Eric Brandon Ngaba

ABSTRACT The main objective of this project was to classify the Call of Duty Players as a discourse community according to John Swales' concept of a discourse community. This was achieved using two research methods: observations and interviews, which were carried out on the online player forum and on actual players of the game, respectively. Using this research, each characteristic was compared to its corresponding evidence, allowing the community to be accurately defined as a discourse community. INTRODUCTION The discourse community that piqued my interest is the Call of Duty players' discourse. This community revolves around the aspects of enjoyment and progression found within the game. The Call of Duty moniker is used to refer to a franchise of first-person-shooter games whose first installment was launched in 2003, spawning various more in the years since then. Each game in the franchise is published by Activision, after successful development by a range of developers to allow running on various consoles, including Xbox, PlayStation, and compatible personal computers. Players who take up the game often play on their own (isolated from others) for a brief period before they gravitate towards externally hosted social interaction zones, which represent the genres that have developed over time to allow for intercommunication within this discourse community. The research at hand set out to confirm the validity of my conviction that Call of Duty players belong to a single discourse community through analysis of the community according to the frameworks for classifying discourse communities that were introduced by John Swales. In an article titled "The Concept of Discourse Community," Swales uncovers for us the characteristics of a discourse community. They include; having a widely "agreed-to set of common public goals", featuring "mechanisms of intercommunication among its members", relying on participatory mechanisms geared primarily towards the provision of information and feedback, possessing "one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims", acquiring certain lexis in the course of running that help ease communication, and finally a certain amount of members possessing "suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise." (Swales, 1990). Paying attention to this framework, I was able to define a research method that would allow for the confirmation of whether or not the members of the Call of Duty fandom accounted for a Discourse Community. LITERATURE REVIEW: SCOPE Video gaming has become an all-encompassing culture, thanks to the rapid innovations in online gaming that have allowed more people worldwide to enjoy games simultaneously. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that games have become responsible for the setting up of multiple discourse communities geared at critiquing the many experiences playing a certain video game offers. In the article 'The Concept of Discourse Communities', John Swales fittingly reintroduces a prior description of the discourse community as "those that use a cluster of ideas as a way of maintaining and extending the group's knowledge." (1990). In video games, this knowledge is usually not a product of a single mind; instead, it propagates from the continuous communication between players that serves to facilitate the sharing of tactics and ideas aimed at boosting progression within the game, and guides players towards specific approaches to teamwork that will help in overcoming opponent teams. In this literature review, we will look at the many ways gamers interact online to form discourse communities. THE SETUP AND FUNCTION OF A GAMING DISCOURSE COMMUNITY For a discourse community to grow, it has to have some form of a perpetual flow of members in and out of the community in order to maintain the balance between novices and experts. In video games, this often comes across when one sees new players join the game sometime after older players have decided to take a break or outright stop playing it. Why is this so, and how necessary is this flow to the continuity of the discourse community? This often seems to boil down to how some interaction always proceeds between the new members joining and the older ones who have been around long enough to see how the specific aspects of the game function. One researcher who shows this tendency is Mark Peterson, who conducted an experiment to check for the presence of this 'mutual learning' among four new participants in an EFL MMORPG game. EFL, in this case, refers to students for whom English is not their native tongue, and MMORPG refers to massively multiplayer online role-playing game. In general, MMORPGs are "highly graphical two or three-dimensional video games played online, allowing individuals, through their self-created digital characters or 'avatars', to interact not only with the gaming software… but with other players' avatars as well." (Steinkuehler, 2006). In Peterson's study, the MMORPG used is crucial because it not only provides the researcher room to study the participant but also features aspects that qualify it for attracting members who will eventually form a discourse community. When starting to play the game Peterson used in the study, called Wonderland – a 2D game that made use of avatars of each player following a shipwreck narrative where progression involved playing together and could be monitored for the researcher's purpose – a couple of factors are immediately apparent. For one, the game features an "onscreen text chat tool, and hyperlinks designed to facilitate social interaction, such as offering friendship." (Peterson, 2012). This shows us that before exiting the game, already one genre has been established – the in-game chat and social synergy mediums. To further create room for discourse, the game has a website, online player forums where participants can discuss the game, and help resources meant to point new players in the right direction. While all these means were available to the researcher for the participant's use, the study only collected screen captures of the onscreen chats for analysis. At the end of the study, he compares how the players