Gamemunication: Prosthetic Communication Ethnography of Game Avatars

Abstract

This study revisits Hymes' ethnography of communication for game avatars, functioning as a communication nexus connecting games and gamers. Hymes formulates his ethnography of communication into SPEAKING (Settings and Scenes, Participants, Ends, Act Sequences, Keys, Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genres) and this formula deems to be unfit to explain how game avatars communicate. Implementing Klevjer's prosthetic telepresence (2012) to analyze sixty-two game titles, it is revealed that SPEAKING requires an extension when applied to study game avatars since the formula is not designed to explain the prosthetic nature of game avatars. This prosthetic nature produces specific communication ethnography of avatars, which we dub prosthetic communication ethnography. By prosthetic communication ethnography refers to technical elements of gaming, which contribute to the ways the avatars communicate. As Hymes' ethnography of communication with SPEAKING, this avatar based communication ethnography requires the same tool of analysis, which we call GAMING (Gaming systems, Attributes, Mechanics, Indexicalities, Narratives, and Geosocial systems), constructed with indexical storytelling by Fernández-Vara (2011), user interface types of games by Stonehouse (2014) and prosthetic video game theory by Jagodzinski (2019) as the theoretical foundations. GAMING and SPEAKING are integrated by bridging them with Aarseth's ludonarrative dimensions (2012).

Ludic Taunting: Does Taunting Work Differently in Video Games?

“…Completed, taxonomy analysis commenced. In this second phase of analysis, taunts were analyzed based on GAMING formula by Purnomo et al (2019), ludus by Caillois (1961), and lability and merriness by Huizinga (2014) to indicate how the verbal and non-verbal elements of the game characters influence the emergence of their taunts. Done, componential analysis took place.…”

“…The communication happened in games, as laid out by Purnomo et al (2019), is called prosthetic communication, where players require the presence of an avatar or game character to relay their communication. When the players want to taunt, for instance, they are dependent on what communication mechanics the games provide through the avatars and game characters.…”

“…The theories of ergodic literature by Aarseth (1997), ludology by Frasca (2013), prosthetic communication by Purnomo et al (2019), ludus as a structured play by Caillois (1961), lability and merriness by Huizinga (2014), and taunting by Baugh (2018) were employed as a ground basis for constructing the typology of ludic taunting. These theories were selected since they are interrelated.…”