http://gac.sagepub.com/
Games and Culture
http://gac.sagepub.com/content/6/4/327
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1555412010391089
2011 6: 327 originally published online 31 December 2010Games and Culture
Kirsi Pauliina Kallio, Frans Mäyrä and Kirsikka Kaipainen
At Least Nine Ways to Play: Approaching Gamer Mentalities
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Games and CultureAdditional services and information for
http://gac.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://gac.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://gac.sagepub.com/content/6/4/327.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 31, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Jun 15, 2011Version of Record>>
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
At Least Nine Ways
to Play: Approaching
Gamer Mentalities
Kirsi Pauliina Kallio1
, Frans Ma¨yra¨2
, and
Kirsikka Kaipainen2
Abstract
Do digital games and play mean the same things for different people? This article
presents the results of a 3-year study in which we sought for new ways to approach
digital games cultures and playing practices. First, the authors present the research
process in brief and emphasize the importance of merging different kinds of methods
and materials in the study of games cultures. Second, the authors introduce a gaming
mentality heuristics that is not dedicated to a certain domain or genre of games,
addressing light casual and light social gaming motivations as well as more dedicated
ones in a joint framework. The analysis reveals that, in contrast to common belief,
the majority of digital gaming takes place between ‘‘casual relaxing’’ and ‘‘committed
entertaining,’’ where the multiplicity of experiences, feelings, and understandings
that people have about their playing and digital games is wide ranging. Digital gaming
is thus found to be a multifaceted social and cultural phenomenon that can be understood,
practiced, and used in various ways.
Keywords
games cultures, digital games, game research methodology, heuristics, playing
mentalities
1
University of Tampere, Finland
2
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Kirsi Pauliina Kallio, Hypermedia Laboratory, Tampere 33014, Finland
Email: kirsipauliina.kallio@uta.fi
Games and Culture
6(4) 327-353
ª The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1555412010391089
http://gac.sagepub.com
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Introduction
The nature of digital play and games used to be a largely overlooked area of science
and scholarship, but recent years have shown steady rise in academic activity in this
area. While certain games and groups of people playing them, like massively
multiplayer online role-playing games and gamers (MMORPGs), have received a
relatively high level of attention, there are still gaps and weaknesses in research that
aims to understand the overall role of digital play and games in society and address
people of all kinds and ages (cf. Nieborg & Hermes, 2008). There are considerable
challenges and dangers of oversimplification ahead when engaging in such an
all-encompassing undertaking, but unless we try to investigate the playing practices
of old as well as young people, both women and men, those who are eager and
dedicated gamers as well as those who are not, we are not going to be able to provide
reliable knowledge about games and play.
This article is based on data gathered in a research project that aims to bring
together the societal and individual levels of inquiry in game studies and player
research. The overall context is interdisciplinary and culturally oriented. This
research aims to unravel the multiple roles games play for people in their everyday
lives by making use of approaches and traditions from fields such as interactive
media and game studies, cultural studies, sociology, and human geography.
The starting point is similar to that of, for example, Pargman and Jakobsson
(2008), who have studied gaming as a particular kind of situated activity. Their
approach involved ethnographic observation and interviews of active gamers and
concluded with the realization that the concept of a ‘‘magic circle,’’ which is based
on a clear separation between ‘‘play reality’’ and ‘‘everyday reality,’’ does not
apply. For these gamers, digital play was often a routine activity intertwined with
other everyday routines.
The place and nature of digital play requires dedicated attention and theorization,
but like Pargman, Jakobsson, and other scholars (e.g., Copier, 2005; Fine,
1983; Goffman, 1974; Nieuwdorp, 2005; Stenros, Montola, & Ma¨yra¨, 2007), we
want to point toward the flexible and fluid nature of play experiences and look
in a more detailed manner into the various motivations and attitudes that inform
the significance of games for different people. Our work can be characterized as
‘‘sociocultural study of gamers,’’ and while it can be related to the social and psychological
studies of players, as well as to cultural studies into games and their
playing as particular kinds of interactive media, our aim has been to produce a
decidedly interdisciplinary approach in order to draw a more comprehensive picture
of what gaming means for various people.
The study of player motivations has also been the focus of increasing interest.
One aspect of this interest has been commercial: it is important for developers and
producers of games to understand the attraction and holding power factors of games
they intend to market for certain audiences. Another line of approach to the study of
player motivations is driven by more fundamental knowledge interests that focus on
328 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
understanding the cognitive, affective, social, and spatial processes that characterize
different player and play styles. In many cases, these applied and basic research
interests have also crossed roads, as in the case of the classic MUD player type
classification presented by Richard Bartle (1996). The attempts to empirically
validate Bartle’s ‘‘player types,’’ which included socialisers, achievers, explorers,
and killers, have had a mixed reception. However, they have been influential in
paving the road for further research.
Nick Yee (2007) has surveyed thousands of MMORPG players and concluded
that rather than being mutually exclusive ‘‘types,’’ key motivations like achievement,
social and immersive motivations have further subdivisions and also relate to each
other, forming a rich complex of variously interconnected motivational factors. Yee’s
analysis revealed 10 motivational subcomponents for online play, including desire for
advancement and power (part of the achievement motivation component), desire for
meaningful relationships (part of the social component), and desire to role-play a
fictional persona (part of the immersion component). There have been several other
published studies that have explored the motivations of, for example, playing children
(Ermi, Helio¨, & Ma¨yra¨, 2004), people with different personality types (Hartmann &
Klimmt, 2006), those who want to ‘‘grief’’ or bully other players (Foo & Koivisto,
2004), and those who cheat in games (Consalvo, 2007).
The intention in the current study is to contribute to previous work in the area by
developing a model of player mentalities that is not dedicated to a certain domain or
genre of games. The model is designed to be inclusive enough to address very light,
casual, and social gaming motivations and practices as well as those involving dedicated
attitudes and heavy playing, and thereby to be useful in directing attention
toward certain, often overlooked aspects in game and player studies.
Overall Context and Methods
Starting Points for Empirical Work and Analysis
Our research project International Study of Games Cultures (InGa) has been designed
to proceed in several phases, making use of both quantitative and qualitative methods,
following the idea of triangulation. The idea of approaching lived realities of games
cultures from multiple perspectives was adopted to increase the overall reliability of
the study which, primarily, was to produce mainly large-scale, comparable information
on digital games cultures in Finland and later elsewhere. But, as it turned out, the
study also provided us with plenty of information about the consequences of methodological
choices for the study of games, players, and gaming practices. Thus, in addition
to information about digital play, the results of this study offer a description of a
certain research process, hopefully informative and useful for other researchers of
digital play and games cultures (see Kallio, Kaipainen, & Ma¨yra¨, 2007).
Our methods consisted of a nationwide survey and three sets of interviews
(structured interviews, in-depth interviews, and focus group interviews). During the
Kallio et al. 329
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
research process, it was discovered that, among other things, with a subject matter
such as digital gaming, a survey can only provide one with knowledge on a general
level, and the quantitative results could thus be considered merely indicative. This
finding stems from the fact that the statistical validity and reliability indicators, be
they however sophisticated, cannot free us from considering two things central to
socioculturally oriented studies. First, in a survey, the respondents can only speak
out in the language of the research in question, that is, answer the questions posed
to them. This is to say that the question form, created by the researchers, is inescapably
a part of the answering process, thus outlining the results to some extent from
the outset (cf. Haldrup & Larsen, 2006). Second, statistical analyses are poorly
equipped for assessing how the respondents have answered. It makes a great difference
if the answers are given, for instance, in a careless or careful, or sarcastic or
straightforward manner. This point of view, which has gained plenty of attention
in performative and nonrepresentational approaches to research methodology
(e.g., Butler, 1999; Thrift, 2000) for instance, also proved relevant for our study.
Therefore, on the basis of this work, we think that if quantitative methods are
used in socioculturally oriented game research, it is best to deepen and strengthen
the results in a qualitative study consisting of, for example, interviews, participant
observation, and/or a separately conducted fixed open-ended questionnaire. Moreover,
the responses of different kinds of gamers (e.g., casual gamers/hard core
gamers), be they attained in a survey or in an interview, should not be equated
without careful consideration. We deem this important because the concept of
‘‘digital games’’ includes a wide-ranging and extensive area of everyday practices
and leisure activities, and is thus not always understood, interpreted, or referred to
in the same way.
