University of Utrecht “...

one of the sweetest pleasures as a game designer is seeing your game

Faculty of the Humanities played in ways that you did not anticipate.‖ (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003, p.
Degree program: pre-MA New Media & Digital Culture 540).

Student: Mark A. Jansen

Student ID: 3637603

Title: Making the rules: the case of Halo

Month and Year: February 2011
Supervisor: R. Glas
Table of content
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Introducing the research………………………………………………1
1.2 Framing the object…………………………………………………….1
1.3 Defining game concepts………………………………………………1
2. Research Design………………………………………………………………2-3
2.1 Research question……………………………………………………..2
2.2 Theoretical framework………………………………………………...2
2.2.1 Participatory culture………………………………………………………....2
2.2.2 Reconfiguration…………………………………………………………...…2
2.2.3 Rules of the game………………………………………………………...….3
2.3 Research method…………………………………………………………….3-4
2.3.1 Group………………………………………………………………..4
2.3.2 Sample………………………………………………………………4
3. Value of the research……………………………………………………………5
3.1 Scientific value………………………………………………………..5
3.2 Societal value …………………………………………………………5
4. Analysis of the case……………………………………………………………6-8
4.1 Motivation……………………………………………………………..6
4.2 Game elements………………………………………………………6-7
4.3 In-game social norms………………………………………………..7-8
4.4 Process………………………………………………………………...8
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………9-11
6. Limitations of the research……………………………………………………12
7. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...13
8. Appendix……………………………………………………………………14-23
8.1 Description of game concepts in alphabetical order……………...14-15
8.2 Interview transcripts……………………………………………...15-23
8.2.1. Interview with A. Griffioen…………………………………………….15-17
8.2.2 Interview with M. Kasper………………………………………………17-19
8.2.3 Interview with C. Kasper……………………………………………….19-21
8.2.4 Interview with N. Bakker……………………………………………….21-22
8.2.5 Interview with T. de Heij……………………………………………….22-23
1. Introduction
The cause for this research is my personal experience with the First-Person
Shooter (FPS) game Halo on the Xbox console platform and the specific
way it was played in a social group.
1.1 Introducing the research
The research concerns the rules of the game. More specifically, it is about
how and why players change the rules. Available content on online video
site YouTube demonstrates that Halo is, and has been, played in radically
different ways, probably not all foreseen by the game designers. Examples
are „Red vs. Blue‟ and the so-called „Warthog Battles‟. The research
concerns one of the many ways Halo can be played. Halo‟s design offers
players “...custom rules for all the basic game types.” (MobyGames, 2011).
However, not all elements of the game are adaptable nor customizable,
which leads to creative solutions.
1.2 Framing the object
The research concerns Halo‟s competitive multiplayer gameplay mode.
More specifically, the research is about the team-based Capture The Flag
(CTF) gametype, played with multiple consoles in a Local Area Network
(LAN) context. Furthermore, the research only considers gameplay in the
map „Sidewinder‟.
1.3 Defining game concepts
The paragraphs above contain potentially intimidating terms, such as FPS,
CTF and LAN. They may seem rather exotic to the reader who is unfamiliar
with them. Basic knowledge about these concepts is required for the reader
in order to understand this paper. However, it is beyond the scope of this
paper to review these concepts extensively. Therefore, I refer the reader to
the Appendix, where I provide a short description of relevant terms.
1
2. Research Design
In this section the research question, the research method and the theoretical
framework will be described.
2.1 Research question
The research answers the following research question:
A. What is the motivation of game players in redefining the rules?
The question is broken down in the following sub-questions:
A1. Why were the players not satisfied with the suggested game rules?
A2. What was the goal of changing the rules?
A3. What did the process of changing the rules look like?
2.2 Theoretical framework
Here I describe the theoretical framework employed in this paper.
The research looks at games through the lens of „games as a social
phenomenon‟, after one of the chapter titles in the “Handbook of Computer
Game Studies” by Raessens & Goldstein (2005). Within „games as a social
phenomenon‟ the concept of participatory culture and the three domains of
participation are used. These domains are interpretation, reconfiguration
and construction (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 pp. 378-381).
2.2.1 Participatory culture
Although this research mainly uses the reconfiguration domain, I provide
here a short definition of the two other domains in order to grasp the
situation of reconfiguration. Thereafter I will address reconfiguration
separately due its prominence in this research. Raessens uses the conceptual
framework of the British tradition of cultural studies to situate the concept
of interpretation. Here, cultural texts “...are viewed as open texts that
different groups of viewer interpret differently, depending on social, cultural
and other contexts...” (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 375)
For Raessens, construction is “...understood as the addition of new game
elements. This can exist as modifying existing games, or as in making
entirely new games. Construction can take many forms and may seem
related to reconfiguration. However, Raessens explains that “You can really
speak of construction when players work with game-mods or game patches,
editing tools and source codes.” (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 381). Here,
the player adds elements to the system.
2.2.2 Reconfiguration
According to Raessens, reconfiguration consists of two categories. First, it
“...exists in the exploration of the unknown, in the computer game
represented worlds.” (Raessens & Goldstein, 2005 p. 380). Second,
reconfiguration is “...when a player in this process of exploration is invited
to give form to these worlds in an active way by selecting one of the many
pre-programmed possibilities in a computer game.” (Raessens & Goldstein,
2005, p. 380). The player selects objects and actions from a fixed set, as
opposed to construction which concerns adding new elements. Essentially,
this is the basis of participation, where the designer controls the fixed and
finite set. The invitee, the user, has freedom in choosing and selecting
options, but is limited to the spectrum, or frame, offered by the designer.
The rules of a game are part of the game configuration. Since the research is
about changing the rules, which is an act of reconfiguration, I will next
provide a brief theoretical overview of what game rules are by means of the
book Rules of Play, written by Salen and Zimmerman.
2
2.2.3 Rules of the game
―To play a game is to follow its rules.‖ (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 117).
―A game … can get into action only if the players consent to become puppets for a
time.‖ (McLuhan, 1964, p. 259).
The phenomenon of game rules is more complex than this sentence above
seems to suggest at first glance. Rules are a fixed set of abstract guidelines;
the game‟s formal structure. The rules determine which actions are
permitted out of all the possible actions. “Players voluntarily submit to the
game, they limit their behaviors to the specific restrictions imposed by the
game rules.” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 124). In effect, the game
rules handicap the players. As soon as the players are in-game, they are
inside the games‟ artificial context, its magic circle. Here, all players must
obey the rules to participate. In sum, game rules limit player action and they
are explicit, fixed, binding and repeatable (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p.
125).
Elements of the game rules are situated on a continuum from unstated to
stated. Salen and Zimmerman describe game rules on three levels, namely;
implicit, constituative and operational rules (2004, p. 130). Implicit rules
are the unwritten rules of a game. Essentially, this concerns proper game
behavior. The constituative rules of a game are the formal structures that
exist below the rules presented to players. The operational rules are the
guidelines players require to play. Boundaries between these levels can be
fuzzy, especially between the operational and implicit rules. Here, the
context is important in determining which rule belongs where.
So, which rules are really the true rules of the game? In other words, do the
rules as formal structures of a game have a bearing on the game‟s formal
identity? (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 134). Implicit rules are crucial,
but are also similar from game to game. Thus, these are not of the essence.
In turn, it is “The constituative and operational rules of a game [which]
work in concert to generate the formal “meaning” of a game.” (Salen and
Zimmerman, 2004, p. 134). In the end, the three levels assist in determining
a clear rule set which relates to the actions and outcomes of meaningful
play. When rules are ambiguous, the game is destroyed and the players lose
their interest. In turn, a game needs individuals, players, for support.
Without players, there is no game. “When a game creates ambiguity, it is
always within some larger frame that is clearly articulated and shared by all
players. … Rules themselves must ultimately be unambiguous.” (Salen and
Zimmerman, 2004, p. 137).
Conflict is an intrinsic element of every game (Salen and Zimmerman,
2004, p. 250). “One core principle of conflict in games is that it is fair.
Game conflict is impartial conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players
have an equal chance at winning, that the game system is intrinsically
equitable, that the game‟s contest takes place on a level playing field...”
(Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260). Such a fair game would eliminate all
extraneous variables so that the player with the most developed skills wins
the game. This would give what Caillois, quoted by Salen and Zimmerman,
describes as “...precise and incontestable value to the winner‟s triumph.”
(2004, p. 260). However, in practice most games strive for, but hardly ever
accomplish fair play. Rules are chief means to at least approach the
condition of the level playing field. Players may reconfigure rules, amongst
others to improve the fairness of the game.
2.3 Research method
The research concerns a case study. The research method used in this study
is qualitative field research. More specifically, participatory ethnography,
since the researcher participated in the group himself. The analysis is based
on semi-structured interviews with a sample of respondents from the group
of players. The interviews were conducted by means of VOIP (Voice Over
Internet Protocol) telephony. The answers were recorded and transcribed.
The answers are coded into four categories which will be elaborated upon
in the analysis. They form the basis on which the research question is
answered. Transcripts of the interviews can be found in the appendix.
3
2.3.1 Group

