Game Studies

“They call it political to degrade what they disagree with.” How players understand the terms politics and political in videogame discourse

Abstract

Based in a qualitative interview study, this article investigates how game enthusiasts in Norway understand the political and what they associate with politics in the context of videogames, and to what degree players experience game culture and its associated discourse as political. Grounded in cultural studies research on the political relevance of popular culture, we use a broad understanding of politics and the political to grasp the respondents’ experiences of how game discourse and political topics intersect. Results show that the topics most often as associated with the political and politics among these respondents are connected to ideological struggle and resistance within game culture, with focus on identity politics and social issues.

Keywords: game culture, player studies, interview study, political, politics, politicization

Introduction

Based in a qualitative interview study, this article investigates how game enthusiasts in Norway understand the political and what they associate with politics in the context of videogames, and to what degree they experience game culture and its associated discourse as political. While there is some research on player experiences of political issues in games (Jørgensen & Sekanina, 2022; Bacovsky, 2021; Dalisay et al., 2021), little research explores whether and how players experience game culture and its corresponding discourse as political, or what players associate with politics in the context of game culture. Further, there is a gap in research on how players experience participating in a gaming discourse frequently ridden by political contestation. This article contributes to filling this research gap.

Game culture has a contentious relationship with politics (Ruch, 2021, p. 129). In response to a vocal part of game culture arguing for “keeping politics out of games,” certain game developers have declared themselves a-political, arguing that their games cannot be considered political because they do not seek to actively communicate a particular message in support of a contemporary political viewpoint (Ruch, 2021, p. 134). While such an argument rests on a narrow understanding of politics as associated with political ideology, party politics or government affairs, it misses the point that the unease expressed by some game enthusiasts concerns broader sociopolitical issues including questions of and contestations over values, identity and validation in game culture.

This article employs a broad understanding of the terms politics and political to capture the respondents’ experiences of how game discourse and political topics intersect. We observe that although politics is often associated with a narrow understanding covering party politics, political processes or policies, it is also understood a shorthand for identity politics, while the term political is used either to signal that which concerns the above notions of politics or to signal opposition and contestation in game culture. We also observe that the perceived contestation in game culture also negatively impacts the respondents’ participation in game culture.

Grounded in cultural studies research on the political relevance of popular culture, we understand game culture as a subcultural sphere with its own meanings, social norms and practices, at the same time as it intersects with the main culture in multitudes of ways (Shaw, 2010). We also acknowledge that game culture is not homogenous but intersects with different social groups and other related subcultures (Pitroso, 2025). Related to this study, it is important to point out the glocal nature of this culture, involving an interplay of globalizing and localizing tendencies (Robertson, 1995). While this study is carried out with respondents in Norway who actively engage in local game communities, we cannot ignore that they are also participating in online discourses involving a global, English-language, digital culture (Waechter, 2021).

This study builds on the experiences and observations of individuals who are themselves game enthusiasts and who themselves associate with game culture, while not necessarily identifying themselves as “gamers” (Shaw, 2012). When we address game culture discourse in the context of this article, we talk about the arenas that these game enthusiasts use to gather insight, discuss and deliberate about games and game culture. These people’s experiences with communities offline and online provide insights into how they make sense of participating in a discourse where local and global sensibilities meet.

Background

The terms politics and political often occur in game studies but are rarely defined. Ruch identifies a narrow and broad use of politics and what counts as political in game studies. When a narrow understanding is used, the terms are typically associated with political ideologies, party politics, political processes, or government affairs (Ruch, 2021). Examples are research on games that address specific political topics, such as research on games content that deals with a specific political situation (Pfister & Tschiggerl, 2020), the use of games in political campaigns (Bogost, 2006; Šisler, 2005), to promote civic and political engagement (Dalisay et al., 2021; Foxman & Forelle, 2014; Glas et al., 2019), and the design of critical and activist games (Flanagan, 2009; McGonigal, 2011). Research also explores the potential for videogames to represent democratic political systems (Pfister, Winnerling & Zimmermann, 2020). However, more often in game studies, the term political is used in a broader context addressing socio-political issues relating to the values and power dynamics associated with the social aspects of game culture (Bacovsky, 2021; Chew, 2022). This research addresses the implicit values such as systemic ideologies embedded in games and game culture (Paul, 2018); global inequalities and postcolonial perspectives (Harrer, 2018; Mukherjee, 2017; Murray, 2018); and issues relating to racism and sexism in games and game culture (Janz & Martis, 2003; Jenson & de Castell, 2013; Gray & Leonard, 2018), including the ideological foundations of Gamergate (Braithwaite, 2016; Chess & Shaw, 2015; 2016; Dowling, Goetz & Lathrop, 2020; Evans & Janish, 2015; Mortensen, 2016). For a review of research on how games are used to convey current political discourse, see Soto de la Cruz et al. (2025).

Parallel to other research on the impact of the online digital sphere on political processes, research on the political relevance of games tends to fall into opposing categories: an optimist view that games has the potential to radically change the public discourse and political participation; or a pessimist view that games and its associated online culture is destructive for political and democratic participation (O’Sullivan, 2016, pp. 119-120; Pfister, Winnerling & Zimmermann, 2020). Among optimist perspectives, critical game design and the games for change movement propose that designing games with a social purpose can contribute to a positive change in the world (e.g., Flanagan, 2009; McGonigal, 2011). Also, research on the use of games to promote civic and political engagement (Dalisay et al., 2021; Foxman & Forelle, 2014; Glas et al., 2019) and the use of games and game discourse for activism and resistance (Evans & Janish, 2015; Ruberg & Phillips, 2018) are parts of an optimist perspective. On the opposite side is research on the potential negative impact that games can have on political processes. With the 2014 Gamergate event in mind, in which feminist activists and scholars were subjects to an online harassment campaign by self-declared gamers under guise of a struggle for ethics in game journalism (e.g., Ferguson & Glasgow, 2021; Mortensen, 2016), much research since then has held a pessimist perspective on the political potential of games, focusing on the use of games and game culture as vehicles for reactionary political movements (Bjørkelo, 2020; Braithwaite, 2016; Condis, 2019; Chess & Shaw, 2015; 2016; Dowling, Goetz & Lathrop, 2020). Balanced perspectives are also present. For example, the influential theory of procedural rhetorics presupposes that while game mechanics indeed carry values, they can be used for positive as well as negative impact (Bogost, 2007). In their editorial to their special issue on the potential for videogames to represent democratic political systems, Pfister and colleagues argue that although games have the potential for simulating democratic processes, they can also be manipulated for undemocratic purposes (Pfister, Winnerling & Zimmermann, 2020, pp. 21-23).

