作者：Preeti Khanolkar

《100-Percenting It: Videogame Play Through the Eyes of Devoted Gamers》是我在2006-2007年上大三时撰写的论文，主要从文化社会学角度研究电子游戏，本文内容主要取材于这篇论文。

当时游戏研究并不像今天这样盛行（并且我遇到的多数研究也多涉及游戏中的暴力元素），当我决定研究游戏时，许多人都告诉我这是个幼稚、愚蠢的举动，因为游戏并不会让人学到什么。

但幸运的是，我找到了两个极其支持并愿意引导我的导师。他们都不是游戏玩家，但他们都看到了游戏研究的价值，并鼓励我做出一番成果。于是就有了我那篇长达260多页，并获得多项荣誉的论文。

研究方法

我主要依靠三种数据形式：一对一访谈，参与观察（也就是观察人们玩电子游戏，并进行推测），以及问卷调查。我采访了20名“铁杆玩家”，其中有17名男性和3名女性，年龄介于18到27岁。这些用户混合了核心与硬核玩家，但他们并不愿意这样自我标榜。我花了12个小时以上参观我的游戏参与者，即4名21岁男性玩电子游戏的情况。

本文所引用数据均来自这次访谈或参与观察过程。而含有50个问题的调查问卷则随机发放给罗格斯大学的在校学生，其中包括101名女性和69名男性，年龄介于18至25岁。

定义“铁杆”或“硬核”玩家

我曾在早期使用“铁杆”一词描述受访者的游戏习惯，因为没有任何受访者愿意将自己标榜为“硬核游戏玩家”，生怕这个词给自己贴上过度沉迷于电子游戏等消极印象的标签。事实上，这些受访者还不遗余力地将自己与典型的“硬核玩家”划清界线，但却并不讳谈自己对电子游戏的热爱。因此，这些受访者个人并不认为自己过于投入电子游戏，但却相信其他人可能存在这种情况。

由于没有受访者愿意接受“硬核玩家”一永嘉，我只好将其更改为“铁杆玩家”，并在调查问卷中引用和定义这个术语。：“铁杆玩家”的定义与“硬核玩家”一样不够准确，它形容的是对游戏有热情的人，玩游戏的时间多于一般的体闲玩家，对他们来说，游戏具有意义。

玩游戏是一种沉浸式体验：氛围

受访者将玩游戏描述为一种沉浸式体验，因为这是玩法本身的感觉，以及游戏其他吸引人的层面。例如，许多受访者喜欢的是游戏中的音乐，坚信它才是真正的音乐，以及游戏的美术质量（包括游戏手册中的美术设计）。

有一名受访者认为游戏的沉浸感质量体现在游戏“氛围”中，他对此解释称这是“你在玩游戏的时间，以及之后听到游戏中的音乐所产生的情愫”，它会让每款游戏产生“不同感觉”。他认为《合金装备》就是一款带有氛围的游戏——在许多层面表现出众的“杰作”。

玩游戏是一种社交活动

几乎每名受访者都认同玩游戏是一种社交活动的说法，无论是网络游戏还是线下游戏，多人游戏或单人游戏。玩游戏确实增进了玩家建立和巩固友谊的机会，为其带来丰富的社交体验。玩家与他人一起玩游戏时，通常会谈论一些与游戏本身无关的话题。并且他们会在没有玩游戏的时候讨论和回顾与游戏有关的内容，这为单人游戏增加了社交层次。有名受访者谈到了自己与一名熟人的关系进一步发展，就是因为他们都在《Tekken 4》中使用了Xiaoyu。另一名受访者则谈到了自己学校游戏社团中的玩家如何会面并一起玩游戏。

但讽刺的是，还有许多受访者认为游戏削弱了人们的社交性，但除了一名受访者之外，其他人都认为游戏其实是让他们个人更为社交化。因此，受访者认为身为社交绝缘体的游戏玩家的典型形象就是——“戴着眼镜，头发油腻，衣服上粘着饼干屑……坐在妈妈的地下室里”，但他们并不认为自己就是这种人。如果确实存在这种玩家典型，但却并不符合多数玩家的情况，这种典型究竟有少准确性？

