« Censorship in TSO | Main | Second Life Radically Changes Pricing, Offers $US Incentives For User Content »

Dec 08, 2003

Comments

1.

Greg Lastowka>Ludologist Jesper Juul has opined that MMORPGs are not "classic games,"

His argument seems to be the same as Eric Zimmerman's: they have no quantifiable outcomes.

This would be fine except that some DO have quantifiable outcomes. MUD1 and MUD2, for example, both have quantifiable outcomes (you reach wiz level: the virtual world as a game is, for you, over). Some of the other early virtual worlds "ended", too, although that may have meant the beginning of a new "game" (as was the case with GODS).

I don't think it makes a virtual world less of a game if it doesn't promise players an end; neither do I think it's less of a virtual world if it does. That said, there are good reasons to believe that players will get more out of a virtual world if it does have an end than if it doesn't.

Using this terminology, the best you can say in answer to the question "are virtual worlds games?" is "they're not JUST games". Actually, though, I don't think they are - but not for anything to do with the reasons Jesper Juul or Eric Zimmerman do, or for why Greg Costikyan doesn't.

Virtual worlds are places. They're no more games than a football stadium is a sport. People can go there to play games, and to do a whole bunch of other things, but fundamentally they're places.

Some of the people who visit these places engage in an activity that may or may not be considered to be a game (this is really what Jesper, Eric and Greg are talking about). Other people engage in no such an activity, yet they are nevertheless protected from reality by the same "this is just a game" rules of social behaviour that mean things can go on in them that would be allowed in a game but not in real life. This separation from reality isn't confied to games (it's what enables an actor on a stage to behave in a way that if they did it in the supermarket they'd be arrested); nevertheless, it's what gives players the protection they need to be someone other than their real-life selves while they're in the virtual world.

If Jesper is pronouncing this way on virtual worlds, I guess this means my book hasn't reached the ludologists yet, either, huh?

Richard

2.

Roaming a bit off-point here, Richard -- roughly what percentage of players actually make it to the end of MUD1?

Reason I ask is that there's a comment on Juul's website about how many current solo "outcome" games are never really played until the outcome. People save their progress, put the game aside, and don't take it up again. I know that's true for me -- I almost never complete computer games. So no outcome = no game? That can't be right.

My own feeling, contra Eric, I think, is that knowingly artificial conflict is the key element that creates a gamespace, not the presence or absence of some temporal end-point. I think Greg Costikyan might agree with that.

The strange thing about Miss Norway is that she/he was doing a very good job of role-playing. But obviously, a line was crossed from role-play to something like social fraud. When was that line crossed?

3.

Oh, and btw, because everyone should know this -- Richard discusses Karyn at pp. 209-11 in his book and he played a significant part in proving she wasn't a real rabbit. :-)

And Richard, I'm *still* reading your book!

4.

Greg: "The strange thing about Miss Norway is that she/he was doing a very good job of role-playing. But obviously, a line was crossed from role-play to something like social fraud. When was that line crossed?"

When the effects substantively, not procedurally, ripple through the real world? heh.

Jeff Cole

5.

Re the game or not a game question, Scott Miller over at Game Matters (http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/) has some good comments and his blog makes for interesting reading in general.

6.

>Was Miss Norway playing a game?

Yes.

The question is weather he \ she was playing the same game as everyone else. One can say of course they were, the shared game is LegendMUD. But here I do think that it starts to help if we think of VW’s not as games but as spaces where games can be played – this does seem to more accurately reflect the situation.

>If she was, did she break the rules?

I’ve spent about 12 months thinking about this question and have almost nothing that I think is definitive that I can say about it. In fact much less than 12 months ago – which I take to be a good thing…

My current favourite way of thinking about it is in political terms. Let’s pretend that members of a virtual world have entered into a social contract. If it is the case that that contract covers things not entering into this type \ degree of role play, then indeed there is social convention i.e. a rule, that has been broken.

