Communication in Games

Introduction

Communication in multiplayer games has been a mechanic that is incorporated by many game designers when making their online game. Being able to communicate with your teammates in online games is very important if you want to be successful in winning with strangers in your team. Like in any other organizational scenario, team coordination through elaborate and clear communication that include sharing of information, instructions, complimenting teammates, solving conflicting, creativity, and engagement is essential in winning games. As argued by Boies et al. (2015) and Eisenberg et al. (2019), a successful team built around a shared goals and objective is largely depended on effectiveness of communication within and among teammates. In gaming industry, especially multiplayer games, success is forged within the collaboration between teammates through shared strategies, organization, and enhancing creativity to outwit the opponents. According to Kuehster & Hall (2010) and Sauvé et al. (2010), building an effective team starts with forging an effective communication systems.

Concept of behind game design

At its core, a game is informed by challenges setup to be accomplished by anyone. As pointed by Cason & Plott (2014) and Hamari & Eranti (2011) the simplest games such as throwing rocks at things installed important survival skills to the throwers, good hunting and protection for best throwers. Currently, playing games is largely driven by satisfying a primal desire deeply rooted in every human where winning elevates a happy or satisfactory feeling and losing bring upset. Traditionally, according to Przybylski et al. (2010), games are founded on the win- and lose- state. In the current online multiplayer games, challenges in the form of obstacles, puzzle, and adversaries are incorporated with provision of corporation and coordination among the team players to break. Solarski (2012) illustrated that success of a team is determine by effectiveness measured by rate of solving the problem (beating the opponents to solving the challenge). Building from game design where a plan for creating a game is set in place, an interactive form of gamification among the participants is increasingly focused on particularly in multiplayer setting. According to Kapp (2012) and Haurie et al. (2012), game theory, outlining the strategic interaction and coordination in decision-making in regard to a strategy or approach followed, has be explored by game designers arguing that it plays a core role in coordination and engagement between players.

Wen and Song (2011) argues in respect to Nash equilibrium, which is modelled around relations between multiplayers in a game by proposing a solution to non-cooperative situation in a multiplayer through assumption that the players are aware of the equilibrium strategies of other players and no apparent gain is observed by changing individual strategy. In such scenario, each players has a thought-through and well-established strategy but changing such strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged will resulting in non-beneficial outcome. As such, in designing a game meant to benefit from coordination and engagement from multiplayer, a consideration of others decision-making process and decision take in order to take advantage of operational efficiency (Chen et al., 2016; Infante et al., 2010; Zea et al., 2009). Building from this, one can argue that in online games geared towards achieving results where every players wins by getting desired outcome is possible through effective engagement and collaboration.

Communication in Multiplayer games

In a multiplayer situation, if members of a team choose a different strategy may result not increasing individual and collective outcomes. The team-based games are driven by incentives to work together as a team as well as supporting the other teams for a common goal. Study conducted by Ellingse and Östling (2010) on the influence of communication in games employed level—k model of strategic thinking to explain the effects of pre—play, cheap talk, and in-play communication. The findings indicate that regular communication in form of two-way communication enhances coordination in a common interest games. It is worth noting that not all communication increases engagement and coordination between players.

According to Šisler (2009) and Mason (2013), in addition to sharing commonness and ways of tackling challenges, communication enables players to minimise conflicting interests. Cowley et al. (2008) and Filiciak (2013) reasoned that conventionally game theory and optimization theory are founded on the ‘matrix of possible decisions’ and success in term of wins and accomplishing challenges desired by individual and collective teammate. The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a widely referred to scenario in game theory and design of game, highlight a situation where two prisoners placed in two different room and unable to communicate are each given an option by co-operate with prosecutors but under condition that the first to confess will see the charge reduced while the other double (Dixit, and Skeath, 2015). The dilemma is that if both parties fail to confess, that is, cooperating with each other instead of prosecutors will see highest reward for each party. As pointed by Burguillo (2010) and Halpern (2008), it presents a situation driven by self-interest where the parties involved in any given situation act in the best interest on oneself. Taking the prisoner’s dilemma and applying into game design, teammates driven by desire to outwit and outperformance the opponents in solving the challenges are primarily pushed by self-interest. However, through coordination and sharing strategies enhance the chances of completing the tasks and challenges more effectively compared to opponents.

