{"id":94,"date":"2019-05-03T11:22:54","date_gmt":"2019-05-03T03:22:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/?p=94"},"modified":"2019-05-03T11:22:54","modified_gmt":"2019-05-03T03:22:54","slug":"online-or-offline-all-communities-are-important","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/2019\/05\/03\/online-or-offline-all-communities-are-important\/","title":{"rendered":"Online or Offline: All Communities are Important"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online gaming communities\nhold the same value as physical communities in establishing lasting and important\nrelationships and connections to others, providing vast and various ways to\ncommunicate without physical barriers. The purpose of the conference is to critically\nanalyze why online gaming communities are viewed in prejudice in comparison to offline\ncommunities. Identifying the key downfalls in academic writing that have come\nto shape dominant opinions of games and therefore shape opinions on online\ngaming communities form the argument of this conference. As online communities\nare a space that occurs differently to offline communities the value of online\ngaming communities is often perceived as limited to the online realm.\nRelationships established online through gaming communities are prejudiced\nthrough the way in which they are formed as illegitimate occurring in a realm\nof fiction. Studies of online gaming communities and games often focus on\npointing out the differences between offline and online communities which form\nthe context of prejudice towards online communities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online games establish\ncommunities that are just as important as physical communities. Di Loreto &\nGouaich (2010) state, \u201cPeople are inherently social creatures…people are\nconstantly searching for others to share their interests, to solve their\nproblems, to date, to meet people, to have an informal conversation\u201d. The\nmotivations to be a part of a community are a part of society, so it is logical\nthat communities form in the realm of online games as people constantly seek a\ncommunity. Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt (2014) state, \u201cSocial online games are a\nmass phenomenon and, for most of the users, a social activity\u201d. In an age of\nonline gaming, it is not surprising it has become a mass social hub and formation\nof major communities. Online gaming communities play a major role in the\nestablishment of meaningful relationships in gamers lives. There are many\ndamaging prejudices that shape the way people are to perceive their online\nrelationships as meaningful as well as them being perceived by mainstream\nsociety as legitimate relationships within these gaming communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Escapism <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Escapism is a common\nexplanation for the way people experience games. These ideas although critical\nto the evolution of thought on games have shaped the way online communities are\nviewed. Calleja (2010) states, \u201cDigital games are often viewed as being\ninherently escapist…associating games with escapism relates to a common\nperception of play and games as opposite of seriousness and work and somehow\nset apart from the ordinary, everyday life\u201d. Gaming communities are often\nviewed in the lens of escapism, as Calleja highlights games are viewed as\nsomething less serious or real. Escapism can play an important role in the way\nin which people find themselves playing Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing\nGames. It is not a defining factor in all gamers experience or interaction with\nonline games. Although online games allow people an escape, the escapism\npresented in dominate discussion of playing games is one that projects an idea\nthat is set apart for \u2018normal\u2019 communities or relationships. Escapism creates\nthis context around games and furthermore the online communities that occur\nwithin games as part of the escape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often escapism is linked\nto the idea of hiding one\u2019s true self in online communities through avatars or\nthe ability to be something else. Pearce (2011) states, \u201cIt is sometimes\ndifficult for those unaccustomed to virtual worlds to understand these\nphenomena\u2026 \u201cPerforming\u201d different personas in different contexts is a standard\npart of how we adapt to social situations\u201d.  Pearce ultimately highlights\nthat someone whether online or offline can falsify themselves, it has become an\neasy scapegoat to the delegitimisation of online communities as it highlights\nhow can a relationship or community be legitimate when it occurs behind a\nscreen or through alternate personas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pearce highlights that in\nall contexts alternate personas whether that presents itself in the way someone\nacts or behaves it is generally a normal part of social situations. Anyone can\nmanipulate parts of themselves to fit into a certain community but the screen\nfactor may contribute to doubt in the legitimacy of online communties when in\nfact it proves the dominate similarity that occurs of people trying to find a\nplace they fit no matter how they look, talk or present themselves. Furthermore,\nacademics such as Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006) state, \u201cIn online\nworlds, interaction is mediated by the virtual avatars of the individuals who inhabit\nthem. These avatars bear no discernable relationship to one\u2019s offline identity\nunless one chooses to render one\u2019s own character so identifiable\u201d. Referring to\nPearce we can see that avatars hold no bearing in devaluing the online\ncommunities. Anyone can pretend and take on personas whether online or offline,\nof course, this may be easier in online games, but it does not mean that people\nin these games are exclusively liars. Far more likely the greater percentage of\nthese communities are like-minded individuals trying to find their community.