But of course this rule would, in almost all interesting cases, not be written down, it is a tacit rule, an unspoken or obliquely referenced understanding that would at times like this be exposed and explicitly considered. So how do we know if it was broken, well if some people say it has been, then it has. Even if another bunch of people say it has not – many social conventions are not common across communities, indeed as they are community \ boundary defining they would not be.

So are there any underlying rules ? Well, here I think one has to look to normative ethics and see what happens when we say on the one hand:

Let’s pretend

And on the other

But I got hurt

This last bit I’ll have to get back to you on.

Ren
www.renreynolds.com

7.

Cory -- thanks, found it here:

http://dukenukem.typepad.com/game_matters/2003/12/games_vs_entert.html

I noted in the comments that the "quacks like a duck" meme is really ascendant in this area. I should have posted a duck pic instead of a rabbit.

Or maybe a duck-rabbit?

http://www.grandmommy.com/illusions/rabbit.html

That's probably even more appropriate.

8.

The attention to rules, or, better yet, rule-like constraints, on action in game worlds is useful in thinking about not only how "real" the world of the game is, but also how "game-like" offline experience is.

The key stumbling point, however, is the conception of social conventions as "rules". Demonstrably, we do not act according to a rule-book in our lives, but we do act in reference to social conventions. The key point is that they are always at least potentially up for rengotiation or transformation. In this sense, social life is a process, and models that account for it with reference to some "blueprint" for action model (rational choice theory comes to mind) are missing the fact that the conventions are only approximations from the actions, and that social change occurs under this context of fundamental open-endedness.

So can games be this way, too, or are they only games because they have hard-and-fast rules? Actually, games' rules (I'm thinking here especially of sports like football) are often conceived as approximations that call for adjustment when the rule-based outcome seems at odds with participants' (and spectators') sense of the game (I'm thinking of the famous non-fumble call in the Patriots-Raiders playoff game a couple of years ago). So even in quite "traditional" offline games, the rules are not necessarily more than particularly regulated conventions. Of course, in VWs, there are many different kinds of rules/conventions, from the invisible to the unbendable to the
socially emergent, but this is also not so different from offline experience.

The implication is, again, that a clear demarcation between game environments and non-game environments is impossible and misleading. The fact that "real" emotional investment (or other personal stakes) can arise with reference to "fake" or otherwise complex personas doesn't change this point.

By the way, Richard in his book comments on this issue of invented identities in his discussion of the Miss Norway case in the following passage (211):

"I've seen players fall in love with other players who turned out to be inventions. I've seen a player get close to another player who was the creation of two people playing together because they could only afford one account (fortunately they aborted when they realized what was happening). There are complex factors at work here."

I just wanted to note that the possibility of imagining as real a persona in fact made up of the combined actions of others reminds me of "The Night We Never Met" (1993) and similar movies which play on this idea, so it is at least theoretically not unique to online experience, though it may certainly be more probable there.

Greg: "My own feeling, contra Eric, I think, is that knowingly artificial conflict is the key element that creates a gamespace..."

One last point in reference to this. The problem here, of course, is that this is a relative distinction, especially when certain cases, like Miss Norway's demonstrate that there can be something at stake for people in a game even though they are not wholly appreciative of it until something like her death happens, falsely or not. (Outrage at being duped is another indication of such investment.) The emergent quality of virtual worlds (in short: how they're made up as they go along) makes this demarcation impossible to predict.

9.

http://www.damnedvulpine.com/archives/001630.html

There's my reaction, though it's not quite on topic. I'm not bothered by the debate about whether MMOGs are "real games," (especially because I believe that not all MMOGs are made alike, and some of them are not games even though they might be worlds,) but the idea that virtual communities are "real" does rattle me.

10.

Tom & Ren -- thanks for the careful thoughts.

Juul's latest contribution to the "what is a game" question is here, btw:

http://www.jesperjuul.dk/text/gameplayerworld/

I only disagree with him (and Eric, I think) insofar as I believe software contraints are not identical to game rules.

