« Nomic World: By the Players, For the Players | Main | Virtual Real Estate Story Resonates »

Jun 03, 2004

Comments

1.

A thought experiment:

The interface to an MMOG is "smart" and is designed to attempt to discourage addiction. These then translate into in-game impacts. Can this discourage "addiction" at the fringes? How severe must the impacts be (at the extreme - completely severance).

Consider. Case 1. The dexterity of one's avatar drops off proportional to the length of time that avatar is logged in. Until after some period it is uncontrollable and delusional.

Consider. Case 2. Assuming VoIP integration. Too much shouting in the microphone = avatar bent over with hands covering ears.

Etc.

Works? Or not? Arguably, if done right (whatever that means), can add to the immersive experience by bringing into the VW some aspects of the real. Blurred boundaries.

2.

Interesting ideas, Nathan. However, I think that the addicted might simply go find a purer, more refined version of their drug, if the current one had deterrents aimed at curbing their playing style.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if we might see a MMOG designed explicitly for addicts, with things like shockingly long amounts of time and effort required to unlock new and exciting add-on content and worlds, linear progression of skills that grant the most intense powers to hyper specialists who have invested months of work, difficulty and barriers between high and low level characters so extreme that they can't even go on the same quests together...

Oh. My.

3.

Dan: I actually wouldn't be surprised if we might see a MMOG designed explicitly for addicts, with things like shockingly long amounts of time and effort required to unlock new and exciting add-on content and worlds, linear progression of skills that grant the most intense powers to hyper specialists who have invested months of work, difficulty and barriers between high and low level characters so extreme that they can't even go on the same quests together...

Dan, that sounds an aweful lot like some (most?) current incarnations of MMORPGs. I'm having flashbacks specifically to my DAOC days.

I guess my biggest problem when considering video game addiction is the definition of addiction. I know it's a threshold inquiry but I still have trouble defining it in this context. Granted, the extreme cases are usually pretty apparent, but the middle ground seems very unlear to me.

Dr. Orzack's definition, on a visceral level, seems half way there but some of her symptoms seem overly broad and generalized. Desiring new hardware or software? What technology-inclined game-player doesn't want the latest and greatest video card, gaming system or new game? Seems more like a symptom of, if you'll pardon the term and its occasionally derogatory implications, a geek. Similarly, " the need to use the computer to experience pleasure, excitement or relief." I like to use my computer. I like to play games. They're more fun than sitting and watching the TV and sometimes better than a book. So if I feel like it and it gives me pleasure, excitement or relief to do so, why should desiring to use my computer be a symptom of addiction? It just seems overly broad so as to encompass too many non-addiction actions and purposes.

It also seems to me that whenever game addiction is brought up, all of the examples used are based on worst-case scenarios, the easy cases. In my opinion, rather than asking "what are the symptoms, characteristics and ways of addressing game addiction" we should consider the related, but differently directed, question "when does video game playing *become* an addiction." (i.e. Along a spectrum, ranging from non-addict to addict, at what point does a player become an "addict?") Along that line, the questions subtly change to become things more like "how easy is it to stop playing" or "can the player go for x days without playing the game." These feel like better ways to inquire of addiction.

4.

Many people on the "outside" will attempt to prove addiction but only get as far as demonstrating that MMO's are emotionally significant and socially meaningful. The irony is they will think they've proved their point, and go on their way criticizing players who are wasting their time addicted to "just a game".

Then continue watching 6 hours of TV a day.

I won't claim that addictions don't exist, I just hate tidy little critiques that show nothing.

Depends is a bit extreme, but I have said (of DAoC) "if it wasn't for horse routes I wouldn't eat". Ah, the good old days. I need a new drug.

5.

Hey Dan,

That sounds like most commercial MMORPGs created during the UO/EQ era and before; creations meant to milk the per hour dollar of online gamers. Gearing down to $15 a month was a blow to the "keep them log on playing as long as possible" and gave rise to "maybe we sould restrict playtime with rest cycle (WoW").

The summary of Dr. Maressa Orzack's persentation is frightening. I want the bliss of ignornace!!!

Frank

6.

I'm not trained in psychology, but one important point to remember is that addiction isn't simply about a particular amount of time spent on a paticular activity or social concepts of the value of the activity generally.

Addiction describes a state of competition between action and personal desire and/or personal well-being. So if, during a given week, a person wants to play Star Wars Galaxies for 60hrs, and isn't failing to maintain physical and financial health, and isn't neglecting social obligations or harming others, then you don't have an addiction. (That's why you see lying, compulsive behavior, jeopardy, social harm, loss of control, etc., as being a required elements above.)

If, on the other hand, you play SWG compulsively for an hour a day, to your detriment, neglecting your social obligations, and think about SWG constantly when you're not playing (even though you'd rather not think about it), you're probably addicted to SWG.

7.

Mechanics can make it easier for players to have fun on a more casual play schedule - but they cannot stop an addict from playing 100 hours in a week.

Attempts to do so, generally wind up affecting the non-addict players much worse. Particularly those on the fringe who play infrequent sessions of addict-like length. ('weekend warriors' as they're often called)

If we are indeed dealing with addiction - we're dealing with the very extremes. We're talking about people who find such a deep-seated need in their behavior that their personal health, let alone that of those around them, becomes secondary to the fix.

