Interesting article about MMOGs (specifically WoW) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zeraph · 03-01-2006, 07:45 PM

If you don't like the format here be sure to go to the link at the bottom. I personally think its easier to read from there.

Quote:

Soapbox: World of Warcraft Teaches the Wrong Things

Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft has over 5 million subscribers worldwide, as of this writing. It's the most successful massively multiplayer game on Earth right now. This well-crafted game has put other games in its genre to shame. Blizzard is a great company, and I might even end up there some day, though this article probably rules out that possibility.
Before we get to World of Warcraft though, let's pause to learn from Raph Koster. Raph is no stranger to MMOs, as he was the design force behind Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies. He wrote an excellent book called A Theory of Fun that you all should read. I tend to put "fun" in quotes, because it's a pretty nebulous thing that I don't know how to define. Fun is like pornography; I know it when I see it. Raph was brave enough to attempt an explanation of "fun."

Fun is learning in a safe-environment.

Those few words have a lot of implications. Games are mini-worlds where we can try out all sorts of ideas and possibilities, and see what works and what doesn't. Games let us fail with little penalty and then let us try again. Games teach us how to time our jumps, how to aim, how to solve puzzles, and how to manage resources. They teach us strategy: when to attack, and when to avoid a fight. It would be great if they taught a wider range of lessons, but as Raph says, that's up to us game designers to make it happen.

Reflecting on Raph's ideas, I was initially very happy because it explained a lot of things. First, a lot of parents complain about what impact games have on children, but those parents are generally only seeing the trivial surface of the game, rather than what the game is REALLY teaching. Chess appears to be vaguely about war (it has knights and castles and kings), but it's really a game of controlling space, of reading the opponent's mind, of trickery and tactics and so on. Grand Theft Auto appears to be about shooting cops and hookers, but it's actually a game of exploration and freedom. There is value to exploring a virtual world that lets you do things you can't do in the real world. Don't be fooled by the gangster facade.

Even more to Raph's point, I reflected on what Street Fighter taught me: an awful lot. Where to even begin? For starters, there's tactics and strategy. When should you attack and when shouldn't you? You have to understand the critical points in a match, the situations that blow the game wide open. If you are winning, you need to avoid these situations, if you're losing you need to create them. Street Fighter taught me about yomi: knowing the mind of the opponent. You can't just play the odds and do the textbook-correct responses, you have to adapt and anticipate your opponent's moves. The game is merely a medium through which you play against the other player. Some players develop skills in planning, while others develop their skills at improvisation and adapting to any situation they are thrown into. I learned first hand that when all seems lost, if you push, push, push and never give up, it's still possible to win.

And yet all that is only a tiny fraction of the lessons I've learned. Street Fighter is a one-on-one game, so you must rely on yourself to win. You can't mill around while your friends do the work for you. Self-reliance and continuous self-improvement is the only successful road. And yet, I also learned that no man is an island. Our tournament structure has always been open to all comers, so that an undiscovered talent from Idaho who trained secretly in his basement can show up to our biggest tournament and win it all, if he has the skill. No need to qualify or be level 60 in an RPG or any of that. And yet, this mythical person never ever materialized in my 15 years of playing the game. The only way to become good is to play against others who are good. It takes a village to make a champion. You can't turn your back on the whole world because you NEED the community to improve. You must learn and train with them. It's pretty hard to do that without making some friends along the way, too.

Another very important lesson was that winning at Street Fighter is a meritocracy. Your race doesn't matter. Your religion doesn't matter. The only thing that matters in a tournament is your ability to win. The community looks up to those who can win, regardless of ethnicity. There is no substitute for growing up in an environment that cares about results, rather than race. Nothing a teacher or parent could ever say measures up to that life experience about race-relations.

There are also a lot of things us Street Fighter players take for granted. They are truths so self-evident, that we never talk about them because it never even occurs to us that these aren't givens. Here's a few examples:

* A fair game does not give material advantages to one player over the other
* A fair game gives each player equal opportunity to bring whatever legal materials he wants (in our case, you can choose any character you want, no need to grind him to level 60. All players have immediate equal access to all characters.)
* It's ok (and the entire point!) to bring to the game a) more knowledge than your opponent about the nuances of the game, and b) more skill than your opponent.
* Time invested should count for nothing in a fair game. It might take me 1 hour to learn a few nuances and gain a certain level of skill and you 1000 hours. The hours don't matter; only the knowledge and skill matter.
* I'll say it again: winning is a meritocracy.
* Finally, playing a fair game is what it's all about. It would never occur to us to play a game where one player gets to do 50% more damage because he has a level 60 Chun Li.

Raph's theory is really holding up for me. Street Fighter was so fun for me because there so many things to learn. Looking back, these are life lessons that I couldn't do without. From the strategy of the workplace to reading the mind of others, to a sense of fairness, I am rich with reward from my gaming background.

But lately, Raph's words have really started to scare me. I started to think "What is World of Warcraft teaching all these kids?" I've played the game since the "Friends and Family" alpha test two years ago, and I've read the forums ever since. I have a very good idea what the game is teaching, and it's downright frightening. Unlike the uniformed parents who are afraid that GTA is going to ruin our youth, I'm not afraid of the silly facade of World of Warcraft: I'm afraid of what's it's really all about, deep down! That's a much more powerful and influencing thing than the mere surface (Street Fighter isn't about cartoon fighting, that's just a surface, too).

So let's put the cards on the table. Here is what World of Warcraft teaches:

1. Investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual skill. If you invest more time than someone else, you "deserve" rewards. People who invest less time "do not deserve" rewards. This is an absurd lesson that has no connection to anything I do in the real world. The user interface artist we have at work can create 10 times more value than an artist of average skill, even if the lesser artist works way, way more hours. The same is true of our star programmer. The very idea that time > skill is alien.

2. Time > skill is so fundamentally bad, that I'm still going to go on about it even though I started a new number. The "honor system" in World of Warcraft is a disaster that needs to be exposed for health and safety reasons, if nothing else. This system allows players to work their way through the ranks, starting at rank 0 and maxing out at rank 14. Winning in pvp gives you honor points, and at the end of each week, your performance is compared to that of other players, and you gain or lose ranks. Now, losing also gives you points, but not as many. The system overwhelming rewards time spent playing, rather than skill.

What is the health and safety danger I spoke of? You might think that if you waltz into this honor system, and perform better (which in this case mainly means you played longer) than everyone else on your entire server, that you would become rank 14. Not by a long shot. Your gains are capped each week, so it will take months and months to gain rank 14. Once you get up to rank 10, you are now competing against people who play the game 10 hours per day and up. There is no limit to how much a person can play, so players are driven to play every waking moment (forget having a job or social life) for fear that if they don't, some OTHER player will do so and be ahead in rank.

The idea that time > skill has gone from a merely fundamentally bad idea, to being actually dangerous, addicting people to the point of fatigue and death. No wonder China's new laws about MMOs are addressing this problem. MMO games must only award players full experience points for the first three hours of each day, half experience for the next two hours, and no experience after five hours. (Logging off for at least 5 hours will reset the system.)

