As far as I'm concerned, an MMO is just a playground. Why do I think that way? Largely because I'm middle-aged. I've had a successful career, had responsibilities, challenges, successes and disappointments. I've travelled, worked hard, played hard and generally explored what life has to offer. I'm content. That's why an MMO is just a playground to me.
I read blogs and forum posts by people who want challenges. They want permanent death of their characters. They enjoy the grind. They want to be able to build an empire and defend it against all comers. They want equipment to break. They want unpredictability and risk. They want consequences of actions. Penalties. Things to overcome.
I'm what a hardcore gamer calls a carebear. I'm a carebear because I've already played hardcore in the real world. I went through the grind at work. I got my levels in my career. I got all the loot I could possibly want. Gaining virtual stuff through a virtual grind is just plain idiotic to me.
But it's not idiotic to those who haven't been as lucky as I have been. They are in jobs where they don't feel like they're accomplishing anything. They don't feel challenged. There's too little excitement in typing in another report. And that's just the ones who want a challenge. Beyond that, there are the socializers, the roleplayers, the explorers and the (gah) killers. Each of them is coming to these MMOs in an effort to experience something that they're not finding in the real world.
Does that mean that MMOs are virtual worlds? No. It means that they are places where we look for wishes to come true. They are playgrounds where we fantasize about that experience that is lacking in our lives. Those hardcore players that want to build an empire are roleplayers, just as the PvP hombres are. They're acting out fantasies that drive away the parts of their lives that they'd rather do without.
As the gaming community ages and gets experience in both gaming and in real life, I think that we're going to find that either the more experienced gamers are going to pack up and leave, or they're going to want just a rather more carebearish experience out of their entertainment. If virtual achievements don't sate the appetites of those who lack real world achievements, then it may be that players will be forever addicted to searching for that one virtual achievement that will finally make them feel like they've accomplished something. They'll never be able to "go carebear".
What's lacking in my life is just some old-fashioned silly fun. That's why I come to MMOs looking for that. That's why I keep describing systems that lack challenge, grind, accumulations of experience, money, power, equipment and so on. Those things make people too serious about their gameplay. The people drawn to those things want to achieve. During my career, I don't recall a lot of silliness. We worked because we had goals worth achieving. You'll note that's exactly what the hardcore players are calling for - goals worth achieving. That's why they want virtual worlds. They want the real world, just modified sufficiently so that they can feel like they're Bill Gates or General Patton or James Bond.
MMOs aren't virtual worlds. They're fun factories, not unlike Disneyland. It just works out that there are a lot of people who aren't getting enough from the real world and they want the Pirates of the Caribbean to stop all that idiotic singing and to finally attack.
Yo ho ho.
I think that perhaps you're looking in the wrong places for your silly fun. With all semantic jumps allowed, online games are tiny little virtual worlds with real communities. Of course, most games lack the freedoms the real world may have, but they still try to simulate a world. Anyway, back to the silly fun, I like casual games myself, but those are hard to find online, everyone else wants to be better than you when all you want to do is have fun. So I try to stick to roleplay servers in any game I jump in even tho I don't really roleplay, sure I stay in character but I wont stick for any drama or plot, just play the game and maybe talk fancy. Even so, I think that for play fun and passtime I stick to offline games or cooperative online games. Portal was a fun offline game, I replay it just to hear the computer talking some times. As for online games, defcon is good for some quick moody dose of destruction.
I think that the problem we (at least I do) find as casual gamers is the persistency of the world we play in. I get quickly bored of a character that has to grind any skill/level to do something else. I'd love to play a game where you start out being able to do everything, even if poorly and had only a single life with plenty of dangers around. I guess I could play an online FPS for that, but that's not exactly what I mean. I mean a RPG that is made for short lived characters, where competitiveness could come in the form of a ranking and not just ganking others. Oh well, I'm just dreaming over here.