Notably, the dilemma in a real world is only played only once otherwise referred to as iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In the latter, the players get to choose the approaches that reward co-operation and working together between members while at the same time punishing the defection. Within communication design, an approach such as two-way chats, messaging, voice, or occasional notification that offers best outcomes is taken. Assumption is that following an approach repeatedly with the same individuals (teammates) eventually lead to players relaying on the other players decisions and strategies (Kanazawa, and Fontaine, 2013; Lee, 2008). Nevertheless, the teams can develop a strategies altering the incentives of playing the game such as introducing a collective action such as rules, collective decision-making, and reputation informed by cooperative behaviour. According to Ewoldsen et al. (2012) and Velez (2015), games can design a communication platform where some players with granted privileges through established reputation can communicate while failure to follow the established rules and regulations lead being subjected to explicit social punishment for defections transforms.

Arguably, the interactive and social nature of online multiplayer games have popularise them. Incorporation of chat and other communication platforms such as simple instant messaging, private ‘rooms’, pop up chat box, or direct hold direct conversation (discussion) through other players or privately has had a significant influence (Peterson, 2010; Camilleri et al., 2011). Although depends on the games, the private or virtual rooms are essentially separate screens where a player can exchange messages directly with other players. In additional to having direct conversation through messaging, complex communication exists such as connecting through webcam or microphones. Such games as Fortnite and PlanetArkadia allow the players to video and voice chat with other players directly. The live video and voice calls allows more personal form of communication where the players can interact directly while having their faces and lives seen to other players.

However, some games offer the players who do not want their faces and lives to be exposed to other online gamers to create a cartoon-like image referred as avatar representing a chosen character and different for every player. Essentially, as highlighted by You et al. (2017) and Ahlstrom et al. (2012), the avatar-enabled games allow direct communication between the online players while protecting personal identify. According to Williams et al. (2011), players can choose a character represented by different hair colours, clothing, body shape, skin complexion, gender, and body shape and size that they feel comfortable in and feel can withhold their identify with communicating and playing freely. Such games as Second Life allow players to have virtual lives with personal belongings by purchasing such items as clothing, homes, and cars hence showing others who they are, and what they are like.

As such, players can share a lot that include coordinating, engaging, co-operating, and sharing information with other players in same virtual world through different from real world. Some studies have indicate online interaction through such platform that include video and voice communication, messaging, and living in virtual have led to blossoming online communities structured by co-operation, coordination, and engagement (Beznosyk et al., 2011; Ries et al., 2008). According to Dauriat et al. (2011), direct engagement and socializing through online gaming is comparable, if not, more than face-to-face because of shared interest, values, and goals between the players.

The simplest variation of a communication system where the majority of today’s multiplayer games use is the voice chat. This is not a core mechanic as it is still possible to play the game without it changing anything from the gameplay. The most well-known example of where this feature was used in a game was Counter Strike (Valve Corporation, 2000). This system works by pressing a button on either a keyboard or controller depending what platform the user is playing on. This would activate the microphone and would allow them to communicate with their team.

Another less effective communication system in online games is the text chat. This is similar to voice chat, but the users have only the ability to type. This system is not effective in games where instant communication is needed for example to call out an enemy player in a position, if the player had to type out the information, by the time the information is relayed to his teammates the opponent ‘enemy’ might have moved from that position (Herring et al., 2009). The newer and more effective communication system, that is now being used by a lot of triple A rated games such as Apex Legends (Electronic Arts 2019) and Fortnite (Epic Games 2017), is the ping system. This is very effective as the player can give a wide range of information to his team instantly such as, if an ‘enemy’ is spotted or requesting certain ammunition to reload a gun. Another reason why this system excels in multiplayer games is because of the wide range of game genres where this mechanic can be applied to. Communication in multiplayer games is vital and game designers will always be looking in ways they can incorporate a mechanic to enhance team gameplay.

