|
Drift
Reality > London,
England > The Role of the Everyday User in the Evolution
of MMORPGs - Part 4
Conclusion
We have examined
Barkardjieva’s statement regarding the role of the ordinary
user in the shaping process, by studying historical and contemporary
examples of online role-playing games. We have shown that contrary
to Bakardjieva’s statement, the ordinary user can exhibit
innovativeness throughout various stages of the shaping process,
and profoundly affect the outcome even after the early stages
of the social shaping of a new ICT. We have used very specific
case studies to support the argument. A broader range of examples
is needed to fully engage the question regarding the role of ordinary
users in the shaping process. Furthermore, the examples noted
are very specific to the Western world, and entrenched in Western
systems and ideals of politics and economy. For a technology with
a global reach like MMORPGs, a more international scope of analysis
is needed.
According
to Silverstone and Haddon (1996), “Design and domestication
are two sides of the innovation coin. Domestication is anticipated
in design and design is completed in domestication.” In
developing Second Life, its designers looked to examples of user
innovation in more constrained forms of MMORPGs. Their conclusion
was that the optimal framework to suit game play was an open-ended
one that gave a substantial amount of control and ownership back
to the ordinary user. In many ways, Second Life symbolizes a journey
for the online role-playing game that has come full circle. An
important component of the design/domestication interface (Silverstone
& Haddon, 2006) is the suggestion that shaping is more of
a circular process, whereas Bakardjieva’s statement insinuates
more of a linear process. Future work in this area might critically
examine the notion of “stabilization” of ICTs in the
shaping process.
Finally, an
example like Second Life encompasses a new array of interpretive
challenges. On one hand, Second Life can be said to empower users
by allowing them to independently develop and claim ownership
of their domains. In this light, Second Life can be construed
as a user-shaped ICT. On the other hand, the underlying framework
that facilitates activity by ordinary users is managed and developed
by a profit-seeking corporation. Furthermore, the Second Life
system of ownership and commerce is integrated with offline political
and economic systems to an unprecedented level. Further analysis
of the implications for this furthered integration between online
and offline is needed to fully understand the role of the ordinary
user in the shaping process of this particular ICT.
Bibliography
Bakardjieva,
M (2005), Internet Society. The Internet in Everyday Life, Sage
Publications, London.
Bartle, R
(1999), Interactive Multi-User Computer Games, Multi User Entertainment,
Ltd., viewed 28 February 2006, <http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/imucg1.htm#s5>
Bijker, W
& Law, J (2000a), ‘Do Technologies have Trajectories’,
in W Bijker & J Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society,
The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bijker, W
& Law, J (2000b), ‘What Next? Technology, Theory, and
Method’, in W Bijker & J Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building
Society, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Brown, H &
Oren, M (2005), ‘Living Art: Commercial Modding and Code-Illiterate
Gamers’, in N Garrelts (ed.), Digital Gameplay, McFarland
& Company, Inc., London.
Castells,
M (2001), The Internet Galaxy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dawson, B
(2006), GameDaily, viewed 19 February, 2006, <http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=11879>
Feenberg,
A (1991), Critical Theory of Technology, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Haddon, L
(2005), ‘The Innovatory Use of ICTs’, in L Haddon
(ed.), Exploring Users, Springer, Netherlands.
Kelly, R.V.
(2004) Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, McFarland
& Company, London.
Kline, R and
Pinch, T (1999), ‘The Social Construction of Technology’,
in D Mackenzie & J Wajcman (eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology
(Second Edition), Open University Press, Buckingham.
Linden Research
(2006), ‘What is Second Life’, Secondlife.com, viewed
on 28, April, 2006, <http://secondlife.com/whatis/>.
MacKenzie,
D and Wajcman, J (1999), ‘Introductory Essay and General
Issues’, in D Mackenzie & J Wajcman (eds.), The Social
Shaping of Technology (Second Edition), Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Pargman, D
(2000), Code begets community: On social and technical aspects
of managing a virtual community, PhD Thesis, Department of Communication
Studies, The Tema Institute, Linkoping University, Sweden.
Pinch, J &
Bijker, K (1987), ‘The Social Construction of Facts and
Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of
Technology Might Benefit Each Other, in (W Bijker & T Hughes
& T Pinch (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge.
Silverstone,
R and Haddon, L (1996), ‘Design and the Domestication of
Information and Communication Technologies: Technical Change and
Everyday Life’, in Silverstone and Mansell, R (eds.), Communication
by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Taylor, J
& Jenson, J & Castell, S (2005), ‘Pimps, Players
and Foes: Playing Diablo II “Outside the Box”’,
in Nate Garrelts (ed.) Digital Gameplay, McFarland & Company,
London.
Winner,
L (1993), ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty:
Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’,
Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 362-378.
Part
1 | Part 2 | Part
3 | Part 4
|