Theoretical foundation

According to Harold Laswell’s classical definition, politics is “who gets what, when, how” (1936). Politics thus concerns a contestation or struggle between people or groups, over interests, values, resources or power (e.g., Mitchell, 1985; Rom, Hidaka & Walker, 2022, p. 17). In political science, narrow definitions restrict politics to formal process associated with the power and government of a state, and the activities organizations and individuals take to influence how a state is governed (e.g., Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino, 2011, pp. li-lv). However, many scholars in and beyond political science have pointed out that what we understand as politics cannot be restricted to formal political processes and institutions, but that it also concerns broader social relationships and areas of human activity, including issues of identity, ethnicity, gender and class (McAuley, 2003, p. 4). From this perspective, Chantal Mouffe specifies that the political necessarily involves the contestation and tension inherent in social relations (1993; 2005). This understanding acknowledges that political is not simply a modifier that describes that which concerns politics, but that the political involves rivalization and antagonization between groups of different values and interests. In democratic theory, this antagonistic line of thought is associated with model of politics as contestation, which often is contrasted with so-called deliberative models (Habermas, 1994) in which “the thoughtful discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue” is central (Moe, 2023, p. 114) and where exchange of opinion is itself a valuable part of the process. In analyzing how the respondents view their options for participating in gaming discourse, we are attentive towards these contrasting notions of political exchange.

From this angle, we take as our theoretical starting point perspectives from cultural studies focusing on the political relevance of popular culture (Bourgonjon & Soetaert, 2013; Nærland, 2015), and the cultural turn in public sphere and citizenship research, which stresses that citizenship must be understood beyond formal terms and in relation to “meaning, practices, communication and identities” (Dahlgren, 2013; p. 267). This research builds on theoretization of culture and politics following the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, arguing for a democratization of the concept of culture and for highlighting its political relevance (Hall, 1986; Turner, 2003, pp. 63-64; Williams, 1989). This perspective puts emphasis on the relevance of popular culture not simply in political discussion but in identity formation, community building and engagement and how such processes relate to citizenship and civic participation (Bourgonjon & Soetaert, 2013). Important to this understanding is an acknowledgment that political engagement may not always be rational, that it may go beyond formal political processes and that we must recognize the “everyday practices of the political” (Glas et al., 2019, p. 14). This highlights the need to redirect attention towards “the social worlds that people feel they belong to and have an interest in, obligations to and relevant competencies to participate in as citizens” (Moe, 2023, p. 115).

While previous models of citizenship have focused on the rights or duties involved in civic participation, an emerging model of citizenship focuses on the role of self-expression, intrinsic motivation and emotional engagement in sustaining communities and peer networks (Glas et al., 2019, p. 15). In this line of thought, the public connection perspective focuses on the individual’s development of a political consciousness and identity through non-instrumental forms of political engagement. It acknowledges that an individual’s “readiness for different kinds of engagement” may vary, ranging from active involvement in political processes or informal community groups, to cognitive processes such as emotionally processing or mentally working to understand an issue (Moe, 2023, p. 112). A public connection perspective acknowledges that attention to issues of shared concern span beyond the political and into entertainment and non-media arenas (Moe, 2023, p. 113). Thus, such engagement may involve the sharing of views on social, civic and political matters with peers. While public connection may be a preparation for potentially engaging in instrumental politics, it is also important to acknowledge the intrinsic value of expressive politics; that voicing one’s own opinions is in itself worthwhile, has a role in building collective identities and can encourage mobilizing around specific issues (Dahlgren, 2018, p. 14). Reinforced through participatory culture practices, part of this may also include joking and practices such as meme-sharing (Glas et al., 2019, p. 14), as well as engagement with fan culture (Jenkins, 2016; Jenkins & Shrestova, 2016).

Media scholar Torgeir Uberg Nærland uses a public connection perspective (2019) to argue for the political relevance of popular culture. He argues that music has a political instrumental role in being ethically and ideologically charged, and for facilitating public opinion through the formation of identity and solidarity by way of establishing shared concepts and values and through stimulating and feeding into debates about political issues (Nærland, 2015, p. 31). Nærland identifies six ways in which popular music may have political implications: It may be intertwined with the social and political order and overarching power structures; it may offer a site for ideological struggle and resistance; it may aid identity construction at both individual and collective level; be associated with political or social movements; or be the object of political actions, regulations and policy (Nærland, 2015, pp. 11-18). Last, Nærland adds, music may have a function within the public sphere, such as laying the ground for public participation and engagement (Nærland, 2015, pp. 19-21). The videogame is a form of popular culture with similar functions to popular music in facilitating identity and value formation through their expressive and representative aspects (De Grove et al., 2015; Shaw, 2012; Yim et al., 2023). Following Nærland’s later research that shows how fictional entertainment can be an effective vector for public connection (2019), we apply his arguments to videogames.

Method and data

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with eight women and eight men between the age of 22-47, all who gave their informed consent to participate in the study. Fourteen lived in (sub)urban areas around the two largest cities in Norway, while two lived in rural areas. All are experienced videogame players. The respondents were recruited through posters in gaming clubs and stores, and through social media channels relating to the same venues. Snowball sampling was also used. The study was designed by Jørgensen, and interviews were carried out and transcribed by Campbell. The study was approved by the national authority for research data, SIKT.

