In the first section of Pearce’s book, Communities of Play, she presents the basis of her research as well as the history of both games and the study of play. Pearce’s research centers on “play communities” and more specifically “ludology,” “the study of digital games,” as they are used within play communities (5). Her main focus is on the genre of digital games known as MMOG’s (Massive Multiplayer Online Games) or MMOW’s (Massive Multiplayer Online Worlds) and how the players of these games interact. She explains that these networked games have allowed for the creation of “increasingly complex play communities that traverse geographical and temporal boundaries”(6). Within these communities, players participate in the “collective creation of belief” which serves to enhance their individual experiences (17). The players inhabit the world in the form of an avatar, who is chosen and often modified by the player.
Most players view their avatar as an extension of themselves within the game. The personality of their avatar, however, may be quite different from that presented by the player in the “real world.” This allows the player to adopt a variety of identities that may otherwise be suppressed due to the constraints of “real world” society. Just as people adopt “different personalities or personas in their different real-life roles,” the same is done in virtual worlds. However, the range of acceptable “identities” is much broader in virtual worlds, given that the player can construct a variety of avatars to embody each persona. The player is not confined by their real life appearance, nationality or gender. Their avatar can be designed any way the player chooses to fit the needs of their projected persona. “Because play is ultimately a form of expression […] it opens up avenues for personal and social development that provide alternatives to real-life roles” (24). Players tend to view the friendships created within these virtual communities as “equally authentic” to those in their offline lives.
Virtual worlds are seen as being divided into two groups, ludic and paidiac worlds. Ludic worlds have a “formal structure of objectives and a set of constraints that dictate how those objectives might be met” (28). Paidiac worlds allow players to “engage in open-ended, unstructured, creative play, although they typically allow for more structured play to emerge at the players’ discretion” (28). The two games we are working with are viewed as paidiac worlds or “sandboxes” that allow for unstructured play. As is stated in the definition, we are allowed to create structured play within the world, but we are not required to operate within constraints imposed by the designer. With this freedom, we have the ability to design games with any chosen objective. This environment lends itself to the creation of educational games because the objectives and allowable completion strategies can be tailored to any topic or principle. These environments allow for learning within a realm of “suspend{ed} consequences” (31). By basing our game within a “co-created” world, players are not only allowed to “build their own spaces, create their own artifacts, and vary their avatars,” creation can be a means of assessment in itself (32).
In our games, both in Mindcraft and SecondLife, the player is required to create something to be assessed. In Mindcraft, they are creating a house to protect their avatar from danger. In SecondLife, the player is creating a story that will protect their tourists from danger. While the goals may be different, teamwork skills vs. storytelling ability, the player is essentially creating a protective barrier from the dangers of the world. The concept of protection is a universal idea that can be understood by people in any part of the world.
Pearce discusses the rapid development of social processes in months or days that normally would take years. This environment of rapid development combined with the players intense bond with their avatar have lead to the idea of avatar rights. I found this to be particularly interesting. Players tend to see their avatar as having rights similar to those found in their real life world. Problems arise when the assumed rights of avatars “come into conflict with virtual world owners” (41). These owners may choose to handle the conflicts in a number of ways, sometimes including “virtual death” through the banning of the player. I would not have considered an avatar to have rights, but I think the issue is the players rights regarding their avatar and the “intellectual property” associated with it. With the global nature of online environments, it is very difficult to create or enforce laws for virtual worlds. It would also inhibit the designers of games by deciding what is or is not appropriate.
Discussion Questions:
1. How far should avatar rights extend? What should they cover?
2. Is there a limit to the types of worlds or communities that can be created in the virtual realm?
3. If there were rules or a bill of rights created for online environments, who should control it?
No comments:
Post a Comment