I guess if you are easily offended you really shouldn’t read on.
Sex has always been a part of virtual spaces, just as the link between technology and sex goes back to ancient times (here I’m thinking of things like contraception, sex toys, and all the way back to the use of tools to create of artefacts symbolic of fertility) and is of interest to futurologists (see Trudy Barber's research on Computer Fetishism and Sexual Futurology). The use of virtual spaces as part of sex play: TinySex (see definition here) is well documented by writer such as TNs own Julian Dibble (see My Tiny Life) and Sherry Turkle (see: Life on the Screen).
But here I want to report on the creation of spaces where sexual content or themes are purposefully designed in – in particular the current interests in heavily sexualised MMORPGs. The old cliché goes that each generation believes it invented sex, but of course there is nothing new about sex in video games (see: Game for Sex Vol. 1 A Retrospective on Sex in Videogames) or MUDs (see MUD Connector's category listing for Sexually Orientated MUDs).
What sparked this thread off was news of two new sexually orientated MMOs going into public Beta: (you really don’t want to click these links if you’re going to be offended or embarrassed by nudity – oh and they sound, so you might want to go mute if your going there – OK, you’ve been warned so don’t blame me!) Red Light World and Sociolotron.
Red Light World is a virtual version of Amsterdam’s red light district and has picked up a fair amount of publicity (see: Wired's Virtual City of Smut Now Online) we even got a mail shot at the TN virtual office! In the interests of full disclosure I will state that I have not downloaded RLW – but from what I read it is a 3D space where you shop, visit partner sites and meet people i.e. virtual porn, TinySex and dating. The commercial question for RLW is whether this is enough, is 3D just a gimmick that may ultimately be less efficient way of adult content and other adults or is there some reason to add ‘space’. Also if RLW is to survive, it seems to need to attract women, and, well – judge for yourself.
Sociolotron is rather different, it is a full on role play game with combat, crafting, points systems, oh and sex, lots of sex, especially BDSM with options for rape and consequences such as disease, death and pregnancy. It also has a strong political side with like the choice of democracy or tyranny being part of the game.
In one of the version of my ethics of computer games piece I discussed the notion of rape in computer games, arguing that from certain ethical stances it is wrong to include it irrespective of its graphical depiction e.g. if raping is represented by the white dot, turning the blue dot to red, and the aim of the game is to turn as many dots red as you can – then daeontologists (those that believe that the basis of ethics is rights and duty, rather than, say, consequences) are probably going to tend to judge this as immoral. However when I wrote this I was considering single person player games, Sociolotron is multi-player, so this changes things – but in what way? On the one had people may argue that because the ‘text act’ involves another person it is much worse, on the other hand (assuming that all players are consenting adults) there is consent; moreover this all operates within the magic circle a space where taboos are explored. To paraphrase Sutton-Smith in The Ambiguity of Play: not only is this not rape, it’s also not not rape. So do we decry Sociolotron as immoral or applaud it for going where, at least some, adult games really should go?
Sociolotron also serves to highlight the absences in other games. The range of emotes in Star Wars Galaxies, for example, while limited are certainly not completely sexually neutral, see: /leer /hold, /nuzzle, /kiss and /snog. Given that the history of TinySex tells us that players really don’t need any inducement or help to add sexual content, it is interesting that MMOs that want to appeal to a wide audience include even a hint of sexuality. Though interesting SOE have commented on the ‘married’ status flag that they have not integrated the status into game play as this forces them to take a position, one way or another, on the issue of gay marriage (something that there was some debate about in Sims Online).
Also on the subject of relationships, an entirely different MMO related service has recently launched: mmodating.com, which is pretty much what is says on the can – an online dating service targeted at MMO players. Given the propensity of MMOers to meet in-game and then hook up off line its going to be interesting to see if this service can make it (on the commercial side the model is: free to register, pay to communicate).
