Making the Rules: the Case of Halo

8/7/2019 Making the Rules: the Case of Halo

1/24

University of Utrecht

Faculty of the Humanities

Degree program: pre-MA New Media & Digital Culture

Student: Mark A. Jansen

Student ID: 3637603

Title: Making the rules: the case of Halo

Month and Year: February 2011

Supervisor: R. Glas

...one of the sweetest pleasures as a game designer is seeing your game

played in ways that you did not anticipate. (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003, p.

540).


2/24

1

Table of content

1. Introduction..1

1.1 Introducing the research11.2 Framing the object.1

1.3 Defining game concepts1

2. Research Design2-3

2.1 Research question..2

2.2 Theoretical framework...22.2.1 Participatory culture....2

2.2.2 Reconfiguration...22.2.3 Rules of the game....3

2.3 Research method.3-4

2.3.1 Group..4

2.3.2 Sample4

3. Value of the research53.1 Scientific value..5

3.2 Societal value 5

4. Analysis of the case6-8

4.1 Motivation..64.2 Game elements6-7

4.3 In-game social norms..7-8

4.4 Process...8

5. Conclusion9-11

6. Limitations of the research12

7. Bibliography...13

8. Appendix14-23

8.1 Description of game concepts in alphabetical order...14-158.2 Interview transcripts...15-23

8.2.1. Interview with A. Griffioen.15-178.2.2 Interview with M. Kasper17-19

8.2.3 Interview with C. Kasper.19-218.2.4 Interview with N. Bakker.21-228.2.5 Interview with T. de Heij.22-23

1. Introduction

The cause for this research is my personal experience with the First-Person

Shooter (FPS) game Halo on the Xbox console platform and the specificway it was played in a social group.

1.1 Introducing the research

The research concerns the rules of the game. More specifically, it is about

how and why players change the rules. Available content on online video

site YouTube demonstrates that Halo is, and has been, played in radically

different ways, probably not all foreseen by the game designers. Examplesare Red vs. Blue and the so-called Warthog Battles. The research

concerns one of the many ways Halo can be played. Halos design offersplayers ...custom rules for all the basic game types. (MobyGames, 2011).

However, not all elements of the game are adaptable nor customizable,which leads to creative solutions.

1.2 Framing the object

The research concerns Halos competitive multiplayer gameplay mode.

More specifically, the research is about the team-based Capture The Flag(CTF) gametype, played with multiple consoles in a Local Area Network

(LAN) context. Furthermore, the research only considers gameplay in the

map Sidewinder.

1.3 Defining game concepts

The paragraphs above contain potentially intimidating terms, such as FPS,

CTF and LAN. They may seem rather exotic to the reader who is unfamiliarwith them. Basic knowledge about these concepts is required for the reader

in order to understand this paper. However, it is beyond the scope of this

paper to review these concepts extensively. Therefore, I refer the reader to

the Appendix, where I provide a short description of relevant terms.


3/24

2

2. Research Design

In this section the research question, the research method and the theoretical

framework will be described.

2.1 Research question

The research answers the following research question:

A. What is the motivation of game players in redefining the rules?

The question is broken down in the following sub-questions:

A1. Why were the players not satisfied with the suggested game rules?

A2. What was the goal of changing the rules?

A3. What did the process of changing the rules look like?

2.2 Theoretical framework

Here I describe the theoretical framework employed in this paper.

The research looks at games through the lens of games as a social

phenomenon, after one of the chapter titles in the Handbook o f Computer

Game Studies by Raessens & Goldstein (2005). Within games as a socialphenomenon the concept of participatory culture and the three domains of

participation are used. These domains are interpretation, reconfiguration

and construction (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 pp. 378-381).

2.2.1 Participatory culture

Although this research mainly uses the reconfiguration domain, I provide

here a short definition of the two other domains in order to grasp the

situation of reconfiguration. Thereafter I will address reconfiguration

separately due its prominence in this research. Raessens uses the conceptual

framework of the British tradition of cultural studies to situate the conceptof interpretation. Here, cultural texts ...are viewed as open texts that

different groups of viewer interpret differently, depending on social, cultural

and other contexts... (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 375)

For Raessens, construction is ...understood as the addition of new game

elements. This can exist as modifying existing games, or as in makingentirely new games. Construction can take many forms and may seem

related to reconfiguration. However, Raessens explains that You can really

speak of construction when players work with game-mods or game patches,

editing tools and source codes. (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 381). Here,the player adds elements to the system.

2.2.2 Reconfiguration

According to Raessens, reconfiguration consists of two categories. First, it...exists in the exploration of the unknown, in the computer game

represented worlds. (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 380). Second,reconfiguration is ...when a player in this process of exploration is invited

to give form to these worlds in an active way by selecting one of the many

pre-programmed possibilities in a computer game. (Raessens & Goldstein,

2005, p. 380). The player selects objects and actions from a fixed set, as

opposed to construction which concerns adding new elements. Essentially,

this is the basis of participation, where the designer controls the fixed andfinite set. The invitee, the user, has freedom in choosing and selecting

options, but is limited to the spectrum, or frame, offered by the designer.

The rules of a game are part of the game configuration. Since the research is

about changing the rules, which is an act of reconfiguration, I will next

provide a brief theoretical overview of what game rules are by means of thebookRules of Play, written by Salen and Zimmerman.


4/24

3

2.2.3 Rules of the game

To play a game is to follow its rules. (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 117).

A game can get into action only if the players consent to become puppets for atime. (McLuhan, 1964, p. 259).

The phenomenon of game rules is more complex than this sentence aboveseems to suggest at first glance. Rules are a fixed set of abstract guidelines;the games formal structure. The rules determine which actions are

permitted out of all the possible actions. Players voluntarily submit to the

game, they limit their behaviors to the specific restrictions imposed by thegame rules. (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 124). In effect, the game

rules handicap the players. As soon as the players are in-game, they areinside the games artificial context, its magic circle. Here, all players must

obey the rules to participate. In sum, game rules limit player action and they

are explicit, fixed, binding and repeatable (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p.

125).

Elements of the game rules are situated on a continuum from unstated tostated. Salen and Zimmerman describe game rules on three levels, namely;

implicit, constituative and operational rules (2004, p. 130). Implicit rules

are the unwritten rules of a game. Essentially, this concerns proper gamebehavior. The constituative rules of a game are the formal structures that

exist below the rules presented to players. The operational rules are the

guidelines players require to play. Boundaries between these levels can be

fuzzy, especially between the operational and implicit rules. Here, the

context is important in determining which rule belongs where.

So, which rules are really the true rules of the game? In other words, do the

rules as formal structures of a game have a bearing on the games formalidentity? (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 134). Implicit rules are crucial,

but are also similar from game to game. Thus, these are not of the essence.In turn, it is The constituative and operational rules of a game [which]

work in concert to generate the formal meaning of a game. (Salen and

Zimmerman, 2004, p. 134). In the end, the three levels assist in determining

a clear rule set which relates to the actions and outcomes of meaningful

play. When rules are ambiguous, the game is destroyed and the players lose

their interest. In turn, a game needs individuals, players, for support.Without players, there is no game. When a game creates ambiguity, it is

always within some larger frame that is clearly articulated and shared by all

players. Rules themselves must ultimately be unambiguous. (Salen and

Zimmerman, 2004, p. 137).

