Coming of Age in World of WarCraft
You know, I wouldn't
call myself one of those evil academics^TM who studies World of WarCraft (WoW). Far from it, I play WoW, and the
anthropologist in me can't help but analyze what makes that play culture tick. And that would include a little more than a passing academic interest in WoW. So, maybe I am
evil after all and I suppose that's why I typically
play Horde. kek.
For this entry, I shall begin with a
story about WoW that may hit home with many TN readers. This is just
one example of engagement with one form of media, being games. As I
promised in my last entry, I will show that the interactions associated
with game play are significant and deserve more of our attention than
being written off as 'just a game.' I don't think I'm preaching solely
to the converted here, either. Sometimes, in the rare moments I
venture outside the land of the digerati, I realize
just how much work remains to be done in driving home the idea that
games are indeed social, as opposed to isolating, for example. This is
a story about games as part of our
communications media toolkit, with which we have just as many chances
of conveying
the good, bad, and ugly of humanity as we do with other forms of media.
Over the years I had
come to think myself rather good at what I call passionate detachment.
Passion is what drives me to pursue the tough questions, but detachment is what needs to occur in order to convert things like intense passionate participation into clear, compelling, ethnographic writing. It has taken me until now to truly be able to convert one particular experience into anything resembling articulate.
One may ask what the
deal is, because it's just a game. Right? Well, it isn't and here's why.
At the time, I was a
new level 60 (meaning, that my gear wasn't uber in any sense, I only had one
purple item, and I didn't have Vent or even CT mod yet). I had however been in
many instances with coordinated groups, had my fair share of bad PUGs (Pick-Up
Groups), and was a pretty confident player. I felt like I had an advantage coming from EverQuest: because I wasn't a
new gamer, I knew what to do during a raid, and what not to do. Anyone could feel confident inviting me because
I wouldn't be an 'idiot.'
One evening after
dinner, a local friend called me up and told me that his guild (most of which
had members joining in from time zones seven hours ahead) needed more people
for their Silithus raid. With my
agreement to participate, there were already social relations at stake. This
friend was my in to this particular group. If I screwed up somehow, it would reflect badly on him in his
guild. It would also reflect badly on
me, I could potentially be blacklisted from ever grouping with this prominent
guild again, and pain of shame would be mine. But, as I mentioned before, I wouldn't be an idiot, so we were totally
safe of course.
I logged on, got
myself to the rallying point in Silithus, was welcomed by the group, and along
with many other players' and waited. And
waited, and waited. Waiting is a big
part of group coordination, especially where a 40+ player raid is concerned. People joining/leaving the group, figuring
out where so and so is, and other such mundane matters. Depending on the group and its leaders,
distribution of loot off slain monsters could work differently. Some groups will allow everyone to ''roll" at
will on a precious item, and others will restrict the chances to a select
few. It really depends and is subject to
negotiation. For this particular raid, I
was only allowed to loot anything the other group members left on the mob's
body. I was ok with that, because I was
a guest. My friend directed me to be
extremely careful, because this group had previous bad encounters with Ninjas
(people who wrongfully/covertly loot and keep items) and were quite paranoid
about looting practices. I waved it off,
thinking I had it together.
Hours went by, and we
were finally ready to begin with a full complement. By this time I was getting quite tired and it
was already late into my night, even if it wasn't for the other group
members. However, I wasn't about to quit
now. To quit after committing to a group is bad form. It would have let group members down, so I
stayed. There was a quest I needed to
complete coinciding with this raid anyway.
The summoning of
creatures began, and the whole zone was watching in awe as this guild and its
affiliates like me joined in to kill monster after monster. We were almost finished, right before
approaching the Boss. The looting was
rather conventional up to that point. Everyone seemed to be waiting around for the next kill, and I saw that
loot had been left on the monster. So I
looted, like I had for the previous mobs.
My screen was suddenly
filled with one angry group member after another shouting at me, "WTF??" At that time I didn't understand what was
going on. It took a while for my friend to clue in as to what had just happened
as well.
I had just Ninja'd a blue BOP Bind on Pickup item.
When I had realized what I had done, I gave
back what I could, and apologized profusely. Meanwhile, my friend was busy trying to remedy the situation whilst
apologizing himself. The group members
were not convinced that I wasn't a Ninja and proceeded to lay an onslaught of
verbal abuse on me and nothing I did or said could help it. In order to quell everyone's temper, the
group leader messaged me and told me that I had to be kicked out of the raid
group, and I was subsequently booted from the raid.
I am not sure how I
can convey the feeling of utter frustration and humiliation I felt at that
moment. They ALL knew who I was because
of my screen name and supposed good affiliation with a guild. This was supposed to be my "coming out party"
of sorts. My first real participation in
a large, unfamiliar group as a level 60 character. It was supposed to be a no
brainer. Instead, I watched as everyone
else killed the Boss and fulfilled their quests without me. I was convinced I would be blacklisted thereafter. It was a prominent enough screw up. Hence, the tiredness on top of everything
allowed the sobbing to begin. These were
actual people who were pissed off at me (along with the friend who first invited me), and actual people who would remember
that I was an, "idiot."
How dreadful.
This encounter was just one more instance of an argument that community formation and identity politics are negotiated with as much seriousness and fervor online as it is offline. In this vein, I have gone so far as to say that it's not a first life or second life, but one life.
This experience left me asking many more reflexive questions about my experiences online, offline, and how the two were really intertwined and fluid. As one can see, the interpersonal dynamics experienced within this game context could have really happened anywhere, though people are not chided nearly as much for having emotional reactions to other everyday activities like hockey, soccer, golf, or even poker probably because those activities have become more entrenched and accepted in mainstream culture as worthy (think: Bourdieu) timesinks. There were people trying to achieve a goal, personalities, economics, culture, and paranoia were involved. Real people were playing games with other real people. And, it is the real people part in which I am ultimately interested.
Tune in next time for musings on the existence of my imaginary cat.
This is a great post but for some reason the formatting looks horrid in the RSS feed:
.Posted by: Julian | Apr 17, 2007 at 03:15
sometimes i wish TN had a "reputation" button :-)
Posted by: Amarilla | Apr 17, 2007 at 03:58
Formatting looks horrid on the web page as well due to windows quotes.
Posted by: Peter Clay | Apr 17, 2007 at 06:04
Great post, Florence.
I'm walking the thin line between research and passion with my WoW play myself!
I tried to organise a group discussion with my guild in-game but I just didn't have enough influence (and maybe gold) to get everybody to show up.
