In a rabble-rousing speech at GDC Online, veteran MMO developer and current Playdom VP of creative design Raph Koster commanded the developers in the audience to take control of social media -- not let it take control of them.

Koster framed his speech, in large part, as a fairytale. He compared the world of games to a magic circle where powerful wizards set the rules.

"We like living here because we're wizards! It's pretty hard for stuff to get in and out of this magic circle," said Koster.

In the circle, everything is made of math, follows rules, is creative, and highly manipulable -- and, as it turns out, highly profitable as well. Since the magic circle is comfortable for those of us who don't know how to work well in the real world, this is a problem: money attracts "geographers," he said.

"Nowadays the wild world is coming right up to the edge of the circle and the circle is looking a little faded here. Stuff is flowing in, stuff is flowing out," said Koster. "And honestly we get really freaked out in here by the stuff that's leaking in."

"But a in a lot of ways we should be worried about the math that's leaking out," he said.

Early MMOs like Ultima Online, which Koster worked on, lacked robust social functionality. In some cases (ICQ messaging used as direct chat) users worked around it; in other cases (guilds, which Koster himself coded due to demand) the users forced the teams to accommodate their needs in-game.

"If we don't provide these facilities, players will pressure us to provide them," said Koster -- even if they "erode the gameness of the game."

"All of this ended up helping us build these big social structures," he said. "Social structures in games, once they click, they leave the bubble. In fact, that's part of the point." Forums, chat, communities -- all outside the games. But they have gone even further.

What form has this type of social interaction ultimately taken? Facebook, primarily, he suggested.

Game developers tried to keep absolute control of game worlds; only "some crazy people from Iceland even tried" to let the world into the game -- referring here, of course, to EVE Online and its player government, the Council for Stellar Management.

"Today, you can take stock of how many of the core premises of virtual community design have been taken from games and moved onto the websites that you're probably obsessively checking four times a day. It's all of it," said Koster.

Games simplified and quantified the real world, made it follow simple rules. "I love Will," said Koster. "But when he attempted to reduce all of human experience" by building The Sims, "he reduced it to eight bars, one of which was needing to pee."

And now these game concepts -- achievements and rules -- have taken the form of gamification. A simplified view of the world has been imposed on the real world, thanks to games.

"The keys to our kingdom had been handed over to the wild world. The wild world has become more like a game in virtually every way," said Koster.

But these implementations are far too simplistic. Games, as we all know, are not just about points and badges.

And while "Design is about constraining people," said Koster, games are not just systems of control. "Games are interesting, because they're only partly in control -- because they're about teaching you how to think."

"Good art does that. Bad art lies to you," Koster said. "When you start going pretty far down the route of accessibility, it's pretty easy to slip in this mode."

He pointed out that by using a points-based weight tracking app, he's lost 40 pounds. But a badly designed app could be "a straight road to anorexia, if your incentives are wrong."

Koster pointed out that he got into designing games because he wanted to set foot into "a world with two moons... I wanted to have magical experiences and form real bonds with people."

But by his estimation, today Facebook does groups better, points better, profiles better, roles better, has more user-generated content, and puts people in touch with their friends more effectively than games or virtual worlds have.

And, oh yeah -- "the world with two moons has bad funnel conversion, so we cut it."

So where does hope live??

"You're still a wizard," Koster told the audience. "Games are social media. From their inceptions, they have been tools for the transmission of wisdom. They're how we talk to each other, in forms of play. We shouldn't forget that regardless of how much all of this changes, we still have the power to shape this. We are the ones who set the rules that the world is copying."

If the world is becoming more game-like, there is "no better group people on the planet to navigate and shape that than you in this room," said Koster.

"It's more than just points. We did it because it was fun. We did it because we hung out with other people, and got to know them; they challenged us, and we challenged them. That's why we did the games. Let's watch out not to let the pointsification and rulesification, quantification, and reductionism that we have always loved about what we do -- let's not let that change who we are."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37884/GDC_Online_Raph_Koster_Urges_Developers_To_Take_Back_Control_.php

I agree with him. Gaming needs a new revolution, its design (marketing, risk adversion, etc) is getting stale.

Hu? Can I have back the few minutes of my life lost reading that incoherent gibberish?

I didn't quite understand his point. Maybe someone can clarify?

Originally posted by dopplemmo

Hu? Can I have back the few minutes of my life lost reading that incoherent gibberish?

 

odds are you'd waste it.

Originally posted by Metentso

I didn't quite understand his point. Maybe someone can clarify?

as with anything else, it's more about what you hear, then what's he saying.

imo, it's about devs responsability toward greater cause. games are not just about fun. they are learning experience, or at least should be. some people say that once they exit game, they leave it all behind. but it's not always like that. there are many thing you can learn in games that can serve you in real life. how to communicate with people is one. managing resources is other.

basically, it shouldn't be just about giving people what people ask and taking their money.

i found it a good topic but the way he talked about it was too fluffy

he was generically talking about it

a few years ago, there was an article about devs wanting to put story back in the game

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/29/telling-stories-the-next-hurdle-for-story-telling/

my poinf?  their interviews gave more inspiration to me than Kosters talk

Originally posted by dopplemmo

Hu? Can I have back the few minutes of my life lost reading that incoherent gibberish?

