to player information exchange. Players may whisper any other player in their faction as long as they know how to spell their name and they are not on the ignore list. Many players keep running text conversations with several players at one time. In fact a common statement is “sorry, MT.” (MT stands for miss tell). Party or raid chats limit the conversation to those particular groups. In addition, players may “say” or “yell” text that will be visible to the players within the vicinity.
Player emotes allow for standardized communication. There are 21 standardized action emotes, 22 standardized voice emotes, and the option to create personalized emotes with “/em (space) (type text of choice)”. Personalized emotes are text only however. Players may focus action emotes on another player allowing them to “hug” another player, etc. A curious variation of emotes and all communications is caused by player ability to “drink” alcoholic beverages. After a few drinks, all the text communications will be slurred and punctuated with hiccups. Drinking also causes players to have decreased control over actions and visual blurring.
A very important player inter action is the ability to “buff”, i.e. temporarily increase abilities of other players. Each class has specific ways to help other players in the game. It is considered polite to provide these benefits in cooperative play, and essential etiquette for higher level raiding. I use the WoW utilities of player to player texting, emotes, and buffing very often as I play. It is my opinion that these utilities represent a more intimate person to person interaction because they are not as general, i.e. more specific and individually directed.
Another player to player interaction is the ability to send mail with attachments of money or items. This allows personal messaging and gifting when another player is not in game. In addition, many items are crafted for gifting and sale or trade. There is a tremendous amount of trade for both common and rare items with floating prices based on value and scarcity. Dueling is another player interaction and is considered a fine way to build fighting skills. Other interactions available include ability to hear actual player voice in game, talking with a game master, and looking for groups.
Bourriaud discussed the power of images to link, and noted that “flags, logos, icons, [and] signs, all produce empathy and sharing, and all generate bond.” (p. 15). WoW has numerous faction flags and other cultural practices that generate faction bonding. There are also subgroups in the game itself and guilds that have their own cultures and symbolisms. In addition, there are symbolic representations of interconnectedness. One of the most interesting symbols is a battlefield map that can be superimposed on a corner of the screen. It shows all of the home faction and their corresponding movements across the field, allowing players to make decisions based upon group movements and objectives. Abstractly, it is only a map with moving dots that coalesce and disperse and disappear. But at the same time it is at a symbol of the group interactivity and an instrument for that interactivity.
The term interstice was used by Karl Marx to describe trading communities that elude the capitalist economic context by being removed from the law of profit. Bourriaud extended this idea and defined it as a “space in human relations which fits into the overall system, but suggests other trading possibilities” (p. 16). If this definition is extended broadly it might fit any type of game with more than one player. In video games, an interstice might be considered as a place, practice, or custom where players are placed in a situation that allows and leads to inter-human information exchange. In WoW, the inns, banks, auction house, etc., sanctuaries, and holiday celebration locations would be considered as interstices.
There are many social customs in WoW that require constant player to player interchange. Guilds, guild parties, group quests, instance groups, story telling, player vs. player raids, and guild banks are prevalent social customs that demonstrate a relational aesthetic. Guilds, while seeming secondary to the game, are well structured within the game and they provide strong support for players. Friendly ongoing banter and support are obvious in many stable guilds.
Alienation was broadly defined by Karl Marx as the separation of things that belong together, or putting antagonism between things. Since it works against connections it seems that it obviously is the opposite of a relational aesthetic. However, within a game framework, alienation forms may really be just another type of relation. For example, duels require very close attention to the opponent and constant efforts to defeat them, making game conflicts look a little like spontaneous dancing. WoW has elements of alienation such as name calling, belittling, ridicule, ninja looting, killing lowbies, griefing (killing NPCs of other faction), ignoring, reporting, can’t communicate with other faction, anonymity, and guild dynamics. None of these elements are programmed by Blizzard into the game, but nevertheless, they arise from the framework and dynamics of the game.
In WoW, players handle these forms of alienation in various ways. Complaining and name calling are not well tolerated on the Horde faction and a minimal statement of “QQ” which stands for “cry cry” is usually enough to quiet at least a few name callers in battlegrounds. In a situation of ninja looting, which is the looting of a high level blue item without permission of the “tank” after a boss fight; the group will generally respond with a practically palpable silence. If the person who did the looting can feel the quiet, they will generally respond with an abject apology and the group will gently explain how things are done to be sure the right person gets the loot. In most cases the ninja looter will get the message and never do it again. There is nothing to do about being killed, reported, or being subject to griefing (killing opponent non player characters). Actually most players have at least tried a bit of griefing for fun, so they will put up with a bit of it. Wholesale griefing will lead to at least a large battle. Which is also fun.
Guild dynamics are difficult for many players and most guilds go through stages. Seasoned guilds generally have a leader that is charismatic and kindly, but will also be outspoken about unfair practices such as ninja looting. Even so the guild charters often change and there are many guilds that just die a quiet death. Jealousy, ego issues, unfair practices, favoring, and disagreement over strategy, gear, or talent trees are common. Again this is not something the Blizzard does, but it happens and people just have to learn how to work in groups and get along or else leave. When a guild member leaves some will just make a point to continue in friendship.
