GAMERS' GAMES Narratives of Conflict, Independence And
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GAMERS’ GAMES Narratives of conflict, independence and engagement in video game culture Submitted by Paolo Ruffino to Goldsmiths, University of London as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Media and Communications in 2015 I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University 1 Abstract In this dissertation I look at various ways in which the relation between gamers and games has been discussed in video game culture in recent years. Gamers and games are currently being positioned by many scholars and industry experts as experiencing a series of major changes. From one perspective, gamers are said to be getting more and more access to the means of production of video games. Video games, in turn, are frequently analysed in terms of the effects they can have on their users. I argue that the discourses surrounding these phenomena have the effect of reinforcing the separation between gamers and games, considering both terms as separate and distinct entities. Throughout this dissertation I offer a series of readings of the relationship between the two, of how this relationship is currently being discussed by various actors and of how it could be narrated otherwise. I look at the narratives about the historical origins of both gamers and games, the conflicts between consumers and publishers, the production of independent games and the use of games for doing things. Drawing on deconstruction (Derrida 1976, 1980, 1985, 1988) and cultural and media studies scholarship, I interrogate the mechanisms behind many of the stories surrounding the contaminated and parasitical relations (Serres 1982) between gamers and games, whereby both categories are seen as emerging from the process of boxing consumers and products into discrete entities. I offer a reading of contemporary video game culture through a study that aims to encourage all of us who study and play (with) games to raise ethical questions for our own role in shaping the objects of research and for our involvement in the discourses we produce, as both gamers and scholars. What is ultimately at stake in this project is the possibility of outlining an alternative mode of thinking about the medium of the video game, one that blurs the distinction between studying, playing, making and living with video games through the invention of narratives about the unresolved relations (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) between gamers and games. 2 Acknowledgments Thanks to my family, for the unconditional support since the beginning of my studies. My parents have been an invaluable guidance. They probably understood little of what I have actually been doing in the last years, but have always encouraged me to do it well. They made this work possible, and taught me the value of being curious for the world around me. This curiosity has been a tremendous gift and it is responsible for my choice of starting a PhD research project. Special thanks to my brother Francesco, too, for letting me play with the Commodore64, and a big hug to Elena, Arianna and Chiara. I would like to thank my supervisors, Sarah Kember and Joanna Zylinska, for tolerating several periods of hesitation in my productivity, while remaining always supportive of my work. Not only have they been supervising my dissertation, they have also been teaching me the job that I will, hopefully, continue to do for the rest of my life. I would like to thank those who have helped me growing professionally in the last years: the students at Goldsmiths and London South Bank University, Siobhan Thomas, and the entire Centre for Digital Cultures at Leuphana University. Special thanks to Carolina, for the many hours spent in the library, the many meals we had together, the metaphors we invented to describe and understand what a PhD is, and for still honestly believing I am someone to come to for advice. Thank you. Marco, the man with the greatest mind I ever had the pleasure to meet, has inspired this work to a large extent. Arturo, the best man in New Cross, also deserves a special thank you. High five to the IOCOSE crew, who have tolerated my late replies, disappearances, and confused states of mind in the last five years – or always, maybe. Finally, very special thanks to the Intermet Appreciation Society, whose members have not helped at all, and have been trying their best to distract me and slow me down. Without them I would have finished years ago (but I would also be a much more boring person). 3 Table of Contents Introduction (5) Chapter 1 Literature review and methodology: a study of contaminated relations (32) Chapter 2 A history of boxes: archaeologies of gamers’ games (80) Chapter 3 Narratives of conflict: the hacking of PlayStation as a Network (112) Chapter 4 Narratives of independence: taking care of one’s own game (148) Chapter 5 Narratives of engagement: gamification and the performativity of video games (187) Conclusions Why we need creativity now - the end of gamers, the end of games (231) Appendix (244) Bibliography (265) 4 Introduction In recent years the discourses produced by scholars, journalists and industry experts surrounding the medium of the video game have often insisted on proclaiming a series of allegedly revolutionary changes when it comes to the relationship between gamers and games. These changes supposedly involve things that gamers do with games, such as modifications of existing games, forms of participatory co-creation of content or of entirely new games, and even hacking of games consoles and hardware. Conversely, transformations are also said to be happening in the understanding of what games can do to gamers, such as soliciting participation in processes of social change through political messages, and working as tools for self-improvement and socialisation. For instance, Ian Bogost has proposed in How to do Things with Videogames (2011c) that video games could be used for a variety of purposes such as improvement of a work environment, for promotional and political purposes, or even to create artworks. Moreover, according to several authors the allegedly new possibilities offered by the medium are apparently being progressively democratised as access to the means of production, promotion and distribution is widening. Anna Anthropy, in her text Rise of the Videogame Zinesters (2012), strongly argues that a new age for digital gaming is approaching, one where everyone will have access to the tools and skills required to make and release a video game. This, she says, will eventually lead to more diversity and to various minorities being represented better in video games. Similar claims supporting these visions of the future of the medium have been replicated by industry experts and game consumers alike, often through specialised and mainstream press. For instance, Sony Computer Entertainment has been promoting Gaming 3.0 as a leading concept for their business in this decade.1 According to Sony executives, Gaming 3.0 follows the 1.0 era of the early 1 Radd, D. (2007), ‘Gaming 3.0’, Bloomberg Business Week Innovation and Design, 9 March 2007 5 home consoles and the 2.0 era of online gaming. In the first two ages video game products remained unmodified by players after their purchase. Gaming 3.0 focuses instead on the personalisation of the gaming experience, on continuous updates and, more importantly, on the user rather than the developer as a key figure in the production of new content within the game. Gaming 3.0 has been used by Sony as the leading principle behind its development of software and hardware in recent years. This includes products such as the PlayStation Network, an online environment where gamers can access a variety of services such as online gaming and social networking, now a key tool for Sony’s consoles. Also, Sony’s bestselling game series Little Big Planet (2008-ongoing), released for both home consoles and handheld devices, is framed in terms of the production of objects and levels designed by the players. The game offers, apart from a limited single-player experience, a series of tools to shape new parts of the game to be shared online with other gamers [See Appendix: images 1 and 2]. Probably as a consequence of the trend of involving gamers in the production of content, gamers are now much more prone to starting forms of mass protest whenever the possibility of being involved is denied to them. Ownership of the products, and freedom to manipulate them, are often causes of controversy between producers and consumers. As I will discuss in chapter three of this dissertation, the very same Sony’s PlayStation Network has been the target of what is so far the largest instance of hacking a game system, caused by Sony’s decision to alter and remove some of the features of its product without consulting the consumers first.2 Moreover, the medium of the video game has been re-evaluated by many commentators as a tool which could potentially be used for social change and artistic expression. The availability of the means of production is seen as partly responsible for this re-evaluation. Easily accessible development tools (such as http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-03-09/gaming-3-dot-0businessweek-business- news-stock-market-and-financial-advice; Krotoski, A. (2008), ‘Little Big Planet signals the start of ‘Game3.0’’, The Guardian, 6 November 2008 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/nov/06/little-big-planet-lbp-indiegames-games [Last accessed 7/11/2014]. 2 Quinn, B. and Arthur, C.