I really have no idea where all this is going. I imagine that we will see more sexual content in some MMOs – it’s another facet of mainstreaming, and I’m sure we will see relationships becoming an even stronger element in all virtual worlds, but where next, you tell me.
Btw, another angle (single player):
Singles: Flirt Up Your Life,"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/06/18/review.singles/index.html
Of course if Sims could go online, why can't Singles?
Or may-be its just Sims, with the game/rules bending in the red light district :) ... a zone too far unless you are certified over 18.
egads
*WARNING WARNING WILL ROBINSON*
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Jun 20, 2004 at 09:38
www.slerotica.com
*wink*
Posted by: Anon | Jun 20, 2004 at 11:40
I also want to add to the list www.moove.com, a German sex/dating world that went live in the past year or so. It "looks" a lot more like some of the other projects discussed on this site, like There and Second Life-you can design your own "swinger pad" and what have you.
Posted by: Celia Pearce | Jun 20, 2004 at 13:13
Have any of the lawyers read the TOE for Sociolotron? Can they get away with things like "Sociolotron and Sociolotronics is a trademark of Sociolotronics. and may be used publicly only with express written permission" and "You may establish a hypertext "link" to this site ... only after obtaining written permission from site owner allowing you to do so"?
If so, it's just as well I didn't click their "the above is true, let me in" box to accept their conditions. I just typed in www.sociolotron.com/webpage/index2.htm instead.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 20, 2004 at 14:09
Richard
> Have any of the lawyers read the TOE for Sociolotron? Can they get away with things like "Sociolotron and Sociolotronics is a trademark of Sociolotronics.
As the lawyers possibly can’t comment and IANAL, then, er: no they can’t. The fact of Sociolotron is in the public domain so we are free to name it, link to it and comment on it. If we wanted to start to make money directly out of it or create something with the same name, then there would be issues.
Anon
>www.slerotica.com
>*wink*
/nod
/smile
Posted by: ren | Jun 20, 2004 at 14:33
One is far more likely to encounter sex in MMO games as a marketing tool, trying to lure the young, predominantly male, target audience into some mass market game.
I remember seeing ads for Anarchy Online with a female avatar, dressed only in lingerie, and the slogan "I got implants, baby!". Many games use sexy female avatars as one selling point. The female dark elf avatars of Lineage 2 are downright pornographic.
On the other hand, mass market games are forced to be prudish about sex, as not to attract problems from censors. City of Heroes removed a range of flesh tone costume colors from their character creation tool, because some people created "nude" characters by making their costume the same color as their skin.
And nothing gets you banned faster as a player than sexually offensive character names or other behavior. I remember the big discussion in Everquest, where after having played for over 1 year, the character "Cupid Stunt" was banned, because a GM had finally understood the sexually offensive joke.
Posted by: Tobold | Jun 21, 2004 at 02:20
And then there's Seducity, which I think of as Habitat's slutty grandchild. It's a 2D adult virtual world. The avatars are similar to other VZones worlds like Dreamscape and Second Kingdom. Except most are naked.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jun 21, 2004 at 08:49
> To paraphrase Sutton-Smith in The Ambiguity of Play: not only is this not rape, it’s also not not rape
What do you mean? Of course it's not rape. You can teleport to a different location in the game, click on another application, or even turn off the computer at any time. If equivalent functions existed in the real world -- if people being raped, or just thinking they were being raped, could teleport themselves to a different location -- the crime would not exist. That's what we have here. How is there any ambiguity?
I don't want to polarize the conversation, but no one participating in it should be surprised if a victim of a real crime sees mixing these activities together with physical rape a serious misuse of the language.
Posted by: Fred Hapgood | Jun 21, 2004 at 11:58
Richard>Can they get away with things like "Sociolotron and Sociolotronics is a trademark of Sociolotronics. and may be used publicly only with express written permission" and "You may establish a hypertext "link" to this site ... only after obtaining written permission from site owner allowing you to do so"?
As regards their trademark, that's wholly within their rights, and that note is pretty much required for them to keep their mark. (Non-defense of a trademark is grounds for forfeiture.)