The social group varied in size between 12 and 16 males who played
together on a regular basis. In 2006 the players‟ age varied from 16 to 22
years. In 2010, all players were either having applied sciences and/or
university degrees or actively pursuing them. It is important to note that the
social ties of the group were formed a priori to playing Halo. The people
involved were living in the same city and going to the same high school,
some of them situated in the same class. Furthermore, there were also
familial ties within the group, with two sets of three and two people being
brothers.

2.3.2 Sample

The five interviewees were selected from the group in question, which
varied in size between 12 and 16. Sampling was based on the behavior
variable frequency of play, i.e. the interviewees were the most frequent
players of the group.

4
3. Value of the research

Halo is part of the FPS-genre which is still very popular, with recent
releases regarding the Call of Duty and Medal of Honor franchises. The
research is valuable for both academics as well as game designers, because
it provides insights into what game players demand from the rules of the
game and the opportunity to change these rules. The goal is to produce
gameplay that appeals even more to game players.

3.1 Scientific value

The research provides insights into what motivates the players of the object
under study to change the rules of the game. In turn, this contributes to the
body of knowledge concerning participatory media culture as well as game
rules.

3.2 Societal value

With new releases of violent video games such as Halo, societal uproar
occurs often. The FPS-genre is criticized for displaying aggression and
violence and thereby causing violence in real life. The first-person view is
supposed to make things even more intense. Although this research is not
after the existence of such effects, nor their intensity, it may yield insight
into what gamers consider to be „meaningful play‟ (Salen and Zimmerman,
2004, p. 134). This means that there is more to a game than its visible
content than suggested by the debate about aggression and violence. Games
are a social phenomenon, they are “...extensions, not of our private but of
our social selves...” (McLuhan, 1964, p. 266)