I think passion and dedication are attitudes alien to traditional research and I guess academics like Henry Jenkins are trying to change this.
I don't doubt it will take some time, but I'm doing my bit. Strangely enough one of the best places to start is the commercial world, if they think there's a chance for money or influence they'll generally take it seriusly!
Posted by: Nick | Apr 17, 2007 at 06:59
Oh, how I feel your pain! I was in a guild but rarely teamed with them until a group was looking for one more to run through Razorfen Downs. I’d never been there before and it was my first group guild activity. We were waiting in a cavern, and I saw this cool looking gong. There are a lot of gongs all over WoW, and none had ever been interactive…before that one. Ooops. Turns out it calls about 12 spiders. We all died. I was mortified. My mortification was real and I was genuinely worried that I might lose face within my much-respected guild or worse, be kicked out.
Fortunately we were on Vent so they all heard my reaction and my guild mates found it absolutely hysterical. “Haha! Dr. D got the team wiped!”
Personal anecdote aside, I whole-heartedly agree that it is hard for me to fathom why some people insist on treating MMOs as “just a game.” Sure, some people jump on WoW and have no emotional investment in anything that happens, but I would be willing to bet that is exceedingly rare. Most people who play MMOs have social networks (established both in and outside the game), they often have a strong sense of attachment to their main avatar, their sense of self, accomplishment, and identity are often directly related to in-game achievements and events. To dismiss this as somehow foolish or childish is to ignore how people are relating to and participating in these virtual spaces.
Posted by: Jen Dornan | Apr 17, 2007 at 11:04
Florence, and anyone else,
If this happens, just put in a GM ticket and ask that the item be transferred to whoever it "should" have gone to, and it will happen. This has happened several times in my presence and has worked out each time.
Posted by: Ralex | Apr 17, 2007 at 13:34
Don't worry, everyone is a noob at some point in their lives. That's why you get to make fun of other noobs, when you're no longer one yourself!
I can go on and go with the stupid things I've done in game:
- Once, while healing Stratholme on my priest, I fell asleep at the keyboard. Next thing I know, I open my eyes, and I've run myself into the next room full of mobs, immediately pulling them and killing my group!
- Once on my Level 8 Warlock, I realized I was having a really hard time killing boars in Elwynn Forest. I kept dying. How frustrating! I mentioned this fact to my guild on vent, and someone replied "Don't you have your imp?" to which I replied, after a pause, "What's an imp?" Of course I had totally missed the quest in the starting zone to get this super helpful pet.
- Many years later, I was on my mage in BWL. I'm the DKP officer so I was tabbing in and out of game. I tabbed back into game and was momentarily disoriented, and started running toward (what I thought) was the previously cleared room. As a matter of fact, I was running straight toward the next pull of very very dangerous monsters. I heard my raid leader shriek, his voice full of outright panic, "OMG what are you doing!?!?!" at the same time I realized my mistake. I was the only one that died (fortunately) but I had to laugh over my noobish mistake (embarrassingly) while the rest of my team pulled and killed the mobs.
- The list can keep going...I've enchanted someone's weapon with an expensive spirit enchant instead of intellect (I paid them back for their mats...80g ouch!), I've pulled mobs too quickly in MC on my hunter (my raid got annoyed, sorry!), and I've aggro'ed Maiden of Virtue accidentally on my Priest in Karazhan (but our tank did it himself the very next night!).
In summary, don't feel bad. Everyone does things accidentally, and everyone is learning. The cool thing is that most mature people are tolerant enough to realize this, and as you've shown, willing to forgive and give others another chance. Those are the people you want to play with, and screw the others. After you make such an error, it's likely that you won't ever do it again. Mass scathing, peer judgment, criticism from another human being even if he's in the form of a gnome...online games are so reinforcing, aren't they? :)
Posted by: Helen | Apr 17, 2007 at 14:59
The failure to realize (and the subsequent abuse of) the "real" behind and within the virtual is what annoys me so much about groups like W-Hat/Something Awfull goons. It may be "just the internets", but the people and relationships are very real, even behind the mask of anononymity. And I don't have to be an antrhopologist to have figured that out a long time ago.
Posted by: Elle Pollack | Apr 17, 2007 at 15:58
This is the best article I've read on Terranova in ages.
Posted by: Damion Schubert | Apr 17, 2007 at 18:06
Don't feel bad, Florence. Everyone does that once. It happens. However, while the GMs perhaps may once have re-distributed things, they haven't for some time.
Most recently, a few months ago I was in an Onyxia raid and our loudmouthed, knowitall teenager insisted that a T2 helm that should have gone to me should go to someone else (who had one) and no amount of shouting would dissuade him. The poor party leader followed the loudmouth.
It happens to everyone.
What this really means is that we need a better UI. The UI people need to get a nice present. Let's all say it together: "affordances."
Posted by: Mordaxus | Apr 17, 2007 at 19:11
One of the smart things I did when I started playing WoW (Nov 2005) was to get in the habit of taking a lot of screen shots, WITH the full display on. Tons and tons of these are dated and filed on a couple of CDs. While my intention was to use them for stimulated recall (remember the time when we downed Stitches, just the four of us?), it turns out that they are wonderful little snippets revealing my own learning over time. For instance, through the first 10 levels you can see that I'm almost always in red armor. I didn't realize one needed to "repair" till someone said, "Hang on, I need to repair" and I asked what he meant.
I think EVERYONE who plays has had an unhappy experience with looting, mostly as a result of the lack of shared norms on that. I "grew up" on greed green, pass on blue to discuss. I have lost several blue items in PUGs where folks simply greeded and I passed. Likewise, I think we've all had experiences with guild emo (emotional stuff). ANd, like most serious players, I have slipped real world obligations (like making dinner) because I'm in the midst of a raid and there is a social contract at work there that prevents me from just up and leaving. Let the family starve; I can't leave the party now; it's the big boss. And how weird is this: I'm playing a lvl 34 rogue alt. in Darkshire and I notice this lvl 70 rogue next to me and I wonder what he's doing here killing. I notice his name. OMG it's reunion time. We used to be in the same guild (which we both left apparently). Much hugging and b.s.'ing and I come to find out he's here leveling a new weapon skill. ROFL. I don't even know this guy, or well, I guess maybe I do.
Who says this stuff isn't real culture and identity work. LOL.
Posted by: Linda Polin | Apr 17, 2007 at 19:27
>And, like most serious players, I have slipped real world obligations (like making dinner) because I'm in the midst of a raid and there is a social contract at work there that prevents me from just up and leaving. Let the family starve; I can't leave the party now; it's the big boss.
