Games
and Culture
http://gac.sagepub.com/
On the Digital Playing Field : How We ''Do Sport'' With Networked
Computer Games
Emma Witkowski
Games and Culture 2012 7: 349
DOI: 10.1177/1555412012454222
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gac.sagepub.com/content/7/5/349
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Games and Culture can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gac.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gac.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gac.sagepub.com/content/7/5/349.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 17, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
On the Digital
Playing Field: How
We ‘‘Do Sport’’
With Networked
Computer Games
Games and Culture
7(5) 349-374
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1555412012454222
http://gac.sagepub.com
Emma Witkowski1
Abstract
In the following article, the author explores the notion of playing computer games as
sports by sketching out the labors and sensations of Counter-Strike teams playing at
pro/am e-sports local area network (LAN) tournaments. How players are engaged
physically in practice and play is described in this qualitative study through the core
themes of movement, haptic engagement, and the balanced body. Furthermore, the
research describes how technologies in play are laboring actors too; the players and
technologies in this study are rendered as networked, extended, and acting in and on
the same fields of play. In asking is there a ‘‘sport’’ in e-sports, this study questions
the legitimacy of a traditional sports ontology and simultaneously tackles the notion
of engagement with computer game play as a legitimate sporting endeavor.
Keywords
e-sports, physicality, haptic engagement, movement, balance, Counter-Strike
1
IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Corresponding Author:
Emma Witkowski, IT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards Vej 7, Copenhagen, 2300, Denmark
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
350
Games and Culture 7(5)
Introduction
‘‘Fun and challenging,’’ ‘‘adrenalin,’’ ‘‘competition,’’ ‘‘adrenalin,’’ and ‘‘adrenalin’’;
these first, short-winded, explanations on motivation were made by five teammates
talking about why they play their sport. The sport they engage in is the multiplayer
first person shooter (FPS) Counter-Strike: Source (CSS); a game that was part of a
local area network (LAN) tournament called The eXperience. The tournament
offered a purse of €10.000 in CSS, which enticed teams of players from across
Europe to sign up and compete. These young men (all the players encountered at this
tournament were men in their late teens to early twenties) play this computer game
under the heading of e-sports. E-sports commonly refer to an organized and competitive approach to playing computer games. For the past decade, this style of gaming
has been played across networked computers where structured online computer
gaming leagues and locally networked events have offered players a place to engage
in serious or career competition. But a question remains to be asked: How are
computer game players engaged in ‘‘doing sport’’?
In this study, an exploration of the ‘‘sportiness’’ of e-sports is undertaken with a
focus on the player practices of multiplayer FPS computer games CSS (Valve Corporation, 2004) and Counter-Strike 1.6 (CS 1.6; Valve Corporation, 2003) at LAN tournaments. This article takes up two areas of contention which regularly arise in the
consideration of e-sports as sports. The first part explores how player physicality manifests in this particular competitive context. The second part discusses the relationship
between human performances and technologies; looking specifically at how the association plays out in this e-sports discipline and in situations of play. These areas are
discussed through the themes of human movement, balance and composure, haptic
engagement, and the sensuousness of networked bodies and technologies.
To date, e-sports has been given academic attention from the perspectives of the
materiality of play (N. Taylor, 2009; T. L. Taylor, 2012), e-sports history (Lowood,
2010), expertise and expert play (Reeves, Brown, & Laurier, 2009; Wagner, 2006),
as well as the assemblage of high performance play (Harper, 2010; Rambusch,
Jakobsson, & Pargman, 2007; N. Taylor, 2009; T. L. Taylor, 2012). These studies
all speak directly to or suggest the significance of the embodied player at the
computer. What this article attempts to add to this growing area of study is a rigorous
and phenomenologically attentive account of the bodies and technologies which are
engaged in ‘‘doing e-sports.’’ The contributions of this article include a critical
consideration of sporting ontologies as well as presenting fieldwork that describes
how players realize and perform their networked sporting actions. The significance
of this study is best seen in reference to traditional sports studies. In particular, by
rigorously looking at how players ‘‘do’’ e-sports, this research might contribute to
the discussion on what modern sport is or ‘‘could be’’ (formally, experientially, and
culturally). In addition, networked team play offers concrete and challenging
moments which can assist in the critical consideration of contemporary understandings
of sports in terms of bodies and technologies in play.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
351
Approach
Does not the title of ‘‘e-sports’’ present a splendid oxymoron? How can something be
an ‘‘electronic sport’’? What might that be? Perhaps, it refers to happenings in professional tennis where several tournaments use Hawk-Eye technology, the ball tracking
system that is called on as an electronic lines person. A reasonable guess might be
a sports simulation—a digital playing field or perhaps a tournament in laser tag—
where technologies not only extend the capabilities of the body but also act on the field
of play (Giddings, 2006; T. L. Taylor, 2009). With the emphasis placed on the ‘‘e’’, the
electronic, rather than the physics of the player performing in that space, a common
sense impulse might be aroused to disqualify any claim for an electronic game to
be classified as a sport. Traditional sporting understandings are often imagined
through a moving player, a visibly active body (Edwards, 1973; Hargreaves, 2004).
Limbs moving across a court or field are the culturally recognizable form of a body
in ‘‘sporting motion’’ (Meier, 1988; Osterhoudt, 1973). As a potential sporting activity, e-sports is likely to strike a somewhat unrecognizable chord for those who have
never navigated the field of play in an FPS, or combined a series of movements, perfectly timed and positioned, in a real-time strategy or fighting game (excellent examples of e-sports/high-performance play from other genres can be found in the
following literature: Harper, 2010; Lowood, 2010; Schenkhuizen, 2010; Sirlin,
2005). In an attempt to describe the state of e-sports and gain a rich description of
player practices and lived experiences of play, this study draws primarily from observations and semistructured interviews with Counter-Strike players and organizers of
two major pro/am Scandinavian e-sports tournaments held in 2009—The eXperience
(Denmark—CSS tournament) and DreamHack Winter 2009 (Sweden—CS 1.6 and
CSS tournaments). Additional observations, interviews, and photo documentation
were conducted at the 2010 World Cyber Games (WCG) CS 1.6 grand finals held
in Los Angeles. This last mentioned field work was conducted as a saturation check,
and to assemble further video and photo records of the core themes. At these LAN
tournaments, each spanning 3 to 4 days, I observed and took field notes from early
round play, upper/lower bracket play-offs, and the grand-finals.
At The eXperience, 15 semistructured player interviews ranging from individual
to group interviews were conducted on site. The interviews were taken from five different teams from four different countries representing professional, semiprofessional, and amateur rankings. The interviewed players and teams ranged from
tournament and purse winners from the upper bracket (e.g., a fully funded franchise
team) to teams that placed in the bottom bracket, taking home only the experience of
play (such as a self-funded amateur team from Scandinavia). Furthermore, formal
and informal interviews were conducted with the tournament organizers on site,
as well as post-tournament. At DreamHack Winter 2009 (DHW), four additional
player interviews were conducted from one amateur CS 1.6 team. The research
undertaken at DHW was focused on observing players and teams ‘‘over-theshoulder’’ and by following teams via various spectatorship options, including being
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
352
Games and Culture 7(5)
seated at one of the on-site stages; via online websites (Twitter score updates/commentary and live broadcasts of events and replays); and through attendance at the
DreamArena Extreme, an event hall where the CS 1.6 finals were played on stage
and shoutcasted (e-sports commentary) live to 1,100 cheering spectators (with several thousand more watching the live stream online).