(I've got to be careful with Eric, since I haven't read his book yet, and I don't want to mischaracterize him -- e.g. above I said "temporal end-point" where I think I should have said "quantifiable outcomes" like Richard did...)

11.

"Quantifiable outcomes" are problematic because there are a number of games, as Scott Miller observes that are designed specifically to be ongoing and continuous. Games like Asteroids, Galaga or even more recent titles such as Soul Calibur don't necessarily have outcomes, but are still fun to play. What they do have are goals, however and goals seem to provide vital structure and motivation for the players. Even in environments that do not specify goals and outcomes, players often seem to set their own goals.

I think this is an interesting and relevant question as more virtual environments are developed ... if some of these worlds aren't games, and I do have a sense that although the boundaries are problematic (what boundaries aren't?) some of the newer environments are indeed not actually games then the parameters for design and development must shift.

12.

Greg Lastowka>Roaming a bit off-point here, Richard -- roughly what percentage of players actually make it to the end of MUD1?

It depends on what you mean by "player", and it also depends on which incarnation of MUD1 you mean and at what point in its history. I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess that somewhere between 5% and 20% of players who stay beyond a week reach the end. Of the ones that don't make it, some grow disenchanted, some are driven off, some find better virtual worlds, but most simply don't need to finish.

>Reason I ask is that there's a comment on Juul's website about how many current solo "outcome" games are never really played until the outcome.

The "outcome" is merely a goal. You need a goal, because otherwise you have a toy rather than a game. Whether the goal is the formal end of the "game" or some self-motivating factor is only an issue to people who have an interest for preferring one or the other.

>The strange thing about Miss Norway is that she/he was doing a very good job of role-playing. But obviously, a line was crossed from role-play to something like social fraud. When was that line crossed?

Miss Norway was role-playing a real-life person (the alter ego), who in turn was (role-)playing a character in LegendMUD. Most people just role-play the character directly.

Richard

13.

"Quantifiable outcomes"

First off, no I have not read Eric’s book either (it is in the post) so I can not comment directly on his analysis. But to comment on discussions of outcomes generally and to return to (bang on about) a previous point, when we ask ‘is it a game’ we should not concentrate exclusively or even predominately on the artefact, rather we should look at practices and intentions. That is we should be careful about the object of our question.

To give an example: take a chess set – is this a game ? No, it’s a flat’ish surface and a bunch of differently shaped things. Is it a food ? Well may be depends what is made of. What makes it a game is the set of practices and intents that players have when they engage with it. Ahh, you might be thinking, but code makes all the difference, if is a computer chess game then it is a game coz the code says so – no its not, what if I just use it as a pretty back drop, or randomly move pieces around. OK so I’m not following the designers intention, but so what, since when did their intentionality define the actual nature of my practice.

So the question is a VW a game is a non-question. Are two pieces of wood a game – they are if you play poo sticks with them.

A productive enquiry is whether the actors’ practices are game like.

Ren
www.renreynolds.com

14.

Greg says: "'Quantifiable outcomes' are problematic because there are a number of games, as Scott Miller observes that are designed specifically to be ongoing and continuous. Games like Asteroids, Galaga or even more recent titles such as Soul Calibur don't necessarily have outcomes, but are still fun to play."

The concept of quantifiable outcome refers to a specific _playing_ of a game - whether the game can be completed is a different issue.

15.

-- A productive enquiry is whether the actors’ practices are game like.

I'll post a snippet from Adult Play, A Reversal Theory Approach. (Apologies to those who have seen this at GameMatters.)


"In a remarkable book, Finite and Infinite Games (1986), James Carse suggests that all human activity, by virtue of being human, is involved in one or another game. Human Culture is an intricate kaleidoscope of games being played, consciously or unconsciously. Carse distinguishes between two types of games, finite and infinite. These are not two different games such as chess and cricket, but two ways of playing what may very well be the same cultural game. [emph. added] Finite gaming has a specific and definiable goal, and one plays the game in order to achieve it. Infinite gaming is playing for the sake of playing. Though there may be temporary goals, these are neither the original nor the immediate reason for playing. One plays the game becasue one enjoys doing so - like dancing, where the objective is not to get to the other side of the dance floor, or to win a dance contest, but to dance. The psychological result (or cause) of the different modes of playing is that finite play typically becomes very serious, where as infinite play is primarily playful." (p136)

By focusing on the intent of the player rather than the intent of the designer it becomes possible for some games designed as infinite experiences to become finite in nature (powerleveling in everquest) or for finite games to be played as infinite (insert your own experience here).