>Who says this stuff isn't real culture and identity work. LOL.
>This is the best article I've read on Terranova in ages.
ummm...well, I'm glad that TN finally has a woman writing about games, and the experiences of battle, instead of being typecast to write about sex.
But...I think there's only so much learning to be mined here.
I'm also wondering if the Virginia Tech shooter played WoW.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 17, 2007 at 19:44
To agree with Damion, I immediately dropped this onto a couple other groups I'm in.
But Prokofy Neva said, But...I think there's only so much learning to be mined here.
I think there is much you could learn by reading this.
Posted by: Michael Chui | Apr 17, 2007 at 19:54
I'm one of about... two gamers at my office. I'm continually "eyebrowed" about my habits, especially when I discuss Second Life. There's a very, very large dollop of "I just don't get it..." in the punch out there.
I have finally narrowed down my "elevator speech" on describing the reality of MMOs/VWs to folks who aren't in the space. It works especially well in my industry; library land.
When folks express a complete bewilderment (or disregard) for MMOs/VWs, usually coupled with a statement similar to: "I don't understand why somebody would spend time running around, doing stuff, buying stuff, fighting stuff in a completely unreal world," I simply ask, "Do you enjoy reading fiction?"
That stops things pretty quick. Some people figure it out from that one question. Sometimes I have to push it a bit further.
"Well, why would somebody want to spend their time reading about a completely unreal world?" I follow up. "Why would you be interested in taking up your time to experience things that an author created out of his head? It's not history or science or anything. It's not real. How can that move you or excite you or make you laugh or be interesting?"
After a pause, I usually stick in, "MMOs/VWs are like books, but where you get to talk back. And where some of the characters respond. So you get to make friends with the other heroes. It ain't better or worse... it's just different."
Most of my buds get it after that talk. If you grok any value for fiction, you have to give games the same respect. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
Nice post.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Apr 18, 2007 at 00:04
Interesting thread, and interesting paper you've linked to, Francis.
My WoW guild looks more interesting (to me!) in light of your post. I moved about 8 characters from my original server to one where a friend was just starting a new char with a couple friends. My friend is a high school teacher, as I am. In the guild would be an adult relative of his and another friend of mine who is also a teacher; they both work at the school where I used to teach. But the kicker is that the guild was to involve about a half dozen of us adults and about a half dozen of the students at the school where my two friends teach. And the idea was to teach the kids how to play together and do well as a group. The school, where 2/3 of the students are boarders, is a pretty close-knit place, but this extension into the virtual world, stringing together someone like me (who left teaching there before any of the current students arrived) and all of them is...interesting. My two teacher friends both live on campus, spending a lot of time with kids. Now they have chosen to extend that into more of their free time in a VW.
Brave new world and whatnot, eh?
Posted by: | Apr 18, 2007 at 01:05
Florence Chee>it's not a first life or second life, but one life.
It becomes one life. That's the whole point of playing: you pretend it's two lives to start with, but over time, through what you do with those lives, they coalesce into something better than both.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 18, 2007 at 03:15
Prokofy Neva>ummm...well, I'm glad that TN finally has a woman writing about games, and the experiences of battle, instead of being typecast to write about sex.
Typecast by whom? By TN, by the woman herself, or by you?
>I'm also wondering if the Virginia Tech shooter played WoW.
Why?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 18, 2007 at 03:17
The other thing I got from this, besides how real your involvement in a game can be, is how a game can reduce grown adults into petulant, vicious children.
From Lord of the Rings to Lord of the Flies by one simple misunderstanding.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Apr 18, 2007 at 03:42
Andy said, "Do you enjoy reading fiction?" as a good way to enlighten those unaware or skeptical of virtual worlds' significance/merit/place in society. A great start to get people to understand why so many "lifeless" individuals spend time in these worlds--placing tremendous value on the fictional escapist possibilities these worlds offer. Yet MMOS are so much more than new media fiction, but an age old embodiment of play manifesting itself in a new skin. Yes i'm talking about competition, chance, mimicry and vertigo. Caillois would be in heaven.
Yet MMOS transcend even these definitions of play, introducing notions of productivity and intra/extra world economies. And the games remain valuable...and fun....As Julian and Jingle have pointed out...Gold farmers stay after hours to play for free! Well, they live in the WoW factory.
MMOS = Communications Medium + Dice + Sports + Fantasy + Film + Economics + Anthro + Ethnogrophy+ YOU NAME IT....IN other words " it's not a first life or second life, but one life [Emphasis most definetely added]." Oh I wish more people could see this Florence.
What makes MMOs so valuable is that they are so inclusive. WoW is tremendously successful because it can appeal to such a wide variety of people. By standardizing the gaming process through simple formulaic structures. However...Blizzard and the like are laying the ground work for a 21st century hollywood, in much the same way the studio system functioned to simplify the film production, distribution and exhibition process almost a century ago. Yet unlike early Hollywood or unfortunantely precisly like them, MMOs offer variety-- a potential we can hoepfully see to fruition.
Yet in the end perhaps games' mimetic factors are those that give devbelopers a longterm advantage over MGM, Paramount and the like. But do we want this? Given how long it has taken to go from Hollywood to emerging forms of play, what are the social consequences of such large conglomerates that control the way we interact with one another? User generated content is not the answer---as of yet....
Posted by: Lavant | Apr 18, 2007 at 04:54
In summary, don't feel bad. Everyone does things accidentally, and everyone is learning. The cool thing is that most mature people are tolerant enough to realize this, and as you've shown, willing to forgive and give others another chance.
Very true. Though I think another point for it being "one life" is the fact that even mature people can lose their tempers, or be unreasonable, simply because of recent experiences they've had that you haven't.
Posted by: Verilazic | Apr 18, 2007 at 06:16
Surprises me the dulcet tones in which MMOG academics discuss their craft on Terra Nova, in contrast to the venom and bile of the teenagers and social misfits who actually play them :-)
Posted by: BJ | Apr 18, 2007 at 06:35
Elle Pollack: They are aware they're hurting real people. They don't care, or believe that those other people shouln't be hurt because it's just a game.
Posted by: Peter Clay | Apr 18, 2007 at 06:39
A very interesting article, and I think it's important as a researcher to occasionally step back and consider the reflexive consequences of the influences our gaming experiences might have on the research we are conducting.
I've had WoW experiences which have nearly made me quit the game altogether in frustration, and I've also had game experiences which have left me chuckling for a good few hours. Oddly, the most interesting experiences I've ever had are not to do with the game itself, but always with my interactions with other players in the game and what we do.
One of best best WoW memories was back to back PvP-ing in Arthi Basin with two of my friends where we had a "sportsmanlike" competition to see how many Honor Kills we could get in a game, which, with two warlocks with a druid healer turned out to be 82 (I won, and won 2 pints down the pub afterwards as my reward :-) ) This had nothing to do with the game itself though, it had to do with the people and what we did. The game did though provide the premise and the venue for this shared experience, and it was perhaps after than experience that I finally really "got" some of Nick Yee's work on gamer motivations and indeed, even some of Richard's work on player motivations (I had a small competition on our guild forums where I pigionholed our guild members into certain player types and asked what they thought, interestingly they all agreed :-) )
At the other end of the scale, the bad experience, as a PuG group in an Outland instance which was awful from start to finish. Again though, it wasn't the instance itself which made for a bad experience, it was the other players, and for once I really comprehended that phrase "hell is other people". The setting, the venue, the premise for that shared experience was all provide by the game, the experience itself was provided by the real players. Certainly I spent a few hours after that experience in my research trying to disect what the differences were between the players who can, and those who can't in WoW, about why some groups do work, and some don't at all. Why PuG's so easily disintergrate while a guild group, even with a difficult encounter, may stick with it wiping again and again. Not only did the experience thus annoy me to hell, it reflexively affected my research reading and thoughts.
Though, isn't that as it should be?
As researchers of this media, and users/players we are in that interesting research position of being not only a detached observer, but also a participant. With all of the biases and problems that can entail in research.
Posted by: David Grundy | Apr 18, 2007 at 07:11
@ Prok: I know you have an axe to grind with TN, but please do go back and read my guest posts from last month. I find your selective memory about women on this site somewhat strange. Neither I, nor both of the female guest authors this month, have written a word about “sex” (or gender, which is what I would assume many previous women have been addressing?).
@ Andy: I love the fiction comparison, I will have to work on my elevator speech about why I game. ;) In the same vein, I wrote a tongue in cheek article about what I call “Gamer Shame”.
@ David Grudy: I think you make a very important point. In anthropology there is the expectation of at least some level of objectivity in our research – there is a very good reason we study the “other” and why studies of social groups we belong to ourselves are sometimes questioned. When you are part of something it is more difficult to objectively observe. (Yes, I know this can be questioned and is sometimes hotly debated.)
So, I wonder if the fact that I play, that I care about my avatar and my social network in the game, might all interfere with my ability to study that specific virtual world. Yet, at the same time I would also suggest that someone who has never played an MMO wouldn’t be an effective researcher either. WoW, for example, is such a large and complex virtual world and I don’t know how one could begin research without some existing familiarity. A quandary to me as a potential ethnographer.
Posted by: Jen Dornan | Apr 18, 2007 at 11:18
>I'm also wondering if the Virginia Tech shooter played WoW.
>Why?
>Richard
Because it's clear to me that playing video games and dehumanizing people by shooting them, and spending long hours in battle, really does have an impact on people's minds and behaviour, and ultimately on the culture of a society. I imagine you ask "Why" because you don't believe that, and may quite vigorously and stubbornly argue against it, but it's the right question to keep on asking, and not expecting professional ludologists like yourself to exhaust, let alone rule upon, as a social and political topic.
I realize it's terribly unpopular among *this* gang here to EVER raise the issue of the relatioship between violence and video games, but if you call yourself scholars devoted to scholarly inquiry, you have to ask these questions over and over again. You have to persist and persist, past this facile study with no real peer review with a small sample, or that study which isn't really a published study but somebody's mutual back-scratching, and keep asking and asking. You have to ask because human life is at stake.
The killer at Virginia Tech had a certain profile -- a loner, a person who spent long hours at his computer online, a person who wrote violent fantasies in his English essays of casually killing people. You're going to tell me this young man never played a single shooting game in his life, and it never had an effect on him if he did?
It's not only the casualness of American gun culture and the ease with which guns can be had in America that causes that erosion of the seriousness about shooting, it's the ease with which you can shoot and kill people in games.
That has got to have an effect on the soul, even if you and your friends can't quantify it in games, Richard. People in Europe are ready with the condemnation of America's laxness about gun laws and cite their own far more strict gun control, but then you don't want to take a look at the virtual equivalent. The gun lobby easily refutes your concerns about laxness of gun control by finding all sorts of examples of how guns helped to save lives when crime was committed. In the same way, the games lobby of corporations and the ludologists whose conferencing they pay for never find any connection between anything negative and a game, and indeed even promote a concept of "serious gaming".
Just as the pharmaceutical industry will want to downplay the side effects, including violent, pathological behaviour caused by the medications that may have been administered to this depressed young man in Virginia, so the gaming industry will want to play down the side effects of a greater propensity for violence and casualness and even lack of empathy about human death that he may have been exposed to. That's all the more reason why we have to keep raising and discussing these issues. Not everybody who watches and plays a killing game goes out and kills; but some do. And even if it's a tiny percent, my God, we have to care.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 18, 2007 at 11:23
>I think there is much you could learn by reading this.
Sigh, There is nothing more pompous, aggressive, and violent than somebody spouting Zen, I often find. So...cut it out Michael, it's not the way to win an argument.
I frankly know am not alone when I say that I'm tired of the excessive game-focus and obsession with WoW on TN, to which we look as the only academic center of sorts about virtuality. In part, the problem is that it's a boy-centered focus and having more girls will break up that fascination, but the problem of course goes deeper.
I think I can quite properly say that there isn't an *awful lot* we can learn about a situation involving a woman so caught up in a *game* that she won't make dinner for her children. I fully undertand what that is like. I can understand what it's like even to be caught up in a real-life work deadline crunch, or even caught up in a SL customer's demand, which involve real money, let alone a game. But at the end of the day, there are basic things, like making dinner and feeding the kids. I don't think we can become casual about that, frankly.
What's particularly awful about this is that it isn't really the mechanics of WoW as envisioned by its makers that causes these starving children. What causes them is the bullying and collectivitis of the groups gone wild. They are awful to people who have to pull out of them due to RL calling, and they can't realize that they could take a more tolerant attitude and just reassemble or just try again another day. After all, the levels don't go away -- they're always there. Why the zeal and drive and hysteria? Why bully and harass another person because they didn't help you kill this particular monster in this particular instance? It's not as if it won't be there tomorrow and the day after -- those instances are eternal.
Or were you suggesting that it's ok not to feed your kids and not make dinner and play WoW?
Empty *that* Michael Chui, and contemplate what you will do someday, when you have kids yourself. Will you feed them, or will you play WoW?
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 18, 2007 at 11:30
>@ Prok: I know you have an axe to grind with TN, but please do go back and read my guest posts from last month. I find your selective memory about women on this site somewhat strange. Neither I, nor both of the female guest authors this month, have written a word about “sex” (or gender, which is what I would assume many previous women have been addressing?).
It's not any axe; it's stating the bald facts. And I'm not alone in noticing this, as I've found even to my surprise lately in discussing this with people.
Jen, cast your eyes over to the right-hand side of the page. Count the active authors who are women: 2 out of 16.
Now go to contributing authors: 5 out of the 11, and they rarely appear.
Sure, some women didn't get typecast writing about sex; but some did, too many, really, given the job at hand here.
The fact is, it's a male-dominated enclave. Women have been driven into stereotypes, writing about sex, or relationships, or emotions.
Do a chronological and quantative and qualitative study over the years. It's obvious. Now the question is how you could rectify that. For starters, recognize it and don't be defensive about it.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 18, 2007 at 11:34
Prok, fair enough. I haven’t really spent the time to look at TN’s gender history. But, increasing numbers of women are playing, creating, and researching games - which I agree is a very good thing that will, to some extent, change the landscape.
I do, however, hope that the things I play, create, or research are not praised only because they don’t fit the stereotype. It demeans my research (the implication being that only reason my work is good is because I’m not falling into gender role expectations) and at the same time dismisses the legitimate desire to research all social aspects of gaming including sex and gender. I do agree that the gaming industry as a whole has a long way to go before it stops being a boy’s club. The best way to do that is by doing exactly what I see here at TN –3 of the last 4 guest authors have been women approaching games from a variety of perspectives.
Posted by: Jen Dornan | Apr 18, 2007 at 11:54
There is no question in my mind that the VT shooter did *not* play WoW. Maybe some sort of FPS, but definitely not WoW. Why? Well, beyond the obvious issues with WoW's fantasy setting (if he'd gone after people with a crossbow and a sword, then it would be a different matter), the simple fact is that in WoW, people fight back. They may be outclassed at times, but they still fight back. What happened at Virginia Tech in no way resembles WoW.
It seems to me you have an axe to grind with both TN and WoW, sir, and you dredge up anything that comes to mind and fling it about recklessly. On an actual WoW forum you would be considered a troll.
Posted by: Fearless | Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16
8 million people, give or take, play WoW. Probably ten times that have played violent video games. How many of them, do you think, have murdered ONE person, much less dozens? I don't know the numbers myself, but I think they'd contradict the "WoW caused VT" hypothesis. Even if he DID play WoW, 1/8,000,000 isn't a statistic worth quoting except in refutation.
As for the actual topic of discussion... What I find most interesting is how much things like "guild drama" can affect me. In fact, I've been affected by it in a way no single-player game has ever affected me. Single-player RPGs offer the satisfaction of progression, whereas MMOs tend to offer the same (perhaps with more reinforcement), but at the cost of frustration with your fellow players. Regardless, I think many people continue to play not despite drama, but because of it.
Posted by: Todd Ogrin | Apr 18, 2007 at 13:48
In EQ2 my raid leader would have handled the entire thing differently and perhaps it is a game mechanics issue.
My raid leader would have chose the 'raid leader loots all' option. Then as a item is looted the raid leader would trade it to the player who deserves the item as determined by roll or need.
If no one wants the item it would have been sent to the noob.
This method eliminates the possibility of someone picking up a 'no trade' item. I'm not sure why this method wasn't used in the WoW raid.
That being said, when I first started raiding I was a very careful person. My DPS wasn't never the highest because I was worried about pulling aggro from the tank. I never strayed from the group fearing getting into aggro range. I didn't click, jump, or move until told by the raid leader.
One weekend my nephew (20 yrs my junior) was watching me raid. He continued to give me directions. Go over there and look at that... pick that up.... try using this spell...
I refused everytime. "I might pull aggro and wipe the raid" I replied each time.
"Oh."
Oh indeed.
Posted by: sunnata | Apr 18, 2007 at 15:50
>Prok, fair enough. I haven’t really spent the time to look at TN’s gender history. But, increasing numbers of women are playing, creating, and researching games - which I agree is a very good thing that will, to some extent, change the landscape.
Yes, I realize that. I've been reading gamegirladvance.com and other sites like that for ages.
>I do, however, hope that the things I play, create, or research are not praised only because they don’t fit the stereotype.
Don't look to me to discuss that issue, I wouldn't be the one doing the stereotyping because I'm not running a site with a gender imbalance. Normally, I don't get up to feminist rants about gender imbalance, and tend to look for merit-based systems, but sometimes, they really stand out as requiring redress.
>It demeans my research (the implication being that only reason my work is good is because I’m not falling into gender role expectations) and at the same time dismisses the legitimate desire to research all social aspects of gaming including sex and gender.
That's a fair comment, but on the other hand when you're in a setting where they are trying to press you into service, you have to be vigilant.
>I do agree that the gaming industry as a whole has a long way to go before it stops being a boy’s club. The best way to do that is by doing exactly what I see here at TN –3 of the last 4 guest authors have been women approaching games from a variety of perspectives.
I think they've been scurrying to balance the saddlebags as this critique, coming not only from me, is penetrating to their consciousness.
And look for the redress of imbalances to come not from a flurry of guest authors, but permitting women into the sacred realm of the active and contributing authors!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 18, 2007 at 16:06
Dear Prokofy,
If you wish to start another topic, such as
-gender participation and journalism and why in order to support equality female writers should not hide behind male sounding names
-the sexual inequality of SL (as only 2 in 5 are female: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy-graphs.php)
-how reading blogs doesn't make one a specialist in anthropology and gender issues
-why writing about anything other than SL is grossly one-sided, or
-how the dangers of writing playwriting class (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/NEWS01/704180368) may lead people to mass murder on campus..
then please email the TN authors rather than go offtopic at a furious rate of knots.
Posted by: ErikC | Apr 18, 2007 at 23:03
I've just gotta say, I can't wait to hear about your imaginary cat Florence.
Posted by: Moses Wolfenstein | Apr 19, 2007 at 01:54
Prokofy Neva>Because it's clear to me that playing video games and dehumanizing people by shooting them, and spending long hours in battle, really does have an impact on people's minds and behaviour
In that case, shouldn't you be worried that he might be a BDSM fan on SL?
>I imagine you ask "Why" because you don't believe that
No, I asked because you gave no explanation as to why you took a pot shot at WoW specifically. It seemed completely gratuitous. However, rather than putting words in your mouth and then attacking them, I thought the sensible thing to was just ask.
>I realize it's terribly unpopular among *this* gang here to EVER raise the issue of the relatioship between violence and video games
You might want to decapitalise that EVER:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/06/contradictions_.html.
>People in Europe are ready with the condemnation of America's
Ah, your belief that I'm anti-American has kicked in. Time for me to stop reading.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 19, 2007 at 02:02
Dear Eric,
>you wish to start another topic, such as
-gender participation and journalism and why in order to support equality female writers should not hide behind male sounding names
Unfortunately, because the gender-balancing act at TN is in such full swing now, each time a woman *does* get to write, unfortunately that very fact of her rather rare (or suddenly stepped-up) presence becomes part of the commentary. Not my fault.
I don't see why chosing a male avatar in SL is grounds for a nasty swipe like that, but I'm used to males like you getting bent out of shape at my decision to have a transgendered avatar in SL. You have a double standard on that, as you usually tend not to care about males having female avatars, or berate any male who has comments you don't like about his selection of the opposite gender in SL, or for that matter, any thing he does in SL.
-the sexual inequality of SL (as only 2 in 5 are female: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy-graphs.php)
The Lindens often comment that females 32 or older is the largest segment of the population they have in SL. I don't see why the Lindens failure to attract females, like most online game thingies, somehow trumps any critique of TN for a lack of gender balance. It doesn't, obviously.
>how reading blogs doesn't make one a specialist in anthropology and gender issues
Who says you have to be a specialist to comment on matters of public interest? If you want to have a closed little discussion group of only credentialed academics, I suggest you shut down the public access to this blog and heavily moderate the comments.
>-why writing about anything other than SL is grossly one-sided, or
No, I think the problem is that TN has a really decided bias *against* SL that some of us have to feel constantly the need to redress it. And it's very disturbing, because the whole Metaverse conversation is so much bigger than just games now, that to be stuck in games is really stubborn ostrich-like behaviour.
>-how the dangers of writing playwriting class (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/NEWS01/704180368) may lead people to mass murder on campus..
Playwriting is an activity that has been around for hundreds of years. The plays manifested the shooter's illness. But what helped him acquire the sense that he was on a mission that had to be media-covered, and that he even had to make his own amateur media production to mail to NBC? what made his sickness *take this form*? Those are the questions you have to ask.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 19, 2007 at 04:37
Richard Bartle says:
>In that case, shouldn't you be worried that he might be a BDSM fan on SL?
Absolutely! And I raise this sort of question constantly on my blog, to the great chagrin of BDSMers who are constantly trying to rationalize their violent and enslaving activities. I ask this question about all online activity, because this greatest mass murder in American history *took this particular form*.
Fearless, the idea that if he played Wow, he would have been "trained" to be in a situation where he would encounter people/monsters/NPCs "fighting back" and therefore couldn't be a WoW player is just plain insane. Everyone knows that what WoW encourages is this phenomenon known as "ganking," where higher-level players go and kill lower-level players for absolutely no good reason other than that they enjoy making people suffer. There have been articles to that effect right here on TN, my God.
>No, I asked because you gave no explanation as to why you took a pot shot at WoW specifically. It seemed completely gratuitous. However, rather than putting words in your mouth and then attacking them, I thought the sensible thing to was just ask.
Well, I would hope that by saying "WoW" it's understood that it could be just as well any *other* FPS game, Richard. WoW is the biggest and best known know. Perhaps he played some more obscure (to us) Korean game, being from Korea. Perhaps he didn't play any games at all. We don't know. I do think it's fair to ask the question about whether the culture of FPS shooting which is now instilled in millions and millions of minds as a passtime is having some kind of effect somewhere.
>You might want to decapitalise that EVER:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/06/contradictions_.html.
OK, will do! Glad to see it. And...where is it now, now that the greatest massacre ever seen in the US has taken place? I mean, perhaps this is more of a Web 2.0 story, though, Richard, rather than a gaming story, as the shooter definitely was oriented toward user-generated participatory media, consciously planning and acting out the macabre events, filming himself, taking the time in between murders to mail the package to NBC, then going off to shoot more people.
Yes, he's an insane outlier, not everybody engaging in YouTubing and Warcrafting is a nutter who will commit massacres. But the increasing numbers of them, the copycats, the obsession with them, well, we need to ask the question.
>Ah, your belief that I'm anti-American has kicked in. Time for me to stop reading.
Oh, well I haven't:
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog180407B.html
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog160407B
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog130407B.tml
and so on.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 19, 2007 at 04:49
Prokofy Neva > Not everybody who watches and plays a killing game goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who eats hot dogs goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who takes swimming lessons goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who visits zoos goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who drives a car goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who smokes cigarettes goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who buys jewelry goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who brushes their teeth goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who votes goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who cuts their hair goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who plays guitar goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who goes to church goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who flies a kite goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who reads books goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who studies physics goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who plays poker goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who washes dishes goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who wears glasses goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who sleeps goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who breathes goes out and kills; but some do.
Not everybody who lives on Earth goes out and kills; but some do.
Posted by: Kohs | Apr 19, 2007 at 07:55
>Unfortunately, because the gender-balancing act at TN is in such full swing now, each time a woman *does* get to write, unfortunately that very fact of her rather rare (or suddenly stepped-up) presence becomes part of the commentary. Not my fault.
In this particular case, it is in fact your fault. Until you mentioned it, the author's gender was not part of the commentary.
Posted by: | Apr 19, 2007 at 13:14
@Jen: Thanks. I've given up "Gamer Shame," as well as "Poet Shame." It took me 35 years to become comfortable describing myself as a poet. For some reason, it felt... oogy. I have finally decided to own my ooginess, and anybody who has any problems with that can kiss my iambic pentameter. Same for "Gamer Shame." Mario ergo sum.
@Prok r.e. Bartle:
If you think those are examples of anti-Americanism... wow... that's some thin skin you got. I've got friends from other lands who lay it on with a shovel about the ways that America is just, well... "not the rest of the world," and those links make us look quaint and cute in comparison.
Pointing out dumb stuff isn't anti-American just because the dumb stuff happens to be in America. Most of the dumb stuff I point out is in America, and I'm not anti-American. I'm just anti-dumb.