An interview guide was developed focusing on the respondents’ own understandings of politics and what is political in connection to videogames and gaming discourse. To capture the players’ subjective experiences and interpretations, we employed an exploratory, experience-centric approach in which the respondents were invited to put meaning into the terms and share their experiences with how the terms are used in gaming discourse. The interviews were conducted following Phenomenological Interpretative Analysis (IPA) (Smith et al., 2009), an approach developed in qualitative psychology and closely related to the phenomenological approach in ethnography. IPA is developed to particularly deal with people’s experiences of major life events and focuses on allowing respondents to share their experiences using their own articulations. IPA has also been adapted to research on subjective experiences that may be difficult to study otherwise, such as how videogame players make sense of games (Ahm, 2021; Moran, 2023).

The interview guide consisted of introductory questions regarding the respondents’ gameplay habits, preferences and experience. This was followed by questions concerning what topics create debate in game culture, to what degree are these experienced as political, and whether the respondent would participate in such discussions themselves. Respondents were also asked to explain how they understood the word politics in such contexts. This structure allowed us to introduce the term political and politics only in the last half of the interview as follow up of topics the respondents themselves had raised. Last in the interview, the respondents were asked to comment on two statements: That games should only be entertainment and not serious, and that games include too much political correctness.

We wanted to include these statements because they are often encountered in gaming discourse (Ruch, 2021; Pfister, 2018; Ungerová, 2024), but also because of the ability of statements to tease out oppositional viewpoints. Due to their biased nature, however, they were located towards the end of the interview to not affect the interview as a whole.

All respondents are presented in Table 1, which outlines demographic information such as age, gender and professional status, and information about their personal gaming experience, preferences and social profile. Each respondent is presented with a persona, which offers a pseudonym and an indication of what kind of game engagement motivates each individual. Relevant to the study is the national context. Norway is a historically homogenous society, today characterized by a strong welfare state, a strong democratic tradition and a high degree of trust (Syvertsen et al., 2014, pp. 5-6, 49). This context may have influenced the respondents’ understanding of politics and the political as concerning debate and deliberation more than distrust and antagonism, although their experiences with game culture may have countered this. It is not unlikely that their national background also increased the respondents’ willingness to talk openly in the study. While this qualitative, low-sample study carried out in a homogenous society does not pretend to be statistically representative, it offers in-depth insight into the subjective experiences of individuals who find games to be a significant aspect of their lives. A limitation to the study is however that the participants may have signed up for the study based on a pre-existing interest in games and politics, and they may for this reason be more reflective of this relationship than other game enthusiasts.

Table 1: Respondent profiles, including demographic information such as age, gender, professional status and information about their personal gaming experience, preferences, social profile and interview date.

Results and analysis: What is “politics” in game culture discourse?

We have taken an experience-centric perspective focusing on the respondents' articulations and carried out a thematic analysis and further distilled the data into more specific categories to grasp the qualitative essence of this study. We analyzed the data through three levels of coding. First, we coded the data according to the themes in the interview guide, adding keywords as a guide to understanding further nuances in the material. We then used Nærland’s categorization of the political significance of popular music (2015) as sensitizing concepts (Bowen, 2006) to contextualize and guide our second coding of data and wrote a descriptive analysis. This initial analysis was then used as a point of departure for the third and final coding of the data, which allowed for an inductive perspective sensitive to the nuances of how the respondents themselves framed the idea of politics in game contexts. This led us to the categorization in Table 2. The table gives an overview of how many and who of the respondents addressed the different coded topics, including subcategories.

Table 2: Categorization of responses. The total number of the subcategories added together is larger than the main categories because many of the respondents address more than one topic.

While ten of the respondents find discussions in game discourse to be political to a degree or increasingly so, there are different views of what and how. While there is no absolute consistency in the interpretation of the term politics as opposed to the word political, we see some tendencies. Most of the respondents do not explain how they use the term politics and political themselves; instead, they interpret how others use the term. Eight of the sixteen respondents explicitly associate the word politics with a narrow understanding that concerns government politics, international politics, political actions and activism, party politics or ideology. Among them, three also associate the word with government policy and regulation -- which reflects the fact that in the Norwegian language, the word for politics (politikk) also covers the English word “policy.” An interesting exception from the narrow understanding of politics that it is often experienced used as shorthand for identity politics.

In comparison, the word political seems to be understood in broader terms. In certain cases, it is used as an adjective or adverb to indicate that which concerns politics or policy in a narrow sense: for example when talking about a “political discussion” on game regulation in public discourse. The term is also used to indicate that games often may be about “political topics,” sometimes understood narrowly as featuring specific historical or fictional political situations between rivaling nations or factions. More commonly, however, the word political is used in a way that covers the broader understanding of politics that goes beyond government affairs and policy, and which is associated with socio-political issues including contestation around issues of diversity and power. As such, it may also be used as a descriptor, for example to indicate that a conversation or a game is “politically loaded,” or that a game is “politically correct.”

Seven of the respondents explicitly problematize the boundary between broad and narrow understandings. The Reviewer finds it difficult to distinguish between a narrow and broad perspective on politics in game culture discourse because these tend to merge:

When I think about politics, then it’s about a game trying to tell me about capitalism or communism. I don’t necessarily see social problems as political…. To me, social problems are not political. But I notice that… once something social enters a game, it suddenly turns political.

He acknowledges that a narrow understanding is insufficient for understanding how politics is treated the context of games, and points to an interesting dynamic in which social issues become treated as political when discussed within a game context. In other words, what he observes is the politicization of game culture. “Politicization” here refers to a process in which certain matters become the concern of political attention or public contention and debate (Calhoun, 2002, p. 369). As the discussion will show, there is a tendency to associate certain issues as political when they concern a struggle over power and values, and when there is contestation over who holds the power and whether there is external pressure for game culture to change.

Politics as regulation and policy actions

The word politics is for many respondents explicitly connected to a narrow understanding that encompasses government affairs and the exercise of political power by authorities and other agents. Following Nærland’s research on the political function of music, this category concerns perspectives in which videogames become “the object for regulation, policy, and censorship… by authorities…, interest groups, and… the commercial market itself” (2015, p. 18). Eight respondents use the word politics in this sense.

When asked how they understand the word “politics” in gaming contexts, the Pragmatist finds it “difficult not to think about party politics” and associates it with ideology, while The Weary specifies that politics is “regulation and stuff,” indicating an instrumental understanding focusing on policy measures executed through official bodies of the state. Six individuals talked about game regulation and how it is being discussed in public discourse outside of games, including topics such as children’s screentime and risks, violence, the regulation of so-called “lootboxes” and policies against harassment. Three respondents address national policies concerning game development, including the need for regulation that tackles lootboxes and harassment in online spaces.

A recurring theme is how game companies integrate internal policies. Topics here include actions taken by companies as part of the professionalization of the industry including discrimination and new demands for inclusivity and accessibility. While The Mature Player and The Community Builder state that there has been a “me too moment” in which problematic gendered practices in the game industry have been confronted, opinions vary between whether certain companies have been able to take successful measures in that regard.

Although the word politics is explicitly associated with these topics, respondents also use the word political as a modifier to indicate that which concerns national politics and government policy. For example, The Allrounder talks about the game “Call of Duty (Infinity Ward, 2003) is about war, and war is inherently a very political topic,” and The Industry Professional mentions “political actions directed towards the game industry.”

Identity politics

According to the respondents, there is a tendency within game culture to associate issues relating to gender, identity, inclusion and diversity; topics which are often connected to representation, equality and power with politics and the political. Four respondents associate the word politics with character representation and diversity in game content, while ten favor the words political in the same context. Six respondents identify diverse content and character representation as the most contentious topics in game culture. The Fan finds that when games are accused of having a “political agenda,” this is a criticism of games for featuring equal opportunities and rights.

Such topics are often collectively referred to as identity politics: political thought and action concerning the injustice of social groups (Heyes, 2020) and sociopolitical issues spanning multiculturalism, postcolonialism and civil rights (Bernstein, 2005). Although inclusion and diversity may also concern formal politics, identity politics represents a broad understanding of “politics” because it also goes beyond formal organs and becomes matters of concern for groups and individuals outside of any political role or organization.

Two respondents use the phrase identity politics explicitly when presenting these discussions. The Allrounder connects it directly to politics: “When politics is used in game forums, like in ‘now you made the game political,’ then what they really say is that the game developers are attentive towards modern identity politics.” In his following explanation, the respondent includes topics relating to gender and diversity. The Community Builder adds that “one thing I’ve discussed with others is identity politics; that games are perceived as more political if the characters in the game are not white men.”

While eleven respondents explicitly state that they find that diversity and inclusive representation are important values in games, there remaining five sympathize with the criticism that game developers sometimes pay more attention towards representation than game quality. According to the Mature Player:

I tried a new strategy game not long ago…. You start with [three] autogenerated characters. The way it is modeled is that your changes are equal that each of these persons are male, female, or nonbinary. And when my three randomly generated persons ended up as two nonbinary and one man, I thought this was too stupid and asked for a refund on Steam, thinking, “you know, this is not my thing.”

Seven of the respondents associate this discussion with the question about where to draw the line between so-called “forced diversity” (The Allrounder) -- the phenomenon where diverse characters are integrated in a way that some players find breaks with the flavor of the game -- and what is understood as a more integrated approach to inclusion. While certain respondents believe that game developers may be under pressure from a high-demanding “woke” player base to include diverse content, others point out that whether diverse content feels forced or not concerns the finesse with which game designers have been able to integrate said content.

Reflecting on balancing political content in games, The Industry Professional distinguishes between two ways in which games may include political content:

Then there are games that feature politics directly, like the Democracy series (Positech Games 2005-2022)…. Then there is this [situation] that certain games have a political agenda that promote certain viewpoints, certain opinions, or which are pushing these quite aggressively. And an example is Call of Duty 5. (Italics added by the authors)

While the respondent talks favorably about the first category in which fictional politics is part of the gameplay, he finds the second category where the narrative or gameplay includes a form of political argumentation problematic because he finds that few developers are able to construct this into a balanced argument. In the words of The Mature Player:

If you make a game where I can tell after playing exactly what political or other convictions they have, then they haven’t been able to balance it.… They should somehow argue for and against their own viewpoint. It needs to somehow show both sides of the situation.

Opposition and resistance

In our data we also observe that politics and the political are not simply associated with the public sphere of formal politics, and specific topics relating to diversity and representation, but are also used rhetorically to signal opposition against trends in game culture. Apart from one respondent who only uses politics in this rhetorical context, all seven who observe an oppositional rhetoric associated with these terms use “politics” and “political” interchangeably when elaborating on this topic; observing that the words tend to be used as a slur in online debates to signal antagonism and as a strategy to discredit certain games or opinions. According to The Community Builder, “people use the word political when they disagree with something,” and The Fan states that people “say it’s political to degrade what they don’t agree with.” The associations that the respondent have with the word political are thus in line with Mouffe’s understanding of the political as involving antagonization and the tension between groups (1993; 2005).

While often used as a descriptor associated with different understandings of politics, the term political is also used in established phrases that the respondents also associate with oppositional language. The phrase political agenda, for example, is often used to accuse a game or game developer for having a bias. According to The Closed Community Player:

In Battlefield 5 (DICE 2018)… they had a huge controversy with females… in the German armed forces, which strays from realism because, you know, I'm not against women, it's just that there weren't any women in the German army and it kind of makes Battlefield seem too woke or… forcing that as political agenda. I think it's a badly executed political agenda because I think women did have a part in the World War Two. It's just that they [the game developer] forced it too much by adding them as Germans; they could have added them as resistance fighters… where there were women, but yeah, I would say that's just an attempt to get woke points.

He is here using the contested term woke (The Allrounder, The Safety-Oriented Social Player, The Gaming Advocate) that indicates an awareness towards social injustice and is also frequently used as a slur towards people attentive towards such issues (Gray & Leonard, 2018), thus indicating that the political agenda in question concerns identity politics. Other respondents also recognize this use of the term but go further: the Fan finds that the idea of an agenda in this context is “really conspiracy theory like.”