虽然观看他们玩多人游戏（尤其是2对2的《超级马里奥》计时游戏的最后阶段），我发现玩家几乎会同时各自与对方及对方的角色进行互动。玩家与游戏中的队友对话时，他会先提到对方本人的名字。但如果是提到游戏中的对手，他通常会提到对方角色的名字（例如，“Greg，看着Yoshi就行！”，“噢，该死的Bowser！”）。

事实上，当玩家带着一名女性玩家时，其他队提到这名玩家时就会使用“她”这一称谓。因此，同盟都是玩家，而敌人则是游戏角色。有趣的是，玩家们提到敌对方时，只会使用对方角色在游戏中的名字，在配对战斗时却不会这么做。在角色挑选屏幕上，我观察到了玩家在转换队伍时出现的同种现象（例如，“Peter，帮我甩掉Greg”）。

游戏地位

游戏的一个重要社交层面在于游戏玩家的地位——即他们在游戏中的表现如何。获得高分或者解琐游戏中的特定功能只是他们可以炫耀自己游戏技能的诸多方式之一。多名受访者曾描述了小孩子会在《俄罗斯方块》等游戏中因自己赢得高分而嗘落兄弟姐妹的情况。

但在游戏中表现出众却并不只是意味着拥有吹牛的权利：高端游戏玩家会通过在竞赛中与人较量，维持粉丝基础，推荐他人而建立自己在游戏中的职业生涯。因此，擅长玩游戏决定着玩家的名誉和威望。有名受访者很敬重某位在竞赛中打败他的对手，因为这是他首次在游戏中如此兴奋很紧张。与此同时，另一名受访者谈到了自己对《街霸》竞赛获胜者的羡慕之情，他表示“我对某些擅长玩游戏之人的钦佩之情是因为我自己也在玩那款游戏……这种钦佩之情来自我想提升技能的愿望以及知道对方为何如此出众。”

相反，有名受访者对某位自己所观察的竞赛赢家的描述是“一丝不苟”，但指出该玩家的技巧令游戏趣味大为失色，因为他的玩法实在太机械了。从这一点上看，有时候太擅长玩一款游戏，并不能算是件好事。

遇到棋逢对手的情况，玩家更容易在游戏中获得沉浸感。消灭对手（或者被消灭）可能会变得无趣，是那种反复接近的技能让玩家乐此不疲。一名受访者将此描述为分辨对手的“玩法风格”，这让他得以通过每次与对手交战而适应和掌握经验。他解释称旗鼓相当的对手之间的完美配合应该是双方在交战时都不停地改变玩法，直到游戏中结为止。

为此，他（以及许多受访者）表达了一种与人类玩家而非电脑控制AI交手的强烈喜好。当然，人类对手还提供了一种社交互动机会，而电脑则做不到这一点，不过人类对手还可以让游戏玩法更具动态和挑战性。你只有在与其他人投入时间磨炼技艺的人类玩家交手，才会清楚自己的真正实力。

100%彻底掌握游戏

游戏并不只是让人玩乐，它们还可以给予玩家成就感。许多受访者表示自己对游戏有一种使命感，他们不只是为了获得娱乐价值而玩游戏。受访者将此描述为“100%”体验游戏，即竭尽全力探索每一个洞穴，帮助每个NPC，收集每个金币，打败每个boss和小boss，击败每款迷你游戏等等。

有名受访者发现查看自己已经100%掌握的游戏目录可以让他获得“极大满足感”，这可以提醒他自己实现了什么目标。另一名受访者则区分了自己“获得了所有该得到的东西”的游戏习惯以及一些“有些人会继续为之付出，并在数小时内击败游戏”习惯之间的区别，并认为没有100%掌握游戏，就不能算是一 种光荣的游戏玩法。

