A thought-provoking article, which deserves a response.
Matt Barton wrote:
It is more helpful to see it as a "real" place, in the sense that all that data and databases are physically stored on hard drives owned and operated by the company. Also, consider Gaia Online and how much users are willing to pay for "virtual" clothing and such for their avatars. When I talk about this to non-gamers, they typically respond with something like, "How stupid! Spending real money on something that doesn't even exist!" Yet a virtual pair of angel wings does exist--it is probably a few cells or strings of code in a database somewhere.
I think this article corresponds with our "games as a hobby" discussion in another AA thread, and it also touches a very similar sensitive point: where do we draw the line between "real" and "virtual?"
If you really believe that virtual worlds are "legitimate," or possibly "real" like the real world, then what is your opinion of someone purchasing a "virtual property" for $10,000???? I seem to recall that someone was offering virtual property in "Ultima Online" a few years ago for approximately that price! I don't know if someone actually bought such a property, but if someone did, they must feel pretty stupid right now, since UO's star has faded in the gaming marketplace.
Considering all the problems in the real world today that could benefit from an infusion of cash, it seems very selfish and materialistic, if not insane, to spend money to buy CLOTHES for my avatar in a virtual world, much less thousand-dollar virtual properties! While I have no problem paying for frivolous pleasures such as videogames on occasion, "Virtual Clothes" don't matter.... it doesn't affect gameplay at all. And if it does, the few games that offer such customizations seem to provide a method for players to create such customizations THEMSELVES.
"Second Life" is a great example; it provides tools for dedicated "hobbyists" (segue to your other recent thread!) to create their own objects, buildings, custom animations, and CLOTHES for their avatar. If you're dedicated enough to such a virtual world that you desire custom clothes for your avatar, you're dedicated enough to learn to create them yourself. Heck, you might even learn something in the process, God forbid!
While I have no problem with people spending reasonable money on fun, it seems like an over-the-top materialistic waste to spend good money on frivilous things such as clothing for your avatar when people are suffering in this world. Yes, I'm invoking the "real world vs. fantasy world" response, and I'm sorry to give you the "liberal guilt trip" argument, Matt, but sometimes it's necessary to jostle your right-wing "spend my money as I want to" point of view.
Matt Barton wrote:
I'd also argue that it makes little sense to separate too harshly a virtual world and the "real" world, in the sense that someone who plays an MMO too much is "losing touch with reality" or some such. I see it as less a matter of either/or and more of a lateral trade-off.
On this point, I agree with you to an extent. A "shared experience" can be a great catalyst to learning some new things or starting new friendships that you might have otherwise not experienced. Online experiences can allow you to meet new and interesting people that would never have occurred 20 years ago, and is a great thing. Armchair Arcade is a great example; here I am having interesting discussions with people that live hundreds, and in some cases, THOUSANDS, of miles away from me, and are people that I would never have connected to in real life otherwise. Matt, your "Matt Chat" episode on WoW is a great example; you had a second player helping you in the commentary that I'm assuming you've never met in real life, or possibly don't even know what he looks like!
But here's where you lose me....
Matt Barton wrote:
What is a significant difference between moving one's body, to say, play basketball, and using subtler movements to move one's avatar (an extension of one's body?) in a virtual basketball court? You might argue that we are allowed finer motor control in the former, but just how much of that is conscious--I'd think at least as much gets passed off to reflex as gets passed off in a game to computer control (scripting) or AI.
Matt, most MMO's have limited direct controls, even by videogame standards! If you don't agree, then tell me your high score in "Geometry Wars!" :-) Your argument here smacks of over-intellectualized academic intelligentsia, which is wont for your career, but it may be detached from a real-world sense, if I am interpreting your remarks correctly.
MMO's have simplified controls to make them appealing to the masses. And getting masses to play them is how they make their money. This is not to say they don't require skill, but to compare a great "World of Warcraft" player to Michael Jordan seems ridiculous. There's a TREMENDOUS difference between an athlete and a guy who's clicking a mouse. I can't run up and down the court dribbling a basketball while evading opponents and shooting a half-court shot at the buzzer in front of a hostile crowd; that requires tremendous training, discipline, and natural athleticism. The primary ingredient in MMO's is time; the more I play, the higher my level. You really can't lose as long as you keep moving and clicking the mouse. Yes, there's skill involved, but are you good at MMO's? Yes? Are you Michael Jordan? No....
Matt Barton wrote:
And what about disabled people who may have far less mobility than would be allowed in a virtual world with an avatar? (See movie Avatar as an example!)
