成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	顏盈恩 Yen, Ying-En
論文名稱：	“遊戲玩家的垃圾話真的只是垃圾？”：從《英雄聯盟》看自主性遊戲團體的價值創造機制 “Is Game Player’s Trash-Talking Trash?”: A Study on the Value Creation Mechanism of the Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice Group in League of Legends.
指導教授：	高如妃 KAO, Faye J.
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 創意產業設計研究所 Institute of Creative Industries Design
論文出版年：	2019
畢業學年度：	108
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	95
中文關鍵詞：	遊戲社群、英雄聯盟、協作消費者網絡、學習模式
外文關鍵詞：	Game Community, League of Legends, Collaborative Consumer Network, Learning Mode
相關次數：	點閱：141 下載：1
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

垃圾話是在競爭激烈的情況下（如體育賽事和多人遊戲）吹噓或侮辱經常聽到的一種形式。它經常用來給對手施加壓力，也可以是一種幽默的精神。現在隨著即時通訊軟體的發達，電子遊戲從過去直覺的遊玩，漸漸演變成需要複雜的操作，甚至需要運用垃圾話玩心理戰。除了在遊戲裡面不斷練習提升技巧外，也會透過玩家間彼此的互動交流(溝通、讚賞、咒罵等)達到遊戲勝利的目的。也因為玩家交流日漸興盛，遊戲相關的社群平台也如雨後春筍般的增加，這樣的大群體被稱之為遊戲社群。
由玩家們所組成的遊戲團體是支持遊戲社群的小單位，而本研究專注在一般玩家上，觀察在小型的遊戲團體裡面，玩家如何交流互動、尋找以及創造遊戲的價值。本研究以《英雄聯盟》找出自主性遊戲團體的價值創造機制，幫助玩家能夠有系統地了解自主性遊戲團體的遊戲價值創造，並探討個體在其中的收穫、了解玩家透過在自主性遊戲團體的互動是否能增進個人的遊戲表現，並在找出遊戲團體的運作模式後進而作為培養遊戲團體之參考方法。本研究發現玩家在遊戲團體中玩家經常以垃圾話交流，本研究深入了解後發現垃圾話即為充滿情緒的理性批判，且這是團體玩家交流的重要機制。玩家可以透過此方式達到學習、啟發、支持以及情緒釋放。透過自主性遊戲團體，玩家可以激發對於遊戲的熱情，同時玩家也是支撐玩家遊玩的動力，願意更長久的遊玩下去。另外本研究發現在遊戲團體內的活動主要是過程導向; 而成就導向的個人學習則是在群體之外。

Trash talking is a new interaction way, which in situations of intense competition, e.g. sporting events or multiplayer games, it boasts or insults others. It is often used to put pressure on an opponent, or it can be a humorous spirit. Nowadays, with the development of instant messaging software, online games have evolved from commercial intuitions in the past to complex global operations. Relying on online trash talking to play psychological warfare becomes prevalent. In addition to constantly practicing the lifting skills in the game, the gamers will also achieve the goal of victory through verbal interactions, such as communication, appreciation, cursing, etc., among players.
Because the player communication is booming, the game-related community platforms have mushroomed to form larger game communities. The game community consists of game groups, which are small units that support the game industry. This research focuses on the gamers in League of Legends to find out the value creation model in a small self-organized voluntary game practice group. This study finds that players often use trash talking to communicate in the self-organized voluntary game practice group, and that trash talking is emotional dialectic with perceptual thinking. It is an important mechanism for members to communicate. Moreover, emotional dialectic serves four functions in the small voluntary practice group: tutorial, inspiration, support, and emotional release. Through the interaction mechanism within the self-organized voluntary game practice group, players themselves stimulate the enthusiasm for the game, which are also the driving force to support other players to expand the game community. In addition, this study finds that the activities within the self-organized voluntary game practice group are mainly process oriented. Outcome oriented individual learning takes place outside the group. The results from this study can be used as a reference method for cultivating the game community.