 

Koster's never been able to speak well without cartoons to illustrate his points.

>>as with anything else, it's more about what you hear, then what's he saying.<<

Oh. I hear some incoherent, disjointed thought process. Either that, or my mundane soul can't aspire to the heights of sage wisdom in there. Yeah, probably that.

I don't know, sounds like a lot of abstract raving to me, too.  Maybe he's just expressing himself poorly, but it seems idealistic to the point of totally missing the point.  Games ARE about having fun, but often a large part of that fun is learning the game, and navigating its obstacles.  If too much of a game is too obvious and easily manipulated by the player, the game won't be as much fun.  

It's what's commonly known as "dumbed down" - something that has been a growing blight on the industry, and more and more gamers are realizing it.  Albeit in simpler terms, and less about wizards who control the universe, or whatever.

Still, if I'm understanding him at all, I think he has a point that devs need to stand up to players, and get back to making their games challenging learning experiences.  A lot of people naturally ask for things to be handed to them on a silver platter.  It's only human nature, to try to figure out how to make everything as easy as possible.. but it ruins gaming.

Originally posted by Metentso

I didn't quite understand his point. Maybe someone can clarify?

He really kind of went over a bunch of things that seemed pretty disparate to me, so I don't really see what the overarching theme of the speech was supposed to be.

I mean, I'm assuming that his whole "wizards and geographers" analogy was about game developers (wizards) being controlled by "outside influences" like publishers, businessmen, and even players (geographers) who want to push games further towards their individual wants (money, social features), and away from creativity, sometimes at the cost of the game.  This part made it seem like he was going in the direction of urging developers to "take back control."

But then he starts going on about how games try to "simplify" real world experiences down to ridiculously simple levels like the Sims...I'm guessing he was saying this was bad.

And then he goes onto how real life is becoming "gamified" by applying game concepts like "score/points" and such to real life through social network hubs like facebook.  He says that this is essentially bad because people used to do things just for fun and not because they were trying to get points...

So I'm not really sure here, but if I had to summarize this crazy speech I would say:

Game development used to be a largely creative process (artform) that just happened to be profitable, but nowadays it has become a largely profitable process that just happens to be slightly creative due to the fact that developers are now controlled by the interests of outside parties such as players and businesspeople. 

Where games used to be designed to be just "fun" they are now pushed into a direction of trying to quantify everything with some kind of point system, to the point of even real life being reduced to 8 simple gauges (The Sims).  Worse still, because of the popularity of social network sites like Facebook, even real life is becoming quantified in such a matter.  People try to maximize their "score" of friends in reality just like they would their score in a game.

We (developers) should not let this simplification and pointsification of everything influence the way that we design our games.  We used to design games to just be fun, points and other game concepts were just a means to an end (fun), but now it seems like the points are the actual end goal.  We need to get back to developing games to be fun and not be controlled by the pointsification of our culture.

what do you guys think?  Was that what you got from the speech?

its all games now .... and thats the problem with MMORPGs right now., they use to be living worlds filled with hours of exploration and adventure. now they are just games dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. filled with ...

maps pointing you to the exact area where the mob is because god forbid you might have to explore for more than 2-3 minutes to finish your quest.

dungeons that basically come to you, because i can't be bothered to leave the main city and my personality sucks so for some reason no one answers my "omfg give me a dam group already" shout in the LFG channel.

levels that come easy and soloable, because i can't have common courtsey enough to be a decent human being in chat/groups so if there was actual accountability or a dependance on other people my progression would pretty much stop.

( i know this has nothing to do with Kosters speach but i thought i would say it anyway)

No I didn't really get that, just a bit.  Nothing about profits or creative control or fun.

What I mostly got from that is that he feels MMO's are largely social tools, however the games are falling far behind other social outlets like facebook.  That is developers can and should be doing more to enhance the social aspect of MMO's.

Why should the gamer go to forums, facebook, guild websites to get information about the game and keep in contact with their gaming friends.  He thinks there should be some method of doing that all within the game context, there should be no reason for the gamer to have to leave the game environment in order to  feel socially connected to it.

Thats what I got anyway, amidst all is incoherent disjointed rambling.

Venge

edit - and if anyone in my game shouted on an open channel, " "omfg give me a dam group already" shout in the LFG channel."  They would be the last person I would group with.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Metentso

I didn't quite understand his point. Maybe someone can clarify?

He really kind of went over a bunch of things that seemed pretty disparate to me, so I don't really see what the overarching theme of the speech was supposed to be.