True addicts would simply switch to alts - even if they need secondary or tertiary accounts. By and large, every addict I've heard anecdotal evidence of, already has multiple alts and accounts - sometimes across mutliple games.

We are as helpless in preventing or curbing this addiction as are alcohol makers. It's a meatspace social problem, and it requires a meatspace social solution, imho. It's very heartening to see the APA recognizing and thinking about this issue - but I don't think there's anything the commercial game designer can do about it.

8.


but I don't think there's anything the commercial game designer can do about it.

I wonder, though, if this is too strong a statement. For example, are not all MMOG designs and patterns alike? Are some more likely to encourgage those prone to addiction into becoming so? Are some less likely?

Consider the obesity (epidemic) analogy: one claim has been that it is partly driven by relative ease of access to fast food (compared to supermarkets, for e.g.) esp. for certain neighborhoods (poorer). Are the fast food outlets "responsible" ... well, maybe not. On the other hand do they encourage certain patterns of behavior to emerge that leads to poor diet in a neighborhood population? ...well, this seems plausible.

Back to games. Are all treadmills alike? Are some more likely to encourage addictive patterns than others?

9.

"Are all treadmills alike? Are some more likely to encourage addictive patterns than others?"

This question rocks. I think the answer is that yes, some treadmills are more likely to encourage addictive patterns than other.

I'd like to answer/expand Nathan's question a little in this way:

Is a good game "addictive"? Are the qualities that make a game rewarding to play the same qualities that create addictions?

For example: "the grind". Doing some small trivial task or tasks over and over to achieve a certain accomplishment ,is in my opinion, NOT fun. But the rewards given to players dedicated (addicted?) enough to go through it are often "worth it", unlocking some new skill or ability.

I would say that the grind is an example of MMO design that is there purely because it is easy to implement, and it satisfies the power gamer's(again, "addict's"?) by allowing them to make a simple trade of raw time in exchange for skills. Everyone but the casual MMO player is happy. This might be an example of MMORPG development that has encouraged addiction.

But the developers deserve some rigorous defense here. After all, they are simply trying to provide meaningful content for their most dedicated players. These players and their feedback to developers push the boundaries of MMORPG games, and their presence in the game adds to everyone's enjoyment. When a Jedi walks by in SWG, people gawk and whisper. It's exciting to know that the ceiling of ability is both incredibly high but also absolutely attainable. A MMORPG without "addicts", or at least the possibility of "hardcore" accomplishments, might just be dull.

10.

So what do you do about it then? Add MMOG's to our list of prohibited substances and activities? Perhaps only allow adults to play?

Heaven forbid some of those addicts figure out a way to make money playing games and manage to maintain a life after all.

Clearly, legislation that would prevent our daughters from marrying these freaks and producing half-breed babies (half digital?) is needed!

Seriously, anyone who's sittin' around the house in a diaper has a bigger problem than an MMO. The woman who mentioned it has just found an easy target for blame.

And the kid who threw his brother down the stairs just needs to have the snot smacked out of him. The blame shouldn't fall on the game, it should fall on the kid who can't control his behavior, and the parents that didn't teach him.

And the dad is not a great dad. If it's not a game, it'd be a bar or the race track. Give me a break.

I think the only thing going on here is paranoia over a new medium. And frankly, I'm surprised so much attention has been given to the topic.

Anything can be done to excess. It is up to each of us to monitor our own consumption of anything. And we must all live with the consequences of our actions, for better or for worse. But that applies to everthing in life, not just games.

11.

From everything I've read on the subject ( which admittedly isn't a whole lot but is much more and much more well-prepared than what I've read on massmog-addiction):

Making it easier to access alcohol through the repealing of prohibition did not create a deluge of alcohol addicts. Declaring war on drugs, similarly, did not decrease the incidence of drug addiction.

Those who have addictive personalities (or chemical predispositions) mostly find or avoid their addiction regardless of whether it is or is not made explicitly available. Are we truly accomplishing anything, if we water our game down to a 'non-alcoholic' point where it doesn't 'work' for addicts, and they simply go back to EQ, or even Diablo?

If we ensure they're not 'our' addicts, have we really stopped/cured/accomplished anything?
And in ensuring we don't have/encourage addicts - how many non-addicts do we actually manage to entertain?

I shudder at the thought of all persistent worlds becoming analogous to O'Douls, created out of some sort of well-intentioned social responsibility. It certainly keeps the problem away from us - but does it really address the problem?

Our games are meant to be fun. Anything that people derive pleasure from can be the basis for addiction. Are some treadmills more addictive? Certainly - they're the fun ones.

Much as people bandy about the accusation that treadmills are intentionally based on the Skinner Box, it just isn't true. If it were, ProgressQuest would have as many addicts as EverQuest.

I happen to think treadmills need to go. Not because they're addictive, but because I don't find them fun -- I don't find them addictive enough ;)

12.

This is heading toward a political debate more than a psychological one--and in the case of addiction, the two are very much part of a single whole.

Nathan asks, "Are all treadmills alike? Are some more likely to encourage addictive patterns than others?"

but before that, the political question should at least be considered, if not answered conclusively. Are (adult) individuals, resonably well educated about the facts at hand and with multiple options, responsible for their uncoerced actions or not? Are parents responsible for guiding their children?

If you answer "Yes", then even considering altering your game design to encourage "less addictive" features is ridiculous (completely aside from the business angle, which may well want to increase addictivity).

