Inside the mind of the machine: An exploratory study of street fighter iv players

Abstract

In the article I explore online communities of players of the fighting game Street Fighter IV. I use non participant observation to analyse the way players relate to the game and construct their experience of it. The analysis reveals a profound immersion of Street Fighter IV players into gameplay mechanics. They analyse the minutest technical details of the game engine to gain a competitive advantage and have developed a terminology that covers both technical and strategic aspects. To progress in the game players have to hone their skills through constant practice that improves their motoric skills and reflexes, and by devising a strategy and learning to anticipate the moves of the opponents.

Full text

TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
59
Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK*
INSIDE THE MIND OF THE MACHINE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF STREET FIGHTER IV
PLAYERS
Abstract. In the article I explore online communities
of players of the fighting game Street Fighter IV. I use
non participant observation to analyse the way play-
ers relate to the game and construct their experience of
it. The analysis reveals a profound immersion of Street
Fighter IV players into gameplay mechanics. They ana-
lyse the minutest technical details of the game engine
to gain a competitive advantage and have developed
a terminology that covers both technical and strategic
aspects. To progress in the game players have to hone
their skills through constant practice that improves their
motoric skills and reflexes, and by devising a strategy
and learning to anticipate the moves of the opponents.
Keywords: video games; Street Fighter IV; online gam-
ing communities
Introduction
Since video games are a relatively new field of study, the ontological,
epistemological, and methodological foundations of studying them are still
in a state of flux. Another factor adding to the heterogeneity is the fact that
at least in the early stages of video game research, there existed a strong
tendency to transfer theoretical and methodological approaches from
other fields of study to the study of video games. One such example is the
large body of research which views the content of video games as stimuli
that may cause behavioural changes in players, most often focusing on
aggression (Breuer et al., 2013; Chiattaro and Sioni, 2012; Greitmeyer, 2014;
Willoughby et al., 2012) but also on positive outcomes (Granic et al., 2013;
Oei and Patterson, 2013). This approach has been criticized for being too
narrow, reducing video games to a stimulus and ignoring the complexity
of video games and players’ varied motivations, experiences, and ways of
interacting with video games.
* Aleksander Sašo Slaček Brlek, PhD, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of
Ljubljana.

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
60
Other researchers, drawing mainly on literature studies, have been
focusing on the narrative aspect of video games, its structure and wider
social and ideological dimensions (Gallagher, 2012; Poor, 2012; Shaw, 2009;
Ip, 2011). Another approach, the so-called “ludological” approach, has been
applying games theory to the study of video games, focusing not so much
on the narrative aspect as on the act of playing. In this vein, some authors
even suggest that video games, especially when played competitively, can
be seen as a form of sport (e.g. Eskelinen and Tronstad, 2003; Witkowski,
2012). While these two approaches are sometimes presented as incompat-
ible, some authors are critical of this position and claim that it is more pro-
ductive to take them as complementary. As Crawford and Gosling (2009: 58)
claim: “Hence, just as the reader of a book assimilates the information on the
page into a coherent story, it can be argued, that players of sports and video
games, similarly construct narratives of play.”
Many scholars attempt to bridge the divide between the narrative and
ludological approaches. For example, Ang (2006) proposes a model com-
posed of a narrative and abstract (game rules) layer which are in a relation-
ship of mutual dependency, and concludes that »we should focus on devel-
oping a theory that unifies both categories.” (Ang, 2006: 323). The model
of “procedural rhetoric” (Bogost, 2007) has proven fruitful in this respect.
Harper (2011) has applied this model to the case of Persona 3, focusing on
how the interplay of “fusion of ludic qualities and thematic/narrative ele-
ments” (Harper, 2011: 408) suggests certain ideological frames.
Further study is needed to elucidate on the interplay between ludic and
narrative aspects, since there is significant variation between games and
also between players regarding the nature and importance of narrative, its
(non-)linearity and structure, etc. While some games are highly structured
and attempt to tell a story in the way the producers imagined it (such as
the games from the Bioshock series), others allow the player much more
freedom to shape the course of events and construct their own narrative
(like World of Warcraft or Minecraft). The way players interact with the
game also varies significantly. Some might focus on the narrative and the
way it relates to their identity and the society around them, while others
might be focusing their attention more on the technical aspect of game-
play. According to Crawford and Gosling (2009: 62): “For the more hard-
core gamers we interviewed, gameplay seems to be less about relating the
games to wider social narratives, such as picking their favorite football
team or player, but more about the mechanisms of the game itself.” New-
man comes to similar conclusions when analysing the function of player-
created walkthroughs: “/W/alkthroughs encourage the consideration
of the manipulability of videogames and the potential to explore games
and gameworlds as material for play rather than necessarily restrictive,