ABSTRACT …...…………………...…….…………………………….…………………...i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .……...…….…………………………….…………………...ii
TABLE OF CONTENT …...…………………...………………………………………iii
FIGURE LIST …...…………………...……………………………………………….…vii
PICTURE LIST …...…………………...……………………………….……………….viii 
TABLE LIST …...…………………...……………………………….…………………….ix 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION …...…………………...………………………….……1
1 Research Background ………………………...…………………………………....1
2 Global Game Trends ………………………...………………………….…………3
4 Research Motivation ………………………........................……………………...….7
5 Research Objectives ………………………...……………….……………………9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW …..………………...…………………...……..10
1 Game Community…………………………………...…...…………………………10
2 Definition of Collaborative Consumer Networks…………………......……………13
3 League of Legends ………………………...……………………………….………15
3.1 Game Rules ………………………………….……...…………………………15
3.2 Before the Game ……………..……………………………..…….……………16
3.3 During the Game ……………………………………………........……………19
3.4 After the Game ……….………………………………………………..………24
3.5 Game Mode ………………………………….……...…………………………25
4 The Game community in League of Legends……………...……………….………27
5 Trash Talking in Game…...………………………………………….……...………28
6 Value Creation of Gaming…………………...…………………………….………31
7 Learning Outcomes ………...……………………………………….……...………35
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY………...……………………..………………………39
1 Research Framework...…...…………………………………………………………39
2 Research Methodology…...…………………………………………………………39
2.1 Qualitative Research…...…………………………………………….…………40
2.2 Sample Profile…………………………… ………...………….………………42
2.3 Interview Process……...…………………………………………….…………43
2.4 Introspection ………...…………………………………………………………45
2.5 The Established Facts of the Research Object…………………….…………47
2.6 Research Reliability and Validity………………………………….…………47
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS…………………...………………………………....…………49
1 The General Understanding of the Members’ Learning Process…………………49
2 The Major Goal of the game group is Process oriented……………………………52
3 Outcome-oriented Learning takes place outside the group for the Advanced 
 Members…………………………………………………………………………….53
3.1 Group learning is helpful for beginners…………..….…….…………………56
3.2 Group learning inhibits the learning effect of individuals with advanced skill.58
4 Emotional Dialectic Mechanism.………………..…………………………………60
4.1 Tutorial…………..………………………………….……….…………………63
4.2 Inspiration……………………………………………...……….………………64
4.3 Support………………………………………………...……….………………65
4.4 Emotional release…………………...………….……...……….………………67
5 Game Value Assessment………...………………..…………………………………69
5.1 Game Prowess Evaluation………….……………….……….…………………70
5.2 Evaluation of the Playfulness the Member Brings……..……….……………71
5.3 Reflectivity.………………………………….………...……….………………72
6 Game Group Identity……....……………………..…………………………………74
6.1 Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice Group’s identity is Strengthened 
     Through Emotional Dialectic Mechanism………………………………..…76
6.2 Factors that Threaten Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice Group’s 
     Identity…………………………………………………………………………77
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION...…………………………............………………………79
1 Conclusion and Discussion………..………………..………………………………79
2 Theoretical Contribution…………………………….……………………………80
2.1 The Value-Creation Mechanism of Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice 
     Group……………………………………………………………………..……80
2.2 Learning within Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice Group………..……83
2.3 Self-Organized Voluntary Game Practice Group Characteristics.……….……..84
3 Managerial implication: How to run a gaming group?………….…………………84
4 Limitation……………...………………...………………………………………….86
5 Suggestion Future Research……………………………………...…………………87
REFERENCES ………...…………………………………………………………..……88
APPENDIX…………………………………,,…………………………………………...91
Interview Questions.…………………..…..………………………………………...91

                                    