If you answer "Well, yes, but..." then you have an unenviably large and fuzzy slope to define yourself along, somewhere between "people are mindless automatons and must have caretakers" and "it is the responsibility of players to judge their own situation appropriately."

Ethically, I have no problem with game designers crafting a game as "addictive" as they can make it. I also think cigarette manufacturers should be free to vary their nicotine content however they like (as long as it is labeled). The comparison isn't as remote as it might seem--a decade ago, no one would have expected anyone to seriously file class action suits against fast food companies for "making them" fat. Now we've started to accept the ridiculous notion that McDonalds should be financially responsible for your heart attack. As soon as game designers publicly allow a special interest establishment to make gaming a public health issue, regulation and lawsuits will shortly follow.

As someone with modest training in psychology and neurobiology, I assert that

a) the psychology establishment very much has an interest in pathologizing behavior. Look at Orzack's list: Craving? Risking? These are normal and healthy human behaviors, experienced (for instance) by anyone who has ever fallen in love. The trick is in slipping in the assumed value judgement that what is craved or risked is "just a game", not on par with historical methods of socializing.

b) the neurobiology of addiction, and its higher level manifested behavior, is not really picky about its object. That's why "addiction" scares and trends always have a new focus. It's not that there are always new addictions being created--it's that there will always be easily addicted individuals out there. Game designers shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that they can prevent the rare addicted gamer horror story any more than they would expect their game design to affect drunk driving.

13.

Wow, everyone beat me to it. I should type less.

14.

I'm working on a project to simulate the hallucinations of schizophrenia, using the Second Life virtual world system to do it. Its intended use is as a teaching aid for physicians and nurses, to help them understand just how intrusive auditory and visual hallucinations can be.

This is an update to a similar project was done in Australia six or seven years ago, details at http://www.acmc.uq.edu.au/~jbanks/psychosis.html

I believe (although cannot cite) there is literature to support treatment of phobias like fear-of-heights and fear-of-spiders with virtual environments. My PI and I are also interested in looking at post-traumatic stress disorder, using VR environs to recreate stressful experience for immersion therapy.

So the medical community has some interest other than pointing the addiction finger.

James Cook, M.D.

15.

James,

Wow -- thanks for commenting. That's really cool stuff.

http://www.acmc.uq.edu.au/~jbanks/psychosis/node11.html

p.s. I'm really curious as to what you're going to say about the Matrix on that DVD interview!

16.

greglas> "If, on the other hand, you play SWG compulsively for an hour a day, to your detriment, neglecting your social obligations, and think about SWG constantly when you're not playing (even though you'd rather not think about it), you're probably addicted to SWG."

I think another important dimension needs to be added to this whole addiction question. Infatuation. MMORPG infatuation is very common. People play stupidly hardcore for 4 months and burnout. They then return to their normal world. Are they addicts? They would certainly trigger all those warning signs during the height of their infatuation.

Consider this:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/L/larval-stage.html

This entry from the Jargon File had me reexamine the common reports of internet addiction. I remember in the Late-90s, after a series of "People become addicted to the internet!", there was a "The internet is a fad!" This scare story charted people who had gone from using the web every day to no longer using it daily. The conclusion was it was irrelevant. The real answer was they had naturally burned out. Now that they got over the novelty, they could truly start to use it.

I think we too often look at short term, 6 month, effects and conclude the person will be an 80 year old playing DAOC. The difficulty, of course, is determining those who will naturally return to normalacy from those that won't :>

But, if you are one of the ones that will return, it becomes insulting to see these characteristics listed as "Addiction". "Preoccupation", or "Infatuation" would be better. I'd hate to be sane by the standards of psychologists - I could never get anything done, as accomplishment almost always requires abnormal focus on a single task :>

- Brask Mumei

17.

The main thing that strikes me about this is the degree of cluelessness certain members of the American Psychiatric Association are exhibiting here; some of them still appear to be at the larval stage of understanding virtual worlds, yet are happy to wheel out their standard definitions of addiction and seek to apply them with hapless abandon.

As I note in my book, "addiction" in virtual worlds comes from two sources. One of these really is a true psychological dependency - the use of variable feedback reward systems to keep people playing, Las Vegas slot machine style. The other may look to an outsider like it's a dependency, but it's not - it's just something that people really, really want to do. This is the whole "search for identity" thing. What's more, even if it were technically speaking "addictive", that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing.

Treadmills are not intrinsically problematic. They're only problematic if they use gambling-type reward systems to keep players on them, or if they're so long that they effectively deny players the next step of their hero's journey.

Richard

18.

It occurs to me that these 4 "symtoms of addiction"

*Craving the newest hardware or software
* The need to spend increasing amounts of time or money on computer activities in order to get the same effect.
* Lying about the type of activity
* Lying about the amount of time spent

Are very common traits for many hobbies if your:

1) Male

2) Married

I live in a sailing town. You could substitute boat terms for computer terms in the first two and describe half the men in town. And if there is a non sailing spouse there is almost certainly some lying going on about the boat.

I'm not suprised at the examples because you can always find extreme examples. Especially if one bother beating another up is proof of a pathology. Was the depends user a normal successful citizen with a happy family until he found EverQuest?

Do these papers get critiqued at the conference? Would it be considered impolite to mock Dr. Steward in public for being overly simplistic and naive?