The CS 1.6 teams and players were involved mostly at the level of ‘‘career’’ or
‘‘professional’’ play (where many players were remunerated in some form).1 Of the
32 teams playing in this tournament, there were 25 ‘‘professional’’ teams representing 13 different countries. The tournament was further populated by the following:
13 teams that qualified through national tournaments (the most distant national
qualifiers coming from Malaysia).
Three previous DreamHack tournament winners.
Six amateur teams that qualified on-site.
Three level-unspecified teams.
Seven high-profile e-sports franchise teams who were offered a direct invitation
to the tournament.
As this breakdown illustrates, using the term ‘‘professional’’ or even ‘‘career’’ is
tricky in a field of play where there is such variation in the makeup of the field.2
Furthermore, the voiced experiences of a former CS 1.6 professional player, who sat
on the E-Sports and Cyberathleticism (2010): European edition player’s panel talk
(a workshop run by T. L. Taylor, Emma Witkowski, and Henry Lowood), is included
in the study. As a playing researcher, I have played both CS 1.6 and CSS in LAN
settings as well as online for several years. Playing has offered a visceral experience
of the field of play that the players contend with; a sense of how timing and teamwork sits in the body; an experience of focus, accuracy, and body control; as well as
a feel for the technologies in play. Accounting for my positionality, it must be noted
that I also lean on my experience as a former professional basketball player to consider the nuances of sports/e-sports bodies at play. Throughout the article, all interviewees are referred to by pseudonym.
The main grounds for choosing Counter-Strike was its staying power on the
e-sports ‘‘scene’’ (longevity being a ‘‘necessary condition’’ in traditional sports
ontologies), as well as for the close connection between CSS and CS 1.6 in terms
of gameplay and setup at LANs. By looking at the varied group of players and things
involved in Counter-Strike as e-sports, it was expected that the study would be
offered a broad perspective on how this specific activity is structured, played, and
experienced. It must be stressed however, that this particular format of FPS game
in play is only one of many e-sports disciplines. Many other games, game genres,
e-sports setups, and certainly players participate in the discourse surrounding
e-sports more broadly, carrying with them their own specific assemblage and physicality in their performances. On this note, areas for future research might look
toward performances of different bodies and other sets of technologies in play, such
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
353
Figure 1. The eXperience FPS LAN setup: Players on the field(s). (Photo from field work).
as the real-time strategy or fighter scenes, domestic play, spectatorship as a part of
play, and certainly the engagements of nonexpert competitive players (for work
moving in these directions see Harper, 2010; Lowood, 2007; N. Taylor, 2009;
T. L. Taylor, 2012).
Counter-Strike at e-sports Events
In the format of e-sports, CS 1.6 and CSS are traditionally played at LANs in a fiveagainst-five matchup (See Figure 1). The game positions teams as head-to-head
opponents. A terrorist team (which starts on offense with the goal of planting a
bomb at one of two bomb sites) faces off against a counter-terrorist team (which
starts as the defense and tries to stop the opposition from successfully detonating the
bomb). Opposing teams have the objective to remove the opposition from the field
of play (called fragging). Communication between players is both verbal and nonverbal. Team communication can happen by way of in-game chat (though this is
constrained by different tournament rules), standardized in-game communications
(i. e., transmitting a general alert or command to the team), voice communication
(Counter-Strike has a built in voice channel, though third-party software is often
used in practice), or from talk and gesticulations within the room. Other standards
of play include the following:
Standard technologies as supplied by tournament organizers. I.e. the same model
PC linked to a server, and allotted the same size playing area to work within.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
354
Games and Culture 7(5)
Personal peripherals. This includes a mouse, headset, keyboard, and a configuration file which maps the character movement to keyboard strokes.3
Points are allotted for wins. The goals include either detonating or defusing the
bomb, eliminating the other team - or achieving both.
In-game money is awarded on achieved goals. Money contributes to the team’s
access to better items and is thus a key strategic aspect of the game.
Rules are found in at least three places. Within the game code, within the tournament
rules (which were observed as shifting and flexible), and within the playing community (For a thorough exploration of rule sets and interpretations in e-sports, see Taylor,
2012).
Each game I attended was fixed with a maximum time limit of 1 min 45 s and
matches were fought out in a best of three (map) series. In general, the matches and
game settings played out as follows:
There are a maximum of 30 rounds to a match.
Competitors play terrorists for 15 rounds and then switch to play counter-terrorists
for the remaining 15 rounds.
The victory condition is the first team to reach 16 rounds.
A match can last over an hour (e.g., tournament matches were allotted 1 hr and
15 min at DHW).4
Before diving into descriptions of player practices, a small section is allotted to
clarifying definitions and considerations on ‘‘the necessary conditions for sports.’’
Necessary Conditions for Sport
[T]he era of cyborg sport becomes an exercise in deconstructing perceived naturalities
regarding not just the athlete’s body, or the humanness of performance, but of the
taken-for-granted definition of sport. (Butryn, 2002, p. 119)
In his philosophical work on bodies and technologies, Ted Butryn (2002) tackles
some of the ‘‘perceived naturalities’’ surrounding traditional sports and sports persons. In a similar vein, I suggest that e-sports push against some of the common
sense understandings surrounding sports. However, exploring what might be understood as ‘‘traditional definitions of sports’’ requires a layout of the concepts. In mapping out various definitional efforts of sports, the commonalities and disconnections
between traditional sports and e-sports might be perceived. Apart from looking at
formal definitions of sports, the more descriptive efforts from sports phenomenology
and sports sociology are also introduced, as they point not only to the softness of
definitional boundaries but also to the sensory aspects of sports, which I suggest
opens for a richer understanding of e-sports as sports, and traditional sports more
generally.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
355
Figure 2. Sports definitions from 1979 to 2009 (Caillois, 2001; Coakley, 2008; Edwards,
1973; Eitzen & Sage, 2009; Giulianotti, 2005; Guttmann, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Meier, 1988;
Suits, 1988; Sands, 1999). Word cloud image courtesy of http://www.wordle.net/.
In the above word cloud (See Figure 2), a visual over the key characteristics in
definitional efforts of sports from sports sociologists and sports philosophers is
compiled. While the method of randomly selecting and assembling definitions from
Western sports studies scholars has obvious flaws (e.g., the absence of context from
the chunked together collection, as well as the absence of fine distinctions in the
meaning and significance of key terms, etc.), my goal here is to give the reader a
quick hold of the work that this study has reflected on, and of where emphasis has
traditionally been placed and contested in modern interpretations of sports.
In the figure, four prominent characteristics in sports definitions are acknowledged.
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
are physical.
have rules.
involve competition.
are officially governed.5
While all characteristics deserve a rigorous analysis from the perspective of e-sports,
this article narrows its scope to the most prominent characteristic considered as a
necessary part of a sport, namely that the activity is physical. I also pick up on the
thread of the intimated classification of the ludic element of sports. In this sense, I
take note of sports sociologist Richard Giulianotti’s (2005) description of the ludic
element of sports as ‘‘germinating excitement.’’ This characteristic is attended to in
light of the sensations of sport, as it was the familiar sporting sensations that were
most often articulated by e-sports players as the strongest sense of their activity as
a justifiable sport. Additionally, in his work on the significance of sports movement,
Peter Arnold (1979) notes that the ‘‘nature’’ of sport needs to be thought of as more
than the formal aspects. He emphasizes that sports are practiced, and in that practice
we attach meanings and motivations that are important elements in recognizing and
understanding sports (p. 146). In other words, to understand e-sports, the practices
that are observed and lived/described in situ matter. It is from the tales from the field
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
356
Games and Culture 7(5)
that physicality and the sensations of e-sports are discussed. These anchor points,
harbored in traditional notions of sport, assist in thinking about this comparatively
new (in terms of sports history) and somewhat unattended (academically) place of
competitive, organized, and physically engaging play.