interacted to "developing sociolinguistic competence" – in how the players were able to navigate learning an English game with only a reasonable grasp of English to work with (Peterson, 2012). This was possible through their collaborative efforts that spanned several gaming sessions in which they utilized "extensive and appropriate use of positive politeness… as a means to build rapport", and "when participants made requests, helpful assistance was provided by other players in most cases" (Peterson, 2012). As such, it can be seen that the cycle of exchange between novice players, aided by a common pool of resources to learn about the game, will only become stronger as they make more progress to become experts in the game, eager to share what they know with those yet to catch up to them. This is seen in how they cultivate civility and teamwork through politeness in the earlier phases of interaction with novice players so that they can feel free and encouraged to seek assistance in their time of need. RESEARCH GAP In this literature review, we have looked at how discourse communities form through the example of a study conducted by Mark Peterson. While his study failed to observe the participants in any other genre except for the in-game chat feature, it succeeded in showing the inbuilt capacity for players in an unfamiliar game to group together and attempt to scale up their gameplay through mutual sharing rather than hoarding all they know to themselves and refusing to offer help. This capacity is perhaps livelier in external player forums and websites, where communication is freer and more diverse as compared to the restricted chat, where one has to be conscious of the length and breadth of what they want to convey. For this reason, the study at hand seeks to look at how these in-game interactions spill over into additional space(genres) in form of the forums that frequently form on game websites and other social media networks. It seeks to branch out from MMORPG games to focus on MMOs – which are the larger group of games called Multiple Massive Online games that house MMORPGs. We will look at how discourse communities in a particular MMO game called Call of Duty handle intercommunications away from the game with the intent to bolster their in-game activities and plan synchronized gameplay. When it comes to the Call of Duty, there is a significant research gap for preliminary research into its discourse, which has failed to draw up scholarly articles discussing the inclusion of its players as a discourse community, although I stumbled upon a couple of popular sources in the form of blog posts. This shows that academic researchers are yet to turn their eye onto this game's ability to unite people from all over the globe and equip them with mutual goals that help to cultivate their enjoyment of the game. This research gap, therefore, allowed me to come up with the research question of how the players of Call of Duty franchise can be considered a discourse community as outlined by John Swales into fan-fan interaction. RESEARCH METHODS: Preliminary research on the Call of Duty discourse community led a variety of scholarly articles describing how games can qualify as a discourse community – even though finding one that explicitly studied Call of Duty proved elusive. These authors determined that various video games have different virtual environments that often require the combined might of many players to accurately navigate. This is because on one's own, playing the game can lead to headache and frustration when a person finds themselves stumped by a specific aspect and consequently unable to progress– thereby necessitating a mutually beneficial system where others can learn from the misgivings/skill of one person. After formulating my research gap – analyzing the Call of Duty Players discourse within Swale's six characteristics, I set to work on answering it; a task that required me to set up primary research into my community using the following research methods; observation and interviews. At the observation stage, I scoured the Call of Duty player forums for back-and-forth interactions between players that served to highlight some of these characteristics introduced by Swales at play within the discourse community. These forums are located online and segmented according to the specific game iteration being played – with my key iteration for this study being the Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare forum of which I am part of. Typically, when people join the forums, they usually have a certain need that drove them to register with the forum. For example, after multiple bad trials at executing headshots using a certain sniper rifle, a player might join the forum and immediately enquire on how to deal with the recoil that prevents their desired gun from accurately functioning. Such a player will shortly have dozens of other 'veteran' players narrating what they think is the best approach, some even inviting him into other genres such as YouTube channels where the aforementioned skill is taught. For this research project, my observations were covert and meant primarily for obtaining evidence of this interaction between players in the form of screen-captured excerpts. At the interview stage, I called upon actual players I had interacted with to weigh in on why they felt the Call of Duty player base counted as a discourse community. Using an application called Discord, I introduced a set of questions to the interviewees that revolved around the six characteristics found by Swales to be definitive of a discourse community. Following the issuance of each question, the correspondent typed out their response without any undue pressure from my part due to the encouragement that they conclude by typing 'done'. Examples of queries I relayed to the Interviewees were; What drove you to start playing Call of Duty? What goals do you have as a Call of Duty player? (This will reveal to us some of the common public goals shared by members of the Call of Duty Player's discourse) Where do you go when you want to interact with other Call of Duty players? How were you initiated into the place described in (3)? (This question details the exclusivity of these discourse communities – showing not just anyone can join since they require people with a shared enjoyment/participation in the game.) What form of interaction takes place in (3)? Is it personal messaging, creating discussion threads, blogging, streaming videos, etc.