3. Group > Solo. You can forget self-reliance, because you won't get far in World of Warcraft without a big guild. By design, playing alone (even if you are the best player in the world) will get you worse loot than if you always play in 5-man dungeons. If you always play in 5-man dungeons, you'll always get worse loot than if you play in 40-man raids. The player base has been hit over the head for so long with this notion of 40-man raids, that players are taking that as given. I see so many people who have been fooled into thinking this is justified, that it actually scares me. They think that you shouldn't be allowed to get good loot unless you do something with 39 other people, because that's harder. Coordinating 40 people is hard, but so is winning a Street Fighter tournament, which you have to do by yourself. Some personality types want to do things with 39 other people, but my personality type certainly doesn't. I have to wonder why the 40 person raids have good loot at all. To me, doing something yourself is far more valuable, and a much more interesting test than getting 40 people to coordinate fairly mundane tasks.

Unfortunately, the game offers no difficult solo content leading to good loot. (Note to picky readers: there is some, but it's soooo far out of whack with raid rewards that we can safely ignore it, the same way Blizzard does.) The designers must be so extraverted, that they can't fathom the introvert point of view.

4. Group > Solo. I'm not done with this yet. As an introvert, I'm pretty outraged that this game is marginalizing my entire personality type. The developers repeatedly confirm that 40-man raids deserve the most powerful items. Many of the players are brainwashed by this poor assumption, often saying "It's an MMO, of course you have to group with 40 other people do accomplish anything." Ironically, World of Warcraft was originally founded on exactly the opposite idea. The game started off by saying that EverQuest had that philosophy, and that Warcraft will not. So much for that.

Here's an obvious point that is taken for granted by posters on http://terranova.blogs.com/, but completely lost on about half the World of Warcraft forums: playing by yourself in MMO is perfectly valid thing to do. You are part of the player-driven economy. You see a living world around you with people doing their business, laughing together, and arguing. You can group with people when you like, or not if you don't feel like it. It's an experience wholly different than a single-player game, and no serious person could think otherwise. The best way to put it is that it captures the concept of "being alone together" with other people. Going to a movie by yourself so you share the experience with the others in the audience. Going to a study hall where other people are studying, rather than staying in your room alone. There is a very big demand for the ability to "be alone together" in a shared social environment that allows grouping and social interaction, but does not force it by making almost all end-game content in the form of 40-man raids.

Warcraft—maybe accidentally—hit upon this concept, and now seems spit on it and all those who appreciate it. If a Blizzard developer read this, his PR department would say they are not spitting on this play-style, but unfortunately the game design speaks louder than words. "Spit on" is exactly how I feel. But far worse is the idea that millions of children are learning that doing things on your own is bad. Albert Einstein accomplished far more in the field of physics by himself during off-time as a patent clerk than a 40-man raid of so-so physicists ever would. I want little Johnny in Idaho to learn that lesson, but he sure won't find it in World of Warcraft. 40 mundane people with a lot of time would put Albert Einstein to shame any day of the week in this game.

5) Guilds. The tools for creating and maintaining a guild in World of Wacraft seem benevolent enough. After all, they encourage cooperation. Unfortunately, they create a social situation totally alien to me in the real world: a constant "us vs them" mentality. In the real world, I am part of many different communities, and I have varying levels of influence and seniority in each. I'm fairly prominent with Street Fighter players, and have a lot of influence in how national tournaments are run. I'm known by about 0.01% of Magic: the Gathering players, but I do put my toe into their pond a fair amount. Meanwhile, in Warcraft, I live in a world of "guild-only events." You're either with a guild, or you're nobody to them. I can't imagine being in only one IRC (chat) channel at a time, or choosing only one gaming community, yet I can only join one guild at a time. It's a very weird social environment with the same dangers as nationalism and flag-waving.

6) The Terms of Service. The very idea of using the terms of service as the de facto way to enforce a certain player-behavior goes against everything I've learned. A game should be a system of rules that allow the player to explore. If the player finds loopholes, then the game developer should fix them. It's never, ever the player's fault: it's the game developer's fault. People who currently make deals with enemy faction (Horde or Alliance ) to trade wins in battleground games are not really at fault. They are playing in a system that forces anyone who wants to be rank 14 to do exactly that. A line in the Terms of Service saying that you shouldn't behave this way changes nothing, and teaches nothing.

Or consider the humorous example of Lord Kazzak. He is an "outdoor raid boss." That means he's a big monster that wanders round the world, and you need 40 people to kill him. You don't get to go into your own instanced dungeon to fight your own personal copy of this guy; there is one wandering around the server and you all compete to kill him so you can get his good loot. When Lord Kazzak was added to the game, Blizzard also added a list of Terms of Service rules that would make your head spin. None of these rules were hard-coded; they were all "squishy" rules added on top of the actual game rules. And now for your reading enjoyment, the Lord Kazzak Official Rules of Engagement (I did not make these up; they are real!):

This policy is an extension of the current in-game harassment policies.

PvE Ruleset.

When a group of players has engaged Lord Kazzak, any other players interfering in the encounter may be given a warning, regardless of faction, as in the examples below:

A group of Alliance characters has legitimately engaged Lord Kazzak and a Horde character engages Lord Kazzak as well (Horde player receives a warning).

A group of Horde characters has legitimately engaged Lord Kazzak and a Horde character engages Lord Kazzak as well (the second Horde player receives a warning).

PvP Ruleset.

When a group of players has engaged Lord Kazzak, any same-faction players interfering in the encounter may be given a warning as in the examples below.

All other possibilities to join the battle are allowed.

A group of Alliance characters has legitimately engaged Lord Kazzak and Alliance character engages Lord Kazzak as well to disrupt this raid without any PvP solution for the Alliance group (the second Alliance player receives warning).

Here's some more things that will get you banned:

“Playing too much," using a rogue/warlock combo to lure bosses too far from their spawn points, fighting on rooftops, entering unfinished areas (why are they accessible at all?), buying gold or items on eBay (eventually the courts will probably overrule them on this), collaborating with the other faction in battlegrounds, "using terrain exploits to your advantage," player-created casinos (that merely use the in-game "/random" command), player-created bingo games, profanity (even though there is an in-game language filter, to say nothing of free speech), posting on forums about whether a guild is full of Blizzard employees, posting on the forums about why you were banned for posting about something seemingly constructive, advertising a gay and lesbian friendly guild that's a safe haven from the endless use of the words “gay” and “fag” in the general chat channels, having a name such as "JustKidding," "CmdrTaco," "TheAthiest," or "roflcopter"... and a whole lot more things, too.

These examples go on and on, but the basic idea here is that Blizzard treats the players like little children who need a babysitter. There are mountains of rules in the terms of service that tell you that you shouldn't do things that you totally can do in the game if you want. Why they don't just alter their design and code so you can't do these things is beyond me. But this mentality is drilled into the players to the point that they start believing that it's ok. They start believing that it's not ok to experiment, to try out anything the game allows in a non-threatening environment. Well—that's a dangerous thing. That's the point at which the game stops being "fun" by Raph Koster's definition, and it's also the point at which the game can no longer teach. The power of games is that they empower a player to try all the possibilities that he can think of that the game rules allow, not that they have pages of "rules of conduct" that prevent you from creative thinking.

But we all know that World of Warcraft hasn't really stopped teaching. Although it's ability to teach is highly impaired by the entire "Terms of Service" approach, it's still teaching literally millions of children that time spent is more important than ability and that group activities are strictly superior to personal improvements and self-reliance.