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
61
rule-bound structures that push gamers down prescribed paths.” (New-
man, 2005: 60)
On the one end of the spectrum we find power gamers as described
by Taylor (2006), players who largely disregard narrative experience in
favour of gaining statistical advantage, on the other cheaters, as described
by Consalvo (2007), who often resort to cheating to be able to consume the
story without having to bother with the challenges of gameplay. Oswald et
al. (2013) found that when querying gamers about the meaning of video
games to them, their responses could be grouped into six categories: “Emo-
tional Responses, Game Play, Social, Outcomes of Game Play, Goals, and
Personal Qualities.” (Oswald et al., 2013: 5) This goes to show that motiva-
tions of gamers are not uniform and it would be reasonable to expect that
their interaction and experiences with games can also vary significantly.
For example, some researchers (Amory and Molomo, 2012; Greenberg et
al., 2010; Lucas and Sherry, 2004; Terlecki et al., 2011) have found that that
there are gender and age differences in gameplay behaviour and orienta-
tions toward gameplay.
In order to account for this heterogeneity, we should not restrict our
attention narrowly to the situation where players directly interact with the
game. Players relate to games and their stories and characters in myriad
other ways: be it in conversation with their peers, visiting and discussing
their favourite games in online forums, viewing and creating fan art, attend-
ing events like Comic-con and E3, or taking part in cosplay (dressing up as
fictional characters). As Newman (2005: 48) claims:
The focus on the player experience of the single-player is perhaps inevi-
table, though there can be no doubt that it betrays a lack of engagement
with or immersion in the cultures of gaming and the variety of ways
in which games are actually used irrespective of the intentions of their
designers.
Furthermore, some players go to extreme lengths to uncover not only
everything the designers intended to be included in the game world, but
go also beyond the game world: discovering unused code to shed light on
the development process of a game and settle disputes about the “canon”,
accessing areas in the game that the player should not be able to access
or accessing them before the intended time, finding glitches in the game,
and devising special challenges like completing the game without collect-
ing any power-ups or doing speed runs (completing the game in as little
time as possible). The question of identification is also relevant, since not
all people who play games identify themselves as “gamers”. (Shaw, 2012) In
short, the actual uses of video games, both in the interaction with the games

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
62
themselves as well as interactions between gamers through other channels,
can be extremely varied and require further study.
Methodology
The case I have chosen is the fighting game Street Fighter IV11. The
reasons for choosing this game are several. It is among the most popular
fighting games in terms of sales (Street Fighter IV has sold 3.3 million cop-
ies according to Capcom, 20132), content created by fans (videos, fan art,
online forums), and competitive play (Street Fighter tournaments have long
been a staple of gaming events like E3). Furthermore, while some other
types of games have received a fair amount of scholarly investigation (fore-
most among them MMOs like World of Warcraft), there is a relative lack
of research on fighting games. According to Hutchinson (2007: 283) such
games are “most often seen in terms of simple entertainment, lacking narra-
tive power and encouraging an apathetic and passive attitude to violence.”
The case was studied through non participatory observation of Street
Fighter IV online communities to discover how players themselves relate
the game. The websites were identified via a snow-ball technique by using
Google with the keywords Street Fighter in the first step and then following
links posted on these sites to extend the sample.
Masters and apprentices
At first glance the gameplay of Street Fighter IV seems rather simplistic:
characters can move left and right, jump and duck, perform three types of
kicks and three types of punches, varying in speed and amount of damage,
blocks, throws and special moves. Each player starts the match with a lim-
ited amount of “life”, which is reduced each time they receive a hit from
the opponent. When it reaches zero, the match is over. But appearances are
certainly deceiving in this case, since my analysis has revealed a stagger-
ing complexity behind these simple mechanics. Players analyse the exact
duration of every possible move to determine possible combinations and
1 For the purpose of this article, I will use Street Fighter IV to refer to three distinct versions of the
game: Street Fighter IV, Super Street FIghter IV, and Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition. The versions
are overall very similar, yet differ in the character roster (Super Street Fighter IV added ten new characters
to the roster of Street FIghter IV, while Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition added another four), fighting
arenas and, to a lesser degree, graphics and gameplay mechanics (here we find tweaks, rather than funda-
mental changes).
2 This number is relatively small compared to best-sellers like Grand Theft Auto V and Call of Duty:
Ghosts, which have sold tens of millions of units. According to the Entertainment Software association
(2013: 8), fighting games are among the less popular genres in terms of sales, making up 3.9% of total units
of video games sold in the USA in 2012.

