A lush winter of community gaming
Having recently completed a post-graduate degree, and turning 30 next month, I recently decided it was time to indulge my addiction to games.
Foolishly purchasing a game that (unbeknownst to me) that is played mostly online has opened a whole new type of community. I am no online gaming veteran, so I was surprised at the complexity and communal cohesiveness of the experience. An incredibly sophisticated system of player roles and rewards in conjunction with a whole set of unwritten social norms allows this community to function smoothly and maximize the pleasure of each participant.
First, the basics of the game. The player assumes one of four roles: medic, sniper, assault trooper, or engineer. Each role has a kit that has different strengths and abilities. Each team (Russian terrorists vs American marines…of course) either defends or attacks a set of goals that have be ‘armed’ by the attacker but can also be ‘disarmed’ by the defender. As the player collects experience points and ‘levels up’ they are granted more equipment. Players can enter the field independently or can be assigned to a squad of four other players.
Pretty standard online shooter so far. Yet underneath these simple game mechanics is an extremely manipulative system of point-granting that create a surprisingly cooperative, engaged community of 16 radically anonymous individuals. A brief summary of the rules:
- Winning a round is based on points earned in the round, not for the highest amount of kills or most destruction.
- Points are granted for cooperative or supporting activities as well as killing the other team. A player gets as many points for reviving a dead comrade as he does for killing an enemy. If a player ‘marks’ an enemy on the map, and then that enemy is killed the player gets half of the kill points. The driver of a vehicle gets the same number of kill points as the gunner.
- Players are granted more points for helping squadmates than for playing independently. Players can also appear next to their squadmates on the battlefield, rather than at their base, saving time and allowing the squad to maintain a united front.
- Instant messaging is possible with just your squad, your entire team or the entire battlefield.
- Each member of the winning team is granted a large bonus at the end of the round.
- Badges are awarded each round for achieving certain targets: killing a certain number of enemy in a row, repairing a bunch of tanks, healing your team a lot, etc. There are over a hundred of these badges.
These are just four of the most explicit manipulations that the game provides. Under this cleverly constructed system the player is rewarded for working in a team of four, taking a diverse and supportive role, while working towards the overall success the team.
Over a few rounds you become attached to your squad to the point of sadness at a supportive player leaving the game or frustration when they underperform. To be clear, these are anonymous strangers, from anywhere in the world. And the ultimate reward is an digitized, arbitrary set of distinctions ranging from higher ranks to achievement badges. Similarly to the Oscars, retirement certificates from corporations, gold stars on homework, the Order of Canada, these rewards have value only because the community thinks they indicate success.
Social norms in this transitory community are enforced through exclusion. Each battlefield limits the level of the players (thus new players or ‘noobs’ are not discouraged from playing). Strong language and racism is condemned and the culprit is often kicked out. Bad teams are joined by stronger players to make a better fight.
The stereotype of the online gamer is the racist, foulmouthed teenager alone in his parent’s basement; in fact it seems they are a relatively engaged, community minded set of folks. Chatting with your squadmates is humorous and revealing. Relatively witty dialogue takes place between teams.
A hot topic right now is the ‘gamification’ of the world. While I am somehow uncomfortable with that notion (some things need to be taken seriously), if the rule setters are able to manipulate citizenship with the same success as they do for this type of game, perhaps there is something to it….