The overall arc of this study involved starting points that were focused on
identifying the diversity of digital gaming on the level of individuals. However,
we soon realized that all these ‘‘different kinds of gamers’’ hide behind them various
practices and mentalities that are also potentially dependent on context and situation.
Thus, while our original intention to understand the diversity of games cultures
better remained, we turned to look more at how the diversity was realized through
the practices of playing and the ways of thinking about games.
Research Process
We started our empirical work by a quantitative pilot study Everyday Life of Gaming
in autumn 2006, consisting of a grounding pre-study phase and a nationwide survey
that was directed at a sample of 4,000 Finns over the age of 15. The data gathered in
this survey were then categorized and statistically analyzed during the year 2007,
and the preliminary results of the study were reported in national and international
arenas (Kallio et al., 2007; Ma¨yra¨, 2006, 2008b).
In the second phase of research, initiated in late 2007, we conducted a qualitative
interview study, titled Meaning Making in Digital Gaming, with a selected sample of
330 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
our survey participants. First, short structured interviews were conducted in a group
of 73 informants, consisting of both committed and casual gamers (defined according
to our survey results, see Kallio et al., 2007, p. 83). After a preliminary analysis
of these interviews, combined with the quantitative findings, we selected a subgroup
of 33 digital gamers for in-depth interviews. In these interviews, we focused
on the gamers’ everyday lives in which gaming has a more or less particular place
or a specific function. Third, we conducted two focus group interviews that concentrated
entirely on digital gaming practices and experiences. These focus groups
mostly consisted of committed gamers whose interests were either game-driven
and/or socially grounded.
The structured interviews were designed on the basis of our survey to complete,
secure, and intensify the statistical data. Instead, the purpose of the in-depth interviews
was to bring out the gamers’ individual relationship to gaming and thus to
reveal what gaming means to them and what kinds of gaming mentalities they
possess. Once again, the focus group interviews emphasized the gamers’ subcultural
associations and their understandings about the games themselves. Hence, the
second part of our study was focused on uncovering games cultures from three directions.
This article introduces the main results of the first two phases of our work,
with an emphasis on qualitative findings. More statistical analysis of our data can
be found in an earlier research report (Kallio et al., 2007).
The statistical analysis took place in summer 2007, when the quantitative material
was first categorized and thematized using SPSS 14.0. for Windows program.
Next, the descriptive and inferential statistics were combined and interpreted in
reference to our understanding of games cultures and digital gaming, following the
general guidelines of applied statistics methodology. In this process, we brought the
results together with our earlier findings and understandings of digital gaming and
examined them critically (see Ermi & Ma¨yra¨, 2007; Ma¨yra¨, 2008a; cf. Jasper,
2004). The possibility of application for the purposes of a wider, international study
was also taken into account in designing the statistical analysis, so that it would provide
us with methods and tools for later use (for more information on the next phase
of the research, see Ma¨yra¨, 2008b).
When the quantitative analysis was completed and the report of the preliminary
results published (Kallio et al., 2007), we started the process of gathering qualitative
data. The structured and in-depth interviews were conducted by telephone. The
focus group interviews, in which a couple of our game research group members also
participated to facilitate and direct the discussion, were carried out in our Game
Research Lab. The categorization and thematization of the data was accomplished
concurrently, which made it possible to direct the interviews during the process,
so that the three rounds complemented each other.
The method followed in the qualitative analysis of interview materials was a form
of content analysis, a technique for constructing interpretative frameworks to organize
empirical observations. As is typical for these kinds of interpretative processes,
our analysis also included several recursive rounds and was conducted with the help
Kallio et al. 331
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
of analysis methods similar to those used in the ‘‘affinity wall’’ technique (cf. Beyer
& Holzblatt, 1997, pp. 23, 202–204; Krippendorff, 2003, p. 89).
In our final analysis, we combined the four empirical materials following the principle
of triangulation. This included statistical data (n ¼ 804), structured interviews
(n ¼ 73), transcribed in-depth interviews (n ¼ 33), and videotaped focus group interviews
(n ¼ 2 Â 6). The joined analysis of these materials concluded in gaming mentality
heuristics and the Model of Gaming Mentalities: Intensity, Sociability, Games
(InSoGa), which aims at giving shape to the great variety of digital gaming. At the
same time, this conceptualization helped us build a frame of reference for the comparison
of games cultures in more a comprehensive, international context. A heuristic
should be understood here in relation to its original Greek meaning (‘‘to discover’’);
a model like ours that is based on informal methods and synthetic human reasoning
among rich data is provided as a tool for providing alternative perspectives, and
thereby stimulate new discoveries, learning, and understanding of its subject matter,
that is, the diverse mentalities organizing the field of digital gaming.
Defining Mentalities
Starting Points for Recognizing Gaming Mentalities
The gaming mentality heuristics that we present in this article is a heuristic tool for
approaching and discussing the diversity of gaming and should thus not be understood
as an essentialist, static or exclusionary classification. Our study suggests that,
like identities in general, one can possess several gaming mentalities that may vary
and be emphasized differently across the years and depending on the gaming situation
(cf. Jenkins, 1996, p. 4; Riessman, 2003). For one, the mentality you adopt
depends on the games you play, who you play with, how much time you have to
play, and how often you can play, to mention just a few points. More generally, one’s
living environment and cultural context, situation in life, and other practical conditions
also shape and change the acquired gaming habits, attitudes, and practices.
All in all, in typifying mentalities our aim is not to categorize the gamers into distinct
groups, which is one traditional way of approaching digital gamers, for example,
in games design literature (cf. Bartle, 1996; Bateman & Boon, 2006; Mulligan &
Patrovsky, 2003; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Instead, we want to dig deeper into the
motivations and practices of gaming and, by so doing, to understand the various reasons
people have for playing digital games in different ways (cf. Fullerton, 2004, pp.
264–271; Ja¨rvinen, 2008, pp. 99–247; Lazzaro, 2004; Pargman & Jacobsson, 2008;
Yee, 2007). The aim of our research is to extend the scope of player motivation studies
and help build a more comprehensive theory of play and players in which digital play
is understood to be framed and situated in culturally specific everyday realities.
Soon after starting our study, we formed a working hypothesis that a gamer can
adopt several gaming mentalities. Furthermore, we proceeded to propose that, when
combined, these diverse mentalities form a gamer identity that may be more or less
332 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
uniform or multidimensional and involve even elements that appear to be internally
conflicted to an external observer. Both of these suppositions gained support during
the research process. In the first phase of our research, we also attempted to categorize
our informants into ‘‘gamer groups’’ on a more general level according to their
gaming habits and styles. However, as our research went on we gave up this goal as
we realized that such gamer categorizations would either become too many or too
heterogeneous for any practical purposes. So, in our final analysis, we identified and
named some key mentalities lying behind common gaming styles and, thus, produced
a collection of different player mentalities, which may take precedence for the
same individuals on different occasions.1
The following exposition will show in
detail how we came to this conclusion.
Building the Mentality Model
In our introductory analysis, conducted on the basis of the survey, we found that a
large spectrum of gamers’ meaning-making processes can be revealed by examining
the intensity and sociability of their gaming against the backdrop of the games they
play (see Kallio et al., 2007). The statistical analysis suggested that our informants
could be divided into three groups according to the intensity and sociability of their
gaming; namely, committed gamers (play frequently and/or long session and/or are
socially attached to digital gamer communities), casual gamers (play occasionally
and/or short session and/or alone and/or are not engrossed in the gaming situation),
and gaming companions (play with children and/or mates and/or spouse for accompaniment;
Figure 1). There were some respondents who could be placed in more than
one of these categories, but in general it was possible to categorize the gamers
according to this division.