As regards requiring permission for hyperlinks: that's a pretty solid 'maybe'. It's still pretty murky and depends greatly on what is being linked, how it's being linked (frames, inlining, etc), and the validity of their 'rules' to disallow linking.
If you're honestly interested, here's a good overview of linking rights.
Personally, I wouldn't link to such a site, simply because an attitude like that is non-conducive to the operation of the net, and such people shouldn't receive any free advertisement.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 21, 2004 at 12:05
Looking at the screenshots of Sociolotron, while I'm rather impressed with the level of interaction in the GUI (although disturbed that the oral sex options don't include "Lick Clitoris"), the graphics do leave a LOT to be desired. It looks relatively 2D and not a whole lot of choice in customization. Bad for any MMORPG.
And I think RLW is just more of a pornography distributor in the guise of a 3D GUI. It's the same stuff I can get off (no pun intended) a million adult websites.
Posted by: Young Freud | Jun 21, 2004 at 13:22
I caught wind of the coming surge in Adult MMOs last year when I was looking for 3D contract work via craigslist -- doing a search on "3D," I saw plenty of ads for live models to be digitized...
So I wrote up a blog entry, with some free ("free" as in "free") technology and "usability" prognostication for MMOh worlds. Take from it what you will.
Posted by: Avi Bar-Zeev | Jun 21, 2004 at 14:52
In the interest of, ahem, journalistic research, I logged into RLD.
Honestly, this thing could not have been made more terrible if that was the design objective. Basically, this program is a mildly 3D advertisement for porn videos. Your avatar is a boxy creation that stutters through the environment, which looks surprisingly like a high school theater set--albeit one filled with raunch.
I think my disappoint was due in part to some hope that someone was trying to come up with something unique and meaningful--your know, art porn.
But alas, online porn is just porn. I even ran my Spybot finding and cleaning software afterwards to make sure I didn't pick up any bugs. I'm not suggesting that the site would be responsible for anything like that. I suppose my machine just felt "dirty".
-- David
Posted by: David Thomas | Jun 21, 2004 at 15:26
I have to say that nothing on the Sociolotron website shows any evidence of having been updated since 2003--I'm skeptical it's alive.
Also--what a damned ugly interface.
Perhaps games like this need to limit "PRing" (player raping) in the ways that others limit PKing? In which case, entering a PR zone is, essentially, tatamount to consent.
Incidentally, I largely think this is a bad idea. Even with high-poly models, you have a real interface nightmare; allowing people to instruct their avatars to perform even a tiny fraction of the potential actions they might wish to do with a sexual partner (and responses to the actions of their partners) is going be to extraordinarily hard with a mouse-and-keyboard interface. I mean what, "/moan-archback-putarmaroundneck"?
Some things actually work better in text.
Posted by: Greg | Jun 21, 2004 at 17:03
Greg>I mean what, "/moan-archback-putarmaroundneck"?
I'd expect that people would be able to string together movements as programmed sequences and attach them to hotkeys, or list them as an "execute in sequence" action. In the above example, this might be eg. /(moan,archback,hugneck). Pretty hard to synchronise with your partner's animation, though...
Graphics don't have the freeform sensitivity that text has. A text command such as ;licks you until your eyebrows drop off can be constructed on-the-fly in a textual world, but are out of the question in a graphical one.
>Some things actually work better in text.
I spent a year during the dot com boom working on an "adult" textual world, but the company went under before we could finish it. The dummy log visualisation document is on my web site.
Richard
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 22, 2004 at 04:06
Richard>Pretty hard to synchronise with your partner's animation, though...
If we developers can manage to synchronize various forms of hand-to-hand combat and grappling, I don't think it should be considered so out of the realm of possibility to manage interactive emotes between avatars.
It'd be much more difficult than a text emote, sure. But the technical hurdle has been cleared many times before -- and visualization might be perhaps more rewarding than text.