Conflict is an intrinsic element of every game (Salen and Zimmerman,2004, p. 250). One core principle of conflict in games is that it isfair.Game conflict is impartial conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players

have an equal chance at winning, that the game system is intrinsicallyequitable, that the games contest takes place on a level playing field...

(Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260). Such a fair game would eliminate allextraneous variables so that the player with the most developed skills wins

the game. This would give what Caillois, quoted by Salen and Zimmerman,

describes as ...precise and incontestable value to the winners triumph.

(2004, p. 260). However, in practice most games strive for, but hardly ever

accomplish fair play. Rules are chief means to at least approach thecondition of the level playing field. Players may reconfigure rules, amongst

others to improve the fairness of the game.

2.3 Research method

The research concerns a case study. The research method used in this studyis qualitative field research. More specifically, participatory ethnography,

since the researcher participated in the group himself. The analysis is basedon semi-structured interviews with a sample of respondents from the group

of players. The interviews were conducted by means of VOIP (Voice Over

Internet Protocol) telephony. The answers were recorded and transcribed.The answers are coded into four categories which will be elaborated upon

in the analysis. They form the basis on which the research question is

answered. Transcripts of the interviews can be found in the appendix.


5/24

4

2.3.1 Group

The social group varied in size between 12 and 16 males who playedtogether on a regular basis. In 2006 the players age varied from 16 to 22

years. In 2010, all players were either having applied sciences and/or

university degrees or actively pursuing them. It is important to note that the

social ties of the group were formed a priori to playing Halo. The people

involved were living in the same city and going to the same high school,some of them situated in the same class. Furthermore, there were also

familial ties within the group, with two sets of three and two people being

brothers.

2.3.2 Sample

The five interviewees were selected from the group in question, which

varied in size between 12 and 16. Sampling was based on the behaviorvariable frequency of play, i.e. the interviewees were the most frequent

players of the group.


6/24

5

3. Value of the research

Halo is part of the FPS-genre which is still very popular, with recent

releases regarding the Call of Duty and Medal of Honor franchises. Theresearch is valuable for both academics as well as game designers, because

it provides insights into what game players demand from the rules of the

game and the opportunity to change these rules. The goal is to producegameplay that appeals even more to game players.

3.1 Scientific value

The research provides insights into what motivates the players of the objectunder study to change the rules of the game. In turn, this contributes to the

body of knowledge concerning participatory media culture as well as game

rules.

3.2 Societal value

With new releases of violent video games such as Halo, societal uproaroccurs often. The FPS-genre is criticized for displaying aggression and

violence and thereby causing violence in real life. The first-person view is

supposed to make things even more intense. Although this research is notafter the existence of such effects, nor their intensity, it may yield insight

into what gamers consider to be meaningful play (Salen and Zimmerman,

2004, p. 134). This means that there is more to a game than its visible

content than suggested by the debate about aggression and violence. Gamesare a social phenomenon, they are ...extensions, not of our private but ofour social selves... (McLuhan, 1964, p. 266)


7/24

6

4. Analysis of the case

The interview transcripts, which can be found in the appendix, form the

basis for this analysis. From the answers provided by the interviewees itemerges that important factors concerning changing the rules of the game

are; motivation, game elements, in-game social norms and existing social

relations.

4.1 Motivation

...everybody agreed that [our rules] made the game much more fun to play than

the original settings. (De Heij, 2010).

Why would game players attempt to change the rules of the game, i.e. what

is their motivation? First, people play a game for fun. Having more fun is agreat motivator in changing the rules of the game. Melvin Kasper puts it

this way: I think we had more fun playing [Halo] this way... (2010). All

interviewees mention this fun factor.

Halo is no exception to the rule that conflict is an intrinsic element of everygame (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 250). Halo is a competitive game

and this is reflected in the answers of all the interviewees, when they say

that the game should test the skills of the players. Players should be equal asin having access to and using the same tools, such as weapons. Their skills

determine how they handle the tools and this is what makes someone abetter player.

The process described above is called balancingby the interviewees DeHeij and M. & C. Kasper (2010). The goal is to remove game elements

which are perceived as overpowered, such as the rocket launcher (M.

Kasper, 2010). The aim is to level the playing field as much as possible,

where the player's skill determines the outcome. The game should be fair,

where all extraneous variables [are eliminated] so that the player with

the most developed skills wins the game. (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p.

260).

The ideal of the fair game and the balancing of the game corresponds well

to the theory about rules by Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p. 260): One

core principle of conflict in games is that it isfair. Game conflict isimpartial conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players have an equal

chance at winning, that the game system is intrinsically equitable, that the

games contest takes place on a level playing field... (Salen and

Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260).

4.2 Game elements

...a fair game would eliminate all extraneous variables so that the player with the

most developed skills wins the game. (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260).

Game elements are closely related to the rules of the game and thus with

changing them. Possession of certain game elements can give a player anadvantage over others. As is described above, this is precisely the cause of

dissatisfaction with the original orsuggested rules. Interesting is that the

changes to the game elements were not of a technical, but of a social nature.

The players made an agreement where certain game elements were still

available in-game, but they would all refrain from using them. This was dueto the rather limited customization options of Halo's design. Therefore, the

players had to come up with a creative solution.

All interviewees mention that the use of power-ups, more specifically, the

Active Camouflage and the Over-Shield, were outlawed. This is notsurprising, given that the word 'power-up' covers exactly the function it

fulfills; making a player comparatively stronger than the other players.

Although this is of a temporary nature, i.e. the advantage lasts for a limitedamount of time, it apparently disrupted the desired balance and fairness of

the game enough to outlaw them.

Two weapons, the rocket-launcher and the sniper-rifle, were another kind ofgame element the players voluntarily refrained from using. Again, theseweapons challenged the ideal of game balance, because these weapons were

overpowered compared to the default weapon; the pistol (M. Kasper, 2010).

Furthermore, the players neither started off with the rocket-launcher nor the

sniper-rifle already in their possession when they re-spawned; instead theyhad to get them from certain locations on the map. Therefore, these

weapons were scarce. This challenged the principle of player equality,


8/24

7

where all players have access to, and use, the same tools.

De Heij mentions that the radar, which when enabled displays the locationof friendly as well as enemy players near you, was also disabled (2011).

Compared to the restrictions discussed earlier, this was not a social

measure. The design of Halo allows you to disable the radar technically for

all players. De Heij is the only interviewee who mentions the radar. This is

probably due to the fact that the other interviewees forgot about this, due totime passed between playing and the research interview. Another

explanation might be that the other interviewees do not conceptually

consider the radar to be a game element, but instead as an interface element,

for example.

4.3 In-game social norms

A camper is usually frowned upon in the FPS community. (Gaming Dictionary,

2011).

There are always issues up for discussion. Camping is not allowed, but up to acertain degree, it happened nevertheless. It is hard to determine what is camping

and what is not camping. That led to conflict between the two teams, screaming

from one room to the room next door and back again. (Griffioen, 2011).