However, once we started to define the indicators of these three components in the
qualitative phase of our study more precisely we found that the gamer groups appeared
to be more or less diversiform. We realized that both the sociability and the intensity of
gaming can take many forms and that the games/game devices are perceived according
to the context. For instance, whereas to some gamers sociability means gaming
INTENSITY
OF GAMING
SOCIABILITY
IN GAMING
GAMES
PLAYED
COMMITTED
GAMERS
CASUAL
GAMERS
GAMING
COMPANIONS
LIGHT
OCCASIONAL
HARD CORE
REGULAR
Figure 1. The first approximation of gaming mentalities: Gamer classification.
Kallio et al. 333
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
together in the same room, to others it stands for sharing experiences outside of the
gaming situation. In fact, it appeared that gamers belonging to the latter group could
actually prefer playing alone, both physically and virtually, even though they stated
that gaming does not make any sense unless you can share it. A similar example was
offered by the respondents who played the most regularly. Contrary to our initial
expectations, not all regular and active players could be characterized as ‘‘committed
gamers’’ as many of them played Solitaire and other easy and free-of-charge games in
between their duties or just to pass the time. Hence, it was at this point that we decided
to move from gamer categorization toward gaming heuristics by breaking up our components
of analysis and interpreting them in more detail (Figure 2).
After completing the structured and in-depth interviews and moving on to focus
group interviews (which concentrated more on game-specific questions and thus do
not play a major role in the InSoGa model), we were able to put together a model in
which all the knowledge we had on gaming mentalities, consisting of nine mentality
profiles, was collected (Figure 3). Following this heuristics, we created detailed
gamer portraits of our informants for further analysis. Such portraits should be considered
heuristic tools or constructions that are useful to the degree they help us
abstract the observed variety in gaming in an easily understood format. In these portraits,
the gamers could be characterized as different kinds of committed gamers,
and/or casual gamers, and/or gamer companions, depending on the scope of their
gaming. We will now move on to present the model and the key results of our study.
Model of Gaming Mentalities: InSoGa
The InSoGa model is composed of three components, each containing three
indicators: intensity, sociability, and the games actually played (Figure 4).
LENGTH OF GAMING
SESSIONS
PHYSICAL
SPACE
VIRTUAL
SPACE
INT ENS ITY
SOCI
GA
ABIL
ME S
ITY
REGULARITY OF GAMING
CONCENTRATION ON THE GAME
INDIVIDUAL GAMES
OR GAME DEVICES
GAME GENRES
ACCESS TO
GAMES
OUTSIDE THE
GAMING SITUATION
Figure 2. Redefining the components of gaming mentalities.
334 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
GAMING WITH KIDS
I/S: Varies
I/R: Occasional
I/C: Momentary
LIGHT
S/P: Allied, against, alongside
S/V: S/O:
-
VERY HIGH
G/D: The ones that already exist
(PC, Basic Consoles)
G/G: –
G/A: Easily learned and
accessed, free of charge
ACCESS (DEVICE)
SOCIAL MENTALITY PROFILES: Intensity QUITE LIGHT Sociability VERY HIGH Games ACCESS
GAMING WITH MATES
I/S: Long
I/R: Quite occasional
I/C: Quite momentary
MODERATE
S/P: Against
S/V: Allied, Against
S/O: Varies
VERY HIGH
G/D: PC, Consoles
G/G: Action, Party, Sports,
Racing
G/A: Familiarity, accessibility,
sociability
ACCESS (DEVICE)
GAMING FOR COMPANY
I/S: Varies
I/R: Occasional
I/C: Momentary
QUITE LIGHT
S/P: Allied, against, alongside
S/V: –
S/O: –
VERY HIGH
G/D: The ones that already exist
(PC, Basic Consoles)
G/G: –
G/A: The games that the
companion plays
ACCESS
CASUAL MENTALITY PROFILES: Intensity VARIES Sociability LOW Games ACCESS + DEVICE
KILLING TIME
I/S: Varies
I/R: Varies
I/C: Momentary
VARIES
S/P: Lone
S/V: Lone
S/O: –
VERY LOW
G/D: PC, Solitaire(s), The Sims
G/G: Puzzle, classic
G/A: Simple, familiar games,
free of charge, easily accessed
DEVICE + ACCESS
FILLING GAPS
I/S: Short
I/R: Occasional (not random)
I/C: Momentary
VARIES
S/P: Lone
S/V: Lone
S/O: –
VERY LOW
G/D: PC
G/G: Puzzle, classic
G/A: Easily learned and
accessed, free of charge, short
DEVICE + ACCESS
RELAXING
I/S: Quite long
I/R: Regular
I/C: Varies
VARIES
S/P: Lone
S/V: Against., lone
S/O: –
LOW
G/D: PC, Consoles
G/G: Strategy, money games,
racing, sports, action
G/A: Familiarity, flow
ACCESS + GENRE
COMMITTED MENTALITY PROFILES: Intensity HEAVY Sociability HIGH Games GENRE
HAVING FUN
I/S: Long
I/R: Regular
I/C: Long-term
HEAVY
S/P: Allied, against, lone
S/V: Allied, against, lone
S/O: Shared
QUITE HIGH
G/D: Any
G/G: Any but puzzle, classic
and platform
G/A: Speed, action, scores
GENRE + ACCESS
ENTERTAINING
I/S: Long
I/R: Occasional
I/C: Momentary to Long-term
QUITE HEAVY
S/P: Allied, against, lone
S/V: Allied, against, lone
S/O: Varies
VARIES
G/D: Any
G/G: Strategy, role-playing,
adventure, simulation, action
G/A: New, av-developed, story
GENRE + ACCESS
IMMERSING
I/S: Long
I/R: Occasional (not random)
I/C: Long-term
HEAVY
S/P: Lone
S/V: Allied, against. lone
S/O: Strongly shared
VERY HIGH
G/D: Any
G/G: Role-playing, adventure,
strategy, simulation
G/A: Story, characters, worlds
GENRE
EXPLANATION OF CODES
I/S= INTENSITY/SESSION LENGTH S/P= SOCIABILITY/PHYSICAL SPACE G/D= GAMES/DEVICES AND GAMES
I/R= INTENSITY/REGULARITY S/V= SOCIABILITY/VIRTUAL SPACE G/G= GAMES/GAME GENRES
I/C= INTENSITY/CONCENTRATION S/O= SOCIABILITY/OUTSIDE GAMESPACE G/A= GAMES/ACCESS
Figure 3. A heuristic model of gaming mentalities: Intensity, Sociability, Games (InSoGa).
Kallio et al. 335
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
These components have been created in dialogue with our empirical findings
and the theoretically informed aims of finding ways to address the sociocultural
diversity among gamers more properly. We understand digital gaming to be a cultural
practice that is rapidly becoming a part of everyone’s everyday life everywhere
in the world, rather than taking place in isolated gamer ‘‘ghettos.’’
Therefore, we need approaches that generate new ways of recognizing different
kinds of gamers, gaming habits and practices, and novel ways to address the meanings
attached to gaming.
In our mentality heuristics, the intensity of gaming is approached from three
points of view: in terms of the length of gaming sessions, the regularity of gaming,
and the level of concentration. Using these three indicators, composed on the basis of
our joined data, we have defined gaming mentalities on a continuum that ranges
from heavy to light gaming.
The intensity indicators, just like all of our mentality markers, are not weighed in
a linear fashion, which would concern them equally. They are understood in relation
to the other components of our analysis, the sociability of gaming, and the games/
game devices. This is to say that even if some action games, for instance, do not
allow you to do much else when you play (the level of concentration is high), and
some strategy or role-playing games tend to take plenty of time (gaming sessions are
long), no game type necessitates a ‘‘heavy gaming mentality.’’ According to our
findings, games belonging to all of the aforementioned game genres2
can also be
accessed only occasionally or with little commitment for, for example, to kill time,
relax from work, or just to enjoy good company.
The sociability of gaming is also understood to be a continuum in our analysis,
ranging from (solely) lone gaming to (entirely) sociable gaming. We define three distinct
spaces in which the social aspects of gaming may be mobilized (cf. Steinkuehler
DEVICES AND GAMES / GAME GENRES / ACCESS
G A M E S
PHYSICAL SPACE / VIRTUAL SPACE / OUTSIDE GAME SPACE
SESSION LENGTH / REGULARITY / CONCENTRATION
I N T E N S I T Y
S O C I A B I L I T Y
Figure 4. The three components of our mentality heuristics.