The term political correctness is also identified as part of the same rhetoric, although for some the claim that there could be “too much political correctness” is a strange one (The Allrounder, The Safety-Oriented Social Player). While political correctness has background in Marxist discourse where it is understood as the establishment of norms for speech that consider the experiences of marginalized people (Moller 2006), the respondent’s understanding resonates with contemporary public discourse where often used derogatorily in conservative criticism and suggests an over-aggressive form of policing political opinion (Johnson, 2012). This usage of the terms can also be traced among game enthusiasts critical of games with a particular attention towards diversity and inclusivity (Thomkinson, 2022).

Politics as a contestation about the social order of games

While the respondents find that politics and the political are used to signal opposition against certain trends in game culture, this rhetoric is associated with a sense that game culture is contested (Maloney et al., 2019). In other words: within these discussions are concerns about the social order and power structures within game culture (Nærland, 2015, p. 11) relating to who game culture is for and who it represents, and the internal mechanisms of policing this boundary. Thirteen respondents identify a high level of contestation in game culture and find that the terms politics and political signal this contestation. Within these discussions, the words politics and political feature interchangeably.

While four respondents observe a certain conflict level associated with game-specific topics (including difficulty level and modding), nine respondents associate conflict and contestation in game culture with gender, identity and inclusion; areas that we have seen are closely associated with the terms politics and political. The Self-Preserver calls discussions over diversity and representation in gaming discourse “a storm” (The Self-Preserver), and games with a diverse cast reportedly “aggregate a lot of noise” (The Mature Player). According to The Reviewer, games that break with the long tradition of white male protagonists create the most heated debates, or as he states: “To call it a debate is too kind.”

Many of the respondents stated that they find the discussion climate in game culture inhospitable, and that strong emotions form the backbone of the opinions fronted in discussions. Some of the respondents experience the level of contestation in terms of harassment. The Fan finds that opposition is often expressed with anger and toxicity, which is backed up by The Pragmatist’s view, who indicates that what often starts as a discussion can escalate into harassment. Three of the respondents (The Fan, The Reviewer, The Self-Preserver) observe that contestation, not deliberation, is the purpose for many people’s expressions. According to The Self-Preserver, “they are not really interesting in creating a discussion, but simply want to make a point, then leave.”

The Mature Player argues that there is a “universal unculture” of hard language dominated by “young boys who… lack social skills and the ability to express frustration in a constructive way,” and who lash out at “any marginalized group regardless of whether it’s young gaming girls or gays,” although The Fan and The Safety-Oriented Social Player experience this reaction as clearly gendered. Some of the men also support this view (The Closed Community Player, The Community Builder). While some respondents associate the tough discussion climate with the contemporary “cultural war” between progressive and conservative voices in North American and European discourse (The Feminist) and associated movements such as Gamergate (The Reviewer, The Community Builder), the respondents also associate the tough environment with a tendency of boundary keeping within game culture. Such arguments are not only gender-oriented, but are also directed towards other marginalized groups, including people with reduced functionality, for example, through the game controller design (The Allrounder). These mechanisms indicate the existence of structures of power and hierarchy established through norms and socialization within game culture (Boudreau, 2018; Drenten et al., 2023; Ruotsalainen & Meriläinen, 2023).

Participating in the game culture discourse

The data presented so far shows that there is a high degree of contestation in game culture over topics relating to diversity and representation; topics that the respondents find are often associated with politics or the political in gaming discourse. A question that thus remains is how the respondents assess game culture discourse as a place for deliberation and debate.

Eight respondents share their interest in participating in discussions about games and game culture. While The Reviewer likes to discuss all aspects of games and claims that no topic is off the table, others have reservations about participation in game discourse. Three of the women state that they tend to avoid online play due to bad experiences with gendered harassment. According to The Self-Preserver, “the main reason why I don’t play online multiplayer is how girls are received in such places.” The Safety-Oriented Social Player has the same experience, and shares how she believes harassment and exclusionary mechanisms contribute to women’s reluctance to make themselves visible in gaming discourses. Further, The Fan states that this is also the reason why she refrains from streaming. While all respondents state that they avoid discussing with certain crowds or about certain topics, five of them share that they only discuss with selected people. The Feminist only discusses with friends or people who share her values and explains that the harsh environment is a reason why she does not engage in wider online game communities. The Safety-Oriented Social Player calls it a “survival strategy” to avoid contested arenas and uses a gender-neutral pseudonym when playing and discussing online. While this appears to be a gendered issue, men also find that discussing online means risking receiving abuse and harassment (The Community Builder, The Mature Player, The Weary).

However, this seems to be a characteristic of online discussions, and typically a feature of international forums and communities. Several respondents suggested that physical gaming communities do not share this same trait (The Pragmatist, The Reviewer, The Self-Preserver). Two of the respondents experience a more civil conversation style in Scandinavian and Norwegian online communities (The Safety-Oriented Player, The Pragmatist), indicating the preference for a debate style focusing on deliberation rather than contestation.

Discussion: Politics, participation, and politicization in game culture discourse

Although there is a clear awareness of different conceptualizations of politics and the political among the respondents, there is a tendency to associate politics with a narrow understanding in line with government politics, political action and policies. Politics is also associated with identity politics, used as a shorthand and thus encompassing a broad understanding that includes social issues and struggles under the politics moniker. In the context of gaming discourses, this is typically connected to inclusive representation in game content. In comparison, while political often is used to indicate that which relates to the above understandings of politics, it is also used in compound expressions such as politically correct or political agenda. The respondents’ association of these words with a discourse of opposition or contestation links the use of the word to Mouffe’s understanding of the political as inherently antagonistic.

However, while there is relative agreement among the respondents about this framing, there is less agreement in how this understanding is valued. Many of the respondents discuss the inclusion and balance of inclusive content and in what situations it is assessed as “political,” and while they agree that political content is acceptable if it is well integrated with the narrative and gameplay, they do not agree on where to draw this line. Given that gender and diversity have been central areas of contestation within game culture (e.g., Butt & Apperley, 2018; Condis, 2018; Cote, 2017; Drenten et al., 2023; Maloney et al., 2019; Mortensen, 2016; Thomkinson, 2022), this cannot simply be explained as a matter of different tastes and opinions, but concerns much deeper issues of inclusion and exclusion connected to identity and the values of game culture. Instead, we need to look at the level of contestation and how it is expressed in the data. Several of the respondents find the conflict level high and see anger and toxicity as rhetoric used to police the boundaries of the subculture (Boudreau, 2018).

Importantly, politics and political are linked not only to topics over which there is contestation in game culture, but also to the contestation itself. Simply stating that something is political or associated with politics is a signal that this topic is contested and saying the words means indicating which side of the conversation one is positioning oneself. We may ask if this is an example of language weaponization, understood in critical discourse studies as “the process in which words, discourse, and language in any form have been used/are being used to inflict harm on others” (Herrera & Bryan, 2022, p. 6). This understanding is attentive towards how minorities and their cultures “are affected by ideologies and practices that normalize inequity and injustice in their environments” (Herrera & Bryan, 2022, p. 6). Since the oppositional language surrounding the terms politics and political is directed towards inclusion and diversity in game culture, this is not an unreasonable interpretation. However, we must also recognize that those who use these terms to express themselves in oppositional ways may do so because they experience such conversations as more than a simple exchange of opinions, but rather as a means of protecting what they value in game culture (Heron et al., 2014). For these enthusiasts, the language must be understood as a sign of resistance against what they experience to be oppressive forces. While such experiences can never be a justification of harassment, it puts into perspective reasons why there is an interest in using oppositional language for boundary keeping purposes.

More importantly, this policing creates barriers that hinder people from participating actively in deliberations about game culture. This is a problem that restricts game culture and in particular the discourses surrounding game culture from gaining a truly democratic potential (Pfister et al., 2020). The public connection perspective allows us to acknowledge that all forms of engagement in issues of shared concern have a potential political value. In light of this analysis, this means that we must recognize both the oppositional expressive style of engagement and the pacified style of those who stay silent as political participation. However, with awareness of the deliberative model of political participation, we also want to stress that a change from an oppositional to a deliberative mode of expression within gaming discourses certainly would benefit those who find their access restricted and would potentially make gaming discourse a more civilized and inclusive space.

Last, we return to the discussion of politicization briefly visited previously (Calhoun, 2002). Several of the respondents identify a tendency that topics that are not originally understood as political are given political meaning or become topics of political discussions. The politicization process may express itself in different ways. In the case of identity politics, we see that the politicization can be understood either as a situation in which social issues become politically relevant because they deal with unequal power relations and invisible mechanics of maintaining them, or as a situation in which politics are being shoehorned into contexts in which they do not belong. When politicians use games to make a political point, we may interpret this as a situation in which a non-political matter is made politically relevant.

Conclusions

This article has discussed data from a qualitative interview study of what game enthusiasts associate with the terms politics and political in game culture. While the terms are understood as closely interconnected in the gaming discourse, politics tends to be associated with a narrow understanding in line with formal politics, government actions and policies but is also used as a shorthand for identity politics. While often used as a descriptor of that which concerns politics, political is also associated explicitly with opposition and contestation in game culture. It is important to point out that a few participants observe a process of politicization within game culture; in other words, that topics important in game culture are being made into political concerns either internally within game culture discourse, or beyond.

Although we cannot generalize from a qualitative study carried out in one national context, the study has broader relevance. It provides insight into how game enthusiasts negotiate between local and global concerns and values when participating in a discourse that includes both online and offline spheres. Further, the fact that online, international gaming discourses are not experienced as spaces for deliberation over values and opinions but are contested spaces where opinions are showcased and used for gatekeeping, is interesting in a culturally comparative perspective. While this contrast may have eluded respondents in contestation-oriented discourses, it may be more evident in a Northern-European context where deliberation is a normative mode of discussion. We believe that this insight may have impact on how we understand other contentious discourses with a diverse audience.

This article sheds light not only on how the terms “politics” and “political” are understood in gaming discourse, but also on what the climate of this discourse does with gaming as public connection. We have observed that there is a high degree of contestation that limits the interest and ability to participate as actively as one would want. Although contestation seems to be a characteristic of the current gaming discourse, we must also recognize that alternative futures may be possible for gaming discourse.

While a public connection perspective is valuable for offering a framework that acknowledges that participation and expression in gaming discourse may prepare for social and political participation in other spheres, this perspective comes with the risk of making rhetorics of contestation and deliberation equals.

Early in the article, we distinguished between dystopian and utopian views on the political relevance of games. Although the study leans towards a negative view of game culture focusing on deep conflict lines where boundary keeping mechanisms discourage people from participation and expressing their views, we also believe that the study provides small sparks of optimism. The acknowledgment that game culture is an everyday arena in which game enthusiasts may develop their political interests and engage politically is an important one and gives rise to the idea that there may be something akin to a ludic public sphere in the future. Although game culture certainly needs to deal with harassment and toxic environments before the deliberative ludic public sphere can emerge, it is worth noticing that contestation itself is not a problem for securing a healthy deliberative process (Dahlberg, 2007).

Acknowledgments

The authors received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: this work was supported by a research grant from The Norwegian Media Authority. The authors would like to thank the study respondents for their interest and willingness in participating in the study.