5
4. Analysis of the case
The interview transcripts, which can be found in the appendix, form the
basis for this analysis. From the answers provided by the interviewees it
emerges that important factors concerning changing the rules of the game
are; motivation, game elements, in-game social norms and existing social
relations.
4.1 Motivation
―...everybody agreed that [our rules] made the game much more fun to play than
the original settings.‖ (De Heij, 2010).
Why would game players attempt to change the rules of the game, i.e. what
is their motivation? First, people play a game for fun. Having more fun is a
great motivator in changing the rules of the game. Melvin Kasper puts it
this way: “I think we had more fun playing [Halo] this way...” (2010). All
interviewees mention this fun factor.
Halo is no exception to the rule that conflict is an intrinsic element of every
game (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 250). Halo is a competitive game
and this is reflected in the answers of all the interviewees, when they say
that the game should test the skills of the players. Players should be equal as
in having access to and using the same tools, such as weapons. Their skills
determine how they handle the tools and this is what makes someone a
better player.
The process described above is called ‗balancing‘ by the interviewees De
Heij and M. & C. Kasper (2010). The goal is to remove game elements
which are perceived as “overpowered”, such as the rocket launcher (M.
Kasper, 2010). The aim is to level the playing field as much as possible,
where the player's skill determines the outcome. The game should be fair,
where “…all extraneous variables [are eliminated] so that the player with
the most developed skills wins the game.” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p.
260).
The ideal of the fair game and the balancing of the game corresponds well
to the theory about rules by Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p. 260): “One
core principle of conflict in games is that it is fair. Game conflict is
impartial conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players have an equal
chance at winning, that the game system is intrinsically equitable, that the
game‟s contest takes place on a level playing field...” (Salen and
Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260).
4.2 Game elements
―...a fair game would eliminate all extraneous variables so that the player with the
most developed skills wins the game.‖ (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260).
Game elements are closely related to the rules of the game and thus with
changing them. Possession of certain game elements can give a player an
advantage over others. As is described above, this is precisely the cause of
dissatisfaction with the „original‟ or suggested rules. Interesting is that the
changes to the game elements were not of a technical, but of a social nature.
The players made an agreement where certain game elements were still
available in-game, but they would all refrain from using them. This was due
to the rather limited customization options of Halo's design. Therefore, the
players had to come up with a creative solution.
All interviewees mention that the use of power-ups, more specifically, the
Active Camouflage and the Over-Shield, were outlawed. This is not
surprising, given that the word 'power-up' covers exactly the function it
fulfills; making a player comparatively stronger than the other players.
Although this is of a temporary nature, i.e. the advantage lasts for a limited
amount of time, it apparently disrupted the desired balance and fairness of
the game enough to outlaw them.
Two weapons, the rocket-launcher and the sniper-rifle, were another kind of
game element the players voluntarily refrained from using. Again, these
weapons challenged the ideal of game balance, because these weapons were
overpowered compared to the default weapon; the pistol (M. Kasper, 2010).
Furthermore, the players neither started off with the rocket-launcher nor the
sniper-rifle already in their possession when they re-spawned; instead they
had to get them from certain locations on the map. Therefore, these
weapons were scarce. This challenged the principle of player equality,
6
where all players have access to, and use, the same tools.
De Heij mentions that the radar, which when enabled displays the location
of friendly as well as enemy players near you, was also disabled (2011).
Compared to the restrictions discussed earlier, this was not a social
measure. The design of Halo allows you to disable the radar technically for
all players. De Heij is the only interviewee who mentions the radar. This is
probably due to the fact that the other interviewees forgot about this, due to
time passed between playing and the research interview. Another
explanation might be that the other interviewees do not conceptually
consider the radar to be a game element, but instead as an interface element,
for example.
4.3 In-game social norms
―A camper is usually frowned upon in the FPS community.‖ (Gaming Dictionary,
2011).
―There are always issues up for discussion. Camping is not allowed, but up to a
certain degree, it happened nevertheless. It is hard to determine what is camping
and what is not camping. That led to conflict between the two teams, screaming
from one room to the room next door and back again.‖ (Griffioen, 2011).
Here I address in-game social norms, another type of 'rules'. These are
addressed separately because these kind of rules are more implicit
compared to the earlier game elements, which are more explicit. In-game
social norms govern player behavior which involves a specific use of
certain game elements and which is perceived negatively.
All interviewees mention 'camping' as something which is 'not done'.
Camping is an activity that known in nearly all FPS games. It is “...the
action of staying in the same place (the camp) for long periods of time,
usually in hiding, and just waiting for the enemy to come by. A camper is
usually frowned upon in the FPS community.” (Gaming Dictionary, 2011).
However, it is hard reach an agreement on when someone is camping. It has
to do with staying in a certain location for a certain amount of time. But
what exactly is 'a certain location' and how long takes 'a certain amount of
time'? Therefore, it is more difficult to regulate this type of behavior. The
cloudy character of camping is highlighted by M. Kasper, who states that
the activity was forbidden in general, but tolerated to a certain degree when
the player in question was a defender, as opposed to an attacking player
(2010).
The interviewees also mention restricting the act of teleport blocking. Here,
a player would park a 'Warthog', a buggy-like car, on the teleport. Through
this portal, players can emerge when they walk into the corresponding
teleport, situated on another location on the map. When the teleporter is
blocked by the Warthog, teleportation is no longer possible.
The interview participants report three issues concerning what they call “the
tunnels” (C. Kasper, 2010). More specifically, they refer to a location within
the tunnels. This place is called 'the goods' on the map, which can be found
in the appendix provided, by Esemono (2010). The Overshield and Active
Camouflage are located here. However, a fence was also present in this
location. This fence was the cause of trouble. The fence prevented players
from taking a quick route, a shortcut, from the Blue to the Red basis.
However, the player able to take this shortcut anyway had a major
advantage over others.
The first issue with the fence was that although it's bars, or balusters, may
prevent players from taking the shortcut, the flag-carrying player was able
to pass the flag on to a team-mate on the other side of the fence (Bakker,
2011). In short, the fence was there for a reason. The game was designed to
prevent the players themselves from passing through the fence, but the flag
was allowed to pass. Bakker explains that he dislikes this because “...an
[enemy] team-mate could pick up the flag very fast and then we he would
avoid walking a great part of the distance normally required to take the flag
to your [home] basis.” (2011).
The second issue was more like a glitch in the game, which is probably not
foreseen by the designers. Here, the players found a way for their
protagonist to pass the fence. M. Kasper states that: “...when there was a
Warthog located on the other side of the fence, you could be teleported
through the fence when you [would press and hold the X-button] and enter
the Warthog” (2010). M. Kasper explains that the group outlawed this
7
action because “...once you left the enemy base, you could easily progress
through the fence and the other team had no chance to stop you [from
taking the enemy flag to the home base and scoring],” (2010).
The third issue concerning the fence located at 'the goods' is reported by De
Heij (2011). This can also be called a game glitch. He states that it was
possible to “...[pick up the Over Shield, and use a rocket-launcher] to blow
up a car, [a Warthog], near you.” (2010). The Over Shield would keep the
protagonist alive while the explosion would push him through the fence.
However, this action required having a rocket-launcher. Furthermore, the
protagonist had to pick up the Over Shield in order to progress through the
fence while staying alive. These two conditions were already forbidden in
themselves, therefore this glitch was illegal a priori.
4.4 Process
―When there are ten people who want something and one who does not, then that's
too bad for that single person. I think you can call that democratic.‖ (C. Kasper,
2010).
During the interviews, the interviewees were asked whether the process of
changing the rules was democratic. The quote above shows that it matters
what kind of conception of democracy the individuals have, before deciding
whether the process of changing the rules was democratic. C. Kasper says
that the process was democratic, while Bakker and Griffioen argue that it
was not. De Heij and M. Kasper state that they cannot remember whether
certain people were in favor or opposing the changes, nor whether there was
a discussion about it. However, by talking about discussing an issue by
people favoring and opposing an outcome, M. Kasper displays knowledge
of aspects which are certainly democratic.
De Heij assumes that the process was democratic, because “...otherwise
everybody would not want to play the game with each other every single
week.” (2011). Furthermore, he says that “...everybody agreed that [our
rules] made the game much more fun to play than the original settings.” (De
Heij, 2011). This statement reminds us that the players play voluntarily and
for fun, i.e. they are not required to play. Thus when they are unhappy about
a development, such as a change in the rules, they can simply stop playing.
The fact that they continued playing indicates that they were happy with the
changes. This should be the case, as the motivation of the game is to make