This problem is so troubling, that I feel a personal need to take action. The only thing I can think to do, though, is to design an MMO that teaches the right things. Look for that on store shelves in 2012 or so. For my next trick, I will write a proper Terms of Service for an MMO. Stay tuned.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...irlin_01.shtml

An interesting point about growth. I've played WoW for awhile, and while it's still fun (not as much as it used to be though) I'm not learning anything new. I've always thought that I've learned a lot from playing games while growing up, or at least as much as I might learn playing games like chess (which I play too anyway) and after reading this article it kind of confirms that suspicion of mine.

I like his point of many people only looking at the surface of things, like seeing GTA as only about killings cops and hookers.

Zeraph · 03-01-2006, 07:53 PM

He makes a good point of the developers using the terms of service as soft rules for enforcing play in their way only. Its one of those things that limits creativity and experimentation. Not something we want to encourage. And sure, we can see these things for what they are now, but what about 5-10 years from now when the next generation comes up? what if all MMOGs start following WoWs insanely popular (not an altogether unlikely possibility) way and this becomes the norm? I fear and pity that society (or sub section of society).

PS And I realize the article may sound a little melodramatic but every serious problem starts as something not so serious seeming.

Zeraph · 03-01-2006, 08:10 PM

Found another article that's related, this one written by Raph.
http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/24...mmorpgs-today/

Quote:

Lone heroes can’t slay dragons. It takes an army.

People are only good at one thing.

That’s why it takes six people (all doing different jobs) to kill most anything.

You never, ever, ever change jobs. If you want to, you probably need to die.

You can be the best in the world at your job.

But so can everyone else.

And you will all do it exactly the same way.

Intelligent beings who have civilizations and languages of their own are generally evil and should be slain.

Many, if not all, wild creatures are highly aggressive and will attack on sight.

Evil is not redeemable; good is not a choice. Your morals are innate.

Killing is the only real way to gain people’s admiration.

Well, you can make stuff too, but you won’t earn the same kind of admiration.

In fact, there are only two kinds of admiration in the world, and they can be quantified.

Having a hobby will probably reduce your admiration.

All that hoorah about endangered species is like, a total exaggeration. There’s plenty of everything.

You not only can’t go home again, you probably don’t have one.

If you do, it’s mostly to store stuff, not to live in.

You never have people over.

Telepathy is normal.

Staring at someone who is talking the politest thing you can do. Because the only other option is to not look at them at all.

Running past or away from people while you are talking to them is also polite.

If you don’t keep up with the Joneses, you will never see them again. In fact, if you don’t keep up with your friends, you will never see them again either.

There are no children.

Death doesn’t really sting. Nerf, however, is incredibly painful.

There is always a demand for couriers and assassins.

Moving frequently is normal, and never going back to your old stomping grounds again is the way of things.

There are no such things as social progress or technological advancement.

In fact, evil will always be lurking at the edge of the village.

On the other hand, it will never invade.

There are no governments. Thus there are no laws. Instead, there are laws of physics.

There are gods, and they are capricious, and have way way more than ten commandments. Nobody knows how many because everyone clicked past them.

Sports are stupid, because everyone’s body is the same.

Charity is not a virtue; in fact, it’s frequently physically impossible.

You should not associate with those of lower social standing than yourself.

You can’t be in two places at once. But places can be in two places at once.

Parallel universes are obvious.

Walking is stupid.

Actually, in general, taking your time is counterproductive.

The most important thing in the world is slaying something that will be back the next day… before anyone else gets to slay it.

You should probably have entrance and résumé requirements to join your circle of friends.

Hunting is the noblest profession.

I take that back; hunting is only noble until you’re good enough to switch to murder.

Robbing the dead of indigenous cultures is how you make money.

There is no such thing as obesity.

All women are beautiful and all men are either handsome or darkly mysterious.

Somehow, this means that nobody is beautiful and there is no mystery.

There is no need for bras.

People have sex a lot.

People never touch.

Nobody reads.

They’ve never heard a brand new song.

In fact, inventing is either forbidden or impossible. Sometimes both.

Most people don’t have families.

If they do, they probably don’t have mothers and fathers, only brothers and sisters.

Nobody’s really from here, they just live here.

The tide never washes in and out.

The birds never migrate.

Strawberries are never in season.

Night’s really short.

Nothing sleeps.

Nothing dreams.

There is art and beauty in the world, but you can’t be responsible for any of it.

There is no death; there is simply a failure to show up.

Because of this, there is also rarely any mourning.

I realize this list may seem like a cutesy joke. But it isn’t. Go back, and re-read it. It’s actually a lament.

"There are gods, and they are capricious, and have way way more than ten commandments. Nobody knows how many because everyone clicked past them."

Zeraph · 03-01-2006, 08:29 PM

Heh, i just keep finding more and more interesting points. Some of the comments from Raphs list are good. Here are a couple.

Quote:

A few certain themes come forward in these laments:

A) Everything is quantifiable (how else would a computer deal with this information?).

B) Nothing player created, including their avatar, is truly unique, or, for that matter, player created.

C) There is no real change, therefore there is no real choice or influence.

That is, these are the key themes so far as that which exists as and integral part of the MMO’s system. Some of the laments address things that are more abstract, such as manners, altruism versus selfishness, and tolerance–ethics. These are what I worry about, because these are lessons that will carry over most strongly to the “real” universe.

Quote:

That’s the problem with ressurection. And it’s the reason why I never really understood why we should worship a certain carpenter. When you get a full exp res, your “sacrifice” means nothing. Hell, I’d be willing to sacrifice myself for the sake of mankind if I knew that I would be back three days later.

Quote:

There are few games that are actually well-written, e.g. The Longest Journey. Fact is that game developers have educated the gamers NOT to read by rarely putting anything into their games that is worth reading.

Game developement companies hire professional artists, programmers, content designers and musicians. They rarely hire professional writers. Most of the stuff you find in games would barely qualify as bad fan-fiction.

Briz9 · 03-01-2006, 09:36 PM

I feel this way about MMOs, but I could never have put it into words as nice as these.

Quote:

A) Everything is quantifiable (how else would a computer deal with this information?).

B) Nothing player created, including their avatar, is truly unique, or, for that matter, player created.

C) There is no real change, therefore there is no real choice or influence.

Those sum it up pretty well.

robbdn · 03-03-2006, 02:48 AM

Great thread... thanks for pulling all these things together in one spot. It clarified a lot of things I've always felt about MMOs, even though I thought some of Raph's laments were a bit of a stretch. Who knows, this may have inspired me to write my own rant. I'll let you know.

NoSoup · 03-03-2006, 10:01 AM

I don't know - the article quoted in the original post just seems... ridiculous. I understand how games may help improve coordination, strategic thinking, ect - but in my opinion learning those types of skills is vastly different than learning an outlook on life (Time invested > skill)

Although I don't think it as as prevalent in WoW as it is in many other MMO's, skill does certainly have an effect on gameplay or how well you do. Regardless, however - he is missing the point of MMOs. They are all designed to keep players playing as long as possible - they are build to be a time sink to keep us paying our monthly dues. Obviously, the more fun they are the more players they'll have, but it all comes down to how long those players are going to play. 40 man raids might be the only way to get end game content, but the reasoning has nothing to do with forcing a specific personality type on a player - 40 man raids take a while to get together, if you could do it yourself it probably wouldn't take as long.

