4_Glazkov Summary (Концепция игрового столкновения как направление социологической интерпретации геолокационных игр), страница 3

However, the limitations of paper and online publications not suitablefor playing video clips strongly hamper the persuasiveness of such arguments.Main results of the study1. The early location-based mobile games are inspired by the situationist andarchitectural projects of the game intervention in the urban space. Aslocation-based services are introduced into other functions of a mobilephone, the operations of co-location of users and the experience ofsomeone else’s presence lose their critical focus on revising urban spaceand bringing new meanings that gives way to gamification andcustomization of user movements. Nevertheless, the large-scale launch ofIngress the Game and especially Pokémon Go on the city streets turns theirconsideration into the plane of exploring mechanisms for maintainingpublic interaction in conditions of mediated communication.

From thepoint of view of studying aspects of meeting, alienation and presence,Goffmanian gaming conception of public interaction is the closest positionin relation to the situationist approach.2. Goffmanian gaming conception of everyday life includes a comprehensiveanalytical model for studying public interaction, which differs from thedramatic approach and frame analysis.

It is based on the structuralist logicof the analysis of public interaction built on the relationship between theconcepts of "encounter", "gathering", "situation". The term situation12outlines the boundaries of the spatial interaction environment, the termgathering specifies the membership of participants of the situation, whilethe term encounter indicates episodes of focused interaction between theparticipants of gathering. The tautological definition of one conceptthrough another allows Goffman to select the formal elements ofinteraction and classify the mechanisms for its maintenance.3. The reception of Goffman’s ideas in related approaches is hampered byfundamental differences. Unlike symbolic interactionism, Goffman prefersto separate the symbolic content of communication from the forms inwhich communication takes place.

The difference with ethnomethodologylies in various understanding of the nature of interaction rules. Goffman isinclined to believe that there is an external context of interaction and theability of individuals to strategically consider the situation. In contrast togame theory, Goffman stresses the absence of a strict calculation ofoutcomes among participants and the fundamentally uncertain nature ofinteraction.4.

Goffman's structuralist approach leaves unclear the problems ofcorporeality, presence and demeanor that requires clarification in relationto situations of public interaction involving location-based mobile games.If in Goffmanian approach the body acts as an unambiguous marker of thesituation, now the body is not only an object located in the actualinteraction plane, but also a source of location data that place the individualin completely different contexts sometimes quite alien to her/hisimmediate environment. Presence implies not only the physical location ina specific situation that makes possible mutual monitoring of allparticipants of the gathering, but also proper involvement in what ishappening. As part of the gameplay, players spend a significant amount oftime and effort on maintaining demeanor of public interaction. To achievethis goal, players have to demonstrate the reserves of involvementswitching attention from time to time from the phone to others, or hide the13fact of the game masking it for other activities, or playing together.

Thus,the players are constantly engaged in maintaining their presence amongother players and passers-by. The violations of incorrect presence areassociated with the loss of the necessary degree of involvement in what ishappening in the current and virtual interaction plane.5. The possibility of spontaneous interaction with counter players remains akey aspect of location-based mobile games. On the one hand, it is mediatedby technical limitations associated with experiencing urban space throughthe screen of a mobile device, on the other hand, it challenges the gamerules broadcast by developers and allows the gaming community todevelop its own logic of gaming interaction.

The central city parts arecharacterized by the logic of forcing with attempts to perform a bright andlarge-scale operation and a focus on high-density interaction. In theperipheral areas of the city there is the logic of control implying continuouspossession of one team by the territory of its district and low density ofinteraction with representatives of other teams. The logic of journeyimplies a single and out-of-competition game aimed at knowing newplaces, not people.General conclusions of the researchWithin the dissertation research the question is raised whether location-basedmobile games, in particular Ingress the Game and Pokémon Go, succeed toovercome the closure of the game world, become part of public interaction andpropose new mechanisms of behavior in public places.The review of work in the field of situationist and architectural projectsdemonstrates that gaming intervention is based on the potential for redefining urbanspace associated with elements of suddenness and sociality (H.