This is a very interesting point, and where my argument becomes blurred, twisted, and perhaps even flawed. I've read of an account where a man, who was formerly a skilled dancer, was disabled in an accident. Now, he's paralyzed and in a wheelchair; he can't even walk, much less dance. He was crushed, spiritually, until he discovered "Second Life." In the virtual world, his avatar can dance. He is LIBERATED in the virtual world! This disabled individual has learned to program his avatar's dance moves, and now he makes money SELLING his dance moves to other "Second Life" enthusiasts! If I hold to my previous argument, he is wasting his time (and other people's money) by devoting such time to this virtual world, yet I can't help but be touched and inspired by this example. I guess that makes me a hypocrite...... but it begs my main question: where do we draw the line? Which begs another question: who am I to say????
Matt Barton wrote:
Thus, the right question to ponder is not "how can we keep people from wasting away in virtual worlds?" but "what can we learn from virtual worlds that will make the 'real world' more fun?" Think of all the labor that gets willingly performed in an MMO (grinding, etc.). People are actually paying to do repetitive, boring tasks and doing it gladly. Wouldn't it be great to find a way to harness some of that so that people will do "useful" work more willingly and with similar dedication or enthusiasm?
Okay, there is several ways I can go with this one:
1) I recall reading an online article (I'm to lazy to look it up now and provide you with the link) where "World of Warcraft" provided real-world insight into the spread of disease!!! I don't recall the specifics, but the gist of the article said that a "deadly" disease was introduced into WoW to add spice to the game. The problem was that players were spreading this "disease" from player to player, server to server, in ways unanticipated by Blizzard, Inc. It became an epidemic in the game, but provided useful scientific insight into how disease is spread amongst humans in the real world.
2) The main point you're trying to invoke here is "how can society provide incentive to get people to work more productively without force? Through fun?"
Here's where I get more political/philosophical. The answer I come up with has nothing to do with games or "fun." The answer is, *gasp*: CAPITALISM!!!
Unbridled Capitalism can result in too much greed, as in rich, detatched, unscrupulous fat cats taking advantage of desperate workers who have no other choice, but ideally, free-market capitalism is supposed to provide individuals the incentive to demand what they are worth and to do better for themselves. The incentive to be more productive is that you will be justly rewarded with money.
I realize that it doesn't always work out that way, but in general, people who live in Capitalist countries, i.e. the West, are much better off than Communist or totalitarian countries, which don't provide enough incentive for hard work.
I'm not sure that we'll ever be at a point where work will be "fun," in general. "Hey, I'll play 'Donkey Kong,' and viola!! I just built a car!!!!" Work isn't (generally) fun, and that's why we have two separate words for them. Yes, work can be enjoyable (in some cases), but the real incentive to work productively is REWARD, not fun. "Hey, if I provide a valuable service, I'll make more money, and I'll be able to buy more videogames!!"
It is more helpful to see it as a "real" place, in the sense that all that data and databases are physically stored on hard drives owned and operated by the company. Also, consider Gaia Online and how much users are willing to pay for "virtual" clothing and such for their avatars. When I talk about this to non-gamers, they typically respond with something like, "How stupid! Spending real money on something that doesn't even exist!" Yet a virtual pair of angel wings does exist--it is probably a few cells or strings of code in a database somewhere.
I think this article corresponds with our "games as a hobby" discussion in another AA thread, and it also touches a very similar sensitive point: where do we draw the line between "real" and "virtual?"
If you really believe that virtual worlds are "legitimate," or possibly "real" like the real world, then what is your opinion of someone purchasing a "virtual property" for $10,000???? I seem to recall that someone was offering virtual property in "Ultima Online" a few years ago for approximately that price! I don't know if someone actually bought such a property, but if someone did, they must feel pretty stupid right now, since UO's star has faded in the gaming marketplace.
Considering all the problems in the real world today that could benefit from an infusion of cash, it seems very selfish and materialistic, if not insane, to spend money to buy CLOTHES for my avatar in a virtual world, much less thousand-dollar virtual properties! While I have no problem paying for frivolous pleasures such as videogames on occasion, "Virtual Clothes" don't matter.... it doesn't affect gameplay at all. And if it does, the few games that offer such customizations seem to provide a method for players to create such customizations THEMSELVES.
"Second Life" is a great example; it provides tools for dedicated "hobbyists" (segue to your other recent thread!) to create their own objects, buildings, custom animations, and CLOTHES for their avatar. If you're dedicated enough to such a virtual world that you desire custom clothes for your avatar, you're dedicated enough to learn to create them yourself. Heck, you might even learn something in the process, God forbid!
While I have no problem with people spending reasonable money on fun, it seems like an over-the-top materialistic waste to spend good money on frivilous things such as clothing for your avatar when people are suffering in this world. Yes, I'm invoking the "real world vs. fantasy world" response, and I'm sorry to give you the "liberal guilt trip" argument, Matt, but sometimes it's necessary to jostle your right-wing "spend my money as I want to" point of view.
I'd also argue that it makes little sense to separate too harshly a virtual world and the "real" world, in the sense that someone who plays an MMO too much is "losing touch with reality" or some such. I see it as less a matter of either/or and more of a lateral trade-off.