Slightly leaving the concept of sexual contact; but the lack of interactive emotes in graphical VWs has always been something of an annoyance to me. The bigger stumbling block, imo, is emote strings (which you mentioned) and streamlining the interface and prompts for consent to interaction. E.g. You may not want that half-ogre assassin to dance with you -- or you may not mind the dance, but are not comfortable with its attempt to become more personal with you during the dance.
Clearly it'd take a pretty powerful animation system to manage the interpolation and animation blending necessary to facilitate something like repositioning limbs arbitrarily during an embrace. But to just have two avatars join together for something like an actual hug, pat on the back, or ballroom dancing?
Maybe you were simply talking about the former, more difficult task, in which case my concern isn't aimed your way. But looking around at what keeps getting offered to the consumer; I'm pretty confident that most developers are just blowing it off, thinking emotes don't matter.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 22, 2004 at 08:50
Weasel>If we developers can manage to synchronize various forms of hand-to-hand combat and grappling, I don't think it should be considered so out of the realm of possibility to manage interactive emotes between avatars.
I didn’t say it was out of the realm of possibility, I said it was pretty hard. Besides, isn’t the current trend for single, matched animations for combat exchanges, rather than blending individual ones? [Hmm, maybe not]
>visualization might be perhaps more rewarding than text.
For men, yes, but not necessarily for women (some of those "romance" books aimed at the female market are almost gynaecologically explicit in places!).
> You may not want that half-ogre assassin to dance with you -- or you may not mind the dance, but are not comfortable with its attempt to become more personal with you during the dance.
When I was working on Hot Hotel, we developed a fairly natural system for different levels of interaction between players, with implicit and explicit consent for different levels of interaction. If, for example, you have set your relationship to members of the opposite sex to "formal" (meaning only handshakes etc. allowed) then you offer to dance with someone, you would then have a level with respect to them of "social". They would still have you at their default level, but if they accepted then you’d be at the social level with respect to them. Subsequent attempts to engage in social contact would be passed without comment, although they could always demote you if they found you were getting a little too pushy for their liking.
I guess I could dig out the doc we wrote on the subject, if you’re interested.
>looking around at what keeps getting offered to the consumer; I'm pretty confident that most developers are just blowing it off, thinking emotes don't matter.
Well, thinking they can get away without doing them, yes. There should be a ton more predefined emotes, even if free-format string ones can’t be made available graphically.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 22, 2004 at 09:45
SL just released programable animations. Some talented folks there. Keep watch.
Posted by: MM | Jun 23, 2004 at 02:38
Richard>For men, yes, but not necessarily for women (some of those "romance" books aimed at the female market are almost gynaecologically explicit in places!).
Perhaps, should we assume the traditional men=visual, women=textual isn't just a byproduct of the economic side of the ... 'romantic content industry' due social roots. But this isn't the place for that discussion, nor do I particularly want to have it. ;)
Richard>When I was working on Hot Hotel, we developed a fairly natural system for different levels of interaction between players, with implicit and explicit consent for different levels of interaction
I had briefly considered player-defined interaction levels for implicit response. ... and I guess one could get around the storage concern by keeping it client-side, and just using it as a default response from the client (that the user could interrupt).
But would we then have to classify levels of social and romantic receptibility? (for lack of better terms)
I'd say I'm certainly /social with my male meatspace cohorts and their wives. But that doesn't mean that, by default, I'd accept a physical prompt to dance with a male friend (except in comedic styling), and any default /hugging would certainly be of the very sexual-orientation-reassuring, testosterone-laden 'man-hug' variety.
At the same time I would likely, by default, accept a physical prompt from a friend's wife to dance in a /social styling. And /hugging would be more traditional hugging. After all, a /friend-ly 'man hug', is quite different from a /friend-ly 'consolation hug' which is quite different from a more /intimate consolation hug.
This becomes an issue because we'd have to specify at what interactive levels each animation takes place along , so the client knows how to respond? (Just what type of contact is /kiss anyway? /kiss-hello or /kiss-share-lozenge?)