the game better, meaning more balanced and fair for all players.
Bakker agrees with De Heij that “...[our way of playing] was the most fun
way of playing.” (2011). However, he is not sure whether it came into
existence by means of a democratic process. Instead, Bakker says that “It
came into existence over the years. It came out of nowhere. We were like,
“hey, this is too easy, that's not fun, let's try that in a different way.”.”
(2011). In short, Bakker says that the process resembled an informal
“developmental process” more than a formal democratic process where
someone would ask “...who agrees with this rule?” and when the group
would vote (Bakker, 2011). Griffioen agrees with Bakker that it was “...not
completely democratic.” (Griffioen, 2011). People accepted it, but it was
not a formal group decision where everybody was involved.
To conclude the analysis, it is important to note that the social relations of
the group existed prior to playing the game Halo in this specific form. To be
more specific, the players were friends who undertook many activities
together. Playing the game studied in this paper is but one of those
activities. Here, in-game behavior affects real-life behavior and vice versa.
The players were all motivated to play by the rules. Bakker puts it nicely by
saying that “Sometimes there were players who did not stick to the rules for
a short while. The other players reacted quite passionately upon such
behavior.” (2011). This highlights that a degree of social control was a
necessary condition for this specific configuration to work, or play, out.
When such control is absent, or present to a lesser degree such as when
playing online, this poses issues. These can endanger the meaningfulness of
gameplay.
8
5. Conclusion
As a game designer, you are never directly designing the behavior of your players.
Instead, you are only designing the rules of the system. It is not always possible to
anticipate how the rules will play out.‖ (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 168).
Here, the analysis is summarized and answers to the research
questions are provided.
A1. Why were the players not satisfied with the suggested game rules?
The interviewees say that the game should test the skills of the players,
where the player with the most developed skills should win the game.
However, the players felt that the game was more about getting the most
powerful game elements than about the skills of the players in applying
them. They felt that players should be equal as in having access to and
using the same tools, such as weapons. This idea(l) is called balancing,
where the goal is to remove game elements which are perceived as
overpowered in relation to others.
The ideal of the fair game and the balancing act corresponds well to the
theory about rules by Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p. 260): “One core
principle of conflict in games is that it is fair. Game conflict is impartial
conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players have an equal chance at
winning, that the game system is intrinsically equitable, that the game‟s
contest takes place on a level playing field...” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004,
p. 260). Such a fair game would eliminate all extraneous variables in order
for the player with the most developed skills to win the game. The aim is to
level the playing field as much as possible, in short, the game should be fair.
A2. What was the goal of changing the rules?
Changing the rules of the game was not a goal in itself. As described
above, the players found that the game was not very well-balanced,
therefore they attempted to level the playing field. The rules were a means
to achieve this goal. The players felt that the goals of the game should not
be who possesses the best tools, such as certain weapons and power-ups.
Instead, all players should start with the same tools and should keep these,
so that the game is about who handles them most skillfully.
People play a game for fun. In order to get the most fun out of playing, the
players wanted to balance the game in order to improve its fairness. The
goal of the players here was to make the game even more fun (Wright et.
al., 2002). M. Kasper puts it nicely: “I think we had more fun playing
[Halo] this way...” (2010). De Heij agrees by saying that “...everybody
agreed that [our rules] made the game much more fun to play than the
original settings.” (2011).
A3. What did the process of changing the rules look like?
The players disagree about whether the process of changing the rules
was democratic. This might have to do with differing individual
conceptions of democracy. C. Kasper states that “When there are ten
people who want something and one who does not, then that's too bad for
that single person. I think you can call that democratic.” (2010). It is
debatable whether such a 'majority rule' is the right, correct or best way of
resolving issues, even in a democracy.
However, it is likely that the process was democratic up to a certain degree,
because play is voluntary. Ergo, the players would not have accepted that
one person would impose a rule that would make the game less fun to play
for the majority of the group. All players can have a final say, a veto, by
simply stopping with playing. However, there is much in-between such an
autocratic leader and a more formal democracy, where someone would ask
“...who agrees with this rule?” after which the group would vote (Bakker,
2011). Bakker says that the process “...came into existence over the years. It
came out of nowhere.” (2011).
In the words of Bakker, the process can best be described as an informal
“developmental process” (Bakker, 2011). It is important to note that the
social ties of the players in the group existed prior to playing the game. The
game was one of several social activities the group undertook. Therefore,
they were motivated to stick to the new rules, such as refraining from using
a weapon, even when that weapon was available during play. Breaking rules
9
might lead to undesirable arguments and fights. It is an interesting question
what happens to the willingness of the players to follow the rules when the
context changes, an issue I turn to later.
A. What is the motivation of game players in redefining the rules?
Players want to have fun while playing and they will make the game more
fun when they can. The game being fair is a necessary condition for having
fun while playing. Changing the rules of the game is one of the means for
the players to get more fun out of the game. The players felt that the game
rewarded the players who came in possession of more powerful, or
overpowered, tools. They did not like this, instead they were of the opinion
that the game should test the skills of the players, meaning how well they
handle the tools available in the game, where every player has the same
tools.
Making sure that the game rewards the right things is called ―balancing‖
by the interviewees De Heij and M. & C. Kasper (2010 & 2011). What
underlies this balancing act is the idea of the fair game and the level playing
field (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 260). A fair game on a level playing
field would have eliminated all extraneous variables that might give some
players an 'unfair' advantage over others.
The answers to the research questions yield insights, recommendations and
suggestions for further research, which I turn to now.
5.1 Recommendations and suggestions for further research
―If games have nothing else in common, they have this concept at their heart.
Fairness, in other words, is a defining trait of games.‖ (Sniderman, 2004, p. 25).
Game designers produce games for players. The players play, experience
and make meaning. Thus, as Salen and Zimmerman put it: “As a game
designer, you are never directly designing the behavior of your players.
Instead, you are only designing the rules of the system. It is not always
possible to anticipate how the rules will play out.”. (2004, p. 168). This
means that players participate, they co-create with the game designers,
since the players are the interpreters and thus the ones who make meaning.
This means that players may want to change some elements of the game for
their own reasons, for example to make the game more fair. It is impossible,
or at least very hard, for the designers to anticipate all possible things
players want to do with the game or how they interpret it in the first place
(Salen & Zimmerman, 2003, p. 540). Therefore, they should offer many
options, or game settings, which are customizable. As is described in this
research, the game Halo offered quite meager customization options. This
led to some creative solutions by the group of players (Wright et al., 2002).
However, it is promising that Halo 3 seems to offer many more changeable
settings (HaloWiki, 2011). This means that players are no longer forced to
resort to social measures, but instead can rely on technical solutions.
Important in this regard is how the rules are enforced. It is important to note
that the group of players who were studied in this research existed as a
social group prior to playing the game. They related socially, and when
playing they were located in the same space, usually one or two rooms in a
house. Therefore, it worked well to establish, communicate and enforce
rules, even the in-game social norms. Further research might address the
changes that occur when players play online over the internet, where social
ties, group norms and shared physical player location can be lacking. This
might ask for more 'hard', explicit game settings, since there is less trust that
a stranger is willing to stick to more implicit rules.
To conclude, during this research the concepts of game balancing, or
equalizing, the level playing field and fairness frequently came to the fore.
Interesting questions are: what lies beneath these concepts, i.e. what are the
values and assumptions that that feed our desire for a fair game? Why
should we level the playing field and if we agree to leveling, do we level it
in the right way, i.e. do all players benefit equally? How do these issues
relate to conceptions of justice? Further research should address these
matters. Sniderman has published two tentative issues, Fair Game I and II,
which addresses these issues and relates them to real-world issues:
10
―If we can‘t understand why we consider certain advantages acceptable
and others unacceptable in games and sports, we have virtually no chance
of gaining insight into some controversial issues that seem to hang on our
notions of fairness, including racial profiling by the police force, sexual
harassment in the workplace, equal-pay-for-equal-work issues, the Boy
Scouts of America‘s stand on homosexuals, the place of gays in the military,
the use of drugs to enhance athletic performance, and so on. ―On the other
hand, if we can understand what makes us judge a game situation as fair or
unfair, we have a greater possibility, I believe, of coming to grips with these
and other crucial questions of social justice.‖ (2004, p. 37)