Sat Nov 17 2007 10:47AMBah! Bah I say! Your arguement distills down to: "It's just a game, why take it so seriously?" This attitude combined with a lack of recognition of the value of other play styles results in a gaming industry afraid of risk, content to churn out more carebear clones for the middle-aged pocketbook and their spoiled children.
What your small view, of mmo's as playgrounds, fails to encompass are the MMO's made for adults, filled with emergent gameplay, and the various "meta" games that you don't like because it takes more time and effort then you have, or perhaps more skill. Maybe you haven't played the MMO's out there that represent alternatives to the carebear world you so gleefully inhabit, or maybe you're content to never see the edges and live blissfully in MMO suburbia as you finish yet another scripted quest and slay yet another mob. I'm fairly certain that your claim that "either the more experienced gamers are going to pack up and leave, or they're going to want just a rather more carebearish experience out of their entertainment. " is so binary and self-serving that it will never come true.
I'm a young professional in my prime with plenty of grind and no shortage of loot, a buzzing social circle in real life and plenty of world travel under my belt. I don't think your vision of the gaming universe is one I'll ever be interested in. Have you heard of Puzzle Pirates? I suggest you spend some time over there, as you're just looking for " old-fashioned silly fun." I hear there's an ether frolic and a game of Uno at the Box Social in your neighborhood too!
Sat Nov 17 2007 10:57AM;)
So people can't be hardcore in real life and their gaming lives?
Whatever, bro.
I'm 35 and I work and I've traveled. I even traveled for work as a software trainer. I've had my fair share of women and crazy fun life experiences, believe me.
Still, the older I get, the more hardcore I want my games to be. Simple as that. I've been playing them as a child and I certainly don't want them getting easier. I like challenge via virtual environments (AS ALL GAMES ARE).
Dude, we are human beings. We are goal driven, period. Why do you think the game of golf exists? That is a game for people who take their gaming seriously!!!! And who are the majority of the people who play it? Affluent types. They have goals in their "real" lives and during their "play" time.
So, why does it have to be any different for a gamer? Why can't they also play as hard as they work?
Sat Nov 17 2007 11:10AMI disagree about the motivations of people who want virtual worlds. First, when people talk about virtual worlds, they are generally the people who don't care about grind and uberloot. Those are the people who are looking for harder games, not better worlds.
I am in the middle of the hardcore grind of my life. I've got a lot going on. I'm happy with where I am and with where I am going. And I like silly fun too. I'm certainly not looking to be a hero in a game because I've flunked at real life. I'm just looking for interesting exotic places that I can visit and still get up to put kids on the bus the next morning.
Sat Nov 17 2007 11:22AMI don't think a persons play-style depends on their real life experiences, but rather on their persona. I'm guy who's constantly being challenged at work, yet I also want a challenge when playing a game. People say that I'm a very driven person, and my gaming needs reflect this. I play games to relax and have fun, but for me to be able to relax, I need the challenge and excitement of just being able to survive.
My dad plays WoW, he is 59 years old, and he plays a PvP rogue. That about sums up my opinion. I think your gaming needs are defined by your persona, yes your life experiences will greatly affect your personality, but the results are very individual.
Sat Nov 17 2007 11:24AMI agree with the OP about a lot of things. But nothing was included about the personal connections that can be made (they're not always made) within the construct of an MMORPG. I've been in and witnessed numerous guilds go through the grieving process when one of their players (not characters mind you) dies.
MMORPGs may not be 100% alternate reality but they're very close especially on the social level.
Sat Nov 17 2007 11:31AMThanks to everyone for taking the time to reply.
soulwynd: "I think that perhaps you're looking in the wrong places for your silly fun."
MMOs simply haven't been built for silly fun yet. In time, it'll happen. Note that "silly fun" can still involve the same activities as are found in current MMOs, but it will be structured differently. I look forward to silly combat.
woalCE: "Bah! Bah I say! Your arguement distills down to: "It's just a game, why take it so seriously?""
Read the article again. I made no such claim. I said that I was after silly fun and that others are not. Then I went on to claim that the reason that people enter MMOs is to find something that they're not getting enough of in the real world.