At first I thought this just indicates further subdivisions of levels-of-intimacy along a single axis -- where I'd set my friends' wives as being closer to /intimate than my friends. But the more I think about it, the more that doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps it's just gender-receptibility? I'm not necessarily more /intimate with my friend's wives than I am with them. I just am more comfortable with a slightly more intimate level of physical interaction based on gender. Aside interactions within my personal space, I don't think that discrepancy in /intimacy level exists.
Richard>I guess I could dig out the doc we wrote on the subject, if you’re interested.
It'd certainly make for interesting reading, if it's at hand -- no need to go to any trouble.
Richard>Well, thinking they can get away without doing them, yes.
I suppose that's a more diplomatic way of putting it. I don't see much of a difference between deciding something isn't necessary to do properly and deciding something isn't worth doing properly.
If they recognized its worth, they'd recognize its necessity. If nothing else, just so that they could make their NPCs emote.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 23, 2004 at 10:01
weasel>If they recognized its worth, they'd recognize its necessity
Perhaps it's a matter of to whom it is worthwhile. They might recognize that many players(?) would like to have it, but it won't stop the same player from subscribing to the service; hence, not worth it to the company.
Posted by: Tek | Jun 23, 2004 at 10:20
Tek>Perhaps it's a matter of to whom it is worthwhile.
Which is what I started with: they think it doesn't matter. They have tons of customers without it -- so it's unnecessary.
And maybe they're right -- but I doubt it.
All they know is that their current audience doesn't seem to care one way or the other. But is the fact that there's no emotional context or interaction driving away more people? The townspeople stand still as statues when you save them from the orcs. You have to look pretty hard just to find a world in which little billy actually walks back home to his mother once you save him -- and good luck finding one where his mother rushes to him, dotes on him and weeps with joy.
Consider a movie with no emoting: the love interest never embraces the hero; the bad guy doesn't even so much as pace back and forth while he schemes; the kind barmaid never so much as wipes a table, let alone winks or flirts. That movie can have an intriguing plot, great dialogue and a perfect casting; and it'll still suck.
Sure, books handle everything just fine just with text. But once we leave text-MUDs, you just can't rely on quest text to make up for the distinct lack of even the most basic emotional interaction with NPCs, let alone other players.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 23, 2004 at 13:23
Ren>They have tons of customers without it -- so it's unnecessary.
Not exactly. What I meant was that they don't think it gets them any new customers. It's washed out by the initial question: "to porn, or not to porn."
Ren>You have to look pretty hard just to find a world in which little billy actually walks back home to his mother.
Yes, it baffles me how little effort has gone into providing simple, yet worthwhile, AI for the NPCs. Dave has a nice EoC article that covers most of my sentiment.
Posted by: Tek | Jun 23, 2004 at 15:28
Myself>"to porn, or not to porn."
You were referring to developers in general, weren't you? In that case, I think it does cost some customers, but there are other things that they can do that have better marginal returns, such as adding good NPC AI.
Posted by: Tek | Jun 23, 2004 at 15:34
Tek wrote
> Ren>They have tons of customers without it -- so it's unnecessary.
Nope – that was weasel, not me.
Tho its ‘my thread’ I don’t claim to own all posts in it.
Posted by: ren | Jun 23, 2004 at 15:39
Heh, sorry. Not sure where I got that, seeing as how I got it right previously. Maybe I was picking up your telepathic narcissism. That'll be my working theory.
Posted by: Tek | Jun 23, 2004 at 16:21
accidents happen. where were we?
Tek>You were referring to developers in general, weren't you? In that case, I think it does cost some customers, but there are other things that they can do that have better marginal returns, such as adding good NPC AI.
