From the other side…
(Visited 6639 times) Reading
Jul 222008
This late in the evening, Mrgurlargl was the only one still awake. The others were curled around the campfire, full of wine and food and sleeping soundly. He couldn’t sleep, though, he was too proud, too excited to sleep.
“Die murloc filth!” Loldude247’s assault was swift. His sword sang death even as his shouts roused the sleeping family.
Stumbled across this when checking out trackbacks. Of course, it reminds me of this.
21 Responses to “From the other side…”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It made me think of this.
I just now read the post you linked to (since I’ve only RSSed you for a year or so), and I must say I quite enjoyed it. I saw it was inspired by Terra Nova’s “The Horde Is Evil” post, which I’d read in the past. Whatever happened to game criticism on this level, though? TN seems to have died or gone legal/economic, instead of social/political. If the sort of criticism you linked above is still around (by you or whomever), I’d love to find it.
DM… I occasionally write pieces like that, but not that often. Besides that one, there’s these:
https://www.raphkoster.com/2007/01/27/pondering-pinatas/
https://www.raphkoster.com/2007/02/16/but-is-it-art-2/
and maybe sorta thse:
https://www.raphkoster.com/2006/01/06/undressing-a-game/
https://www.raphkoster.com/2006/11/10/project-horseshoe-influences/
https://www.raphkoster.com/2006/03/10/shaping-perceptions/
It made me think of this.
That’s a little .. disturbing .. when you humanize them like that. These same combat mechanics are being used in our kid’s games, such as Wizard101. Since combat is the best and most easily repeatable activity in an MMO, the question in my mind, is what could replace combat yet still provide the same level of repeatable, scaleable, interesting activity in order to advance in the game?
It made me think of this, which came about the same time.
There’s more to our vocabulary than combat, just as there’s more to television than competitive sports. The first video games that my friends went nuts over were dodging falling ‘$’ signs (Mission Impossible, for the Commodore PET), running a lemonade stand (again, the PET), playing tennis (Pong) and running around a dark room popping pills and listening to repetitive music (Pac-man). Space Invaders came later for me and mine.
I don’t believe that combat is the natural nor easiest mechanic for PvP or PvE contests. I can’t deny that combat is so very common; I wonder why.
If aliens came to Earth and revealed themselves offering peace, a cure for cancer, pollution, and other maladies of our time and tour trips to their home planet to see their wonders, and they looked like Murlocs, how would we react? I, for one, would give them the benefit of a doubt while passing on the tours, at least until I were a bit more certain of their intent. Unless they gave us Earthlings a token of peace in the form of a book titled “How to Serve Man”, in which case I’d be more skeptical.
I’m wondering at the push for the “there’s no evil” sentiment. Something to do with Metaplace? Does moral commentary have a place in games?
In your most recent poem, you again hit on this in alluding to scientific research on an “evil gene”. My comment wondering about dinnertime in the Hussein household and the effects on Uday and Qusay Hussein started me wondering about all that. For instance, is there a distinction between Uday, who seemed quite “evil”, and Qusay, who seemed just brutally tyranical in nature much like his father? But maybe my knowledge isn’t where it should be to even ask that question. Is there a difference in the distinction between gleefully acting out evil acts and doing so out of pragmatic contempt for mankind?
Looking at something like, lets say Coyotes. You certainly don’t want a pack of them living in your neighborhood. But “evil” wouldn’t be the right description of them. Mainly because their threat to us is purely by instinct. They don’t hate people, nor think about it beyond their limited capacity to learn their environment.
So, if Murlocs could think, what does that mean in a moral context? Well, do they hate humies? Do they wish us all dead? Do they eat humie children?
From a game standpoint, the moral lessons could be pretty good. But the game would need to offer other content, such as possible peaceful interaction, to make the point that they are “not evil, just misunderstood”, to really get the point across.
