Ethnography Blog Entry Four

This week's readings are about the biopolis, and how it relates to the toys (augmented reality glasses) featured in the Japanese animated film “Dennou Coil- a circle of children”.

In Daikoku City, augmented reality glasses are distributed to children who, including the protagonist, Yuko, use these glasses to play games. They overlay information onto physical spaces by creating artificial creatures and data trails, for instance. They also program and trade illegal hacker software.

Hence the children are empowered to play with the city, to create uses beyond those imagined and legally permitted by Megamass, the corporation that manufactures the glasses. As the glasses are toys, they do not have preset objectives and can be repurposed to facilitate different types of gameplay. This is like paidia as proposed by Callois, which resists social control (e.g. surveillance by biocontrollers, including Megamass, adult family members of the children and the government).

Paidia, especially in the case of the child hackers in Daikoku city, can hence be expressed as resistance to manipulative corporation. It is also easier to exit the game than a commercial one that aims to seduce players into an immersive gaming experience.

However, the presence of biocontrollers can be justified, as control and disciplinary action may be necessary for the well-being of the biopolis, including health and security of the people. There is hence tension between bios and politics (i.e. life and power).

Bios and polis have different definitions, however. Foucault proposes the tension between bios and polis as the populace being shaped by institutions through apparatuses (i.e. bios shaped by polis), but Agamben describes a distinction between bios and zoe (the “undesirables”, people whose lives are stripped of citizenry by the polis). In this case, governments, or even corporations such as Megamass, act as an extended family to protect and care for its populace by ridding it of undesirables. This is opposed to state oppression (e.g. in sovereign societies as mentioned by Foucault).

Agamben also talked about subjects: an organic being tied to multiple subjectivities depending on the different ways apparatuses (e.g. mobile phones and not Foucault's instruments of control) can be repurposed. Hence apparatuses are generative.

However, apparatuses promote artificial/digital life forms (e.g. virtual pets in Daikoku) that are intangible. Yet these intangible life forms are capable of evoking feelings in organic beings while perhaps distancing relations between people (e.g. Yuko's emotional attachment to her dog versus her emotional distance from adults outside the game). These digital life forms are also prone to exterior control and provide opportunities for profit (e.g. corporations selling traceable data).

The reading also mentioned that networked control is elastic and seldom felt, yet even biocontrollers are not free as they are bound to those they control.

Question: What could be the impact of mixed reality toys/games (e.g. the augmented reality glasses in Daikoku City) in real life?

These gadgets support the biopolis, but “the mobile device is prone to exterior control, regardless of the user's conviction.” Does this mean there is less impact on non-players?

On the other hand, the biopolis seems to be a concept that applies to the society as a whole, not just to players in a mixed reality game. If so, what will happen to non-”players”?

For example, the elderly may be less receptive to mixed reality toys/games/gadgets. As a result, would the biopolis have less impact as these people will be free from the gadget's control? (For example, less results can be seen from tracking the elderly since they are less mobile, although their everyday lives can still be disrupted by play or controllers/subjects.) Or will these people be forced to be subjects or targeted as undesirables?

Ethnography Blog Entry Three

The reading mentioned “militainment”, where there is blurring of boundaries between military conflicts and entertainment in games (and films). For example, ordinary citizens can experience military conflicts through games while these military games can also be used for military training.

The reading also noted that virtual cities are increasingly being used as the setting for such military games, although the city's everyday flows (e.g. traffic and other civilian activities) are diverted for the game. This may be due to 21^st century warfare shifting from international conflicts to peacekeeping within the city. The city is targeted for its population density, where terrorists can inflict more damage. In response, technological advances give a smaller number of soldiers greater power to maintain order (i.e. there is asymmetrical warfare). Due to the city's vulnerability, there may be increased surveillance in the city to prevent terrorist attacks.

