ASSMT 1: 2.5 Notes on games, ARGs and digital commons

The topic of Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) was an interesting one this week that I think fits well with my remediation project and essay. Although I have chosen to remediate and write an essay about the sub plot of a television series - the way in which the characters story intertwines with real life scenarios is similar to the way in which ARGs are operate.

Örnebring states: "Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) are a form of internet-based mystery game in which participants are immersed in a fictional world and engage in collective problem-solving" (Örnebring 2007 p. 445).

And they work by:

  "Events and things mentioned in the episodes of the TV series itself will also provide clues. Bit by bit, these clues form a separate narrative set in the fictional world" (Örnebring 2007 p. 446).

In the TV show Gavin and Stacey - Nessa's back story is never fully told and she remains somewhat of a mystery. A series of clues are dropped by Nessa in her stories that reflect upon past conquests involving famous people from the real world. If viewers choose to investigate these clues they will find that these stories not only reference real life people but also real life scenarios that have been reported in the press. Nessa turns out to be someone that has escaped the limelight while being involved in a great deal of scandal.

Therefore the TV show follows a similar line to ARGs in that:

• A mystery is created
• Clues are given
• Clues can be investigated by audiences
• Clues link to real world people and scenarios through press reports

My remediation project sets out to join these clues together through a blog that presents Nessa as if she is a real life person and further the idea that the stories are true. Unlike a game there is no puzzle solving winning at the end, it is merely a site for investigating clues and filling in the back story - a kind of virtual reality blog based on a virtual reality storyline in a TV show.

In this regard my blog could be seen as an example cultural labor  described by Fiske and quoted by  Örnebring as " ‘filling in the syntagmatic gaps in the original narrative’ (Örnebring 2007 p. 451 quoting Fiske, 1992). In other words the blog pieces together a back story that enriches the characters in TV show. Örnebring believes that this type of culture labor supports marketing for television shows (as does other fan created content) - as it stays within the storyline and concept of the show rather than changing it, and disseminates to a wider audience

This same idea was covered in our second reading about Digital Commons - especially in the sections about mods which are fan produced modifications for games. The point was made here too that modders stick to the boundaries of the originating text source as per the following quote:

"most mods are thematically conservative, undertaken by technically accomplished fans who love a particular game and want more of it – more weapons and monstrous opponents for shooters, different campaigns and battles for war games – in variants that don’t stray far from the spirit of the original" (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007).

Both readings link fan culture, virtual reality and media institutions all of which relate to my remediation project. As the blog is aimed at fans and new watchers of the show Gavin and Stacey -  this topic would be good to cover in my essay.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Örnebring, H. 2007. Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10: 445 - 462. Sage Publications. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/10/4/445 (accessed 20/10/11).

Do you mod? Why do modders mod?

Coleman & Dyer-Witheford describe modding as follows 

“modders aim to expand games: changing characters’ ‘skins’, adding weapons, creating scenarios, levels or missions, building new games out of old engine” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 941)

I am not much of a gamer so modding is not something that I do or have encountered before although I can see its benefits.

For entertainment purposes alone being able to modify a game would make it a lot more enjoyable. When the game gets boring just adding an extension or accessing an extension someone else has created would allow continued and more interesting play.

I can also see this practice as being greatly beneficial the individual in terms of education.   By studying and experimenting with the original code, one could learn to create games through a process of self education. Overall, modding could create highly educated games developers who be seen as both a threat and an asset to gaming companies.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Unpack the tenuous and complex tensions between game pirates and games companies.

According to Coleman and Dyer-Witheford Game Pirates can be categorized as follows:

Black Market Centers:

·      Businesses that produce high volumes of copied games for sale and profit. They run factories in “Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p.938) that are professional and sophisticated and mimic the business model of legitimate games producers but within a criminal syndicate.

Warez Groups:

·      Peer to peer file sharing. Warez groups believe that once they have purchased a game that they own it and have a “right to redistribute it” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 938) to other games lovers. They see laws that prevent redistribution as part of a “greedy corporate order” and therefore “gift” games to others within the group without seeking financial reward. The Warez economy works on sharing games and payment comes in the form of “thrill of technological accomplishment” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 938) and a good reputation within the group.

