BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Persistent Online [Gaming] Communities

  
 
YNH
05:06 / 06.05.02
The brackets forced their own way into the title. I'm wondering if any of our posters or lurkers participate in MMORPGs, or have participated in MUD or MUSE environments. (If you wanna add to the discussion, but don't wanna associate the comment with the suit, feel free to PM me and I'll leave all the I's where they without blowing yr cover.)

I'm also wondering what folks think of the possibilities such environmets provide for exploring the self and community, exploiting the user/consumer, and reinscribing our relationships to daily life. Like, what does it mean for identity that you can fake or edit it? Can you learn how to make friends "IRL." Do upcoming games like The Sims Online and Star Wars Galaxies, where theplayer creates some or most of the content, actually constitute slave pits? And does working for play make working for food seem more normal and even more acceptable? Stuff like that.
 
 
Trijhaos
11:30 / 06.05.02
Back in the days of yore, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and....sorry...got carried away. I've never participated in any of the internet based mmorpgs, but I used to play LORD, Usurper, and all those door games. You know, the precursors of your modern day mmorpgs.

Now the problem I have with mmorpgs is that they are nothing more than glorified chat rooms with pretty guis. I don't want to spend 20 to 50 dollars a month chatting with people when I can go download Instant Messanger or IRC or something of that sort and talk for free. Mmorpg's are plotless, soulless, and complete crap.

I say that, but Star Wars Galaxies and Neverwinter Nights both intrigue me. Galaxies because I just love the thought of going around and slaughtering people by the hundreds with my lightsaber. Neverwinter Nights because while it is an mmorpg, it can be played single player so it does have an ending and because one can modify it heavily. The modder becomes the DM of the game. Neverwinter Nights looks like its the closest one will ever get to a computerized AD&D game that can capture the feel of a pen and paper game.

I think one could meet IRL friends in mmorpgs. Just for an example, check out Barbelith. People here have met IRL and probably become friends, right? Why not in a game? Like I said before most mmorpgs are nothing more than glorified chatrooms, so yes I think one could meet IRL friends through a game.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:48 / 06.05.02
Anarchy Online is the only MMORPG I've involved myself in. Huge potential, ruined beyond belief by the activities of its publisher. They actively participated in the destruction of some of the community in the early stages of the game’s life through over-enthusiastic moderation of the official forums (during the week of Sept 11, they even decided to delete every thread about the day’s events because they were ‘not relevant’). Left in disgust, have no intention of going back.

I'll pop online for a few games of Tribes 2 every now and again. Being a FPS, you'd expect the community aspects to be slightly less pronounced than in an MMORPG, but that’s not the case. It's team-based, but in a much more meaningful way than, say, Counter Strike. You have to be able to rely on your team-mates to be in the right place at the right time and there's very little glory-hunting. The integration of a browser and email system into the game interface accentuates the co-operative nature of the game. And, as Tirjhaos mentions, the modding community is an ever-present aspect of most online games.

The question about ‘faking it’ is easily answered by looking at this place. Most online communities, be they discussion groups or games, offer similar opportunities for pretending to be something you’re not. In that respect I don’t see any real difference between the Underground and Everquest.

The thing about Star Wars Galaxies that’s causing a bit of a fuss is the promise that the players themselves will run the universe, rather than it being controlled by GMs. It’s a tantalizing prospect, but AO originally promised pretty much the same thing, only for the ‘player-controlled’ aspects to appear as little more than the ability to create clans. I’m not entirely convinced that it’s currently possible to give the player as much potential power as SWG is claiming to.

Quote: Originally posted by YNH
And does working for play make working for food seem more normal and even more acceptable?

Well, there have been games that could be described as ‘work’ for a number of years. Take the Championship Manager series. Effectively an exercise in management through spreadsheets, and yet one of the most popular PC titles around (in the UK, at least). I’m not sure how to answer that question, really. I don’t think that the two things are really comparable, as ‘play’, by it’s very definition, is something that the individual does because SHe enjoys it, whereas work undertaken for food is pretty much a necessary chore in life.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:59 / 06.05.02
Originally posted by Trijhaos:
I just love the thought of going around and slaughtering people by the hundreds with my lightsaber.

