A CA perspective on kills and deaths in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive video game play

  • Fredrik Rusk Nord University
  • Matilda Ståhl
Keywords: conversation analysis, video games, interaction, accountability

Abstract

The interest in studying multiplayer video game play has been growing since the mid-2000s. This is in part due to growing interest in games that are part of eSports settings such as Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO), which is one of the main games within eSports, and is the video game that is studied in this paper. Studies of multiplayer video game play from a conversation analysis (CA) participant perspective appear to be scarce, although they are steadily becoming a legitimate topic in ethnomethodological conversation analytical (EMCA) studies. EMCA studies have mostly focused on aspects around the screen, and on how physically present players interact and draw upon resources both on- and off-screen. Some studies have taken the CA perspective further and blur the on-/off-screen dichotomy to better understand on-screen actions as social actions worthy of study. The aim of this article is to describe and gain new understanding of how participants socially organize their game play with a focus on sequentiality and accountability connected to “kills” (K) and “deaths” (D) in CS:GO. The social organizational structure of game play connected to K- and D-events in CS:GO can be described as a set of “rules” that participants orient to. In short, these rules appear to encompass communication efficiency: K-events are more often other-topicalized, and D-events are more often self-topicalized; spectating provides more sequential and temporal space for topicalization; and D-events are oriented to as more problematic events in need of further negotiation. In-and-through describing the social organization connected to K- and D-events from a participant’s perspective, it becomes evident that “killing” and “dying” in-game is not oriented to in a literal fashion. They are oriented to as frequent events that are basic parts of the game’s mechanics and of playing the game to win or lose.

References

Aarsand, P. A., & Aronsson, K. (2009). Response cries and other gaming moves—Building intersubjectivity in gaming. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1557–1575.
Bennerstedt, U. (2013). Knowledge at play. Studies of games as members’ matters. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden).
Bennerstedt, U., & Ivarsson, J. (2010). Knowing the Way. Managing Epistemic Topologies in Virtual Game Worlds. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(2), 201-230.
Brown, B., & Bell, M. (2004). CSCW at play: “There” as a collaborative virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘04) (pp. 350–359). New York: ACM.
Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-person shooter games as a way of connecting to people: “Brothers in blood”. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 557–562.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2012). Embodied Action and Organizational Activity. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 283-307). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hung, A. C.-Y. (2011). The work of play: Meaning-making in video games. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Jansz, J., & Tanis, M. (2007). Appeal of Playing Online First Person Shooter Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 133-136.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kiuorti, E. (2019). “Shut the Fuck up Re! 1 Plant the Bomb Fast!” Reconstructing Language and Identity in First-person Shooter Games. In A. Ensslin & I. Balteiro (Eds.), Approaches to Videogame Discourse: Lexis, Interaction, Textuality (pp. 157-177). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Laurier, E., & Reeves, S. (2014). Cameras in Video Games: Comparing Play in Counter-Strike and Doctor Who Adventures. In M. Broth, E. Laurier & L. Mondada (Eds.), Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work (Chapter 6). New York: Routledge
Manninen, T., & Kujanpää, T. (2005). The Hunt for Collaborative War Gaming - CASE: Battlefield 1942. Game Studies 5(1).
Maynard, D.W. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1984) Topical talk, ritual and the social organisation of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly 47(4), 301–16.
Mondada, L. (2012). Coordinating action and talk-in-interaction in and out of video games. In R. Ayaß & C. Gerhardt (Eds.), The appropriation of media in everyday life (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mondada, L. (2013). Coordinating mobile action in real time: The timely organisation of directives in video games. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and Mobility. Language and the Body in Motion (pp. 300-341). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336-366.
Mondada, L. (2019). Multimodal transcription conventions. Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2014). Asymmetries of knowledge and epistemic change in social gaming interaction. Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 1022–1038.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. London: Sage.
Rambusch, J., Jakobsson, P., & Pargman, D. (2007). Exploring E-sports: A case study of gameplay in Counter-strike. In DiGRA '07 - Proceedings of the 2007 DiGRA International Conference: Situated Play (pp. 157-164). The University of Tokyo.
Reer, F., & Krämer, N. C. (2019). Are online role-playing games more social than multiplayer first-person shooters? Investigating how online gamers’ motivations and playing habits are related to social capital acquisition and social support. Entertainment Computing 29, 1–9.
Reeves, S., Brown, B., & Laurier, E. (2009). Experts at Play: Understanding Skilled Expertise. Games and Culture, 4(3), 205-227.
Reeves, S., Greiffenhagen, C., & Laurier, E. (2017). Video Gaming as Practical Accomplishment: Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, and Play. Top Cogn Sci, 9(2), 308-342.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silseth, K. (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. Computer Supported Learning, 7(1), 63-84.
Sjöblom, B. (2011). Gaming interaction: Conversations and competencies in internet cafes. (Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden).
Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing Topicality in University Students’ Small-group Discussion: A Conversation Analytic Approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184-203.
Ståhl, M., & Rusk, F. (submitted). Weapon customization, player competence and team discourse – exploring player identity construction and co-construction in Counter Strike: Global Offensive. Game Studies.
Valve Corporation & Hidden Path Entertainment. (2012). Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Valve Corporation.
Wright, T., Boria, E., & Breidenbach, P. (2002). Creative player actions in FPS online video games: Playing Counter-Strike. Game studies, 2(2).
Published
2020-07-01
How to Cite
Rusk, F., & Ståhl, M. (2020). A CA perspective on kills and deaths in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive video game play. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i2.117066
Section
Artikler