1. Anderson, J. R. (1982). “Acquisition of a cognitive skill”. “Psychological Review”, 89, 369-406.
2. Bernardo Figueiredo, Daiane Scaraboto (2016), “The Systemic Creation of Value Through Circulation in Collaborative Consumer Networks”
3. Craig J. Thompson, Maura Troester (2002), “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture”, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 28, Issue 4, 550–571
4. Chen, C. H., Sun, C. T. and Hsieh, J. (2008), ‘Player guild dynamics and evolution in massively multiplayer online games’, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11: 3, pp. 293–301.
5. Daiane Scaraboto (2015), “Selling, Sharing, and Everything in Between: The Hybrid Economies of Collaborative Networks,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 156–76.
6. Etienne Wenger (2010), “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: The Career of a Concept”, pp. 10
7. France Belanger, Dianne H. Jordan (2000), “Evaluation and Implementation of Distance Learning: Technologies, Tools and Techniques”, Hershey
8. Frans Mäyrä (2011), “From the Demonic Tradition to Art-evil in Digital Games:
　　Monstrous pleasure in The Lord of the Rongs Online.” In Ring Bearers: The Lord of the Rings Online as Intertextual Narrative, edited by Esther MacCallum Stewart, Justin Parsler and Tanya Krzywinska, 111-35, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9. Frans Mäyrä (2016), “Exploring Gaming Communities”. Final version published in: Kowert, Rachel & Quandt, ThorstenThe Video Game Debate: Unraveling the Physical, Social, and Psychological Effects of Video Games. New York: Routledge.
10. Gagne, R. M. (1986). “Research on learning and retaining skilld”, In I. L. Goldstrin, R. M. Gagne, R. Glaser, J. M. Royer, T. J. Shuell, & D. L. Payne (Eds.), “Learning research laboratory: Proposed research issues” (AFHRL-TP-85-54, pp.5-19). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Manpower and Personal Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.
11. Johannes Fromme (2009), "Educational Effects of Computer Gaming Cultures, pp.774
12. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green (2013), Spreadable Media: Creating Value and meaning in a networked culture. NYU Press.
13. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). “Taxonomy of educationa; objectives: The classification of educational goals”. White Plains, NY: Longman.
14. Kurt Kraiger, J. Kevin Ford, Eduardo Salas (1993), “Application of Cognitive, Skill-based, and Affective Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation
15. Linda K Kaye1, Jo Bryce (2012), “Putting The “Fun Factor” Into Gaming: The Influence of Social Contexts on Experiences of Playing Videogames”
16. League of Legends Official Website (NA). Available at:
https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/featured/preseason-update#builder
17. Melanie Wallendorf, Merrie Brucks (1993), Introspection in Consumer Research: Implementation and Implications.
18. MIC產業情報研究所 (2012), “數位遊戲產業發展趨勢”.
19. Neves, D. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). “Knowledge complication: Mechanisms of the automatization of cognitive skills”. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), “Cognitive skills and their acquisition”, 335-359. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Nicholas Dixon (2007), “Trash Talking, Respect for Opponents and Good Competition”, Sport Ethics and Philosophy 1(1):96-106
21. Newzoo. Available at:
https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoo-global-esports-economy-will-reach-905-6-million-2018-brand-investment-grows-48/
22. Newzoo, "Most Popular Core PC Games”, 2018
23. P Pearce, C. and Artemesia (2009), Communities of Play: Emergent Cultures in Multiplayer Games and Virtual Worlds, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
24. Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995), “Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (1), 43–61.
25. Thompson, Michael (1979), Rubbish Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Thomas, Tandy Chalmers, Linda L. Price, and Hope Jensen Schau (2013), “When Differences Unite: Resource Dependence in heterogeneous Consumption Communities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 1010–33.
27. Weiss, H. M. (1990). “Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.)”, “Handbook og Industrial and organizational psychology”, (2nd ed., Vol 1, pp.171-221). Palo Alto, CA; Consulting Psychologists Press.
28. Williams, J. P. (2009), ‘Community, frame of reference, and boundary: Three sociological concepts and their relevance for virtual worlds research’, Qualitative Sociology Review, 5: 2, pp. 3–16.
29. Warmelink, Siitonen (2013), “A decade of research into player communities in online games”, Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds Volume 5 Number 3.
30. Yip, J. A., Schweitzer, M. E. (2017), “The Case for Trash-Talking at Work, According to Research”, Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2017/10/the-case-for-trash-talking-at-work-according-to-research
31. Yue Dinga, Xin Hub, Jiawei Lib, Jingbo Yec,d, Fei Wanga, and Dan Zhang (2018), INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION, VOL. 34, NO. 8, 682–694
32. Zeying Wan, Yulin Fang and Derrick J. Neufeld (2008), “Individual Learning and Performance in Communities of Practice”,
33. 胡幼慧(1996),質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例, 台北:巨流
34. 游美惠 (2003), “身分認同與認同政治”, 性別平等教育季刊, 31期, 58-61
35. 林金定, 嚴嘉楓, 陳美花 (2005), 質性研究方法: 訪談模式與實施步驟分析, 身心障礙研究, 3(2), 122-136
36. 葉曉蒨 (2018), 臺灣經濟研究月刊, vol. 41 issue 9.
37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=40&v=B7tFfB5cIug&feature=emb_logo
38. https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/act/

校內：2024-12-21公開
校外：2024-12-21公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文