与之相似，有些受访者提到了一个普遍“困扰”——在玩遍自己感兴趣的每款游戏与玩透每款游戏之间做出抉择。要100%吃透游戏不但需要玩家拥有完成游戏的热忱，这还会延伸为一种责任，或者向游戏设计师致敬。有一名受访者认为，很有必要“最大化地体验开发者所制作的内容，以回馈开发者对游戏的贡献。”如果游戏设计师在游戏中投入了额外精力，你又怎么能够仅仅是玩完游戏就算了呢？

游戏礼仪：扫兴者、作弊者以及低级者

最刺激玩家的莫过于扫兴者（游戏邦注：例如，不会认真对待游戏的人）或作弊者？受访者一般认为扫兴者更令人恼怒，在竞争型运动中你也可以发现同种倾向。没人希望观看一场其他队伍只是在混水摸鱼的比赛，因为这种行为会摧毁游戏的意义。

电子游戏也同样如此，扫兴者会破坏游戏真实感的幻觉，及其获胜的重要意义。没有什么比在游戏中打败某人，却听到对方冷冷甩出一句“谁在乎啊？这不过是款愚蠢的游戏而已。”但我们在乎，这正是我们玩游戏的原因。

受访者认为扫兴者令人讨厌原因在于，他们的这些行为让人觉得他们并不太把对手当回事。相反，作弊者却对游戏更较真，这也正是他们作弊的原因所在。对于作弊者来说，获胜实在是太重要了，以致于他们不惜进行作弊。

有名受访者认为与作弊者打交道比扫兴者更容易，因为至少他至少还有机会打败作弊者，或者自降一格也归入对方行列，“以其人之道还治其人之身”。另一名受访者则使用“坏作弊行为”来描述那些无法战胜的极端作弊手段。其他作弊行为，例如FPS游戏中的刷屏作弊，则是他们可接受的行为，因为机会就“摆在眼前”。

但作弊并非多人游戏独有的现象。除了遵从限制玩家如何玩游戏的显示规则，玩家还可以采用自创的一套规则。受访者中间的一个普遍话题就是依靠攻略以在线指南是一种准作弊形式，至少是有点令人不齿的行为。有趣的是，有名看不起使用攻略的受访者却表现，他如果卡在游戏中时会去向好友寻求帮助。

与作弊同理，许多受访者使用了“低级”一词来描述那些并不算是作弊，仍在游戏准则允许范围内，但却并不公平的行为。关于低级手段的例子包括滥用不公平的策略（例如，《Mario Kart DS》中的“snaking”）以及使用过于强大的角色（游戏邦注：例如，《Marvel vs.Capcom 2》中的Cable和Iron Man）。

游戏礼仪：废话

废话现象十分普遍，也是多人游戏公认的趣味来源之一，即便这种废话与你直接相关。多数受访者认为废话一般只会发生在好友，而非陌生人之间。但是，多数人认为在网络环境中最可能产生废话，由于地域之隔，大家都无所忌惮，不在乎其他玩家会对自己的话做出什么回应。

废话还是作弊者或吹牛者获得乐趣的工具。有名受访者表示自己输掉的时候也在废话，因为“你知道我在开玩笑”。废话还可以是一种让玩家表达自己对游戏投入性的方式，它对于巩固竞争性和协作性的游戏本质来说十分重要。

“电脑”有时也会成为废话的对象或者说自己的废话。在我参与观察的过程中，我发现有名玩家发现在《Donkey Konga》中电脑得分超过所有人类玩家时就开始抱怨“76分？去你的，电脑！”有名受访者认为《Guilty Gear》中的Chipp Zanuff好像乐于说“一箩筐可笑的废话。”

废话还可能涉及性别歧视、种族歧视、排斥同性恋以及其他污言秽语。需要指出的是，这并非电子游戏或游戏玩家文化独有的现象。实际上，这个话题的分析框架来源于198年对于Little League棒球队员的研究，他们使用同性恋绰号来相互取笑并表达自己的支配权。我们还发现在其他竞争型活动中也出现了同类污言秽语，例如运动（参与或观看比赛时）、桌游以及纸牌等。