My overall feeling is that adding interactive and dramatic emotes helps to further the illusion of NPC intelligence, helps increase immersion and emotional response, and enriches the environment as an expressive medium for the community to attach itself. Without these things, worlds tend to wind up delivering an experience that is only appealing at the meta-game level. Socialization takes place just as well outside most VWs as inside, because inside isn't offering anything that isn't done by free software. The stories themselves are dull and lifeless, and are only of merit in the 'achiever' sense.
Without an even passing attempt at dramatic presentation, saving Timmy from the Troglodyte is only entertaining as a numeric achievement. Once you have a graphical game, going the extra step to actually have Timmy run home to and hug his mother, and to have his mother wave at you when you pass through town from then on -- that adds an emotional attachment that is completely nonexistent in the market.
I'm not suggesting the lack of pelvic thrusting animations is necessarily costing customers (though clearly that has its own market). But that lack of emotional interaction certainly is. It ties in to the topic at hand, as the sort of animations that facilitate proper dramatic and interactive emotes will be the same as those that facilitate some furthered measure of 'porn'.
Increasing NPC AI ... that's computationally intensive on the server (though I have my own thoughts on that problem), and difficult to define and program. Animations, particularly if we don't bother with trying to slickly blend them together, are a much more quantifiable development cost and add very little overhead to the servers.
Further, I'd argue that in a static world design, there's more of a visible benefit to proper dramatic presentation than to 'smarter' NPCs -- who would still be constrained by the static world itself.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 23, 2004 at 17:07
Weasel>It'd certainly make for interesting reading, if it's at hand -- no need to go to any trouble.
I found a summary document, which gives a reasonable idea of what was involved. We went for simple defaults with more complicated overrides. Here it is (edited to remove code examples, which would otherwise push the length limits for a TN post):
--------8<----------------
The permission system defines the mechanism by which interaction between players is handled. We do not allow players to do anything to another player unless that other player has given permission for them to do it.
Permission levels range from 0 to 6. For an action to be acceptable to someone, the permission level they have set for the would-be perpetrator of the action must be the same or greater than the level required by the action. If, for example, Oscar sets a permission level of 4 for Harvey, and Harvey attempts to perform an action which requires the permission level to be 5 (or above), the attempt will fail; for an action of level 4 (or below), it will succeed.
Permissions can be specified for individuals, for accounts, for channels and for genders. The first match in this series will be taken. Example: if you've set permission level 2 for Harvey, 3 for men in general and 4 for members of the channel that Harvey is using, then he's still only permission level 2 with respect to you. If you didn't name him explicitly, he'd be level 4 because channels are considered before gender.
Because people can be using more than one channel, there's an issue of what to do if someone is a member of 2+ channels that someone else has set at different permission levels. The solution adopted here is to choose the lowest of the values specified for applicable channels.
Permission levels are as follows:
0 enemy = blocked out
1 stranger = no contact
2 acquaintance = formal contact only
3 friend = non-intimate contact
4 boy/girlfriend = intimate contact
5 lover = sexual contact
6 master/mistress = unrestricted
--------8<----------------
Notes:
1) “Players” here means characters (this was aimed at a non-gaming audience).
2)Permission level 0 meant “obliterated from the interface”. You received no messages from the virtual world concerning the individual. Third-person messages (eg. they closed the door) would be “someone has closed the door” rather than “Alex has closed the door”.
3) Players had the option of permissions being changed implicitly: if Jill has given Harvey a permission level of 3 then she kisses him, her permission level is automatically raised to 4 (which is what is required for kissing). The default is for the permission level to rise only for that one action (so by accepting a dance you’re not accepting a kiss).
4) We didn’t have a system for specifying your own levels for actions (eg. for French politicians, kissing is level 2 rather than level 4), but we could have done.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 24, 2004 at 06:44
Richard>I found a summary document, which gives a reasonable idea of what was involved. We went for simple defaults with more complicated overrides. Here it is...
Much appreciated.
That's roughly the direction I'd been heading, though I'm mucking around with race/religion/social association as well (game-like world, of course). I've also been going back and forth with defaults vs modifiers for unspecifieds.