Discussion
The Player at Practice—Physicality and Technologies in e-sports
Physicality is the most defining characteristic instituted as a ‘‘necessary condition
for sport’’ (Caillois, 2001; Coakley, 2008; Edwards, 1973; Eitzen & Sage, 2009;
Giulianotti, 2005; Guttmann, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Meier, 1988; Sands, 1999;
Suits, 1988). This kinesthetic quality is often at the hub of sport rhetoric, from
international sporting bodies to philosophical and sociological descriptions, as characterizations of sport frequently point out that it is the physical capabilities and the
exertion of the competitor/competitors that determine the final outcome of a sport—
winning or losing (Council of Europe, 1992; Meier, 1988; Suits, 1988). Physicality
has unquestionably been the Achilles heel of e-sports in terms of its sporting legitimacy. As the players and organizers of e-sports tournaments made clear in their
interviews, articulating how a computer game engages the physical self is complicated. Players exhibited great difficulty in grasping just where the ‘‘sportiness’’ of
their activity resided. Or perhaps, such reticence is just a reminder that these young
men have never verbally expressed how they experience their sport as a sensuous
engagement.
The challenges of placing sporting physicality is not a new phenomenon, games
such as chess have made the list of recognized Olympic sports while at the same time
are framed as nonphysical events (i.e., ‘‘purely’’ intellectual contests) in sports studies literatures (Caillois, 2001; Guttmann, 1978, 2004; Meier, 1988; Osterhoudt,
1973). Sports involving machines or animals such as NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) or equestrian have also proved to be sports of contention (Butryn, 2002; Giulianotti, 2005; Gumbrecht, 2006). It is the movement
performance of the human body which is placed as central to physicality in sports.
That is, does the moving body contribute or shape the outcome. Whether the emphasis
is on the mindful strategy or the salient technologies involved in winning or losing
(and generally facilitating in the actions of play), e-sports meets some of the same
challenges as other ‘‘pushed to the fringe’’ sports (i.e., darts) in terms of articulating
‘‘sufficient physicality’’ in the playing body in order to be culturally recognizable
as a legitimate sporting activity (Guttmann, 1978).
In the following, the where, what, and how of e-sports player physicality is pursued. The targeted areas for discussion are those that provoke the most uncertainty
toward the physicality of the players of Counter-Strike including human movement,
the balanced body, and haptic engagement. This is followed by a discussion on
technologies in play, focusing on the players and technologies as extended networks
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
357
which create the played action and outcome, in addition to considerations on the
sensuous experience of e-sports.
Player and Team Movement
Movements made by high-performance Counter-Strike players are observed as
skilled (practiced) and timely. A player must navigate through a digital 3D terrain
from the limited vision of the monitor. Peripheral awareness of the digital playing
field is not possible, which makes character head movement (moving the field of
view from side-to-side) as well as knowing where to look for the opposition, necessary movement actions in the high-performance game (Reeves et al., 2009; Sudnow,
1983). Character movement (represented in the game) is risky. At the beginning of
each round, there are five players looking to eliminate the opposing team from the
current field of play. As a result, movements are carefully guarded, practiced, and
strategized with the team, as well as fine-tuned in the players’ bodies. The game
is set up on this negotiated movement by players and teams. If a player/team is poor
at moving from A to B, or at quickly and precisely targeting the opposition in their
sights, or even at maneuvering about the field space in coordination with teammates
(which move in various formations depending on the side one is playing, the map,
and the number of players left standing) the likelihood for ‘‘failure’’ increases with
each inadequately executed action. This account of player movement can be considered alongside of Robert Osterhoudt’s (1973) rendition of chess as an encounter that
does not involve ‘‘sporting movement’’ (in Osterhoudt’s terms chess is a ‘‘purely
intellectual contest’’).6 Osterhoudt presents chess as played (in the standard
‘‘nontimed’’ manner) in the style of a contest, which does not necessitate a body
performance in that the kinesthetic movement of any piece from A to B has no effect
on the outcome of that movement (Osterhoudt in Drewe, 2003). Whereas the many
movement decisions made in getting from bomb site A to bomb site B has everything
to do with the outcome of each in-play moment (See Figure 3). To further this idea of
movement being central to the outcome in sport, Klaus Meier (1988) suggests,
[there is] . . . one significant, distinguishing feature [differentiating sports from games],
namely, sport requires the demonstration of physical skill and, as a consequence, the
outcome is dependent, to a certain degree at least, upon the physical prowess exhibited
by the participants. Therefore, whereas physical actions or particular motor movements
are insignificant to the resolution of many games, the explicit and varied manifestation
of these components is essential to the performance of sports ventures. (pp. 24–25)
Or perhaps movement can be conceptualized more simply in the words, ‘‘we know
as we go, not before we go’’ (Ingold, 2000, p. 230). Social anthropologist Tim
Ingold’s (2000) work on the perception of the environment helps to map out
movement, he notes that ‘‘[a]s we travel from one place to another, we pass
through a sequence of images, each of which is specific to—and in turn permits
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
358
Games and Culture 7(5)
Figure 3. The sporting movement of Counter-Strike. (Photo from field work).
us to identify—a particular location along the way’’ (emphasis added, p. 224). Following Ingold’s description, I would argue that Counter-Strike involves players in
a constant process of moving and meaning making. With each move a player
makes, the opponents and indeed teammates are seeing ‘‘locations’’ and reacting
to these changing landscapes (images, sounds, etc., which make up the momentary locations) in which every movement is crucial to the endgame state. In team games, the
intercorporeality of players working together, and against opponents, adds further
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
359
layers to the meaning making of the passing environment (Hockey & Allen-Collinson,
2007), as communication between teammates and the ever-changing game balance
brings about movement performances that are exceptionally dynamic.
As I watch over the shoulder of an American e-sports franchise team of CS 1.6
players (a bronze medal match at DHW with a purse worth €2600 and five sponsor
PCs), I hear the team captain yell out a code word which signals his teammates to
bear down on a specific map position. The flurry of movements seen on the monitors’ in front of me puts me off balance, something which is even more disorienting
as several screen views do 180 degree turns, each from a differing point of view.
They whirl their characters around with practiced hands and weave throughout the
terrain of the train yard to meet up, in step, and snuff out the last opponent in a bout
of precision targeting followed deftly by left mouse button clicks (Bang! Bang!
Bang!). Wright, Boria, and Breidenbach (2002) point out that in Counter-Strike,
‘‘[p]laying is not simply mindless movement through a virtual landscape, but rather
movement with a reflexive awareness of the game’s features . . .’’ (para. 4). Drawing
on David Sudnow’s (1983) notion of terrain, Reeves et al. (2009) echo this point,
discerning that expert play requires players to have a handle on the terrain
‘‘at-a-glance,’’ as ‘‘[a]n expert knows what the implications of each action [in the
terrain] are and acts accordingly’’(p. 205–227). Going back to my earlier remark
of the players’ whirling quickly around, both Reeves et al. (2009) and Wright et al.’s
(2002) observations resonate, especially when considering the specific gameplay
situation more closely. What jolted the team captain into action was the sound of
a ticking bomb. Once charged, a bomb ticks down 35 s before it explodes. When the
bomb is planted, the state of the game for the counter-terrorists is focused on pace
and exactitude. The tempo is screwed up to resemble a foot race (to the bomb site)
where timing and awareness of the other team (in this case, the final opposing
player) and of one’s own team still playing on the map is crucial to the hurried
decision making that inevitably plays a part in the result. In Counter-Strike, the
‘‘sporting movement’’—needing to see as we move—is achieved by engaging players physically through aspects such as maintaining a controlled body while quickly
navigating the environment, by moving the character proficiently with reference to
the team (through intercorporeal agility such as ‘‘knowing by body’’ the team
tempo), as well as by means of the physicality executed in the muscles and tendons
of hands and fingers and in the subtle control of breathing.7 What we see in such e-sports
engagements is that movement is central to the outcome of every match.
