Following last week’s lectures into a more in depth analyses of game design, we come across a standing point in which we question the “us” we see represented within a game.

Sure we play games for the fun of entertainment and action, but what keeps us motivated apart from the prestige of titles and rankings? A common classification would be the concept of idealistic representation. Goals and achievements can not be boasted on their own; what better way to show your status off than through character customization? Companies benefit on this desire to be different; a craving to be unique even among others of the same class and gender, therefore often prompting players to pay by creating “limited skins and features”. Adrienne Shaw shares “In Fundamentals of Game Design, a widely referenced textbook for game designers, Ernest Adam states that the goal of character design ‘is to create characters that people find appealing…that people can believe in…and that the player can identify with(particularly in the case of avatar characters)”(pg 97).

In answering the question of identification, we now ask ourselves if the socially interactive aspects of a game attempts the same objective. “Many authors assert that identification is stronger in games than in other media because interactivity lessens the distance between players and their on-screen representatives” (pg 99). The assumption that players connect themselves to their role in a game through the freedom to make decisions for their actions is held in strong regard.

However, Shaw disagrees with this assessment in which he later discusses how “…socially interactive aspects result in players identifying as themselves rather than with…” (pg 99). Although Shaw agrees that a character may be a proxy of the player, it does not necessarily contribute to the immersive role of the player him or herself. Shaw writes, “Even if I decide to choose a seemingly random selection of options from a character-customization screen, I must momentarily reflect on how much I care about how I am represented in the game space…”(pg 102). It is less of a focus on immersion and more concentration towards an ongoing identification process in which Shaw explains by continuing to define the distinction between a “character” and a “avatar”.

This interpretation was demonstrated in class when we were given the assignment to download World of Warcraft. One of our tasks was then to build a character of our own where several options for classes were presented to us. After careful selection, we are provided options to recreate the same character with various features available. It was simple, and yet after 20 minutes into class many of us continued to be on the character selection screen. The time spent customizing our characters ultimately reveal that our desire to be portrayed ‘correctly’ is a more accurate argumentation when identifying ourselves in a game. (Though, in my opinion, the art style of World of Warcraft is kinda crummy; I couldn’t customize without feeling bored and distasteful. I understand the main point are battles, but games like Dragon Nest is more enjoyable).

Works Cited:
Shaw, Adrienne. Gaming at the Edge : Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture, University of Minnesota Press, 2015.