With defaults, precedence becomes an issue, particularly as I add further subsets (race/religion/guild/etc). Does guild override race? Does gender override guild? Should precedence be user-selectable?
Modifiers removes concerns about precedence, but have a half dozen different axes for modifiers and pretty soon any random female elf in your guild can ram her tongue down your throat.
Richard>We didn’t have a system for specifying your own levels for actions (eg. for French politicians, kissing is level 2 rather than level 4), but we could have done.
That does seem to be a trouble spot. My first reaction would be to have seperate commands with descriptions/animations for the variations (/kiss_french vs /kiss_french_greeting)-- but that would just be dodging the issue.
Posted by: weasel | Jun 24, 2004 at 13:37
I was thinking about this a bit more, particularly from the deontological point of view:
Now, a daeontologist may argue that it is just wrong to play a game that involves rape and that this is irrespective of the way that things may happen to be represented. For example if the game is for your blue dot to turn green dots to red and that you are told that this signified rape, then there is perfectly sound argument that says that this is immoral by virtue of a principle e.g. that respect for others is violated when such notions are played with, that the rights of women to be represented in certain ways should be respected.
On the other hand another daeontologist may argue for a right to play and that is a strong right, or at the very least would be more directly contravened if people were stopped from playing in certain ways that the rights that would broken if people were allowed to. This second argument is stronger that it first looks. If we take a sport such as boxing or even football, these are games where participants die, so in a certain (and very particular) sense the right to play is stronger than the right to life – boxers are not charged with manslaughter if the opponent dies if they have obeyed by the rules of the sport.
The great play theorist Huizinga (Homo Ludens) makes a very strong case for the ‘extra-ordinary’ nature of play.
“Play lies outside the antithesis of wisdom and folly, and equally outside those of truth and falsehood, good and evil.”
Actually I would not go so far as this, as I noted above, there are ethical systems that would put play on the axis of good and evil. Though Huizinga goes on to say (about what he terms ‘dressing up’ and what we might term ‘role play’ where the avatar is the mask):
“The disguised or masked individual ‘plays’ another part, another being. He is another being. The terrors of childhood, open-hearted gaiety, mystic fantasy and sacred awe are all inextricable entangled in the strange business of masked and disguises.” (bold replacing italics in original)
Now, when we have a game that involves concepts like rape we are indeed playing with the terrors of childhood that are both sublimated and extended into adult sexuality. We are playing with taboos. Play is giving us licences to go to unspeakable places – places that do, in realty, exist for some and potentially exist for all. As the contemporary play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith (see: Ambiguity of Play) puts it, play is a way of inoculating our selves; Sutton-Smith (who researches children’s play) also comments on how disturbing the play of children can be to adults when they find out (remember) about it, as children play with very dark concepts (see also original fairy tails).
Theorists like Sutton-Smith and psychologists such as Winnicot (see: Playing and Reality) take play and its role in human development and society very seriously. However in popular debate, play often gets caught up contemporaneous social debates (see: D Williams). At present play can get associated with rhetorics of childhood (see: M Southern), particularly innocence and the fear of its loss. This can serve to deny adults an adult play space – ‘adult video game’ being rendered either as oxymoron or as a pejorative that refers to pornography rather than something that deals with complex themes within the adult sphere generally (I think it also happens to be a misreading of what childhood play is i.e. one of its functions _is_ loss of innocence). The upshot is a push to emasculate and infantilise the adult world.
But, adult play spaces will emerge one way or another, these spaces (like those of children) will be disturbing to some, but that is not reason in and of it self to attempt to stop any given technology being used to facilitate such spaces.
Posted by: ren | Jun 25, 2004 at 05:21
Wired News has an article up about Sociolotron.
Posted by: Adam M. | Jun 29, 2004 at 09:59
Thx Adam.
I think the piece is, in part, inspired by this thread – which it references. Julian and I are quoted.