Other:

·      People making the odd copy of a game, sharing them in small groups, businesses copying the odd game to restock their shelves, and games lovers uploading out of production “retro” games online – keeping them in existence which in some ways can be seen to support the gaming industry through the dissemination of gaming culture (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 940).

In the eyes of copyright law all three types of piracy are seen as equal in severity and no distinction is made between them despite their vast differences. As Coleman and Dyer-Witheford point out, the games industry was founded on the back of hackers who shared, improved and redistributed games for the fun of it. This was not an illegal activity until big business commodified games, turning their originating producers into criminals (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 937).

Further tensions arise within the gaming community when the games industry seeks to recoup their financial losses due to piracy by increasing the sales price of their games, effectively punishing their law-abiding customers while black market groups continue to copy. Furthermore the addition of “anti-coping” technology to games software aimed at reducing piracy has, in the past, reduced the quality of the product – resulting in law suits for the gaming industry (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 940) and again punishing the customer base rather than the black market criminal. 

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

2.5 What are commons? In our current consumer/capitalist framework is it possible to even have commons in this context? Is the online environment a digital commons?

Coleman and Dyer-Witheford describe commons as:

“resources that all in a specified community may use, but none can own. They contrast with commodities, exchanged for profit on the basis of privatized possession.” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007)P934

In this context I believe that we do in some ways have commons in our current consumer/capitalist framework although they are more likely to be referred to as public areas and are not for the exclusive use of a “specified community”. We have parks, national parks, roads, and footpaths, crowned land, a water supply, libraries, and public beaches. Although it could be argued that governments own these resources – the governments are voted in by the general public who fund the upkeep of these resources through the paying of taxes. Therefore these resources could be said to be owned by all or none, depending on how you would like to look at it.

There are laws and regulations that govern our public resources or commons: such as speed limits on roads, fire safety guidelines in national parks, summer time water restrictions and laws that stop you staking out your own private little piece of Bondi Beach but they are put in place to preserve the commons, to ensure fairness, and to keep the general public safe when on common ground. Could we have common land without rules and regulations? I would have to say no. Our capitalist society works by one person taking ownership of a resource and trading for the resources of others. We do not live in a society where we only take what we need to survive; we take what we think we can profit most from. Therefore in this day and age our commons are legislated to prevent profit based on “privatized possession”.

Much like the offline world I believe the online environment is largely privatized but there are small chunks of it that could be thought of as commons. The world wide web is one example – this system of hyperlinks and urls enables us to make use of the internet and it is free – anyone can learn and use the code needed to make a website, but putting the website online is once again privatized through ISP’s charging for domain names. If anything Coleman and Dyer-Withefords article shows is that digital commons are not cut and dry. Companies own the intellectual properly rights to code, characters and the visual style of games. They may embrace the public playing on their turf or they may forbid people from using their code or characters to create new content entirely. In either case the companies still have IP rights over the content, and can choose to litigate at any time they see fit which sends mixed messages, blurring the line between commons and profitable privatization.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Topic 2.5 What is an alternate reality game? Have you played one?

I haven’t played and alternate reality game but Örnebring defines one as an “internet-based

mystery game in which participants are immersed in a fictional world and engage in collective problem-solving” (Örnebring 2007 p.445). The games are created by media companies (usually for marketing purposes) or by fans in order to further explore and interact with their favorite media text.

ARG’s link to particular media texts such as movies, songs, books or TV shows but this link is not always something that is made clear to participants. Örnebring demonstrated this with his example of the ARG created for the movie AI: Artificial Intelligence - called the Beast. This ARG created a buzz surrounding issues covered in the movie yet did not directly reference the movie, its storyline or its characters (Örnebring 2007 p.446). Other ARGs require participants to collect clues from the originating text and use the collective intelligence of the group in order to progress through the game.