与其他竞争型活动出现的语言一样，我所观察的玩家游戏过程中所使用的语言也并不能反映他们的个人信仰，并且这些语言也未必与游戏直接相关。同我以下将讨论的暴力元素一样，我并不认为我的发现可以得出玩电子游戏会促使人们使用污言秽语，或者此类行为是电子游戏玩家的专利这一结论。

情境化的暴力元素

与多数早期游戏调查不同，游戏与暴力行为之间的因果关系并非我的调查范围。我对两件事情比较感兴趣：玩家如何看待自己在游戏中遇到的暴力内容，玩家如何应对他人对暴力游戏的看法。

我发现游戏是否属于暴力类型，要取决于受访者对游戏活动的看法。有一名受访者的解释最为合理，他称自己对剑术和武术很感兴趣，如果从运动角度来看，这两者都属于非暴力活动，但如果施加于无辜的受害者就属于暴力行为。与之相似，即使是非暴力系列游戏，例如《口袋妖怪》、《马里奥》、《塞尔达传说》也可能因为用户的敏感性而被视为暴力游戏。而有些人甚至会将《侠盗猎车手》视为非暴力游戏，因为其中的动画镜头过于卡通化，缺乏真实性（例如子弹射穿受害者的身体这些动画镜头）。

无论这些受访者费了多大的劲，都没有一者能够成功地说服人们相信游戏绝非暴力内容。（有名受访者甚至特意表示她可以用非暴力方式玩《侠盗猎车手》，但最后还是承认“我想，喜欢暴力可能是人的本性，我也发现从他人身上碾过去很有趣。”）这种争论与争辩所有电影都是非暴力内容一样毫无用处。与电影一样，游戏也存在暴力与非暴力之分，但这并不意味着游戏（甚至是暴力，成人级游戏）会导致人们真的犯罪。

鉴定角色：好人、坏蛋和美德

每名受访者都至少认同一种特定的游戏角色。这有时涉及将一些圣人的品格灌输到单难的角色中。例如，《Gulity Gear》被玩家描述为“一个十足的好人”，在“他的理想有一点幼稚”。有两名受访者推崇《街霸》系列中的Ryu，分别表示“他没有一个暇疵”以及“他所包括的许多品格形成了非常合我心意的哲理”。

有名受访者特别提到自己对Kirby的喜爱之情，认为他“非常谦逊、有胆识和有趣，他从来不像King Dedede那样一直炫耀自己，Kirby真是大好人一枚”。

恶人也给受访者留下深刻印象，许多人将这些坏蛋描述为“坏蛋”，并由衷地欣赏他们多维的品格。例如，有名受访者称自己喜欢Pyron（游戏邦注：《Darkstalkers》系列中的恶人首领），认为他消灭罪恶的目标“令人称道”，尽管“他是以恶劣的方式追求这个目标”。与之相似，另一名受访者认为《合金装备》中的Big Boss也是一种“用意是好的，但没用对方法”的人。

身为坏蛋也几乎被认为是一种可以补救的品格，正如一名受访者解释道，“这使他们不同于刻板的坏人形象”，这样玩家与他们的交战会更有趣味。有些主角也被玩家认为是坏蛋，但并不一定会被打上恶人的标签。

与鉴定电子游戏角色相同，有些受访者认为游戏对自己的道德观也产生了影响。有名受访者自称玩过特定游戏之后，他改变了宗教信仰，另一受访者则认为与他人玩游戏令自己成为更有耐心和不屈不挠的人。《塞尔达传说》中的Link也被认为是一个“坚定不屈”的孩童形象，为这个典型的沉默角色赋予了许多人格。