Zeraph · 03-04-2006, 04:11 PM

I think he does get the point that its all about time sinks to keep you playing, hence time > skill in these games.

"but in my opinion learning those types of skills is vastly different than learning an outlook on life"

Perhaps certaintly, but you arn't young enough to have grown up on MMOGs are you? (not that I am either) Probably not since you have to be 18+ to post here. I think it is hard to say the kind of impact it may have. For most if not all of us here we have (obviously being older) a broader perspective when it comes to gaming and life, but kids don't. They learn and reason differently than we adults do. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that they may be learning very negective (to society and for themselves) outlooks and values on life. Or in the very least they are being reinforced if the child was not lucky enough to grow up learning good things.

Frosstbyte · 03-04-2006, 04:30 PM

Suffice to say that if your children are learning their life values by playing WoW they have worse problems than whatever values they do or don't get out of the game. Games like WoW aren't designed to teach life lessons. They're designed 1) to be fun and 2) to make the company who made them money. Blaming blizzard for teaching children bad lessons about how "real life" works is about the dumbest thing I can think of. Take your kid out and climb a mountain or read a book with him every night or help him with his homework. If someone isn't doing that and his child learns bad life lessons from WoW, there's no one to blame but the parent.

WoW is not a parent or a babysitter. TV is not a parent or a babysitter. Movies are not parents or babysitters. Books are not parents or babysitters. And they should not be blamed for the negligence of parents who choose to treat them as such.

Kostya · 03-05-2006, 12:52 AM

On the one hand, I am inclined to dismiss this man's article as the distillation of a lifetime defending the virtues of playing Street Fighter as a noble enterprise, not that I look down on SF Tournaments or anything, but it seems like he's developed quite a sophisticated rhetoric to justify himself.

On the other hand, I think it is quite true enough to say that games have both explicit and implicit lessons for those who play them.

That said, I think that someone could retort with just as good an argument for MMO's teaching valuable lessons. For instance, one might dismiss his whole 'meritocratic' ethos and individual achievement as simply claptrap, WoW is a bit like the real world. There are people who are above you, who are where they are for arbitrary reasons, often things like time spent. I can confidently assert that I will defeat most 4 year olds in an essay writing competition, simply because I have been abroad the earth for a much longer time. In 'real life' maybe it's an important lesson to learn that you're probably going to be shit on by people who aren't as good as you, maybe if you threw away vague Utopian ideals about meritocratic achievement and 'going solo' you might suffer less by falling into line. Perhaps WoW's 40 man raids are nothing more than a recognition of the power of numbers, be they in elections, street fights or on Capitol Hill.

Then again maybe not.

I for one long for the day someone liberates the MMORPG from the long venerated but ultimately ridiculous item/level/profession limitations and tries something a little different from the archetypes essentially set down in the very first RPG's.

Coppertop · 03-05-2006, 10:22 AM

Great article. It outlines many of the reasons I do not play MMORPGs. I may not have known exactly why I avoided them, but this article certainly brings light to some of my misgivings about the genre.

Any one else staggered by the economic dominance of this game? 5 million subscribers x $15/month = $900 million/year.

Wow, indeed.

Zeraph · 03-05-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

WoW is not a parent or a babysitter. TV is not a parent or a babysitter. Movies are not parents or babysitters. Books are not parents or babysitters. And they should not be blamed for the negligence of parents who choose to treat them as such.

Of course, but that doesn't stop them from being used as such by a lot of parents. The question is do you let them suffer, or help them?

Frosstbyte · 03-06-2006, 12:15 AM

Well, what you don't do is tell a video game developer to change how they're making their games because people can't be bothered to raise their kids properly. Blizzard's job isn't to raise children and it is patently unfair to place any expectation on them to raise children in any way, shape or form. For better or for worse, we as a society have decided not to hold parents very accountable for the way in which they raise their children. If there's no harmful abuse or negligence, you pretty much are free to do with your children as you please. It is a miserable hypocracy to expect a video game company to be responsible for bringing up kids with "decent" life lessons when we don't even hold parents to that standard. If I personally know kids who are being treated like that of course *I* would try to do something to help. I cannot, however, condone a societal requirement that the company be expected to change their business practices in order to conform to such a standard.

Do you really want any and all media to be made with the contingency that it teaches appropriate life lessons in the event that negligent parents choose to use it to raise their children? I sure don't.

Kostya · 03-06-2006, 02:34 AM

I have to agree with Fross here, it seems a gleefully unfair critique, and certainly one that we would never level against say Loony Tunes or Harry Potter.

Redjake · 03-06-2006, 03:15 PM

I laughed out loud multiple times when reading the OP quoted article. Wow, talk about reading too much into things. I can write that much about any sort of entertainment and draw similar parallels.

Zeraph · 03-06-2006, 04:06 PM

I accept your opinion Foss, and other's like it. I wouldn't expect, nor tell blizzard how they should run their game. I will however, try to make a difference myself, even if it is extremely small, by expressing my feelings with my money.

Kostya, I don't think we should judge fairness in this case, just because everything else is bad and one bad thing out of many is being critiqued does not make it any less bad.

Redjake, wouldn't reading into things be good? I understand the turn of phrase you used as it is a popular expression. But what the many believe does not make truth or virtue. Just because you can find many evil things in entertainment does not take away any less credence from the point at hand.

Zeraph · 03-06-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Do you really want any and all media to be made with the contingency that it teaches appropriate life lessons in the event that negligent parents choose to use it to raise their children? I sure don't.

Yes. I would love for that to happen. Why wouldn't you? Is less suffering such a bad thing?

Frosstbyte · 03-06-2006, 05:43 PM

Who gets to decide what is a worthwhile life lesson? How do we keep content that is purely for adults purely for adults? Do adults have the right to entertain themselves how they choose as long as they're not in violation of any laws? What do we do to negligent parents who allow their children to see or use questionable material? Do you need to always learn when you're entertained?

What you think is good or bad is not what everyone else thinks is good or bad or valuable. PARENTS have the responsibility to raise their children. TEACHERS have the responsibility to teach children. Video game companies have the responsibility to make video games. Sure less suffering is a good thing, I guess I just don't see how trying to force all media to "teach good lessons" all the time would help with that.

Kostya · 03-06-2006, 06:08 PM

Zeraph, I'm not judging fairness in that way. I'm not saying it's all bad, and they shouldn't pick on WoW, but rather that unless the stated aim of the game/show/book/movie in question is to teach children good life lessons, it ought not be used as a criterion for critiquing it.

Zeraph · 03-06-2006, 07:24 PM

Fross, yes of course those would be problems.

Valuing creativity and talent I think are universal good traits.

The rest your sort of putting words into my mouth, you only asked if I would like it that everything teach a good life lesson. I never even claimed that it would even be feasible.

Kostya, well there are different critiques for different contexts in that sense. But the author is not trying to critique it in the sense of entertainment or whatever. If you are critiquing in regards to over all value to society, then anything is fair game.

Kostya · 03-06-2006, 07:50 PM

Zeraph, the concept of 'overall good' is not an easy one to grapple with, and likewise we can critique anything on its behalf, it's merely that some critiques will not be particularly pertinent. One might level critiques against Dude Where's My Car on similar grounds, which might be true enough, but hardly surprising or a failure of the films since it never attempted to do that in that in the first place.