―Games, then, are our touchstone. Life may not be fair, but as long as we
have games, we will always have a way of measuring how unfair life really
is. With the model of games, we cannot pretend that other aspects of our
existence are the way they should be. More important, games provide us
with an ideal to strive for. We know what life ought to be because we see the
way games are.‖ They ―…are our guide, our North Star, our moral
compass. If we can‘t appeal to games to tell us what is right and just and
fair, there is nothing else to appeal to since the other candidates — religion,
morality, law, culture — are inevitably tainted with real-world-itis, with the
struggle for power and survival‖. (2004, p. 25)

Whether these claims are truthful remains to be seen. However, when

we put a question mark behind certain statements, some interesting
research questions emerge. These pose a research guide from which
future can benefit when they address these issues.

11
6. Limitations of the research

The research provides in-depth insights on a relatively „small‟ area, since it

concerns a very specific combination of peripherals, software and people.
Therefore, the results might be hard to generalize, at least beyond the FPS-
genre. This is due to the unicity and specificity of the case and its situation
within the context. Although the research concerns a case study, Halo can
be considered a typical FPS game. This speaks in favor of the
generalizability of the research, at least within the FPS-genre.

It can be argued that the participation of the researcher in the group is a

weakness, because it may cause bias (Van Gemert, 2009). Therefore, issues
such as interpretation and personal factors may lead to different results
when replicating the research. To complicate matters, replicating this type
of research is difficult in itself, due to situational circumstances.

The group in which the researcher participated played the game together
between 2003 and 2006. At this the researcher had no intent of doing
research, so he participated on an equal basis with the other participants.
Therefore, there was no role stress of being participant and researcher at the
same time. However, this brings the potential disadvantage of „going native‟
(Van Gemert, 2009). Furthermore, data collection took place in 2010, about
four years after the group stopped playing on a regular basis. This period
between the events and the collection and analysis may have negative
effects, such as a diminished ability of the interviewees to recall events
from their memory.