However, some players resist the “militarization of everyday life” in games through hacking. The author draws relations to Situationists' games where the flows of daily activities are set aside to explore urban spaces in a ludic manner. This is because hacking also disrupts the flow of gameplay. Uninvited exploration is the primary motivation for hacking, and it can be a form of play in itself. Frictions and misunderstandings result from hacking, especially when it borders on game-breaking. The author also feels that hacking does not mock the seriousness of war, as protests (another form of resistance) have become performative and artistic too.

MapleStorySEA is not exactly a military game, but one can find parallels (e.g. if one thinks of killing monsters as killing enemies in military training). For example, players can form guilds to kill more monsters and advance in the game. This can be likened to military strategies and military units where there is a leader who directs the efforts of the unit in achieving military goals (i.e. killing monsters in MapleStorySEA). Hence, albeit in a cuter and more unrealistic way, Maplers can still experience some kind of “militainment”.

(There are, however, different kinds of guilds. Apart from the more ambitious guilds that aim to advance in MapleStorySEA, some players may form guilds to socialize. The latter are hence less military-like. The same goes for party quests as no leader is required. Nevertheless, players leverage on the advantage of the party, or “unit”, to advance in the game.)

I also found an example of hackers deleting guilds:

This is similar to the city being targeted for its population density, as destroying guilds probably has greater impact than hacking individual players: guilds allow players to advance faster (for the ambitious guilds), and a guild can have up to 55 or more players. Hence, more friction can result (as the comments to the above Youtube video show), which probably gives more satisfaction to the hackers.

In addition, asymmetrical warfare is also seen in the Youtube video above, where one player can save many others from the hackers through technological skill.

Increased surveillance in cities can also be related to hacking, as hackers are like terrorists who disrupt the flow of gameplay, hence surveillance by administrators is needed to prevent them from wrecking havoc in the towns (or cities) of MapleStorySEA.

Question: Does “militainment” make players more violent?

* I feel my advancement to Level 20 is still not enough to join party quests or form guilds. (I'll probably be lose at party quests or get expelled for being at the lower end of the guild. Or maybe I have not interacted enough to know others at my levels...) Hence the information above is based on what I have found in forums.

References:

http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/1041392/0/Guilds_All_you_need_to_know.html

http://maplestory.nexon.net/News/News.aspx?boardNo=101&contentNo=00BBj

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/MapleStory/Party_Quests

Ethnography Blog Entry Two

To pick up from the first entry, I continued playing from Level 10 to Level 13. This got me out of Ereve and into another town, Henesys.

Before I reached Level 13, however, I met with a few problems. After I was promoted to Level 10, I was lost. There were no instructions on where to go, or which NPC to look for. On the other hand, I was eager to level up as there is probably more interaction among players at higher levels, which in turn could provide more materials for ethnography. Hence I tried to find explicit instructions or shortcuts on online forums.

This is similar to the idea of mundane calculated cheating, as mentioned in Game Modding, as I would then blindly attempt the steps provided by online forums to level up faster (as opposed to coming up with new, creative ways to cheat).

Another motivation to cheat was due to peer pressure. This was because I know friends who are already at levels up to the hundreds, and some other players I have met have more fancy costumes and weapons than I do. Moreover, my friends use shortcuts to advance in the game. Hence, it seems that cheating is legitimate, or even something to be looked up to. This fits the description mentioned in Game Modding, where cheating is “orchestrated by masterful players rather than an unlawful, unskilled shortcut.”

Unfortunately, I am an unskilled cheater. (I seldom play games, and if I do, only casual ones. Hence I find it difficult to cheat in MapleStorySEA, as I had to get myself acquainted with the more complex boundaries and rules of the game. Again, as mentioned in Game Modding, “cheaters are more attentive to rules and world limits than non-cheaters”, which probably explains why I failed, somewhat, to cheat.)