Regardless of its form, the purpose if an ARG is to allow the consumer to actively participate in a fictional word that intertwines with reality – participants must suspend belief in order to interact with the game and the media text as if it were a real.

Örnebring, H. 2007. Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10: 445 - 462. Sage Publications. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/10/4/445 (accessed 20/10/11).

Topic 2.4 Notes on play, games and media

In the ilecture Woods stated when speaking about the history of games “TV killed gaming innovation because the companies that produced games … started remaking them with a new image on the box… this hasn’t really changed much” (Woods 2011). While this is true of board games (a quick Google search will find loads of different versions of monopoly including “make your own Opoly” where you can customize the board game to suit your own interests) I am not sure that it applies to video games in the same way.

While the reason for buying the Star Wars version of Monopoly, hopefully is because you are a fan of Star wars – playing the game of monopoly is not something overly representative of the movies themes or storyline. Video games on the other offer a greater flexibility in representing the initial text - be it in graphics, storyline or characters voice and appearance. In fact the media companies that creates the movie also create the game ensuring a harmonious branding across all platforms. For example Sony – a company that makes televisions and electronic equipment is actually a group of companies. One branch of the group is Sony Pictures who make movies and television shows. Another branch of the Sony group make the Sony PlayStation and PlayStation games (Sony Global - Sony Global Headquarters  2011). Therefore when Sony pictures make a blockbuster movie with a lot of graphics and special effects, a game can also be produced at the same time using the same graphic styles and is instantly recognizable to consumers.

Games are popular and in an article about the future of video games Mawer suggests a few reasons why this is the case. His first reason once again, is in the production value – he states that games have “story lines that are gripping, full of suspense, action and adventure which are supported by some stunning visuals, amazing sound effects and a stirring soundtrack to accompany the hero” (Mawer 2011) and his second reason in purely financial “but the movie is over within a few hours while the video game plays for a whopping 50 hours” (Mawer 2011). So the games have all the story line and production value of a movie, but offer better entertainment value by allowing the consumers to extend the time they spend interacting with their favorite media texts.

Professor Thomas De Zengotita’s theories on the effects of media evolution could give further insight into the popularity of games. In an interview about fame and celebrity he speaks about something he calls an act of “fundamental robbery” that has been created by a fame driven media system. The fundamental human need is acknowledgment and he believes that our media society takes this away from the average person stating “the evolution of media of all kinds, in large scale societies (should be seen) as taking the fame or acknowledgement that used to be everybody’s and some how reassigning it to only a few people” (Genier 2011) . With this in mind video games could be seen as way of placating this need to be acknowledged as in the game the player becomes the central focus, their existence within the game is acknowledged and their actions instantly rewarded.

This could explain why adult gamers feel they need to rationalize their game playing to others. Research conducted by Helen Thornham discovered that while many adults play games, many still feel there is a social stigma attached to it and therefore tend to rationalize their game playing as a logical pastime – such as socializing. Those who admitted to playing games regularly and by themselves were often ridiculed, seen as geeky, and their sexual orientation questioned.  Thornham put this reaction down to a cultural issue in the structured adult life that mimics “working lives where every hour has meaning or purpose” (Thornham 2009). Gaming offers a form of escape from the everyday that is seen purely as entertainment, it is therefore unproductive (in the work life sense) resulting in gamers defending their actions through rationalizations.

Finally Jenkins offers further insight into the role of gaming in society. He notes the roles that moral panics have played in the multiple stigmas attached to video gaming – such as violent games producing violent people. He counters this argument by advising that gamers have the ability to distinguish the real from the virtual stating that people “tend to dismiss anything they encounter in fantasy or entertainment that is not consistent with what they believe to be true about the real world”(Jenkins 2006). Unlike Thornton who sees games purely as escapist and fun, Jenkins sees games as a meaningful way to spend time. He sees games as a place for learning about society, a way for people to escape and blow off steam, a way to generate new thought and a way of improving social ties and bonds. All meaningful if not conducive to the production of a commercial goods.