Wait I have done it already.


I do think that looking at games and pathological behavior is worth while but I don't think its possible to do it well without understanding psychology and games. Otherwise ignorance of the subject matter will reduce the quality of the diagnosis.

19.

Richard Bartle>They're only problematic if they use gambling-type reward systems to keep players on them

I don't even think an outright slot-machine-style of advancement would be a concerning design. It would be a bad design, in that almost no-one seems willing to pay to play an even slightly nondeterministic game. The best attempts to exploit base instinct without providing actual entertainment tend to fail spectacularly.

And slot machines themselves are hot hopelessly addicting. People manage to sit down, play a bit, and move on with no ill effects all the time. I don't see any reason to assume that replacing the bars, and fruits with bards and flutes would enhance its addictiveness.

If a treadmill is fun, I don't think players would care if it was intentionally designed to keep them on it. To hit the favorite target: SOE has 400k+ subscribers, fully aware of the stick and carrot, still paying them monthly.

Richard> or if they're so long that they effectively deny players the next step of their hero's journey

I don't think that's emblematic of malicious intent until persistent worlds actually begin to offer a full heroic cycle to the consumers. We seem to have the launching point for reluctant heroes down pat -- even divine intervention from time to time. It's just adding resolution and denouement to a static conflict that seems problematic.

20.

Dr. Cook, I did not mean to imply that the entire mental health profession was quackery, but rather that the standard DSM approach to diagnosis (as demonstrated above by Orzack) is ridiculous, even when the subject matter and context are understood.

If you don't bother to differentiate clinically between "The need to use the computer to experience pleasure, excitement or relief," and say, the need to use heroin, then your assessment has little incisive value. The DSM mentality sees it as the same thing, because its conception of the breadth of human nature defines normalcy as everyone doing the same thing, the same way, for the same reasons. As Brask says, being fully "sane" (non-deviant) by that standard is not something to aspire to.

Good luck with your own (thankfully pragmatic) work.

21.

Bartle> "Treadmills are not intrinsically problematic. They're only problematic if they use gambling-type reward systems to keep players on them, or if they're so long that they effectively deny players the next step of their hero's journey."

You mean as in a large portion of online games since the early 90s?

The difference between being a hero in a single player game and an online game is this:

The single player game makes you heroic from the start and runs ~50 USD for anywhere from 10-100 hours of gameplay.

The online game makes you a peasant from the start and costs hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for thousands of hours (and long term on the order of years) of entertainment.


The problem with online games is that they offer roughly the same amount of content, but spread it out in a thin veneer across the virtual world. But I digress...


There are players who become addicted to online games. The question is this: Do we need to cure this addiction? Is there a way to determine whether or not we are losing good contributing members to society? Or in the absence of game addiction, would these people simply find another form of addiction?

22.

Soukyan>You mean as in a large portion of online games since the early 90s?

Yes, I do. The fact that many game-like virtual worlds don't have an "ending" is a problem.

>The single player game makes you heroic from the start and runs ~50 USD for anywhere from 10-100 hours of gameplay.

Making a character heroic doesn't make a player a hero.

Richard

23.

Richard Bartle>Yes, I do. The fact that many game-like virtual worlds don't have an "ending" is a problem.

I see no problem that the worlds themselves don't provide specified end for each player. Let us remember that most heroes get to go around the wheel a couple times or more. The problem is that no particular journey - has an ending. When we provide content in a static manner, to ensure that everyone gets a shot at fighting the dragon, we also ensure that no-one can actually defeat the dragon. When we log on tomorrow, he'll be back, with the princess in her tower, no matter what we do today.

Sisyphus would feel right at home.

I'm curious: what kind of ending are you looking for?

24.

weasel>I'm curious: what kind of ending are you looking for?

I'm looking for an acknowledgement by the "game" that a player has "won". Congratulations, you've reached level 100, that's it, game over, well done, you've finished, you don't have to run on this treadmill any more, you've reached the end, you've achieved the goal I set for you.

To be specific, I want something that fulfils the "atonement with the father" stage of the hero's journey.

Richard

25.

Is the interest in Joseph Campbell a recent thing, Richard? Funny that Ted's first post here mentioned Campbell too...

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2003/09/.

26.

Richard Bartle>To be specific, I want something that fulfils the "atonement with the father" stage of the hero's journey.

Campbell's at-one-ment with the father requires the abandonement of the ego itself. How poetic that our genre would require the literal abandonment of our alter-ego -- the letting go of this other us.

Does this lack of an ending also trouble non game-like worlds? Or is it simply an artistic critique that the player-created narrative, derived from a game-like world, is less fulfilling than the myths it was based on?

27.


Just my opinion, but endings are no good. I hate level caps. While I don't like treadmills, I like the end of advancement less. Plus, once you beat it, that's probably going to end your subscription too.

28.

greglas>Is the interest in Joseph Campbell a recent thing, Richard?

It's used in two kinds of ways.

The first way concerns characters. A character is called to adventure, refuses the call, gets supernatural aid etc.. This is a moderately new thing in virtual worlds, in that it first appeared, hmm, late 1990s I think.

The second way concerns players. A player is called to adventure, refuses the call, gets supernatural aid etc.. This is new as of my book last year.

It's my assertion that players play virtual worlds in order to undertake a hero's journey for themselves (rather than for their characters), with the virtual world being the "world of myth" that an individual on the journey visits.