When I said that I was after silly fun and that others were not, you apparently assumed that I was therefore bashing anything that wasn't silly fun. No such bashing was in the article.
Something else that you assumed was that I hadn't enjoyed my time in games like EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, et al. They provided something that I didn't get enough of when I was younger. Now that experience is stale and uninteresting. As you get older, your taste in entertainment may change as well.
MChavez: "So people can't be hardcore in real life and their gaming lives?"
Of course they can. Let's say that somebody wants 10 hardcore stimuli per day. Their job gives them 5. They're not sated by that, so they'll look for hardcore stimuli from other sources. MMOs are one such source. As I've gotten older, my desire for hardcore stimuli has dropped off dramatically. So I don't seek it. I attributed part of that reduction to the fact that I had had plenty of it through my job.
But let's say that somebody wants 100 hardcore stimuli per day. Their job (life, relationship, whatever) is far more intense than that other guy's, and they get 50 hardcore stimuli through their job. But they want more. So they look for it. It's all very personal.
My article was an attempt (failed, as so many are) to suggest that we're looking for many things from MMOs, and that as a result, they're not virtual worlds. They are a large space in which lots of people come together to find some form of stimuli that they don't get enough of in the rest of their lives.
neschria: I'm just looking for interesting exotic places that I can visit and still get up to put kids on the bus the next morning."
Exactly. That's what you're looking for. I've read countless statements by people who say that they want this, or they want that. There's a wide spectrum of things that people want. I suspect that if you were traveling the world, seeing exotic places, you would be less inclined to seek it out online.
A virtual world is what you're looking for. It's one of the things that MMOs can do. But MMOs are not required to be virtual worlds, complete with economics, politics and all other manner of social reality. There are a lot of people who just want a place to go for some silly fun. It'll still be a 3D environment with lots of avatars running around, but that doesn't make it a virtual world.
Hrothmund: "yes your life experiences will greatly affect your personality, but the results are very individual."
I agree. I presented my individual experiences and suggested that other people's life experiences would affect their "personas" as well. I just didn't phrase it carefully enough to avoid some vehement responses.
Rouzuki: "MMORPGs may not be 100% alternate reality but they're very close especially on the social level."
The phenomenon of social ties is a real world phenomenon, not a virtual world one. It is facilitated through the internet, and MMOs present a richer interaction with others than, for example, an AOL chat room. But the ties will develop even in simple chat rooms. Ties developed between pen pals before the advent of any electronic gadgets. As a result, it's nowhere near a necessity for an MMO to be a virtual world for the social ties to develop.
Sat Nov 17 2007 12:35PMSorry I play games to have fun, not to fill some existential void. Further I think it's rather pedantic of you to try and Doctor Phil millions of unique individuals.
Sat Nov 17 2007 12:51PMVirtual World:
A virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact via avatars. This habitation usually is represented in the form of two or three-dimensional graphical representations of humanoids (or other graphical or text-based avatars). Some, but not all, virtual worlds allow for multiple users.
The world being computer-simulated typically appears similar to the real world, with real world rules such as gravity, topography, locomotion, real-time actions, and communication. Communication has, until recently, been in the form of text, but now real-time voice communication using VOIP is available. This type of virtual world is now most common in massively multiplayer online games
Source: Wikipedia
Source: Dictionary.com
These definitions were some i found in Online dictionaries. I found many more Definitions witch were similar but I didnt feel like cluttering your page. My question is what is your definition of a Virtual World?
Sat Nov 17 2007 2:44PMPeople want a challenge, not everyone is content with having things just handed to them. That may work for you but people have different reasons for playing and different goals while playing. If your looking for silly fun try Toontown Online or something similar.
Sat Nov 17 2007 3:01PMunherdninja: "My question is what is your definition of a Virtual World?"
For the purposes of a blog article here, it's more specific than either of your references would suggest. MMO players are clamoring for more reality in gaming. The belief is that by having that reality, they will be able to pursue a higher fidelity simulation of the real world - with some form of fictional twist. But the push is for reality.