12
7. Bibliography
Esemono (2010). A bird‘s eye view of Sidewinder. Retrieved from
http://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sidewinder&image=Sidewinder-jpg
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of camping. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camping.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of camper. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-camper.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of LAN. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-lan.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of console. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-console.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of multiplayer. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-multiplayer.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of first person. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-first_person.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of FPS. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-fps.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of capture the flag. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-
capture_the_flag.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of peripheral device. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-
peripheral_device.htm
Gaming Dictionary (2011). Definition of power up. Retrieved from
http://www.metaboli.co.uk/gaming-dictionary/defnition-of-power_up.htm
HaloWiki, (2011). Retrieved from: http://halowiki.net/p/Gamesettings
Magnike2 (2011). Sidewinder. Retrieved from
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sidewinder
McLuhan, M. (1964). Games: The Extension of Man, in Understanding
Media, Routledge, MA
MobyGames (2011). Halo: Combat Evolved. Retrieved from
http://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolved
Raessens, J. (2005). Computer Games as Participatory Media Culture. In
Raessens, J. & Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.) Handbook of computer game studies.
(pp. 373-388) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play : Game design
fundamentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Sniderman, S. (2004). Fair Game. The Life of Games: Why and How We
Play – An Exploratory Journal. (pp. 24-27). 3. Retrieved from:
http://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog25.htm
Sniderman, S. (2004). Fair Game, II. The Life of Games: Why and How We
Play – An Exploratory Journal. (pp. 35-37). 4. Retrieved from:
http://www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog35.htm
Van Gemert, F. (2009). De rijke inzichten van participerende observatie.
Retrieved from http://www.sociologiemagazine.nl/artikel/de-rijke-
inzichten-van-participerende-observatie
Wright, T., Boria, E., & Breidenbach, P. (2002). Creative Player Actions in
FPS Online Video Games: Playing Counter-Strike. Game studies: the
international journal of computer game research. 2 (2). Retrieved from
http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/
13
8. Appendix
8.1 Description of game concepts in alphabetical order
Camping, Camper, Camp
Camping is the action of staying in the same place (the camp) for long
periods of time, usually in hiding, and just waiting for the enemy to come
by. A camper is usually frowned upon in the FPS community (Gaming
Dictionary, 2011).
Capture The Flag (CTF)
Capture the Flag is ”...a special mode usually found in multiplayer games,
where two teams will engage in battle and try to take the opponent's flag in
order to bring it back to their own base, while protecting their own flag.”
(Gaming Dictionary, 2011). In Halo, the two teams are called Red and Blue.
Console
The console is “...an entertainment system, portable or not, which lets you
play video games.” (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). This research concerns the
Xbox console.
First Person Shooter (FPS)
A First Person Shooter is “...a game which puts you in the driver's (or killer)
seat. You will indeed be seeing all the action through the eyes of the
character you are playing...” (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). The first person
game player sees “...through the eyes of the protagonist.” (Gaming
Dictionary, 2011).
Halo: Combat Evolved
Halo is “...a first-person shooter with considerable driving elements and the
first game in the popular Halo series... Halo also has a significant
multiplayer component with …capture the flag with the unusual addition
that the flag takes your weapon spot while you are holding it, so shooting
your way in and out of the base on your own is not an option … There is
also a game editor which allows you to set custom rules for all the basic
game types. All the playable weapons and vehicles from the campaign
mode are available in the multiplayer maps with the ability for members of
the same team to share the game's distinctive Warthog vehicle, which is
essentially a small truck with a mounted gun on the back.” (MobyGames,
2011).
Local Area Network (LAN)
LAN abbreviates the descriptive term Local Area Network. Such as
network connects computers in a common location (Gaming Dictionary,
2011). Here, the network consists of four Xbox consoles located in a house,
often in two rooms due to the divide of the group into two competing teams.
Map
The map is the “...game universe you are in when you play a game.”
(Gaming Dictionary, 2011). This research is limited to one specific map
called „Sidewinder‟.
Multiplayer
This research concerns multiplayer gameplay. This means “...a video game
that can be played by a few players ... over a network, over the Internet, or
in a LAN.” (Gaming Dictionary, 2011). Halo allows a total number of 16
players to play at the same time in the map Sidewinder.
Peripherals
Peripherals are “...hardware (as opposed to software) extension ... device[s]
used in computer science, like a mouse...” (Gaming Dictionary, 2011).
Example of peripheral devices in relation to the Xbox console are the
controller, network cables and the network hub/switch.
Powerups
14
Powerups are “...a bonus. It is an object that you can find in the game world
and that will add itself to your original skill to boost it. … These can be
either found in the game, by killing an enemy, or even in secret places.”
(Gaming Dictionary, 2011).

Health Pack

The health pack restores the health of the protagonist, in-game it looks
similar to a first-aid kit.

Active Camouflage

Active camouflage makes the player transparent, and therefore less easy to
see. This power up is often referred to as invisibility, although it does not
make the players completely invisible.

Over-shield

The over-shield in Halo is called shield because it protects you against

enemy attacks. The word „over‟ designates that it is located over the health
points. The over-shield restores automatically, while the health points can
only be restored by picking up a health pack.
Sidewinder
Sidewinder is one of the 13 available multiplayer maps of the game Halo.
From a bird‟s eye perspective the map resembles a horseshoe. “The main
feature of this map is the ice patches on the front of the horseshoe in
between the bases... On the outer edge of the map are two large cliffs that
are connected to each base with teleporters. ... On the inner edge, there is a
network of tunnels which lead to the opposing bases. Four power-ups can
be found in the lower section of the tunnel. There is a Sniper Rifle, two
Shotguns, Health Pack, Plasma Pistol, Pistol and an Assault Rifle inside
each base.” (Halopedia, 2011).
Figure 1. Map of Sidewinder (Source: Esemono, 2010)
8.2 Interview transcripts
Interviews were held with Arjan Griffioen, Melvin& Collin Kasper,
Niels Bakker and Tim de Heij. The original audio recordings of the
interviews are available upon request at the researcher.
The transcripts have been annotated by the researcher. The colors
correspond to important concepts in this research:
Red: game elements
Blue: in-game social norms
Green: player motivation and goal
Yellow: rule change process