I just point out much less dumb British stuff because they're so much smaller than America, and thus do much less dumb stuff because of, you know, statistical averages and stuff. Plus, British culture tends to prefer to keep their dumb on the inside, behind closed-doors. In America, we wear it openly and proudly where we can do market testing on it and then sell the worst of it to, among others, the Brits. We have turned our stupidities into a market advantage in that way. See: "Bay Watch," fast food, natural male enhancement medication, the Thighmaster, professional wrestling, Sea Monkeys, "Rocky" 2 - 5, etc.
@Prok r.e. women bloggers on this site: Yes. More would be nice. Don't frighten off the ones we have, please.
@Prok r.e. the VA Tech killer: As the son of a shrink who grew up with discussions of this kind of stuff around the dinner table, let me make one point only... You cannot draw any reasonable, logical, sane trail of conclusions from the actions of an unreasonable, illogical, insane mind. We can look at stats about all kinds of other stuff related to guns, games, sports, movies, literature, cops, education, homogeneity of the culture, etc. as it relates to violence. But when one individual goes so far off the rails as this guy... making deductions is useless. It's like trying to figure out how to make better wine based on the fact that there's a stone in your shoe on one of the days when you went out to inspect the vineyards. It's just that unrelated to what can be helpful. Insane people do insane things. If you want to make any connections at all about this case, it can only be about how to better identify and help people with severe mental illness. None of the environmental stuff in this kids life "caused" him to murder people. If they did, then everyone who did those things would do more things like that, and we have so few heinous crimes like this that it just can't be shown as a logical link to any other activities. What you can show a link to is people who are severely schizophrenic and who don't get help, and who then have a variety of problems. Many times they just spiral down into lives that are at the "dregs" of society. Many times, if untreated, they suicide. Many times, even if treated, they lead highly depressed lives. We don't treat mental illness very seriously in this country. Read the reports of how this kid's illness was treated. I'm not excusing his crimes; what he did was evil and unthinkable, and he is responsible for his actions. But it would have been nice if all the people in positions of responsibility / authority above him had said, "This guy shows signs of serious mental illness. We need to get him more help." It seems he had a variety of problems that had been diagnosed previously too... and people still just let it lie. Again... not a great idea. So while it's maybe interesting to talk about his gaming, entertainment, writing, cultural, etc. histories... that's all irrelevant when put next to his mental health history. It wouldn't matter if the kid did music instead of drama, or played soccer instead of WoW. If you're sick like that, you're sick like that until you get treatment. And even after that, probably. I've seen all kinds of yap on all kinds of blogs about connections to various activities of his. Nope. He was, to put it starkly, insane. And that's a mental health issue. None of the things he did or had done to him made him that way... but none of the things that *didn't* get done helped him enough.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Apr 19, 2007 at 17:36
http://ggoldsky2007.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ken | Apr 19, 2007 at 18:29
Florence, if you were playing a Rogue you could just argue you were being in character taking that blue item! I confess I (as a rogue) have patiently camped valuable items (or bosses for drops) while awaiting a full party to come along and clean things up for me so I could get the loot. It's what Rogues do!
PS
> I'm also wondering if the Virginia Tech shooter played WoW.
Actually he apparently didn't play any games at all
Posted by: Catfoot | Apr 19, 2007 at 19:59
I've never felt compelled to comment here before now, but it seems to me that, given the VT shooter's apparently text-book anti-social pathology, it is quite possibly a tragedy that he did not involve himself in MMOs.
Perhaps if he had, he might have discovered a safe social environment that could have potentially diffused the chemical-cross-wiring of his mind that lead to such tragic results.
I've read a great deal of game-bashing over the years (with virtually no actual research to back up the claims of harm that are often presented). What I have not often seen are discussions that center on the positive benefits of MMOs for those individuals who would otherwise be incapable of any "normal" social interaction.
Florence's paper, which describes an individual who claims that EQ "saved my life", is an unusual blip in an otherwise overtly hostile landscape.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 19, 2007 at 20:35
@Andy, I like your and Nick's point. If not for games, how many disturbed people would be out on the streets and armed at an even earlier age?
I'd be interested in what philosophers have to say about this, (I recall some have blamed humanism for the breakdown of communitty!) but the only book I read on social alienation by the web was Dreyfus' 'On the Internet' but it is getting a little long in the tooth already, did not apply to games, and its criticisms could have been aimed at TV just as easily. Too much literature only says there is a problem, not how to impartially evaluate to determine if there is a problem and to carefully distinguish cause from effect.
Posted by: ErikC | Apr 19, 2007 at 21:16
Prokofy Neva>Well, I would hope that by saying "WoW" it's understood that it could be just as well any *other* FPS game, Richard.
That's not how I understood it. Besides, WoW isn't a FPS.
>WoW is the biggest and best known know. Perhaps he played some more obscure (to us) Korean game, being from Korea.
He apparently watched some Korean movies that were quite violent, recreating a classic image from one. I don't suppose we'll be seeing quite the same reaction as if he'd turned out to have been a gamer, though.
>I do think it's fair to ask the question about whether the culture of FPS shooting which is now instilled in millions and millions of minds as a passtime is having some kind of effect somewhere.
So do I, it's just that this thread was a bad place to do it. Now, we don't get to talk about Florence's work any more.
>>Ah, your belief that I'm anti-American has kicked in. Time for me to stop reading.
>Oh, well I haven't:
>http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog180407B.html
>http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog160407B.html
>http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog130407B.html
If only I'd put some kind of post up before my Minneapolis trip explaining the context. You know, like maybe this one?
If those QBlog posts you cited are evidence of my being anti-American, take a look at these (not clickable because typepad thinks I'm spamming if I put them in):
QBlog140207B.html
QBlog260706A.html
QBlog220405B.html
QBlog220905C.html
QBlog130107A.html
By your reckoning, I must be anti-German, anti-Italian, anti-Swedish and anti-Dutch. Oh, and anti-British.
You're looking for prejudice where there is none.
[My apologies to the other readers of this thread, but I think we probably lost connection with what Florence was saying some time ago].
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 20, 2007 at 09:22
Huh, and the link I did put in was to my hard drive...
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2007/QBlog110407A.html
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 20, 2007 at 09:24
But...I think there's only so much learning to be mined here.
It is an article about arguably the most how supposedly the most casual-friendly American MMO to date has insanely complex and difficult to navigate social norms, which has many ramifications in terms of how those internal communities are built and grow, and how sticky these communities are for all these 'casual' players. This is relevant for any MMO and virtual world - almost all of them become cliquish over time, with people simply expecting that you'll know the rules, and rejecting, berating or alienating you if you don't. This was certainly something I experienced in my visit to SL, for example.
Absolutely! And I raise this sort of question constantly on my blog, to the great chagrin of BDSMers who are constantly trying to rationalize their violent and enslaving activities. I ask this question about all online activity, because this greatest mass murder in American history *took this particular form*.
The greatest American school massacre of all time was in 1927 and involved no computer games, no television, and only one bullet. Crazy just happens sometimes.
I frankly know am not alone when I say that I'm tired of the excessive game-focus and obsession with WoW on TN, to which we look as the only academic center of sorts about virtuality.
Funny, I personally think that Terranova tends to spend too much time focused on 'virtual worlds' (and especially Second Life) and not enough time examining why the 'gamey games' are sticky or how to leverage those lessons to make the non-gamey games less niche.
Still, I somehow manage to remain overall respectful of divergent viewpoints. There are other sources for those other viewpoints I agree with more consistently, and Terranova's viewpoints on virtual worlds is usually well-rounded, thought-provoking and interesting, and is daily reading for me for that reason.
Posted by: Damion Schubert | Apr 20, 2007 at 14:58
I know I’m a little late in the game, but concerning the original post it made me think of this:
Two kids, Jill and Bill, live in the city and being friends they’ve developed a game that they play together. On their way to and from school they stop at all the public telephones and check to see if there’s any loose change in the return slot. They have a system where, in the order in which they come across the phones, they take turns checking them. One day Jill and Bill stop in front of a grocery store. Bill goes in to convert his change into dollars. Jill, standing outside, looks over at a phone booth and sees a twenty dollar bill on the floor. Even though it's Bill's phone to check, Jill doesn't want anyone else to get the money and has every intention to give it to Bill. Bill comes out, sees the money in her hand and reaches out to take it but Jill says, "Sorry, I can't. It's bind on pickup."
What's interesting to me here the way the game modifies and/or limits behavior, even generous or altruistic - like behavior. While it's true GM intervention is one way to deal with accidents involving binds-on-pickups, it is then like going to the Pope to get an annulment on your marriage. Where in the first-world, belief systems are used to implement social controls/boundaries (assuming both parties want to, they can't just walk away from their marriage because of religious beliefs [given that the people in the analogy are devout believers in a religion which holds this rule]), in virtual worlds there is the addition of control through code, almost like a control through physics only on some occasions (such as contacting the GM) the laws of virtual-nature can be broken (at the whim/discretion of another human being).
Posted by: Fizzygoo | Apr 20, 2007 at 17:45
People can treat other people in anonymous virtual worlds without any fear of real (as opposed to perceived) consequences. Virtual worlds might be a good example of virtual world behavior, but they don't correspond 1-to-1 with the real world.
Suspect people blow out of proportion what can be learned from MMOGs. Heard an academic babbling on the BBC about how recently there was a plague in WoW "with blood coming out of orifices" and it showed that disease spreading could be modeled. I wasn't impressed: There have been urban disease propagation simulations done in the past, and I think they were more accurate than anything you'll learn out of WoW. This BBC "Authority" didn't have a clue.
----
There's been a subthread here about the VT shootings: To answer the question asked, according to a Wired Blog police said no games of any sort were found in the shooters room: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/04/msnbc_dont_blam.html
Really depends on the person. Suspect many/all of us read LOTR and watched SW at a young age, but never felt the urge to mass kill real people. Someone said you cant use logic to understand an illogical mind.
Debate is irrelevant anyway: Nothing will change after this shooting: America loves its guns and video games and neither is going anywhere.I lived in the US. Taking guns in the US is like arguing religion, saw many guns and guns misused.
There will be public hand-wringing after this and the Gun Lobby will say if everyone on campus had guns they would be safe (the 'South Central LA' model). And in a few weeks there will be another celebrity story and everyone forgets. The US will have a big shooting like this every year, and many smaller ones. Sorry to say it, but you might as well get used to it. Talking won't change that. :-|
Posted by: BJ | Apr 20, 2007 at 23:21
Richard,
If you have something more to say about Florence's post, well, say it. Nothing stops you or anybody else from doing that. Seriously, it's not a "troll" but a very logical continuation of the essence of her post, which was:
"Things I do online, simulated things, war games, virtualities, affect me deeply, so deeply that I even cry in real life and feel awful."
And in the comments, we saw more:
"Things I do online, simulated things, war games, make me not even make dinner for my children."
So when somebody really goes postal like the shooter in VT, you have to ask why, how, where. There will likely be a variety of things that contributed, but everything about this disaster bears examination, including with an open mind about what video games mean. I've sat in living room after living room or school room all week with kids and parents and THEY ALL say "It must be the video games and violent television".
Why is everybody having this conversation in their church basement or with their neighbours in their living room or the corner coffee shop, but intellectuals won't have it on here? In a post about the effect of simulated happenings on people's emotions, in a thread where somebody says they won't make their kids dinner, the war is so consuming online?
I mean, seriously, do I REALLY have to connect up the dots on this one???
As for WoW not being "FPS," hmm, well I'm just an ignoramus then. I guess I figure if most of the time your character, in the first person, is running down a path shooting at stuff, it's a "first-person shooter game," but I take your point, and stand corrected, if it is a multiplayer game where you are coordinating the shooting with others and not alone with the monsters, it must be an erm multiperson shooter game or something.
As for the anti-American thing, it's a longer discussion, and goes too off-topic here. So often you show so many tics and annoyances and surprises in these posts about basic things like religious feeling in America or public sculptures that apparently feel tacky or kitsch to you, but I feel you should just accept it as a cultural facet the way we have to accept, I dunno, bad food in British restaurants or something and a penchant for socialism. It's not important to argue about.
Could we just use some common sense and logic here, please? Why would "no games in the shooter's room" mean anything? You don't need boxes of games on your desk to be involved in war games online. And in his life, you're saying he never played a war game? The chances of that are mighty slim.
BJ makes the usual facile comment about how this will merely be a rant-fest from the NRA and the gun lobby. Hardly. Every single blog or paper or conversation has both sides of the gun issues aisle being argued. It's really totally facile -- and anti-American I might add! -- to reduce the entire public response in America to "Oh, we need more guns to be able to fight back against these nutters, go NRA!, now shut up, I'm going shopping in my SUV!".
That's HARDLY the case and you could gather this from even the most cursory of watching or reading of media.
The effect that games and virtual worlds are having on people is profound, and nobody seems to want to really look it in the eye and measure it with an open mind.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 21, 2007 at 02:37