…? (These questions unveil examples of genres that have been created for communication between members of the discourse community) Do ranks exist in the place mentioned in (3)? If so, what is your rank and where does it fall in the broader groups' ranking? (This is meant to analyze how members satisfy/navigate swales last characteristic – members possessing 'suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise') Mention any 3 lexica you have encountered during your time as a member of the game, along with where you encountered them. Lexicons are devised means of representing communication in an abstract/shorthand manner. For example, FFA is a lexicon standing for Free-for-all – a game mode in Call of Duty. How often do you use the genre described in (3), and what are the requirements for free participation i.e. what must be taken into account when on the site. (Participatory mechanisms present in the community will be revealed according to what interviewees deem requirements). These questions helped me understand how the Call of Duty player base qualifies as a discourse community. The people I interviewed, two of whom have become close friends in the time we've participated in the same discourse, all benefited from the anonymity granted by discord whereby each person used a self-devised acronym/moniker to escape having their real identity known. These were snowy_wispy, Mercury, and Shunsui Kyoraku. I have met two of the interviewees beforehand so I am aware of their physical appearance but not real identity – which we chose to retain under our nicknames during our meetings. ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS. My primary research proved successful at gathering material to pore over post-collection and review within the scope of Swale's six characteristics. According to John Swales, discourse communities have six characteristics that distinguish them from other kinds of communities. The first among these deals with the possession of a "broadly agreed-to set of common public goals" (Swales, 1990). The participants in my interview all admitted to playing the game with the goal of leveling up so that they could earn better rewards thus unlocking important perks and achievements. In the online forums, this could be seen in how players complained whenever another gained an unfair advantage through the unethical practice of hacking. Snowy-wispy, an interviewee, tells of how the term 'hacking' is used here broadly because many aren't performing actual hacks but rather using modded versions of the game developed by a few hackers in what would more accurately be termed 'cheating'. This behavior is watched out for in the discourse community, and people suspected of cheating progress using it are reported to be reviewed by developers for a ban. Another public goal in the Call of Duty player's discourse is being a good sport during online matches. Trolling is one approach that gamers have developed for weeding out those who take the game too seriously thus forgetting to have fun. When games get heated and one player begins to rant and complain without basis especially if making generalizations, other players can mock them to trigger an anger-response typically referred to as rage quit. This is a violent outburst of disappointment when the game isn't playing to your odds – something that two of my interviewees were reportedly prone to during their first online sessions. For Snowy Wispy, a rage-quit is why he began researching on how to improve their gameplay thereby coming into communication with other players. In this discourse community, members heavily converse with each other in a manner that lines up with Swales second characteristic of discourse communities – having means of communication between its members (1990). This begins from within the games themselves, which avail a text chat accessible from both the main screen as well as during gameplay, as well as voice chat that is active for members in the same team or lobby. On the player forums, players primarily compose textual communications in which they relay their thoughts and feelings on a variety of topics available for the broad public to see or leave direct messages for single recipients. The interviewee's mentioned examples of other ways they used to communicate including; conversations held with their friends in real time during game sessions, creating visual images related to the game that are then propagated online – for example memes that relate hilarious situations such as the invincibility of cheaters/hackers in the line of direct gunfire or the proneness for overcooking grenades resulting in them exploding and taking out you or nearby teammates. This communication channels allow for new members to find their way into the discourse channel for example by following an invite from the in-game chat or someone leaving their contact details via the voice chat feature – which is how one of my interviewees (Mercury) found their way to a discord server when a fellow online teammate left him their Instagram tag. After following up, they were able to receive a discord invite and access the group he now schedules his online gaming sessions with. Past that, it was up to him to decide whether or not to take part in their daily discussions which he nonetheless found himself gravitating towards partly due to various participatory mechanisms at play. In his definition of a discourse community, Swales continues with characterizing such a community with their use of "participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback" (1990). In the Call of Duty player's discourse, this comes across as the constant rapport that is established among players. In the online forums, I have observed that the order of communication begins by creating a thread – representing someone making the effort to jumpstart a conversation. This thread naturally