{"id":392,"date":"2019-04-29T07:47:21","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T23:47:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/?p=392"},"modified":"2019-05-07T14:37:58","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T06:37:58","slug":"online-game-platforms-provide-a-space-for-culturally-and-geographically-diverse-communities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/2019\/04\/29\/online-game-platforms-provide-a-space-for-culturally-and-geographically-diverse-communities\/","title":{"rendered":"Online game platforms provide a space for culturally and geographically diverse communities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Online game platforms PDF<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

It is quite possible to become overwhelmed by the amount of research and theory focused on community. However, for the following, the research has been limited to focusing on research conducted in the field of communities within the space of online games. Offline, a community could be defined as a group of people with commonalities that spend mutual and voluntary time together for a purpose. Communities can be categorised in many ways including religious, political, cultural, sports, knowledge and hobbies. However, for the purpose of this paper, the historical element of community that will be drawn upon is location. Location was chosen to distinguish the difference between local communities and online communities. It is important to discuss offline communities in conjunction with online communities to be able to demonstrate the differences and similarities between the two. Some of their core values of both forms of community are similar including their reason for remaining in the communities and the bonds and friendships they create with other members. This paper will examine the online gaming community and the platform provided by online games for likeminded people to create geographic and culturally diverse communities. The following argues that online communities are broken into groups based on the types of games they play or by the actual games they play. Compared to offline communities, that may be categorised by location or religious belief, for example, online gamers join, and are accepted into their relative communities because they are active players of specific games. Race, religion and location have little baring on acceptance in the online gaming communities. To start off, the focus will begin on offline communities to set the scene of what traditional offline communities encompass and eventually demonstrate how online communities allow for more culturally diverse and geographically dispersed members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some people in our world today\nremember the time before the internet and online communities. Perhaps they were\nactive members of their neighbourhood community. Maybe they were friends with\nchildren from the local area and got together on the weekends and played games\noutside. Maybe as they got older they were involved in local working-bees to\nhelp the needy or aged in the community. Perhaps, they not only grew up in the\narea but also chose to raise their children there too, creating a new\ngeneration of community. These people did not have the internet to facilitate\nthe making of new friends or communities. They were limited to their location\nand only broadened their reach if they physically moved around. If they did\nmove from one location to another, new bonds could be created and old ones may\nfade if not regularly maintained. Delanty (2009) describes this type of\ntraditional American community as: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 community\nwas seen as pertaining to relatively small groups, such as neighborhoods, based\non mutual interdependence and common forms of life. These communities might be\nquite small, perhaps extending over a few blocks, but were held to be the\nfoundation for a sense of belonging based on shared experiences, a common\nlanguage and kinship ties and, above all, a sense of inhabiting a common\nspatial lifeworld. The forms of social control exercised in these neighborhoods\ntended to enhance community rather than undermine it. (Delanty, 2009 pg 41) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neighborhoods and mutual locations\nhelped form communities however in the current world of instant internet,\nsocial media and online games the limitations of geography is no longer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just like traditional neighborhood\ncommunities, online communities are filled with people with a common purpose.\nOnline communities were once considered a \u2018social\nphenomenon\u2019 during the beginnings of the Internet\n(Staneoevska-Slabeva & Schmid, 2001) but are now a part of many people\u2019s\ndaily lives. There are many typologies of online communities and there is still\nresearch to be done on this subject however four types of online communities\nhave been identified by the research undertaken by Staneoevska-Slabeva and\nSchmid (2001). These communities include: communities that encourage and\nfacilitate discussion on a specific topic; communities that have a common task\nor goal they want to achieve via working together; communities that have\nvirtual settings such as in a game; and communities that do not easily comply\nwith the previous three examples (Ibid).