Richard

29.

weasel>Campbell's at-one-ment with the father requires the abandonement of the ego itself. How poetic that our genre would require the literal abandonment of our alter-ego -- the letting go of this other us.

I don't know a great deal about the atonement step in terms of psychology, but I thought it was to do with an abandonment of the attachment to the ego, not of the ego? I agree, though, it is poetic.

The way I see it, up until this step there is the player and there is the character that the player is playing. It's only after the atonement phase that the player can formally regard themself AS the character, ie. the two are one and the same. However, because of the semi-independent way that immersion works, players can come to that conclusion prior to the atonement step, leaving them wondering what it is they have to do for the "game" to recognise their achievement.

>Does this lack of an ending also trouble non game-like worlds?

Although a hero's journey is possible for these worlds, it doesn't happen very often in them. Thus, because people don't embark on a hero's journey, they're not going to have a problem not finishing it.

>Or is it simply an artistic critique that the player-created narrative, derived from a game-like world, is less fulfilling than the myths it was based on?

I don't believe it is, no.

Besides, most virtual worlds aren't based on the monomyth, they just fall together that way. It's not as if designers deliberately try to set up players to have a hero's journey - otherwise, they WOULD allow for an atonement step. I think the problem is that players have a need to be accepted by the father (ie. the "game"'s designer), because otherwise they never get closure; however, because virtual worlds don't give them this acceptance (you can't "win" them), they're eventually going to become frustrated and leave.

Richard

30.

MM>Just my opinion, but endings are no good. I hate level caps.

Who said anything about level caps? People can "play on" after being told they've won. Civilization III offers the option to continue or stop once you've won it; it's not impossible to do that for a virtual world.

That said, if the hero's journey has worked out right, they shouldn't want to play on in a competitive sense.

>While I don't like treadmills, I like the end of advancement less.

Why is that?

>Plus, once you beat it, that's probably going to end your subscription too.

Not necessarily, no. Some players of text MUDs still hang around in them, even though they "won" over a decade ago. It's part of the whole "master of the two worlds" and "freedom to live" thing. You can come and go as you please; it's just that the virtual world has lost its mystical significance for you.

At least this way people who leave do so happily, rather than in annoyance.

Richard

31.

In reference of SWG's new "ladder" system for Jedi (see recent TN post), I think SWG is a good example of a MMORPG with a viable Hero's Journey. With the announcement of the new system, the supernatural call is now made to the players.

Now SWG mirrors the myth of SW. Players can evolve into Jedi, Jedi Master, and Jedi spirits. Now the next thing is reincarnation, which they kinda have with the forever unlocked Force Sensitive slots.

Thus, the player begin to live in the mythology of reincarnation: groundhogs day, dante's limbo, karmic something or another :)

Frank

32.

BusinessWeek Online have a nice press about the beneficial affects of games, via Yahoo.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/040604/b3887088mz063_1.html


Frank

33.

magicback>In reference of SWG's new "ladder" system for Jedi (see recent TN post), I think SWG is a good example of a MMORPG with a viable Hero's Journey.

It's more viable than some, yes. My first impression is that the voting system for "light side of the force" characters wouldn't feel like atonement, though. This is because it's not the "game" acknowledging you, but its players. I guess if Jedi started throwing their weight around and dominated SWG as wizzes do some textual worlds, there could be a shift in perception of "the father" from whom atonement is sought.

Richard

34.

Richard,

The system where dead jedi masters become blue spirits is in a way the father acknowledges the son. The game does not acknowledge as the game doesn't end with a cataclysm, paradigm shift, or some mythic event. But a part of the trinity of the Developer, the game, and the Live Team does acknowledges the son.

And the son may one day ascend to the right hand of the father....... and be a live team member or a developer :)

The more I look at this from a mythology framework, the more parallels I discovers. Interesting.

On an addiction note, clinically addicted player may actually be just emotionally attached to their avatar in the mythical sense.

The system of afterlife on the otherhand, magnify the emotional significance of a personal journey, heroic or not. There is an end and a beginning; retirement is not the only option.

More people may even begin to use VWs as a way to resolve deep emotional scars or help them end their cycle of bad karma, like turning from 'dark' to 'light.

Frank

35.

Bartle> "Making a character heroic doesn't make a player a hero."

Do not lose yourself in a virtual avatar. I, as a person, maintain a level of distinction between myself and an avatar. I never seek to "become one" with a character in a game. This is not a marriage or religion, it's leisure time activity. If I want to feel heroic, I will do something in the real world where other people can take notice. If I want an avatar to be heroic, I will do something notable in a virtual world, and as a player I would feel good about it, perhaps even slightly heroic, as it were. I'm thinking perhaps I misunderstood you, but really, just making an avatar/character feel heroic to play (i.e. not killable by rats, etc.) goes a long way toward making it fun, which is really the most important thing.

I do agree that there should be an end to the journey. Every MUD I have ever played and finished, I have felt happy about, even when leaving. I've always felt frustration when leaving an MMOG. I think you've definitely hit the mark on that point.

36.

Richard>I don't know a great deal about the atonement step in terms of psychology, but I thought it was to do with an abandonment of the attachment to the ego, not of the ego?

Minor miscommunication. I didn't mean to suggest that the Hero actually discards his ego altogether, but that he abandons his self-importance in deference to trust in the Father. I meant what you meant.

