2015
DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2015.1126330
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ludic encounters – understanding surveillance through game metaphors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Connections between surveillance studies and game studies have previously explored how game design elements are implemented into surveillance technologies and practices (Benjamin 2019;Koskela and Mäkinen 2015;Mäkinen 2017;Whitson 2015). Others have looked at playful representations of surveillance in popular culture in general (Marx 1996), game community related surveillance such as community management and paratext (Kerr, Paoli, and Keatinge 2014), surveillance of players and streamers (Taylor 2016), and how games and gaming platforms often are constructed as surveillance structures (e.g., Cybulski 2014;Wang, Haines, and Tucker 2011) or presented to the player as surveillance structures (Albrechtslund and Dubbeld 2005).…”
Section: Background and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Connections between surveillance studies and game studies have previously explored how game design elements are implemented into surveillance technologies and practices (Benjamin 2019;Koskela and Mäkinen 2015;Mäkinen 2017;Whitson 2015). Others have looked at playful representations of surveillance in popular culture in general (Marx 1996), game community related surveillance such as community management and paratext (Kerr, Paoli, and Keatinge 2014), surveillance of players and streamers (Taylor 2016), and how games and gaming platforms often are constructed as surveillance structures (e.g., Cybulski 2014;Wang, Haines, and Tucker 2011) or presented to the player as surveillance structures (Albrechtslund and Dubbeld 2005).…”
Section: Background and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(James,22) These accounts illustrate how profile checking was not only embedded within risk management and optimisation imperatives but has also been re-appropriated by young people and normalised as fun and 'cool' in the context of personal relationships. The playful appropriation of profile checking as part of friendships participates to the broader normalisation of surveillance practices in a similar way than the playful 'tagging' function on Facebook and other platforms normalised and reshaped perceptions of Facial Recognition Technologies (Ellerbrok, 2011, see also Koskela & Mäkinen, 2016). Thus, the normalisation of profile checking takes place within neoliberal narratives as well as through playful everyday engagement with surveillance.…”
Section: The Normalisation Of Profile Checking: 'It Is Kind Of Cool'mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Indeed, 'the imaginary of the smart city is often linked to fears concerning privacy, security and control' (Vanolo, 2016: 26). At the same time, the smart city control room's game-like view of the city can be seen as part and parcel of a more playful approach to urban surveillance (Koskela and Ma¨kinen, 2016), which turns the control room into a set of consoles with which the city can be viewed and manipulated, much as in a videogame. Acknowledging the videogame-like qualities of smart city control rooms does not, however, entail forgetting that the videogame is a cultural artefact that is not value-free, and that it exists in varieties from the psychedelic to the deeply dystopian.…”
Section: Analysing Flagship Smart Urban Spacesmentioning
confidence: 99%