16.

"Ahh, you might be thinking, but code makes all the difference, if is a computer chess game then it is a game coz the code says so – no its not, what if I just use it as a pretty back drop, or randomly move pieces around. "

In Ultima Online, the chess boards had no built in logic to them. You could put pieces wherever you wanted, even in between squares. This made setting up a game a bit more tedious, but also meant it was a computer game of chess with no code supporting it.

- Brask Mumei

17.

Jesper Juul wrote:

> The concept of quantifiable outcome refers to a specific _playing_ of a game - whether the game can be completed is a different issue.

Well I suppose that would have to be the case. But it does seem to collapse the distinction between artificial conflict and quantifiable outcome a bit, and takes us into a very subjective understanding of "outcome."

Bill Crosbie wrote:

> In a remarkable book, Finite and Infinite Games (1986), James Carse suggests that all human activity, by virtue of being human, is involved in one or another game.

It seems at this point, though, we've lost sight of games as a distinct human activity, which must mean the definition is wrong.

18.

Greg: "My own feeling, contra Eric, I think, is that knowingly artificial conflict is the key element that creates a gamespace ..."

I agree that "artificial conflict" is an element. I am not completely happy with the word "artificial," and might prefer simply, "conflict" (I need to think about it more).

I think participant "consent" to play a game is an equally important element, though. "Consent" to be established much like the objective approach to offer/acceptance in contract law: was a particpant reasonable in assuming her adversary's consent to play. In the cases of PvE, single-player games, crosswords, etc., the "adversary" would be the developer, Will Shortz, etc. Of course, there can be more than 2 participants, more than 2 adversarial "sides," or both.

Though it might not simplify any analysis, I think it properly centers the analysis on a participant's reasonable expectations in light community norms.

I might also extract an element of enjoyment or fun from "consent."

So, to phrase it in legal jargon, "A game is any conflict in which all participants reasonably believe that all other participants have consented to and derive enjoyment from participating in the conflict."

For the fringe, you could spice to taste with some Pareto/Kaldor-Hicks requirements.

Jeff Cole

19.

> "A game is any conflict in which all participants reasonably believe that all other participants have consented to and derive enjoyment from participating in the conflict."

Personally, I'm fine with that. I see the appeal in an implied consent regime -- that's how tort law handles games, of course. Consent & enjoyment capture for me the root of game conflict "artificiality" fairly well. (Caveat: I am not a ludologist!) Although I think in some ways it is an easy answer, it is not inconsistent with Jesper's range of historic definitions.

I'm curious if this proposed definition captures:

1. Second Life (as a gestalt -- that should no, right?)
2. Sims Online
3. Slot machines
4. A professional boxer who is only boxing for the prize money

> For the fringe, you could spice to taste with some Pareto/Kaldor-Hicks requirements.

:-) Efficient games / Inefficient games. Posner would be proud!

20.

Greg: "I'm curious if this proposed definition captures:

1. Second Life (as a gestalt -- that should no, right?)
2. Sims Online
3. Slot machines
4. A professional boxer who is only boxing for the prize money"

1. Haven't particpiated, but would immediately wonder if, as a gestalt, there is conflict.

2. See 1., above.

3. Slot machines. Yes, with the "house" as adversary.

4. The boxer's subjective motives are irrelevant. Given community (as in the "boxing community") norms, is the adversary reasonable to believe that the boxer consents and enjoys? Of course, what about the crowd, are they "participants"?

The answer will depend on which community applies its norms--not only to determine consent, but also the existence of conflict and the extent participation.