总结

本次研究意在通过社会学框架分析游戏文化，从而探索游戏对玩家的意义所在。这项研究当然也存在局限性：所取样本数量及背景有限。另外，这项研究也没有探讨网游和社交游戏的情况，而这两种游戏现在已经远比6年前我执行这项研究之前更为盛行。当时，“玩家”一词的含义也很有限——仅适用于核心和硬核玩家。但这项研究仍然有助于我们了解一些有关“铁杆”游戏群体的情况。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

100-Percenting It: Video Game Play Through the Eyes of Devoted Gamers

- Preeti Khanolkar

[Rutgers University graduate Preeti R. Khanolkar presents the results of her honors thesis, offering an in-depth study on gamer etiquette, gaming's social impact, and what drives players to strive for 100 percent completion.]

100-Percenting It: Videogame Play Through the Eyes of Devoted Gamers examines video gaming from a cultural sociological standpoint. The paper is based on my undergraduate honors thesis, which I wrote during my senior year at Rutgers University in 2006-2007.

Back then, gaming research was not as prevalent as it is today (and most of the studies I encountered involved violence in games). When I decided that I wanted to study gaming, many people told me that it was immature, stupid or that there was nothing worthwhile that anyone could learn from gaming (not surprisingly, my first chapter was a strong, 26-page defense of why one should study gaming).

However, I was fortunate to find two extremely supportive advisors who were willing to indulge my interests and guide me. Neither of them were gamers, but they saw the value of studying gaming and encouraged me to produce something that would make me proud. The end result was a 260+ page thesis that received the distinction of highest honors and several awards, including the award for best thesis in the department.

The publication, which appears in the December 2012 issue of Sociological Forum, is considerably shorter and significantly more polished than my original thesis. Below, I have provided a brief overview of several of the publication’s topics. The full text of the publication is available here.

Research Methods

I relied primarily on three forms of data: one-on-one interviews, participant observation (you guessed it: watching people play video games), and a questionnaire. I interviewed 20 “devoted gamers,” 17 male and 3 female, ages 18 to 27. These people were a mix of core and hardcore gamers, but they were unwilling to attach such labels to their gaming. I spent over 12 hours observing my gaming participants, four 21-year-old males, play video games.

All of the quotations in this article are either from the interviews or the participant observation sessions. The 50-question questionnaire was administered to a random sample of undergraduate students at Rutgers University: 101 female and 69 male, ages 18 to 25.

Defining the “Devoted” or “Hardcore” Gamer

Earlier, I used the term “devoted” to describe my interviewees’ gaming habits because no interviewee wanted to identify as a “hardcore gamer,” fearing that it carried a negative connotation of
playing too many video games or being obsessed with them. In fact, interviewees went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from the stereotypical “hardcore gamer,” though they did not attempt to downplay their own dedication to video games. Thus, the interviewees did not personally think that they were too invested in gaming but believed that others could be.

Because no interviewee was willing to accept the term “hardcore gamer,” I relied on the term “devoted gamer,” which I elicited and defined through my questionnaire data. The definition of “devoted gamer” is just as imprecise as “hardcore gamer,” the former being a person who has a passion for games, plays them more often than the average casual gamer, and for whom games are meaningful.

Gaming as an Immersive Experience: Atmosphere

Interviewees described gaming as an immersive experience both because of the gameplay itself and through other absorbing aspects of the game. For example, many interviewees appreciated in-game music, defending it as real music, and the artistic quality of games, including the art found in game manuals.

One interviewee referred to a game’s immersive quality as its “atmosphere,” which he explained is “something that when you play the game and when you hear the music from the game afterwards [it] sends chills down your spine” and makes each game “feel different.” He described Metal Gear Solid as a game with such atmosphere — a “masterpiece” that “works on so many levels.”

Gaming as a Social Activity

Almost every interviewee agreed that gaming is a social activity, both online or offline and whether multiplayer or single-player. Indeed, gaming facilitates gamers in forming and solidifying their friendships, leading to a rich social experience. Gamers play games alongside one another, often discussing subjects unrelated to the game itself. And gamers discuss and reminisce over games even when they are not playing them, adding a social dimension to single-player games. One interviewee described how he became better friends with an acquaintance because they both used Xiaoyu in Tekken 4. Another interviewee explained how gamers met and played games together at her college’s gaming society.