I understand the desire for a realistic environment and there are many improvements that I'd like to see, but mimicking reality is not the ultimate manifestation of an MMO. I attempted to present reasons why people play in order to explain why alternate realistic worlds in the virtual space aren't necessary desirable.
Given the comments, I have failed to communicate my point on all counts. At least to the majority of the responders.
Sat Nov 17 2007 4:18PMHe's another know-it-all. Plain and simple. Brave behind his little computer screen. Like everyone else jacked up on Virtual courage.
Sat Nov 17 2007 5:15PMNothing like attacking someone for voiceing an opinion, especially when it dosen't agree with yours. Does this happen in your real life also, or only from behind your little computer screen. I'm not saying I agree with the writers opinions, but I will allow them to exist with feeling a need to flame because I disagree.
Sat Nov 17 2007 6:15PMGo play hello kitty online. I like risk and death in mmo's Not perma death but at least loss. EVE does this well. You can however be a carebear in EVE. You just need to take precautions.
Sat Nov 17 2007 10:24PMAfter reading these comments, I've come to the conclusion that you're all a bunch of attention whores.
Sun Nov 18 2007 12:05AM********They want permanent death of their characters******
-------------
Who are these people and what are they on? I mean the idea sounds cool but wtf.. If I put tons of work into a character and have to start over because i get killed by another player or mod..
I'd be annoying and wouldn't play that game again..
Sun Nov 18 2007 3:38AMSempaiEclipse, like the first sentence said; people that want challenges. Just think of the countless people that used to play Hardcore mode in Diablo II. Yes, Diablo II is perhaps one of the biggest grindfests, but was one of the first well-playable ORPG. You didn't really RP, but you had fun. You'd be able to enter a game, do a few things and leave. Even in a short amount of time you felt that you at least accomplished something. Where as in todays (MM)ORPG you need to grind for hours to achieve something.
Online games didn't always revolve around 50 hour grinds just to get your great equipment.
I'd probably rather take out Diablo II from the dusty rack and play that than playing most of these days MMORPG. That is, if there would still be people online at Diablo II and if they'd revert back to an older version of the game.
I've had a fair share of online gaming. I currently see most MMOs as a simple grindfest. WoW revolves a lot around PvP...-grinding. EVE is one of the few games I've seen that isn't about grinding, in my eyes. I used to love MMOs but I've gotten bored with the things that companies keep bringing to the table. Though, it is a steady line upwards.
I, just as the OP, am looking forward to the silly things. Where it isn't just about grinding. But I don't expect that much to come any time soon. As the most MMO, that are currently announced, are still mostly focused on grinding. It's just that they keep adding features.
Instead of an addition, I'm looking for a change. An MMORPG that revolves more around the RP and having silly fun rather than the grind. Most RPG I play barely let me RP because of several limits.
This, like I said, would probably take a while as changing the success formula is a risk. And also, if it were to go similar to what I have in mind, it would severely increase the cost of creation. Perhaps in the future the resources to make these things happen will have simplified, which hopefully would lead to change.
But perhaps it's not an MMO that I'm really looking for. Maybe it's just that I want an MMO because it's nostalgic to me, even though I can't find the satisfaction in most of todays MMO.
Sun Nov 18 2007 5:20AMActually, the OP got a point. It would be nice with some more niched games, like some really hardcore and some more carebear styled.
The problem, as far as I see is that most the companies are aiming for the same players, the mainstream guy who wants a little bit of everything, not to complicated to learn. You know the guys in the middle. I guess theres where you get most money.
I'm not whining about the existing games, I just wished there where a few more kinds of game. I don't think it's possible to make a game that fits everyone.
Sun Nov 18 2007 7:01AMChess is too challenging and complicated. I'm a winner in real life, dealing with real life challenges and complexities. That's why I'd rather play checkers.
Sun Nov 18 2007 7:15AMMMOS are what the devs make it, recently most of them have turned them into playgrounds but the very first ones like Meridian, Ultima Online and Asherons Call certainly tried to be virtual online worlds.