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
63
develop strategies, they delve into the algorithm of the game to take advan-
tage of shortcuts and ambiguities, and they develop and discuss a terminol-
ogy, covering both technical and strategic aspects of the game.
Much of the material on the forums I have analysed is meant to help play-
ers learn techniques and strategies to become better at playing the game.
This transmission of knowledge takes place primarily through instructional
texts and videos, discussions, and analyses of gameplay videos.
Instructional texts and videos are prepared by more experienced play-
ers and cover a wide variety of gameplay aspects. They range from expla-
nations of the basics of gameplay mechanics, discussions of the relative
strengths and weaknesses of specific characters, to more advanced infor-
mation about “combos” (for example, which moves should be combined
to achieve a maximum amount of damage), “set-ups” (ways to create open-
ings for high-damage attacks and combos) and technical details of the game
engine (like “option selects” and “auto-corrects”, which are discussed later
on). The videos in this category follow a similar objective and are used to
demonstrate various gameplay elements, with the input by the player being
shown on screen (a feature built into the game). Another type of videos
is also produced frequently, aimed not at demonstrating useful techniques
but at showing off the execution of a particularly difficult set of moves,
thereby demonstrating the dexterity of the player. Sometimes authorship is
attributed to the players who were the first to have successfully executed a
difficult combo or have discovered a new technique.
Characters
As in many other fighting games, the characters in Street Fighter IV are
heavily stereotyped. According to Hutchinson, (2007: 285) there are three
primary reasons for stereotypical characters in such games. Firstly, such
characters are easier to develop, therefore saving production time and cost.
Secondly, the costs of localization for games with large export markets are
equally lower for less complex characters. Finally, in fighting games play-
ers need to be able to “quickly and easily distinguish characters from one
another, so players can recognize their opponent and adjust their fighting
style appropriately”. (Hutchinson, 2007: 285)
While stereotypical depictions are far from absent in other types of
games, the complexity of characters in fighting games is usually reduced to
a bare minimum. The production costs and costs of localisation are factors
in the development of any game; therefore the need for characters to be
easily distinguishable should be useful in explaining the specifics of fighting
games. In the Street Fighter game series characters differ significantly in key
characteristics: regular and special moves, amount of health, damage caused

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
64
by their attacks, speed, jumping height, reach of their attacks, etc. It is impor-
tant for players not only to know their own character but also the character
of the other player in order to choose the most appropriate overall strategy
and specific attacks.
Accordingly, discussions about the stories of characters and their moti-
vations are in a minority relative to discussions about gameplay aspects,
appropriate strategies and relative strengths and weaknesses of characters
in specific match-ups. Since the number of available characters in the latest
iteration of Street Fighter IV is 39, acquiring detailed knowledge about each
possible match-up can be quite a daunting task. Here is an example from
Option Select3, dealing with the match-up of two characters (Abel and Cody):
Fighting Abel is all about zoning him. Abel’s walk speed is pretty similar
to Cody’s, and his Step Kick (his main poke), is pretty similar to Cody’s
s.MK. However, at mid range, Abel has a distinct advantage because the
reward he gets for connecting a Step Kick canceled into a dash (even
on block) is much bigger then the small damage Cody deals on a suc-
cessful s.MK. The only poke Cody can utilize at this range to match the
type of Risk vs Reward Abel is representing is c.LK OS MK Ruffian Kick
because it gets him both respectable damage, and a knockdown across
the screen.
This is only the first paragraph of a longer text, yet it is enough to get a
feeling of the complexity of the game. Zoning for example refers to control-
ling space during a fight. Since the gameplay arena is limited on both sides
and being forced into a corner severely limits the options of the player, this
element of gameplay is considered of crucial strategic importance. An anal-
ysis of characters is therefore often focused on the range at which they are
most effective and the strategies to achieve this range.
On the other hand the Street Fighter Wiki4 gives detailed accounts of char-
acters’ biographies, personality, and background story, revealing a focus on
the narrative aspect of the game. Here we find a focus on what Newman
(2005) calls the “canon”: establishing and policing the boundaries of accept-
able interpretations. For this purpose a border is established between the
canonical and non-canonical content, for example on the Street Fighter Wiki:
“Capcom USA initially claimed Akuma was possessed by a demon, but this
is considered non-canonical.”5 On the website www.fanfiction.net we can
find a substantive amount of fan produced fiction set in the Street Fighter
3 http://www.option-select.com/strategy/matchup/?m=103&c=1
4 http://streetfighter.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters?display=exhibition&sort=mostvisited
5 http://streetfighter.wikia.com/wiki/Akuma

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
65
universe. The number of entries is 930, ranging in length from a few hun-
dred to over 50 000 words. The entries are rated and discussed not only in
terms of their creativity, but also in terms of their conformity to the canon.
Although unfrequently, wider social aspects are also addressed, for example
the representation of female characters in Street Fighter games6.
While this narrative focus should not be overlooked, it is the mechani-
cal relationship to the characters that is dominant on the websites dedi-
cated specifically to Street Fighter or a group of similar fighting games. Here
discussions on the background stories and personalities of characters are
almost completely absent and the characters are viewed more as player’s
tools than anything else. Consequently they are discussed in the context of
gameplay mechanics and the way they perform during gameplay. When
posting on these forums, the players talk about their experiences predomi-
nately in terms of success in matches against other players. In this context
the characters are seen as the medium through which the players act. Some
characters are said to be weaker, some stronger (the strongest are some-
times referred to as “first tier”). Besides their overall strength characters
are also grouped on the basis of several characteristics: some are said to
be good for “pressure”, some for “zoning”, some are strong at close range,
some at medium or far range, etc.
This intimate knowledge of characters is utilised by the game’s devel-
opers, who encourage players to propose changes to game mechanics in
future games.7 In their promotional materials they often stress the fact that
feedback of fans is taken into account.8 In this way Capcom receives both
material (the unpaid labour of consumers in development and promotion
of the game) and symbolic (an image of being responsive to fans) benefits.
This is not to say that the relationship of the company to the fan community
is manipulative. It rather points to a path of inquiry that warrants further
investigation: the ways in which video game producers and other compa-
nies mobilise unpaid labour of players as a strategic resource for their busi-
ness operations.
Hacking the game
While commenting on the Grand Finals of the Evolution 2012 Super
Street Fighter IV tournament, one of the commentators remarks the follow-
ing: “He is minus one or minus two after that Jaguar kick, Raging demon is
6 For example: http://www.capcom-unity.com/street_fighter/go/thread/view/7411/20773081/who-
would-like-to-see-more-females
7 http://www.capcom-unity.com/street_fighter/go/forum/view/7411/241285
8 For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrUcZyQUl6Y

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
66
instant.”9 Surely incomprehensible to the uninitiated, “minus one or minus
two” refers to the duration of time before the player is able to move their
character after performing the last action. In this situation it means that the
player attacking with the Jaguar kick (a special move) was left vulnerable for
one or two frames (at sixty frames per second the duration of one frame is
approximately 0.017 seconds) after the attack was blocked, giving the other
player the opportunity to take advantage with an attack that is effective
without delay (Raging Demon).
Understanding this comment requires a detailed understanding of game-
play mechanics. As is explained on Shoryuken10:
You can see it in every move. Hit a button, and your character will start
a move, hit the opponent, and then finish an animation. That’s all these
phases are: the period of time before your move hits the opponent, the
period of time the move is hitting the opponent, and the period of time
after the move hits the opponent.
So take those periods and break them down into those “animation
frames” we just talked about. The start of your attack before it can hit the
opponent is made up of Startup Frames. The animation frames during
which your attack can actually hit the opponent are known as Active
Frames. And everything that comes after those Active Frames are consid-
ered Recovery Frames.
The details of jumping and landing animations are also conveyed in
minute detail11:
Just like how there are four Pre-Jump Frames at the start of the Jump,
every character has four “Landing Frames” when they land from a
Jump. However, how these four frames behave really depends on one
factor: whether or not you perform a Normal Move during your Jump.
First of all, regardless if you attack in the air with a Normal Move
or not, the Landing Frames will always prevent you from performing
any form of basic movement. You cannot cancel the Landing Frames
with a Dash, a Crouch, or another Jump. However, you can always Tech
Throws during your Landing Frames.
However, you are allowed to cancel all four Landing Frames with
pretty much anything else if you do not perform any Normal Moves dur-
ing your Jump. Special Moves, Super Combos, Focus Attacks, Throws,
and even Normal Moves can all be performed the instant you land.
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GFvZJ2eW68 (at 3:15)
10 http://wiki.shoryuken.com/Super_Street_Fighter_IV_AE/Controls_and_Terminology
11 http://wiki.shoryuken.com/Super_Street_Fighter_IV_AE/Game_Systems

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
67
And most importantly, you can Block during the Landing Frames. That
means if you do not press a button in the air, you cannot be punished
when landing from a Jump even if the opponent makes you land into
their attack.
These lengthy quotes illustrate the level of involvement with the game-
play engine that some players exhibit. The number of start-up, active and
recovery frames is referred to numerous times in discussions on websites as
well as commentary on tournament matches. Knowing the exact duration of
moves has several applications: it can be used to inform players whether cer-
tain combinations of moves are possible and thereby it dispenses with the
need of learning this fact via trial and error; consequently this information
can be used to plan and practice moves and strategies; it can also be used
during matches to execute moves that require extremely precise timing.
The online discussions on Street Fighter IV reveal not only an emphasis
on intense training, needed to master the game, but also a very methodical
approach to training, revealed not only through the analysis of animation
frames but also of various techniques aimed at using the algorithm of the
game to the player’s advantage. At the most basic level this means discover-
ing short-cuts (in certain cases the game recognises an input even though it
is not executed perfectly) and ambiguities that players can take advantage
of during gameplay. These techniques are generally not regarded as cheat-
ing. This is most likely due to the fact that they require a substantial amount
of knowledge and skill to execute and are therefore not seen as “cheap”
ways to gain an advantage. They are not seen as transgressions that break
the gameplay experience, but as legitimate techniques that competent play-
ers must master in order to be competitive.
Two more advanced techniques are called “option selects” and “auto-
corrects.” Option selects are acts of deliberately inputting contradictory
commands, letting the game decide which action is most appropriate for
the situation. Since characters can perform only one move at a time (for
example, the character cannot execute a punch and a kick at the same time),
the game has a system of prioritizing actions based on context, a fact the
players can take advantage of.
Auto-correct also relies on the game helping the player out, although in
this case it does not choose among multiple inputs, but corrects the direc-
tion of a special, super or ultra move. Although the input for the move is in
the wrong direction, the game nonetheless executes the move if characters
switch positions in the instant that the command was inputted. As one user
explains on the Capcom forum12:
12 http://www.capcom-unity.com/street_fighter/go/thread/view/7411/21011637/question-what-is-
auto-correct-in-sf4?post_num=3

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
68
#2 Auto correct is when someone crosses you up, and you were input-
ting a special/super/ultra input. You input the command first and abuse
the new extra time in the buffer system of IV and hit the attack button
after they crossup and cause the move to go the opposite direction.
EX: You are using Ryu (on left side), they are using Bison(Dictator) on
right side, They jump at you (from cross-up distance). You input QCF to
the right twice and then don’t hit the PPP until he crosses your center of
mass. You then hit PPP the system auto corrects yoru direction and Slays
him with the Ultra. The key to this technique is to not do the motion to
soon, and abuse every possible frame of the buffer at times.
Playing Street Fighter seems to be very similar to the competitive play of
the first person shooter game Counterstrike, analysed by Witkowski: “Play-
ing Counter-Strike in the context of the LAN is a rich sensory experience
that calls for layer upon layer of physically demanding action in order to be
competitive in the high-performance game.” (Witkowski, 2012: 369) Conse-
quently, constant practice is needed to gain and hone the skills necessary
for competitive performance. Progress in Street Fighter IV is not understood
as meeting predefined in-game criteria. Players cannot level-up characters
like in role-playing games; they can progress by honing their skills through
constant practice that improves their motoric skills and reflexes, and by
devising a strategy and learning to anticipate the moves of the opponents.
Conclusion
The analysis has revealed a profound immersion of Street Fighter IV play-
ers into gameplay mechanics. They analyse the minutest technical details
of the game engine to gain a competitive advantage and have developed a
terminology that covers both technical and strategic aspects. My analysis is
congruent with the findings of Oswald et al. (2013: 14):
Our results support the notion that video game play can be studied as
a recreational activity, akin to sports and other hobbies. Participants
actively set goals for their game play time, they evaluate the outcome
of the game play in terms of success and failure, and they actively seek
social relationships, friendly, cooperative, and competitive, during their
gaming.
The “story” of Street Fighter takes place to a large degree outside the
story inside the game itself: success or failure to master a technique, frustra-
tion at not getting better, dedication to improve with practice are themes
often encountered on forums.

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
69
It should be noted that the analysed websites may not be representative
of all Street Fighter IV players. Indeed, it is likely that casual gamers do play
the game but do not wish to engage in all its complexities and intricacies and
are consequently not represented in the online discussions I have analysed.
To what degree the involvement in gameplay mechanics that was revealed
in my analysis is present among players of the game is a question that needs
to be addressed with further research. Furthermore, Street Fighter is likely a
specific case that should not be generalised to all games and to all players
without further reflection and research. While it is likely that we would be
able to identify a similar orientation to gameplay mechanics in many other
games, the specific design of fighting games like Street Fighter makes such
an orientation much more likely. Therefore, it is likely that such a focus on
gameplay mechanics would be far less widespread in many other types of
games. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe we are dealing with
a phenomenon exclusive to fighting games. Newman’s discussion of walk-
throughs for example reveals many similarities: “Walkthroughs are written
by and for players who not only wish to complete a game, but players who
want to know a game. More than this, players who wish to know every con-
ceivable aspect, feature, affordance, and indeed, glitch and inconsistency of
a game.” (Newman, 2005: 59)
Finally, one aspect I was only able to address briefly is the political econ-
omy of player produced content. Players perform a significant amount of
unpaid labour that can be used by companies as a strategic resource for
their business operations. Game developers and publishers can use it to cut
production costs, increase the effectiveness of their marketing and use it
to boost their corporate image, while the owners of the sites that host con-
tent produced by players can take advantage of it to increase their advertis-
ing revenue. This aspect has not received sufficient scholarly attention and
should be the object of study in the future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amory, Alan and Bolepo Molomo (2012): Gendered Play and Evaluation of
Computer Video Games by Young South Africans. Gender, Technology and
Development, 16 (2): 177–196.
Ang, Chee Siang (2006): Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games. Simulation
Gaming 37 (3): 306–325.
Bogost, Ian (2007): Persuasive games: The expressive power of video games.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Breuer, Johannes, Michael Scharkow, and Thorsten Quandt (2013): Sore Losers? A
Reexamination of the Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis for Colocated Video
Game Play. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, online first, doi: 10.1037/
ppm0000020.

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
70
Capcom (2013): Platinum Titles. Available from: http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/eng-
lish/business/million.html, 31. 1. 2014.
Chittaro, Luca and Riccardo Sioni (2012): Killing Non-Human Animals in Video
Games: A Study on User Experience and Desensitization to Violence Aspects.
PsychNology Journal, 10 (3): 215–243.
Consalvo, Mia (2007): Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Crawford, Garry and Victoria K. Gosling (2009): More Than a Game: Sports-
Themed Video
Games and Player Narratives. Sociology of Sport Journal 26 (1): 50–66.
Entertainment Software Association (2007): Video Games in the 21st Century:
Economic Contributions of the US Entertainment Software Industry. Available
from: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/VideoGames21stCentury.pdf, 31. 1.
2014.
Entertainment Software Association (2013): Essential Facts about the Computer
and Video Game Industry: 2013 Sales, Demographic and Usage Data. Available
from: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf, 31. 1. 2014.
Eskelinen, Markku and Ragnhild Tronstad (2003): Video Games as Configurative
Performances. In Mark J.P. Wolf an Bernard Perron (Eds.), The Video Game
Theory Reader, 195–220. London: Routledge.
Gallagher, Rob (2012): No Sex Please, We Are Finite State Machines: On the
Melancholy Sexlessness of the Video Game. Games and Culture 7 (6): 399–418.
Granic, Isabela, Adam Lobel, and Rutger C. M. E. Engels (2013): The Benefits of
Playing Video Games. American Psychologist, online first, doi: 10.1037/
a0034857.
Greenberg, Bradley S., John Sherry, Kenneth Lachlan, Kristen Lucas, and Amanda
Holmstrom (2010): Orientations to Video Games Among Gender and Age
Groups. Simulation & Gaming 41 (2): 238–259.
Greitemeyer Tobias (2014): Playing Violent Video Games Increases Intergroup
Bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (1): 70–78.
Harper, Todd (2011): Rules, Rhetoric, and Genre: Procedural Rhetoric in Persona 3.
Games and Culture 6 (5): 395–413.
Hutchinson, Rachael (2007): Performing the Self: Subverting the Binary in Combat
Games. Games and Culture, 2 (4): 283–299.
Ip, Barry (2011): Narrative Structures in Computer and Video Games: Part 1:
Context, Definitions, and Initial Findings. Games and Culture 6 (2): 103–134.
Lucas, Kristen and John L. Sherry (2004): Sex Differences in Video Game Play: A
Communication-Based Explanation. Communication Research 31 (5): 499–523.
Newman, James (2005): Playing (with) Videogames. Convergence 11 (1): 48–67.
Shaw Adrienne (2012): Do you identify as a Gamer? Gender, Race, Sexuality, and
Gamer Identity. New Media & Society 14 (1): 28–44.
Oei, Adam C. and Michael D. Patterson (2013): Enhancing Cognition with Video
Games: A Multiple Game Training Study. PLoS ONE 8 (3): 1–16.
Oswald, Christopher A., Chris Prorock, and Shane M. Murphy (2013): The Perceived
Meaning of the Video Game Experience: An Exploratory Study. Psychology of
Popular Media Culture, online first. doi: 10.1037/a0033828.

Aleksander Sašo SLAČEK BRLEK
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 51, 1/2014
71
Poor, Nathaniel (2012): Digital Elves as a Racial Other in Video Games:
Acknowledgment and Avoidance. Games and Culture 7 (5): 375–396.
Shaw, Adrienne (2009): Putting the Gay in Games: Cultural Production and GLBT
Content in Video Games. Games and Culture 4 (3): 228–253.
Taylor, T. L. (2006): Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Terlecki, Melissa, Jennifer Brown, Lindsey Harner-Steciw, John Irvin-Hannum,
Nora Marchetto-Ryan, Linda Ruhl, and Jennifer Wiggins (2011): Sex Differences
and Similarities in Video Game Experience, Preferences, and Self-Efficacy:
Implications for the Gaming Industry. Current Psychology 30 (1): 22–33.
Willoughby Teena, Paul J. C. Adachi, and Marie Good (2012): A Longitudinal Study
of the Association between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression among
Adolescents. Developmental Psychology 48 (4): 1044–1057.
Witkowski, Emma (2012): On the Digital Playing Field: How We “Do Sport” With
Networked Computer Games. Games and Culture 7 (5): 349–374.