336 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
& Williams, 2006; Williams, 2006). Moreover, we have set apart three diverse social
roles in the first two of these spaces.
First, gaming can take place in the same physical space with other people, where
it is possible to play in cooperation (i.e., work toward a shared goal), against each
other (on opposite sides), or alongside (simultaneously, taking turns, advising, and
keeping company). Second, all the aforementioned roles can also be acquired in virtual
space, as common action taking place within the game. Third, the social aspects
of gaming may take place outside of the actual gaming situation, both physically and
virtually. This social aspect refers to sharing ideas, understandings, tips, opinions,
successes, and other experiences of games and gaming with other people.
In addition to the preceding, when talking about sociability, it must be noticed
that whereas in the ‘‘off-line space’’ gaming companions are usually friends or
relatives, in the international virtual communities ‘‘X could be anyone,’’ as sociologist
Weckroth (1991) aptly puts it. The interplay in digital gaming may thus be
practiced among people who know each other as well as with total strangers—and
anything in between. This, of course, creates more layers to the social component
of our research.
Games form the third component of our qualitative analysis. The games component
consists of three separate indicators: individual games and devices (including
game series, most famously The Sims), game genres (drawing from our previous
studies, see Figure 5), and accessibility (the easiness of ‘‘picking up’’ a game, thus
including the aspects of e.g., accessibility, usability, familiarity, and the cost of the
game). The last one of these indicators was found to be particularly important as the
analysis of our nationwide survey taught us that it is not possible to make precise
distinctions of what people play unless you are willing to accept that there are
INTENSITY
SESSION LEGTH (I/S)
Extent: Long –Short
REGULARITY (I/R)
Frequency: Occasional –Regular
CONCENTRATION (I/C)
Momentary or Long-term
concentration on the game
CONTINUUM Heavy – Light
SOCIABILITY
PHYSICAL SPACE (S/P)
Allied, against, alongside
VIRTUAL SPACE (S/V)
Allied, against, alongside
OUTSIDE GAMESPACE (S/O)
Sharing experiences, knowledge
and views
CONTINUUM High – Low
GAMES
DEVICES AND GAMES (G/D) Games
by equipment, name or game series
GAME GENRES (G/G) Classic, puzzle,
action, strategy, sports, simulation,
racing, MMORPG, role-playing, money,
platform, party, adventure
ACCESS (G/A) E.g., accessibility, cost,
usability, familiarity, easiness
EXPLANATION OF CODES
I/S= INTENSITY/SESSION LENGTH S/P= SOCIABILITY/PHYSICAL SPACE G/D= GAMES/DEVICES AND GAMES
I/R= INTENSITY/REGULARITY S/V= SOCIABILITY/VIRTUAL SPACE G/G= GAMES/GAME GENRES
I/C= INTENSITY/CONCENTRATION S/O= SOCIABILITY/OUTSIDE GAMESPACE G/A= GAMES/ACCESS
Figure 5. Three components of gaming mentalities, presented in detail with the indicator
descriptions and codes.
Kallio et al. 337
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
various ways of defining a digital game. Whereas some gamers are able to identify
their favorite genres and the precise names of the individual games they play, others
may simply report of playing ‘‘Xbox’’ or ‘‘Mario.’’ Or, when asked about their
‘‘favorite games,’’ people may choose to mention the games they would like to play,
or the ones they have seen being played, not the ones they actually have access to.
All of this, of course, stems from the fact that, in our work, we are not merely studying
game hobbyists but also the so-called casual gamers (see e.g., Kuittinen,
Kultima, Niemela¨, & Paavilainen, 2007 for our earlier research on casual gaming).
In the spirit of social constructionism, and in relation to the current discussions
inspired by Actor-network theory (ANT), we have approached games both as means
of gaming and as ‘‘artefact actors,’’ that is, agents by definition (on ANT, see e.g.,
Haldrup & Larsen, 2006; Ha¨kli, 2008; Koch, 2005; Law, 2002; Serres & Latour,
1995). This is to say that, on one hand, the games played are chosen and used according
to one’s personal preferences but, on the other hand, the games themselves direct
the habits of gaming, thus creating and reproducing certain kinds of gaming mentalities
(cf. Cypher & Richardson, 2006; Giddings, 2005). From this point of view, the
individual games, certain game genres or series, and the game devices can all be
understood to be active shapers of gaming mentalities, different from but related
to the aspects of intensity and sociability.
To sum up, in our heuristic model of gaming mentalities, intensity, sociability,
and games are understood to be multidimensional components of digital gaming
mentalities consisting of nonexclusionary and non-proportional indicators, presented
in detail in Figure 5.
At Least Nine Reasons to Play
To provide some cultural context, our study was conducted in Finland, which provides
it with the frames of a Western, North European society that is sparsely populated
but also urban, socially rather stable and technologically advanced. It should be
noted that particular ideological emphasis has been strong on information and communication
technologies in Finland, and the success of hi-tech companies such as
Nokia has often been presented as the engine of national competitiveness and the
central key to continuous economic prosperity. On a general level, the cultural and
social realities in Finland show signs of the widespread impact of digital technologies
in everyday life; for example, a recent study by Statistics Finland (2008b)
claims that over 3.2 million Finns, meaning c. 83% of the population between 16 and
74 years of age, had used the Internet during the last 3 months. Another study by the
Statistics Finland (2008a) estimates that 99% of Finnish households had one or several
mobile phones in August 2008. However, the role of digital games continues to
divide public opinion and they have recently been linked to the malaise of young
people, particularly after two tragic school shooting incidents within a year in Finland
(one in Jokela in November 2007, the other one in Kauhajoki in September
2008). Thus, there were rich, albeit conflicting motivations available for studying
338 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the role of digital games and gaming within the context of the Finnish society.
Rather than aiming at producing explanations that would approach gaming as a
potential social problem, we were interested in just studying how games are, or are
not, integrated into the everyday lives of people in Finland.
According to our InSoGa model, on the grounds of the intensity of gaming, the
sociability in gaming, and the games played, it is useful to distinguish nine major
mentalities as important and common among Finnish digital gamers.3
First, there are
three socially grounded mentalities that stress the importance of doing something
together. Second, there are likewise three casually oriented mentalities in which
games provide something to do. Third, within the most ‘‘serious’’ or committed gaming
mentalities the rallying point is that gaming is important in itself.
It is clear that, depending on the interpreter and the point of view taken, there are
always ‘‘borderliners’’ whose gaming mentalities do not quite fit any of these categories,
not even combined (on the problematics of categorization see Jenkins, 1996,
p. 23; Kallio, 2006, p. 72). In our analysis, this foundational dilemma of classification
is considered by stating that our conception of ‘‘mentality’’ is not equated with
fixed concepts. Our heuristics should rather be read against the dynamic ebb and
flow of attitudes, experiences, and practices that gamers acquire and possess. We
also want to emphasize that these mentalities are not thought to be necessarily sustained
or exclusive but interchangeable and overlapping. This, however, does not
mean that the adopted mentalities could not be compared or viewed parallel to each
other. The following three sections will shed more light on these questions as they
open up the idea of the model in detail.
Social Mentalities
Besides digital gaming, socially grounded gaming mentalities are common to all
gaming and playing activities. As has been pointed out in studies of football and fandom,
for instance, the concept of ‘‘sports’’ cannot be defined without the concept of
the ‘‘social’’ (e.g., Brown, 2007; Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier & Power, 2007). Playing
is one way of spending time together and can offer an easy way of getting to
know each other better. In other studies, particularly those concerning online games,
the social motivation has also been found to be among the most important factors
attracting people toward digital play—even to such an extent that to some digital
gamers the main thrust for playing is social (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Mortensen,
2006; Williams et al., 2006; cf. Yee, 2003–2007).
In our study, we came across a father who was accustomed to playing rounds on a
console game with his son, a grandmother who spent time with her grandchildren by
helping them with computer games, and a mother who kept up a virtual farm with
her children in a free Internet-based manager game, to mention just a few. On the
other hand, there were young men who enjoyed playing shooter games with their
mates and women who would every now and then accompany their spouse on whatever
game he liked to play, just to keep (or have) company. We constructed the
Kallio et al. 339
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
profiles Gaming with Children, Gaming with Mates, and Gaming for Company on
the basis of such findings.