Teenage Paparazzo. 2011. SBS FIlm,  http://www.sbs.com.au/films/movie/10426/Teenage-Paparazzo (accessed 23/10/11).

Jenkins, H. 2006. The War Between Effects and Meaning: Rethinking the Video Game Violence Debate. In Digital generations, ed D. Buckingham. Massachusetts. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60263484.pdf (accessed 19/10/11).

 Mawer, K. 2011. Video games - the media of the future. http://www.deltapublishing.co.uk/uncategorized/video-games-the-media-of-the-future (accessed 25/10/11).

  Sony Global - Sony Global Headquarters. 2011. http://www.sony.net/ (accessed 25/10/11).

Thornham, H. 2009. Claiming a Stake in the Videogame : What Grown-Ups Say to Rationalize and Normalize Gaming. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies: 445-462. http://con.sagepub.com/content/15/2/141 (accessed 19/10/11).

Woods, S. 2011. Play with Me. In MCCA104-Engaging Media. Perth. Curtin University of Technology.

What social elements are deployed by gamers? What does this tell us about the ways in which games are integrated into everyday lives?

In society it is perfectly acceptable for children to play games to learn that have no real end goal or agenda (Woods 2011). They mimic the actions of adults, playing house or having tea parties and in doing so play out activities they are not allowed to do in real life – such as drink tea and coffee or pour hot drinks.

As Jenkins notes in his article,  online gaming enables adults to play with the restrictions placed upon them in every day life, in turn “encouraging ethical reflection” (Jenkins 2006  p28). He gives the example of Grand theft auto where people can steal cars and wreak havoc on a city if they want to - allowing players to test boundaries and witness the consequences of their actions through a games mediated environment. As an adult it may be socially acceptable to drink hot caffeinated beverages, but it is not socially acceptable to steal a car and rob a shop and this games gives insight to the dangers of a life of crime from perspective of the perpetrator.

Games allow people to play with social elements such as laws, rules, thoughts, opinions, histories and social norms that make-up the society they live in and govern their every day lives.

Jenkins, H. 2006. The War Between Effects and Meaning: Rethinking the Video Game Violence Debate. In Digital generations, ed D. Buckingham. Massachusetts. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60263484.pdf (accessed 19/10/11).

Woods, S. 2011. Play with Me. In MCCA104-Engaging Media. Perth. Curtin University of Technology.

How do you rationalise your gaming? If you are not a gamer (and if you are), what role does this type of rationalising play in understanding what is gained by online gaming?

Show Parent Post

I don’t play games very often but when I do my game playing gets rationalized as “fitness” or “ socializing”. I like to play wii games because they get you up and moving around. I play wii sports by myself and its really the only game I like as it not only tests your abilities as gamer (mine are pretty poor) but physically challenges you too. I play other wii games when friends come around as they are more fun when there is someone to play against.

In the terms of Thornham this type of rationalization is just another example of adults “ perceived necessity . . . to justify gaming . . . as something other than pleasure, escapist or entertainment”

(Thornham 2009 p.142). By stating that I play games for fitness I am giving the games console secondary function. It is now a piece of fitness equipment, not a media device. I am deliberately ignoring the idea that its fun and entertaining and probably doesn't really get me that fit!

In reality what is gained from this type of game playing is a study break (is that rationalizing again? I can't tell), a time to unwind and clear my head and be absorbed in something else. 

Thornham, H. 2009. Claiming a Stake in the Videogame : What Grown-Ups Say to Rationalize and Normalize Gaming. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies: 445-462. http://con.sagepub.com/content/15/2/141 (accessed 19/10/11).

