This is a paper I wrote for a class comparing Foucault's Discipline and Punish, and his essay on Security, Territory and Popluation in relation to StarCraft 2.

Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft 2 is, as the name suggests, the sequel to StarCraft, one of the most popular Real Time Strategy(RTS) games of all time and it represents an excellent model of Foucault's theories of Discipline, Surveillance and Security. In StarCraft 2, each player takes on the role of a general that is responsible for creating a base of operations, gathering resources and managing an economy, building an army, and using the army to destroy opposing players. The game is played from a "top down" view in which the player is aware of the entire geographical layout of the battle field, however, only areas where the player has a presence with their own or an ally's units (a "unit" being one of their soldiers, resource gatherers or base buildings) are visible to a player at any given time. This phenomenon, known as the "fog of war," obscures the entirety of the rest of the battlefield, limiting the information available to each player at any given moment. StarCraft 2 is an excellent example of Foucault's theories of Surveillance, Discipline and Security because the mechanics and the player's enjoyment of the game are based on the ability to successfully manage different levels of power and control. Foucault's theories are applied on each player through two different levels of power. The first level is the power that the game itself exerts on the player. The second level is the power that the players exert on other players.

StarCraft 2 is a very unforgiving game because victory is awarded to the player who makes the fewest mistakes and is able to manage the game in a particular way according to its own rules. These "metagame rules" exist in addition to the game's definitive rules and are called "macro" and "micro". Each player is responsible for creating a base of operations and managing an economy of resources which they will use to build their armies. This is called "macromanagement" or often shorthanded to "macro". Conversely, the control of the player's individual units and their respective abilities is called "micromanagement" or often shorthanded to "micro". A player's ability to successfully macro while simultaneously micro-ing all of their units will determine how successful they are and whether or not they will win the game. These metagame rules relate to Foucault's theories of discipline because the game is exerting a form of power on the player that is causing them to "self-discipline" their actions in order to more successfully micro/macro to win the game. This power exerted on the player is similar to how the institution of the military disciplines their soldiers so that they are more successful in battle. Similarly, the game teaches indirectly through the way that the game is played, that the more a player is able to micro and macro, the more successful that player will be at the game. In this sense, the game is disciplining the player's actions to produce a player who is more able to micro/macro or they will most likely lose a great deal and not derive any enjoyment out of the game.

The second level of power, the power that the players exert on other players, is heavily influenced by the fact that unlike traditional strategy games, like chess, there is the element of hidden information, where each player doesn't necessarily know exactly what each other player's move is or will be. This is where Foucault's models of surveillance and security come into play. The players exert power on each other by keeping their actions as secret as possible while simultaneously surveying the other players' actions. The player that knows more than the other players has a distinct advantage over them. The player that has the advantage of surveillance is able to modify their opponents behaviors and strategy by presenting them with false information regarding their own strategy and as a result, cause them to make poor decisions. However, this surveillance allows the surveying player to know what each opponent is doing, which enables them to create the "perfect" counter to whatever strategy their opponents are using. Thus, surveillance is a powerful tool that allows the player to dictate the actions of others, but it also works to dictate their actions and their own strategies as well.

This dictation of a player's action by what they may be doing is where Foucault's model of security also comes into play. Due to fog of war a player can't always see everything. Fog of war prevents one from always being able to see exactly what the other is doing, thus one must make inferences about one's opponent's actions based on the information that is available. One must weigh the costs of each particular action against the benefits to decide whether the action is validated based on the information that they have gleaned from their limited observation. This is very similar to Foucault's definition of security, in that one must assess the value of their every action against the whole of the cost of that action. An example of this is the fact that in Starcraft 2 certain strategies are more effective than others in countering particular strategies. If, due to your surveillance of your enemy's base of operations and other factors that one must assess, like the amount of time that has passed in the game without being attacked by one's opponent, you have reason to believe that they are building an army comprised primarily of aerial units (which cannot be attacked by certain units) you might consider changing your strategy to incorporate units that can counter aerial units into your army or you might run the risk of losing. However, you must weigh the cost of going out of your way to create those units versus whatever strategy you were using before. Thus, the perceived actions of your opponent exert a power on you which influences your own actions. This is a method of discipline as well as an assessment of security.

The question of whether the systems of observation and control more accurately represent the Panopticon, or the Labyrinth, is a difficult one because the Fog of War makes it contain elements of both. On the one hand, the Panopticon is evoked in the ability of the player to see everything within their unit's line of sight simultaneously and in the fact that at any given time, the opposing player doesn't know what one is able to see and must make inferences about that. This is same principle applies to the player as well. They too are unaware of where their opponent's attention lies and must make inferences about the status of their observation as well. Conversely, however, StarCraft 2 also has labyrinthine elements in it as well, because the Fog of War allows one to see the layout of the battlefield, but it doesn't allow one to truly see what awaits them outside of their unit's line of sight at any given moment. This is creates the element of mystery and uncertainty that allows the panopticon to be such an efficient disciplinary method and means of control. In a sense, one could argue that the labyrinthine elements of the game create the necessary parameters for a semi-panopticon method of control. It is only a semi-panoptic method of control because unlike the true panopticon, the game doesn't allow a single observer the ability to always be able to see exactly what each other player is doing in real-time, however a sense of always being monitored that is iconic of the panopticon exists.

If this game is so arduous and oppressive, why would anyone play it? I would argue that the enjoyment of the game is based on testing one's skills and tactical ability against opposing players of equal skill. It stems from the same type of enjoyment that people have experienced from playing any competitive strategy game, such as chess or risk. The ability to better a challenging opponent through shear skill has always been a integral part of each of these games. Foucault's theories of Discipline simply add a layer of depth in that they also provide the player with a means of exerting power over another player, which can often be a satisfying experience as well.

In essence, Foucault's models of discipline, surveillance and security are exemplified in the power the game exerts on the players and the power plays between each of the players within the game, making it an example of how labyrinthine and panopticon-esque methods of surveillance can become part of an enjoyable experience.