The very first thing that happened once the game began was a quick dialog explaining to your teammates what your plan was. It is crucial in this kind of game to have a variety of units (melee guys, range guys, flying guys, magic guys, etc.). So this kind of dialog exists to make sure that each player is focusing on a different specialty, in order to increase the teams chances of victory.
I remember the first time I played this game, the other players messaged me with something like this:
Player1: I got Demonhunter and archers
Player2: Okay, I'll get Blademaster and grunts than
Player3: Mage and priestesses
So I automatically followed suit, the way the people in the candid camera sketch involving conformity in the elavator did.
Me: uhh.. I'll get Demonhunter and archers too, i guess?
Immediately I was accosted with all sorts of accusations. My teammates knew better than me. Player1: No you cant do that you have to get air
Player2: omg freakin newbs i should just leave now
Player3: Get hippogriffs fool.
In this instance, my teammates acted as the Leviathan. The Leviathan, as Hobbes philosophized, is a force that drives conformity. The norm for this kind of game included players diversifying their troops. These players, with more experience than I had, knew what strategies were effective. They imparted the norms they learned from experience upon me, the inexperienced newb. This reproach was very effective, as I immediately understood what was expected of me. It only took one instance to learn, but for the rest of my warcraft playing days, I subscribed to this style of plan making.
In chapter 4, Wallace explains how group norms online are often harder to pick up on, because there aren't obvious clues, as to your expected behavior. This was true in my example, in that I couldn't just look around to see what everyone else was doing, I had to be told. I believe that this finding falls perfectly in line with the Social Information Processing Theory, which argues that over a period of time, our online impressions will approximate that of face to face. Just like impression management, understanding group norms can work online, it just takes a little more time.
2 comments:
I used to play Warcraft 3. However, I played online mostly with people I knew in real life, rather than total strangers. In my situation I think the pressure to conform was a bit lessened. This is because the other players were not anonymous (since I know them through FtF contact), so they are not as likely to communicate extremely rudely – although they would still let you know if you aren’t applying the strategy they think would be best. So the immediate reproach that you experienced playing Warcraft 3 with total strangers gets reduced to an “arched brow” (as described by Wallace) when playing online with people you know.
I hear so much mention of Warcraft and never really understood what the craze was about. I find the concept of online gaming in that respect to rather interesting though. Many individuals who I know play it talk about how they much rather play with strangers than with people they know. So I guess this is kind of the opposite of what you were saying Will. However, you do make a valid point when you talk about the different "playing experience" one has when the play with people they know rather than strangers. I think that strangers are clearly going to be a lot more critical in light of the fact that there is no way to really discern their identity. Such, playing in an annonymous context is going to trigger more foul play.
Post a Comment