2.4 Activity 2: What is the pleasure in online gaming?

It’s the journey, not the destination. Thornhams states that the pleasure in online gaming is in “promise and deferment” (Thornham 2009 p.151). Her research showed that adults discuss the pleasure of gaming through “moments that equate it with advancement of the game”(Thornham 2009 p.151). In other words the pleasure from gaming comes from advancing through levels of a game which is deferred by rules and tasks you must adhere to in order to achieve it. First the goal must be identified (this is the promise) Tasks must be carried out and rules adhered to (this is the deferment) If this is all done the goal is achieved (promise fulfilled) Once the goal is met there is no longer as much pleasure in playing the game. The same applies if the goal is unachievable. People loose interest as the pleasure comes from the combination of both “promise and deferment” not from one or the other. Thornham, H. 2009. Claiming a Stake in the Videogame : WhatGrown-Ups Say to Rationalize and Normalize Gaming. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies: 445-462. http://con.sagepub.com/content/15/2/141 (accessed 19/10/11).

2.4 Activity 1: Are online games escapist, serious, or both? Justify your answer.

Jenkins refers to an Salen and Zimmerman's idea of “the magic circle” when speaking about gaming. An idea he describes as letting “go of one set of constraints on our actions because we have bought into another set of constraints – the rules of society give way to the rules of the game” (Jenkins 2006 p.25). Therefore gaming could be seen as a temporary escape from the rules and monotony of every day life.

However, Jenkins also notes that the two worlds are not exclusive; stating “Two players may be fighting to death on screen and growing closer as friends off screen” (Jenkins 2006 p.25). In this scenario the game offers and escape from the everyday while simultaneously re-enforcing and strengthening bonds in real world.

The point Jenkins makes is that escapism has a very real, meaningful and some could say serious role in society. Playing games can create the opportunity learning, reflection and questioning of real world constraints in an interactive way.

Jenkins, H. 2006. The War Between Effects and Meaning: Rethinking the Video Game Violence Debate. In Digital generations, ed D. Buckingham. Massachusetts. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60263484.pdf (accessed 19/10/11).

1.2 Notes: Four puzzles from cyber space (Lessig 2006)

In this article Lessig discusses some of the defining features of cyber space. Some points I have taken from this article are:

• People can manufacture and control their identity in cyber space. You can choose who you want to be, what you look like, rewrite your history,  live out fantasy, explore different parts of your personality and form relationships based on differing attributes and circumstances from that of the offline environment.
  As Lessig states "they appear (in a form they select, with qualities they choose and biographies they have written)" (Lessig 2006) and while is true in many aspects of internet life (such as in MMOG's, writing blogs or fan fiction) it does not really represent the current trend of representing your actual identity online through social media sites such as Facebook (presumable because this article was written in 2006 before its mass popularity). While it is true that we present a "version" of our real selves on social media sites (one that is fit for public display) it is not one that is completely fictional as presenting a fantasy persona to online friends that know you in offline reality is difficult to maintain. I think social media sites such as Facebook blur the lines between online and offline life,  the real and the virtual and challenges the idea of having complete control over your identity in the online world.

• Community: Cyberspace allows people to form groups around a common interest that is not bound by physical location or local and cultural custom. You no need to rely on those who live close to you to share your interests, you can do so online and find people form all over the world to chat to about it.
   
• Cyberspace is global and as such is difficult to regulate as each country has its own set of laws. Crimes can be committed in an online environment (such as music or movie piracy or virtual child pornography) but even if the laws in every country on earth agrees that that these are punishable offences - the guilty parties are difficult to track and therefore difficult to persecute.
  Lessig discuss allowing governments to use "worms" to scan  the content of personal computers for illegal content. This would mean that government could view items on personal computers without first informing the computers owners that they were doing it. This brings up debate about personal privacy and also raises a questions again about identity. Even if illegal content was on a personal computer how governments prove who put it there?

• On the flip side and back again to the example of MMOG's - cyberspace allows people to create their own rules. They can defy the rules of nature (such as having the ability to fly or to come back to life) and can form the laws that govern the online space that they inhabit. The people who write the code define what is and what is not achievable in cyberspace, and those who can manipulate the code can wield the most control over their virtual environment.

 Lessig, L. 2006. Four puzzles from cyber space. https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/four_puzzles_from_cyberspace (accessed 7/9/11).