The Balanced Body
Movement in Counter-Strike is something that can be experienced visually. Even the
novice to the scene can pick up on the necessity of coordinated movements and locational meaning making required in order to participate. However, there are much
more discreet bodily engagements involved in play. These discreet engagements are
attributed to the balanced body. The balanced body can be understood as the body
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
360
Games and Culture 7(5)
reconciling with the pressures of play. This manifests in two core areas. First, the
physical body choices that are made in order to execute a desired on-screen action,
and second, in the composure of the body as affected by the rhythms and intensity of
gameplay and play contexts. The following field note offers an example of the
balanced body and composure at play:
. . . Forty monitors palely illuminate the dark hall. The player seated in front of me
holds his body tight as he lightly moves his mouse in tiny circles. This is followed
by quick lifting and sweeping movements across his monitor-sized mouse pad; the
navigation is attended to in tune with his left hand which is managing the configured
keyboard so his character turns about seamlessly. He bobs in and out of hallways and
turns swiftly into areas that are recognized as places the opposition may be trying to
take. All is quiet. He climbs slowly and silently up a fire escape and peeks into the
above floor. One, two, three times he looks, sighting a different area each time. On the
third look he fires, only to be taken down by a patient and silent enemy who had been
crouched and waiting for him. As the fragged player’s screen in front of me fades to
black, I see his teammate seated next to him launch a noisy jump down a different fire
escape in a rush to plant the bomb. He lands the jump perfectly oriented (making the 180
degree turn mid-air) and runs toward the bomb site scouting for enemies. He turns and
back-pedals now in order to keep an eye on the rear entry points to the room. The bomb
is planted. The two remaining counter-terrorists spring into offense at the sound, and
within seconds the last remaining terrorist player crouched protectively alongside of the
bomb is overcome.
FPS games are renowned for bringing on motion sickness to players unfamiliar in
navigating the space. The fast paced contest collides with an experience of vertigo
for many players, being brought on by the challenge of navigating the 3D environment quickly but steadily. Such disorientation occurs in moving the physical body—
leaning the torso into the same movements as the on-screen character (Westecott,
2008). A common sight is watching new players bending into the screen and trying
to peer around the digitally represented corners (Lahti, 2003; Swalwell, 2008),
though even seasoned computer game players (who do not regularly play in the first
person view) also experience motion sickness regardless that they ‘‘know’’ the
digital environment. None of the players I observed fell into the screen or mimicked
the movements of their characters. No expression of queasiness was evoked from
their movements. These players’ physical body choices are established by not falling
into any unfastened movements. With straight backs, shoulders inclined forward,
their energy is focused into the modulations of their poised hands and fingers—
which swing between delicate and purposeful—and are visibly recognized as
practiced hands (Sudnow, 1983). Hockey and Allen-Collinson (2007) refer to the
corporeal choices of sporting bodies with reference to the movement and timing
of the body, such as the rhythm of the arm in motion, reminiscent of the field note
account of the body in motion (the sweeping motions made while manipulating the
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
361
mouse), but they also talk to effective bodily control, such as controlled breathing, as
a integral part of sports for many players (p. 119–120).
One specific position can be singled out for thinking about effective bodily
control, it is the indispensable player that makes or breaks a line up, the sniper.
As CSS player Holger explains, ‘‘the sniper has the ability to kind of divide the map
in two, which basically gives the other four players a lot of room to just roam around
and basically lock-down the bomb sites.’’ The sniper is the player that covers the
positions on the map that are exposed. The exposed areas are obligatory passage
points from bomb site A to bomb site B, making the skill of the sniper crucial. As
I watch over the shoulders of a team lined up at a LAN, the sniper can barely be
spotted on-screen. Obscured in debris and shadow, the sniper squats at the end of
a long passageway, a part of the scenery. The player’s screen in front of me flicks
between the weapon scope and normal view, he is poised, prepared, and waiting for
a sign to act. A sniper’s job (when sniping) is not to navigate the map per se, but to
make the map less navigable for the opposition. On the surface, this player in front of
me looks nearly restful—slow breaths, fingers delicately placed atop of the keys,
lightly sweeping the mouse to hover over the expected breach points.8 In a critique
of James Newman’s (2002) ergodic continuum, Gordon Calleja (2007) emphasizes
that the sniper, while inanimately monitoring the terrain, is ready to act in a way that
cannot be considered ‘‘less ergodic’’ than, for example, a moment where player
input is delivered to the system (i.e., during direct combat). Calleja’s point is a keen
reminder here that exciting things are happening ‘‘behind the scenes,’’ such as the
tacit participation and control ongoing in a player’s body, far away from the visible
actions (Dye, Green, & Bavelier, 2009).9 The surface serenity of the sniping player
in front of me is all the more mesmerizing in contrast to his teammates and opponents in frenzied voice and motion—yelling and blasting away. Then, in a flurry, the
sniper’s position specialization visibly sets in. It is only a quick flash of shadow on
the screen, but it has alerted the sniper to the coming action. An opponent turns into
the crosshairs, exposing himself for less than a millisecond, and bang!. A screen
fades to black. Enemy down. This occasion, the key play for the sniper, can last the
click of a mouse. Something that sounds so simple (point and click) is achieved
through detailed knowledge of the equipment on hand (what weapons the sniper
bears and what the sniper sees the opposition carrying) as well as the situational
terrain (such as the breach points and known strategies of the current location). But
success is also, at all times, tied to focus and accuracy. Likewise, this moment of
play draws in what sounds and observable things have taken place in the playing
field (i.e., bullet holes on the wall, distant gunfire, or how many players are left
in the game), as well as being anchored to the limits and fidelity of the technologies
that are being used (e.g., the amount of hertz—which controls the cycles per second
the monitor is refreshed, central to sharp shooting—a player can get from their monitor). T. L. Taylor (2012) describes the challenges e-sports players experienced at
LANs when the older (but at the time superior) cathode ray tube (CRT) gaming
monitors were replaced with the latest (often tournament sponsor) flat screen liquid
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
362
Games and Culture 7(5)
crystal display (LCD) monitors, ultimately presenting the players with an inferior,
slower, as well as unpracticed playing field. For the practiced sniper, these
seemingly small things all play into the development of sensuous skills. The incoming events seen on screen at these LANs would drown the unpracticed player/team.
The practiced players/teams perform in ways which are skilled (both specialized, but
also highly competent across various situations) and accomplished by a ‘‘constant
sensory monitoring of conditions’’ (Ingold in Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2007,
p. 126). And indeed, there is so much sensory monitoring going on that it is understandable why players find it difficult to articulate how play manifests in the body
(other than their likening it to sporting sensations), as the multiple sensorial layers
are simply too complex, to intertwined, to peel away from one another layer for layer
as something distinct. In this field of play, I suggest that high-performance player’s
act on (the game) and maneuver with responses from a rich sensorial network in
order to perform skillfully. This indicates that the physical involvement of these
e-sports players is identifiable not just in quick hands or self-control. Physicality also
extends through processes of skillfully managing and engaging with multiple bodily
senses and actions (human and nonhuman), which are just some of the variants of
physicality involved in an embodied gaming performance.