Online games that require teamwork, will need to have some sort of communication mechanic to help with team gameplay. Different genres of games can all benefit from different types of communication systems. League of Legends (Riot Games 2009) which is the current most played game on PC is an excellent example of how communication effects the gameplay of it. The game is over 10 years old and through the years it has developed various ways to communicate with your team. The game’s first communication mechanic that was implemented in their game was text chat. This system allowed players to type in their team chat to communicate with each other. As league of legends is a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena), a benefit of having a chat in the game means that players can just write timings for various summoned spells used by the opposition team.

The downside of this chat system is that it opens up an avenue for toxicity in the game. Riot games tried to tackle the matter of online bullying, sexual harassment, and toxicity by introducing a commending system (Kwak et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2019). If one is positive and helpful then the teammates can commend. These commendations then count at the end of the season and riot games award your account with gifts. Text chat can be good in giving information but it takes time for the player to write out that information. Therefore, riot introduced the smart ping mechanic in 2013. This really added a way to be able to give information out quicker without breaking your flow of gameplay. Another benefit of this is that you will not need the chat to tell people if someone could be in a certain location meaning that toxicity can be reduced slightly if the player wishes to remove the chat from their user interface. Another game that has its own type of ping system is the co-operative first person shooter Left 4 dead series (Valve 2008)

Conclusion

Different online multiplayers games provide certain kind of communication platform and tools largely based on the challenges in each game informed by objectives and goals to be accomplished. For instance, designer can integrate simple forums and chat boxes for messaging and chatting or video streaming and voice support from complex challenges to aid in problem solving and sharing of strategies. Several theories such as game theory, Nash equilibrium, and optimization theory have been used to explain the communication leading to engagement, coordination, and co-operation between teammates in multiplayer online games. Such frameworks as private ‘rooms’, and messaging allowing direct communication with other players while video, voice calls, and virtual living play a major role especially in multiplayer games. The downside to this communication framework is prevalence of bullying and discrimination although implementation of avatar approach as tried to minimise the occurrence.

Continue your exploration of Challenges and Interventions in Western African States with our related content.

References

Ahlstrom, M., Lundberg, N.R., Zabriskie, R., Eggett, D. and Lindsay, G.B., 2012. Me, my spouse, and my avatar: The relationship between marital satisfaction and playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Journal of Leisure Research, 44(1), pp.1-22.

Beznosyk, A., Quax, P., Coninx, K. and Lamotte, W., 2011, December. Influence of network delay and jitter on cooperation in multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on virtual reality continuum and its applications in industry (pp. 351-354). ACM.

Burguillo, J.C., 2010. Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & education, 55(2), pp.566-575.

Camilleri, V., Busuttil, L. and Montebello, M., 2011. Social interactive learning in multiplayer games. In Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 481-501). Springer, London.

Cason, T.N. and Plott, C.R., 2014. Misconceptions and game form recognition: Challenges to theories of revealed preference and framing. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), pp.1235-1270.

Chen, S.J., Kang, Y.Y. and Lin, C.L., 2016. Ergonomic evaluation of video game playing. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 7(6), pp.845-853.

Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M. and Hickey, R., 2008. Toward an understanding of flow in video games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(2), p.20.

Dauriat, F.Z., Zermatten, A., Billieux, J., Thorens, G., Bondolfi, G., Zullino, D. and Khazaal, Y., 2011. Motivations to play specifically predict excessive involvement in massively multiplayer online role-playing games: evidence from an online survey. European Addiction Research, 17(4), pp.185-189.