Also I dont understand how you can compare advancing in your real life career to a computer world. In computer worlds you can wield a great sword or axe to kill a giant dragon, you can summon lightning bolts and you can craft the finest magical items and you can kill other characters. Im not sure how that compares to working 12 hours per day to get that promotion you want.
Sun Nov 18 2007 8:19AMThey are games, not worlds. There are no real consequences. No one loses a job, a family, a home, a fortune or their lives. Its all in your imagination. For me also, they are an escape from what the REAL world throws at me every day. If its going badly I can turn it off and come back when I am ready to deal with it again. In the REAL world you can't do this. You either deal at the time and place demands you deal or you lose... BIG TIME.
As for what the devs make. They're making money on a GAME.
Sun Nov 18 2007 8:41AMYuuyake, thanks for the thoughts. I also enjoyed Diablo II quite a bit. Interestingly, playing that in LAN mode with some friends is among the most "silly fun" that I've had with a multiplayer game. One of our trio was constantly getting into trouble, with hilarious results.
Loke, Raph Koster's Metaverse project is an attempt at making MMOs as common as web sites. It's fundamentally like an MMO toolkit, but focused on creating standards like HTML. The point of mentioning Metaverse is that it may permit many diferent experiments in MMO structure, including everything from silly fun to highly realistic virtual worlds.
Yamota: "Also I dont understand how you can compare advancing in your real life career to a computer world."
I don't recall making a comparison. I believe I mentioned something about the experiences of our real lives having a bearing on our choice of entertainment. Read through Nick Yee's Daedallus Project and you'll find all sorts of correlations between real world demographics and preferences in MMOs. Most of them are supportive of understanding age and gender differences in their impact on in-game choices.
One simple case is that as players get older they are less inclined to want to lead and more inclined to want to support. It is one of the clearest examples of real life experiences having an impact on the sort of entertainment that we seek - just viewed from a statistical viewpoint.
Sun Nov 18 2007 8:49AMnon of these games seem real to me.. if they did they'd have jails. I see ppl murder other people all tha time. In that respect I would agree.. its more of a playground. But some games are more ecco based.... brining in a flex market, stocks.. player housing, a development system and an actual Law system but these are very rare.. might change a lil bit pretty soon.
Outside of that, most games are jus playgrounds for lil or big kids.. but kids all the same but its also part of the enjoyment and its not always the games fault for how its played... kould be the idea and culture of the people.
You kould have two sets of game with the same fame built but different things... one my end up being ruled by pk'rs and "yo momma" talker awhile the other may be a social friendly community... u just never really know until u play.
Sun Nov 18 2007 11:18AMI have to disagree with you. I don't play video games because I'm looking for something that I lack in real life. You don't play a video game to have fun because your real life is so horribly boring. Video games are made for enjoyment and you can never have enough fun.
Sun Nov 18 2007 1:17PMWell when you play an online game consistently you get connected and it stops being a game in some ways. The reality of the matter is if a game is going to be played as a part of a daily or weekly schedule then its obviously more than just to relieve stress or to fulfill some other randomly unfulfilled aspect of or lives, otherwise we would only use the game when that aspect of our life became particularly unfulfilled. We are creatures of habbit and will more or less play online because we enjoy the familiar aspects of it and consider it part of our routine.
Sun Nov 18 2007 9:22PMI am a casual gamer. All I have is experience in one game. Guild Wars. But by reading articles by players and developers alike I'm getting more of a sense of what the 'general' rule of thumb is for these things called MMORPG's.
I guess, that like you, I'm more of a carebear. I like powerleveling those with less levels than I, and instructing them in game mechanics and customs, than I do in grinding levels and looking for the neatest, meanest equipment I can find.
Maybe that will change if I find another system out there that provides challenges that don't permanently define the characters. In short, something that will challenge causual players without scarring them for being such.
Maybe niche games will be the answer to this. Instead of "Meta games" that try to be all things to all people.