You're going to have to work for it. The developers have said that, as they're trying to create a persistant universe that's also consistent with that of the films, there's going to be a (relatively) very small number of people people with 'Force' powers within it. In order to become one of those you're going to have to play in a way which marks you out from the majority of gamers. How they'll get this to work properly is intriguing, but I've got a funny feeling that it'll mean little more than having to plug away at the same things for a ridiculous number of hours, a la levelling-up in more traditional MMORPGS.
 
 
w1rebaby
14:01 / 06.05.02
Well, there have been games that could be described as ‘work’ for a number of years. Take the Championship Manager series. Effectively an exercise in management through spreadsheets, and yet one of the most popular PC titles around (in the UK, at least). I’m not sure how to answer that question, really. I don’t think that the two things are really comparable, as ‘play’, by it’s very definition, is something that the individual does because SHe enjoys it, whereas work undertaken for food is pretty much a necessary chore in life.

And before all that, pencil-and-paper RPGs often turned into exercises in budgeting and resource management. "Hmm, what are the relative tradeoffs between cost and encumbrance between these two polearms?" Computer RPGs are often worse.

What's the difference that means I'm prepared to organise my character's finances to the last gold piece, and yet am too scared to read my bank statements? It reminds me of when I got addicted to The Sims (non-online version of course) and would stay up until 3am making sure that my Sims got a proper night's sleep so they could get to work on time.

It's an interesting phenomenon, taking play very seriously and taking real life much less so. I think it may be the fact that the consequences of real life are, well, real; it makes dealing with them stressful, and so people try to avoid thinking about them entirely. In most cases, that's an illusion. For most of us, we'll survive, even if we make the odd wrong planning decision - we have friends, families, a welfare system. Having said that, maybe it's the fact that we will be able to survive that allows us the latitude to ignore the details.

Another point: games are very goal-orientated. There's something to aim at, championship wins, experience points, gold pieces, that you have to basically accept to start playing the game in the first place. But in life, I get the feeling that there are a lot of people like me without firm defined goals, so the impetus to act is lost. Why balance my chequebook? It's only money, money doesn't really matter when it comes down to it...

Maybe the solution would be to play yourself as a character who really cares about money.
 
 
Trijhaos
14:14 / 06.05.02
Wha-? You mean I wasted all that time signing up for the beta test in the hopes of getting to play with lightsabers before all the unwashed masses? Damn! My hopes have been dashed upon the cruel rocks of "being consistent with the films"

I'd really like to see an online community whether its a gaming community of just a message board type deal like the one in Snow Crash. I think that'd be cool.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
15:29 / 06.05.02
I have been tempted to play some of the massive multi-player on-line games like Evercrack and the like, but the only real on-line gaming I have done is on the White Wolf website.

It was interesting for a while, but because it is an attempt at RPGaming on-line without a moderator, it usually just comes down to a chatroom where people pretend to be vampires and werewolves. It's too bad, really, since the idea of a tabletop RPG being ran via chatroom is one I like. It would make gaming less of a logistics battle, and it would be easier for the people to actually Role Play rather than having it devolve into beer and skittles.

But then again, some of the best RPG sessions I ever had were because they devolved into beer and skittles.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
18:01 / 06.05.02
"It's too bad, really, since the idea of a tabletop RPG being ran via chatroom is one I like."

I've been involved in a few successful table-to-online RPGs. We used a combination of a forum (public actions/conversations), private messages, and semi-regular chatroom sessions. But, there was a GM in all cases.

It definitely allowed for roleplaying, because the mechanics were hidden and handled by the GM. In fact, there were two or three games I played in in which I never knew any of the rules. As a side bonus, the hidden mechanics allow the GM to lie about dice rolls more effectively when drama demands it.

I keep hearing that Neverwinter Nights has potential as an online roleplaying game (as opposed to an online leveling and killing stuff game), but I don't really know a lot about it.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
19:41 / 06.05.02
I think you're close to defining the difference there, fridge. Games as they exist now, despite what the PR people want you to believe, are all fairly linear. If a game doesn't have a strictly defined beginning, middle and end, then at least the way that the universe functions, its rules and what the player can expect to gain from performing in a certain way are still laid out. You may go down the path seldom travelled in a game, but it's still a path that's got a tight structure behind it.