As a final point on the sensory makeup of gameplay, the sound of the sniper rifle
in game is read as a statement to the other players as it reveals some of each teams’
strategy. Diegetic sound in Counter-Strike is sensory information and it is a tool used
actively by players to try and influence the opposition’s decision making.10 Signals
through sound and sight draw the action, engage the players, and show them how to
perform.11 This is practiced sensory monitoring at play and, as Hockey and AllenCollinson (2007) note, these discreet engagements of the body are things that can
easily be overlooked in terms of the skilled physical engagements that make up the
sporting prowess that we witness on the playing field (p. 126). While sound alone is
not the strongest argument for the sportiness of e-sports, I find it nonetheless a compelling one in terms of thinking about the multiplicity of body practices which
includes, sound, touch, muscle control/composure, and movement, all of which are
brought forth in an activity that is commonly stereotyped as not physically engaging
‘‘enough’’ to be understood as a sport.12
In considering e-sports, balance refers to more than what we view the body
engaged in, it is also the balance of the concealed body at work. In terms of the
performing players, the balanced body can also be talked about in terms of composure. Put yourself in the first field note entry which ended in a two against one scenario. As that player, you know that you are the underdog of the impending
showdown. You know that your four other ‘‘sidelined’’ teammates are watching
your moves. And you know that a perfect performance will get your team into the
upper bracket and closer to the ‘‘big money.’’ Perhaps, the multiple pressures of this
situation do not resonate as recognizable? Try then to imagine yourself in a more
familiar underdog situation, perhaps a game of basketball where your team is behind
by one point and you steal the ball with 3 s left to score in the game, the outcome
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
363
relying on your training to manage the moment. Or perhaps you can recall the senses
that were aroused during the final stages of a boss encounter in a massively multiplayer online game, where movements across the dungeon floor combined with
timely spell casts made-or-broke your (and your group’s) imminent survival. That
player in that moment is under extreme pressure comprising of adrenalin (what the
players also noted at the beginning of the article as what motivated them to play) and
the psychological battle of how to tackle the ever moving performance. Hans
Gumbrecht’s (2006) writing on the aesthetics of sport adds to this consideration,
suggesting that ‘‘ . . . composure in the face of gestures of destruction is the highpoint
of the [sports] production . . . those who give in to mental anguish do not make it to
the top of their sport’’ (pp. 164–166). The mental anguish that Gumbrecht refers to is
a salient part of these players’ everyday experiences.13 Their composure ‘‘under
fire’’ certainly resonates with Gumbrecht’s notion of a high-performance sports
person’s presentation, as CSS player Joe comments,
. . . there is the psychological part in it as well, you get taken like three times in a row
and someone is yelling how bad you are, you do get affected whether you like it or not .
. . it builds adrenalin, but yeah it’s great fun.
In Michael Kane’s look at professional gamers (2008), an interviewed CS 1.6 player
adds to the notion of the balanced body and bodily sensations felt when playing by
linking his experience to hunting. He emphasizes that the still moments of play
juxtaposed against seeing the target (in this case a deer) is where the adrenalin rush
culminates, and that all the actions following that flooded bodily reaction (as he
shakes and gets disorientated) are made in a decidedly controlled manner. As the
player states, ‘‘[i]t’s the same thrill in a one-on-one situation in a big Counter-Strike
match. First you try and ambush. Then it’s about staying calm under fire’’ (p. 32).
Whether it is fun or agony, composing the body is a practice required for proficient
navigation and participation in this high performance field of play (Taylor & Witkowski, 2010). These e-sports players’ capture the labors of bodies engaged in
high-performance sports, where a composition of movement, balance (steadiness
and composure), and practice is brought together. Though these players also demonstrate in their performances the sensory understanding they have with their materials
of play in the feel of what is at hand—the haptic engagement of the sporting body.
Haptic Engagement
To think of computer gaming as a sport, it is worthwhile thinking of the haptic
engagement of the players. The terrain that players engage with, while it might be
framed as a ‘‘virtual environment’’ has a feel or texture to it. When running with
a rifle in the characters hands instead of a knife the game/character ‘‘feels slow.’’
The game itself can also feel and play fast or sluggishly, as a CSS professional
notices when he recalls playing CS 1.6, saying, ‘‘I enjoy Counter-Strike: Source
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
364
Games and Culture 7(5)
Figure 4. A player carrying his personal keyboard, a key technological actor in embodied
play. (Photo from field work).
more, I think it’s a faster game’’—William, professional CSS player (and former
high-performance CS 1.6 player). When a LAN connection and machine experience
lag (slower responses to input), players talk about the ‘‘speed’’ of the field (much
like the speed of a cricket pitch, where bowlers evaluate the dirt and talk about how
the ball will most likely bounce off of the playing surface of the day). The equipment
in use, the network connection, and the fields of play (in the room and mediated
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
365
digitally) are sensuous elements that play into the action of and between the game,
the network, and the competitors (Giddings, 2006; N. Taylor, 2009; T. L. Taylor,
2009). A noteworthy sporting example, mapped out by Hockey and AllenCollinson (2007, p. 123), is that of the football player. Players not only evaluate the
field of play visually but also through touching the grass, pushing their fingers and
studs into the ground, feeling the wind, and handling the ball. This act of haptic practice was demonstrated by football players at the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The official
match ball (the Adidas Jabulani) caused players to alter their practiced game based
on the unpredictability of this technology in the field of play. Former professional
football player (as well as football shoe and ball designer) Craig Johnston (2010)
commented on the sensuousness of this particular technology in play, noting that,
[i]t [the Jabulani] has an artificial feel and trajectory and only about 20 per cent of the
craft [how the player manipulates the ball in the milliseconds the foot is in touch with
it] a player is putting on the ball is being translated. (para. 15)
Just as for Counter-Strike players, the technologies are practiced by body and need to
be felt to be played expertly. The importance of the touched material used in play
becomes obvious when the backpacks of the participants are seen as they walk into
the halls (See Figure 4): when not at play, players carry around their own personal
keyboard and mouse (see more on the materiality of play in Taylor, 2012).
Consider when you put your hand on the mouse to execute a computer related
task, you might not recognize the feel of the mouse pad in use—does the mouse glide
over it or stick? You might not even know what the mouse wheel is used for or know
the pace of manipulating it. What are the necessary dimensions of the mouse pad in
order to perform the desired on-screen actions? While these questions might sound a
little trifling, the answers can have an enormous influence on a player’s performance, much like the effect of setting a large box in the passenger seat of a rally car
whose driver is inhibited from shifting into top gear. Players extending their field of
performance with technologies have an intimate feel for the things that are situated
in their hands when at play (Dovey & Kennedy, 2006). At LAN tournaments, the
space of the table that each player is allotted can vary. At The eXperience, the table
space could bear a player’s keyboard, mouse and mouse pad, and very little else (by
comparison, at the DHW finals the table space was a large conference desk where
the players could sprawl out). The table space is a compelling part of the framework
of play. On my first meeting with a former professional CS 1.6 player from Norway,
my first comment was on the surprise I felt in regard to his stature—he was tall,
around 190 cm. None of the players I had interviewed and observed until that point
had that build. In discussing the challenges of fitting his body under the tables
allotted at tournaments, he noted that it was not a big issue, as one ‘‘simply adjusts’’
and besides, he had started late (at 20 years of age) so he had always ‘‘played big.’’
This dismissal of the challenges of the physical space resonates with the comments
made by long-time franchise sniper fRoD. He does not complain about the chairs or
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
366
Games and Culture 7(5)
the tables used at LANs in terms of their role in executing skilled play, but rather
fRoD focuses on the necessity to get the correct hertz (Kane, 2008), though the noncomplaint is relevant. At the WCG, players could be seen chair stacking to create the
best possible playing field. One player even brought along his undergraduate physics
textbook to raise the monitor in order to gain a better body to screen position for
executing play. The tables and chairs are noted in the challenges experienced at
LANs, though they are just not at the top of the list of multiple technological and
bodily challenges that go into disrupting a desirable playing situation. Based on the
specific body that is brought to the table to play, there will be notable variations in
how players accommodate the space that they engage with. Haptic engagement of
the field of play thus extends beyond the ‘‘plugged in’’ materials. Tables and chairs,
among many other mundane technologies, shape the player and thus the execution of
play itself (N. Taylor, 2009).14 Seeing how these technologies come into effect was
witnessed during a team setup for a match. One player was frantic. His mouse pad
did not fit into the allotted space. It ridged over onto the next table causing a visible
divot in the surface, which posed a certain problem for the fluidity of his desired
movements. He was furthermore bound by the tournament rules and was not allowed
to physically manipulate the setup space (doing so would invoke the team’s disqualification). It became apparent that the mouse pad was a significant tool for the
player and that this minute situation would impinge on the other technologies in play
(mouse and keystrokes). In other words, the feel of the technologies in play, vital to
the execution of the game, would be drastically changed (perhaps even as unpracticed and uncontrollable as the Jabulani ball to the football players) on the circumstance of a potholed mouse pad. With limited time left, the problem was resolved by
a seat change with a teammate who used a smaller mouse pad to perform with. This
type of situation resonates with the injured sports person, or playing on the ‘‘altered’’
playing field, such as the changed conditions of a football pitch after a downpour of
rain (the landscape technologies in play—See Butryn, 2002).15 While these examples do not point out a malfunction in tools (depending on your definition), they do
highlight the importance of haptic engagement as a key element in sports production
in terms of the game outcome—winning and losing. Moreover, haptic engagement
highlights the variation of gameplay practices that are a result of ‘‘more than the
game’’ per se. Game outcomes are touched by all the networked bodies and technologies that make up the gaming moment, regardless of their complexity (such as networked systems) or simplicity (such as tables or chairs; N. Taylor, 2009;
T. L. Taylor, 2009).
Threading together the physicality practices of players starts to suggest the
intense, yet subtle, bodily involvements and movements that are called forth during
this particular setup and style of computer game involvement. The performances
observed and expressed by the e-sports participants are, however, always already
engaged in a collaborative setting between player and machine, or more aptly, multiple players and their many technologies. As a result, the theme of physicality has a
second thread to follow, namely the sensuousness of sports technologies.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
367
The Sensuousness of Networked Sports
The sensuous labor of bodies and technologies has been threaded throughout this
article as significant to the game action and the outcome of the game. In this section,
I would like to unpack one final area central to the discussion of e-sports as sports;
the salience and sensuousness of the technologies in play.
As the title ‘‘e-sports’’ emphasizes, the electronic is a highly identifiable part of
the game. In an early and compelling article on e-sports, Michael Wagner (2006)
marks out a place for this particular format of play, stating that e-sports ‘‘ . . . is
an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies’’ (p. 3). Wagner’s
work is a valuable first step into the critical consideration of e-sports, though on
exploring his perspective, we can note that the influence of various nonhuman actors
is absent. Furthermore, his argument is fastened to expertise in using information
communications technologies (ICTs) (as opposed to a broader assemblage of technologies and things), placing the computer as the central or dominant technology.
Reflecting on my own fieldwork and the research of T. L. Taylor (2009, 2012) and
Nick Taylor (2009), I am inclined to loosen the overriding centrality of the computer
in this endeavor. As ethnographic research shows us, e-sports are experienced as
dynamic competitions where sporting actions (and game outcomes) are tacitly and
overtly produced and documented by many human and nonhuman agents or things.
Considering Gumbrecht’s (2006) exploration of the tools involved in sports, we
might consider these multiple technologies in play as complexifications of the
sport. But they are somehow more than complex additional ‘‘parts’’ that enable players
to extend into in the desired action, in this case, networked gaming (Gumbrecht’s
work, like Lahti’s, looks at the complexifications as prosthetics). In e-sports, the
complexifications are, most importantly, also ‘‘at play’’. For example, through the suddenly disconnected machine or in the pace of a LAN connection altering the feel of the
field. As T. L. Taylor (2009) phrases it, in the team of 40 (human) computer game
players, the technology becomes the ‘‘41st player.’’ Considerations of nonhuman
actors lean directly upon Actor–network theory, which at its most basic proposes that
humans are never acting alone: the collective experiences are the outcome produced
by an assemblage of human and nonhuman actions (Latour, 2005). The final theme
here considers how the labor of nonhumans can be considered alongside of the notion
that sports necessitate ‘‘human’’ performances.
Ted Butryn (2002) points out that ‘‘all elite athletes are, to varying degrees, profoundly technologized’’ (p. 116). From psychological training to improvements in
equipment, high-performance athletes are always engaging in their sport with technologies and, more significantly, with technologies that have shaped their bodies to
perform (Rigauer, 1981). This is described by Lahti (2003) as a ‘‘prosthetic memory,’’ where timing and movements with the prostheses in play are internalized in
order to succeed in the game. Gumbrecht (2006) takes up the analogy of shooting,
which is useful in thinking about the game technologies as both sensuous prosthetics
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
368
Games and Culture 7(5)
in play and acting on play. The sport of shooting, he explains, offers a tool to extend
an action we are already capable of, in this case the function of hitting a target
(p. 177). However, I would add that the rifle itself also acts. Its weight encumbers
the tired marksperson or, on a rare occasion, the bolt on a biathlete’s rifle may jam:
such nonhuman actions play into sporting outcomes. Gumbrecht points to the
sensuous engagement that athletes have with technologies (such as the rifle), and
additionally to the embodied understanding of how such a tool works in conjunction
with the game, that is, when the biathlete needs to first compose her breathing before
manipulating the heavy tool that extends her desired action. In e-sports, the player
adjusts their mouse pad, headset, hertz, mouse sensitivity, and recalls how to manipulate the terrain with the equipment at hand, executing correct timing and movements as well as checking their connection before entering yet another round
(Reeves et al. 2009; Sudnow, 1983). Though, I also watch countless moments of
players fussing and preparing a myriad of other tools, devices, and people prior to
play (air blowers, batteries, mouse cord holders, keyboard frames, parents, and
partners). This moment of acting with the technologies and of remembering the complexifications in situ is a sensuous one. Using Laurence de Garis’ (1999) terminology of the sensuousness of sport, sporting movements are best understood through
the touch of multiple actors. While de Garis talks of the intercorporeality between
professional wrestlers knowing how to move in the ring (as well as knowing the ring)
through subtle clues in touched bodies, I use his notion to think about the sensuousness of play as performed by players and technologies. Ask any career basketball
player and they will tell you how sports tape should feel when wrapped on a sprain
for the best maneuverability. They might talk of the carry of the ball on particular
court and describe the situational adjustments necessary. Similarly, e-sports LAN
players talk of being prepared for the idiosyncrasies of specific event halls, knowing
whether to bring a hair dryer along for a hand warmer, or to carry with them a variety
of mouse pads (shape and material) to adjust to the table setup. They could tell you
about their experiences of sponsored equipment; talk to how standardized tools do
not necessarily fit the needs of each and every body; acquaint you with the best
make-do’s and tweaks for optimal performance. While Gumbrecht points to the
singular tool in play—the rifle—extending a body’s actions, I would highlight the
multiple and wide-ranging tools at play (and in pre-play/practice). The things in and
of play require sensuous engagement for actions to be shaped ‘‘just so,’’ which is
apparent in the many adjustments taken in order to carry out high-performance
sporting acts (Lowood, 2009; Taylor, 2006).