I do agree with you're assertion that these are playgrounds; but I also agree with the statement that some kids take their games more seriously than other kids do. Evidenced by the reactions you've gotten on this blog.
We'll just have to see what the future brings us.
Sun Nov 18 2007 9:23PMI like to achieve.
I don't understand your arguments, and I doubt you would understand me.
But I kinda think you kinda pinpoint it right for most raiders and how they see it, but again, I don't like raiding, nor understand why someone would.
And I definitely agree with you, this is just a game! And a game gonna's be fun.
This is why I think a level cap and a gear cap on every zone in order to make sure casuals can master all the game except 1 zone (unlimited levels yar), that would be great IMO.
You won't see me play a game where I don't achieve something. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right, but maybe it doesn't matter. I enjoy achieving, always more. Is 5493720947 levels enought? Never... :P I enjoy achieving...I enjoy hoarding. Same in RL. But in both, RL and games, there are borders I will not break in order to achieve.
Just like I will not bear a job that make me unhappy, I will not bear raiding. FUN is important in my life...and achieving is part of the FUN equation.
Am I competing with you, your neighbor and the other guy over there? You won't know, and it wouldn't matter! But if I can see some form of positive competition, I will.
There is a pleasure in success, in achieving, no matter the form. RL or gaming. But achieving must NEVER be done at the expanse of everything else, not for a job, and definitely not for a game...so even if you don't attack raiding openly, I recognize that it is your grief, and I think you are right.
Socialisers are not that different, they are also achieving...they are just working on a weird table I am not sure I fully understand, but I will be happy to be their friend!
I enjoy be competitive, I enjoy achieving, I enjoy thinking that I could be the best at what I am doing (regardless of actually becoming the best or not, dreaming about it is paramount)
Mon Nov 19 2007 12:28AMyou don't have a penis for sayin that ( i revoke the right)
Mon Nov 19 2007 4:50AMMMO's are always created with a targeted grp of people behind it, may it be people between 15-25 or 25-40, it's a whole different story, the games you maybe feel dissapointed in is because you bought the wrong product.
Most games cannot fuel the power of any kind to meet all agegroups, ofcourse you will see a few rare sights of good old grandfather playing a game with his grandson at perhaps same level, well that's not a completely agegroup mix, it's more because the grandfather was more into the modern "gaming" because the other 999 grandfathers would probably not be able to play the game let alone like it.
Mostly when i see these kinds of hardcore vs. casual gaming, it all boils down to to childish and rather stupid outcomes; "it's just a game, relax", "i got a life , do you?", "i do it for the excitment of winning", "competetion" and so on.
There's always a time to be hardcore and another to be casual we all got it, we most likely all got a life in some way, if you want a challenge do it both ingames and out of it.
And now please stop the "i am a carebear i have great reallife, and you don't, mr hardcore!" or the "oh man carebears suck beyond hell ingames and tralalala".
these are old, stupid, and most of all retarded.
Looking down on people is as elitist as the hardcore ingame elitists.... so pretty much the postmaker is just the same as the so-called "super elitists mmo-players", well done!!
In the end we all sit in the same boat, so lets try to paddle the same direction, please?
Mon Nov 19 2007 8:19AMQmire, I invite you to actually take the time to read the article. It is about calling out motivations for playing in MMOs, using my own motivations as an example, and claiming that ultimately MMOs are simply games that provide an experience that the players were motivated to find. That they are not all about finding an another reality any more than playing Monopoly or Chess is about finding another reality.
This article was not about "hardcore vs casual gaming". I was not inviting people to comment on whether they were hardcore or casual. This article was not about some notion of one-size-MMO-fits-all. What I wanted was a bit of commentary on why or why not MMOs are destined to be alternate realities. I think that such things will come into being, but I don't believe that they are at the core of MMOs as entertainment.
This has been an interesting learning experience for me. It was like trying to explain a principle of physics using sports teams as an analogy and having people comment on the sports teams.