Certainly we can critique anything on the grounds that it fails at being a rabbit, it's just that leveling that accusation against horses isn't really something we'd bother to do.

Zeraph · 03-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Well I guess we differ in opinion. I think it is worthwhile to try and better society.

But seriously, the difference between WoW and "Dude where's my car?" should be obvious. Some people take these virtual worlds very seriously and spend hundreds of hours of their life playing them. And with 5 million subscribers that is a significant user base. I think that is a little more pertinent than a 2 hour movie you may watch a couple times at most.

Kostya · 03-06-2006, 10:49 PM

Well I must agree with you on that count, and we might rightly say that WoW probably has more reason to be critiqued on these grounds (although I've never played a game that's effected my life in the way some films have, but that's purely a personal matter) but I still wouldn't suggest that it's enough to completely indict it. We might say rather that if WoW claims to be teaching lessons to its users, then it is failing to teach very good lessons for the most part.

robbdn · 03-07-2006, 01:45 AM

First of all, supposedly WoW has six million subscribers now (soure: ludology.org). Second of all, I'm a little disappointed this thread has turned into an issue of media censorship, on the one hand we have people defending WoW and those who play it, and on the other we have we should change WoW for children's benefits...

I think the more relevant issue is how to make MMOGs better games for the people who play them. Supposedly WoW is the best MMOG ever made (I played it for all of 2 hours myself, so I might not be in a great position to criticize), but because of the quoted material I am convinced it could be better. The danger of MMOG is a stifling of creativity and experimentation in the realm of gaming, see the TOS examples, for example.

Anyhow, I've always wanted to play MMOGs, but the most I ever accomplished was level 20 in FFXI, and even that was the most excruciating not-fun experience I've ever had playing games. I take to heart the quoted materials complaints... why can't we play alone? Why can't we not specialize at one task? Why can't we do things differently from everybody else? Because if we don't our friends won't play with us...

That's the crappy thing about MMOs, and a crappy lesson to learn as well. For everybody content with doing things exactly the same way as everybody else, it works, but it doesn't work for me and countless others. And the fact remains that, even in the most hardcore MMO gamers, they will get bored eventually and move on. The problem is not that... this is a great thing... it's important to keep game companies innovating and pushing the envelope of play. The problem is that they tend to move on to the same product in a different superficial wrapper... MMOG is in dire need of a fundamental shake-up, in my opinion. It will probably not happen, however, until the masses start to get bored with WoW. I mean, I think the fans will agree, how could you possibly do the currently accepted format of MMOGs any better? It will take innovation and fundamental gameplay changes, and I look forward to it very much.

That's all.

Zeraph · 03-07-2006, 08:23 AM

Well let me sum up my feelings on the matter since I'm sure they look more skewed than they really are as I was arguing specific points and not my whole view.

So I believe we definitely need to get rid of these bad lessons, open the games up to creativitiy, (all the stuff that's been gone over) etc. I don't however, believe we should be trying to teach a set of life lessons in a specific sense, just the overall good things like encouraging skill and free choice (within the game.) As Fross has pointed out trying to do much beyond that and we get a Disney experience many may not enjoy or subscribe to. I don't believe we or the government should go kill blizzard for wanting to make money, I believe in educating people so that they may make their own valid decisions and vote with their money.

So no, robbdn, I don't want it changed for children's benefits, I want it changed for society's benefits.

And I don't think the best MMO ever made is WoW just because it got a lot of subscribers. Art is not dependent on how many people like it for it to be good. And yes, I know, one could argue the purpose of one is to make money and the other for its own sake. I have an opinion on why this isn't so for MMOs but its not important enough to go into here. Of course subjective, but my personal favorite is CoH/CoV.

Frosstbyte · 03-07-2006, 10:28 AM

Well, if the Matrix taught us anything, it's that computer systems are, by definition, built around a set of rules. The line of RPGs that follows the D&D mindset (specific classes get specific skillsets and you can only level up within those specific skillsets) are easier to work with in a computer system because they're much more rule-based. You can itemize with specific classes in mind. You can create encounters knowing that specific classes are going to be around.

Dunno if any of you ever played table-tops, but the Shadowrun system is a far more organic approach to the whole question of character creation and class. If they made an SR MMO it'd be too amazing for words, but it'd be amazingly complicated to put such a thing together, since about the only limit you'd have on character development is how much time people are willing to put into characters. It's an interesting thought, it's also much more difficult to design and effectively implement.

robbdn · 03-07-2006, 10:37 AM

First off, I apologize for oversimplifying your argument. I did it knowingly and intentionally, and I shouldn't have. I did it to make a point, but it was unfair to you and resulted in an overstatement of my point.

I'll just say this... I basically agree with most of what you've said, however, I think taking the approach of trying to "get rid of these bad lessons" and wanting it "changed for society's benefits" is the wrong one. It seems too close to censorship for me to be comfortable. What you've done... distribute knowledge, open debate and dialog, make compelling arguments... that's the best way to do it. I wrote what I wrote because I felt like that debate and dialog was getting sidetracked by a fruitless argument of shoulds and shouldn'ts, whether some people should be given the power over what sort of media the public should be allowed to engage with, about giving the power over what is good and bad for people to a select few, rather than talking about the failings of the game and how they could be improved. That's the relevant discussion, in my opinion. Of course, now that I've had my say, don't let me stop you.

robbdn · 03-07-2006, 10:43 AM

It's true that tabletops have rules, but every rulebook I've seen has a very strong statement that the rules are guidelines, and the players and GMs are ultimately in control. I've never played with a group that doesn't have houserules and modifications to fit the kind of game they want to play... that's the benefit of a system run by people, instead of computers, the system can be adjusted on-demand to meet the ever-evolving needs of the players... MMOs can't do that... nor do i expect them to, but it is a key difference. An MMO that could duplicate that, however... even just give more of it than what is currently offered... would be very compelling indeed.

Zeraph · 03-07-2006, 01:27 PM

That'd be cool Fross, is that anything like White Wolf's Mage: the Ascension? That seemed pretty open to me when I last looked at it 3 or 4 years ago, but I'm not that familiar with tabletops rpgs.

Robbdn, thanks, apology accepted and I understand where you're coming from. Actually, I'm really happy how this dialog turned out.

So do you think the power of censorship should be given to a select few? I take it not. I feel like it should, BUT I realize it never turns out well. Probably because the people who wield the power are not competent enough.

Think about it though, if we really can find the best of the best (part of the problem of course is that we need to find more objective means, so its probably not even possible for now) for decision making, what they will decide will be the best possible decision. It would also have the advantage of speed (no time needed for long votes and discussion) and a complete centration of knowledge of previous decisions and other relevant information (because it would only be one or a select few that would need to know, it wouldn't have to be spread out over the people that make up congress, the judicial branch, etc.).

For now anyways, I realize it is a dream that will not happen, but here's a hope for philosopher-kings of the future.

lindalove · 03-07-2006, 01:46 PM

Ooops. never mind.

Apokx · 03-07-2006, 01:55 PM

The article points out alot of reasons why I quit WoW.Looking back, I'd have to say the game was never really enjoyable.I just kept convincing myself I was having fun, when in fact, I wasn't.

I think many players remain because of that fact.They convince themselves that for whatever reason, all the shit they go through, or just ignore, is completely worth it.