The complexifications of bodies and technologies laboring together are central to
performances and outcomes in e-sports. In this site of e-sports, human performance
is not undermined (in terms of there being no ‘‘recognizable’’ human performance)
by the technological actions (those nonhuman acts of the 41st player), as human
unpredictability is always already in effect, at all times playing into the players
actions (Miah in Butryn, 2002).16 Butryn continues this line of thought noting
that,
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
369
[w]hile any number of athletes may employ the same technological innovation, they
would undoubtedly differ in heart rate, anxiety management, and motivation, for example, as well as their individual responses to given technology. (p. 120)
The take home point here is that the technologies used for play in Counter-Strike shape
the body personally through practice. Even though the mouse or the network, for
example, is not a ‘‘cyborgian’’ part of our being (in Butryn’s terms, this would be a
self-technology that is implemented or alters the body permanently) they do have a
lasting effect on the body.
Conclusion
Playing Counter-Strike in the context of the LAN is a rich sensory experience that
calls for layer upon layer of physically demanding action in order to be competitive
in the high-performance game. These players are prime examples of seeing while
moving, as they maneuver their characters across the terrain and act and react to the
space as well as the other players and technologies acting within it. The balanced
body is a central yet discreet staging of physicality that is required in
high-performance play. Composure, breathing, and the steadiness demanded from
a player’s body contribute to the sensations experienced which direct the actions,
as well as the outcome, of every game session. The haptic engagement between
players and technologies starts to map out the network of things involved, their tacit
and/or micro movements, and sensorial moments that engage the players physically
and the technologies responsively. The player performances in this study point to the
sensuousness of networked play: this network between a player and a machine,
between multiple players and multiple technologies, is where e-sports offers a site
to consider the intricacy of the interleaved state of human and nonhuman sporting
performances where the endgame state is ultimately shaped by multiple actors (Giddings, 2006; Rigauer, 1981; T. L. Taylor, 2009). Furthermore, playing in these technologically complexified contexts brings up the notion of a ‘‘redescription of the
body’’ as suggested in traditional sports by the use of performance enhancing drugs,
hyperbaric oxygen chambers, or technologically advanced swimsuits (Beamish &
Ritchie, 2006). Such a redescription provides ‘‘new possibilities for others never
before dreamed of’’ (Roberts in Butryn, 2002, p. 123). While I am not suggesting
the multiple technologies involved in a high-performance LAN tournament equates
to the extreme of sports doping or ethically provoking mixed altitude training
regimes, I do consider that there is something recognizable in the redescription of
bodies as being pushed and pulled by and with technologies—noticeable in these
high performance e-sports players—as well as there being something familiar in the
idea of the new sporting possibilities ‘‘never before dreamed of.’’ Moving beyond
Counter-Strike, e-sports more broadly highlight the variety of physical performances
that are carried out with and alongside of technological ones in intimate ways.
Though, by feeling our way forward specifically with Counter-Strike, we are offered
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
370
Games and Culture 7(5)
a salient example of the shortfalls and challenges of traditional sporting definitions
as well as notions of human physicality, human bodies, and (artificial) boundaries
placed between technologies and human performances in play.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. The level of reward varied greatly across the players and teams I had contact with: from
sponsors covering accommodation and travel expenses to players harnessing a wage and
privileges contract from a franchise (ranging from petty cash to lucrative long-term
contracts). Several teams were self-funded (these were notably local or Scandinavian
teams at DHW and The eXperience), and many players would only see cash-in-hand if
a tournament purse was won. Though this brackets the larger ‘‘money game’’ that has
in particular surrounded Counter-Strike CS 1.6 and CSS (For more detail see Ashley,
n.d.; Kane, 2008; Taylor, 2012).
2. The title of professional does not necessarily mean a salaried player, but often a player
who is able to gain financially from (not necessarily live off of) their winnings from
tournaments. Career is also a tricky word (Chambliss, 1989), but perhaps gets closer
to what some of these e-sports players are engaged in; that is, a long-term practice of
serious play with varying levels of engagement, affiliation, and success during that time.
3. Though having the same technology at hand does not equate to an ‘‘even’’ playing field
ipso facto—the breakdown of technologies affecting individual players in the competitive
LAN setting is well documented (See T. L. Taylor, 2009, 2012).
4. In the tournament setting, with the accoutrements of the spectacle (getting the audience
seated, preparing shoutcasters, and sorting out technical difficulties, etc.), big tournament
matches—such as the DHW finals—can last as long as 2 hr.
5. The ‘‘necessary condition for sport’’ of being ‘‘officially governed’’ is, however, one of
the most contested in sports definitions. As argued by Meier (1988) and Eitzen and Sage
(2009), sports can be informal, organized, or corporate.
6. The notion of the ‘‘sporting movement’’ follows the argument that it is the timing and
execution of the movements made that provides an anchor to think about subtle differences between a sport and ‘‘something else’’—be that a game or an intellectual contest.
7. Competitive StarCraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 1998) players reported APMs (actions
per minute) are another kind of staging of physicality and movement. With competitive
players clocking around 300 APM, StarCraft players situational awareness and positioning
choices are tied to such efficiency in micro movements (Kuchera, 2010).
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
371
8. In this instance, I am compelled to think of elite marksmen who are documented as being
keenly active in their psychomotor regulation during the moment of shooting their tool,
such as monitoring their heart rate in order to take aim and shoot between beats (Konttinen,
Lyytinen, & Viitasalo, 1998).
9. For more work on the tacit body in action, see Daphne Bavelier’s compelling research on
visual processing in action video games. In her work, it is argued that the speed and accuracy that practiced (specific) FPS players deliver in game is achieved through training in
enhanced visuospatial attention (Dye, Green, & Bavelier, 2009; Green & Bavelier, 2007).
Though these works focus specifically on visual perception, thus bracketing the work of
the rest of the body in play, they nevertheless offer compelling arguments for the active
physical work of a specific player modality.
10. The diegetic sounds are not always transmitted into the room of the LAN. This underscores the importance of having played oneself so as to know what the soundscape is signaling to the players, ultimately offering these observations an extra layer of sensory
(though unheard) data.
11. As a side point, sound is a compelling characteristic that assists in emphasizing rhythm
and movement in traditional sports. Most notably, this can be witnessed in judged sports
such as in the sounds of landing multiple tumbling elements in a gymnastics floor routine,
which are indeed everyday sensory aspects of performing and improving in the sport.
12. See for example Micklewright’s (2010) study of high-performance video game players,
which hones in on physical fitness (rather than physical skill/sensory awareness) as the
legitimizing category of a ‘‘sporting’’ endeavor.
13. Several of the players, however, often referred to the ‘‘fun’’ of needing to maintain composure, as opposed to the ‘‘mental anguish’’ referred to by Gumbrecht. Such an embrace
of the pressures of play resonates with many professional athletes, notably those of exceptional calibre (Bird, Johnson, & MacMullan, 2009; Russell & Branch, 1979).
14. See Nick Taylor’s fascinating work on Xbox 360 LAN play, where he maps out the intimate spatiality of the competitive play space as being shaped by the standardized length
of cables (2009).
15. The 2008 Champion’s League final is a well-documented example of such a haptic hiccup in traditional sports. During the penalty shoot out, Chelsea captain John Terry missed
what was a decisive penalty; the miss being generally recognized as the ‘‘fault’’ of the wet
turf he slipped on.
16. This article has, due to scope, bracketed the discussion of cheating in e-sports.
References
Arnold, P. (1979). Meaning in movement, sport, and physical education. London, England:
Heinemann Education.