Frank>Plus, once you beat it, that's probably going to end your subscription too.

Richard>Not necessarily, no. Some players of text MUDs still hang around in them, even though they "won" over a decade ago. It's part of the whole "master of the two worlds" and "freedom to live" thing. You can come and go as you please; it's just that the virtual world has lost its mystical significance for you.

Except that the economics attached to these game-like worlds (monthly fees) are wholly impractical for a casual play style. Whether that's casual because you don't have a lot of time, or have only a casual interest due to completing your Journey doesn't really matter.

MUDs are largely free, and those that charge have a bit more history than any of their graphical counterparts. A 10+ year-old community is perhaps worth more to a player to stay in touch with. For a monthly fee in a comparatively young game, people who've 'won' will quit. For the most part in any case.

My next question for Richard then is:
Where does a non-game-like virtual world end, and a game-like world begin? What is the defining factor of a game-like world that suggests it should be 'winnable', and atonement achieved?

SWG/UO are less game-like in design than, say, Everquest, and as such present a slightly thornier issue for atonement, imo. The 'treadmill' in those games ( at least in their original beta designs when I played them ) was extraordinarily short. Achieving the proverbial level 100 is not, in itself, the Heroic Journey - nor do I believe it is meant to be.

The players who stick to such games largely seem to be playing as a citizen in a virtual world - finding adventure and heroism if they so choose. Many architects and dancers in SWG don't appear to be playing a fundamentally different game than, say, Second Life.

In this type of game, there isn't any hard and fast heroic journey. Some players find or create a journey for themselves, but many do not. Atonement with the father would be fairly tricky because there is no Ogre to defeat (in the Journey sense). There is no-one presenting a clear set of obstacles to be cleared. (Perhaps explaining the comparatively low retention of such 'sandbox' worlds, as opposed to strictly game-like worlds?)

Matt

37.

magicback>And the son may one day ascend to the right hand of the father....... and be a live team member or a developer

Yes, this is what we did in MUD1. You got the points, you made wiz, then suddenly you were an administrator - there was no longer a "game" for you, just power and resposibility.

Richard

38.

Soukyan>Do not lose yourself in a virtual avatar. I, as a person, maintain a level of distinction between myself and an avatar. I never seek to "become one" with a character in a game.

Is that an act of will, or is it that it just never happens for you?

Not everyone who plays a virtual world wants or needs to undertake a hero's journey.

Richard

39.

weasel>My next question for Richard then is:
Where does a non-game-like virtual world end, and a game-like world begin? What is the defining factor of a game-like world that suggests it should be 'winnable', and atonement achieved?

In design terms, it means there has to be some metric that the "game" uses and that the players accept. The metric should be trustworthy as a true reflection of how good a player is (ie. if you see a high-rated character, it means there's a high-rated player behind it; note that eBaying will erode this trustworthiness).

The games we have at the moment tend to use experience points mainly from combat as their metric. These aren't the only metrics possible, though. You could, for example, have a "reach the top of the hierarchy" metric, whereby you "win" if you become king, pope, chancellor, general or whatever. This would be attractive mainly to socialisers/politicians, although also (eg. in the case of general) for some achievers/planners.

>In this type of game, there isn't any hard and fast heroic journey.

I agree. Traditionally, "social" style textual worlds have not had an explicit hero's journey, but they may have an implicit one (eg. you "win" when you get creator privs). Implicit journey's, though, by definition use goals defined by the player, not by the designer. That being the case, the nature of the ogre is also determined by the player, which (if they make a poor choice, eg. choosing some goal it's easy to achieve) could make for a sense of unfulfilment.

Virtual worlds don't have to be hero's journeys for everyone. Some people really will regard them as little more than graphical chat rooms, and never go any further. The point is, they do offer the prospect of going further; the player has the choice of whether they want/need to be a hero.

Sorry if I sound like I'm lecturing here; I get the feeling that you already know this stuff anyway!

Richard

40.

Richard> Yes, this is what we did in MUD1. You got the points, you made wiz, then suddenly you were an administrator - there was no longer a "game" for you, just power and resposibility.

There lies the Master of Two Worlds stage and, perhaps, infinity on a pin of a needle conceptualization. Some one may have their hero's journey within an A-to-B FedEx quest while others require external acknowledgement of Wizards.

My stab at Chrisitian imagery was to hint at the parallels and the imprinted need for a journey of self actualization.

The last stage of Campbell's framework of the Hero's Journey ends with Master of Two Worlds. So perhaps this stage is just as elusive in VWs as it is in real life.

Frank

41.

magicback>So perhaps this stage is just as elusive in VWs as it is in real life.

The way I look on it (which is with wild and positive optimism), VWs allow you to have a hero's journey in real life. When you finish the journey, the "other" world has lost its mythical significance and is part of your view of the "mundane" world (which is why you can be master of the two worlds).

In other words, virtual worlds have to be different from the real world so that eventually they can be the same.

Richard

42.

Richard,

I agree with your optimism.

What I suggest is that most MMORPGs are designed up to the Road of Trials and most people only see up to this stage in their personal journeys.

How many people leave a particular MMORPG with a warm and fuzzy sense of closure that marks the end of one stage and the beginning of another for the Player, relative to other reasons for leaving?

Frank

43.