Mon Nov 19 2007 9:40AMi find myself drawn to people like JB47394, not just because i like what they have to say and their ability to put words to ideas and concepts ive had in my head for a long time, but also because of how people respond to them. for example, i dont think even half of the people who have responded to this post read the entire thing. the other half basically just scanned through it, none of it really making an impression. by reading these responses, i can tell how much of the original post they read, how much of it they will remember tomorrow, what parts they blatently missed, what parts they disregarded because they didnt even understand, and even a great deal about what kind of person they are, a good guess on how many friends they have in real life and online, an idea on how plush their life has been if at all, and various other things. one of the reasons i dont make posts like this myself is the fact that so few people actually read it, in one eye and out the other so to speak, and jump right into bashing it without even really knowing what they are bashing. they probly spent more time typing up their response than reading, somehow feeling their gaming prowess was in question by seeing the word 'carebear'
"Looking down on people is as elitist as the hardcore ingame elitists...."
Mon Nov 19 2007 9:59AMthats a perfect example. in no way was JB looking down on anyone. you can call me a "super elitist mmo-player" if you like though, cause im looking down on you for your ignorance and stupidity and inabiltiy to understand. for your thinking that just cause someone plays different than you, it means they are bashing your style of play. no, we dont all sit in the same boat, and telling everyone to paddle in the same direction is just stupid because some people are carebears and some people elitists, and they will paddle the direction their own boat is going.
"This has been an interesting learning experience for me. It was like trying to explain a principle of physics using sports teams as an analogy and having people comment on the sports teams."
LOL, i like that. thats how i've always felt when i've tried to talk to people.
Mon Nov 19 2007 10:05AMMMOs aren't require to be virtual worlds, but some could be. Some could be playgrounds. Some could cater to the hardcore. Some could be... whatever the hell Second Life is.
I have done some traveling, but I am a mother of 6 with 3 small kids still at home, including a toddler. What's the harm in a little virtual tourism while I am in the thick of things with kids?
Of course, I totally undercut my own point when I admit that the only MMORPG I am playing is Fiesta Online, for about 3-5 hours a week. That really is just pure silly fun for me. It's a little recreation on the fringes of a week that otherwise consists of work, kids, and writing a really bad novel.
Mon Nov 19 2007 10:28AMneschria, the part of your comment that I'm interested in is that you believe that MMOs can be many things. That virtual worlds aren't the ultimate expression of an MMO. It's just another expression of them.
neschria: "Of course, I totally undercut my own point when I admit that the only MMORPG I am playing is Fiesta Online, for about 3-5 hours a week. That really is just pure silly fun for me. It's a little recreation on the fringes of a week that otherwise consists of work, kids, and writing a really bad novel."
I don't think that you're undercutting your point at all. You just value a little silly fun right now. In a week or a month or a year, you may decide that some virtual travel is what you crave - even though you've done some travelling.
And maybe that's why I like the silly fun. I too once wrote a really bad novel. :)
Readers: Note that I in no way mean that if you write a bad novel that you are required to like silly fun. Nor do I mean that if you like silly fun and haven't written a bad novel that you are somehow inferior to those who have. Nor do I mean that if you have written a good novel that you cannot be permitted to enjoy silly fun. We now return you to your daily routine, whether it involves silly fun or not.
Mon Nov 19 2007 10:49AMAs with most things in life, people get too caught up in the details JB47394. I applaud your effort, and the article was a very good read.
There are many points I'd agree with you on, and of course a few I wouldn't.
I think I play MMOs for the achievements. I think about 90% achiever, then 3.33% social/explorer/killer.
I like playing MMOs because they are online, and I do like adventuring and chatting with friends while playing... and I'm competitive enough to enjoy good PvP... and I went back to all the raids I didn't get to at 60 in WoW once I hit 70 just to see the content...
But I think it's really about fun. I work all day, go out and socialize and weekends, but during the weekdays it's very hard motivate me to go out and do anything after work, knowing I have to get up early the next day... so MMOs and other multiplayer games are a great way to kill time, have fun, and be some what social instead of just sitting in a dark room by myself...