The games played primarily with a social orientation vary largely. However,
there was one thing common to all of them: the games needed to be easily accessible
and learned, familiar, and inexpensive. In practice, this is to say that the game
devices and the games played in a social manner had usually been purchased earlier
on for another occasion or they could be found for free on the home computer, game
console, or on the Internet. Thus, as it concerns our ‘‘Games’’ component, the social
mentalities highlight the importance of accessibility, games, and game devices,
which are all interrelated.
In our study, the intensity and the level of commitment in gaming varied a great
deal among the gamers who followed a socially driven gaming mentality, especially
regarding session length. Gaming sessions could last for a couple of minutes or some
hours, depending on the situation, the game played, and so on. Social gaming did not
appear to be regular either but rather initiated on the spur of the moment, as an
opportunity arose. Then again, there were some gamers in our study who could play
every day in this manner, which was mostly due to a large amount of free time.
In terms of concentration, the informants seemed to concentrate on their gaming
more or less fully but only momentarily. Yet, especially those gamers who liked
to spend time with their friends by playing party games would often have other
things going on parallel to gaming (drinking, eating, chatting, etc.). Overall, social
gaming seemed to take place ‘‘when there is time’’ and end ‘‘if something else
comes up’’ (source: the structured interviews, combined). Thus, it can be generally
stated that, on the continuum of intensity, all social gaming mentalities are quite
‘‘light’’ (noncommitted).
The sociability component is, of course, the most important one when considering
socially motivated gaming. However, in this case, only the first two indicators are
relevant in creating the ‘‘social circle’’ of gaming. For ‘‘social gamers,’’ gaming was
not typically a topic shared outside of the playing situation. Social gaming was usually
practiced in the same physical space with other gamers, but there were also
online games in which the virtual aspect could serve as a social arena (most importantly
in MMORPGs, a popular example being World of Warcraft). We could see the
idea of playing together among our informants to be based on any of the three ways
(allied, against, and alongside), again depending on the situation, the accompaniment,
and/or the game equipment and the games played. For instance, physically
shared game space was preferred by those playing merely for accompaniment (with
family members and friends) and playing against was favored by those with more
‘‘gamists’’ attitudes.4
People playing primarily with social mentalities did not find it important to talk
about games outside of the gaming situation, because for them, social gaming was
not motivated by gaming per se. This, however, does not mean that they would not
share their social (gaming) experiences with other people. This aspect forms a ‘‘borderline’’
between committed and social gamer mentalities. ‘‘Sharing’’ can refer to
340 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
many things as people understand, feel, and talk about sharing differently. It is often
hard to make a difference between ‘‘sharing gaming experiences’’ and ‘‘sharing
one’s life’’ since the two are usually more or less inseparable. Simply put, if one
is interested in a game for social reasons, does it mean that one is committed to the
game or the people one plays with? And, can the gamers be separated from the characters
that represent them in the game when the gaming situation is considered from
the sociability point of view (cf. Giddings, 2005)? These questions will be tapped
into more specifically as our work continues, thus linking our study to socioculturally
oriented game research. The sociability of gaming has been found to be particularly
interesting in this area (see e.g., Taylor, 2006).
In terms of contemporaneity, social mentalities are often possessed in tandem
with other gaming mentalities. From the points of view of intensity and sociability,
some of our ‘‘social gamers’’ could be considered rather committed gamers, as explicated
above. Some of them also played other games alone with a committed mentality,
and many enjoyed playing Solitaire and other easily accessible and usable
games, thus also following one of the casual gaming mentalities. In general, if considered
as a group of players, social gamers can be divided into two groups as
regards their commitment. To some of them, gaming did not have any function other
than to spend time together, whereas others could be described as multi-mentality
gamers, with other interests in digital games, as well.
Casual Mentalities
In light of our analysis, like social gaming, casual gaming also takes many forms,
both within digital and non-digital gaming activities. In game studies, the concept
of ‘‘casualty’’ (being casual in character, casualness) has been defined and used in
many ways, to describe diverse aspects of gaming. The term may refer to the characteristics
of the game (e.g., Solitaire), the way of playing (e.g., clearing one’s
mind), the gaming situation (e.g., waiting for the train), the game device (e.g., the
mobile phone), or to something else (see e.g., Kuittinen, et al., 2007; Tams, 2006;
Wallace & Robbins, 2006; Waugh, 2006). In our analysis, the quality of being casual
is understood as the opposite of commitment. In consequence, the casual gaming
mentalities in our model can be focused on to discover on how digital games are
used instrumentally.
In our analysis, we found that, somewhat unexpectedly, it was not easy to draw
the line between different kinds of casual gaming mentalities. In the first phase of
our study, we divided casual gamers into two groups called ‘‘time spenders’’ (the
people who only played because they did not have other things to do) and ‘‘time
users’’ (people who played when they had nothing else that needed to be done).
However, in the qualitative analysis, we found that these mentalities were not easily
distinguished. Even the respondents themselves had a hard time making a difference
between these two aspects of their motivations when asked about them in
an interview.
Kallio et al. 341
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
However, we were surprised to hear how many of our informants could specify the
reasons they had for playing casually. Many of them considered playing as the only
way to get one’s mind off business, after a day’s work or in-between work. On the
contrary, some elderly people had realized that playing digital games is one of those
things they can include in their daily routines, as some other things have become unattainable
due to retirement or health reasons. One grandmother even told us that she
plays Tetris only when she has something at her heart and she needs time to think
about it. As a result, we decided to create the casualness profiles in reference to what
people said, instead of trying to figure out what it was that they could not define.
On these grounds, we found that the most noncommitted way of playing digital
games was Killing Time. The sociability of this mentality was very low overall. The
games played include mostly classic and puzzle games that are easily learned and
accessible on any computer and free of charge. However, when one is killing time,
the intensity of gaming varies notably. Some of our ‘‘time killers’’ played very regularly,
even daily, while others just played occasionally (e.g., a couple of times a
year). Some could keep on playing for hours once they got started, whereas others
felt that 15 minutes was a long session for them. The level of concentration in time
killing also differed, as some people did all kinds of thing as they played (ate, drank,
chatted, listened to the radio, watched television, did household chores, etc.),
whereas others concentrated fully on the game.
Our second casual profile is called Filling Gaps. The gamers who were identified
having this mentality used games for moving from one task to another—for taking a
break from an assignment or filling an empty moment while waiting, for instance,
for a software program to install or the sauna to warm up. Compared to the previous
one, it is obvious that within this mentality the gaming practice has a purpose, even
though the gamers did not think much about the playing activity itself. ‘‘Gap fillers’’
chose simple, easily accessible games that are quick to start and finish and can be
played on a PC at work or at home and on a mobile phone when traveling. All sociability
aspects appeared irrelevant within this mentality as there was really nothing to
share in this manner of gaming. The intensity of gaming also appeared to be rather
consistent among our informants, as the gaming sessions were short and the regularity
of gaming occasional but not random. The concentration on a game in ‘‘gap filling’’
seems to depend totally on the situation because it is determined by the next
task or activity.
In our analysis, the third casual profile, named Relaxing, comes close to both of
the preceding profiles. The respondents whose gaming attitude fitted this profile best
played only when they had nothing else to do but not for boredom or loneliness. Like
‘‘gap fillers,’’ they also wanted to relax from their routines by playing, but they did
not play in between two tasks. Rather, they would usually play quite regularly at
home in the evening or at night, typically alone or with strangers on the Internet
(most importantly online poker), for a lengthy period of time. Yet, there were exceptions
to all of these: some people played at intervals, some reported shorter playing
session times, and so on.
342 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The most interesting finding, however, relates to the games that the ‘‘relaxers’’
play. It seems that if one plays for relaxation, the most important factor of game
selection is familiarity. This finding suggests that even very complicated and time
consuming games can be played with a ‘‘casual mentality’’ if one is familiar with
the game and knows how to use it to serve one’s own ends. For instance, having
played a lot in a committed manner in a previous phase of life, it is possible to grab
a console from the shelf on a hard day’s night and play a couple of rounds of Need
for Speed. This, of course, requires plenty of skills and knowledge that can only be
acquired by playing—but, at the same, this manner of playing does not require commitment
to gaming at the moment.