Lefebvre, GuyDebord, M. de Certeau, M. Tuters). The city is an object that changes as a result ofsocial interactions, where the gaming community acts as the author-interpreter ofurban meanings embedded in the common social context. Gaming behavior has a14constructive character, has the goal of routine urban experience "estrangement", alsoit is in search of alternative forms of citizen association.At the turn of the XX and XXI centuries a renaissance of situationist ideasarises with emerging location-based mobile projects using various media platforms(sms, walkie-talkies, mobile applications) and user geodata. However, thesubsequent introduction of location-based technologies into other user services(navigation, transport, social networks, banking, shopping) reduces the criticalmessage of location-based mobile games turning them more into a tool tocompensate for spatial and social gaps in urban space than into a tool for radicalupdating of public interaction mechanisms on the urban streets.Nevertheless, the large-scale entry of Ingress the Game and especiallyPokémon Go onto the urban streets creates an important precedent for intensifyinginteraction in public places, experiencing the presence of unfamiliar players andmaking new acquaintances.

These aspects put consideration of location-basedmobile games on the plane of analyzing public interaction.The gaming conception of E. Goffman's public interaction takes the closestposition in relation to the situationist approach with elements of alienation,exclusion, meeting and presence. This conception stands out in a separate approachfrom the dramaturgical metaphor and frame analysis.For Goffman, games as a theoretical resource become an intermediate linkbetween the pictures of the social world, where the social requirements of aparticular party performance are distributed over different zones of communicationor where what is happening makes sense only in relation to the external interactionframe.

The game itself highlights the outlined situational order and thus allows torelieve the tension dictated by the discrepancy between what is happening and theexternal context. At the same time, it is impossible to say that the gaming conceptionis somewhat inferior to the subsequent frame analysis in terms of explaining what ishappening. Simply, this explanation is based on the emergent properties of gamingactivity, which offers participants a range of events and roles. And if the fragility of15theatrical visibility depends on the quality of performance, then the fragility of thegame depends on the fact that it is not interesting anymore.The main terms of Goffmanian gaming conception are “encounter”,“gathering” and “situation”.

The term situation outlines the boundaries of the spatialinteraction environment, the term gathering specifies the membership of participantsof the situation, while the term encounter indicates episodes of focused interactionbetween the participants of gathering. The tautological definition of one conceptthrough another allows Goffman to propose a specific structuralist approach to theanalysis of public interaction built on the formal identification of interactionelements and the classification of mechanisms for its maintenance.The reception of Goffman's ideas in related approaches faces a number oflimitations and internal contradictions.Unlike symbolic interactionism, Goffman prefers to separate the symboliccontent of communication from the forms in which communication takes place.Goffman is primarily interested in the forms of interaction, the sequence of exchangeof moves, the tools and techniques involved, and not the processes of meaningdeveloping.

The difference with ethnomethodology lies in the various ideas aboutthe origin of the interaction rules. Goffman is inclined to believe that there is anexternal context of interaction and the ability of individuals to strategically considerthe situation, while ethnomethodologists adhere to the option of developing ruleshere and now. In contrast to game theory, Goffman stresses the absence of a strictcalculation of outcomes among participants and the fundamentally uncertain natureof interaction.Primarily focused on the analyze face-to-face interaction Goffmanianconception becomes relevant again with the growing popularity of location-basedservices. Location-based services return an element of location to mediatedcommunication thereby constructing a new type of here and now interaction.However, some obvious for face-to-face interaction plots require clarificationwith respect to location-based services.

We highlight the problems of corporeality,presence and demeanor among them.16The problem of bodily experience by users of location-based mobile gamesget a new round of development. According to Goffman, corporeality is a necessarycriterion for recognizing an individual as a participant of a situation. The switchingattention to oneself and garments is a dangerous manifestation of auto-involvementand increases the risk of categorizing an individual as “abnormal”.Firstly, the body acts as a source of location data of other participants therebydetermining the composition of the gathering indirectly, via coordinates on the map.Secondly, the body turns out to be a “supreme” argument, which debunks dubiousinclusions into the situation of unscrupulous participants.

Thirdly, the corporealityexpands to a constantly involved mobile device that is always at hand and requiresa constant shift of attention. The starting point for discovering the concept ofcorporeality in location-based mobile games is the problem of presence. Theboundaries of the body are determined including in relation to other objects andpeople whom are faced with at the moments of co-presence.Turning to Goffmanian analysis of the public interaction, we show how aplayer experiences own body depending on the ways how she/he controls her/hispresence in various situations. Some of these methods are connected with thescreening (shielding) of other people and activities, others - with the need to copewith "physical fatigue" due to discharge and new body postures, and still others with the behavior in situations of "false presence" in the game.We make a comparison of two approaches to definition of demeanor byGoffman.