I can't say I've ever left a game with a warm fuzzy feeling. And I guess that would be a good trait for a game to have. But how would you achieve that without making me feel like I just spent thousands of dollars to play a game and I just finished it and all that money is gone down the tubes?

This may be a little off topic at this point, but part of what I'm paying for is that the game is going to continue. I pay so (or because) I'll be able to continue to play. And for this reason, I think all this talk of the 'end-game' is a bunch of baloney. I think people are going to hate it and they just don't realize it yet.

When I come to the end of a game, I want it to be because I got tired of it... because I wanted to stop. Not because there's just not any more of it. And I pay plenty to keep the imaginitive juices flowing. This is what these games promise, and I expect them to deliver.

44.

magicback>What I suggest is that most MMORPGs are designed up to the Road of Trials and most people only see up to this stage in their personal journeys.

Yes, this is what I was getting at with my "The fact that many game-like virtual worlds don't have an "ending" is a problem" line.

If they did allow players to progress - to "win" - then people could finish their journeys.

The most ironic thing about this is that the reasons most virtual worlds don't have an "end" - fear of players leaving - is itself a cause for players leaving. Actually, if the "game" did end, then players would be more inclined to stay (although they wouldn't have to).

Richard

45.

MM>how would you achieve that without making me feel like I just spent thousands of dollars to play a game and I just finished it and all that money is gone down the tubes?

So when you go to a movie and it lasts 2 hours, do you come away feeling that the money you paid to watch it is gone down the tubes?

>part of what I'm paying for is that the game is going to continue.

It IS going to continue. It's just not going to be a "game" for you any more.

>I pay so (or because) I'll be able to continue to play.

So never take the final step that triggers the "win" stage, then. Only take that step when you want to stop playing.

>I think people are going to hate it and they just don't realize it yet.

Experience from MUD1 (and MUD2) shows that you're right: some people are indeed disappointed when they "win", and would have preferred if they could just carry on as before. Most are ready for it, though.

The thing is, the win condition has to be at the same point for everybody if it's to mean anything, yet some people (for whatever reason) get there before they're ready. Maybe they felt they had too much help, or maybe they didn't get enough of a challenge, whatever. Some people are always going to finish earlier than they should; similarly, some will drop out before they finish because they completed the journey in their mind too quickly.

Richard

46.

Richard> Yes, this is what I was getting at with my "The fact that many game-like virtual worlds don't have an "ending" is a problem" line.

Yeah, we are in a bit of a circular conversation. I don't find the elusiveness of an "ending" a problem, but do want to make it less elusive.

I argue that people can find their own personal hero's journey within the current game structure in the same way someone goes to a foreign country for a period and returns.

However, an objective ending as "The Way" the developer/god have set out as the winning condition could make it easier for people who do want to engage in it.

For example, it could be like a cross-server PvP call Mortal Combat (yes I'm borrowing the idea) as the Supreme Ordeal where you can win boons for your server. Once you acheive the objectives of Mortal Combat then you technically win. The benefit of the ordeal is that you can play in any server any time as your very recognizable Mortal Combat character, but the drawback is that the character no longer can advance in levels.

Just an idea.

Frank

47.

Magicback>I argue that people can find their own personal hero's journey within the current game structure in the same way someone goes to a foreign country for a period and returns

I wouldn't disagree with that; people can find their own hero's journey even in non-game worlds like LambdaMOO or SL. Nevertheless, I feel that if the game is designed to support a hero's journey (rather than to frustrate it), more people will complete theirs.

Richard

48.

I’ve mentioned it before, but anyone interested in the video game addiction debate really should look at: Chee F. & Smith R., (2003), ‘Is Electronic Community an Addictive Substance? EverQuest and its Implications for Addiction Policy’ (www.inter-disciplinary.net/ci/mm/mm1/chee%20paper.pdf).

49.


The movie argument doesn't hold. I paid $20 one time to see a movie one time. If I paid 10 or 15 bucks a month for three or four years, I may very well expect it to continute.

MMO's are more like cable television. If you want to come to the 'end' of something, I suppose I'm ok with that. But there had better be more stuff coming down the pipe. Over time, we spend a good deal of money on this stuff. I think it should end when the player says it ends. If I complete a 'hero's journey', I want to be able to complete a second one if I feel like it.

You must remember that whether it is universally agreed upon or not, many people (myself included) feel like the time they spend on their characters is an investment. You don't want your investment to be worthless at maturity. But if you've come to the end of the game, that's exactly what has happened.

50.

A couple of points related to Constance's original question of "medicalization" of gameplay. (Since I came in late... hello!)

Consider this passage from Joseph Weizenbaum's 1976 book _Computer Power and Human Reason_:

"... bright young men of disheveled appearance, often with sunken glowing eyes, can be seen sitting at computer consoles, their arms tensed and waiting to fire their fingers, already poised to strike, at the buttons and keys on which their attention seems to be riveted as a gambler's on the rolling dice. When not so transfixed, they often sit at tables strewn with computer printouts over which they pore like possessed students of a cabbalistic text. They work until they nearly drop, twenty, thirty hours at a time. Their food, if they arrange it, is brought to them: coffee, Cokes, sandwiches. If possible, they sleep on cots near the printouts. Their rumpled clothes, their unwashed and unshaven faces, and their uncombed hair testify that they are oblivious to their bodies and to the world in which they move. These are computer bums, compulsive programmers ..."