And I think that is the right result. After all, it is unlikely there is any objective definition of "game."

Greg: ":-) Efficient games / Inefficient games. Posner would be proud!"

According to Kaldor-Hicks, griefing would be a "game" to the extent that the griefer derives a satisfaction greater than the grief she inflicts. Nice.

Jeff Cole

21.

Slot machines and other pure chance systems seem to me to be at the very least boundary cases. Part of the fun of games for me seems linked to the manipulation of the rules to form strategies, and in exploration of the game space (in virtual worlds we have rules of interaction and the possibility of playing with these rules). Slot machines are the equivalent of a big button marked win:
http://www.info-architects.net/game.htm

This is not a game to me, because the player input has no impact on the outcome (other than in so far as iniating the 'game'), although I don't have an answer as to what it really is.

22.

"Slot machines are the equivalent of a big button marked win:
http://www.info-architects.net/game.htm"

Seems more like a button marked "Lose". By the same token (or using the same token!) I can play Space Invaders and the outcome is even more predetermined than the slot machine. I WILL lose against the space invaders no matter what I do or how the random number rolls... Yet it's still fun as hell.

Mathematically I will also always lose at slot machines unless I have more cash than the casino. Millions of people consider casinos fun, just as they considered those 80s videogames fun. Is there something here? Do we like to lose? Do we like to delude ourselves with the possibility of winning even though we know the odds are absolute zero?

23.

I disagree quite sharply with Jesper. I find that the demand for a quantifiable outcome in order to decide if something is a game or not is a random imposition made to suit some rules that will make writing definitions easier. I don't even think that the quantifiable outcome is the dominant way of playing games. Quantifiable outcomes are vital to sports, where you need to be able to choose a winner or a loser, to all kind of comepetitions, but games are not competitions.

Games are played for individual reasons. What you win from a game does not have to be points, numbers, levels or any other countable reward. The reward can just as easily be social, personal, cultural, sensational: games take up a space that gives satisfaction not through a simple exchange economy, but through complex interrelating mechanisms. Playing games isn't even fun, as Espen Aarseth pointed out in the speech at my PhD dinner, it can be painful and frustrating - pretty much like real life.

Games have rewards for the player - the rewards are not however as simple as the pleasure of being at the top of the high score list. That may be where Jesper likes to be - me, I prefer to play entirely different games in the murky grey areas and dark alleys.

24.

DivineShadow>I can play Space Invaders and the outcome is even more predetermined than the slot machine. I WILL lose against the space invaders no matter what I do or how the random number rolls... Yet it's still fun as hell

Losing is a quantifiable outcome. It may be you can't win, but perhaps the condition that people are arguing over should be whether you can lose, rather than whether you can win.

If (given sufficient stamina) you can only win and never lose, that's more of a puzzle than a game.

Richard

25.

Torill: I think the numbers are on my side. Go through a book on card games, or browse the collection of board games in a store, browse the collection of video games in a store. The percentage of games with quantifiable outcome is something like 99%. This is not a random imposition.

Also note that the fact that games tend to have quantifiable outcomes is separate from the question of _why_ we play them. The quantifiable outcome is simply a way of structuring the activity - the game session will come to an end, you will know how well you did and who won, and so on.
That all novels are composed of sentences does not mean that we read them exclusively for the sake of the sentences ; that almost all games have quantifiable outcomes does not mean that we play them exclusively for the sake of their quantifiable outcome.

26.

Where does that put Dungeons & Dragons then? Is it not a game?

While *most* games (that we have historical knowledge of anyway) do indeed have quantifiable outcomes, the very existance of *one* game that doesn't would invalidate that as being a necessary criteria of gameness. *Most* games also have only two sides - but that doesn't make those with more (or fewer!) sides any less games.

It seems much more productive to acknowledge that these open-ended play experiences are a different "kind" of game, and enjoy the new opportunities for entertainment that they provide, rather than getting stuck on a convenient but unneccessarily restrictive definition of the label "game".

The comments to this entry are closed.