The way that players in MMO's gain status in their respective worlds is very, very sad.

Frosstbyte · 03-07-2006, 02:24 PM

Threadjack-I don't see the point of official censorship as long as nothing illegal happened in the creation of the media, i.e. snuff porn is clearly out. The purpose of the government is to maintain order so we can all (say it in chorus with me) have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There will never be a government of man that will be able to have whatever degree of knowledge is required to screen what is "good" from what is "bad" so that everyone agrees on what that is and applies the rules fairly.

Don't tread on me, live free or die, those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security, etc., etc., etc.

Halx · 03-07-2006, 03:34 PM

Finding myself in declining favor with WoW, I have to say that this article is irresponsibly biased. In fact, it expects WAY too much out of a computer game and puts too much on the shoulders of something intended for entertainment value and marketability. Nobody ever said, "I'm going to create this game and with it, I shall spread my message of humanity's proper place. My game will be healthy and educational, as well it will teach people valuable lessons." No. What they did say is, "We're going to create a game that boys and girls alike will want to play, talk about, and spread. We're going to make a lot of money by engrossing our audience with a detailed, intricate storyline, great mechanics and graphics, and satisfying gameplay. We're going to make this game successful and we're going to make a lot of money."

And they did.

Redjake · 03-07-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeraph

Redjake, wouldn't reading into things be good? I understand the turn of phrase you used as it is a popular expression. But what the many believe does not make truth or virtue. Just because you can find many evil things in entertainment does not take away any less credence from the point at hand.

Understandable, but I still think this guy is going a little overboard. I see what you're saying about how all media may be applied to his scenario, but that's exactly my point. Why attack World of Warcraft? Seems like the classic "I'm an attention whore" scenario to me. This guy is reading in between the lines for something that isn't there. At least in my opinion!

Redjake · 03-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Finding myself in declining favor with WoW, I have to say that this article is irresponsibly biased. In fact, it expects WAY too much out of a computer game and puts too much on the shoulders of something intended for entertainment value and marketability. Nobody ever said, "I'm going to create this game and with it, I shall spread my message of humanity's proper place. My game will be healthy and educational, as well it will teach people valuable lessons." No. What they did say is, "We're going to create a game that boys and girls alike will want to play, talk about, and spread. We're going to make a lot of money by engrossing our audience with a detailed, intricate storyline, great mechanics and graphics, and satisfying gameplay. We're going to make this game successful and we're going to make a lot of money."

And they did.

Much better than I could have put it. That's what I'm trying to say. Thanks Hal. It's just a game, not a conspiracy theory on how to live your life or how society should be ran.

CyCo PL · 03-07-2006, 06:59 PM

Looks like a guy who should be playing Street Fighter instead of WoW to me. Some games aren't for everybody.

Zeraph · 03-07-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Threadjack-I don't see the point of official censorship as long as nothing illegal happened in the creation of the media, i.e. snuff porn is clearly out. The purpose of the government is to maintain order so we can all (say it in chorus with me) have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There will never be a government of man that will be able to have whatever degree of knowledge is required to screen what is "good" from what is "bad" so that everyone agrees on what that is and applies the rules fairly.

Don't tread on me, live free or die, those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security, etc., etc., etc.

I disagree, I think eventually we will have become advanced enough to have such a system. Just a matter of opinion though, it has no real relevance for today as to find out which of us is right will probably be past our lifetimes.

Zeraph · 03-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Finding myself in declining favor with WoW, I have to say that this article is irresponsibly biased. In fact, it expects WAY too much out of a computer game and puts too much on the shoulders of something intended for entertainment value and marketability. Nobody ever said, "I'm going to create this game and with it, I shall spread my message of humanity's proper place. My game will be healthy and educational, as well it will teach people valuable lessons." No. What they did say is, "We're going to create a game that boys and girls alike will want to play, talk about, and spread. We're going to make a lot of money by engrossing our audience with a detailed, intricate storyline, great mechanics and graphics, and satisfying gameplay. We're going to make this game successful and we're going to make a lot of money."

And they did.

I disagree on many points, they are simply subjective and we have a difference of opinion. The only thing one can affirm is that WoW was/is successful in a monetary sense only, that does not equate to great mechanics, satisfying gameplay, etc. I would especially argue against satisfying gameplay for raids and pvp. Intricate storyline? Not really, unless you mean there is simply a lot of it, but then theyve had years to write that crap. I'm sorry, but I've seen better storylines from non published writers (really, that is not hyperbole).

Also, how about we just settle for not rewarding negative behavior? No one is saying one can only make a game to save humanity, hardly.

03-01-2006, 07:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	He makes a good point of the developers using the terms of service as soft rules for enforcing play in their way only. Its one of those things that limits creativity and experimentation. Not something we want to encourage. And sure, we can see these things for what they are now, but what about 5-10 years from now when the next generation comes up? what if all MMOGs start following WoWs insanely popular (not an altogether unlikely possibility) way and this becomes the norm? I fear and pity that society (or sub section of society). PS And I realize the article may sound a little melodramatic but every serious problem starts as something not so serious seeming. Last edited by Zeraph; 03-01-2006 at 07:58 PM..

03-03-2006, 02:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
robbdn Crazy	Great thread... thanks for pulling all these things together in one spot. It clarified a lot of things I've always felt about MMOs, even though I thought some of Raph's laments were a bit of a stretch. Who knows, this may have inspired me to write my own rant. I'll let you know. __________________ I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

03-03-2006, 10:01 AM	#7 (permalink)
NoSoup Non-Rookie Location: Green Bay, WI	I don't know - the article quoted in the original post just seems... ridiculous. I understand how games may help improve coordination, strategic thinking, ect - but in my opinion learning those types of skills is vastly different than learning an outlook on life (Time invested > skill) Although I don't think it as as prevalent in WoW as it is in many other MMO's, skill does certainly have an effect on gameplay or how well you do. Regardless, however - he is missing the point of MMOs. They are all designed to keep players playing as long as possible - they are build to be a time sink to keep us paying our monthly dues. Obviously, the more fun they are the more players they'll have, but it all comes down to how long those players are going to play. 40 man raids might be the only way to get end game content, but the reasoning has nothing to do with forcing a specific personality type on a player - 40 man raids take a while to get together, if you could do it yourself it probably wouldn't take as long. __________________ I have an aura of reliability and good judgement. Just in case you were wondering...

03-05-2006, 12:52 AM	#10 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	On the one hand, I am inclined to dismiss this man's article as the distillation of a lifetime defending the virtues of playing Street Fighter as a noble enterprise, not that I look down on SF Tournaments or anything, but it seems like he's developed quite a sophisticated rhetoric to justify himself. On the other hand, I think it is quite true enough to say that games have both explicit and implicit lessons for those who play them. That said, I think that someone could retort with just as good an argument for MMO's teaching valuable lessons. For instance, one might dismiss his whole 'meritocratic' ethos and individual achievement as simply claptrap, WoW is a bit like the real world. There are people who are above you, who are where they are for arbitrary reasons, often things like time spent. I can confidently assert that I will defeat most 4 year olds in an essay writing competition, simply because I have been abroad the earth for a much longer time. In 'real life' maybe it's an important lesson to learn that you're probably going to be shit on by people who aren't as good as you, maybe if you threw away vague Utopian ideals about meritocratic achievement and 'going solo' you might suffer less by falling into line. Perhaps WoW's 40 man raids are nothing more than a recognition of the power of numbers, be they in elections, street fights or on Capitol Hill. Then again maybe not. I for one long for the day someone liberates the MMORPG from the long venerated but ultimately ridiculous item/level/profession limitations and tries something a little different from the archetypes essentially set down in the very first RPG's. Last edited by Kostya; 03-05-2006 at 12:55 AM..

