When one considers power, one considers the powerful, things like natural disasters or nations leaders, people in high positions that could single handily destroy or enhance your life with a single word or phrase. The powerful have got to their positions by either being born powerful or rising up on the backs of others, forming networks of power with a central hub of the powerful, these 'hubs and clusters and form ‘small worlds’ – they are powerful"(Van Luyn, 2015), by analyzing the formation of networks as we did in this subjects lectures and readings, we might at gain a glimpse of what it takes to be powerful.
The network which I have chosen to analyze for this blog assessment is the game of Dota 2, this is a team arena battle where five players are paired up against another five to destroy each others base. This is a simple explanation, the game itself is complex, I myself have spent 2000 hours on it and I still am bad. If it is truly your desire to understand the game, then perhaps the most famous guide Welcome to Dota 2. You suck. (feat. PurgeGamers), a hyperlink is provided in the bibliography below, this is also a way in which this elitist community manages to put you in your place from the beginning.
Dota 2 has an awful reputation due to its elitist population base which acts as a form of Michel Foucault's Panopticon as examined in the Turkle reading (1995, p.246), this is not a game which you can just enter as one wrong move will lead you and your team to loss in most cases. This leads to a fantastic display as the people with power and knowledge, the elite cast of the game, teach the new blood the way they were taught, through verbal abuse and reports. The new players will then self consciously think what will my team mates think if go for this kill or capture this objective, then they will censor their movements limiting their power but giving the team mates the space of support needed to grow.
References:
TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit. (2015). Welcome to Dota 2. You suck. (feat. PurgeGamers). Retrieved August 13, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUcVxADBNeo
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Van Luyn, A. (2015). BA1002: Our Space: Networks, Narratives and the Making of Place, Lecture 2 Power: The Panopticon. [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved on August 13, 2015 from http://learnjcu.edu.au
Imagine list:
Hi Ivy, I greatly enjoyed reading your blog post! I think I understand Dota 2 a little bit more now than I did before. Sometimes your grammar and punctuation gets a bit confusing and makes it difficult for me to understand the point you are trying to get across, but I think it could be improved with a bit more proofreading and editing. I would also like some more elaboration on how Foucault's Panopticon theory relates to Dota 2 as I did not quite fully understand it. I also think your analysis would benefit from some of the concepts discussed in the week two lecture, such as what type of power is displayed in the Dota 2 community (all the different types are listed on slide 18 of the lecture powerpoint slides). However, I did particularly enjoy your anecdote about still being bad after over 2000 hours of experience; I can relate to that!
ReplyDeleteI find the power play in Dota 2 an interesting network, as unlike other multi-player games there is a very clear and present hierarchy and divide between experienced players and newcomers. As this divide in power and the resulting 'disciplining' of new players really promotes team based tactical thinking through panoptican style censorship. With other online multiplayer games such as any of the Total Wars this does not happen, as there is smaller team sizes and less ready communication between players, that to a much bigger extent are more casual and self taught. As said by Allen "People are placed by power, but they experience it at first hand through the rhythms and relationships of particular places..."(Allen.J.2003.p2) .Thus in Dota 2 where superior players are much exalted above their comrades through the surveillance system of the panoptican, place the players where they are needed, and give them a purpose, rather than the slow motion, drawn out maneuvers at the start of each Total War battle as each player is reluctant to attack, because there is no scathing for their timidity.
ReplyDeleteReferences
Allen, J. (2003). Lost geographies of power. Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.