The battlegrounds are a good example of collective behavior. While the goal is clear, the enemy strategy is always a little different and the collection of player types, gear and skill levels are variable on both sides. There are some strategies that generally work but nothing works all the time. There is a good deal of frustration. There are players who complain and players who will not participate. Sometimes it is a case of just making the best of a bad situation. Sometimes there is a magical coming together when the team seems to read the collective intent and works together in the right ways to win. There are always visible images of this behavior. Battleground maps were mentioned earlier. There are also scoreboards, and even though they show mostly individual efforts within the group, they are posted as a collective group, not one individual at a time. The other fleeting image is composed of all the composite movements of the avatars who dance and jump and bound around in the fighting style of their player. Lighting shows are provided by casts and spells, bomb hits etc. It is incredibly beautiful in its way, not least because it represents a joint effort and it is never the same twice. It generates a certain energy. The light shows of multiple efforts are also apparent in 25 man raids, though these are a little more predictable.
Opportunities for subjectivity invite players to present something of themselves to others. This is relational in that it creates opportunities for players to demonstrate that they are human and not just push button robots. Some of the subjective opportunities within the framework of WoW are avatar naming, play style and choices, gear and role play clothing, role playing stories, personal chat and commentary between players, development of strategy for common goals, and interpretation of the “meaning” of the virtual world.
Micro relations are defined as relations or information transfers that are momentary, ranging from minimal statements to situational commentary. In WoW, this type of information is actually a constant cascade. As such, I quantified my experience of micro relations at greater than 100,000 though in fact I have no way to know if this true. Considering that I have played over a period of 1000 days, though not every day, with an average number of 100 micro relations a day, 100,000 is a reasonable estimate. But in consideration of the trade channel alone, that often runs like an old fashioned ticker tape, 100,000 would be a gross underestimate.
Mini relations are defined as relations or information transference sets that are temporary situations, not expected to persist. Examples include group quests, instancing, banter, or chat. Mini relations also include persistent awareness of other avatars for a period of time. I am quantifying my mini relations at greater than 1500. The truth may be more like 15000, in light of the fact that on battleground days, mini relations might be closer to 500 per 24 hour period.
Casual relations are defined as persistent relations, and may be an extension of mini relations. The avatars you remember and/or keep in your friend list, may or may not greet or chat routinely. I have quantified my casual relations as 100, though on review I believe the number is a multiple of 100, considering that my main guild alone has more than 100 members.
Transitional relations are defined as long term. It may include knowledge of multiple avatars of players, frequent greetings, or similar behavior. May be on friend list or ignore list. Again I quantified my transitional relations as close to 100.
Macro relations are defined as semi-permanent to permanent, and may include secondary knowledge of real life player name and location. I quantified my macro relations at 25, using mainly the number of people whose real life name I know. Most players respect the anonymity of WoW, therefore this type of information is rarely exchanged even when there are very interactive and persistent transitional relations.
Summary
By the time I answered the RARVG questions I realized that there is overwhelming evidence that WoW has a relational aesthetic. The data showed that the number of information relations is significantly inversely related to the length of the relations. As I wrote this paper, and concurrently reviewed the analysis materials, I become more aware of the massiveness of the relational aspects of WoW for myself. Naturally it would be more interesting to have a perspective from other players and the RARVG could easily collect that data.
I believe that through video game analysis we will recognize that humans do have many unique qualities and they also have qualities that encourage them to form relationships. I hope that game developers will consider the relational elements that are available in games and will work toward goals of common bonding and communication. It is possible that we could approach a viable relational utopia with video games?
Addenda/Related Things
1. Relational Aesthetic Rubric for Video Games (RARVG): This will be appendix A. The form is roughly usable. It was derived from my experience with WoW, but if it were to be extended to other games more elements could be added. It does not cover the entirety of informational relations in Wow as it now stands. By the time I answered all the questions, I became much more aware of the relational aspects of WoW so I was better able quantify my relations. More specifically, my perspective was changed by the rubric.
2. Literary Critique Framework for Video Games (LCFVG): This will be appendix B. I have not had the time to answer any of these questions to date. I think it would be interesting to ask some of the questions (one at a time) in player forums. It might be true that players would be willing to contribute to the formulation of a general video game aesthetic, or individual video game aesthetics for that matter. If not, they could be assigned as homework in Video Games as Literature Classes (just kidding). All in all however, I think that answers hardly ever precede the questions, so I think it would be worthwhile to take the list and add and subtract as necessary to formulate a more utilitarian version.
3. World of Warcraft Battleground Text Sample: This will be appendix C. I visited at least 20 in game battlegrounds as my avatar, of course, and wrote samplings of actual player text to get a solid representation of the character of battleground texting. I thought that most of the texts would be standardized statements, but that is not really true. The banter is truncated, but it also extremely human and interactive. The sampling portrays elation, encouragement, instruction, commands, and disappointment in an extremely minimalist raw modality. Battleground texting is unique because it is: (1) in real time, (2) between strangers, (3) temporal, (4) anonymous, (5) “unmedia-ated,” (6) uncensored, (7) unpaid, (8) unedited, (9) subject focused, (10) relatively democratic, (11) unwitnessed, (12) unrecorded, and (13) open forum. As such I think it represents human relations at their uncensored best or worst, and possibly a more essential form of communication.
References
Aarseth, Espen. 2001. “Computer Game Studies, Year One”.”. Game Studies, 1, no.1.
http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html
Blizzard Entertainment. 2008. World of Warcraft, Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King. (Windows).
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 1998. Relational Aesthetics: France: Les Presse Du Reel.
Juul, Jesper. 2001. “The repeatedly lost art of studying games”. Game Studies, 1, no.1.
http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-review/
Kücklich, Julian. (1998) “Literary Theory and Computer Games”. Paper presented at the Cosign Conference, Amsterdam, 2001. http://www.cosignconference.org/downloads/papers/kucklich_cosign_2001.pdf
“Marx’s theory of alienation.” 2009. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx
"relationship.”Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relationship
“World of Warcraft.” 2009. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment