Is there a way to research the 'happiness' factor in Game Development?

Over the last few weeks I have had many conversations with friends and long-standing industry colleagues, where our discussions have focused upon how much the industry has changed, especially from when we first joined, nearly 25 years ago.

Our conversations have focused upon the wants and needs of the people, in other words, what motivates the developers who make the products, the media, the games? What keeps them happy?

I mean, if you’d have told me all those years ago that employees within a global development company would be so unhappy with their employer’s choice of contract, so much so that they would send a petition to their employer and the story itself makes news, I would have laughed and said, “yea right!” sarcastically, “it’s good that!”. 

It’s funny that before this happened, during the usual run-up to Thanksgiving, the big-hitters released their bids for commercial and critical dominance in the global game charts. One of these games was Red Dead Redemption 2. I’m sure you’ve all played it! I’m even proud to say that a number of graduates whom I've had the pleasure teaching games design and production, are now at Rockstar North and have worked on the game.

However the game’s success was marred by a slew of press surrounding the working ethos/expectations within Rockstar Games, with claims from one of the founders that people were working 100 hour weeks. 

It was at this time I was starting to re-review the objects of study within my game design focused PhD, after some important reflection. The title of my study was “Finding the Fun: How videogame developers and audiences can use affective processes of videogame design to create affective videogames.” But from completing the initial qualification of my PhD study (which is was a Post Graduate Certificate in Research Practice), I found that some of the research I had conducted was not gelling with me, especially research focused on ‘Affect’. Having worked ‘in’ the industry all these years, I wanted some form of instant clarity to latch onto, which I wasn’t getting. But serendipitously, my research journey then took me to areas of focus which are so ‘on-point’ with how game developers are ‘feeling’ today, that my research strategy shifted.

Here’s how it happened…From my last blog post on my website I explained how I was attempting a stage within my doctoral research, which I nicknamed ‘Lifting the Fog & finding the Fun’. As an Emergent Researcher, I was attempting to “critically reflect and then analyse further what have I done, what have I learnt (the good and the bad), and what do I plan to do to progress, so that I may carry on with my PhD journey, hopefully moving forwards to achieve my short, medium and long-term research aims.” In doing this stage I started to look back at my 3 key theoretical areas, which I identified would underpin my PhD’s Theoretical Framework.

They were

As part of my PhD journey, I have had to complete a qualification called the PGCert in Research Practice. During this period, I had undertaken a large amount of research collation within each specific area. As my core specialism is already Games Design, an area I feel comfortable within, I felt I needed to tackle the area of ‘Affect’ as a priority; this area unfamiliar to me, needed further detailed investigation, especially within the context of how it can/does apply to videogames. As I started to dig deep within definitions of ‘Affect’, I took steer within the Theoretical Framework in my PhD proposal, looking at the relevant literature that I had compiled.

I started by looking at specific literature associated with ‘affect’ This took me to Hardt’s foreword on ‘affect’; it suggested, as cited in Clough and Halley (2007, n.p.), that “Clough’s identification of the ‘‘affective turn’’ in the humanities and social sciences is accountable to two primary “precursors in U.S. academic work”; focus on the body and exploration of emotions”. Looking deeper still and conducting, further research into this area, I was taken to work by Hansen & Gorton (2013); they critiqued numerous analytical definitions of ‘affect’ provided by Shouse (2005), Blackman & Cromby (2007), Clough (2007), Cvetkovich (2003), Ahmed (2010), Highmore (2010), and Stewart and Wissinger (2007).

Whilst these researchers provided these many definitions of affect, they were within their contextually analytical methodologies, looking at both cultural and critical theory (considering parameters such as emotional and physical analysis). However, regarding ‘affect’, I found this definition by Hansen & Gorton’s (2013 p34) a cause for concern, especially when considering videogames and games design:

“the slipperiness of the term and its usage within academic study” and “the notion of in-between-ness and liminality is structured into the definition of affect and makes coming to full interpretations of emotion online increasingly impossible.”

As the main area of focus within the theoretical framework of my PhD is Games Design within the context of videogames, doubt was instilled within me by Hansen & Gorton’s secondary research. As I am in no way an expert on ‘affect’, I appreciate the research done by those such as Clough and Halley. They have spent many years researching the subject. However, having encountered adjectives such as ‘slipperiness’ and ‘impossible’, used by one who has formulated a definition of ‘affect’ after years of research, the creation of ambiguity subsequently led to worrying doubt. To one such as myself, an emerging researcher, who likes to anchor on-going research tasks onto solid foundations, I prefer more stable, less ambiguous definitions.

In comparison, the definition provided by Sara Ahmed (2010 p.30) did provide a more solid foundation. She states in her literature that “Affect is what sticks, or what sustains or preserves the connection between ideas, values, and objects”. Hansen & Gorton go onto further analyse this, considering that “affect is a sort of glue”; when applied to ideas, values and objects (such as videogames), they can be affective and remain with us throughout life, both as individuals and as a means of “sustaining gatherings of people or ideas” i.e. the audiences themselves. In their conclusive overview on ‘affect’, Hansen & Gorton (2013, p178) consider that:

“In everyday life, ordinary people’s acceptance of the ‘openness, emergence, and creativity’ of the ‘affect turn’, which ‘is already the object of capitalist capture’ (Clough 2010, 224) may only continue to overcode their time, lives, and loves in ways that make them fall in love with themselves and their electronics.”

As I am a long-standing consumer of digital media, more specifically videogames, for over 40 years now, I now consider myself an early adopter (Rogers, 2003) of new technologies. I am keen to engage with these new technologies, designed by the developers (and the users/audiences), that can sometimes provide innovative experiences, which can lead onto bigger and better things. I am passionate about innovation within interaction, methods in which one can interact deeply with increased immersion, within the all aspects of the videogame itself (the gameplay mechanics, the aesthetics and narratives, and finally the interaction methods).

Therefore I found Hansen & Gorton’s statement resonated positively. Overall though, both statements were positive reinforcement moving forwards; that the area of ‘affect’ is not as ‘slippery’ as first portrayed. Hansen & Gorton (2013 p178) go onto apply an analytical point to the context of “imagining affect as upgradable in the context of a digital media age”, in that “there is always a chance for something else, unexpected, new” (Clough 2010, p224). As videogames evolve, together with the technologies they are delivered on, along with their design and developmental processes, one can only imagine within the realms of the ‘impossible’, what new areas of ‘affect’ are evoked by the delivery of these new end products/user experiences.

As I gathered new re-invigorated hope, I decided to revisit my theoretical framework to now look deeper at areas where ‘affect’ may have an impact. One key area is within the design and developmental processes of creating a videogame. Hansen & Gorton (2013, p42) consider that “affect is vehicular”, that it is “mobile and goes unprotected from one dimension to another”. They also argue that if there is “the precariousness of the private intimate images exchanged between lovers over e-mail or mobile phone that then enter an affective online economy”, then is it at all possible that videogame designers and developers can convey “affect” from the design and developmental processes of creating a videogame, the emotions they themselves experienced during these times, into the actual end videogame itself? If from an emotional perspective, can this ‘vehicular travel of affect’ from the process to the product be either positively associated emotions (happiness) or those associated with negative emotions (anger, frustration)?

As ‘People’ are a key object of study within my research, I therefore decided to firstly preface addressing any further research into ‘affect’ along with research into the ‘videogame design and development process’ by researching and reviewing the existing organisational structures within which these ‘people’ (i.e. ‘the game developers’) work. By having several discussions with my supervisors, it was apparent that I had unconsciously began to research ‘the culture within the workplace in the Games Industry’. I was pointed towards Hesmondhalgh and Baker’s 2011 literature “Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries”; this proved to be a particularly pertinent and time-relevant literature (especially with what was going on at that point within the games industry with the news from Rockstar Games that one of the founders cited his senior management team worked 100 hour weeks on Red Dead Redemption 2; this will be discussed in more detail later). I then started to look at the extension of ‘affect’ towards positive emotions; perceptions of why people gain pleasure from the work they do and does this pleasure manifest itself within the end product.

Hesmondhalgh and Baker conducted a number of ‘intensive interviews’ with people within the creative industries, ranging from journalists, musicians, creatives working within television and film production, and audience members associated with the aforementioned industries. I found it invigorating that they also interviewed the audiences associated with these industries, as this was most definitely applicable to my research, since one of the objects of my PhD study is the ‘People’; both the videogame developers and their audiences too.

To mitigate risk when conducting the interviews, they used a number of strategies including minimising direction within the question/answers. Another strategy which they used, which is one that I also plan to use when I come to the interview phase of my research, is to recruit a number of interviewees “from the same company, or the same cultural ‘world’, to increase the chances that we might be able to check interviewees’ accounts against each other.” (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011 p16).

I believe this is particularly important and relevant when it comes to interviewing people within the context of videogame development, as the perspectives of the individuals may be influenced/impacted by a number of different factors. These may include the interviewee’s specific job within their specific discipline (art, programming, design, sound & music, production, sales and marketing, general management) together with other factors which may include their seniority/company ranking/work experience level, their motivation (money, interest, quality of life, challenge), together with their personal feelings and emotions (such as their self-esteem and state of well-being). All of these may contribute to different perspectives given on events which have taken place, therefore it is necessary to gain a number of different perspectives within the interview stage to correlate similar and differing accounts, and the reasons for their differences.  

Finally, they also used another technique which again I plan to use, which is ‘participant observation’; whilst their observation was time consuming (over four months they stated), it allowed the pair to observe the participants, from these perspectives:

“when they were off duty and/or off guard, and as they went through a number of different states and experiences.” and “observe much more fully other aspects of creative workers’ lives and subjectivities, such as their comportment, demeanour, behaviour and attitudes.”  (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011 p16).

Again, whilst working on developing a videogame, there are many different experiences one participates within, again all are open to exposure to the same aforementioned parameters when interviewing. As videogames are created through a number of development cycles (Concept, Pre-production, Production, Alpha, Beta and Final), ‘participant observation’</