Ashley, R. (n.d.). Pro gaming levels up. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from http://www.1up.
com/features/pro-gaming-levels
Beamish, R., & Ritchie, I. (2006). Fastest, highest, strongest: A critique of high-performance
sport. London, England: Routledge.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
372
Games and Culture 7(5)
Bird, L., Johnson, E., & MacMullan, J. (2009). When the game was ours. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Butryn, T. (2002). Cyborg horizons: Sport and the ethics of self-technologization. In A. Miah
& S. Eassom (Eds.), Sport technology: History, philosophy, and policy (pp. 111–134).
Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play, and games (M. Barash, Trans.). Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Chambliss, D. (1989). The mundanity of excellence: An ethnographic report on stratification
and Olympic Swimmers. Sociological Theory, 7, 70–86.
Calleja, G. (2007). Revising immersion: A conceptual model for the analysis of digital game
involvement. Digital games research association conference proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
Coakley, J. (2008). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Council of Europe. (1992). European sports charter. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from
https://wcd.coe.int/
Counter-Strike 1.6 [Computer game]. (2003). Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation.
Counter-Strike [Computer game]. (2004). Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation.
de Garis, L. (1999). Experiments in pro wrestling: Toward a performative and sensuous Sport
ethnography. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 65–74.
Dovey, J., & Kennedy, H. (2006). Game cultures: Computer games as new media. New York,
NY: Open University Press.
Drewe, S. (2003). Why sport? An introduction to the philosophy of sport. Canada: Thompson
Educational Publishing.
Dye, M., Green, C., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Increasing speed of processing with action video
games. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 321–326.
Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of sport. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Eitzen, D., & Sage, G. (2008). Sociology of North American sport. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers.
E-Sports and Cyberathleticism. (2010). E-Sports and Cyberathleticism: European edition
workshop. Copenhagen, Denmark, May 28, 2010.
Giddings, S. (2006). Playing with nonhumans: Digital games as technocultural form. In
S. Castells & J. Jenson (Eds.), Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games
research (pp. 115–128). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Giulianotti, R. (2005). Sport a critical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Green, C., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution
of vision. Psychological Science, 18, 88–94.
Guttmann, A. (1978). From ritual to record: The nature of modern sports. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Guttmann, A. (2004). Rules of the game. In A. Tomlinson (Ed.), The sports studies reader.
2007. New York: Routledge.
Gumbrecht, H. (2006). In Praise of Athletic Beauty. New York: Harper Perennial.
Hargreaves, J. (2004). The autonomy of sport. In A. Tomlinson (Ed.), The sports studies
reader. 2007. New York, NY: Routledge.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
Witkowski
373
Harper, T. (2010). The art of war: Fighting games, performativity, and social game play (PhD
Dissertation). Ohio University, Athens, OH.
Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2007). Grasping the phenomenology of sporting bodies.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 42, 115–131.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Johnson, C. (2010). Football: Jabulani ball branded a ‘disaster’. Retrieved November 5, 2010,
from Otago Daily Times Online News website: http://www.odt.co.nz/print/113684
Kane, M. (2008). Game boys. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Konttinen, N., Lyytinen, H., & Viitasalo, J. (1998). Preparatory heart rate patterns in competitive rifle shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 235–242.
Kuchera, B. (2010). 300 actions a minute? Truly mastering StarCraft. Retrieved September 5,
2011, from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/07/excellence-of-execution-videoof-starcraft-mastery.ars
Lahti, M. (2003). As we become machines. In M. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video game
theory reader (pp. 157–170). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lowood, H. (2007). ‘It’s not easy being green’: Real-time game performance in warcraft.
In B. Atkins & T. Krzywinska (Eds.), Videogame/player/text. Manchester, UK:
Palgrave.
Lowood, H. (2009). Players are artists, too. Unpublished manuscript. Presentation for art
history of games, Atlanta, February 5, 2009.
Lowood, H. (2010). Beyond the game: The Olympics ideal and competitive e-sports.
Unpublished manuscript. Presentation for PhD course, Acting together on technological
playing fields: Computer games, e-sports, and team play. IT University of Copenhagen,
Denmark, May 26–27, 2010.
Meier, K. (1988). Triad trickery: Playing with sport and games. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier
(Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport. 1995 (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Mickelwright, D. (2010). Top video gamers fail on fitness. University of Essex Knowledge
Gateway, June 2010. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.essexknowledge
gateway.co.uk/news/2010/topgamers.aspx
Newman, J. (2002). In search of the videogame player. New Media and Society, 4, 405–422.
Osterhoudt, R.G. (1973). The philosophy of sport: A collection of original essays. Springfield,
IL: Thomas.
Rambusch, J., Jakobsson, P., & Pargman, D. (2007). Exploring e-sports: A case study of
gameplay in counter-strike. Digital games research association conference proceedings,
Tokyo, Japan.
Reeves, S., Brown, B., & Laurier, E. (2009). Experts at play: Understanding skilled expertise.
Games and Culture, 4, 205–227.
Rigauer, B. (1981). Top-level sports and ‘‘achievement’’. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier
(Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport. 1995. (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013
374
Games and Culture 7(5)
Russell, B., & Branch, T. (1979). Second Wind: The Memoirs of an Opinionated Man. New
York: Random House.
Sands, R. (1999). Anthropology, sport, and culture. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Schenkhuizen, M. (2010). Grubby—My first tournament. In J. Christophers & T. Scholz
(Eds.), E-sports yearbook 2009. Germany: Books on Demand.
Sirlin, D. (2005). Playing to win: Becoming the champion. Available online at Lulu.com.
StarCraft [Computer game]. (1998). Irvine, CA: Blizzard Entertainment.
Sudnow, D. (1983). Pilgrim in the microworld: Eye, Mind, and the Essence of Video Skill.
New York: Warner Books.
Suits, B. (1988). Tricky triad: Games, play, and sport. In W. J. Morgan, & K. V. Meier (Eds.),
Philosophic inquiry in sport. 1995. (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Swalwell, M. (2008). Movement and kinaesthetic responsiveness: A neglected pleasure. In
M. Swalwell & J. Wilson (Eds.), The pleasures of computer gaming (pp. 72–93).
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Taylor, N. (2009). Power play: Digital gaming goes pro (PhD dissertation). York University,
Toronto.
Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Taylor, T. L. (2009). The assemblage of play. Games and Culture, 4, 331–339.
Taylor, T. L. (2012). Raising the stakes: e-sports and the professionalization of computer
gaming. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Taylor, T. L., & Witkowski, E. (2010). This is how we play it: What a mega-LAN can teach us
about games. Foundations of Digital Games Conference, June 19–21, Monterey, CA.
Wagner, M.G. (2006). On the scientific relevance of eSport. International internet computing
and computer game development conference proceedings, Las Vegas.
Westecott, E. (2008). Bringing the body back into play. The [player] conference proceedings,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Wright, T., Boria, E., & Breidenbach, P. (2002). Creative player actions in FPS online video
games playing Counter-Strike. Game Studies (2). http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/
wright/.
Bio
Emma Witkowski is a second-year PhD candidate with the Center for Computer Games
Research at the IT University of Copenhagen. Her work takes a qualitative look at team play
in networked computer games. Her former practice as an elite athlete has provided a strong
foundation for consideration of the familiar and unfamiliar involving networked team play
and traditional team sports. Her embodied knowledge has been translated into her research,
which explores the practices of players, teams, and technologies in play, and is considered
along side of sociological and phenomenological explorations of traditional team sports in
addition to research on networked team games. She has written on topics such as gaming masculinities, the heterogeneity of play, high-performance play and embodiment.
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on April 6, 2013