\n Escapism in these contexts is viewed as something that makes online\ngaming communities deemed less than. Although whether a community occurs online\nor offline there can always be false elements, understanding these concepts is\nimportant in developing the context in which online gaming communities are\ndiscussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other\naspect to the delegitimisation of online communities is the idea of the magic\ncircle. The magic circle highlights a distinction between reality and games,\nwhere games fall in the realm of the magic circle people playing that game and\nwhatever occurs inside it is limited to that context and therefore meaningless\nto the outside of that circle (Calleja, 2010, p. 340). The concept of the\n\u2018magic circle\u2019 is similar to that of escapism, both belittle the context of\ncommunity occurring in online games pushing that meaningful interaction cannot\noccur or impact beyond that. The interactions of online communities in part\ncontextual to that of the design and rules of the game within the realm the\ngame plays. In fact, that can be true for many contexts in which community can\nform as a result of societal constructs vs game constructs. Something is not\ninherently meaningless outside of where it takes place, elements of a community\ncan transcend these barriers and form relationships exterior to the context in\nwhich they once formed. Analysing the way in which online gaming communities\ncan be negatively compared as less important over offline communities is\nportrayed by ideas such as escapism and magic circles. These ideas have long\nshaped the way in which games are viewed and therefore the way online\ncommunities are viewed. The magic circle has heavily shaped a dominant side of\nthe argument and how video games and online gaming communities are viewed in\nour society. Ultimately this damages the way people can accept or feel accepted\nas they become a part of these communities, guilds and online friendships\nthrough online games. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Video Games Placed in Society<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to understand why\nthe discrepancy in value between offline and online communities it is important\nto understand where it starts. The placement of video games in society plays a\nbig role in the perception of relationships that can be made in online gaming\ncommunities. Yee (2006) states, \u201cWhen we talk about video games, it is easy to\nframe them as sites of play and entertainment…Video games play important\nroles in the increasingly blurred intersections of our social, economic, and political\nspheres.\u201d Yee presents the important argument of video game prejudice. Video\ngames are increasingly more prevalent in modern society and like any form of\nexpression is important to the people it resonates with. Society does not\nunderstand the importance of games therefore they cannot understand the importance\nof the communities that occur within them. Liebe (2008) states games are, \u201ca\ncombination of cultural expression and technological innovation. This makes it\neven more difficult to grasp\u201d. Liebe and Yee both present the idea of the\ncomplexity of games highlighting the major flaw in the study of modern video\ngames, it is extremely complex. It is an artefact that blends many mediums, for\na wide audience. Yet as many academics present concepts as the magic circle and\nescapism, they fail to understand the complexity of games in a modern era.\nOnline games are a major part of modern society, as a result the online\ncommunities that grow there are vast and varied, they exist because they are meaningful,\nand the prejudice of games and outdated concepts harm the ability of online\ncommunities been perceived as legitimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Difference Between Online to Offline<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frostling-Henningsson\n(2009) states, \u201cCompared to real life, communication in online gaming environments\nmakes people connect in unexpected ways. People who would not normally socially\ninteract are able to do so online\u201d. This study highlights the understanding of\nplayer experiences in meaningful online communities. Understanding that there\ncan be an overlap in online and offline relationships, also means sometimes relationships\nexclusively work in one and not the other or both. Online gaming communities\nallow like-minded individuals to find their place that maybe they do not find\noffline. One of Frostling-Henningsson\u2019s subjects Cherin highlights that she\ncommunicates with one of her friends from the online game she plays daily but\nin real life they have only met once, she sees him as a younger brother and has\nhelped him through many pivotal points in his personal development outside of\nthe online games community (Frostling-Henningsson\u2019s, 2009). Cherin and her\nfriend are a circumstance of people connecting in unexpected ways through online\nvideo games, they may not have met in real life but none the less the\nrelationship they established through an online community is just as meaningful\nto the lives of both the players. Kovista (2003) states, \u201cCommunication can be\nsynchronous such as face-to-face conversation or asynchronous such as leaving a\nmessage in a forum…The range of communication can vary from one-to-one to many-to-many\nand it can occur in the same or different locations.\u201d The allowance of online\ngaming communities is the ability to establish relationships across the world\ndespite physical limitations. Much like Cherin\u2019s online relationship, it exists\nmainly online but the range of communication that the online game they play\noccurs the way they want.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Capital<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The motivations of online\nrelationships are often presented as different from that of offline\nrelationships contributing to the divide in the importance of relationships of\nonline gaming communities. Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems (2012) state, \u201cOnline\ngaming has gained billions of users around the globe, which have been shown to\nvirtually connect, to befriend, and to accumulate online social capital\u201d.\nSocial capital is a term used often in the context of online relationships\nthrough online gaming communities. Although social capital is not limited to\nthe online realm, often it is used to understand relationships that occur\nonline. These relationships viewed as social capital portrays community and\nfriendship as a form of digital currency. In a sense that is true to all societal\nrelationships, the people you surround yourself with present who you are to\nsociety. Consequently, this highlights that the importance of online\nrelationships holds the same inherent value of those offline through the idea\nof social capital. Communities whether offline or online hold the same societal\nvalue in the context of social capital and it helps to contextualise the way in\nwhich society views the value of relationships in alternative contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guilds: An Established Community<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In online games, guilds\nform a massive part of these worlds and the way in which people communicate\nwith each other. Online communities in games exist through the developer’s\/ creator\u2019s\nability to incorporate game mechanics that allow accessible and easy forms of\ncommunication through concepts such as guilds (Koivisto, 2003). Although aspects\nsuch as game design can halt the process of community building, games that\nrealise that communities are a big part of these players bases ultimate have\nthe biggest following and community bases. World of Warcraft (WOW) is one of\nthe biggest online gaming community player bases, the pre-constructed guilds of\nWOW mean players can easily join the mass online gaming community around WOW\nand find where they can fit into it (Odrowska & Massar, 2014, p. 237).