03-06-2006, 03:15 PM	#15 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	I laughed out loud multiple times when reading the OP quoted article. Wow, talk about reading too much into things. I can write that much about any sort of entertainment and draw similar parallels. __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

03-04-2006, 04:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	I think he does get the point that its all about time sinks to keep you playing, hence time > skill in these games. "but in my opinion learning those types of skills is vastly different than learning an outlook on life" Perhaps certaintly, but you arn't young enough to have grown up on MMOGs are you? (not that I am either) Probably not since you have to be 18+ to post here. I think it is hard to say the kind of impact it may have. For most if not all of us here we have (obviously being older) a broader perspective when it comes to gaming and life, but kids don't. They learn and reason differently than we adults do. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that they may be learning very negective (to society and for themselves) outlooks and values on life. Or in the very least they are being reinforced if the child was not lucky enough to grow up learning good things.

03-04-2006, 04:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Suffice to say that if your children are learning their life values by playing WoW they have worse problems than whatever values they do or don't get out of the game. Games like WoW aren't designed to teach life lessons. They're designed 1) to be fun and 2) to make the company who made them money. Blaming blizzard for teaching children bad lessons about how "real life" works is about the dumbest thing I can think of. Take your kid out and climb a mountain or read a book with him every night or help him with his homework. If someone isn't doing that and his child learns bad life lessons from WoW, there's no one to blame but the parent. WoW is not a parent or a babysitter. TV is not a parent or a babysitter. Movies are not parents or babysitters. Books are not parents or babysitters. And they should not be blamed for the negligence of parents who choose to treat them as such.

03-05-2006, 10:22 AM	#11 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Great article. It outlines many of the reasons I do not play MMORPGs. I may not have known exactly why I avoided them, but this article certainly brings light to some of my misgivings about the genre. Any one else staggered by the economic dominance of this game? 5 million subscribers x $15/month = $900 million/year. Wow, indeed.

03-06-2006, 12:15 AM	#13 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Well, what you don't do is tell a video game developer to change how they're making their games because people can't be bothered to raise their kids properly. Blizzard's job isn't to raise children and it is patently unfair to place any expectation on them to raise children in any way, shape or form. For better or for worse, we as a society have decided not to hold parents very accountable for the way in which they raise their children. If there's no harmful abuse or negligence, you pretty much are free to do with your children as you please. It is a miserable hypocracy to expect a video game company to be responsible for bringing up kids with "decent" life lessons when we don't even hold parents to that standard. If I personally know kids who are being treated like that of course I would try to do something to help. I cannot, however, condone a societal requirement that the company be expected to change their business practices in order to conform to such a standard. Do you really want any and all media to be made with the contingency that it teaches appropriate life lessons in the event that negligent parents choose to use it to raise their children? I sure don't.

03-06-2006, 02:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	I have to agree with Fross here, it seems a gleefully unfair critique, and certainly one that we would never level against say Loony Tunes or Harry Potter.

03-06-2006, 04:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	I accept your opinion Foss, and other's like it. I wouldn't expect, nor tell blizzard how they should run their game. I will however, try to make a difference myself, even if it is extremely small, by expressing my feelings with my money. Kostya, I don't think we should judge fairness in this case, just because everything else is bad and one bad thing out of many is being critiqued does not make it any less bad. Redjake, wouldn't reading into things be good? I understand the turn of phrase you used as it is a popular expression. But what the many believe does not make truth or virtue. Just because you can find many evil things in entertainment does not take away any less credence from the point at hand.

03-06-2006, 05:43 PM	#18 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Who gets to decide what is a worthwhile life lesson? How do we keep content that is purely for adults purely for adults? Do adults have the right to entertain themselves how they choose as long as they're not in violation of any laws? What do we do to negligent parents who allow their children to see or use questionable material? Do you need to always learn when you're entertained? What you think is good or bad is not what everyone else thinks is good or bad or valuable. PARENTS have the responsibility to raise their children. TEACHERS have the responsibility to teach children. Video game companies have the responsibility to make video games. Sure less suffering is a good thing, I guess I just don't see how trying to force all media to "teach good lessons" all the time would help with that.

03-06-2006, 06:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Zeraph, I'm not judging fairness in that way. I'm not saying it's all bad, and they shouldn't pick on WoW, but rather that unless the stated aim of the game/show/book/movie in question is to teach children good life lessons, it ought not be used as a criterion for critiquing it.

03-06-2006, 07:24 PM	#20 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Fross, yes of course those would be problems. Valuing creativity and talent I think are universal good traits. The rest your sort of putting words into my mouth, you only asked if I would like it that everything teach a good life lesson. I never even claimed that it would even be feasible. Kostya, well there are different critiques for different contexts in that sense. But the author is not trying to critique it in the sense of entertainment or whatever. If you are critiquing in regards to over all value to society, then anything is fair game.

03-06-2006, 07:50 PM	#21 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Zeraph, the concept of 'overall good' is not an easy one to grapple with, and likewise we can critique anything on its behalf, it's merely that some critiques will not be particularly pertinent. One might level critiques against Dude Where's My Car on similar grounds, which might be true enough, but hardly surprising or a failure of the films since it never attempted to do that in that in the first place. Certainly we can critique anything on the grounds that it fails at being a rabbit, it's just that leveling that accusation against horses isn't really something we'd bother to do.

03-06-2006, 09:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Well I guess we differ in opinion. I think it is worthwhile to try and better society. But seriously, the difference between WoW and "Dude where's my car?" should be obvious. Some people take these virtual worlds very seriously and spend hundreds of hours of their life playing them. And with 5 million subscribers that is a significant user base. I think that is a little more pertinent than a 2 hour movie you may watch a couple times at most.

03-06-2006, 10:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Well I must agree with you on that count, and we might rightly say that WoW probably has more reason to be critiqued on these grounds (although I've never played a game that's effected my life in the way some films have, but that's purely a personal matter) but I still wouldn't suggest that it's enough to completely indict it. We might say rather that if WoW claims to be teaching lessons to its users, then it is failing to teach very good lessons for the most part.