My “cheating sheet” comes from this link http://strategywiki.org/wiki/MapleStory/Quests/Cygnus_Knights, which gave instructions for me to find an NPC “Neinheart” after completing Level 10. However, I did not know that the NPC was called “Nineheart” in MapleStorySEA. I only stumbled upon it after some time. Next, after completing the “3^rd Acclimation Training”, I was supposed to be promoted to Level 13 according to the website. However, I was still at Level 12 with no instructions on how to continue from there. Browsing through forums did not help, so I had to ask my friends instead. I then realized I was not promoted as I did not kill enough monsters. From this experience, I think exploring might have been more helpful to level up than looking for shortcuts, as I would have killed more monsters on the way. Perhaps, as The Anarchy of Paidia mentioned, “for introverted people (like myself), the extroverted play of freeform roleplay can be a difficult social challenge.” Thus, although I am playing through an avatar, I subconsciously seek and try to follow rules even when they are not strictly imposed, as opposed to embracing paidia and exploring. Hence, although Bateman proposes that mass market games should minimize rules and let users simply play, this may not work as well for introverts.

*Game Modding also includes consumers modifying skins or game templates, whose ideas may influence game companies, but that is not applicable here. (I can't even cheat successfully!)

Question: Bateman mentioned that paidia games have more mass appeal than ludic ones, for players do not have to learn the rules. However, some people may be more comfortable with rules (especially simple ones). Thus, is it better to design a game that balances ludus and paidia than more paidia?

Ethnography Blog Entry One

The readings defined play and classified games into four categories along a continuum of free, improvised play (paidia) versus rule-governed play (ludus).

Play was defined as:

1) free, as players play and leave voluntarily;

2) separate, as games take place within a defined space and time;

3) uncertain, as players can change the course of games and thus results cannot be predetermined;

4) unproductive, as there is only exchange of property between players and no elements are created;

5) rule-governed, as players have to follow a new set of rules, and only these matter during play;

and lastly,

6) make-believe, as players are aware of another reality outside of real life.

Games were classified into agon (competitive games), alea (games based on chance), mimicry (role-playing games or those involving simulation) and ilinx (games that pursue vertigo). These categories are not mutually exclusive.

The game I played was Maplestory Southeast Asia (MapleSEA). It fulfills most definitions of play. It is free as players can choose to play or leave the game, and it is separate as it takes place in a virtual space. However, there is no fixed duration for players to complete the game or even a level. This is probably due to the nature of the game, which is not possible to finish within days or even years (depending on the players' skill and commitment). Hence players can always leave and pick up the game again at their own time. Players nevertheless have a high amount of control in changing the course of game play (e.g. deciding which weapons to use), which makes the game result uncertain. There is also only exchange of property (e.g. beating monsters for health potions) and no elements are created. MapleSEA has strict rules that players have to follow to advance to higher levels. Lastly, the game uses make-believe as players take on the roles of their “jobs” (e.g. Noblesse).

MapleSEA has paidia elements that include choosing the “job” and the “town” where I want to play. Monsters appear randomly and improvisation is needed to attack them (e.g. choosing a weapon). Nevertheless, it is largely a ludus game. I had to start playing as a “Noblesse” and follow instructions to complete quests for level advancement.

MapleSEA is mainly a game based on mimicry. All players are role-playing based on the story, as they get to be wizards, warriors, etc. However, there is agon present, as players can compete with one another based on level advancement. There is also alea, since players have no control over where and when the monsters appear: some may be more lucky and find it easier to attack them and proceed in the game. Nevertheless, both agon and alea are situated in mimicry, as players compete in their roles, and are at the disposal of the monsters in the world of MapleSEA.

Hence, MapleSEA is a mimicry-based game that is rule-governed (ludus).

Question: Callois proposes that games are either ruled or make-believe, with the exception of theater (which, from mimicry-based games, has developed into an art). Rules already separate players from real life, thus there is no need for mimicry, while players lack the knowledge to invent and follow rules in mimicry. However, as MapleSEA has shown, it is possible to have games that are both ruled and make-believe. Hence, is the exclusion of such games due to Callois's neglect or have games developed to include rules in make-believe?

*The reading “Will Wright Speaks Simlish” is not particularly applicable to MapleSEA as The Sims is a sandbox game while MapleSEA is goal-based.