All in all, in our analysis, the area of casual gaming appeared to be a particularly
interesting one from a sociocultural game studies point of view. The gamers whose
‘‘gamer portraits’’ turned out to be strongly (but not always merely) casual do not fit
the stereotypes of a digital gamer: quite the contrary. Our ‘‘gap fillers’’ and ‘‘relaxers’’
were all working-age people whose relationship with digital games is well
summed up in the following quotation: ‘‘Perhaps you could say that if someone else
went for a smoke, I’d have a round of Solitaire’’ (source: structured interview).
These ‘‘casual gamists,’’ whose only apparent purpose is to pass or win a game, are
not the stereotypical, game-addicted young men who have a lot of free time and
nothing else to do, but rather anyone else.
In addition, casual gamers form the majority of all digital gamers in Finland.
In our survey, only 8% of the informants regarded themselves as ‘‘game hobbyists,’’
but more than a half of all of the respondents had played some digital games during
the past year. And, regardless of the method of counting, Solitaire with its variants
proved to be the most popular digital game in Finland (for more detailed information,
see Kallio et al., 2007). These results give way to searching for ‘‘the other’’
games cultures there are—if only this time the term refers to the mainstream formed
by the majority of all digital gamers.
Committed Mentalities
Our third set of gaming mentality profiles was constructed to include the attitudes
and practices, which have mostly to do with the games themselves.5
Again, we introduce
synthetic abstractions that are created to sum up the key findings among Finnish
committed gamers into three principal mentalities, called Gaming for Fun,
Immersive Play, and Gaming for Entertainment.
The respondents who could not be defined as casual or social gamers and who
were unable to give any other reason for playing than simple ‘‘enjoyment,’’ were
defined to ‘‘game for fun.’’ One reason for the vagueness of verbalizing their selfknowledge
might be found from the respondents age: they represented, more or
less, the youngest age groups who were included in our study (allocation 15þ), that
is, young people who have a lot of time and little responsibilities outside of their
school work. Thus, it was hard for them to separate how ‘‘spending time’’ differs
Kallio et al. 343
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
from ‘‘using time.’’ This also partly explains why the two prevailing mentalities
among our young respondents were Killing Time (‘‘time spenders’’) and Having
Fun (‘‘time users’’).
Fun gaming is typically ‘‘heavy,’’ meaning that the gamers play often and for
long periods of time without stopping. Gaming sessions may involve social interaction,
both physical and virtual, and/or other activities like drinking or small talk. On
the other hand, you can easily play for fun also on your own. The variety of games
played in this manner is broad, extending from rally games to massively multiplayer
online role-playing games and from online poker to first person shooters. ‘‘Fun
gamers’’ also like to talk about games and gaming outside of the gaming situation.
Yet, it is very difficult to draw the line between social and game-related reasons for
this ‘‘sharing’’ (see the discussion at the end of the social gaming section).
All in all, the core of this mentality can be reduced to its name: regardless of the
social context, the game, or the device, playing is fun. The most important difference
between the fun gamers and the other committed gamers is that they do not identify
with the characters or immerse themselves in the story so much on an emotional and
experiential level. Rather, they enjoy playing as gaming or sports. Speed, progress,
flow, skillfulness, and other such characteristics of a game are more important than
the story or the characteristics of the personalized game characters. Hence, from a
generational point of view, it seems like a valid hypothesis that in the course of time
‘‘fun gamers,’’ typically young men, will turn into more social (gaming with mates)
and/or casual gamers (relaxing), and/or continue to play in a committed manner with
a different mentality.
Immersive profile forms the very opposite committed gaming mentality to the
previous one. Within this mentality, digital games are not typically approached
merely as games that offer an opportunity to spend time together or produce entertainment
or ‘‘things to do.’’ A caricature of an ‘‘immersionist dweller’’6
is one of a
fantasy-driven hobbyist who swears by the name of a genre, game series, guild or
team, or all of them. Thus, sharing game worlds with other gamers and gamer communities
is the salt and pepper of immersive play. The ‘‘magic circles,’’ which define
the intensive spaces that players with immersive profile prefer, are formed of and by
the personalized characters, distinctive virtual game environments, and detailed
storylines. In an earlier study of player immersion, it was found that complex,
story-driven action adventure games and role-playing games were most likely to
lead players to report high levels of overall gameplay immersion (Ermi & Ma¨yra¨,
2007). Some of the gamers belonging to this profile also provide contents and new
structures to the games, and in this way participate even more fully in the social and
virtual production of the game space. This aspect is an important element for the
construction of agency and participation in digital games cultures (Ma¨yra¨, 2008a,
pp. 19–29, 111–113).
The importance of sharing the gaming situation itself in immersive play varies.
For some ‘‘immersionists,’’ the game is a place to meet friends, for others it is a
personal hideaway from the everyday routines and environments. Generalized
344 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
from our findings, it could be stated that the older the gamer, the more private and
personal the gaming situation was. For younger players, the sociability of the game
situation (shared with friends, family members, or virtual acquaintances) was also
often important.
Games played with the immersive mentality are mostly complex and extensive
games where it is possible to put one’s soul into it, for example, role-playing games
(e.g., The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), MMORPGs (e.g., World of Warcraft), action
adventure games (e.g., Grand Theft Auto III, Half Life, and Halo series), simulation
games (e.g., The Sims), strategy games (e.g., Civilization), and so on. It is important
that the characters, the plot, and the game world are original, detailed, and ‘‘fluid’’ so
that different kinds of playing styles can be applied to them. Game sessions are typically
long, and the regularity of gaming is either very intense or goes at intervals.
The ‘‘immersionists’’ can play for a weekend or a week every now and then when
there is time to ‘‘get immersed,’’ but they can play every day just as well if it suits
their schedule. The level of concentration in this ‘‘living in another world’’ is very
high, and sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between the game space and the
nongame space. This tendency appears to be growing, particularly as both the cultures
and the technologies of gaming are becoming increasingly pervasive in the
society (see Montola, 2007; Stenros et al., 2007).
The last committed gaming profile, Gaming for Entertainment, brings together
some elements from both of the previous mentalities. Within this mentality, games
can be paralleled with movies, music, and other audiovisual media and entertainment.
Games are consumed as media rather than played as sports (cf. Gaming for
Fun). The sociability level of entertainment gaming is something between fun
gaming and immersing, ranging from lone playing to large-scale sharing. Obvious
borderlines and overlaps with the social gaming profiles were also noted here:
it was not always easy for our informants to say whether the best offerings of the
game had to do with the entertainment offered by the game or the pleasures of the
social gaming situation.
The intensity of entertainment gaming, instead, was often lower than in either of
the previous profiles. The ‘‘entertainers’’ only played when they could reserve time
for it and when there was a good game available. A quick learning curve could also
be considered an advantage for the game, since it was rewarding to get inside the
game quickly. Yet, when there was time to play, entertainment gaming could also
be very concentrated. People playing with this kind of a mentality usually also had
other interests and hobbies that they liked to spend their free time on. New, advanced
games or a more relaxed period of time from work could act as stimuli for ‘‘getting
entertained’’ by games for them. The games they played included a great variety,
ranging from action games to strategy, role-playing, and fantasy-driven adventure
games. All kinds of devices were used, but most important for them were PCs and
certain (new) consoles.
What we found particularly interesting when analyzing the committed gaming
mentalities was that ‘‘the level of commitment’’ can be rooted and framed in many
Kallio et al. 345
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
different ways. For some people, it was primarily the game world that mattered, for
others, most important was the situation that involved their gaming practices, just to
mention a few. The different aspects of sociability were also present more among
those people who play primarily with committed gaming mentalities than perhaps
could stereotypically be expected. The casual gaming mentalities, which are the
most likely to be considered ‘‘harmless,’’ are the only ones that consistently displayed
low sociability. All other mentalities are more or less sociable. This finding
alone provides us with a strong argument against the oversimplified views on digital
gaming and gamers.