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the purpose of this paper,\ncommunities that have virtual settings for games will be the focus. However, it\nmust be noted that the top two communities regarding discussion and achieving\ngoals have strong ties with the virtual settings communities as will be\ndiscussed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online game communities, are\ngroupings of geographically and culturally diverse people who play particular\nonline games with each other. Calculable studies demonstrate demographics of\nonline gamers as approximately 88% male with an age range of 25 to 28 years old\n(Frostling-Henningsson, 2009, pp. 558). The motivation for gamers to create\nthese online communities is their want for socialisation, connection,\ncollaboration and competition with other likeminded people who play the same\ngame as them (Di Loreto & Gouaich, 2004). The players can play their games\ntogether as teams or pairs but they do not have to be geographically located in\nthe same area. The key factor to online game communities is communication by\nway of voice or typed discussions. Chat channels inside some online games\nprovide a mechanism for people to communicate with their preferred gamer\nbuddies (Koivisto, 2003). Conversations can revolve around gameplay and\/or\npersonal circumstances. Examples of these types of conversations will be\ndetailed further on. Due to the geographic diverseness of some game\ncommunities, conversations can either be asynchronous or synchronous (ibid.).\nSome gamers even attribute their persistence in playing online games because\nthey have built friendships within the online community (ibid). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acceptance, support and social\ninteraction are important humanised pieces that make up the puzzle of communities.\nPeople who play online games and engage in their respective online communities\nwant these same human elements. In two studies undertaken by Steinkuehler and\nWilliams (2006), they examined massively multiplayer online games (MMO\u2019s) for\ntheir method and role in engaging players on a social level. They examined two\nonline MMO\u2019s, Asheron\u2019s\nCall I<\/em> and II<\/em> and Linage I<\/em>\nand II <\/em>in two separate projects\n(Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp. 887-888). Combined, the studies\nincorporated the following means of data collection: surveys, experimental\ndesign, observation, cognitive ethnography, digital screenshots of images and\nconversations, recorded and transcribed conversations, interviews and players\nplaying from city and remote locations (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp.\n887-888). Their research demonstrated that MMO\u2019s provide a space for\ncommunities or \u201cthird places\u201d, their description of online communities,\n(Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp.888). Such communities differ from\ntraditional communities in terms of geographic diversity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neutral places are seen as spaces\nthat are free from prejudice. The first characteristic found during the study\nwas \u201cNeutral Ground\u201d (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp. 890). This means\nthat \u201cindividuals can enter and leave\u201d the game when they want \u201cwithout having\nto ask permission\u201d, and are under \u201cno default obligation to play\u201d (Steinkuehler\nand Williams, 2006, pp. 890). Players have a choice to play games and return to\nthe space on their own accord. If the game or the communities associated with\nthe game are not favourable for the player, the play has no reason to come back\nto the space. This leads into the next characteristic which builds upon\n\u201cNeutral Ground\u201d and explores the levelling the status of people who play games.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In online games, a person can be\nwhomever they want to be. Your avatar could be female with pink hair, cowboy\nboots and a proclivity for clubbing opponents to death but in real life you are\na male investment banker with three kids. The Steinkuehler and Williams (2006)\nstudies raised a characteristic called \u201cLeveler\u201d whereby entering the game releases\nthe player of any and all real-world status (2006, pp.891). Location, age,\ngender, race, rank and religion have no bearing on the avatar. The players\ncreate their individual avatar identity and start their game journey from the\nbottom like everyone else. There are social rankings within the game worlds but\nonly due to player participation and subsequent progress within the game\n(Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp. 892). Potentially, players who are high\nup in their rankings within the game could be far younger, possibly teen age,\nthan their subordinates. Frostling-Henningsson (2009), use the example of a\nteenage boy\u2019s online avatar \u201cis well respected; he has a good reputation. In\nreal life, he is a teenager with low self-esteem\u201d. In addition to social\nstatus, the levelling characteristic also encompassed players willingly\nsupplying advice and assistance to other players without asking questions or\njudging the avatar (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp. 892). The game\nplatform takes away any personal face to face contact that could potentially\nput-off a person from helping another, making it easier and less confronting to\nprovide assistance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Communication is a fundamental key\nfor online communities. To be able to establish and maintain online\nrelationships, communication takes place in many varieties that either involve\ntext or voice. \u201cConversation is the main activity\u201d is another key\ncharacteristic the scholars established during their research (Steinkuehler and\nWilliams, 2006, pp.892). Chats can take place privately, publicly and in groups\n(Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006, pp.893). This study demonstrated \u201cthrough the\nmyriad [of] chat channels is not only necessary to navigate the virtual world\u2019s\ndiverse challenges\u2026but is the very fodder from which individuals create and\nmaintain relationships of status and solidarity\u2026\u201d (Steinkuehler and Williams,\n2006, pp. 893). Building on this, Domahini et al (2014) conducted a study which\nprovided results on what level online gamers rate the friendships they have\ncreated while playing online games. Some of the results are 55% of the research\ngroup said they have \u201cgaming related friends\u201d with a mean of 9.6 (Domahidi et\nal, 2014, pp.112). This demonstrates that communication plays a big role in\nonline games thus to be able to form friendships. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In relation to friendships and\nrelationships that are built across large geographic spreads, recent data was\ndifficult to find. However, a 2013 distribution of MMO gamers worldwide by\nStatista (Statista, 2013) resulted in; 282 million in Asia pacific;\n208 million in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; 79 million in North America\nand 59 million in Latin America. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One could make a reasonable guess\nthat these numbers have increased since 2013 due to the ubiquitous nature of\nsmart phones worldwide and ability to access free online games. Therefore, the\nchances to make new relationships with people across the globe has increased\nand will continue to increase as new games emerge and new gamers come on-board.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Communities are groups of people who\nengage with each other and generally have at least one thing in common. For\nexample, this might be location, religion, race, gender, hobby or ideal. Online\ncommunities are built on the same premise however their means of communicating\nis online. People who play online games often become engaged in online\ncommunities surrounding games they play. Research has shown that people from\nall over the world engage with each other in these online game communities and\nsometimes create true friendships or relationships. These friendships cross\nvisual, in the flesh, boundaries because there is no face to face element when\nplaying online games. Online games create level playing fields for people of\nany persuasion to jump into the game and give it a go without judgement on\ntheir personal or professional status outside of the game. The hierarchy of the\nplayers within online games does occur. However, unlike the \u2018real\u2019 world a 14\nyear old girl could have subordinates of 45 year old males. Ultimately,\ncommunication is the key to developing and maintaining online game\nrelationships but no matter who you are or where you come from, online games\nprovide a platform for everyone to engage and participate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Delanty, G. (2009). Community<\/em>.\nRetrieved from http:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/curtin\/detail.action?docID=465459<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaich, A. (2010). Social\nand casual games success is not so casual<\/em>. Research\nReport #RR\n<\/em>\u2013 10017 LIRMM, <\/em>University of\nMontplellier \u2013 CRNS. Retrieved from http:\/\/hal.archives-ouvertes.fr\/docs\/00\/48\/69\/34\/PDF\/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Domahidi, E. & Festl, R., &\nJuechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: how playing online computer\ngames creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human\nBehaviour<\/em>, 35.\n107-115. DOI: 10.1016\/j.chb.2014.02.023 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frostling-Henningsson.M.(2009).\nFirst-person shooter games as a way of connecting to people: \u201cBrothers in\nBlood\u201d. CyberPsychology\nand Behaviour<\/em>,\n12(5). DOI: 10.1089\/cpb.2008.0345<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting\ncommunities in massively multiplayer online role-playing games by game design<\/em>.\nPaper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. http:\/\/www.digra.org\/dl\/db\/05150.48442.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stanoevska-Slabeva,\nK. & Schmid, B.F (2001). A typology of online communities and community\nsupporting platforms.<\/em>Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International\nConference on System Sciences. 10. DOI: 10.1109\/HICSS.2001.927041 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statista.\nNumber of MMO gamers by region. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.statista.com\/statistics\/322720\/number-mmo-gamers-region\/<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steinkuehler,\nC. & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: online\ngames as \u201cthird places\u201d.\nJournal of Computer Mediated Communication, <\/em>11(4), 885-909. DOI:\n10.1111\/j\/1083-6101.2006.00300<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is quite possible to become overwhelmed by the amount of research and theory focused on community. However, for the following, the research has been limited to focusing on research conducted in the field of communities within the space of online games. Offline, a community could be defined as a group of people with commonalities… Continue reading Online game platforms provide a space for culturally and geographically diverse communities<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[45,171,184,22,18,183,179],"class_list":["post-392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gaming","tag-communities","tag-communities-and-networks","tag-diversity","tag-online-communities","tag-online-freedom","tag-online-games","tag-online-gaming"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":395,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions\/395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}