But on the other hand, is it wrong from a real life moral standpoint to present demons as pure evil? Should “pure evil” not be presented in games because of perceived real life lessons? There are those who believe that GTA4 can’t persuade young minds at all. And yet those who believe that life lessons of this kind can. Surely these beliefs are contrary to each other. Either games can have an affect on minds, particularly the younger minds, or they can’t. So I would expect all those who made such claims that GTA4 can’t affect young minds to also say here that presenting “pure evil” in games, or not, doesn’t matter. 😉
Thanks for the link Raph!
I think that more people should be looking at the narrative value of games, outside of the “is it turning kids into monsters?” discussion. Your comparison of MMOs to colonial ideology is spot-on, and I think it would be beneficial to everyone in the industry (consumers, devs and publishers) to have these kinds of deep discussions about video games.
@Raph
Thanks (for the response and content)! I really enjoyed the first two you linked, and to a lesser extent the speech transcript (main deterrent being length, naturally). Particularly the one about “is it art” put what, initially, seemed to me an innocuous minigame into a metaphorical context that turned it into an emotionally relevant and engaging exercise. I always enjoy reading about this sort of thing, and you and Scott Jennings are my favorite commentators.
As for the original post content, one interesting facet of the discussion is when game developers themselves turn “bags of exp” into playable options. One of the most significant cases I remember was when EQ made Frogloks a playable race; what used to be smashably innocuous was now humanized.
Speaking of which, as someone mentioned in the linked to post’s comments, I think EQs faction system was something pretty intriguing. The fact that your actions had consequences (often severe consequences) put those “bags of exp” into societal and political contexts. It also created a pretty bad grinding system (with WoW removing the “consequences” and mainly just leaving the grind), but I could see it being used to great effect somewhere along the line.
@Amaranthar, actually, I think the great debate really isn’t “does GTA affect kids?” but rather “how does GTA affect kids?” Everything we do or see or talk about in some way affects us. Most of the time it’s not in any significant fashion, sometimes it’s negatively, sometimes it’s positively, but there’s always some change, some impact, that results from *everything* we do.
I would argue that the mobs are so one dimensional that there’s no thought about what you’d be doing in they were “real” – they’re so obviously fake that we don’t pay the question any mind – and thus, there’s no long lasting effect from slaughtering hordes of Murlocs.
I think that’s an awful shame though, really. I think that if you did humanize them more, if you *did* make the players pause and stop and think about what they were doing, then you’d have a much larger net effect on the player, and a positive one for most people. I think that rather than the Murloc slaughtering and other “genocidal” actions in various games being some sort of potential problem it’s in fact a huge missed opportunity instead; we could be saying something here. And instead we’re wasting these opportunities by taking the easy way out, and end up saying nothing at all.
Eolirin, that’s certainly one of the debates. But the most predominant debate is over any effect at all. And it’s not just kids.
The rest I agree with whole heartedly. Anything to get people to think more is good, in a wide range of ways. People seem to be going into cruise mode so much these days, relying on passionate simplicity instead of clear thought. (Dihydrogen Monoxide, anyone?) (And how many here knew that last week the US moved enough Yellowcake to make 100 nuclear bombs out of Iraq? It was known it was there all along by anyone paying close attention, but the press hardly ever talked about it for all those not paying close attention. That wouldn’t help get a liberal elected, after all. Can’t have the conservatives looking like maybe they know what they’re doing.)
And you can see it in the games being made. Repetitive grind for repetitive shiny and perceived heroism in commonality guaranteed, for $9.95 a month. It’s just not healthy.
Nothing to do with Metaplace, no. And yes, of course moral commentary has a place in games. Say, rather, that games have moral commentary whether we wish them to or not.
There is undoubtedly evil, to my mind. But I don’t think we always understand what is evil and what is venality, what is self-interest and what is maliciousness.
And I am particularly skeptical and cautious when one group calls another evil. It has happened, historically, many times, that groups have been evil. But I think the namecalling has happened a lot more often.
Raph wrote:
The word “evil” is best avoided when some other meaning than (inherent) “estrangement from a deity” is intended.