On this point, I agree with you to an extent. A "shared experience" can be a great catalyst to learning some new things or starting new friendships that you might have otherwise not experienced. Online experiences can allow you to meet new and interesting people that would never have occurred 20 years ago, and is a great thing. Armchair Arcade is a great example; here I am having interesting discussions with people that live hundreds, and in some cases, THOUSANDS, of miles away from me, and are people that I would never have connected to in real life otherwise. Matt, your "Matt Chat" episode on WoW is a great example; you had a second player helping you in the commentary that I'm assuming you've never met in real life, or possibly don't even know what he looks like!
But here's where you lose me....
What is a significant difference between moving one's body, to say, play basketball, and using subtler movements to move one's avatar (an extension of one's body?) in a virtual basketball court? You might argue that we are allowed finer motor control in the former, but just how much of that is conscious--I'd think at least as much gets passed off to reflex as gets passed off in a game to computer control (scripting) or AI.
Matt, most MMO's have limited direct controls, even by videogame standards! If you don't agree, then tell me your high score in "Geometry Wars!" :-) Your argument here smacks of over-intellectualized academic intelligentsia, which is wont for your career, but it may be detached from a real-world sense, if I am interpreting your remarks correctly.
MMO's have simplified controls to make them appealing to the masses. And getting masses to play them is how they make their money. This is not to say they don't require skill, but to compare a great "World of Warcraft" player to Michael Jordan seems ridiculous. There's a TREMENDOUS difference between an athlete and a guy who's clicking a mouse. I can't run up and down the court dribbling a basketball while evading opponents and shooting a half-court shot at the buzzer in front of a hostile crowd; that requires tremendous training, discipline, and natural athleticism. The primary ingredient in MMO's is time; the more I play, the higher my level. You really can't lose as long as you keep moving and clicking the mouse. Yes, there's skill involved, but are you good at MMO's? Yes? Are you Michael Jordan? No....
And what about disabled people who may have far less mobility than would be allowed in a virtual world with an avatar? (See movie Avatar as an example!)
This is a very interesting point, and where my argument becomes blurred, twisted, and perhaps even flawed. I've read of an account where a man, who was formerly a skilled dancer, was disabled in an accident. Now, he's paralyzed and in a wheelchair; he can't even walk, much less dance. He was crushed, spiritually, until he discovered "Second Life." In the virtual world, his avatar can dance. He is LIBERATED in the virtual world! This disabled individual has learned to program his avatar's dance moves, and now he makes money SELLING his dance moves to other "Second Life" enthusiasts! If I hold to my previous argument, he is wasting his time (and other people's money) by devoting such time to this virtual world, yet I can't help but be touched and inspired by this example. I guess that makes me a hypocrite...... but it begs my main question: where do we draw the line? Which begs another question: who am I to say????
Thus, the right question to ponder is not "how can we keep people from wasting away in virtual worlds?" but "what can we learn from virtual worlds that will make the 'real world' more fun?" Think of all the labor that gets willingly performed in an MMO (grinding, etc.). People are actually paying to do repetitive, boring tasks and doing it gladly. Wouldn't it be great to find a way to harness some of that so that people will do "useful" work more willingly and with similar dedication or enthusiasm?
Okay, there is several ways I can go with this one:
1) I recall reading an online article (I'm to lazy to look it up now and provide you with the link) where "World of Warcraft" provided real-world insight into the spread of disease!!! I don't recall the specifics, but the gist of the article said that a "deadly" disease was introduced into WoW to add spice to the game. The problem was that players were spreading this "disease" from player to player, server to server, in ways unanticipated by Blizzard, Inc. It became an epidemic in the game, but provided useful scientific insight into how disease is spread amongst humans in the real world.
2) The main point you're trying to invoke here is "how can society provide incentive to get people to work more productively without force? Through fun?"
Here's where I get more political/philosophical. The answer I come up with has nothing to do with games or "fun." The answer is, *gasp*: CAPITALISM!!!
Unbridled Capitalism can result in too much greed, as in rich, detatched, unscrupulous fat cats taking advantage of desperate workers who have no other choice, but ideally, free-market capitalism is supposed to provide individuals the incentive to demand what they are worth and to do better for themselves. The incentive to be more productive is that you will be justly rewarded with money.
I realize that it doesn't always work out that way, but in general, people who live in Capitalist countries, i.e. the West, are much better off than Communist or totalitarian countries, which don't provide enough incentive for hard work.
I'm not sure that we'll ever be at a point where work will be "fun," in general. "Hey, I'll play 'Donkey Kong,' and viola!! I just built a car!!!!" Work isn't (generally) fun, and that's why we have two separate words for them. Yes, work can be enjoyable (in some cases), but the real incentive to work productively is REWARD, not fun. "Hey, if I provide a valuable service, I'll make more money, and I'll be able to buy more videogames!!"
Okay, enough philosophy. Fire at will! :-)
qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V