15

8.2.1. Interview with A. Griffioen
Interviewer: Mark Jansen
Interviewee: Arjan Griffioen
Date: 25-01-2011
[Mark] Goedenavond Arjan. Goed, het is vandaag dinsdagavond 25
januari 2011 en ik spreek met Arjan Griffioen. Klopt dat, Arjan?
[Arjan] Zeker.
[Mark] Ok, is het in orde dat ik een opname maak van dit gesprek?
[Arjan] Ja, helemaal.
[Mark] Als iets niet duidelijk is dan kun je tijdens het gesprek een
vraag stellen. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de spelregels
in de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm in de map Sidewinder van
de game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen stellen. De eerste vraag
is; welke elementen zijn verandert, met betrekking tot de originele
spelregels?
[Arjan] We hadden een aantal aanpassingen gemaakt. De eerste was
dat je, er waren een aantal teleporters in het level, twee aan elke kant
van het level en die mocht je niet blokkeren. Dat kon je doen door er
een poppetje of een object op te zetten. Dat mocht niet. Er waren een
aantal power-ups in het level, onzichtbaarheid en schild, dat je een
extra sterk schild kreeg. Dat mochten we niet gebruiken, want daar
werd je gewoon te goed door. Er waren een aantal wapens die we niet
mochten gebruiken. Dat was de sniper-rifle, waarmee je heel ver kon
inzoomen en makkelijk mensen kon doodschieten. De rocket-
launcher, waarmee je simpel en makkelijk kills kon maken. Owja, je
mocht niet campen. Rondhangen op één plek om alleen maar mensen
dood te schieten en kills te maken. Je moest altijd aanvallend spelen
en voor de vlag gaan. Maar het was wel te betwisten wat campen
inhield. De voornaamste dingen... hielden ook in gebruik maken van
een aantal fouten in het level, maar dat mocht ook niet. Zoals
mensen, in het midden van het level kon je dan tussen twee palen
door dringen via een trucje en dat mocht je ook niet gebruiken. Dat
waren de belangrijkste dingen.
[Mark] Ok, je hebt nu een boel dingen genoemd. Mijn tweede vraag
was, wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als ongewenst
beschouwde? Een paar daarvan heb je denk ik al genoemd. Weet je er
misschien nog meer?
[Arjan] Nou, het belangrijkste was dat je niet alleen maar heel
verdedigend kon spelen, met zijn allen alleen maar de basis
verdedigen, je moest ook aanvallend aanvallen organiseren. Want
anders kon het spel een beetje vastlopen en veel te lang duren. Je
moest dus ook aanvallend spelen en je mocht niet alleen voor de kills
gaan, dus je mocht niet alleen maar mensen doodschieten om een
goede kills-deaths ratio te krijgen, maar je moest dus echt, zeg maar,
het spel spelen om de vlag. En de dingen die ik net gezegd heb.
[Mark] Ok. Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische
wijze tot stand?
[Arjan] Ik ben wat later begonnen met spelen, dus heel veel van die
regels waren er al toen ik bij jullie kwam spelen. Ik denk niet dat het
helemaal democratisch was. Uiteindelijk besloot iedereen wel, het
werd meer geaccepteerd, dan dat iedereen het er altijd mee eens was.
Uiteindelijk denk ik wel dat iedereen het ermee eens was, maar ik
denk niet dat het een gezamenlijk besluit was.
[Mark] Ok, en wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de
spelregels?
16
[Arjan] Het doel was, ik denk dat het meerdere dingen waren, één
was dat het spelletje speelbaar bleef. Want als je bijvoorbeeld de
wapens ging gebruiken, of de power-ups ging gebruiken, kon je
gewoon te goed worden. Dus als één iemand én de goede wapens én
de power-ups in bezit had, dan had hij gewoon een té grote
machtspositie en werd het spelletje onspeelbaar. En ik denk ook om
het spel moeilijker te maken. Dat bepaalde dingen niet zomaar meer
konden gebeuren, dat je niet te makkelijk kon winnen, maar aan de
andere kant, dat er wel uiteindelijk een winnaar kwam, dat het dus
wel speelbaar bleef.
[Mark] Ok en werd volgens jou dat beoogde doel ook daadwerkelijk
bereikt?
[Arjan] Ja, ik denk het wel. Uiteindelijk waren natuurlijk een aantal
mensen beter dan anderen, dat heeft het spel ook altijd wel erg
beïnvloed, maar aan de duur van de potjes te zien, en uiteindelijk
kwam er ook altijd een winnaar uit, werd het doel zeker wel bereikt.
Dat denk ik wel. Alleen waren er natuurlijk altijd wel dingetjes die te
betwisten waren, wat ik al eerder zei, het campen wat dan niet mocht,
dat gebeurde toch wel een beetje. Het was altijd kijken van wat is wel
campen en wat is niet campen. Dat leidde wel eens tot
schreeuwpartijen tussen boven en beneden teams, maar over het gros
werden de regels wel geaccepteerd en werd er wel bereikt wat we zelf
hadden aangepast.
[Mark] Ok, dat was alweer het einde van het interview. Ik wil je
hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.
[Arjan] Ik jou ook Mark, succes.
8.2.2 Interview with M. Kasper
Interviewer: Mark Jansen
Interviewee: Melvin Kasper
Date: 30-12-2010
[Mark] Het is vandaag donderdag 30 december 2010. Ik spreek met
Melvin Kasper. Vind je het goed dat ik een opname maak van het
gesprek?
[Melvin] Ja dat is prima.
[Mark] Hartstikke mooi. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van
de spelregels in de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm van de map
Sidewinder binnen de game Halo. Ik ga je vijf vragen stellen. De
eerste vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert met betrekking tot de
originele spelregels?
[Melvin] Wat we verandert hebben is dat we bepaalde wapens hebben
uitgesloten. De rocket launcher mocht niet, omdat die, voor zover wij
vonden, te krachtig was, te goed was, er viel ook niet tegen te spelen.
Sniper rifle hebben we er ook uitgegooid, om ongeveer dezelfde
redenen. Je kon van heel lange afstand iemand uitschakelen en wij
vonden dat niet echt veel toevoegen aan de game. Volgens mij
hebben we uiteindelijk wel toegestaan dat je met sniper mocht
scouten, zeg maar, dus je kon met de in-zoom wel mensen zien
aankomen, wat dus wel een voordeel was, maar je mocht er dus niet
mee schieten. Dus je had een soort van grote verrekijker met een
geweer eronder.
[Mark] Ok.
[Melvin] Verder power-ups zoals onzichtbaarheid, invisibility, en het
power-shield, dat hebben we ook niet gedaan omdat het té makkelijk
was om voor een aanval even een powershield op te pakken en als je
dan in een één tegen één situatie kwam dan was het gewoon niet
meer te doen voor die andere partij. Dan kon je wel ongeveer
evenveel skills hebben maar dan had hij zo'n power-up waardoor hij
17
hem altijd won.
[Mark] Ja. En waren er nog andere elementen behalve deze?
[Melvin] Ja, er waren bepaalde glitches in Halo 1. Als je onderin bij
de tunnels ging zitten, waar ook de power-up lag, als je daar een auto,
Warthog, neergooide aan de ene kant en je kwam aan de andere kant
aanrennen met de vlag, dan kon je door een muurtje geteleporteert
worden op het moment dat je instapte bij die auto en dan was je dus
ineens in de tunnel aan jouw kant van de baan. En dat is ook
verboden op een gegeven momen omdat het gewoon totaal te
makkelijk was, zodra je de basis van de vijand uit was en je in de
tunnels was kwam je door die muur heen en dan konden ze je al lang
niet meer pakken.
[Mark] Ok. En wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als
ongewenst beschouwde?
[Melvin] Ja, campen in zijn algemeen, maar dat viel wel mee, dat
werd wel gepikt. Omdat het ook wel werd gedaan, zeker in de
verdediging wel, dat was ook niet zo storend. Wat niet toegestaan
was, wat echt a-relaxt was, was campen in het hokje van de
teleporters. Zeker als je dan vlak naast de teleporter ging staan
wachten tot er iemand doorheen rende en dan sloeg je hem in de rug
en die is dan in één keer down. Dat was zeker ongewenst. En verder
het blokkeren van teleporters, dat is volgens mij ook verboden op een
gegeven moment, dat mocht ook niet meer.
[Mark] Ok. En kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op
democratische wijze tot stand?
[Melvin] Ja, ik denk het haast wel. Ik kan het me niet meer goed
herinneren of hier veel discussie over was, of hoe dit ooit bepaald is,
maar volgens mij was iedereen het er wel mee eens. Omdat dingen
als rocket launchers, snipers en die power-ups toch een beetje de
balans uit zo'n game wegtrekken, waardoor dus, zeker iemand die
weinig skills heeft, makkelijk met dit soort wapens alsnog iemand
met veel skills kan verslaan, wat we eigenlijk helemaal niet tof
vonden. Dus ik denk dat het wel democratisch gegaan is, ik kan me
ook niet herinneren of er mensen waren die ertegen waren of zich er
tegen uit hebben gesproken ofzo.
[Mark] Ok. En wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de
spelregels?
[Melvin] Ja, toch bepaalde elementen uit het spel halen die, voor
zover wij vonden, een beetje overpowered waren. De rocket launcher,
die eigenlijk te krachtig was, een sniper rifle die te goed was, power-
ups die een oneerlijk voordeel gaven, dat gaf gewoon in de team
battles, en ook vooral in de één versus één battles, dat het gewoon
veel meer aankwam op je skills zeg maar, dan op de power-up die je
daarvoor had opgepakt. Of de dikke wapens die je daarvoor had
opgepakt. En dat was zeker voor verdedigers, die eigenlijk niet in het
veld kwamen en dus ook geen power-ups en wapens konden krijgen,
dat maakte het zeker veel spannender. Want anders was jij als
aanvaller altijd sterker als een verdediger was.
[Mark] Ok. En werd volgens jou dat doel ook uiteindelijk bereikt?
[Melvin] Ja, ik denk het wel, ik denk dat we er meer plezier aan
hebben beleefd op deze manier, dan we hadden gehad als we
bazooka's, snipers en dat soort dingen hadden toegestaan. Ja ik denk
dat het doel bereikt werd, het werd een meer gebalanceerde game die
veel meer van skill afhing dan van powerups.
[Mark] Ok. Dat vind ik een mooie afsluiting van het interview. Ik wil
je hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.
18
[Melvin] Graag gedaan.
8.2.3 Interview with C. Kasper
Interviewer: Mark Jansen
Interviewee: Collin Kasper
Date: 30-12-2010
[Mark] Vandaag is het donderdag 30 december 2010. Het is tien
minuten over half zes in de avond. Ik spreek met Collin Kasper.
Collin vind je het goed dat ik een opname maak van het gesprek?
[Collin] Ja dat is prima.
[Mark] Hartstikke mooi. Als iets niet duidelijk is kun je tijdens het
gesprek je vraag stellen en dan zal ik die proberen te beantwoorden.
Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de spelregels in de
multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm in de map Sidewinder van de
game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen stellen.
[Collin] Allright.
[Mark] De eerste vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert, met
betrekking tot de originele spelregels?
[Collin] We hadden een paar elementen die verandert zijn. Dat is dat
je bepaalde wapens niet mocht oppakken. Dat je geen overshield en
geen onzichtbaarheid mocht oppakken. En, dan hadden we nog een