Clearly we learn things from games. I know they have shaped me in positive ways. It would be foolish of me to think that no one ever learns the wrong lessons. But I don’t think most learning is about the “dressing”. I don’t think people say “Hey, GTA is fun, I should be a pimp.” I think people tend to say something closer to “GTA was fun, I should make video games.”
Raph, I agree completely.
I read this last night:
http://friesian.com/divebomb.htm
“Zen and the Art of Divebombing, or The Dark Side of the Tao”
I think it’s relevant, but I’m not up to condensing it properly for consumption. So you’ll have to read the long, long write-up. 😛
I think part of the trouble is that we tend to identify actions as evil, not specific people. So killing someone to steal their wallet might be characterized as evil, but killing someone who is threatening your child’s life is generally not.
In MMOGs, though, what is the motive for killing? There is a thin veneer where we are told that these critters – Murlocs, or orcs, or whatever – are a threat, and will do awful things to us, our friends, and our loved ones if we let them. But they don’t. The Murlocs don’t raid Stormwind, in WOW. If you stop killing spiders in LOTRO, they won’t start eating the local sheep and starve the townspeople. So the veneer is VERY thin, and makes the fiction of these things being a credible threat hard to believe.
So why DO we kill these things? To get their gold, and to raise our stats. At the core, that is why almost every player “grinds” away at whatever monsters they fight. And…that’s killing for greed, isn’t it? That’s killing for base reasons, and technically “evil”.
I have to wonder why, when all our heroes fight for noble motives, when we ourselves have a chance to step into the story as heroes we choose instead to play games where we fight for only the meanest of reasons. Superman does not stop villains to steal their stuff. Arthur did not fight the Saxons for the experience, or their “phat lewt”. Our heroes fight for noble reasons – it is what makes them good! Why when we fantasize about our own adventures do we not aim for the same?
(Interesting debate started about this here: http://mmorpgmaker.vault.ign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7683 )
They’re called hate crimes. ;p
Depends on who you read.
For example, tradition tells the story of William Wallace being a hero of Scotland. In reality, he was a brigand, a la Robin Hood, living in a forest with his gang of thieves. Wallace was a wanted man, having assassinated a sheriff, likely in the course of a crime. The opportunity to join a battle and “earn phat loot” presented itself, and so began his enrollment in the cause for liberty.
Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie was a real Scottish patriot, but his story isn’t nearly as fancy as the tall tales told about Wallace. The Douglas clan murdered Alexander by imprisoning and starving him in a castle dungeon. Since Alexander was a sheriff at the time, his murderer William Douglas, grandson of William Douglas the Hardy who fought alongside William Wallace at Scone, lost the favor of King David II, son of Robert the Bruce. A small justice, but that will have to do.
I’ve been pondering this for a while. In my case I think it’s because the VW is persistent. I can valiantly put an end to Villain_004 but in short order he or she will respawn. Its hard to think of Superman as a real hero when he’s just farming a Lex Luthor spawn. If he’s not getting lewt [phat or vendor trash] or experience there’s not much sense in clicking the mouse buttons because there’s not much potential for the warm fuzzies of heroism.
Are there games where I can valiantly fight evil [sorry Morgan 🙂 ] without it respawning?
Are there games where I can valiantly fight evil [sorry Morgan 🙂 ] without it respawning?
The obvious solution is to stop making them persistent. Building games where you can see forever is bound to drive people insane. Er, I mean, to repetitive heroics.
But I’m being theoretical.
A different solution is to stop making them all about fighting.
But this is all ground that’s been covered before. People keep not doing it. *shrugs*
This post led me down a path of articles on moral choices in virtual worlds that was fascinating (and informed my own most recent blog post). Thanks for that, and for such high quality posts generally.
To the comments made so far: it’s perfectly understandable that MMORPGs tend to shy away from allowing player choices (much less monster choices) have a real impact on the world, but I think a virtual world with real consequences for actions is feasible, and I think it would make for a fantastic game experience, myself. Here’s hoping someone has the guts to actually make it.