Discussion
In the previous chapters we have introduced a gaming mentality heuristics with nine
profiles that we constructed on the basis of our study of digital game playing. The
above discussion of the three social, casual, and committed mentalities aims at
inspiring further studies into such often overlooked distinctions and variety within
gamer groups that are often discussed in broad, simplifying terms. There are many
more analytical opportunities provided by the indicators presented in Figure 5 than
we have room available to discuss in this article. Nevertheless, our primary aim has
been to point out that, on the basis of our data and discussions with Finnish gamers,
these indicators and the three components are useful tools for thinking about the
diversity among digital game players. With their help, we have been able to elaborate,
problematize, and to some extent also respond to our initial research questions
‘‘What kinds of meanings digital gamers attach to their gaming?’’ and further,
‘‘What are their reasons for playing digital games?’’
There are three key themes that we would like to highlight in the conclusion of
this discussion. First, we once again want to stress the great range and variability of
meanings attached to digital games that was revealed by our study. Second, we
want to emphasize how an important and still largely neglected area of game and
player studies is connected to the situatedness and contextuality of gaming. Third,
we want to suggest that recognizing the layered and overlapping character of
gaming mentalities will help people approach digital games, particularly now that
gaming is both technologically and socially permeating the everyday spaces and
becoming embedded into our everyday lives and cultures (cf. Goffman, 1974,
on the negotiation of mental frames). Our study will hopefully contribute to the
research of games cultures by helping to better identify and discuss the many flexible
positions people can take as they approach digital games and play. Rather than
adopting typologies that have been based only on player behaviors among one kind
of game or player population, our work points out how a rich image of everyday
gaming realities can be derived by setting the game types against a fuller picture
of the various styles of play.
Moving on in our work, we want to propose a new working hypothesis to guide
our study of games cultures on the basis of the preceding analyses. We suggest that it
346 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
is apparent that the ‘‘mainstream’’ of digital gaming is not formed by the casual
gamers who only play to kill time, nor is it populated by their opposites, the committed
game hobbyists. It is rather the fluid continuity of different people who play
to relax, socialize, have fun and entertain themselves who form the majority of the
digital gaming culture and who provide the backbone for the emerging ‘‘ludic society’’
at the moment. This view is related to a particular view of the future, based on
the perception of how digital play has already entered the process of becoming an
age-independent, everyday practice that probably will not soon differ at all from
other commonly accepted and adapted free-time activities.7
Conclusions
In this article, we have introduced a new kind of gaming mentality heuristics and
described the process by which it was created. By revealing different gaming mentalities,
we wanted to show that digital gaming is a multifaceted social and cultural
phenomenon that can be understood, practiced, and used in various ways. We want
to stress that, concerning our research process, both the results presented here as well
as the methodological discoveries gained ‘‘along the road’’ provided equally important
findings. Our aim has been to seek for a new socioculturally oriented way of
approaching digital gaming and to gather methodological tools that will be useful
as a frame of reference in the future phases of collaborative work on comparative
game culture studies (cf. Ma¨yra¨, 2008b).
Our research has generated two central findings that can be useful in games studies
in general. First, as discussed above, we suggest that, in contrast to common
belief, the majority of digital gaming takes place between ‘‘casual relaxing’’ and
‘‘committed entertaining.’’ These mentalities and practices of play do not fit the
stereotype of a gamer who is either addicted to a game (a central concern especially
in the case of gambling or money gaming) or totally immersed in it (the gaming
mentality most often evoked in the context of fantasy-driven games). Rather, we discovered
a reality defined by fluid mentalities and situated practices that become realized
within the contexts of gamers’ common, everyday realities, rather than in
opposition to them. When set against the stereotypical gamers in public discussion
and media, this blurred reality of everyday and fantasy realities forms the invisible
‘‘other’’ games culture or the ‘‘mainstream’’ of digital gaming depending on the
point of view. Perhaps, the most serious problem of the current public discussion
is that it produces images of gamers and game cultures that make it impossible for
most gamers to identify themselves as ‘‘gamers’’ at all.
Our second proposition deals with the multiplicity of experiences, feelings, and
understandings that people have about their playing and of digital games in general.
Digital games and gaming are often categorized according to the game genres or the
games themselves. The gamers are, respectively, classified into fixed roles according
to their game preferences and ultimate goals or motivations. We suggest that
these categorizations often flatten and sometime even banalize the meanings
Kallio et al. 347
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
attached to gaming from both the individual gamers’ and the collective gamer
communities’ viewpoints. Like football, the piano, or a board game, digital games
can also be played in many ways depending on the gaming situation and the gamer’s
life situation in general. Thus, analytical thought does not benefit from massive, generalizing,
and categorical research outcomes. Instead, it calls for studies in which
this multiplicity is taken as a starting point.
However, even if these two viewpoints stress the importance of paying attention to
the ways digital games are being domesticated and thus ‘‘normalized’’ as parts of the
invisible everyday social realities for large groups of peoples, we do not want to suggest
that the research done on the more visible or ‘‘spectacular’’ games cultures would
be of less importance. If anything, we would like to see studies that involve dialectic
among both of these dimensions, and thus the field of socioculturally oriented game
studies becoming more diversified and multifaceted in the near future.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation for the funding of this
research. They also want to thank the Hypermedia Laboratory at the University of Tampere
for providing the facilities and inspiring environment for this work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article: Finnish Cultural Foundation.
Notes
1. On the basis of our earlier studies, we suggest that these mentalities can also be used to
understand and classify non-digital playing. However, we do not have empirical backup
for these assumptions at this point.
2. With game genres, we refer to a set of well-known game types, varieties of which are available
in most games media, websites, and are listed in Figure 5. The classification has been
given further empirical basis in our statistical analysis (see Kallio et al., 2007, p. 80). However,
we are aware of the fact that individual games belonging to these genres differ from
each other in many ways. This fact is taken into consideration in our frame of reference,
which makes it possible to distinguish genres and individual games separately (Figure 3).
3. It should be noted that all of the results are drawn from a study concerning Finland and
Finnish gamers. However, since the game devices used and the games played are mostly
internationally well-known ones, and virtual gaming in particular is not nationally bound,
these results can be considered suggestive also on a broader geographical scale.
4. ‘‘Gamist’’ is a basic player attitude and playing style identified originally by the
role-player community through its emphasis on gaming as directed toward winning a
348 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
challenge, as contrasted to ‘‘dramatist’’ and ‘‘simulationist’’ styles that carry with them different
priorities (Kim, 1998–2008).
5. The informants who could be fitted into one of these profiles are the ones of whom we
selected our focus group interviewees.
6. On the concept of ‘‘dwelling,’’ see for example, Harrison (2007) and Thrift (1996). In our
analysis, the concept is used to emphasize the spatial aspects of committed gaming that
takes place within ‘‘magic circles’’ and gamer communities.
7. Here it should be kept in mind that, due to practical reasons, our research project did
not include children and young people below the age of 15. However, the excluded
group is included in this notion as the children of today are the adults of tomorrow—the
ones whom we expect to adopt the aforementioned mentalities. Yet, our
analysis does not pursue to make any suggestions about children and young people’s
future gaming.
References
Bartle, R. A. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. The Journal of
Virtual Environments, 1. Retrieved from http://www.brandeis.edu/pubs/jove/HTML/v1/
bartle.html
Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st century game design. Hingham, MA: Charles River
Media.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: A customer-centered approach to systems
designs. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Brown, A. (2007). ‘Not for sale?’ The destruction and reformation of football communities in
the glazer takeover of Manchester United. Soccer & Society, 8, 614-635.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (2nd ed.). London,
England: Routledge.
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online roleplaying
gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 575-583.
Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
Copier, M. (2005). Connecting worlds. Fantasy role-playing games, ritual acts and the magic
circle. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 conference: Changing views: Worlds in play. Vancouver,
BC: Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/
06278.50594.pdf
Cypher, M., & Richardson, I. (2006). An actor-network approach to games and virtual environments.