Ironically, many interviewees believed that gaming made people less sociable, but every interviewee (except for one) felt that games had personally made them more sociable. Thus, the interviewees subscribed to the image of the stereotypical socially-isolated gamer — “guy with glasses, greasy hair, Cheetos stains on his shirt . . . sitting in his mom’s basement” — but did not believe that they fit that image. If such a stereotype exists but does not apply to most gamers, then how accurate is the stereotype?

While watching gamers play multiplayer games (specifically, two-on-two Super Smash Bros. Melee timed games on the Final Destination stage), I noticed that the players simultaneously, but separately, interacted with each other and with each other’s characters. When a player spoke to his teammate in-game, he referred to his teammate by his teammate’s first name. However, when a player referred to his opponents in-game, he referred to them by their characters’ names (e.g., “Greg, way to just look at Yoshi!” and “Aw, fucking Bowser!”).

In fact, when a player picked a female player, the other team referred to the player as a “she.” Thus, allies were players but enemies were characters. Interestingly, the players referred to the
opposing team by their characters’ names only in-game but did not do so in between matches, i.e., while on the character selection screen (“Peter, keep Greg off of me as much as you can”). I
observed the same phenomenon when the players switched teams.

Gaming Status

An important social dimension of gaming is a gamer’s status: how good they are at a game. Getting a high score or unlocking certain in-game features are just some of the many ways that one can flaunt one’s gaming ability. Several interviewees described how, as children, they would taunt their siblings by outscoring them in certain games, like Tetris.

Being good at a game is not just about bragging rights, however: pro-gamers base their careers on competing in tournaments, maintaining fanbases, and signing endorsements. Thus, being good at a game commands some respect and awe. One interviewee respected a player who beat him in a tournament because it was the first time in a long time that he was so excited and nervous. Likewise, another interviewee described his admiration for the winners of a Street Fighter tournament that he attended, stating that “the admiration that I have for someone that is good at a game is usually because I also play the game [...] so that admiration is borne out of my own desire to improve and [...] knowing what it takes to be so good.”

In contrast, one interviewee characterized a tournament winner he watched as “precise,” but noted that the player’s skillfulness detracted from the game’s fun because he played too mechanically. In that sense, being too good at a game can sometimes be a bad thing.

Indeed, a game is more immersive and meaningful when players are competing against well-matched opponents. Obliterating your opponent (or being obliterated) can get boring; it is the back-and-forth edge-of-your-seat closeness in ability that keeps players engaged. An interviewee described this as recognizing his opponent’s “play style,” which allows him to adapt and learn from each encounter he has with his opponent. He explained that a truly great match is between equals who constantly keep changing the way they play, making the match uncomfortably close until the very end.

For this reason, he (and many other interviewees) expressed a strong preference for playing against human, rather than computer-controlled, opponents. Of course, a human opponent provides an opportunity for social interaction that a computer cannot, but human opponents also make the gameplay more dynamic and challenging. You never really know your true skill level until you have played against other people who have invested time in mastering the game.

Thoroughness and 100-Percenting It

Games are not just about having fun; they also give us a sense of accomplishment. Many interviewees described a sort of duty they had towards their games, which went well beyond just playing the game for its entertainment value. Interviewees best described this as a need to “100-percent” games by playing them thoroughly and to their fullest: exploring every cave, assisting every NPC, collecting every golden coin, defeating every boss and mini-boss, beating every mini-game, and so forth.

One interviewee found it “extremely satisfying” to look at the catalogue of games he had 100-percented, thereby reminding himself of what he had achieved. Another interviewee drew a distinction between his gaming habits, making sure that he had “gotten every little thing you can get,” and the habits of “some people who . . . will just go on and beat it in a few hours.” His comment suggested that playing a game without 100-percenting it is a less honorable method of gaming.