Dixit, A.K. and Skeath, S., 2015. Games of Strategy: Fourth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company.

Ellingsen, T. and Östling, R., 2010. When does communication improve coordination?. American Economic Review, 100(4), pp.1695-1724.

Ewoldsen, D.R., Eno, C.A., Okdie, B.M., Velez, J.A., Guadagno, R.E. and DeCoster, J., 2012. Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), pp.277-280.

Filiciak, M., 2013. Hyperidentities: Postmodern IdentityPatterns inMassively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. In The video game theory reader (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

Halpern, J.Y., 2008. Computer science and game theory. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: Volume 1–8, pp.984-994.

Hamari, J. and Eranti, V., 2011, September. Framework for Designing and Evaluating Game Achievements. In Digra conference.

Haurie, A., Krawczyk, J.B. and Zaccour, G., 2012. Games and dynamic games (Vol. 1). Singapore: World Scientific.

Herring, S.C., Kutz, D.O., Paolillo, J.C. and Zelenkauskaite, A., 2009, January. Fast talking, fast shooting: Text chat in an online first-person game. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

Infante, C., Weitz, J., Reyes, T., Nussbaum, M., Gómez, F. and Radovic, D., 2010. Co-located collaborative learning video game with single display groupware. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), pp.177-195.

Kanazawa, S. and Fontaine, L., 2013. Intelligent people defect more in a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 6(3), p.201.

Kapp, K.M., 2012. The gamification of learning and instruction (p. 93). San Francisco: Wiley.

Kuehster, C.R. and Hall, C.D., 2010. Simulation: Learning from mistakes while building communication and teamwork. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 26(3), pp.123-127.

Kwak, H., Blackburn, J. and Han, S., 2015, April. Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3739-3748). ACM.

Lee, D., 2008. Game theory and neural basis of social decision making. Nature neuroscience, 11(4), p.404.

Mason, J., 2013. Video games as technical communication ecology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(3), pp.219-236.

Peterson, M., 2010. Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), pp.429-439.

Przybylski, A.K., Rigby, C.S. and Ryan, R.M., 2010. A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), pp.154-166.

Ries, M., Svoboda, P. and Rupp, M., 2008, June. Empirical study of subjective quality for massive multiplayer games. In 2008 15th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (pp. 181-184). IEEE.

Sauvé, L., Villardier, L. and Probst, W., 2010. Online multiplayer games: A powerful tool for learning communication and teamwork. In Educational Gameplay and Simulation Environments: Case Studies and Lessons Learned (pp. 175-194). IGI Global.

Šisler, V., 2009. Video games, video clips, and Islam: new media and the communication of values. Muslim societies in the age of mass consumption, pp.231-258.

Solarski, C., 2012. Drawing basics and video game art: classic to cutting-edge art techniques for winning video game design. Watson-Guptill.

Tang, W.Y., Reer, F. and Quandt, T., 2019. Investigating sexual harassment in online video games: How personality and context factors are related to toxic sexual behaviors against fellow players. Aggressive behavior.

Velez, J.A., 2015. Extending the theory of Bounded Generalized Reciprocity: An explanation of the social benefits of cooperative video game play. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, pp.481-491.

Wen, Q. and Song, B., 2011. Multidisciplinary design optimization based on game theory. In International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communication (pp. 148-154). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Williams, D., Kennedy, T.L. and Moore, R.J., 2011. Behind the avatar: The patterns, practices, and functions of role playing in MMOs. Games and Culture, 6(2), pp.171-200.

You, S., Kim, E. and Lee, D., 2017. Virtually real: exploring avatar identification in game addiction among massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) players. Games and Culture, 12(1), pp.56-71.

Zea, N.P., Sánchez, J.L.G., Gutiérrez, F.L., Cabrera, M.J. and Paderewski, P., 2009. Design of educational multiplayer videogames: A vision from collaborative learning. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(12), pp.1251-1260.