Comments on: Against the Rhetoric of Cosmopolitanism http://www.gamestate.org/2009/02/against-the-rhetoric-of-cosmopolitanism/ all games are serious games (but some games are more serious than others) Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:21:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Garrison http://www.gamestate.org/2009/02/against-the-rhetoric-of-cosmopolitanism/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Garrison Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:03:46 +0000 http://www.gamestate.org/?p=551#comment-151 I disagree. Building social networks in the real world is tedious and time-consuming, because they are materially significant and so am I. In virtual space--especially in gaming contexts--social networks are trivial, even disposable. People "friend" me after a game on XBoxLive all the time: They could care less about me... and I don't care about them (sorry BornLo53r; sorry FalconWing69). In virtual space, creating a node in the social network is a ready affordance. (Facebook: "Click to confirm this friend.") Not so in meat space. I think that, to some degree, there are several game-related choices that players make to <em>compel</em> homogeneity among online communities: In Warcraft, for example, you are encouraged to pick a (relatively) local shard (stateside, Oceanic, or Latin America) for starters. And language localization in WoW means English-speaking countries are all lumped together. Ultimately, though, locale is a common topic of conversation in the guild to which I belong -- in which members range from northern Canada to Texas, and across North America. And while some in the guild may recruit from real life networks, the guild's makeup is so variable -- of 120 members, eight joined and three left just yesterday -- that <em>some</em> variety is almost guaranteed. Finally, in terms of data lag (a favorite scapegoat among gamers), I must say that Mario Kart is likely far more intense than any MMORPG in terms of data throughput, but I frequently enjoy Kart races against European and Japanese players (with generally consistent stability of data flow). I disagree. Building social networks in the real world is tedious and time-consuming, because they are materially significant and so am I. In virtual space–especially in gaming contexts–social networks are trivial, even disposable. People “friend” me after a game on XBoxLive all the time: They could care less about me… and I don’t care about them (sorry BornLo53r; sorry FalconWing69). In virtual space, creating a node in the social network is a ready affordance. (Facebook: “Click to confirm this friend.”) Not so in meat space.

I think that, to some degree, there are several game-related choices that players make to compel homogeneity among online communities: In Warcraft, for example, you are encouraged to pick a (relatively) local shard (stateside, Oceanic, or Latin America) for starters. And language localization in WoW means English-speaking countries are all lumped together. Ultimately, though, locale is a common topic of conversation in the guild to which I belong — in which members range from northern Canada to Texas, and across North America. And while some in the guild may recruit from real life networks, the guild’s makeup is so variable — of 120 members, eight joined and three left just yesterday — that some variety is almost guaranteed.

Finally, in terms of data lag (a favorite scapegoat among gamers), I must say that Mario Kart is likely far more intense than any MMORPG in terms of data throughput, but I frequently enjoy Kart races against European and Japanese players (with generally consistent stability of data flow).

]]> By: Mike Moore http://www.gamestate.org/2009/02/against-the-rhetoric-of-cosmopolitanism/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Mike Moore Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:31:51 +0000 http://www.gamestate.org/?p=551#comment-150 I can't say this result is surprising. Speaking from personal experience, it is much easier to collaborate online with someone you already trust. It takes a huge investment to build a social network. Why spend the time to build a new one when you can capitalize on existing relationships? This also reminds me of Goldsmith and Wu's book <strong>Who Controls the Internet?</strong>. Simply put, nothing is virtual; physical space will always matter. Particularly with online games, latency is a very real barrier that increases with physical distance. While the internet makes it possible for me to play Gears of War 2 with my friends across the Atlantic, it still takes time for data to travel the distance. While 500 milliseconds might not mean much for a phone conversation, it can take all the fun out of shooting the Locust Horde. Nonetheless, it is important to look at both sides of the issue. While some hardware, software, and social forces may discourage online gamers from creating new networks, there is still a kernel of truth in utopian rhetoric. As the article emphasizes, online games do strengthen networks. Moreover, broken as they may be, online games still provide multiple mechanisms for cooperation among strangers, perhaps most importantly (as Castronova describes) in the form of a shared mythos, an embodied justification that this cooperative activity is in fact worthwhile. I can’t say this result is surprising. Speaking from personal experience, it is much easier to collaborate online with someone you already trust. It takes a huge investment to build a social network. Why spend the time to build a new one when you can capitalize on existing relationships?

This also reminds me of Goldsmith and Wu’s book Who Controls the Internet?. Simply put, nothing is virtual; physical space will always matter. Particularly with online games, latency is a very real barrier that increases with physical distance. While the internet makes it possible for me to play Gears of War 2 with my friends across the Atlantic, it still takes time for data to travel the distance. While 500 milliseconds might not mean much for a phone conversation, it can take all the fun out of shooting the Locust Horde.

Nonetheless, it is important to look at both sides of the issue. While some hardware, software, and social forces may discourage online gamers from creating new networks, there is still a kernel of truth in utopian rhetoric. As the article emphasizes, online games do strengthen networks. Moreover, broken as they may be, online games still provide multiple mechanisms for cooperation among strangers, perhaps most importantly (as Castronova describes) in the form of a shared mythos, an embodied justification that this cooperative activity is in fact worthwhile.

]]>