Just to refine my big quote a little. It states:
"But there are all kinds of reasons, from notions of what games are and what imagination and playing with concepts are, and the fact that, assuming that everyone there is an adult and knows what they're doing, it's not that easy to mount a moral argument against it."
Just to clarify this, I think that, as above in this thread I had noted that there are good deontological arguments against the game; but from a consiquentalist point of view – then it’s not that easy to mount an argument.
Another quote is:
"It's extremely spurious," Reynolds said, "to argue that playing the game is going to encourage real-life acts of rape."
I’m sticking to this one. But I do say ‘the game’ I’m sure one can have game that do inspire all kinds of real life nastiness – it just seems to me, that Sociolotron is unlikely to be one.
Posted by: ren | Jun 29, 2004 at 11:28
I don't think sociolotron is going to inspire much of anything because it's going to to sink like a stone.
I enjoy pornography, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about adult online worlds, we need to have a serious offering first.
And frankly, if the only guys doing adult worlds are putting all their efforts into selling us porn videos, none of them are ever going to make it because websites already are more suited to the task.
The serious discussions will arise from worlds like SL where you can do pretty much whatever you want, not from third-rate stuff like RLZ or Sociolotron that just shove it down your throat.
Posted by: MM | Jun 29, 2004 at 14:48
speaking of Sociolotron, does anyone have more details on the mass bannings that just took place there? This is what I have on them:
http://www.alphavilleherald.com/archives/000316.html
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jun 29, 2004 at 22:29
Just a quick heads up.. Sociolotron still has the best and deepest game-play of the kid and simulation games named above.
There are over 200 people in there right now and while I've met a rapist, I've made some decent relationships and there's an unappreciated depth and humanity there .... which in 2 years of SL i have just not found.
I think the humanity is because the game is about just that. working out and through and with the dark side, the light side, the fun side.. and even hell.. is what we want.
I for one dont want to script lil 3d models, bash another rat or twitch kill teens. Give me something with real depth, keep out the kids, and give me a game-mechanism that supports 'play' from the inside out.
If sociolotron wanted to add lil scriptable 3d models, distract people with gore or loot, or add a twitch component.. he could. Yet I doubt that another game platform sees the value of the core-bits contained in there.
200 people now.
And yes the site looks stinky from the outside and you would never ever guess from there what it's like when you have a game that is not about competition.
And hey, its sex-positive too. Doesn't mean you have to have it though. Hang out in Bars too much or go to the wrong place at the wrong time.. and errm it might happen to you.. other than that, well..
I thought a lot of what I've seen in this thread and then I gave the thing some time. If you are a grown-up, perhaps you should do the same.
Then again.. perhaps you're just a visual person looking for bouncing boobs. You should keep an eye out for teenager game mags!
If you're beyond the skin, 'undergo' the experience of developing a full character. You can do it in under a week and you will be surprised how 'natural' reasoning with that system's stats is. The inner travails in deciding how to allocate your skills in that game.. well, that alone is worth the $4 it costs.
Man, I do sound like an ad, no? But I'm not commercial. I'm just excited that this guy wrote it and that I got to get my head around it inside of a week.
For me, playing with the thoughts is more appealing than running with mmrpg passions, but it is exactly that.. playing with these thoughts .. which is the point of the game.
Mechanically its a big clunky and its got a mega (too high) barrier to get it installed etc. But if you can go deeper than skin, are a grown-up, want to remember and say hi to many types of people urges and desires.. then for crying out loud, play a f* game that is about people.
But this is turning into a rant and I better go. Anyway, I think its good to have choice and I'd rather hang with 200 frontiersmen then 2000 tribal elitists or a horde of 20000 bashers.
Just passing through.
Posted by: Just passing through.. | Sep 28, 2005 at 00:18
Heh... sorry. Not sure where I got that, seeing as how I got it right previously. Maybe I was picking up your telepathic narcissism. That will be my working theory. forex
Posted by: Mike | Nov 08, 2006 at 07:43
ii want to join
Posted by: myah | Apr 05, 2007 at 07:41