Mon Nov 19 2007 12:39PMYuuyake
I understand people want more challenges, I do as well.. But it I puts in months of grin and my character dies for good.. I'd be mad, and I wouldn't be the only one..
Just think if WoW had that, All you honor points gone etc.. You telling me you wouldn't be upset?
---
I mean don't get me wrong. The idea sounds good, I just don't think it would work..
Tue Nov 20 2007 5:58AMI always avoided this article but decided I should read it today. It's not exactly what I expected but nevertheless, it is controversial content like I expected
You appear to think 'Achievers' are losers in real life which is pretty darn biased and you come across as condescending here in this piece:
"But it's not idiotic to those who haven't been as lucky as I have been. They are in jobs where they don't feel like they're accomplishing anything. They don't feel challenged."
Ouch, very inaccurate. I would say its polar opposite if I was to stoop to making a broad generalization. Achievers are infact- very successful in real life is the reality. They want rewards or a return for their time investment. They want to see change and achieve goals. These guys are the bosses and Vice Presidents of giants like Electronic Arts. Some of the most devout and zealous Achievers that I know of are people in high positions
"Those hardcore players that want to build an empire are roleplayers, just as the PvP hombres are. They're acting out fantasies that drive away the parts of their lives that they'd rather do without."
This is again apart of an Achiever mentality and once again I would have to point out they are perhaps playing the game the exact same way they live their life. They have overcome challenges in their real lives
In the end, I think gamers just want to have FUN. Some people are total jerks ingame but polar opposites in real life. The bottom line is that virtual worlds (which can be ANY game as someone else pointed out)- allow us to explore identities totally contrary to our daily lives. A social butterfly might explore being a Killer in an virtual world. A nice guy might explore being a jerk in a virtual world. A jerk might explore being nice in a virtual world to acquire an ends to a means
We really cant draw accurate personality traits due to online behavior. They really are just games.
Fri Dec 21 2007 9:42PMvajuras: "You appear to think 'Achievers' are losers in real life which is pretty darn biased and you come across as condescending here in this piece:"
That's a shame because none of that is intended. My statement is that achievers don't get enough achievement in real life. Roleplayers don't get enough roleplaying in real life. Fishermen don't get enough fishing in real life. Etc.
vajuras: "Ouch, very inaccurate."
It has been my experience that it is true (not accomplishing anything is an unfortunate overstatement on my part). The strongest achievers that I have encountered through gaming are the people who have the ability, but not the opportunity to pursue enough achievements in their lives.
Your example of the developers themselves is very apt and your point is taken. I'd be very interested to see a Nick Yee questionnaire correlating achiever intensity to some kind of satisfaction with their live achievements. Mind you, not whether they are in high positions, but whether they are satisfied with their achievements.
vajuras: "This is again apart of an Achiever mentality and once again I would have to point out they are perhaps playing the game the exact same way they live their life."
It's the way they want to live life, which is my point. If i wanted to be a dancer and I had no opportunity, surely I would enjoy a game where my avatar could dance. This is just fantasy or wish fulfillment. I consider it proof by obvious, but I may just be inept at communicating it to this audience.
vajuras: "We really cant draw accurate personality traits due to online behavior. They really are just games."
I disagree. Everything is part of life, and once the context is accounted for, we can continue to make demographic statements about people.
vajuras: "In the end, I think gamers just want to have FUN."
I agree. The vast majority want that. That statement is the basis of this article; MMOs are not virtual worlds. They're just places to find a bit of fun. Those who want virtual worlds are looking for something more viscerally satisfying than mere fun. I find the trend towarrds virtual worlds unsettling as people try to find some sense of satisfaction through virtual experiences that they are not finding in life. Books and movies provide the same outlet, but they are not interactive.
Sat Dec 22 2007 1:02PMtwo words: Second Life...:)
Look me up (Shava Suntzu)
Yrs,
Shava
Thu Jan 03 2008 3:13PMMMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment