Pearce- Section V

Section V

A New Chapter in Uru

In Chapter 15, Pearce describes her experiences helping with the re-launch of Myst Online: Uru Live. She is asked by Turner Broadcasting to pull together further research regarding the Uru refugees. She describes her surprise and delight at the prospect of being allowed to assist the group of people she has been studying for over two years. She would be continuing her research while gathering additional “demographic, play pattern, and marketing-related data the team needed for design, planning and business development” (264). This was a perfect assignment for her and allowed her to gain a unique perspective of the efforts that go into launching an online world. Through this experience, she was able to further research the way a group with an unusual demographic, TGU was composed primarily of baby boomers, would react to the new world available to them. She discovered that unlike the “typical gamers” who are “primarily male college students and recent grads,” TGUers had “more disposable income and free time” to devote to a variety of online worlds (267). They were willing to spend “hundreds or even thousands of dollars per month” on items and real estate in-world (267). The specific demographics of the group seem to explain the extreme cohesion of the TGUers.

Pearce also describes the importance of “the relationship between creators and players” (267). She explains that because the designer’s vision is so highly regarded, the designers were sometimes seen as “deities of sorts” (267). With the unfortunate second closing of Uru, the designer and administrators played a much different role than the first time around. Their early announcement of the closing, the warnings sent out and the in-world visit by Rand Miller on the last day showed the players that the management actually cared. It was a much less jarring and hurtful experience. The advanced warning and the existing settlements in There.com and SecondLife gave the refugees a place to move on to after the closing.

Communication is the Key

Chapter 16 focuses on the importance of interaction between game designers and the players of the games they create. She describes the role that “community managers” play in this relationship (273). The problem, she says, with community managers is that they are not always privy to the authentic interactions and cultural practices of the players. She contends that designers should spend a large amount of time in-world learning how the players engage with each other and the game and use that information to guide further additions or redesigns of the game. She gave the example of The Sims Online to illustrate how effects of the lack of communication can become “catastrophic” (272). Pearce recommends the use of anthropologists or ethnographers to prevent this disconnect. She explains that “cyberethnographers” can provide information regarding not only what is good and enjoyed within their games, but also the aspects of other games and sites that are disliked by the players. Understanding what is disliked, shows what should be avoided in future redesigns and what positives should be emphasized.

Corporate Controlled Self-Expression? 

The book’s last chapter is a discussion of the place MMOW’s and MMOG’s play in current society and the possibilities for them in the future. She emphasizes the importance of identity and the need for expression as the main draws to online worlds. Players need a “sense of belonging and community” within a real world of that may stifle their self-expression. The negative societal views of play have begun to erode and have been replaced with the idea of “productive play” and the wide-spread use of social and information networks. The prevalence of networked games and social networks has opened up the possibility of connecting with other like-minded people from distant parts of the country or world. This research allows us to view the types of “unique bonds and connections that can form within a play community” (279). Virtual worlds provide a platform for players to express aspects of themselves or even their “true self” without the repercussions dealt with in the real world.

Pearce goes on to explain the reality of the corporate control of the various online worlds and the unfortunate truth that the corporations have the right to close these worlds at their discretion. She contends that if these worlds are to thrive, the corporations and the players have to find a way to communicate. The use of ethnographers or other researchers, she feels, would bridge the gap between players and designers.

Discussion Questions:

1.      If the Myst Online: Uru Live had been re-launched earlier, prior to the complete establishment of other online settlements, would the eventual closing have been a more traumatic event?

2.      Should there be regulations regarding the closing of virtual worlds possibly including notification given a specific length of time prior to closing?

3.      Would the common use of researchers/ethnographers within virtual worlds cause players to view and interact with them in a less engaging way? Would this be seen as spying by management?

Section III and IV

Pearce Sections 3 and 4:

Section 3 of Pearce’s book focuses on her research methodology and the reasons behind it. She states that the purpose for this chapter was to present her methods for review and to encourage other researchers to do the same. She felt that there was a need for a more open discussion of research methodology. She also explains her use of “crystallization” method rather than “triangulation” (200). She feels that when observing social behavior, it is impossible to assign it a fixed point, and therefore you need to be able to analyze “data from different angles, different subjectivities, and at different scales” (200). She described, in detail, her fieldwork including group interviews, individual interviews, screen shots, and videos.  It was interesting to learn that some MMOW’s automatically save chat logs into a file for you. She also explained her need for “native assistance” and how she employed this person in data collection and providing research leads. Pearce explained that her choices regarding methodology had been selected from her examinations of other social behavior studies. She also explained her need to increase her “participant engagement” in order to more fully study and understand the group dynamics.

I found Section 4 to be the most interesting section so far. Pearce begins by writing through (“as”) Artemesia to explain the importance of the avatar to the study of MMOW’s and the groups that inhabit them. She explains that the avatar is not solely created by the individual player, but is, over time, “socially constructed” by the members of the group (216). She also explains that “as the avatar has been socially constructed, so has the person” (216). We are then presented with an “ethnographic memoir” of her experiences “consist{ing} of journal entries taken while the research was under way” (215). The journal entries chronicle some of the more pivotal moments from her fieldwork.

Real World Article= Virtual World Scandal 

I was especially interested in two specific events. The first involves the publication of the newspaper article about the group and her research. The journalist, who is not named, writes an offensive article based on one interview and on watching Pearce conduct fieldwork one evening. In this article the journalist describes the group’s activities as “crazy” and the group assumes the comment is a direct quotation or reflection of Pearce’s true feelings. With this in mind, they openly shun Artemesia in-world, and begin a thread in the forum composed almost entirely of “flaming” posts. This immediate and strong reaction is due in part to the protective nature of the players toward their group. Pearce must then regain the trust of the group and uses individual contacts and eventually a post to the group on the forum. This experience requires a major change in her research methods because it exposes the group’s belief that she is not really part of them and that this causes her understanding of them to be skewed. This entire sequence of events was quite intriguing to me. It was interesting to see how the group reacted in a near unanimous and impassioned way. Yet, the players were still willing to give her a chance to explain and tell her side of the story.

Gender Representation

The second event that I found most fascinating was the revelation that Raena’s real life avi was a man. After reading accounts of two other “true gender confessions” and hearing Raena’s reactions to them, I was surprised to learn that she was a man in real life. Pearce describes the avatar of Raena as being a normal woman, not overly sexualized (as is common when men create female avatars), and that her voice was feminine. Pearce also describes Raena as her best friend in-world and that she has a hard time seeing her as anything other than a woman. After posting a confession on the forum, which was the new custom, Raena becomes Raenen complete with masculine voice. The description of the difficulty “Steve” had with using a masculine voice in-world surprised me. I had not considered the idea that since his entire experience in these virtual worlds had been as a woman, he would have difficulty representing himself as a man or using his normal masculine voice. The description of this experience clearly illustrates the players’ level of commitment to their avatars. I was also somewhat surprised at the reaction of the group to his confession. Their willingness to support whatever decision he made regarding choice of avatar showed their acceptance of “Steve” in either form. Although all three cross gender representations were the result of different motivations, all of them were accepted and supported.

Discussion Questions

1.      Does the use of an opposite gender avatar allow for the player to express less evident aspects of themselves or does it force the creation of a “new” self?    

2.      Are the intimate relationships created in virtual worlds likely to translate well to the real world?

3.      Why is it so much easier to be open and honest in a virtual world, and not in the real world?