McCrea looks at Starcraft strategies in Korea from the outside, as a fan fo the game but not a Korean scholar. He is interested in meta-narratives of play, and argues that the game itself is largely responsible for its popularity in Korea, not any "ephemeral cultural reason." However, the stakes of the game are local.
He argues against Galloway, who examines the game of Starcraft, but neglects how it is played. Galloway considers the structure of the game, and its theme. He analyzes the Zerg as a rhizomatic force, and looks at how the game is balanced. McCrea argues that it is not the balance but lack thereof that tells how the game is played, as players seek to take advantage of one another.
He sees Starcraft pro-gamers as involved in a narrative of strategy and fame. Like Geertz's 'center bet' in Deep Play, he argues that strategy and fame are the 'means and device' of Starcraft deep play in Korea. He cites the example of a new and surprising tactic (Terran bunker rush) in a professional match that took the opponent totally by surprise. More than winning a match, what was at stake was the player's reputations and their skills - one player's inability to adapt to the tactic led to his defeat, and the success of the other player made him a legend.
I like this article because it looks at gameplay itself rather than themes. It shows how gameplay can be 'objectively' good and consistent around the world, but a culture can create all-new stakes for the game. This may be an angle to take in my work: what are the stakes for players of EVE?
No comments:
Post a Comment