Presumably the APA would characterize these behaviors as clinical markers for a form of addictive behavior. But are they really? I was paid nicely for well over a decade to indulge my "programming addiction" -- so is spending a lot of time on a computer really an addiction if it's socioeconomically validated? Is "addiction" now to be determined by whether certain behaviors have the support or condemnation of powerful political constituencies?

I'm not as far to one side on this issue as, say, Thomas Szasz, but to say it bluntly I can't help but feel that the APA is simply trying to invent new "diseases" -- in other words, that behaviors once criticizable as poor judgement or a lack of willpower are now being medicalized, with the practical effect of promoting bad behaviors by making it rude/gauche/ignorant/intolerant/bigoted/etc. to point out the negative effects of those behaviors. (Even one of the contributors to the DSM-IV has expressed a similar opinion on medicalizing certain behaviors that have been defended by some political groups.)

Which, if a fair charge, raises a dilemma: Do we support medicalizing "gaming addiction" because it will keep the media and politicians from attacking gamers (and, indirectly, game development)? ("Well, they just can't help themselves; the APA says we should be more tolerant.")

Or do we reject the prospective characterization of the intense use of computers (for whatever purpose) as a medical condition, either because we object personally to being described as addicts, or because we feel (as I do) that we've has already traveled too far down the road of creating officially-sanctioned excuses for bad behavior?

51.

MM>I think it should end when the player says it ends. If I complete a 'hero's journey', I want to be able to complete a second one if I feel like it.

I'm OK with allowing a player able to take the final step being able to decide not to take it (so long as it's not a state they can be in indefinitely - they should still have to overcome challenges if they don't take the step). I should also perhaps reiterate the point that if you do "win" the "game" then that doesn't mean you can no longer play using that character; rather, it means that the character has achieved all it can achieve.

If you complete the hero's journey, you won't have any need to go on a second one (at least not in that virtual world).

>You must remember that whether it is universally agreed upon or not, many people (myself included) feel like the time they spend on their characters is an investment. You don't want your investment to be worthless at maturity.

In other words, when you find that the game isn't fun for you any more you want to recoup some of the money you've spent by selling your character to someone else who hasn't yet come to that conclusion?

Richard

52.

About the Hero's Journey: How well does this translate into a MMORPG without being patently silly?

Weasel noted the problem with static content - that the world becomes meaningless since your actions have little to no impact.
Another alternative: subjective quests, perhaps better known as 'private dungeons', is a possibility, but as has been noted by Talin in 'Managing Deviant Behaviour in Online Worlds' (http://www.sylvatech.com/~talin) this also reduces the amount of effect on and interaction with the rest of the VW that the player has.

So how do you go about designing an emotionally significant quest for the player allowing for outside interaction with allowing this interaction do become 'interference' where another player makes the quest incompletable?

53.

Hmm, "with allowing this interaction do become" should read "without allowing this interaction to become".
Sorry.

54.

Laust J Christensen>So how do you go about designing an emotionally significant quest for the player allowing for outside interaction without allowing this interaction to become 'interference' where another player makes the quest incompletable?

No, I'm not talking about a hero's journey for the CHARACTER, I'm talking about a hero's journey for the PLAYER. The whole virtual world is the "quest" in this sense.

Richard

55.

For roleplayers I think there would or could be some degree of unity - you set up a character, decide the charters flaws and strengths and ultimate goal. My posit is this - if you could decide upon a major motivation for your character this could be turned into the characters overarching goal. Reaching this goal would then equal finishing the game and (hopefully) getting a sense of closure.
This is of course still character-centric but a step upwards from what we have today - games where players are left to flounder in vast rather underdescribed static worlds, where day to day happenings are hard to get an inkling of for the casual player without an established social network (or so I posit).

56.

Laust J Christensen>For roleplayers I think there would or could be some degree of unity

Well yes, immersion works like that. Ideally, though, the point of complete immersion (ie. where character becomes persona becomes player) should coincide with the point where the player reaches the "atonement with the father" step.

>if you could decide upon a major motivation for your character this could be turned into the characters overarching goal

Yes, but that's you deciding what your goal is, which (in hero's journey terms) doesn't make you a hero when you achieve it.

Richard

57.

Richard>Sorry if I sound like I'm lecturing here; I get the feeling that you already know this stuff anyway!
Not a problem; I was just trying to get a handle on where you were defining the split between 'game-like' and 'social' worlds. It appears that me that you're not really making a clear distinction between types -- you're simply advocating that any system of advancement have a real and attainable 'end', regardless of how (un)fulfilling the implementation of the resultant Journey might be.

Which is something that I completely agree with. Even though it isn't a very fulfilling Journey, IMO -- Everquest would be better off if it wasn't nigh impossible to complete your advancement.

Laust>So how do you go about designing an emotionally significant quest for the player allowing for outside interaction [without] allowing this interaction [to] become 'interference' where another player makes the quest incompletable?
That's the rub isn't it?
A Heroic Journey is premised on the understanding that the hero needs to defeat the challenge, for he is the only one capable. Yet the core assumption of a game-like persistent world is that all players are equally capable.
Shifting to dynamic content by itself simply exacerbates the problem of the unfulfilling challenge by presenting the possibility that the player may well never find a challenge.

Matt

The comments to this entry are closed.