I mean, I'm assuming that his whole "wizards and geographers" analogy was about game developers (wizards) being controlled by "outside influences" like publishers, businessmen, and even players (geographers) who want to push games further towards their individual wants (money, social features), and away from creativity, sometimes at the cost of the game.  This part made it seem like he was going in the direction of urging developers to "take back control."

But then he starts going on about how games try to "simplify" real world experiences down to ridiculously simple levels like the Sims...I'm guessing he was saying this was bad.

And then he goes onto how real life is becoming "gamified" by applying game concepts like "score/points" and such to real life through social network hubs like facebook.  He says that this is essentially bad because people used to do things just for fun and not because they were trying to get points...

So I'm not really sure here, but if I had to summarize this crazy speech I would say:

Game development used to be a largely creative process (artform) that just happened to be profitable, but nowadays it has become a largely profitable process that just happens to be slightly creative due to the fact that developers are now controlled by the interests of outside parties such as players and businesspeople. 

Where games used to be designed to be just "fun" they are now pushed into a direction of trying to quantify everything with some kind of point system, to the point of even real life being reduced to 8 simple gauges (The Sims).  Worse still, because of the popularity of social network sites like Facebook, even real life is becoming quantified in such a matter.  People try to maximize their "score" of friends in reality just like they would their score in a game.

We (developers) should not let this simplification and pointsification of everything influence the way that we design our games.  We used to design games to just be fun, points and other game concepts were just a means to an end (fun), but now it seems like the points are the actual end goal.  We need to get back to developing games to be fun and not be controlled by the pointsification of our culture.

what do you guys think?  Was that what you got from the speech?

yeah thats a great way to summarize it.

Turn games back into a social media, or hack facebook and use it to promote the game... I got sort of lost.

At one point I got the impression that as designers we make the rules for the world we develop, and we should use those rules to encourage social play.  Problem is, everyone yells "forced grouping" and walks out.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Metentso

I didn't quite understand his point. Maybe someone can clarify?

So I'm not really sure here, but if I had to summarize this crazy speech I would say:

Game development used to be a largely creative process (artform) that just happened to be profitable, but nowadays it has become a largely profitable process that just happens to be slightly creative due to the fact that developers are now controlled by the interests of outside parties such as players and businesspeople. 

Where games used to be designed to be just "fun" they are now pushed into a direction of trying to quantify everything with some kind of point system, to the point of even real life being reduced to 8 simple gauges (The Sims).  Worse still, because of the popularity of social network sites like Facebook, even real life is becoming quantified in such a matter.  People try to maximize their "score" of friends in reality just like they would their score in a game.

We (developers) should not let this simplification and pointsification of everything influence the way that we design our games.  We used to design games to just be fun, points and other game concepts were just a means to an end (fun), but now it seems like the points are the actual end goal.  We need to get back to developing games to be fun and not be controlled by the pointsification of our culture.

what do you guys think?  Was that what you got from the speech?

Your summary is more worth reading than the presentation itself, if you ask me.

I realized that what was posted was just a coverage of his talk, and maybe that was why it seemed so incoherent. So I went to his website and found the entry for this talk:

http://www.raphkoster.com/2011/10/13/gdco2011-its-all-games-now/

I downloaded the .pdf of the presentation, checked it, and ... while some things are now clearer, overall it still feels like disjointed ramblings. I guess one had to be at the presentation to get the "message"

---

Originally posted by firefly2003

But by his estimation, today Facebook does groups better, points better, profiles better, roles better, has more user-generated content, and puts people in touch with their friends more effectively than games or virtual worlds have.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
I have no idea who Raph Koster is, but I think he's right.

he was the lead designer for Ultima Online

and largely involved with the design of Star Wars Galaxies -- before it got hit by the NGE

Star Wars Galaxies Design Process

http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/designprocess.shtml

http://www.raphkoster.com/2011/06/24/swg-is-shutting-down/

In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I’d rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity. There’s a reason people are passionate about it all these years later. I’m proud to have worked on it.

edit

in some ways, his speech reflects on what happened with the NGE SWG

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/arts/10star.html

"We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base," said Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts.
"There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer.

We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."

Hah....Koster's ideas for MMOs were so popular that he had to close up shop, and run to a different genre. Metaplace had the roaring success that SWG did....err lack of success I should say.

I saw a post once that basically describes Mr Sandbox himself...."Koster wouldnt know fun even if someone dick slapped him with it"

SWG was ALL about interaction with other players. Before NGE and to a certain extent CU, you just couldn't progress without help. That is what made it a great MMORPG.

People were happy to help too. The community was outstanding!

I digress though. It's not players that the devs need to stop listening to, it's the investors who aren't happy unless they're making profits like Blizzard.

I'm pretty sure devs want to make diverse, ground breaking games, but the guys at the top prefer something with a 'proven' track record and a guaranteed ROI.