I could tell you that this blog is esteemed.

In my previous post I addressed the idea of the transition of the playing field from a physical space to virtual, discussing the ways in which people view the concept of e-sports and the reasons behind their views. What I have not addressed, however, is the way that these games present themselves.

Before we continue with this post, I would like for you to watch the following clip. This is taken from a recent World of Warcraft tournament, in which players are pitted against each other in 3v3 combat.

The Problem of Viewability.

It is my belief that this clip portrays what is possibly one of the biggest problems that currently exists with gaming as a sport – viewability. For those of you who do not understand the game (and possibly even for those of you who do) this match is most likely too difficult to follow; the amount happening on the screen and lack of a central point of focus confuses the viewer, on top of this the commentating is plagued by acronyms and insights that only someone who keeps up to date with the game would be able to understand. Whilst this video is a somewhat exaggerated example of the problem, this tends to exist within in most competitive games.

As competitive gaming progresses, I believe that creating games that can capture the complexity and intensity of e-sports whilst simultaneously presenting them in an easy to follow manner will be one of the most difficult challenges faced by game developers. Failure to do so may very well damage the game’s ability to market itself to a broader audience, as the inability to comprehend the nature of the actions appearing on screen would most likely lead to the decline of interest in the medium.

e-Sports and the Media

Another feature that is worth noting is the way in which gaming as a sport relates to the media, Hutchins (2008) states that “e-Sport is born in and of media, which alters the parameters of competition in terms of how it is conducted” (pg 857). The competition that takes place takes place within media, allowing for a complete shift in the nature of its consumption to become a possibility. Traditionally, sport has been a medium that is surrounded by, yet separate from, media. Media, in this sense, was the platform on which such sports were broadcasted; this most often occurred via television, radio and – more recently – the internet.

Through being completely integrated in the media which arbitrates its broadcast, we may very well be witnessing the nature of consumption of such events reaching whole new levels of interactivity. The game in which the competition takes place could extend to simultaneously become the medium on which observers follow the event, turning the traditional way in which such events are broadcasted completely upside down. We have already seen the beginning of this merging of media in competitive gaming with features such as replay functionality becoming a core mechanic of most games, the shift in to live broadcast may very well be the natural extension of this.

The topic of e-Sports and their significance in relation to new media technologies is a feature that is not often discussed in much detail. Regardless, I believe that they hold significance in representing the ways in which we interact with such technologies as a platform. With companies such as Microsoft now sponsoring an e-sports team I can only wonder, is it merely a matter of time before we see competitive gaming achieve mainstream popularity in our social context or will the trend die out before this can be achieved? What do you think?

Thank you for taking the time to read my blog/essay (blessay?) on e-sports. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is something that I would definitely like to hear your opinions on, so please feel free to share your input on the topic.

Thanks!

Over the past few weeks throughout our blogosphere, I have noticed that the topic of gaming has prevailed as a dominant point of discussion; many students have explored the concept of social media in relation to their perceived social impacts and significance. One concept that I wish to explore is that of eSports and cyber-athletics. This topic is of particular interest to me and I have been developing my ideas on the subject for quite some time now, as of such I am very interested in hearing any feedback that you may have on it.

In his article Signs of meta-change in second modernity: the growth of e-sport and the World Cyber Games, Hutchins (2008) explores the topic of sports in relation to the media, expanding upon this to evaluate competitive gaming as being sports as media (pg 857). Hutchins also acknowledges, however, that people are still struggling to relate e-sports as being a viable competitive medium, stating that (in relation to a journalistic feature focused on the topic):

“…journalists acknowledge that skill, dedication, prize money and endorsements make them like athletes, but they are not prepared to accord them this status definitively; neither are they completely certain whether the games in which they compete are sport in a traditional sense”

Throughout my interactions with the idea of gaming as a form of competition, I have found that such attitudes occupy a very large portion of the attitudes people hold towards the idea. To many, the idea of gaming as a profession seems absurd.

For those of you who may be wondering exactly what form e-sports may take, here is an example of the 2007 Starleague finals, a match featured within the game Starcraft. (I have chosen a game that has English commentating dubbed over the top, a good example of a match with English shoutcasters proved to be surprisingly difficult to find).

When first introduced to such a video, I have found that the initial reaction of most people is to laugh. To someone who has never seen this before, the entire notion that this game is a competitive medium seems absurd. Why does this perception exist? I believe that it relates to the ways in which we are introduced to ‘real sports’. The Australian Football League (AFL) is a strong example of such a sport, in the AFL the rules of the game and the field on which it takes place are very clearly defined, because of this a sound of understanding of the game as a competitive sport can be established very easily. Additionally, the competitive aspects of the game are primarily physical, and hence the average person can easily relate to the struggles that an athlete experiences whilst playing.

In e-sports, such distinctions are blurred, we notice a transition of the playing field from being clearly defined on a physical level to existing in the virtual, a place that many still struggle to identify as ‘real’. Furthermore, the physical strains of the player are hardly relatable to anyone who has not experienced competitive gaming before. Hutchins explains this, stating that “There is minimal physical activity during matches outside of the frenetic movement of hands, fingers and thumbs, although the intensity of matches does see competitors raise a sweat.” (pg 861).

I believe this disconnection from the physical aspects most often found within Australian sports is the primary reason that most people may struggle to identify with gaming as a genuine sport. To someone who has not encountered such a phenomenon before, e-sports presents a series of players competing through a series of actions that appears to require no skill or coordination. Take a look at the players presented in the video that I posted above, are you able to identify which skillsets are being employed in the game presented?

So I’d really like to know, are you able to identify games as a legitimate mode of competition or do you think otherwise? Do you think that e-sports are viable or that they will never be able to stand up to their physical counterparts? I’m very interested to hear your opinions, so please feel free to agree or disagree with me.

(In order to spare this post from transcending blog status and becoming some sort of second analytical report I’ve decided to split it in to two posts, apologies for the wall of text!)

In our first reading for this fortnight’s topic, Gitlin (2005) writes about media saturation, the surge in the amount of media that surrounds us in our everyday lives. Of particular interest to me in this reading is the point made that to us digital natives, this media saturation appears to be so natural that it appears to be nature to us (pg. 143). Now I’ll admit, my first reaction to reading this was something along the lines of ‘that’s ridiculous, I can quite clearly identify and routinely identify the presence of media around me in our society’, but upon further consideration it becomes apparent exactly to which extent Gitlin meant when he wrote this.

It is a point that has been raised often throughout our unit – media is everywhere, yet we are so used to its presence that it has become an ambience, advertisements, brands, devices and information can be found almost everywhere around us. At the beginning of the unit, many students made note of this point, posts such as Bridget’s and those by NMTs; Evolutionary explored this idea, making particular note of the ways in which people consume such forms of media all throughout their activities. More recently, Loz blogs on the same topic, exploring the level at which we are surrounded by technologies even all throughout personal spaces such as a study desk.

Another example of this that comes to mind is our class tutorials, which occur in a computer lab. Even though the majority of our workshops do not involve the use of a computer, students will often engage with the technology whilst simultaneously participating in the class – why is this? I think that the answer can be found through expanding upon the idea of technologies as nature as raised by Gitlin, do we perhaps interact with such technologies because of our innate tendency to multitask when it comes to such technologies? Could this be considered an extension of what has developed to be a seemingly natural process for us?

I believe that the answer to these questions closely relates to the way in which we are living in an age of media saturation. To us, these technologies present themselves as a natural ambience of the spaces that we occupy – interfacing with them on multiple levels is perhaps just an extension of this relationship.

The blog title raises a valid point – why exactly are we here?

I am currently on the final stretch of my degree in Interactive Digital Design (IDD), the last chapter in 15 years of education (scary!). It was just over 3 years ago now that I was graduating high school and – like most students of that age here – caught up on an important life decision. I have always had a strong interest in design but did not think that it would provide a viable career path until near the end of my secondary education. Most students that wanted to progress in this field would usually graduate in to Tafe, which provides a far higher level of practical experiences in the field of design. Instead, I opted to enrol in a Bachelor of Multimedia (which was later refined in to Interactive Digital Design); at this stage, my decision was more so a product of my uncertainty in relation to the benefits of either program, however looking back on it I am glad that I made the choice I did.

Completing my course at Murdoch has provided me with a number of benefits, foremost of which is the ability to approach and analyse a subject critically. Even beyond the scope of our studies I believe that the ability to establish a critical viewpoint on a topic is of great importance; it allows for us to interpret, analyse and understand all of the features that characterise our society, permitting for us to comprehend (and possibly even challenge) our status as consumers in our culture.

Additionally, through completing a uni course you are proving that you have what it takes to stay committed to a decision, the piece of paper that I will receive at the end of my degree shows not only that I have demonstrated that I am adept in my chosen field but that I am able to be committed to the ventures in life that I choose to undertake.

In a way I am very lucky, I was able to enter straight in to a university course that was highly relevant to my interests and as a result was able to land a part-time job in the web design industry, which provided me with a level of experience that spans beyond whilst greatly complements my studies. The units that I have completed at Murdoch have equipped me with some amazing insights in to both how the industry operates and how I can reach my fullest potential in such environments, I believe that these skills will play a monumental role in my success in the industry that I am a part of.

Throughout your time at uni, have you found that the benefits of your course are similar or different to me? Is there something that I have neglected to mention that you believe is of great significance? And to tie the topic back in to the initial question, why are you here?

Funnily enough, one of the things that I will miss the most about university is the opportunities that it gives for me to engage with such interesting theories and topics on a critical level. I definitely didn’t see myself missing that when I first started here.

Throughout our most recent topic we have been examining collaborative media, employing gaming as the primary platform which we can use to comprehend the complex nature of convergent culture. One topic that was briefly covered in the lecture was the way in which we are witnessing the breakdown of structural barriers that have characterized traditional media, with the examples of the success of City of Heroes Architect Edition and the modding scene in World of Warcraft being used to portray such features.

Of particular relevance to this feature is our second reading for this topic, Of Mods and Modders in which Hector Postigo (2007) explores the ways in which productive players impact upon the games for which they create content. Postigo suggests that the modder scene plays a large role in the longevity of a game, and as of such plays a substantial role in the success of a game as a whole. A broad range of motivations are explored in the authors attempt to establish the primary reasons that players engage in such activities, amongst which are reasons such as artistic expression, improvement of connection within communities and even for experience that may lead to a job in the game design industry (pg. 309-310).

Modding has become a massive part of the games industry; developers will often work to provide their fan base with powerful tools that allow for users to craft their own content or modify that which already exists. The user interface in World of Warcraft was an example raised in our lecture, though some of you may be unaware to the extent that this phenomenon exists. As of such, I have decided to share a comparison between the default game user interface (UI) and the current one that I run whilst playing (which was developed by an extremely talented modder that goes by the name Caith).

Default UI:

My Current UI:

Though this UI may be a somewhat radical example of interface modification, I think that it provides a very good illustration of just how much of an impact a consumer can have on a product.

In examining the levels of differentiation that can be witnessed between the two UI compositions, the extent to which users have impacted upon the face of the game is obvious. Almost every feature of the design has been modified, representing a complete departure from the traditional producer driven structure which has traditionally characterised the way in which we approach and consume such products.

Historically, the user interface has been a static element of games amongst other forms of media, the evolution of our roles as consumers, however, changes this completely. The establishment of a strong productive player community allows for a game to expand upon its lifespan drastically. Modding is only a singular aspect of these new roles that we play in convergent culture; communities are formed around an extremely large range of activities based on common goals and interests.

Do you think that such features can be interpreted in a way which can be used to accurately represent the new roles that we play as new media users? Can you think of any additional examples – within or beyond gaming – which further portrays these trends? Finally, do you have any experiences with involvement in such communities yourself?

I’m sorry, that pun was terrible (and by terrible, I mean awesome).

Shell culture has been a very popular recent topic as of late; Huey questions the ways in which we can experience distraction from our immediate surroundings in favour of our mobile technologies, Kai-Ti questions how our engagement with mobile media can manifest itself as a defence mechanism – making reference to an xkcd comic relating to the issue (xkcd is awesome, by the way. If you don’t read it you should definitely check it out), and Loz questions the disconnection that occurs as a result of such technologies, making reference to an awkward situation whilst waiting for a bus.