\nWilliams, Ducheneaut, Xiong, Zhang, Yee, and Nickell (2006) state \u201cAny \u201cplace\u201d\nis governed to some extent by its architecture. In a bar, there are tables and\nchairs and the bar itself, the position of which have social implications\u201d.\nThere are many rules and context in which an online game takes place as constructed\nby the creator, therefore, it could be said that in fact the communities are\nconstructed in control of this, but society has rules and expectations just\nlike any online game and in fact these constructions or barriers hold the\nsimilarity that draws people these communities in their likeness to the\noffline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


\nConclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The importance of this\nconference comes from the identification of the downfalls in the analysis of\ngames and therefore projected to online communities. There is such a strong\nportrayal in academic writing of online gaming communities falling into a\ncompletely different realm to offline communities. This analysis is false, in\nunderstanding this conference is understanding that games are an artefact\npeople still struggle to define and wrap up into a perfect bite-sized concept. Whether\na community offline or online they share more similarities than differences. People\nthat are a part of online gaming communities may meet offline or stay exclusively\nonline through their communication, whether it transcends offline or online it\nis still a meaningful community. Community holds its impact on the people who\nis are part of it. Something is not inherently important because people do not\nunderstand online gaming communities, it is meaningful in the fact that they\nexist and deserve to be understood as important to those who are a part of\nthem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calleja, G.\n(2010). Digital games and escapism. Games\nand Culture,<\/em> 5<\/em>(4), 335 – 353.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1555412009360412<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Di Loreto, I.,\n& Gouaich, A. (2010). Social Casual\nGames Success is not so Casual Research Report <\/em>(RR-10017). 1-11. Retrieved\nfrom http:\/\/hal.archives-ouvertes.fr\/docs\/00\/48\/69\/34\/PDF\/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Domahidi, E.,\nFestl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the\nrelationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35<\/em>.\n107-115. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2014.02.023<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frostling-Henningsson,\nM. (2009). First-person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to people:\n“Brothers in Blood”. Cyber Psychology\n& Behaviour<\/em>, 12<\/em>(5), 557-562. https:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1089\/cpb.2008.0345<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Koivisto, E.\n(2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing\nGames by Game Design. Paper presented at\nthe Digital Games Research Association Conference.<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/www.digra.org\/dl\/db\/05150.48442.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liebe, M. (2008).\nThere is no magic circle: On the difference between computer games and\ntraditional games. The Philosophy of\nComputer Games Conference Proceedings<\/em>, 324 – 340. Retrieved from https:\/\/publishup.uni-potsdam.de\/opus4-ubp\/frontdoor\/deliver\/index\/docId\/2558\/file\/digarec01_18.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Odrowska, A.M.\n& Massar, K. (2014). Predicting Guild Commitment in World of Warcraft with\nthe Investment Model of Commitment. Computers\nin Human Behaviour<\/em>, 34<\/em>(1),\n235-240. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2014.02.005<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pearce, C.\n(2011). Communities of Play: \u201cVirtual\nWorlds, Play Ecosystems, and the Ludisphere\u201d<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/curtin\/reader.action?docID=3339058&ppg=32&tm=1535097068229<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steinkuehler,\nC., & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online\nGames as “Third Places”. Journal\nof Computer Mediated Communication<\/em>, 11(<\/em>4),\n885-909. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trepte, S.,\nReinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing\nonline computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior<\/em>, 28<\/em>. 832 – 839. http:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2011.12.003<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams, D.,\nDucheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N., and Nickell, E. (2006). From\nTree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture,1<\/em>(4),338-361.https:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1177\/1555412006292616<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yee, N.\n(2005). The Labor of Fun: How Video Games Blur the Boundaries of Work and Play.\nWork and Culture, 1<\/em>(1), 68-71. https:\/\/doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1177\/1555412005281819<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License<\/a>.\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Abstract Online gaming communities hold the same value as physical communities in establishing lasting and important relationships and connections to others, providing vast and various ways to communicate without physical barriers. The purpose of the conference is to critically analyze why online gaming communities are viewed in prejudice in comparison to offline communities. Identifying the… Continue reading Online or Offline: All Communities are Important<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":69,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[36,39,41,40,38],"class_list":["post-94","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gaming","tag-onlinegamingcommunities","tag-communties","tag-offline","tag-online","tag-onlinegames"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/69"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":689,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94\/revisions\/689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}