4_Glazkov Summary (1136845), страница 4
Текст из файла (страница 4)
Both approaches proceed from the fact that there are rules for focusedinteraction (conducting a polite conversation or its equivalent, showing respect to aparticular individual) and for unfocused interaction (behavior in sight, makingpropriety in relation to a gathering). The difference between them lies in the answerto the question of where these rules come from. In the first case, the source of therules is placed in the institutional context of interaction providing the necessaryinformation about status dispositions and role expectations that are “unpacked” inthe right situations. In the second case, the rules are taken from a conditionaltransaction between the individual and society, the essence of which is the sacred17need to maintain respect for other individuals and gatherings.
Both variants arecompelled to refer to metaphysical entities, which we will never find in a situationof public interaction. Nevertheless, accepting the restriction to analyze only whatcan be taken out of the situation we decide to reduce the analysis of public demeanorto considering the “respectful” distribution of the individual's attention betweenwhat is happening and other participants.In the case of participants in location-based mobile games, the distribution ofattention requires clarification of the circle of persons in relation to whom demeanorwill be performed. Firstly, players can meet here and now other players. Theexperience of others presence is transferred due to location factors and onlinechanges on the game map in a mobile application.
Secondly, the calculation of otherplayers among passers-by requires constant correlation between online changes andthe location of oncoming people on the street. Thirdly, the behavior in relation toordinary passers-by is also governed by the rules of behavior in public. Theexecution of respectful behavior is no less important than the fulfillment of gamegoals and objectives.We show that compliance with propriety in public interaction requiresmaintaining presence among others. In turn, presence means not only physicallocation in a specific situation that itself gives an individual the “right” to publicinteraction from other members of the public, but also the degree of involvement insituational activity. We manage to find out that despite considerable enthusiasm formobile devices players spend a significant part of the gameplay on keeping publicdemeanor with other passersby.
To achieve this goal, players have to demonstratethe reserves of involvement, switching attention from time to time from the phoneto others, or hide the fact of the game, masking it for other activities, or playingtogether. Thus, the players are constantly engaged in maintaining their presence in asituation. The violations of incorrect presence are associated with the loss of thenecessary degree of involvement in what is happening in the current and virtualinteraction plane.18We scrutinize five gaming episodes in Ingress the Game and Pokémon Gousing video analysis. We distinguish the specifics of the three mechanisms formaintaining presence in location-based mobile games: monitoring, ignoring andtotal exclusion. Players take a distanced position in relation to passers-by reducingthe likelihood of reciprocal inclusions from both the passers-by and the player.
Anintense immersion in the gameplay creates the appearance of the players' detachmentessentially turning them off from what is happening in the actual situation. However,this does not mean that the players do not consider the presence of ordinary passersby. On the contrary, episodic demonstration of the reserves of involvement, theability to switch to what is happening at the right moments, to pretend that you noticeother people, are an integral part of the gameplay occupying a significant part of it.In addition to the ceremonial aspect of respecting casual street gatherings, playerstrack the presence of passers-by following the game goals of finding other players.The need for such identification requires the player to be able to coordinate incomingonline changes on the screen of the mobile device and the location of thecounterparties, as well as the ability to read their violations of engagement.
In theevent of a mismatch between the location of other passers-by and actions taken onthe online map players try to eliminate suspicions of changing the coordinates byproviding evidence of their presence in a particular location (photo, directacquaintance).
Otherwise, a suspicious player risks being perceived as a cheater orbot, which entails a total exclusion from public interaction. This is expressed in thefact that the cheaters' playing actions do not deserve responses from “live” players,and the cheaters cease to be part of the public.The described three mechanisms for maintaining demeanor and presence inpublic places are valid for situations of both indirect and direct communication.Nevertheless, the increasing penetration and addition of online and offline mediachallenges us.
On the example of the interaction of players we noticed that the twocomponents of presence (location and involvement) can still remain mismatchedwith each other that jeopardizes the adherence of public demeanor to streetgatherings. However, if previously the risk of inappropriate “presence” lurks in the19degree of involvement, then in the case of location-based interactions presence canbe undermined from the point of view of location. “Are the changes that I see on thescreen of my phone, and the resistance that the enemy gives me, caused by thephysical presence of another person?” - this is the question that the user has to askagain and again.
Imaginary participants of the gathering who manage to keepthemselves involved in what is happening “somewhere and now” face with the dryand insistent demand “Show yourself!” from other players. As a result, theperformance of public demeanor implies a gradual development of public skills inrecognizing visible manipulations with gadgets. Thus, the spread of mobiletechnologies and services is associated with the accumulation of experience of theirpublic use, the ability to demonstrate own presence, share location and provepublicity.The described mechanisms for maintaining demeanor and presence in publicplaces need to be clarified from the position of the players and their vision of thechanges with them in the game.According to the results of the online-survey and interviews of players, it canbe argued that more than two thirds of the players turn to the game during everydaymovements.
Gaming activity is dissolved in everyday affairs. Nevertheless, thegame is conducted not only along the usual routes, but it allows players to visit both“unclaimed” parts of the city (other periphery) and new places in already familiarareas. The game primarily reveals the potential of motion allowing players to updatethe unexplored urban space through simple movement. These results indicate thatplaying activity leads to saturation of public places at the expense of extremelymobile participants who are used to perform all actions on the go.
At the same time,tactics of reacting to a random meeting with other players are rather strongly orientedtowards contact and acquaintance.Despite the uniform rules, the game takes place in different parts of the cityin different ways. We distinguish three logic of gaming strategies: forcing, control,and journey.20The forcing logic occurs predominantly in the central part of the city andimplies the highly competitive nature of the struggle between players from differentteams. None of the teams does not claim long-term control of the occupiedterritories. The main desire - to make a bright and large-scale operation, which willtouch the representatives of other teams forcing them to take countermeasures.During the gaming activity players are focused on random encounters with otherplayers and a high density of interaction.The control logic is characteristic for resident (peripheral) parts of the city.The control logic arises due to the historically high number of players from one ofthe teams living in this area, which forces players from other teams to either throwa game or go into a dominant team in the area.
As part of control, the team tries tocontinuously own the territory of its district suppressing (sometimes quite roughly)the actions of other teams. The players of the controlling team are well acquaintedwith each other, they support newcomers, but they are poorly oriented towardsfamiliarity with representatives of other teams.The journey logic is beyond the competition teams and dating with otherplayers. Journey involves a single player game that can flow to any part of the cityand beyond.
Following this logic, players try to pay more attention to new places,their names and features.Returning to the initial question of whether location-based mobile games canchange the interaction order of public places, it is important to accept that theGoffmanian conceptual scheme imposes additional restrictions on the considerationof location-based mobile games. It does not answer the questions why these gamesare popular, but it allows us to find that the public and ludic is stronglyinterconnected with each other. Therefore not only the games redefine the cityintroducing new mechanisms of co-presence and corporeality, but also the cityredefines the games imposing different gaming logics in different urban parts.21List of publications, which reflects the main scientific results of the thesis1.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