Here I address in-game social norms, another type of 'rules'. These areaddressed separately because these kind of rules are more implicit

compared to the earlier game elements, which are more explicit. In-gamesocial norms govern player behavior which involves a specific use of

certain game elements and which is perceived negatively.

All interviewees mention 'camping' as something which is 'not done'.

Camping is an activity that known in nearly all FPS games. It is ...the

action of staying in the same place (the camp) for long periods of time,

usually in hiding, and just waiting for the enemy to come by. A camper isusually frowned upon in the FPS community. (Gaming Dictionary, 2011).

However, it is hard reach an agreement on when someone is camping. It has

to do with staying in a certain location for a certain amount of time. But

what exactly is 'a certain location' and how long takes 'a certain amount of

time'? Therefore, it is more difficult to regulate this type of behavior. The

cloudy character of camping is highlighted by M. Kasper, who states thatthe activity was forbidden in general, but tolerated to a certain degree when

the player in question was a defender, as opposed to an attacking player

(2010).

The interviewees also mention restricting the act of teleport blocking. Here,

a player would park a 'Warthog', a buggy-like car, on the teleport. Throughthis portal, players can emerge when they walk into the corresponding

teleport, situated on another location on the map. When the teleporter is

blocked by the Warthog, teleportation is no longer possible.

The interview participants report three issues concerning what they call the

tunnels (C. Kasper, 2010). More specifically, they refer to a location within

the tunnels. This place is called 'the goods' on the map, which can be found

in the appendix provided, by Esemono (2010). The Overshield and ActiveCamouflage are located here. However, a fence was also present in this

location. This fence was the cause of trouble. The fence prevented players

from taking a quick route, a shortcut, from the Blue to the Red basis.However, the player able to take this shortcut anyway had a major

advantage over others.

The first issue with the fence was that although it's bars, or balusters, may

prevent players from taking the shortcut, the flag-carrying player was ableto pass the flag on to a team-mate on the other side of the fence (Bakker,

2011). In short, the fence was there for a reason. The game was designed to

prevent the players themselves from passing through the fence, but the flag

was allowed to pass. Bakker explains that he dislikes this because ...an

[enemy] team-mate could pick up the flag very fast and then we he wouldavoid walking a great part of the distance normally required to take the flag

to your [home] basis. (2011).

The second issue was more like a glitch in the game, which is probably notforeseen by the designers. Here, the players found a way for their

protagonist to pass the fence. M. Kasper states that: ...when there was a

Warthog located on the other side of the fence, you could be teleported

through the fence when you [would press and hold the X-button] and enterthe Warthog (2010). M. Kasper explains that the group outlawed this


9/24

8

action because ...once you left the enemy base, you could easily progress

through the fence and the other team had no chance to stop you [fromtaking the enemy flag to the home base and scoring], (2010).

The third issue concerning the fence located at 'the goods' is reported by De

Heij (2011). This can also be called a game glitch. He states that it waspossible to ...[pick up the Over Shield, and use a rocket-launcher] to blow

up a car, [a Warthog], near you. (2010). The Over Shield would keep theprotagonist alive while the explosion would push him through the fence.

However, this action required having a rocket-launcher. Furthermore, the

protagonist had to pick up the Over Shield in order to progress through the

fence while staying alive. These two conditions were already forbidden inthemselves, therefore this glitch was illegal a priori.

4.4 Process

When there are ten people who want something and one who does not, then that'stoo bad for that single person. I think you can call that democratic. (C. Kasper,2010).

During the interviews, the interviewees were asked whether the process of

changing the rules was democratic. The quote above shows that it matterswhat kind of conception of democracy the individuals have, before deciding

whether the process of changing the rules was democratic. C. Kasper saysthat the process was democratic, while Bakker and Griffioen argue that it

was not. De Heij and M. Kasper state that they cannot remember whether

certain people were in favor or opposing the changes, nor whether there wasa discussion about it. However, by talking about discussing an issue by

people favoring and opposing an outcome, M. Kasper displays knowledge

of aspects which are certainly democratic.

De Heij assumes that the process was democratic, because ...otherwise

everybody would not want to play the game with each other every single

week. (2011). Furthermore, he says that ...everybody agreed that [ourrules] made the game much more fun to play than the original settings.(De

Heij, 2011). This statement reminds us that the players play voluntarily andfor fun, i.e. they are not required to play. Thus when they are unhappy about

a development, such as a change in the rules, they can simply stop playing.

The fact that they continued playing indicates that they were happy with the

changes. This should be the case, as the motivation of the game is to makethe game better, meaning more balanced and fair for all players.

Bakker agrees with De Heij that ...[our way of playing] was the most fun

way of playing. (2011). However, he is not sure whether it came intoexistence by means of a democratic process. Instead, Bakker says that It

came into existence over the years. It came out of nowhere. We were like,hey, this is too easy, that's not fun, let's try that in a different way..

(2011). In short, Bakker says that the process resembled an informaldevelopmental process more than a formal democratic process where

someone would ask ...who agrees with this rule? and when the groupwould vote (Bakker, 2011). Griffioen agrees with Bakker that it was ...not

completely democratic. (Griffioen, 2011). People accepted it, but it was

not a formal group decision where everybody was involved.

To conclude the analysis, it is important to note that the social relations of

the group existed prior to playing the game Halo in this specific form. To be

more specific, the players were friends who undertook many activitiestogether. Playing the game studied in this paper is but one of those

activities. Here, in-game behavior affects real-life behavior and vice versa.The players were all motivated to play by the rules. Bakker puts it nicely bysaying that Sometimes there were players who did not stick to the rules for

a short while. The other players reacted quite passionately upon suchbehavior. (2011). This highlights that a degree of social control was a

necessary condition for this specific configuration to work, or play, out.

When such control is absent, or present to a lesser degree such as when

playing online, this poses issues. These can endanger the meaningfulness of

gameplay.


10/24

9

5. Conclusion

As a game designer, you are never directly designing the behavior of your players.

Instead, you are only designing the rules of the system. It is not always possible to

anticipate how the rules willplay out. (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 168).

Here, the analysis is summarized and answers to the research

questions are provided.

A1. Why were the players not satisfied with the suggested game rules?

The interviewees say that the game should test the skills of the players,where the player with the most developed skills should win the game.

However, the players felt that the game was more about getting the most

powerful game elements than about the skills of the players in applying

them. They felt that players should be equal as in having access to andusing the same tools, such as weapons. This idea(l) is called balancing,

where the goal is to remove game elements which are perceived as

overpowered in relation to others.

The ideal of the fair game and the balancing act corresponds well to thetheory about rules by Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p. 260):One core

principle of conflict in games is that it isfair. Game conflict is impartial

conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players have an equal chance atwinning, that the game system is intrinsically equitable, that the games

contest takes place on a level playing field... (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004,

p. 260). Such a fair game would eliminate all extraneous variables in order

for the player with the most developed skills to win the game. The aim is to

level the playing field as much as possible, in short, the game should be fair.

A2. What was the goal of changing the rules?

Changing the rules of the game was not a goal in itself. As described

above, the players found that the game was not very well-balanced,

therefore they attempted to level the playing field. The rules were a means

to achieve this goal. The players felt that the goals of the game should notbe who possesses the best tools, such as certain weapons and power-ups.

Instead, all players should start with the same tools and should keep these,

so that the game is about who handles them most skillfully.

People play a game for fun. In order to get the most fun out of playing, the

players wanted to balance the game in order to improve its fairness. The

goal of the players here was to make the game even more fun (Wright et.

al., 2002). M. Kasper puts it nicely: I think we had more fun playing

[Halo] this way... (2010). De Heij agrees by saying that ...everybodyagreed that [our rules] made the game much more fun to play than the

original settings.(2011).

A3. What did the process of changing the rules look like?

The players disagree about whether the process of changing the ruleswas democratic. This might have to do with differing individual

conceptions of democracy. C. Kasper states that When there are tenpeople who want something and one who does not, then that's too bad for

that single person. I think you can call that democratic. (2010). It is

debatable whether such a 'majority rule' is the right, correct or best way ofresolving issues, even in a democracy.

However, it is likely that the process was democratic up to a certain degree,because play is voluntary. Ergo, the players would not have accepted that

one person would impose a rule that would make the game less fun to play

for the majority of the group. All players can have a final say, a veto, bysimply stopping with playing. However, there is much in-between such an

autocratic leader and a more formal democracy, where someone would ask

...who agrees with this rule? after which the group would vote (Bakker,

2011). Bakker says that theprocess ...came into existence over the years. It

came out of nowhere. (2011).

In the words of Bakker, the process can best be described as an informaldevelopmental process (Bakker, 2011). It is important to note that the

social ties of the players in the group existed prior to playing the game. Thegame was one of several social activities the group undertook. Therefore,

they were motivated to stick to the new rules, such as refraining from using

a weapon, even when that weapon was available during play. Breaking rules


11/24

10

might lead to undesirable arguments and fights. It is an interesting question

what happens to the willingness of the players to follow the rules when thecontext changes, an issue I turn to later.

A. What is the motivation of game players in redefining the rules?

Players want to have fun while playing and they will make the game more

fun when they can. The game being fair is a necessary condition for havingfun while playing. Changing the rules of the game is one of the means for

the players to get more fun out of the game. The players felt that the game

rewarded the players who came in possession of more powerful, or

overpowered, tools. They did not like this, instead they were of the opinion

that the game should test the skills of the players, meaning how well theyhandle the tools available in the game, where every player has the same

tools.

Making sure that the game rewards the right things is called balancingby the interviewees De Heij and M. & C. Kasper (2010 & 2011). What

underlies this balancing act is the idea of the fair game and the level playingfield (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260). A fair game on a level playing

field would have eliminated all extraneous variables that might give some

players an 'unfair' advantage over others.

The answers to the research questions yield insights, recommendations and

suggestions for further research, which I turn to now.

5.1 Recommendations and suggestions for further research

If games have nothing else in common, they have this concept at their heart.

Fairness, in other words, is a defining trait of games. (Sniderman, 2004, p. 25).

Game designers produce games for players. The players play, experience

and make meaning. Thus, as Salen and Zimmerman put it: As a game

designer, you are never directly designing the behavior of your players.

Instead, you are only designing the rules of the system. It is not alwayspossible to anticipate how the rules will play out.. (2004, p. 168). This

means that players participate, they co-create with the game designers,

since the players are the interpreters and thus the ones who make meaning.

This means that players may want to change some elements of the game for

their own reasons, for example to make the game more fair. It is impossible,

or at least very hard, for the designers to anticipate all possible things

players want to do with the game or how they interpret it in the first place

(Salen & Zimmerman, 2003, p. 540). Therefore, they should offer many

options, or game settings, which are customizable. As is described in thisresearch, the game Halo offered quite meager customization options. This

led to some creative solutions by the group of players (Wright et al., 2002).

However, it is promising that Halo 3 seems to offer many more changeable

settings (HaloWiki, 2011). This means that players are no longer forced toresort to social measures, but instead can rely on technical solutions.

Important in this regard is how the rules are enforced. It is important to note

that the group of players who were studied in this research existed as asocial group prior to playing the game. They related socially, and when

playing they were located in the same space, usually one or two rooms in a

house. Therefore, it worked well to establish, communicate and enforcerules, even the in-game social norms. Further research might address the

changes that occur when players play online over the internet, where socialties, group norms and shared physical player location can be lacking. This

might ask for more 'hard', explicit game settings, since there is less trust that

a stranger is willing to stick to more implicit rules.

To conclude, during this research the concepts of game balancing, or

equalizing, the level playing field and fairness frequently came to the fore.

Interesting questions are: what lies beneath these concepts, i.e. what are the

values and assumptions that that feed our desire for a fair game? Whyshould we level the playing field and if we agree to leveling, do we level it

in the right way, i.e. do all players benefit equally? How do these issuesrelate to conceptions of justice? Further research should address these

matters. Sniderman has published two tentative issues, Fair Game IandII,which addresses these issues and relates them to real-world issues:


12/24

11

If we cant understand why we consider certain advantages acceptableand others unacceptable in games and sports, we have virtually no chance

of gaining insight into some controversial issues that seem to hang on our

notions of fairness, including racial profiling by the police force, sexual

harassment in the workplace, equal-pay-for-equal-work issues, the Boy

Scouts of Americas stand on homosexuals, the place of gays in the military,the use of drugs to enhance athletic performance, and so on. On the other

hand, if we can understand what makes us judge a game situation as fair orunfair, we have a greater possibility, I believe, of coming to grips with these

and other crucial questions of social justice. (2004, p. 37)

Games, then, are our touchstone. Life may not be fair, but as long as wehave games, we will always have a way of measuring how unfair life really

is. With the model of games, we cannot pretend that other aspects of our

existence are the way they should be. More important, games provide us

with an ideal to strive for. We know what life ought to be because we see the

way games are. They are our guide, our North Star, our moralcompass. If we cant appeal to games to tell us what is right and just and

fair, there is nothing else to appeal to since the other candidatesreligion,morality, law, cultureare inevitably tainted with real-world-itis, with thestruggle for power and survival. (2004, p. 25)

Whether these claims are truthful remains to be seen. However, when

we put a question mark behind certain statements, some interestingresearch questions emerge. These pose a research guide from which

future can benefit when they address these issues.


13/24

12

6. Limitations of the research

The research provides in-depth insights on a relatively small area, since it

concerns a very specific combination of peripherals, software and people.Therefore, the results might be hard to generalize, at least beyond the FPS-

genre. This is due to the unicity and specificity of the case and its situationwithin the context. Although the research concerns a case study, Halo can

be considered a typical FPS game. This speaks in favor of the

generalizability of the research, at least within the FPS-genre.

It can be argued that the participation of the researcher in the group is a

weakness, because it may cause bias (Van Gemert, 2009). Therefore, issues

such as interpretation and personal factors may lead to different results

when replicating the research. To complicate matters, replicating this type

of research is difficult in itself, due to situational circumstances.

The group in which the researcher participated played the game together

between 2003 and 2006. At this the researcher had no intent of doing

research, so he participated on an equal basis with the other participants.Therefore, there was no role stress of being participant and researcher at the

same time. However, this brings the potential disadvantage of going native

(Van Gemert, 2009). Furthermore, data collection took place in 2010, about

four years after the group stopped playing on a regular basis. This periodbetween the events and the collection and analysis may have negative

effects, such as a diminished ability of the interviewees to recall events

from their memory.


14/24

13

7. Bibliography

Esemono (2010).A birds eye view of Sidewinder. Retrieved fromhttp://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sidewinder&image=Sidewinder-jpg

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of camping. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camping.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of camper. Retrieved fromhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camper.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of LAN. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-lan.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of console. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-console.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of multiplayer. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-multiplayer.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of first person. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-first_person.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of FPS. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-fps.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of capture the flag. Retrieved fromhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-

capture_the_flag.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of peripheral device. Retrieved fromhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-

peripheral_device.htm

Gaming Dictionary (2011).Definition of power up. Retrieved from

http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-power_up.htm

HaloWiki, (2011). Retrieved from:http://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettings

Magnike2 (2011). Sidewinder. Retrieved from

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sidewinder

McLuhan, M. (1964). Games: The Extension of Man, in Understanding

Media, Routledge, MA

MobyGames (2011).Halo: Combat Evolved. Retrieved from

http://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolved

Raessens, J. (2005). Computer Games as Participatory Media Culture. InRaessens, J. & Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.)Handbook of computer game studies.

(pp. 373-388) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play : Game designfundamentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Sniderman, S. (2004). Fair Game. The Life of Games: Why and How We

PlayAn Exploratory Journal. (pp. 24-27). 3. Retrieved from:

http://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog25.htm Sniderman, S. (2004). Fair Game, II. The Life of Games: Why and How We

PlayAn Exploratory Journal. (pp. 35-37). 4. Retrieved from:http://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog35.htm

Van Gemert, F. (2009).De rijke inzichten van participerende observatie.Retrieved fromhttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-

inzichten-van-participerende-observatie

Wright, T., Boria, E., & Breidenbach, P. (2002). Creative Player Actions in

FPS Online Video Games: Playing Counter-Strike. Game studies: theinternational journal of computer game research. 2 (2). Retrieved from

http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/
http://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sidewinder&image=Sidewinder-jpghttp://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sidewinder&image=Sidewinder-jpghttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camping.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camping.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camper.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camper.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-lan.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-lan.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-console.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-console.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-multiplayer.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-multiplayer.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-first_person.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-first_person.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-fps.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-fps.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-capture_the_flag.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-capture_the_flag.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-capture_the_flag.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-peripheral_device.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-peripheral_device.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-peripheral_device.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-power_up.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-power_up.htmhttp://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettingshttp://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettingshttp://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettingshttp://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sidewinderhttp://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sidewinderhttp://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolvedhttp://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolvedhttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog25.htmhttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog25.htmhttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog35.htmhttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog35.htmhttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/http://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-inzichten-van-participerende-observatiehttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog35.htmhttp://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog25.htmhttp://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolvedhttp://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sidewinderhttp://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettingshttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-power_up.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-peripheral_device.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-peripheral_device.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-capture_the_flag.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-capture_the_flag.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-fps.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-first_person.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-multiplayer.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-console.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-lan.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camper.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camping.htmhttp://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sidewinder&image=Sidewinder-jpg


15/24

14

8. Appendix

8.1 Description of game concepts in alphabetical order

Camping, Camper, Camp

Camping is the action of staying in the same place (the camp) for long

periods of time, usually in hiding, and just waiting for the enemy to come

by. A camper is usually frowned upon in the FPS community (GamingDictionary, 2011).

Capture The Flag (CTF)

Capture the Flag is ...a special mode usually found in multiplayer games,

where two teams will engage in battle and try to take the opponent's flag inorder to bring it back to their own base, while protecting their own flag.

(Gaming Dictionary, 2011). In Halo, the two teams are called Red and Blue.

Console

The console is ...an entertainment system, portable or not, which lets youplay video games. (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). This research concerns the

Xbox console.

First Person Shooter (FPS)

A First Person Shooter is ...agame which puts you in the driver's (or killer)seat. You will indeed be seeing all the action through the eyes of the

character you are playing... (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). The first person

game player sees ...through the eyes of the protagonist. (Gaming

Dictionary, 2011).

Halo: Combat Evolved

Halo is ...a first-person shooter with considerable driving elements and the

first game in the popular Halo series... Halo also has a significantmultiplayer component with capture the flag with the unusual addition

that the flag takes your weapon spot while you are holding it, so shooting

your way in and out of the base on your own is not an option There is

also a game editor which allows you to set custom rules for all the basic

game types. All the playable weapons and vehicles from the campaign

mode are available in the multiplayer maps with the ability for members of

the same team to share the game's distinctive Warthog vehicle, which isessentially a small truck with a mounted gun on the back. (MobyGames,

2011).

Local Area Network (LAN)

LAN abbreviates the descriptive term Local Area Network. Such asnetwork connects computers in a common location (Gaming Dictionary,

2011). Here, the network consists of four Xbox consoles located in a house,

often in two rooms due to the divide of the group into two competing teams.

Map

The map is the ...game universe you are in when you play a game.(Gaming Dictionary, 2011). This research is limited to one specific map

called Sidewinder.

Multiplayer

This research concerns multiplayer gameplay. This means ...a video game

that can be played by a few players ... over a network, over the Internet, or

in a LAN. (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). Halo allows a total number of 16

players to play at the same time in the map Sidewinder.

Peripherals

Peripherals are...hardware (as opposed tosoftware) extension ... device[s]used in computer science, like amouse... (Gaming Dictionary, 2011).Example of peripheral devices in relation to the Xbox console are the

controller, network cables and the network hub/switch.

Powerups
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-game.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-hardware.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-hardware.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-hardware.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-software.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-software.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-software.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-mouse.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-mouse.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-mouse.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-software.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-hardware.htmhttp://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-game.htm


16/24

15

Powerups are ...a bonus. It is an object that you can find in the game worldand that will add itself to your original skill to boost it. These can be

either found in the game,by killing an enemy, or even in secret places.

(Gaming Dictionary, 2011).

Health Pack

The health pack restores the health of the protagonist, in-game it lookssimilar to a first-aid kit.

Active Camouflage

Active camouflage makes the player transparent, and therefore less easy tosee. This power up is often referred to as invisibility, although it does not

make the players completely invisible.

Over-shield

The over-shield in Halo is called shield because it protects you against

enemy attacks. The word over designates that it is located over the health

points. The over-shield restores automatically, while the health points can

only be restored by picking up a health pack.

Sidewinder

Sidewinder is one of the 13 available multiplayer maps of the game Halo.

From a birds eye perspective the map resembles a horseshoe. The main

feature of this map is the ice patches on the front of the horseshoe in

between the bases... On the outer edge of the map are two large cliffs thatare connected to each base with teleporters. ... On the inner edge, there is anetwork of tunnels which lead to the opposing bases. Four power-ups can

be found in the lower section of the tunnel. There is a Sniper Rifle, two

Shotguns, Health Pack, Plasma Pistol, Pistol and an Assault Rifle insideeach base. (Halopedia, 2011).

Figure 1.Map of Sidewinder(Source: Esemono, 2010)

8.2 Interview transcripts

Interviews were held with Arjan Griffioen, Melvin& Collin Kasper,

Niels Bakker and Tim de Heij. The original audio recordings of the

interviews are available upon request at the researcher.

The transcripts have been annotated by the researcher. The colorscorrespond to important concepts in this research:

Red: game elements

Blue: in-game social norms

Green: player motivation and goal

Yellow: rule change process


17/24

16

8.2.1. Interview with A. Griffioen

Interviewer: Mark Jansen

Interviewee: Arjan Griffioen

Date: 25-01-2011

[Mark] Goedenavond Arjan. Goed, het is vandaag dinsdagavond 25

januari 2011 en ik spreek met Arjan Griffioen. Klopt dat, Arjan?

[Arjan] Zeker.

[Mark] Ok, is het in orde dat ik een opname maak van dit gesprek?

[Arjan] Ja, helemaal.

[Mark] Als iets niet duidelijk is dan kun je tijdens het gesprek een

vraag stellen. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de spelregelsin de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm in de map Sidewinder van

de game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen stellen. De eerste vraag

is; welke elementen zijn verandert, met betrekking tot de originele

spelregels?

[Arjan] We hadden een aantal aanpassingen gemaakt. De eerste was

dat je, er waren een aantal teleporters in het level, twee aan elke kant

van het level en die mocht je niet blokkeren. Dat kon je doen door er

een poppetje of een object op te zetten. Dat mocht niet. Er waren een

aantal power-ups in het level, onzichtbaarheid en schild, dat je een

extra sterk schild kreeg. Dat mochten we niet gebruiken, want daarwerd je gewoon te goed door. Er waren een aantal wapens die we niet

mochten gebruiken. Dat was de sniper-rifle, waarmee je heel ver koninzoomen en makkelijk mensen kon doodschieten. De rocket-

launcher, waarmee je simpel en makkelijk kills kon maken. Owja, je

mocht niet campen. Rondhangen op n plek om alleen maar mensen

dood te schieten en kills te maken. Je moest altijd aanvallend spelen

en voor de vlag gaan. Maar het was wel te betwisten wat campen

inhield. De voornaamste dingen... hielden ook in gebruik maken vaneen aantal fouten in het level, maar dat mocht ook niet. Zoals

mensen, in het midden van het level kon je dan tussen twee palen

door dringen via een trucje en dat mocht je ook niet gebruiken. Dat

waren de belangrijkste dingen.

[Mark] Ok, je hebt nu een boel dingen genoemd. Mijn tweede vraag

was, wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als ongewenst

beschouwde? Een paar daarvan heb je denk ik al genoemd. Weet je er

misschien nog meer?

[Arjan] Nou, het belangrijkste was dat je niet alleen maar heel

verdedigend kon spelen, met zijn allen alleen maar de basis

verdedigen, je moest ook aanvallend aanvallen organiseren. Want

anders kon het spel een beetje vastlopen en veel te lang duren. Je

moest dus ook aanvallend spelen en je mocht niet alleen voor de kills

gaan, dus je mocht niet alleen maar mensen doodschieten om eengoede kills-deaths ratio te krijgen, maar je moest dus echt, zeg maar,

het spel spelen om de vlag. En de dingen die ik net gezegd heb.

[Mark] Ok. Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische

wijze tot stand?

[Arjan] Ik ben wat later begonnen met spelen, dus heel veel van die

regels waren er al toen ik bij jullie kwam spelen. Ik denk niet dat het

helemaal democratisch was. Uiteindelijk besloot iedereen wel, het

werd meer geaccepteerd, dan dat iedereen het er altijd mee eens was.

Uiteindelijk denk ik wel dat iedereen het ermee eens was, maar ikdenk niet dat het een gezamenlijk besluit was.

[Mark] Ok, en wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de

spelregels?


18/24

17

[Arjan] Het doel was, ik denk dat het meerdere dingen waren, n

was dat het spelletje speelbaar bleef. Want als je bijvoorbeeld dewapens ging gebruiken, of de power-ups ging gebruiken, kon je

gewoon te goed worden. Dus als n iemand n de goede wapens n

de power-ups in bezit had, dan had hij gewoon een t grote

machtspositie en werd het spelletje onspeelbaar. En ik denk ook om

het spel moeilijker te maken. Dat bepaalde dingen niet zomaar meerkonden gebeuren, dat je niet te makkelijk kon winnen, maar aan de

andere kant, dat er wel uiteindelijk een winnaar kwam, dat het dus

wel speelbaar bleef.

[Mark] Ok en werd volgens jou dat beoogde doel ook daadwerkelijk

bereikt?

[Arjan] Ja, ik denk het wel. Uiteindelijk waren natuurlijk een aantal

mensen beter dan anderen, dat heeft het spel ook altijd wel erg

benvloed, maar aan de duur van de potjes te zien, en uiteindelijk

kwam er ook altijd een winnaar uit, werd het doel zeker wel bereikt.Dat denk ik wel. Alleen waren er natuurlijk altijd wel dingetjes die te

betwisten waren, wat ik al eerder zei, het campen wat dan niet mocht,

dat gebeurde toch wel een beetje. Het was altijd kijken van wat is wel

campen en wat is niet campen. Dat leidde wel eens tot

schreeuwpartijen tussen boven en beneden teams, maar over het gros

werden de regels wel geaccepteerd en werd er wel bereikt wat we zelf

hadden aangepast.

[Mark] Ok, dat was alweer het einde van het interview. Ik wil je

hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.

[Arjan] Ik jou ook Mark, succes.

8.2.2 Interview with M. Kasper

Interviewer: Mark Jansen

Interviewee: Melvin Kasper

Date: 30-12-2010

[Mark] Het is vandaag donderdag 30 december 2010. Ik spreek met

Melvin Kasper. Vind je het goed dat ik een opname maak van het

gesprek?

[Melvin] Ja dat is prima.

[Mark] Hartstikke mooi. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van

de spelregels in de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm van de map

Sidewinder binnen de game Halo. Ik ga je vijf vragen stellen. De

eerste vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert met betrekking tot de

originele spelregels?

[Melvin] Wat we verandert hebben is dat we bepaalde wapens hebben

uitgesloten. De rocket launcher mocht niet, omdat die, voor zover wij

vonden, te krachtig was, te goed was, er viel ook niet tegen te spelen.

Sniper rifle hebben we er ook uitgegooid, om ongeveer dezelfderedenen. Je kon van heel lange afstand iemand uitschakelen en wij

vonden dat niet echt veel toevoegen aan de game. Volgens mij

hebben we uiteindelijk wel toegestaan dat je met sniper mocht

scouten, zeg maar, dus je kon met de in-zoom wel mensen zien

aankomen, wat dus wel een voordeel was, maar je mocht er dus niet

mee schieten. Dus je had een soort van grote verrekijker met een

geweer eronder.

[Mark] Ok.

[Melvin] Verder power-ups zoals onzichtbaarheid, invisibility, en hetpower-shield, dat hebben we ook niet gedaan omdat het t makkelijk

was om voor een aanval even een powershield op te pakken en als je

dan in een n tegen n situatie kwam dan was het gewoon niet

meer te doen voor die andere partij. Dan kon je wel ongeveer

evenveel skills hebben maar dan had hij zo'n power-up waardoor hij


19/24

18

hem altijd won.

[Mark] Ja. En waren er nog andere elementen behalve deze?

[Melvin] Ja, er waren bepaalde glitches in Halo 1. Als je onderin bij

de tunnels ging zitten, waar ook de power-up lag, als je daar een auto,

Warthog, neergooide aan de ene kant en je kwam aan de andere kantaanrennen met de vlag, dan kon je door een muurtje geteleporteert

worden op het moment dat je instapte bij die auto en dan was je dus

ineens in de tunnel aan jouw kant van de baan. En dat is ook

verboden op een gegeven momen omdat het gewoon totaal te

makkelijk was, zodra je de basis van de vijand uit was en je in de

tunnels was kwam je door die muur heen en dan konden ze je al lang

niet meer pakken.

[Mark] Ok. En wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als

ongewenst beschouwde?

[Melvin] Ja, campen in zijn algemeen, maar dat viel wel mee, dat

werd wel gepikt. Omdat het ook wel werd gedaan, zeker in de

verdediging wel, dat was ook niet zo storend. Wat niet toegestaan

was, wat echt a-relaxt was, was campen in het hokje van de

teleporters. Zeker als je dan vlak naast de teleporter ging staan

wachten tot er iemand doorheen rende en dan sloeg je hem in de rug

en die is dan in n keer down. Dat was zeker ongewenst. En verder

het blokkeren van teleporters, dat is volgens mij ook verboden op een

gegeven moment, dat mocht ook niet meer.

[Mark] Ok. En kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels opdemocratische wijze tot stand?

[Melvin] Ja, ik denk het haast wel. Ik kan het me niet meer goed

herinneren of hier veel discussie over was, of hoe dit ooit bepaald is,

maar volgens mij was iedereen het er wel mee eens. Omdat dingen

als rocket launchers, snipers en die power-ups toch een beetje de

balans uit zo'n game wegtrekken, waardoor dus, zeker iemand dieweinig skills heeft, makkelijk met dit soort wapens alsnog iemand

met veel skills kan verslaan, wat we eigenlijk helemaal niet tof

vonden. Dus ik denk dat het wel democratisch gegaan is, ik kan me

ook niet herinneren of er mensen waren die ertegen waren of zich er

tegen uit hebben gesproken ofzo.

[Mark] Ok. En wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de

spelregels?

[Melvin] Ja, toch bepaalde elementen uit het spel halen die, voor

zover wij vonden, een beetje overpowered waren. De rocket launcher,

die eigenlijk te krachtig was, een sniper rifle die te goed was, power-

ups die een oneerlijk voordeel gaven, dat gaf gewoon in de team

battles, en ook vooral in de n versus n battles, dat het gewoon

veel meer aankwam op je skills zeg maar, dan op de power-up die je

daarvoor had opgepakt. Of de dikke wapens die je daarvoor hadopgepakt. En dat was zeker voor verdedigers, die eigenlijk niet in het

veld kwamen en dus ook geen power-ups en wapens konden krijgen,

dat maakte het zeker veel spannender. Want anders was jij als

aanvaller altijd sterker als een verdediger was.

[Mark] Ok. En werd volgens jou dat doel ook uiteindelijk bereikt?

[Melvin] Ja, ik denk het wel, ik denk dat we er meer plezier aan

hebben beleefd op deze manier, dan we hadden gehad als we

bazooka's, snipers en dat soort dingen hadden toegestaan. Ja ik denk

dat het doel bereikt werd, het werd een meer gebalanceerde game dieveel meer van skill afhing dan van powerups.

[Mark] Ok. Dat vind ik een mooie afsluiting van het interview. Ik wil

je hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.


20/24

19

[Melvin] Graag gedaan.

8.2.3 Interview with C. Kasper

Interviewer: Mark JansenInterviewee: Collin Kasper

Date: 30-12-2010

[Mark] Vandaag is het donderdag 30 december 2010. Het is tien

minuten over half zes in de avond. Ik spreek met Collin Kasper.

Collin vind je het goed dat ik een opname maak van het gesprek?

[Collin] Ja dat is prima.

[Mark] Hartstikke mooi. Als iets niet duidelijk is kun je tijdens het

gesprek je vraag stellen en dan zal ik die proberen te beantwoorden.

Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de spelregels in de

multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm in de map Sidewinder van degame Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen stellen.

[Collin] Allright.

[Mark] De eerste vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert, met

betrekking tot de originele spelregels?

[Collin] We hadden een paar elementen die verandert zijn. Dat is dat

je bepaalde wapens niet mocht oppakken. Dat je geen overshield en

geen onzichtbaarheid mocht oppakken. En, dan hadden we nog een

paar sociale regels zeg maar, dat had niks te maken met items op demap, maar dat waren dingen die je niet mocht doen, die not-done

waren. Dat zijn dingen als teleport-blocking, dus je mocht niet je auto

op het uiteinde van de teleport zetten zodat die geblokkeerd was. Je

mocht niet in de teleporter in het hokje blijven staan, zodat je iemand

direct in de rug kon slaan als die erdoorheen kwam. Even kijken

hoor... Verder mocht je van wapens oppakken niet de rocket launcher

pakken, de sniper rifle, en dingen oppakken zoals onzichtbaarheid en

het over-shield. Dat vooral vooral de grootste aanpassingen geweestvolgens mij.

[Mark] Ok. Mijn tweede vraag was wat waren acties die de groep als

geheel als ongewenst beschouwde, maar die heb je nu in feite al

beschreven. Maar weet je nog meer acties die niet konden, in-game?

[Collin] Nou, even kijken, onderin de tunnels had je twee spleten, zeg

maar, dan kon je heel snel door naar de andere kant als je daar je auto

naast zette en eruit sprong, of erin sprong, dan kon je er heel snel

doorheen en heel snel met de vlag weg. Dat mocht ook niet.

[Mark] Ok.

[Collin] Bovendien was het dan ook heel moeilijk om de overshield

en de onzichtbaarheid te ontwijken. En, ja, daarom mocht dat ook

niet.

[Mark] Ja, want die lagen op dezelfde plek.

[Collin] Ja.

[Mark] Ok. Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische

wijze tot stand?

[Collin] Ik denk vooral wel, omdat de meeste mensen het ermee eens

zijn geweest. Maar het verschilde natuurlijk wel, sommige mensen

zullen wel graag overshield's hebben gehad in die game, maar datwaren er dan te weinig om de rest van de groep er rekening mee te

laten houden. Als je gewoon tien mensen hebt die het wel willen en

eentje niet, dan is het pech voor die ene persoon. Ik denk dat je dat

democratisch kunt noemen.


21/24


22/24

21

ongewenst beschouwde?

[Niels] Nou, misschien ook eigenlijk alles wat ik net noemde. En

daarnaast misschien dat je de boel gewoon kapot slaat. Als je boos

bent. Dat was ook wat ongewenst. Menig man verloor zijn, hoe noem

je dat, zijn controle tijdens het spel. Dan werden ze nogal snel boos

op zichzelf. Dus dat was ook niet helemaal leuk voor de sfeer. Maarecht in het spel denk ik toch wat we net gezegd hebben. Misschien

was het ook niet altijd wenselijk dat er iemand achterbleef op de

basis. Dat zorgde wel voor wat ergernissen. Dat werd op een gegeven

moment ook gewoon geaccepteerd. Volgens mij was dat het. Ja, wat

ook wel vervelend was is dat men de vlag, door het hek kon gooien.

Dat herinner ik me opeens. Althans, dat vond ik een beetje laf. Dan

liet je de vlag los en dan viel die aan de andere kant van het hek op de

grond. Dan kon een teamgenoot die heel snel oppakken en dan sloeg

je een heel stuk af van de afstand die je normaal moet lopen om de

vlag naar je basis te brengen.

[Mark] Ok.

[Niels] Is dit een beetje wat je zoekt?

[Mark] Het is een prima antwoord, als jij het zo vind is het ok. Je

hebt het over een hek, waar bevond dat hek zich?

[Niels] Het level was een soort hoefijzer en daar zat een doorgang,

zeg maar het midden van het hoefijzer, daar was een gebergte en dat

had een doorgang, een tunnel, die bovenlangs liep. Maar ook beneden

had die een hekwerk precies in het midden. En dat hekwerk bedoelik.

[Mark] Ok, en wat was het doel van het wijzigen van de spelregels?

[Niels] Ik denk dat het vooral de bedoeling was om het spel wat meer

gericht op echte kunde te laten, want die mass-destruction wapens,

die waren, zo'n bazooka, die schiet je ergens achter iemand op degrond en dan is 'ie ook dood. Terwijl een pistool, dan moest je hem

wel echt raken. En als je er heel goed in was dan kon je dat met drie

schoten af. Het gaf toch net meer dat je kon ontwijken en wat meer

een one-on-one gevecht hebt wat echt ergens over gaat. En verder,

het doel was dat het eerlijk bleef. Daarom mocht je die packs nietpakken, want anders is het drie schoten en dan ben je dood, of vijf

ofzo, en met zo'n pack is het dan opeens tien schoten. Dat gaat

nergens over. Dus dat was een beetje het idee, want dan is het geen

eerlijke strijd.

[Mark] Ok en werd volgens jou dat doel ook daadwerkelijk bereikt?

[Niels] Het doel werd zeker bereikt. Ik denk dat wij zo een hele leuke

tijd hebben doorgemaakt.

[Mark] Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische wijzetot stand?

[Niels] Dat durf ik eigenlijk niet te zeggen. Dat is gewoon ten stand

gekomen in de loop van de jaren. Eigenlijk uit het niets. Zeg maar

van dat gaat wel heel makkelijk zo, dat is eigenlijk niet zo leuk,

laten we dat eens een keer niet doen, laten we het een keer anders

proberen. Dan kwam je erachter dat het het spel bevorderde. Het is

meer een groeiproces geweest dan dat er echt gezegd werd wie is er

vr deze regel?. Op een gegeven moment dacht iedereen wel dat

het de leukste manier was om te spelen. En er zijn natuurlijk altijd

wel mensen die zich even niet aan de regels hielden, nouja, dat werddan ook passioneel uitgelegd.

[Mark] Ok, dat was alweer het einde van het interview. Ik wil je

hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.


23/24

22

[Niels] Graag gedaan jongeman.

8.2.5 Interview with T. de Heij

Interviewer: Mark JansenInterviewee: Tim de Heij

Date: 03-01-2011

[Mark] Het is vandaag maandag 3 januari 2011 en ik spreek met Tim

de Heij. Tim, vind je het ok als ik een opname maak van dit gesprek?

[Tim] Jazeker.

[Mark] Mooi. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de

spelregels in de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm van de map

Sidewinder binnen de game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen

stellen. Mocht er iets niet duidelijk zijn dan kun je dit tijdens het

gesprek aangeven dan zal ik het uit proberen te leggen. Mijn eerstevraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert met betrekking tot de

originele spelregels?

[Tim] Wij gebruiken geen rockets, geen snipers, geen radar, er mochtniet gecampt worden bij de teleporters, dat was het eigenlijk wel

volgens mij. Er was n cheat in de map die wij speelden,

Sidewinder, dan kon je een auto opblazen, tegen je aan, dan kon je

door een muur geblazen worden. Dat hebben we een tijdje wel

gespeeld, maar toen werd het te makkelijk en toen hebben we het

afgeschaft. Dat zijn er vijf die ik nog duidelijk weet.

[Mark] Ok, en wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als ongewenst

beschouwde?

[Tim] Teleport campen dus, dat heb ik eerder genoemd. Snipen. Wat

is ongewenst, kun je wat specifieker zijn?

[Mark] Ongewenst, dat betekent dus dat mensen erop reageerden als

je dus zo iets deed wat niet de bedoeling was.

[Tim] Teleport campen, snipen en rockets gebruiken. We gebruikten

ook geen overshield en geen invisibility. Geen power-ups.

[Mark] Ok en kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratischewijze tot stand?

[Tim] Ja heel democratisch want iedereen was het erover eens dat dit

spel veel leuker maakte dan de originele settings. Omdat rockets en

snipers toch wel makkelijk te hanteren waren en wij speelden vooral

met het pistooltje, daar kreeg je grote pistool battles van. Ja en de

rocket is gewoon een groot n00b wapen, dat gebruikten we daarom

dus niet. Ik denk dat het heel democratisch tot stand is gekomen

anders zou niet iedereen elke week weer het spel met elkaar willen

spelen.

[Mark] Ok. Wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de

spelregels?

[Tim] Het spel leuker maken, interessanter. Ook wat moeilijker.

Zonder de radar en zonder de rockets. En uiteindelijk wat

gebalanceerder, want met de powerups en die sterke wapens, als

iemand die in het bezit had, die was eigenlijk niet meer te verslaan.

Dus volgens mij is daaruit het idee geboren om het allemaal af te

schaffen.

[Mark] Ok, en werd volgens jou het beoogde doel ook daadwerkelijkbereikt?

[Tim] Ja zeker, dat werd zeker bereikt. Iedereen had de beschikking

over dezelfde wapens, je kreeg ze bij het begin namelijk, zo werd het

spel heel eerlijk en was je op basis van je eigen skill niveau wat


24/24

23

bepaalde hoe goed je was en niet wat voor wapens je droeg of wat

voor powerups je te pakken had.

[Mark] Ok, dankjewel, dat was alweer het einde van het interview.

Bedankt voor je deelname.

[Tim] Geen probleem.

Documents

Making the Rules: the Case of Halo