attracts people who can relate to it, or who possess a degree of knowledge on its topic. They can then act as a cog in the wheel that is intercommunication by offering up their thoughts on the original post and subsequent inputs or answering questions they encounter. Another participatory mechanism I unearthed was the presence of moderators whose work is to monitor the discussion in efforts to keep it civil at all times. Moderators achieve this by reminding people to observe decorum by deviating from topics that are highly divisive such as religion or politics, and restricting the use of curse words or sexually explicit terms to prevent potential irritation of younger children who play the game. Together, these mechanisms work to create an environment where people can share information and receive feedback that is relevant and constructive. When someone posts something wrong, as Shunsui Kyoraku informs, it is common to find a kind clarification under the thread. While some people opt to stand resolute and defend their wrong ideas, this only serves to attract the aforementioned trolls. Getting into an engagement with a troll often results in the player receiving a ban if they resort to bad language, and oftentimes this won't be the troll because they have a knack for sticking within the limits of the forum rules. The Call of Duty player's discourse is also qualified by Swales' characteristic that defines a discourse community as one that "utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims." (Swales, 1990). In my interviews, I was introduced to a variety of genres that the Call of Duty player's discourse has spawned. An example is YouTube, where aspiring players turned to teach others how to play the game by recording their own gameplay and sharing it with others. The definition of a genre, in this case, is the means through which the communication occurs, hence why YouTube qualifies, since it allows for created videos to act as communication by being shared with others as opposed to remaining in personal ownership once recorded. The video also avails new participatory mechanisms in the form of the comments and replies feature, where the back-and-forth exchange of information can occur. Aside from YouTube, the Call of Duty player forums are also a genre where the discourse has spawned. Here, various links exist to other genres such as; the social media pages of the game such as those found on Facebook and Twitter, the previously mentioned YouTube, the websites for the games, as well as links to the steam community which is another genre mentioned in Mercury's interview. The more players use these genres, the more refined their language use becomes as a result of arising Lexi. Participants in a discourse community often contribute to the group acquiring certain lexis specific to them in order to increase their efficiency of communication, as posited by Swales (1990). In the Call of Duty player's discourse, various Lexi can be seen at work both in written and audible communication. The Lexi I encountered during primary research was a mix of terminologies and abbreviations. Snowy _ Wispy used one in his interview – camper. Campers are the kind of players who do not actively scout for enemies to kill, instead choosing to hide in places such as houses for enemies to come to them. Campers make the game frustrating because you might be playing well, and out of nowhere, someone shoots you down without any prior indication that they were around you. Another Lexi is a noob, which refers to a player who often makes mistakes during gameplay, either because they are novices or simply have not put in the effort to practice. Noobs are most renowned for using underhanded methods, such as camping, to gain wins. Another Lexi is rage-quitting, which was defined earlier. Common abbreviated Lexi include MOAB which stands for Mother Of All Bombs – a devastating bomb that can clear the whole map of active enemies and requires a 25 kill-streak to unlock, DLC which refers to Downloadable Content – additional files a player can purchase to unlock new game features, and SP to mean Stopping power – the ability of a single bullet to bring an opponent closer to death. Kill-streak is also another Lexi for when a player scores multiple consecutive kills without being killed. As can be seen in the preceding, a stranger joining the discourse for the first time will have to grow accustomed to the language used. player's CONCLUSION The discourse community involved in this project is the Call of Duty players' discourse community. This is ultimately a global collection of individuals, each of whom enjoys playing a specific game(s) within the series and is open to sharing their criticism of the game with others. The fact that each member of the community is separated by distance since they come from different places and can therefore not meet in person - relying instead on various genres such as websites, forums, YouTube, and wikis to share information with one another - is what first distinguishes this group from a speech community. The next characteristic that can be found to qualify it as a discourse community is the lexicon used by all the members to enhance communication - examples being the unique abbreviations used like CoD (the eponymous Call of Duty), HC (hardcore mode - an advanced in-game environment), and FFA (free for all - a no holds barred competition where everyone fights alone and tries to rack up as many enemy kills) among others. References; Griffiths, M. D., Mark N. D., and Darren, C. (2004). Demographic factors and playing variables in online computer gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7(4), 479-487. Griffiths, M. D., Mark N. D., and Darren, C. (2004). Online computer gaming: a comparison of adolescent and adult gamers. Journal of Adolescence 27(1), 87-96. Peterson, M. (2012). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG): A sociocultural discourse analysis. ReCALL 24(3), 361-380. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, culture, and activity, 13(1), 38-52. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences. Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP 21-32. Print.