Similarly, several interviewees touched on a common struggle that “haunts” them — choosing between playing every game that interests them versus wanting to play every game thoroughly. The need to 100-percent games was not limited to just a desire for completeness but also extended to an obligation or way to pay homage to the game’s designers. Specifically, one interviewee felt that it was important to “take the most out of the games, everything that the creators intended [...] [like] feedback or a way of showing respect for the creators of the game.” If a game’s designers put in the effort to include quests beyond those required to beat a game, how can you justify not completing them?

The Etiquette of Gaming: Spoilsports, Cheaters, and Being Cheap

What irritates a gamer more: the spoilsport (i.e., the person who does not take the game seriously) or the cheater? Interviewees generally found spoilsports to be more aggravating, which is the same kind of attitude you would probably find in competitive sports. No one wants to watch a sports game in which the other team is goofing off or losing on purpose because such behavior destroys the game’s importance (and its balanced, competitive aspect, which I discussed earlier).

The same goes for video games; spoilsports break the delicate illusion of reality, that the game is meaningful and that winning is important. There are very few things more irritating than beating someone in a game and then having him or her respond, “Who cares? It’s just a stupid game.” We care; that’s why we played it!

Interviewees found spoilsports to be annoying because such behaviors made them feel as though their opponent was not taking them seriously. In contrast, the cheater was taking the game seriously, which is why they were cheating in the first place. With the cheater, winning was so important that it was worth going through the effort of cheating.

One interviewee explained that dealing with a cheater is easier than dealing with a spoilsport because at least he could still try to beat the cheater or stoop to their level and “cheat back.”

Another interviewee used the term “bad cheating” to describe extreme cheating that could not be overcome. Other cheating, like screen cheating in FPS games, was acceptable because the opportunity was “right there in front of you.”

Cheating was not just limited to multiplayer games, however. Other than following the explicit rules that limit how players can play a game, gamers also imbue games with their own set of rules and norms. One common theme among interviewees was the notion that relying on walkthroughs and online guides is a form of quasi-cheating or is at least a bit shameful. Interestingly, one interviewee who looked down on the use of walkthroughs also qualified that he would instead ask a friend for help whenever he was stuck in a game.

Similar to cheating, many interviewees used the term “cheap” to describe gaming that was not quite cheating, because it was still within the game’s parameters, but was nonetheless unfair. Two
examples of being cheap were abusing unfair tactics (e.g., “snaking” in Mario Kart DS) and using overpowered characters (e.g., “burn characters,” like Cable and Iron Man in Marvel vs. Capcom 2).

The Etiquette of Gaming: Trash Talking

Not surprisingly, trash talking is widespread and accepted as part of what makes multiplayer gaming fun, even if the trash talk is directed at you. Most interviewees generally saw trash talking as something to do among friends, rather than when playing with strangers. However, trash talking was thought to be easiest in online settings, where one was least likely to fear reactions from other players due to the geographical distance between them.

Trash talking is also a tool, which can be used to put a cheater or braggart in place or just to be funny. One interviewee explained that he even trash-talks when he is losing because it is “so
ridiculous that you know I’m joking.” Trash talk is also another way for players to express that they are engaged in the game — taking it seriously — so it is important for solidifying the
competitive and cooperative nature of gaming.

“The computer” can also be trash-talked or talk its own trash. During my gaming observation sessions, I observed one player trash-talk the computer when it outscored all of the human players in Donkey Konga (“Seventy-six? Kiss my ass, computer!”). One interviewee described Chipp Zanuff of Guilty Gear as engaging in “a ridiculous amont of trash talk.”

Trash talking can also involve sexist, racist, homophobic, and otherwise obscene language. It is important to stress that this is not unique to video gaming or gamer culture as a whole. Indeed, the analytical framework for this topic came from a 1987 study of Little League baseball players, who used homosexual epithets to taunt one another and express domination. And we observe the same type of obscene language emerge in other competitive activities, like sports (playing and watching), board games, and cards, to name a few.