If you're playing a game like Ultima Online, where you can get a job and spend your entire 'life' working for a living rather than adventuring or whatever, you can form a plan of action. You know what aims you're working towards, what you're going to spend your money on, how that's going to affect the world around you and what avenues it will open up to you in the future. You're given a degree of control over your own destiny that's not present IRL. Some find that attractive.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:12 / 06.05.02
You know what aims you're working towards
...
You're given a degree of control over your own destiny that's not present IRL. Some find that attractive.

Hmm. So is it that open-ended games provide no more measure of success than RL, but allow you to choose your goal and achieve it quicker and with more chance of success than RL?

I suppose "success" at a game has two facets that make it attractive. Firstly there's the fact that it counts as an achievement in your RL. ("I've got to level 255 on Pacman and made the screen go weird!") Secondly, the more you can empathise with the character, the more it's a surrogate life where you are more likely to succeed in your goals. This is inherently more likely in RPGs, and the more open-ended and mutiplayer the closer to RL and the easier it is to create it as a surrogate. And the game will likely always be a bit more forgiving than life. There are moderators to prevent you being unfairly exploited by others, after all, or dying randomly from disease or accident with nothing you can do about it.

I'm wondering about the similarities and differences between how people choose RL and game goals. Perhaps as games become more and more open-ended, characters will start having "mid-life crises" after killing orcs and collecting gold loses its attraction...
 
 
Trijhaos
20:19 / 06.05.02
The problem I have with online gaming is the thing that appeals to most people: It's open-ended. You go around hacking cute forest critters into chewy chunks, steal their gold, purchase better equipment; over and over. You know, the only difference between a 1st level elven mage and a 100th level elven mage is the equipment and how much time they've spent in front of the computer.

If I'm going to spend 50 hours leveling up my character I want to be able to go wail on some ugly demon character and get an ending. Even if the ending is something silly like "A winner is you! Congradulation!". You don't get that in online games.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
21:16 / 06.05.02
But that's the point. It doesn't end until you die, and even then you can reincarnate yourself. Hence the word 'persistent'.

I think you're looking at the wrong games. What you want is an online RPG that isn't massively-muliplayer (the MM in MMORPG, for the uninitiated). Neverwinter Nights will probably cater for your needs. It differs from the likes of Everquest and AO in that it offers shorter, story-driven experiences along the lines of more traditional forms of RPG. The trade-off is the freedom and sense of ownership over your character that these other games provide.

That said, AO did set out to be story-driven. Two sides, fighting a war over ownership of a planet. The eventual outcome of the story was to be decided by the actions of the players on both sides over a five-year (real time) period. It fails, as the integration of a storyline decided by players in a game where the number of players is in the thousands is something that no developer has yet managed to achieve.

Western ideas of storytelling rely on rigid structures. The stability of those structures is going to be nigh-on impossible to maintain when a small group of people is involved in the evolution of the story, let alone the huge numbers we're talking about here.
 
 
Trijhaos
21:40 / 06.05.02
Sure it doesn't end until you die, but isn't that boring? I mean there's only so many times one can go out and slaughter cute bunnies for their gold, bake bread, and forge swords in a virtual community before it gets boring. I mean, there's no reward. Sure, you get attached to Ingbar the chaotic evil dwarven beserker, but what do you have to show for all the time you spent playing the game? It sure is hell isn't a well adjusted social life. Sure, your character opened a little virtual bakery and it did wonderfully, but what's the point? I'd rather bake some bread in real life, open my own little bakery, and meet people in real life.

Neverwinter Nights is right up my alley. If my computer can handle it, I plan on making a litle Legend of the Red Dragon module.
 
 
YNH
06:25 / 07.05.02
Is there any point to non-linear games, then? The Sims Online will probably be a massively-multiplayer popularity contest with some interesting economics (in game) thrown in. The Buzz has quieted a little as they release unprecedented numbers of expansions, but the fake pointless community for slapstick comedy aspect only has a few linear goals. Things might be different with SWG - more linear I mean. Way I read the reviews, it's Everquest with the flaws tweaked out (haveta believe 'em as I've never played.)

I think both games are intended to exploit some of what's been learned about the nature of MMOG and storytelling. They're institutionalizing certain aspects of gaming that once conferred unfair advantages to players who wanted to get around the rules, and they're softening up the "realities" of the game environment. The Sims is probably 90% player-generated content, and SWG appears to be ONLY player motivated action. You know, like they might be giving up on telling a a story...

