Peter Ludlow is in the news again. This time in the company of Will Wright in Simulating life, love and the Universe (BBC Online)... Will Wright is everywhere in the news these days, including in 'The Sims' goes bonkers (ZDNet Australia). A common theme in the recent publicity is Will's fascination with the wild side...
According to the BBC story, it is
(t)his shadier side of virtual life is something that concerns, but also interests Wright... "It makes the game more interesting... "It is something our society is grappling with...
In ZDNet, Will translates the shadier side into a clockwork of "failure states":
We did find with "SimCity" -- and later with "The Sims" -- that players really enjoy exploring the failure side. They want to experiment with all the different ways they screw up the Sims' lives, from having a bladder failure and soiling the carpet to losing a job or being spurned in a romantic advance. The failure states in "Sims 2" are quite a bit more elaborate than in "Sims 1." And you've got a deeper emotional connection, so when the Sims fail, you really feel guilty. You feel as if you're dealing with a pet instead of a robot.
A question for virtual worlds is this: griefing (and the pathological few) aside, are we really such a crass lot? Might this then also contain a redeeming quality for the future. Do virtual worlds have the potential to build the types of consensus and balances that can lead to more responsible gaming? For example, consider the future of virtual property rights and enlighted self interest. After all, how many of you would soil your own carpets when you have to foot the bill for it to be cleaned later. Is the alternative second-class theme-parks where we "party hearty" and trash the neighborhood?
I pitched a video game once that involved a variety of characters, all different ages and backgrounds, trying to make their way through mansions and other large complexes in order to get to the bathroom in time. I still think it would be a great game.
When trying to quantify fun in a virtual setting we, a large pecentage of the time, exclude what our values are in physical space. Until it is brutally revealed that our virtual behavior significantly influences our physical space behavior then I am afraid that we will continue to see shady antics and carpets.
We must not forget how this relates directly to the Reality Check post. Users and gamers alike want to see real life experiments gone bad even if it is simulated in a virtual space. I would'nt mind seeing JackAss VR.
-Jimbob
Posted by: Jimbob Peltaire | Sep 17, 2004 at 22:35
Failure states offer content, why wouldn't I want to see it?
Also, reaching a failure state teaches many things, inluding where boundaries may lie. Knowledge of boundaries and paths to failure reduces anxiety and provides information on avoiding failure for the next play session (or reflection back to real life!). Which bring us to self-preservation, an instinct that doesn't project well into the online persona when failures can be undone.
I equate the the "Drama" movie genre as one that depicts "Failure States". Is there a market for 'drama' games where tough luck is the norm and failure inevitable?
Posted by: Andres Ferraro | Sep 18, 2004 at 01:05
“You feel as if you're dealing with a pet instead of a robot.”
Interesting pair of relationships. Why are you dealing with anything other than yourself? Maybe that’s one of the issues with the Sims.
I’m not sure what ‘failure’ that Will is referring to. What I see is that the game created by the players i.e. how to kill a sim etc., is just much more interesting to some than the game they are being told they should play.
With virtual environment it does seem that there are extremes – if you don’t identify with the avatar then you are free to experiment on it, if you do then one gets into the culture of display, spectacle and virtual sex.
Seems Will want something middle or the road. Well unless there is a game that is engaging, I don’t see that right now your are going to get it.
Posted by: ren | Sep 18, 2004 at 07:37
Failure states offer content, why wouldn't I want to see it?
Well, I'm presuming there is an opportunity cost. In other words, to the extent everyone is revelling in a failure state they are not engaged in some "success state."
Perhaps one VW interpretation of what this means might go like this: to the extent folks are not helping noobs, bashing mobs, organizing political structures, recycling rusty armor... and to they extent they are scamming npcs... you get the picture... So presume a fixed developer budget: you can either beef up "trash talk'n npcs" or provide a new GUI to help political parties organize themselves...
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Sep 18, 2004 at 15:22
I’m not sure what ‘failure’ that Will is referring to. What I see is that the game created by the players i.e. how to kill a sim etc., is just much more interesting to some than the game they are being told they should play.
There seems to be an external value-judgement involved. But only meaningful if the game supports choice. Grand Theft Auto, it would appear, would only offer failure states.
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Sep 18, 2004 at 15:31
I predict the next big hit will be called "GriefWars"
Posted by: bruce rogers | Sep 18, 2004 at 16:38
It makes perfect sense developmentally that we are first exploring error and misconduct within the means of a new technology. Any new technology breeds first a model of what failure looks like. It is just as typical as a kid testing his own behavior in the classroom. They soon find out in other words that they are inside of a top down system. If we can build bottom up virtual worlds then we can seize worrying about the behavior because it will be enforced by the users.
I think of these worlds as small towns, newborn cultures. Historically, similar systems needed misconduct in order to recognize fault as a part of self defense.
It works both ways, Wright knows that people are exploring what failure is and as long as there is criticism, this Will not be an issue because criticism is the only cure for error.
Posted by: Jimbob Peltaire | Sep 18, 2004 at 18:23
I experience a rather dramatic "failure state" every time I crash a car in "Project Gotham 2". I certainly wouldn't drive a real-life $600,000 Ferrari Enzo that way, but I'm not about to start obeying traffic laws in driving games out of concern for discouraging irresponsible behavior. The whole point of (most) games is that they allow us to do things that we couldn't or wouldn't do in real life. And many allow us to explore those failure states without consequence or reprisal. That's why the "Grand Theft Auto" series is so popular, why many people had more fun playing a "dark side" character in "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic", and a why a game like "Burnout 2" whose key selling point is a mode allowing you to cause as much traffic damage as possible, is so appealing.
Posted by: Scott | Sep 19, 2004 at 03:23
Agree completely. I once gave a little talk at a workshop called Chaos University, run by the Standish Group, and the theme of that particular workshop was system failures (hmm wonder what I was doing there). Anyway, their claim: the greatest cause of failure was fear of failure. This makes sense, fear of failure might lead you to underinvest in a project or to stick with familiar (and not optimal) technology, or not ask that hottie out, or not try out new stuff with him/her once... etc. So isn't it nice to have environments where you can take chances and experiment with alternative behaviors and alternative courses of action. Plus wrecking stuff is fun.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Sep 19, 2004 at 08:31
Someone's failure state is someone else's possibility state. It's an exploration of something other than the steady state.
Posted by: magicback | Sep 19, 2004 at 11:21
Well, I'm presuming there is an opportunity cost. In other words, to the extent everyone is revelling in a failure state they are not engaged in some "success state."
The opportunity cost is, however, very small. In most games, "winning" requires a significant amount of time, effort, and skillful play. Whereas "losing a life" or whatever other kind of "failure mode" is often very quick and easy. That's one of the reasons a lot of players will explore all the methods to die or fail in a game - you get to see more different kinds of results, at a cost of less time and effort.
Of course the classic is the "Smurf Rescue" cartridge that came free with the original Colecovision videogame console. Some gamers tried to see how many ways they could kill their smurf because the game was very easy to win, and then what else was there to do? But I think a lot of them just plain disliked smurfs. (Impaling the little blue guy on top of the picket fence was my personal favorite.)
-- Dr. Cat
Posted by: Dr. Cat | Sep 27, 2004 at 15:40