paar sociale regels zeg maar, dat had niks te maken met items op de
map, maar dat waren dingen die je niet mocht doen, die not-done
waren. Dat zijn dingen als teleport-blocking, dus je mocht niet je auto
op het uiteinde van de teleport zetten zodat die geblokkeerd was. Je
mocht niet in de teleporter in het hokje blijven staan, zodat je iemand
direct in de rug kon slaan als die erdoorheen kwam. Even kijken
hoor... Verder mocht je van wapens oppakken niet de rocket launcher
pakken, de sniper rifle, en dingen oppakken zoals onzichtbaarheid en
het over-shield. Dat vooral vooral de grootste aanpassingen geweest
volgens mij.
[Mark] Ok. Mijn tweede vraag was wat waren acties die de groep als
geheel als ongewenst beschouwde, maar die heb je nu in feite al
beschreven. Maar weet je nog meer acties die niet konden, in-game?
[Collin] Nou, even kijken, onderin de tunnels had je twee spleten, zeg
maar, dan kon je heel snel door naar de andere kant als je daar je auto
naast zette en eruit sprong, of erin sprong, dan kon je er heel snel
doorheen en heel snel met de vlag weg. Dat mocht ook niet.
[Mark] Ok.
[Collin] Bovendien was het dan ook heel moeilijk om de overshield
en de onzichtbaarheid te ontwijken. En, ja, daarom mocht dat ook
niet.
[Mark] Ja, want die lagen op dezelfde plek.
[Collin] Ja.
[Mark] Ok. Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische
wijze tot stand?
[Collin] Ik denk vooral wel, omdat de meeste mensen het ermee eens
zijn geweest. Maar het verschilde natuurlijk wel, sommige mensen
zullen wel graag overshield's hebben gehad in die game, maar dat
waren er dan te weinig om de rest van de groep er rekening mee te
laten houden. Als je gewoon tien mensen hebt die het wel willen en
eentje niet, dan is het pech voor die ene persoon. Ik denk dat je dat
democratisch kunt noemen.
19
[Mark] Ok.
[Collin] Denk ik. Maar het zullen er misschien wel verschillende zijn
geweest. Per regel zal dat anders zijn geweest.
[Mark] En wat was het doel van het wijzigen van de spelregels?
[Collin] Het doel was dus om het spel eerlijker te maken. Om
iedereen gelijk te maken in het spel. Je kon niet dingen of pakken
waardoor jij een oneerlijk voordeel zou krijgen ten opzichte van de
ander. Iedereen zou elke keer elkaar tegen moeten komen en precies
gelijk moeten zijn aan elkaar. Of net, je had nog wel verschil tussen
de shotgun en de assault rifle, die hadden dan net weer kleine
positieve en negatieve kanten aan elk wapen, daar had je nog wel wat
speling in. Maar voor de rest was iedereen gelijk aan elkaar als je
elkaar tegen kwam. Daardoor gaat iedere speler op zichzelf, wordt
iedere speler op zichzelf getoetst en niet aan hoe sterk hij is in het
spel maar hoe goed hij is in het echt.
[Mark] Ok. En werd dat doel ook uiteindelijk bereikt?
[Collin] Ik denk dat het doel wel bereikt werd, maar dat is voor mij
persoonlijk natuurlijk, ik denk dat het doel wel bereikt werd, ik vond
het gewoon hartstikke leuk en de potjes werden echt knetterspannend
ervan. Het allertofste wat ik ervan vond was dat alles neerkomt op die
vlaggen en hoe goed je was ten opzichte van anderen. In plaats van
dat je een rocket pakte en iemand in één keer naar de kneiter schoot,
zeg maar.
[Mark] Dat vind ik een mooie afsluiting van het interview.
[Collin] Dankjewel.
[Mark] Ik wil je hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.
[Collin] Graag gedaan.
8.2.4 Interview with N. Bakker
Interviewer: Mark Jansen
Interviewee: Niels Bakker
Date: 05-01-2011
[Mark] Het is vandaag woensdag 5 januari 2011 en ik spreek met
Niels Bakker. Niels, vind je het ok dat ik een opname maak van het
gesprek?
[Niels] Jazeker.
[Mark] Mooizo. Als iets niet duidelijk is kun je een vraag stellen en
dan zal ik het proberen uit te leggen. Het interview gaat over het
aanpassen van de spelregels in de multiplayer capture the flag
spelvorm in de map Sidewinder van de game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal
vijf vragen stellen.
[Niels] Ok.
[Mark] De eerste vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert, met
betrekking tot de originele spelregels?
[Niels] Toen wij het speelden, bedoel je? Dus wat we deden is dat je
niet op één plek mocht blijven zitten zodat je iemand kon opwachten,
dat noemden we dan campen. Wat ook niet mocht is teleporters
blokkeren. Verder had je van die powerpacks dat je onzichtbaar of
extra schild kon krijgen. Dat was ook verboden om op te pakken. En
je mocht geen snipers of rocket-launchers gebruiken, wat eigenlijk
lange-afstand wapens zijn. Volgens mij was dat het.
[Mark] Ok. En wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als
20
ongewenst beschouwde?
[Niels] Nou, misschien ook eigenlijk alles wat ik net noemde. En
daarnaast misschien dat je de boel gewoon kapot slaat. Als je boos
bent. Dat was ook wat ongewenst. Menig man verloor zijn, hoe noem
je dat, zijn controle tijdens het spel. Dan werden ze nogal snel boos
op zichzelf. Dus dat was ook niet helemaal leuk voor de sfeer. Maar
echt in het spel denk ik toch wat we net gezegd hebben. Misschien
was het ook niet altijd wenselijk dat er iemand achterbleef op de
basis. Dat zorgde wel voor wat ergernissen. Dat werd op een gegeven
moment ook gewoon geaccepteerd. Volgens mij was dat het. Ja, wat
ook wel vervelend was is dat men de vlag, door het hek kon gooien.
Dat herinner ik me opeens. Althans, dat vond ik een beetje laf. Dan
liet je de vlag los en dan viel die aan de andere kant van het hek op de
grond. Dan kon een teamgenoot die heel snel oppakken en dan sloeg
je een heel stuk af van de afstand die je normaal moet lopen om de
vlag naar je basis te brengen.
[Mark] Ok.
[Niels] Is dit een beetje wat je zoekt?
[Mark] Het is een prima antwoord, als jij het zo vind is het ok. Je
hebt het over een hek, waar bevond dat hek zich?
[Niels] Het level was een soort hoefijzer en daar zat een doorgang,
zeg maar het midden van het hoefijzer, daar was een gebergte en dat
had een doorgang, een tunnel, die bovenlangs liep. Maar ook beneden
had die een hekwerk precies in het midden. En dat hekwerk bedoel
ik.
[Mark] Ok, en wat was het doel van het wijzigen van de spelregels?
[Niels] Ik denk dat het vooral de bedoeling was om het spel wat meer
gericht op echte kunde te laten, want die mass-destruction wapens,
die waren, zo'n bazooka, die schiet je ergens achter iemand op de
grond en dan is 'ie ook dood. Terwijl een pistool, dan moest je hem
wel echt raken. En als je er heel goed in was dan kon je dat met drie
schoten af. Het gaf toch net meer dat je kon ontwijken en wat meer
een one-on-one gevecht hebt wat echt ergens over gaat. En verder,
het doel was dat het eerlijk bleef. Daarom mocht je die packs niet
pakken, want anders is het drie schoten en dan ben je dood, of vijf
ofzo, en met zo'n pack is het dan opeens tien schoten. Dat gaat
nergens over. Dus dat was een beetje het idee, want dan is het geen
eerlijke strijd.
[Mark] Ok en werd volgens jou dat doel ook daadwerkelijk bereikt?
[Niels] Het doel werd zeker bereikt. Ik denk dat wij zo een hele leuke
tijd hebben doorgemaakt.
[Mark] Kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische wijze
tot stand?
[Niels] Dat durf ik eigenlijk niet te zeggen. Dat is gewoon ten stand
gekomen in de loop van de jaren. Eigenlijk uit het niets. Zeg maar
van “dat gaat wel heel makkelijk zo, dat is eigenlijk niet zo leuk,
laten we dat eens een keer niet doen, laten we het een keer anders
proberen”. Dan kwam je erachter dat het het spel bevorderde. Het is
meer een groeiproces geweest dan dat er echt gezegd werd “wie is er
vóór deze regel?”. Op een gegeven moment dacht iedereen wel dat
het de leukste manier was om te spelen. En er zijn natuurlijk altijd
wel mensen die zich even niet aan de regels hielden, nouja, dat werd
dan ook passioneel uitgelegd.
[Mark] Ok, dat was alweer het einde van het interview. Ik wil je
hartelijk bedanken voor je deelname.
21
[Niels] Graag gedaan jongeman.
8.2.5 Interview with T. de Heij
Interviewer: Mark Jansen
Interviewee: Tim de Heij
Date: 03-01-2011
[Mark] Het is vandaag maandag 3 januari 2011 en ik spreek met Tim
de Heij. Tim, vind je het ok als ik een opname maak van dit gesprek?
[Tim] Jazeker.
[Mark] Mooi. Het interview gaat over het aanpassen van de
spelregels in de multiplayer capture the flag spelvorm van de map
Sidewinder binnen de game Halo. Ik zal je in totaal vijf vragen
stellen. Mocht er iets niet duidelijk zijn dan kun je dit tijdens het
gesprek aangeven dan zal ik het uit proberen te leggen. Mijn eerste
vraag is; welke elementen zijn verandert met betrekking tot de
originele spelregels?
[Tim] Wij gebruiken geen rockets, geen snipers, geen radar, er mocht
niet gecampt worden bij de teleporters, dat was het eigenlijk wel
volgens mij. Er was één cheat in de map die wij speelden,
Sidewinder, dan kon je een auto opblazen, tegen je aan, dan kon je
door een muur geblazen worden. Dat hebben we een tijdje wel
gespeeld, maar toen werd het te makkelijk en toen hebben we het
afgeschaft. Dat zijn er vijf die ik nog duidelijk weet.
[Mark] Ok, en wat waren acties die de groep als geheel als ongewenst
beschouwde?
[Tim] Teleport campen dus, dat heb ik eerder genoemd. Snipen. Wat
is ongewenst, kun je wat specifieker zijn?
[Mark] Ongewenst, dat betekent dus dat mensen erop reageerden als
je dus zo iets deed wat niet de bedoeling was.
[Tim] Teleport campen, snipen en rockets gebruiken. We gebruikten
ook geen overshield en geen invisibility. Geen power-ups.
[Mark] Ok en kwam het wijzigen van de spelregels op democratische
wijze tot stand?
[Tim] Ja heel democratisch want iedereen was het erover eens dat dit
spel veel leuker maakte dan de originele settings. Omdat rockets en
snipers toch wel makkelijk te hanteren waren en wij speelden vooral
met het pistooltje, daar kreeg je grote pistool battles van. Ja en de
rocket is gewoon een groot n00b wapen, dat gebruikten we daarom
dus niet. Ik denk dat het heel democratisch tot stand is gekomen
anders zou niet iedereen elke week weer het spel met elkaar willen
spelen.
[Mark] Ok. Wat was volgens jou het doel van het wijzigen van de
spelregels?
[Tim] Het spel leuker maken, interessanter. Ook wat moeilijker.
Zonder de radar en zonder de rockets. En uiteindelijk wat
gebalanceerder, want met de powerups en die sterke wapens, als
iemand die in het bezit had, die was eigenlijk niet meer te verslaan.
Dus volgens mij is daaruit het idee geboren om het allemaal af te
schaffen.
[Mark] Ok, en werd volgens jou het beoogde doel ook daadwerkelijk
bereikt?
[Tim] Ja zeker, dat werd zeker bereikt. Iedereen had de beschikking
over dezelfde wapens, je kreeg ze bij het begin namelijk, zo werd het
spel heel eerlijk en was je op basis van je eigen skill niveau wat
22
bepaalde hoe goed je was en niet wat voor wapens je droeg of wat
voor powerups je te pakken had.

[Mark] Ok, dankjewel, dat was alweer het einde van het interview.
Bedankt voor je deelname.

[Tim] Geen probleem.

23