Trijhaos, players do feel both pride and success (and nastier feelings, too) about their in-game accomplishments. In a few interviews, individuals stated that it gave them opportunities to experience multiple successes (as well as identities.) That might be the point, whether or not it's "well adjusted." Probably as well adjusted as any other activity that eats up four hours or more of daily life?
 
 
Trijhaos
09:51 / 07.05.02
players do feel both pride and success (and nastier feelings, too) about their in-game accomplishments

This is just something I can't get my head around. These people are proud of the 100s of hours they've logged into this game and all they have to show for it is two 0's behind a 1 and some different colored armour. There's no point! At least with a linear fairly close-ended game, when you invest 50 hours into it, you get a nifty little cinematic at the end and then you see the words "The End" and you can go out and do something with real people. These people who kill themselves because their Evercrack character was killed, or these people who lose their jobs over these games are people I can't understand. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Games are supposed to be something you can turn off. Games should not be your whole damn life. Go out. Party! Get wasted! Stop sitting in front of the computer racking up experience for your character. In the end, are these people going to be able to look back on their lives with pride or a sense of accomplishment?

Fine it gives them an opportunity to enjoy virtual success, but that's all it is; virtual. You can't hold up that virtual sword 20 years later and say "I made this". You can't bake some bread and feed it to a loved one and say "Try this, its really good" because its virtual. Virtual accomplishments are great and all. But, I would think one would want some real-life accomplishments to go with those virtual ones.
 
 
YNH
17:00 / 07.05.02
You realize you're taking a couple examples that make good news and generalizing them to the entire MMORPGing community, right? The folks I interviewed had stable employment, access to benefits, and in most cases a partner or what appeared to be healthy social lives... (This to someone who spent 8 hours a day min studying, but whatever...) And they spent a large hunk of there non-working, non-sleeping time playing Everquest.

I figure they'll be able to look back on their habit with the same enthusiasm one might feel for hir partying days, but I could be mistaken. Maybe because it's open ended and social it means more than the defeated PSII games under the coffee table?
 
 
Molly Shortcake
19:11 / 08.05.02
Quote:

"Games are supposed to be fun."

One of my favorite games is Silent Hill 2. It isn't "fun" in any sence of the word. You don't so much play it, as endure it. Why can't a game serve a primary function other than fun?
 
 
Trijhaos
20:10 / 08.05.02
One of my favorite games is Silent Hill 2. It isn't "fun" in any sence of the word. You don't so much play it, as endure it. Why can't a game serve a primary function other than fun?

Why can't games be something other than fun? The main reason is that the majority of people see games as a waste of time, money, etc. etc. Until people see that games are just as viable as books and film, they're never going to be anything more than an entertaining diversion from real life.

Personally, I'd love to see a game that teaches people "something", I don't care what, but in a manner that's not obvious to the player.

It could be said that Everquest's primary function is online social interaction involving a graphical interface. I mean, these people get together into clans and go out hunting pixelated beasties. Its kind of like the guys around here. They get together during hunting season, get dressed up in their nifty orange togs, and go out and murder Bambi.

Now, I treat games the way I treat every other form of media. If a book doesn't interest me, I'm not going to force myself through the thing. I will put it to the side and on my next trip to the used bookstore, I'll exchange it for a book that better holds my interest. If something on TV doesn't interest me, I'm going to change the channel. I'm not masochistic enough to sit through a show that makes me want to jab my eyes out with a rusty nail. Its the same with games, if I'm not having fun, I'm not going to play it.

I hope one day that games can have a primary function other than fun, and hopefully that day comes soon.
 
 
Molly Shortcake
12:45 / 09.05.02
I don't want to derail this thread to much. So I'll be breif.

Silent Hill 2 isn't fun at all. It's a horrible, disgusting, unsettling foray into surrealism. A psychological mirror that forces the player to confront their masochistic tendencies. It preys on feelings of vurnerability, isolation and paranoia. There are hundreds of testimonials floating around the net of people who felt so physically and mentally ill they turned the game off.

Painstation.
http://wired.com/news/games/0,2101,50875,00.html
http://www.khm.de/~morawe/painstation/

Flight Simulators.

The name escapes me at the moment but Konami has a music game consisting of notes that fall down the screen to a coresponding key, which the player has to push on a music keyboard controller. It teaches basic finger positions, playing and theory.

So I wouldn't downplay the social aspects of MMOG's so easily.
 
  
Add Your Reply