Shell culture is a highly intriguing topic, but is it a new phenomenon with the onset of new media technologies? Is such an obvious distraction a key ingredient in facilitating the often discussed disconnection from ones immediate surroundings that one may experience? Also, what motivates us to maintain such a distance?

I think that the disconnection from society that people enter themselves in to can be traced back to the ways in which we interact with information with the onset of mobile media combined with the frantic pace at which people maintain their lifestyles. With the emergence of mobile technologies, connectivity is no longer an issue, because of this I believe that we are inclined to devalue the importance of engaging with those around us – what is the point of speaking with someone at a bus stop when you can engage in far more meaningful interactions with people that you already know? The way in which we purpose our actions – particularly when in public spaces – can be related to the way in which we have adapted to the frantic pace at which we multi-task ourselves through life, the elimination of unnecessary interactions is perhaps a symptom of this.

What do you think about this? Do you agree or disagree with these ideas? In your interactions with shell culture, what do you believe to be the primary motives for the way in which you approach society?

I often link the idea of posting something on the internet to the idea of sending a message in a bottle in to the ocean; you don’t know where it will end up, who will read it and what will happen as a result.

Online communities form a very important part of our internet adventures, through them we are able to connect, discuss and collaborate our ideas, interests and experiences with likeminded people. Interestingly enough though, the way in which these online communities are approached suggests to me that we still find it difficult to analyse and understand them, our workshop today demonstrated just how difficult such a task as clarifying what is and is not a community can be in itself.

One particular question that presented itself was that of online communities and ideas of ‘the real’ and the impacts that this idea has on our approach towards them. In my personal experience, it is too easy to detach yourself from the idea that it is people who are receiving your ideas on the other end.

Quite interestingly enough, I tend to find it easy to relate engaging in an online community to driving a car. When engaging with a public space you will often come in to face to face contact with people, in such a setting the social norms are clearly established and most often the prospect of being openly rude to a person’s face is a difficult one to execute. When driving a car, however, everything changes; all of a sudden the face to face contact is absent and it is far easier to detach yourself from the idea that there is a person in the other vehicle.

The result? If a person was to accidently cut another off whilst walking, the usual scenario often involves a polite apology followed by a quick sidestep. If this scenario were to take place in a vehicle, however, my experiences have shown to me that the most usual actions performed by the participants involve the frantic beeping of the car’s horn, the flashing of high-beam lights and the occasional appearance of the middle finger.

These ideas are not new to our course; we have already briefly addressed the idea of people being ruder over the internet – evident through posts such as Jasmines’ ‘Today’. They play an important role in our understandings of online communities and the differences in approaches that are noticeable between people’s understandings of the differences between online and offline communities.

What do you think? Do you often find yourself easily dismissing the fact that you are engaging with actual people on the other side of the internet? How can online communities work to counteract this? Do you act differently to people whilst online as opposed to offline when engaging with complete strangers, why is this?

Today, I found a rather interesting news article. Apparently, 4 days after the release of the name of the new Vegemite product Kraft announced that this name would be dropped.

The name in question? iSnack 2.0

(Image taken from www.news.com.au)

I’ve got to ask, does anyone else find this to be absolutely hilarious?

Throughout our studies, we’ve encountered topics to which the chosen name relates, namely the concepts of Web 2.0 and mobile media devices such as the iPhone. When such names are mentioned, we relate them to concepts such as The Long Tail, convergence, agents and embodied media. How does this new product relate to these in any way?

In regards to the failure of this name, Kraft claims that “The new name has simply not resonated with Australians – particularly the modern technical aspects associated with it”. I don’t think that this is correct, the reason that this product name has failed is, in my opinion, due to the fact that it has nothing at all to do with the qualities conveyed by the concepts that it draws upon.

Perhaps this example can provide an eerie insight to the way in which such topics are viewed by the outside world. To me, the flaws of such a name are obvious, but for it to have been announced as the official name and for production of it as a product to have started it must have been approved by a lot of people.

What do you think? Do you think that the name is an effective one? Is this a grim warning of things to come? Can this example be used to provide an insight in to the ways in which new media technologies are perceived by the corporate world? Alternatively, could this be some sort of publicity stunt on behalf of Kraft? They claim it isn’t, but the existence of this product would not have been brought to my attention if not for this ridiculous name.