03-07-2006, 01:45 AM	#24 (permalink)
robbdn Crazy	First of all, supposedly WoW has six million subscribers now (soure: ludology.org). Second of all, I'm a little disappointed this thread has turned into an issue of media censorship, on the one hand we have people defending WoW and those who play it, and on the other we have we should change WoW for children's benefits... I think the more relevant issue is how to make MMOGs better games for the people who play them. Supposedly WoW is the best MMOG ever made (I played it for all of 2 hours myself, so I might not be in a great position to criticize), but because of the quoted material I am convinced it could be better. The danger of MMOG is a stifling of creativity and experimentation in the realm of gaming, see the TOS examples, for example. Anyhow, I've always wanted to play MMOGs, but the most I ever accomplished was level 20 in FFXI, and even that was the most excruciating not-fun experience I've ever had playing games. I take to heart the quoted materials complaints... why can't we play alone? Why can't we not specialize at one task? Why can't we do things differently from everybody else? Because if we don't our friends won't play with us... That's the crappy thing about MMOs, and a crappy lesson to learn as well. For everybody content with doing things exactly the same way as everybody else, it works, but it doesn't work for me and countless others. And the fact remains that, even in the most hardcore MMO gamers, they will get bored eventually and move on. The problem is not that... this is a great thing... it's important to keep game companies innovating and pushing the envelope of play. The problem is that they tend to move on to the same product in a different superficial wrapper... MMOG is in dire need of a fundamental shake-up, in my opinion. It will probably not happen, however, until the masses start to get bored with WoW. I mean, I think the fans will agree, how could you possibly do the currently accepted format of MMOGs any better? It will take innovation and fundamental gameplay changes, and I look forward to it very much. That's all. __________________ I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

03-07-2006, 08:23 AM	#25 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Well let me sum up my feelings on the matter since I'm sure they look more skewed than they really are as I was arguing specific points and not my whole view. So I believe we definitely need to get rid of these bad lessons, open the games up to creativitiy, (all the stuff that's been gone over) etc. I don't however, believe we should be trying to teach a set of life lessons in a specific sense, just the overall good things like encouraging skill and free choice (within the game.) As Fross has pointed out trying to do much beyond that and we get a Disney experience many may not enjoy or subscribe to. I don't believe we or the government should go kill blizzard for wanting to make money, I believe in educating people so that they may make their own valid decisions and vote with their money. So no, robbdn, I don't want it changed for children's benefits, I want it changed for society's benefits. And I don't think the best MMO ever made is WoW just because it got a lot of subscribers. Art is not dependent on how many people like it for it to be good. And yes, I know, one could argue the purpose of one is to make money and the other for its own sake. I have an opinion on why this isn't so for MMOs but its not important enough to go into here. Of course subjective, but my personal favorite is CoH/CoV.

03-07-2006, 10:28 AM	#26 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Well, if the Matrix taught us anything, it's that computer systems are, by definition, built around a set of rules. The line of RPGs that follows the D&D mindset (specific classes get specific skillsets and you can only level up within those specific skillsets) are easier to work with in a computer system because they're much more rule-based. You can itemize with specific classes in mind. You can create encounters knowing that specific classes are going to be around. Dunno if any of you ever played table-tops, but the Shadowrun system is a far more organic approach to the whole question of character creation and class. If they made an SR MMO it'd be too amazing for words, but it'd be amazingly complicated to put such a thing together, since about the only limit you'd have on character development is how much time people are willing to put into characters. It's an interesting thought, it's also much more difficult to design and effectively implement.

03-07-2006, 10:37 AM	#27 (permalink)
robbdn Crazy	First off, I apologize for oversimplifying your argument. I did it knowingly and intentionally, and I shouldn't have. I did it to make a point, but it was unfair to you and resulted in an overstatement of my point. I'll just say this... I basically agree with most of what you've said, however, I think taking the approach of trying to "get rid of these bad lessons" and wanting it "changed for society's benefits" is the wrong one. It seems too close to censorship for me to be comfortable. What you've done... distribute knowledge, open debate and dialog, make compelling arguments... that's the best way to do it. I wrote what I wrote because I felt like that debate and dialog was getting sidetracked by a fruitless argument of shoulds and shouldn'ts, whether some people should be given the power over what sort of media the public should be allowed to engage with, about giving the power over what is good and bad for people to a select few, rather than talking about the failings of the game and how they could be improved. That's the relevant discussion, in my opinion. Of course, now that I've had my say, don't let me stop you. __________________ I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

03-07-2006, 10:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
robbdn Crazy	It's true that tabletops have rules, but every rulebook I've seen has a very strong statement that the rules are guidelines, and the players and GMs are ultimately in control. I've never played with a group that doesn't have houserules and modifications to fit the kind of game they want to play... that's the benefit of a system run by people, instead of computers, the system can be adjusted on-demand to meet the ever-evolving needs of the players... MMOs can't do that... nor do i expect them to, but it is a key difference. An MMO that could duplicate that, however... even just give more of it than what is currently offered... would be very compelling indeed. __________________ I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

03-07-2006, 01:27 PM	#29 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	That'd be cool Fross, is that anything like White Wolf's Mage: the Ascension? That seemed pretty open to me when I last looked at it 3 or 4 years ago, but I'm not that familiar with tabletops rpgs. Robbdn, thanks, apology accepted and I understand where you're coming from. Actually, I'm really happy how this dialog turned out. So do you think the power of censorship should be given to a select few? I take it not. I feel like it should, BUT I realize it never turns out well. Probably because the people who wield the power are not competent enough. Think about it though, if we really can find the best of the best (part of the problem of course is that we need to find more objective means, so its probably not even possible for now) for decision making, what they will decide will be the best possible decision. It would also have the advantage of speed (no time needed for long votes and discussion) and a complete centration of knowledge of previous decisions and other relevant information (because it would only be one or a select few that would need to know, it wouldn't have to be spread out over the people that make up congress, the judicial branch, etc.). For now anyways, I realize it is a dream that will not happen, but here's a hope for philosopher-kings of the future. Last edited by Zeraph; 03-07-2006 at 01:29 PM..

03-07-2006, 01:46 PM	#30 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	Ooops. never mind. Last edited by lindalove; 03-07-2006 at 01:57 PM..

03-07-2006, 01:55 PM	#31 (permalink)
Apokx Yo dawg, I herd u like... Location: memes.	The article points out alot of reasons why I quit WoW.Looking back, I'd have to say the game was never really enjoyable.I just kept convincing myself I was having fun, when in fact, I wasn't. I think many players remain because of that fact.They convince themselves that for whatever reason, all the shit they go through, or just ignore, is completely worth it. The way that players in MMO's gain status in their respective worlds is very, very sad.

03-07-2006, 02:24 PM	#32 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Threadjack-I don't see the point of official censorship as long as nothing illegal happened in the creation of the media, i.e. snuff porn is clearly out. The purpose of the government is to maintain order so we can all (say it in chorus with me) have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There will never be a government of man that will be able to have whatever degree of knowledge is required to screen what is "good" from what is "bad" so that everyone agrees on what that is and applies the rules fairly. Don't tread on me, live free or die, those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security, etc., etc., etc. Last edited by Frosstbyte; 03-07-2006 at 02:26 PM..

03-07-2006, 03:34 PM	#33 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Finding myself in declining favor with WoW, I have to say that this article is irresponsibly biased. In fact, it expects WAY too much out of a computer game and puts too much on the shoulders of something intended for entertainment value and marketability. Nobody ever said, "I'm going to create this game and with it, I shall spread my message of humanity's proper place. My game will be healthy and educational, as well it will teach people valuable lessons." No. What they did say is, "We're going to create a game that boys and girls alike will want to play, talk about, and spread. We're going to make a lot of money by engrossing our audience with a detailed, intricate storyline, great mechanics and graphics, and satisfying gameplay. We're going to make this game successful and we're going to make a lot of money." And they did. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

03-07-2006, 06:59 PM	#36 (permalink)
CyCo PL Addict Location: Tulsa, OK	Looks like a guy who should be playing Street Fighter instead of WoW to me. Some games aren't for everybody.