Like the language that emerges during these other competitive activities, the language that I observed players (unconsciously) use during their gameplay did not necessarily reflect their personal beliefs and does not mean that such language is essential to gaming. As with violence, which I discuss below, I do not think that my findings lead to the conclusion that playing video games encourages people to use obscene language or that such behavior is unique to those who play video games.

Contextualizing Violence

Unlike much of the early research on gaming, the causal relationship between games and violent behavior was beyond the scope of my research. Instead, I was interested in two things: how gamers rationalized and talked about the violence they encountered in games, and how gamers felt about non-gamers’ attitudes towards violent games.

As an initial matter, I found that whether or not a game is judged to be violent depended on the context in which the interviewee viewed the activity. One of my interviewees put it best when he described his interest in fencing and martial arts; both are non-violent activities within the context of sport but would certainly be violent if performed on innocent victims. Similarly, even non-violent game series, like Pokémon, Mario, and The Legend of Zelda, could be (albeit wrongly) viewed as violent depending on the audience’s sensitivities. And some may even view a series like Grand Theft Auto to be non-violent because the animation, such as heads popping off victims’ bodies, is unrealistic and almost cartoon-like.

No matter how hard each interviewee tried, no interviewee could successfully argue that games were categorically non-violent. (One interviewee even went so far as to argue that she could play a Grand Theft Auto game non-violently, but by the end she admitted, “it’s human nature to like violence, I guess. I find it funny to run someone over, too.”) The argument is as useless as arguing that all movies are non-violent. Like movies, there are both violent and non-violent games, but that does not necessarily mean that games (or even violent, M-rated games) cause people to commit actual violence.

Identifying with Characters: Good Guys, Badassness, and Morality

Every interviewee identified with at least one specific game character. This sometimes involved imbuing these otherwise one-dimensional characters with certain anthropomorphic characteristics. For example, Ky Kiske from Gulity Gear was described as “a totally good person” who was “a little naïve in his ideals.” Two interviewees admired Ryu from the Street Fighter series, separately stating “you never get a bad vibe from him” and “what [he] embodies forms a lot of the philosophy that I consider very much close to my heart.”

One interviewee, in particular, spoke fondly of his affection for Kirby, who he said was “so humble and courageous and funny. [...] He never is like King Dedede where he’s always showing off or
something. [...] Kirby’s so cool.”

Villains also fascinated interviewees, with many describing them as “badass” and appreciating them for their multi-dimensional qualities. For example, one interviewee spoke fondly of Pyron, a demon lord in the Darkstalkers series, stating that Pyron’s goal of eliminating evil was “admirable” even though “he was obviously going about it in a bad way.” Similarly, another interviewee described Big Boss in Metal Gear Solid as someone whose “intentions were good” but whose “methodology was questionable.”

Being a badass bad guy was almost a redeeming quality because, as one interviewee explained, it is “it is something that separates them from just [a] cardboard bad guy” and makes him or her fun to fight. Some protagonists were also described as badass, though not nearly as often as villains.

Similar to identifying with video game characters, some interviewees explained that games had influenced their morals. One interviewee altered his religious beliefs after playing certain games, and another believed that playing games with others made her a more patient and persevering person. Link from the Legend of Zelda series was also cited as possible inspiration for “standing[ing] up for a kid that was getting picked on one day.” For a classically silent character, that is a lot of personality!

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to analyze the culture of gaming through a sociological framework, thereby exploring how gaming is meaningful to gamers. The study, of course, has its limits: a small sample size of participants drawn from limited backgrounds. Moreover, this study did not explore online and social gaming, which is much more prevalent now than it was when I conducted my research approximately six years ago. Back then, the term “gamer” was also much more limited — and applied only to core and hardcore gamers — than it is today thanks to the proliferation of mobile and casual games. Nonetheless, the study still offers a look at the more “devoted” gaming audience that persists. （source：gamecareerguide）