In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Game research and
development. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 223. Retrieved from
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1240000/1234382/p254-cypher.pdf
Ermi, L., Helio¨, S., & Ma¨yra¨, F. (2004). Pelien voima ja pelaamisen hallinta: Lapset ja nuoret
pelikulttuurien toimijoina [The power of games and control of playing: Children as the
actors of game cultures]. English summary. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 6. Tampere:
Tampereen yliopisto. Retrieved from http://tampub.uta.fi/haekokoversio.php?id¼53
Kallio et al. 349
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ermi, L., & Ma¨yra¨, F (2007). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience:
Analysing immersion. In S. de Castell, & J. Jenson (Eds.), Worlds in play: International
perspectives on digital games research (pp. 37-53). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.
Fine, G. A. (1983). Shared fantasy: Role-playing games as social worlds. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Foo, C. Y., & Koivisto, E. (2004). Grief playing motivations. In M. Sicart, & J. H. Smith
(Eds.), Other players conference proceedings. Copenhagen, Denmark: Center for Computer
Games Research, IT, University of Copenhagen.
Fullerton, T. (2004). Game design workshop: Designing, prototyping, and playtesting games.
San Francisco, CA: CMP Books.
Giddings, S. (2005). Playing with non-humans: Digital games as techno-cultural form. In
DiGRA 2005 Conference Proceedings. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved
from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06278.24323.pdf
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Ha¨kli, J. (2008). Regions, networks and fluidity in the Finnish nation-state. National Identities,
10, 5-20.
Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2006). Material cultures of tourism. Leisure Studies, 25, 275-289.
Harrison, P. (2007). The space between us: Opening remarks on the concept of dwelling.
Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, 25, 625-647.
Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). The influence of personality factors on computer game
choice. In P. Vorderer, & B. Jennings (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses,
and consequences (pp. 115-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ja¨rvinen, A. (2008). Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and
design. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis, 701. Tampere: University of
Tampere. Retrieved from http://acta.uta.fi/haekokoversio.php?id¼11046
Jasper, D. (2004). A short introduction to hermeneutics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. London, England: Routledge.
Kallio, K. P. (2006). Lasten poliittisuus ja lapsuuden synty: Keho lapsuuden rajanka¨ynnin
tilana [Children’s politics and the birth of childhood: A study of private and public spaces
in liminal childhoods]. English summary. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 1193. Acta
Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis, 574. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto. Retrieved
from http://acta.uta.fi/haekokoversio.php?id¼10899
Kallio, K. P., Kaipainen, K., & Ma¨yra¨, F. (2007). Gaming nation? Piloting the International
study of games cultures in Finland. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 14. Tampere: University
of Tampere, Hypermedia Laboratory, 2007. Retrieved from http://tampub.uta.fi/
haekokoversio.php?id¼202
Kim, J. H. (1998–2008). The threefold model. Retrieved from http://www.darkshire.net/
jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
Koch, A. (2005). Autopoietic spatial systems: The significance of actor network theory and
system theory for the development of a system theoretical approach of space. Social Geography,
1, 5-14.
350 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Sage.
Kuittinen, J., Kultima, A. K., Niemela¨, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2007). Casual games discussion.
In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Future Play (pp. 105–112). Toronto, Canada.
Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org, doi:10.1145/1328202.1328221.
Law, J. (2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19, 91-105.
Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story. In Game
Developer’s Conference 2004 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.xeodesign.com/
xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf
Ma¨yra¨, F. (2006). Welcome to mapping the global game cultures: Issues for a socio-cultural
study of games and players. M. Santorineos (Ed.), Proceedings of gaming realities conference,
Athens, October 6–8, 2006. Athens.
Ma¨yra¨, F (2008a). An introduction to game studies: Games in culture. London, England:
Sage.
Ma¨yra¨, F (2008b). Open invitation: Mapping global game cultures. Issues for a sociocultural
study of games and players. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11,
249-257.
Montola, M. (2007). Urban role-play: The next generation of role-playing in urban space.
In F. von Borries, S. P. Walz, & M. Bo¨ttger (Eds.), Space time play. Computer games,
architecture and urbanism: The next level (pp. 266-269). Berlin: Birkha¨user.
Mortensen, T. E. (2006). WoW is the new MUD. Social gaming from text to video. Games &
Culture, 1, 397-413.
Mulligan, J., & Patrovsky, B. (2003). Developing online games: An insider’s guide. Indianapolis,
IN: New Riders.
Nieborg, D., & Hermes, J. (2008). What is game studies anyway? European Journal of Cultural
Studies, 11, 131-147.
Nieuwdorp, E. (2005). The pervasive interface: Tracing the magic circle. In Proceedings of
DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing views: Worlds in play. Vancouver, BC: Simon Fraser
University.
Pargman, D., & Jakobsson, P. (2008). Do you believe in magic? Computer games in everyday
life. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, 225–244. Retrieved from http://ecs.sagepub.
com. doi: 10.1177/1367549407088335.
Riessman, C. K. (2003). Performing identities in illness narrative: masculinity and multiple
sclerosis. Qualitative Research, 3, 5-33.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Serres, M., & Latour, B. (1995). Conversations on science, culture, and time. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Shields, D., LaVoi, N., Bredemeier, B., & Power, F. (2007). Predictors of poor sportspersonship
in youth sports: Personal attitudes and social influences. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 29, 747-762.
Statistics Finland/Tilastokeskus. (2008a). Kuluttajabarometri 2008, elokuu. Retrieved from
http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/kbar/2008/08/kbar_2008_08_2008-09-03_kuv_011.html
Kallio et al. 351
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Statistics Finland/Tilastokeskus. (2008b). Internetin ka¨ytta¨jia¨ enemma¨n kuin vuosi sitten.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/sutivi/2008/sutivi_2008_2008-08-25_tie_001.
html
Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online
games as ‘Third Places.’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11. Retrieved
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/steinkuehler.html
Stenros, J., Montola, M., & Ma¨yra¨, F. (2007). Pervasive games in ludic society. In Proceedings
of the 2007 conference on Future Play, 30–37. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from http://
portal.acm.org, doi:10.1145/1328202.1328209.
Tams, J. (2006). Online casual games Q&A. Minna Magazine, Summer, 2–5, Retrieved from
http://mag.casualconnect.org/MinnaMagazine_Summer2006.pdf
Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London, England: Sage.
Thrift, N. (2000). Afterwords. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, 18, 213-255.
Wallace, M., & Robbins, B. (Eds.). (2006). IGDA 2006 casual games white paper. Retrieved
from http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2006.pdf
Waugh, E. (2006). GDC: Casual games summit 2006: An introduction to casual games.
Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060322/waugh_01.shtml
Weckroth, K. (1991). Hanki ja ja¨a¨.
Williams, D. (2006). A (brief) social history of video games. P. Vorderer, B. Jennings,
Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences, 197-212. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, D., Duchenaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree
house to barracks. The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1,
338-361.
Yee, N. (2003–2007). Primary motivations. From the Daedalus project. Retrieved from
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001612.php?page¼2
Yee, N. (2007). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9,
772–775. Retrieved from http://www.nickyee.com/pubs/Yee%20-%20Motivations%
20(2007).pdf
Bios
Kirsi Pauliina Kallio, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Tampere,
Finland. Her research interests include spatial theory, qualitative research methodology, and
geographies of childhood and youth. She is a member of the Tampere University Research
Network on Transnational Socio-Cultural Processes (TRAP). She also holds a position in various
multidisciplinary scientific organizations, including the Society of Regional and Environmental
Studies, Finnish Society for Childhood Studies, and the Tampere Centre for
Cultural Studies.
Frans Ma¨yra¨, PhD, is the professor of Game Studies and Digital Culture at the University of
Tampere, Finland. His research interests include cultural analysis of games, media, and
352 Games and Culture 6(4)
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
information technology. He has contributed over 70 scientific publications, supervised several
research projects, and has held positions in various scientific organizations, including DiGRA,
Digital Games Research Association where he served as the founding president.
Kirsikka Kaipainen is a research assistant in the International Study of Games Cultures project
and graduate student in Computer Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland. Her interests
in game research include gaming motivations, play as cultural practice, and storytelling in
means of play. She is also an active member of Finnish role-playing communities and
associations.
Kallio et al. 353
at Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Knihovna spolecenskych ved T.G.M. on July 12, 2013gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from