References

Ahm, K. (2021). “(Re)playing (with) video game history: moving beyond retrogaming.” Games and Culture, 16(6), 660-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412020955084

Bacovsky, P. (2021). New Game Plus. The Effects of Videogames on Sociopolitical Attitudes and Behavior. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado]. ProQuest One Academic

Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., Morlino, L. (eds). (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Vol 1. Sage

Bjørkelo, K. (2020). Elves are Jews with Pointy Ears and Gay Magic. Game Studies, 20 (3). http://gamestudies.org/2003/articles/bjorkelo

Bogost, I. (2006). Playing Politics: Video Games for Politics, Activism, and Advocacy. First Monday, special issue #7. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1617

Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games. MIT Press

Boudreau, K. (2018). Beyond fun: transgressive gameplay, toxic, and problematic player behavior as boundary keeping. In Jørgensen, K., Karlsen, F. (Eds.), Transgression in games and play (pp. 257-271). MIT Press

Bourgonjon, J., & Soetaert, R. (2013). Video Games and Citizenship. CLCWeb: comparative literature and culture: a WWWeb journal, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2245

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500304

Braithwaite, A. (2016). It’s About Ethics in Games Journalism? Gamergaters and Geek Masculinity. Social Media+Society, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672484

Bryan, K., & Herrera, L. (2022). An introduction to the weaponizing of language in the classroom and beyond. In Herrera, L. & Bryan, K. (Eds.), The Weaponizing of Language in the Classroom and Beyond (pp. 1-11). De Gruyter

Butt, M., & Apperley, T. (2018). “‘Shut up and Play’: Vivian James and the Presence of Women in Gaming Cultures.” Decolonising the Digital: Technology As Cultural Practice, 1, 39-47. http://ojs.decolonising.digital/index.php/decolonising_digital/article/view/ShutUpAndPlay

Calhoun, C. (2002). “Politicization.” In Calhoun, C. (Ed.). Dictionary of Social Sciences. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001/acref-9780195123715-e-1286

Chew, M. (2022). The Significance and Complexities of Anti-Corporate Gamer Activism: Struggles Against the Exploitation and Control of Game-Worlds in 2000s China. Games and Culture, 17(4), 487-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120211042259

Condis, M. (2018). Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture. University of Iowa Press.

Condis, M. (2019). Hateful Games: Why White Supremacist Recruiters Target Gamers and How to Stop Them. In Reyman, J., Sparby, E. (Eds.), Digital Ethics. Rhetorics and Responsibility in Online Aggression. Routledge, pp. 143-159. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/41372

Cote, A. (2017). “I Can Defend Myself”: Women’s Strategies for Coping With Harassment While Gaming Online. Games and Culture, 12(2), 136-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015587603

Chess, S., & Shaw, A. (2015). A conspiracy of fishes, or, how we learned to stop worrying about #GamerGate and embrace hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 59(1), 208-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.999917

Chess, S., & Shaw, A. (2016). We Are All Fishes Now: DiGRA, Feminism, and GamerGate. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 2(2), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v2i2.39

Dalisay, F., Kusin, M., Kim, J., Forbes, A., David, C., & Somera, L. (2021). Motivations for Game Play and Political Decision-Making: Evidence from Four Countries. Game Studies, 21(3). https://gamestudies.org/2103/articles/dalisay_kushin_kim_forbes_david_somera

Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827-847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081228

Dahlgren, P. (2018). Public Sphere Participation Online: The Ambiguities of Affect. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2052-2070. https://ijoc.org./index.php/ijoc/article/view/6786/2347

De Grove, F., Courtois, C., & Van Looy, J. (2015). How to be a gamer! Exploring personal and social indicators of gamer identity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(3), 346-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12114

DICE. (2018). Battlefield 5. [Microsoft Windows]. Digital game designed by Daniel Berlin, Ross Darvill, Eric Holmes, Fia Tjernberg, Alan Kertz, and Colin Clarke, published by Electronic Arts.

Dowling, D., Goetz, C., & Lathrop, D. (2020). One Year of #GamerGate: The Shared Twitter Link as Emblem of Masculinist Gamer Identity. Games and Culture, 15(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019864857

Drenten, J., Harrison, R., & Pendarvis, N. (2023). More Gamer, Less Girl: Gendered Boundaries, Tokenism, and the Cultural Persistence of Masculine Dominance. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac046

Evans, S., & Janish, E. (2015). #INeedDiverseGames: How the Queer Backlash to GamerGate Enables Nonbinary Coalition. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 2(2), 125-150. https://doi.org/10.14321/qed.2.2.0125

Ferguson, C., & Glasgow, B. (2021). Who are GamerGate? A descriptive study of individuals involved in the GamerGate controversy. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(2), 243-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000280

Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play. Radical Game Design. MIT Press

Foxman, M., & Forelle, M. (2014). Electing to Play: MTV’s Fantasy Election and Changes in Political Engagement Through Gameplay. Games and Culture, 9(6), 454-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412014549804

Glas, R., Lammes, S., Lange, M., Raessens, J., & Vries, I. (2019). The playful citizen: An introduction. In Glas, R., Lammes, S., Lange, M., Raessens, J., & Vries, I. (Eds.), The Playful Citizen: Civic Engagement in a Mediatized Culture, pp. 9-29. De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9789048535200-001/pdf

Gray, K. & Leonard, D. (Eds.), (2018). Woke Gaming: Digital Challenges to Oppression and Social Injustice. University of Washington Press.

Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x

Hall, S. (1986). Popular Culture and the State. In Bennett, T., Mercer, C., &

Woollacott, J. (Eds.), Popular Culture and Social Relations, pp. 22-49.

Open University Press

Harrer, S. (2018). Casual Empire: Video Games as Neocolonial Praxis. Open Library of Humanities, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.210

Heron, M., Belford, P., & Goker, A. (2014). Sexism in the Circuitry: Female Participation in Male-Dominated Popular Computer Culture. SIGCAS Computer and Society, 44(4), 18-29. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2695582

Infinity Ward. (2003). Call of Duty. [Microsoft Windows]. Digital game designed by Zied Rieke published by Activision.

Janz, J., & Martis, R. (2003). The Representation of Gender and Ethnicity in Digital Interactive Games. In Proceedings of the 2003 DiGRA International Conference. https://dl.digra.org/index.php/dl/article/view/45

Jenson, J., & de Castell, S. (2013). Tipping Points: Marginality, Misogyny and Videogames. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(2), 72-85. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/474

Jenkins, H. (2016). Youth Voice, Media, and Political Engagement. Introducing the Core Concepts. In Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., Kligler-Vilenchik, N. & Zimmerman, A. (Eds.), By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism (pp. 1-60). New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., & Shrestova, S. (2016). “It’s Called Giving A Shit!” What Counts as Politics. In Jenkins H., Shresthova S., Gamber-Thompson L., Kligler-Vilench N., & Zimmerman A. (Eds.), By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism (pp. 253-289). New York University Press.

Johnson, E. (2012). Political Correctness. In Chadwick, R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Ed.) (pp. 496-504). Science Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00287-8

Jørgensen, K., & Sekanina, I. (2022). From Political Economy to Identity Politics: A Forum Study of Political Discussions between Players. Gamevironments, (17), 42-42. https://doi.org/10.48783/gameviron.v17i17.182

Laswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Whittlesey House

Maloney, M., Roberts, S., & Graham, T. (2019). Gender, Masculinity and Video Games. Analysing Reddit’s r/gaming Community. Palgrave McMillan

McAuley, J. W. (2003). An Introduction to Politics, State and Society. Sage.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken. Random House

Mitchell, W. C. (1985). Politics as the Allocation of Values: A Critique. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 71 (2), 79-89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2379509

Moe H. (2023). Operationalizing distribution as a key concept for public sphere theory. A call for ethnographic sensibility of different social worlds. Communication Theory, 33(2-3), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad008

Moller, D. (2006). Dilemmas of Political Correctness. Journal of Practical Ethics, 4(1), 1-22. https://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/dilemmas-of-political-correctness/

Moran, J. (2023). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Hero's Journeys in Zelda: Opportunities & Issues for Games Studies. Game Studies, 23(2). https://gamestudies.org/2302/articles/moran

Mortensen, T. E. (2018). Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of #GamerGate. Games and Culture, 13(8), 787-806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016640408

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Routledge.

Mouffe, C. (1993). The Return to the Political. Verso.

Mukherjee, S. (2017). Videogames and Postcolonialism: Empire Plays Back. Palgrave Macmillan.

Murray, S. (2018). The Work of Postcolonial Game Studies in the Play of Culture. Open Library of Humanities, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.285

Nærland, T. U. (2019). From Pleasure to Politics: Five functions of watching TV-series for public connection. European Journal of Communication, 35(2), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119894481

Nærland, T. U. (2015). Music and the Public Sphere. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen]. UiB Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/1956/9402

O’Sullivan, L. (2016). Games and the digital transformation of the public sphere. In Karatzogianni, A., Nguyen, D., & Serafinelli, E. (Eds.), The Digital Transformation of the Public Sphere (pp. 107-126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50456-2_6mega

Paul, C. (2018). The Toxic Meritocracy of Videogames. Why Gaming Culture is the Worst. University of Minnesota Press.

Pfister, E. (2018). Keep your politics out of my games! Spiel-Kultur-Wissenschaft, 8 February. https://spielkult.hypotheses.org/1566

Pfister, E., Tschiggerl, M. (2020). “The Führer’s facial hair and name can also be reinstated in the virtual world.” Taboos, Authenticity and the Second World War in digital games. GAME, 9, 51-70. https://www.gamejournal.it/the-fuhrers-facial-hair/

Pfister, E., Winnerling, T., & Zimmermann, F. (2020). Democracy Dies Playfully. Three Questions -- Introductory Thoughts on the Papers Assembled and Beyond. Gamevironments, 13, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.26092/elib/400

Pitroso, G. (2025). Beyond Subcultures: A Literature review of Gaming Communities and Sociological Analysis. New Media & Society, 27(11), 6359-6375. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241252392

Positech Games. (2005-2022). Democracy. [Microsoft Windows]. Digital game series designed by Cliff Harris, published by Positech Games.

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In Featherstone, M., Lasch, S., & Robertson, R. (Eds.), Global Modernities. Sage. (pp. 25-42).

Rom, M. C., Hidaka, M., & Walker, R. B. (2022). Introduction to Political Science. OpenStax and Rice University.

Ruberg, B., & Philips, A. (2018). Not Gay as in Happy: Queer Resistance and Video Games. Game Studies, 18(3). http://gamestudies.org/1803/articles/phillips_ruberg

Ruch, A. (2021). Signifying nothing: the hyperreal politics of ‘apolitical’ games. Communication Research and Practice, 7(2), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2021.1902167

Ruotsalainen, M., & Meriläinen, M. (2023). “Young video game players’ self-identified toxic gaming behaviour: An interview study.” Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture, 14(1), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.7557/23.7270

Shaw, A. (2010). What Is Video Game Culture? Cultural Studies and Game Studies. Games and Culture, 5(4), 403-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009360414

Shaw, A. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New Media & Society, 14(1), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410394

Šisler, V. (2005). Videogames and Politics. EnterMultimediale 2. International Festival of Art and New Technologies. CIANT

Soto de la Cruz, J., Gómez, C., & Lacasa, P. (2025). Contemporary Political Discourse in Digital Games: A Systematic Approach. Media and Communication 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.8689

Syvertsen, T., Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J., & Moe, H. (2014). The Media Welfare State. Nordi Media in the Digital Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Thomkinson, S. (2022). “She's Built Like a Tank”: Player Reaction to Abby Anderson in The Last of Us: Part II. Games & Culture, 18(5), 684-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120221123210

Turner, G. (2003). British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Third Edition. Routledge.

Ungerova, M. (2024). “Digital Games Industry, Politcal Correctness, And Artificial Intelligence.” In Hossová, M. P., Solík, M., & Martovič, M. (Eds.), Marketing Identity

Human Vs. Artificial. Conference Proceedings from the International Scientific Conference. Trnava: University of Ss. Cyril and Methodiu in Trnava.

https://doi.org/10.34135/mmidentity-2024-86

Waechter, N. (2021). “Glocalized” Digital Youth Cultures. In Knapp, G. & Krall, H. (Eds.), Youth Cultures in a Globalized World. Springer. (pp. 227-243)

Williams, R. (1989). Culture is ordinary [1958]. In Williams, R. Resources of hope: Culture, democracy, socialism (pp. 3-18). Verso.

Yim, B., Lepp, A., Dowdell, B., & Barkley, J. (2023). The Gamer Identity Scale: A Measure of Self Concept as Video Gamers. Computers in Human Behavior, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107476