It was reported earlier this month that the Chinese Government imposed new regulations banning minors under 18 from engaging in online games based on Player Killing (PK).
It was said that:
"Minors should not be allowed to play online games that have PK content, that allow players to increase the power of their own online game characters by killing other players," Liu Shifa, head of the MOC's (Ministry of Culture) Internet Culture Division, which drafts policies governing the online gaming market... "Online games that have PK content usually also contain acts of violence and leads to players spending too much time trying to increase the power of their characters. They are harmful to young people."
Discussed was whether there is indeed harm to young people from PKing, or whether this regulation can be effectively enforced in a vast land (e.g. [1.]) . A deeper question, though, may lie with identifying the protocols and spacings necessary to manage the friction points between an interleaved virtual and real space.
Yes, it may be that an Asian internet cafe culture presents a particularly volatile mixture. Perhaps that is less relevant. In the end however we're still talking degrees of separation. The question is how to insert the spacings and how to lubricate the points of friction that fiction alone can't address: "dude, don't take it personally." What might be some of the rules, the devices to deflect these passions?
I am sceptical of the MOD initiative, yet I wonder whether it will in the end prove to be a useful catalyst. I feel that MMOGs have been too addicted to Player-vs-Player as a source of cheap content to fill those vast hours without providing good answers to how to deal with the heat resulting from when the story rubs thin and stresses emerge. Long term, the answer may lie with new innovations in game design and AI. Short/medium term, ...?
In any case, if China shall be innovating, we should all take note.
an interesting thing to note, with:
i believe it will be only a matter of time before Chinese government policy affects worldwide online game design.
u.s. titles follow ESRB guidelines for clearly financial reasons: retailers will not sell AO titles. when these titles ship overseas, publishers do not release "export only" AO-equivalent versions. with China becoming The Next Big Thing in (online) gaming, any AAA producer would seriously consider the worldwide, lowest common denominator market.
today, in the least, this might mean "PK free" titles. tomorrow, it might mean, "mandatory (partial) mainland development teams." with recent Chinese policy heavily censoring internet content, it is no stretch of imagination to see that censorship extend into the realm of virtual worlds.
the idea of commercial MMOGs critical of real-world Chinese policy, or in support of a free Taiwan, for instance, is very far fetched. however, it becomes yet another noose a dev/pub becomes tied to, and that noose is invisibly passed onto the consumer.
p.s. when PK is brought up, it is usually only in MMORPG context. however, FPSs are a major online genre in the U.S., and every single FPSs is a PK game. also, Chinese and Korean anti-PK policy could be the catalyst for a push toward worldy/PvE (vs. gamey/PvP) MMOGs.
Posted by: hikaru | Aug 16, 2005 at 13:24
an interesting thing to note, with:
1. China dumping US$1.8 billion into online Chinese game development,
2. emerging as a major (if not leading) MMOG market (c.f. WoW China player base),
3. major online publishers such as EA and Squeenix setting up shop in China, and
4. China beginning to dictate design policy,
i believe it will be only a matter of time before Chinese government policy affects worldwide online game design.
u.s. titles follow ESRB guidelines for clearly financial reasons: retailers will not sell AO titles. when these titles ship overseas, publishers do not release "export only" AO-equivalent versions. with China becoming The Next Big Thing in (online) gaming, any AAA producer would seriously consider the worldwide, lowest common denominator market.
today, in the least, this might mean "PK free" titles. tomorrow, it might mean, "mandatory (partial) mainland development teams." with recent Chinese policy heavily censoring internet content, it is no stretch of imagination to see that censorship extend into the realm of virtual worlds.
the idea of commercial MMOGs critical of real-world Chinese policy, or in support of a free Taiwan, for instance, is very far fetched. however, it becomes yet another noose a dev/pub becomes tied to, and that noose is invisibly passed onto the consumer.
p.s. when PK is brought up, it is usually only in MMORPG context. however, FPSs are a major online genre in the U.S., and every single FPSs is a PK game. also, Chinese and Korean anti-PK policy could be the catalyst for a push toward worldy/PvE (vs. gamey/PvP) MMOGs.
Posted by: hikaru | Aug 16, 2005 at 13:57
This is an interesting development, for sure, and if the Chinese goverment is serious about it, it probably will push the design of major MMORPGs in some interesting ways. So much for the old cultural hegemon. :-)
From the quoted story, the definition of "PK" seems to have fuzzy contours-- which was part of the problem over here with regard to legislation on game violence. As some of the Slashdot crowd asked, is chess violent? Is an RTS game like Warcraft (not World of) a PK game? -- most RTS games don't have recognizable player avatars and don't support persistent and improvable accounts (other than player performance ratings).
Posted by: greglas | Aug 16, 2005 at 14:39
What I'm most impressed by is that the Chinese government even knows what "PK'ing" is.
Posted by: lewy | Aug 16, 2005 at 16:04
'I believe it will be only a matter of time before Chinese government policy affects worldwide online game design.'
Only for those publishers who are producing bland crap for mass appeal and the most monetary return. Enjoy World of Warcraft II.
Posted by: trooper76 | Aug 16, 2005 at 16:28
Sorry one more
'Long term, the answer may lie with new innovations in game design and AI. Short/medium term, ...?'
I believe that completely the opposite is true. No amount of game design and AI (unless you actually manage to code a human brain) can beat human vs human interaction for the complexity it delivers. The problem DOES lie in game design, in that player vs player is limited to killing each other or trading in defined items. A game design that allows for PLAYER driven content will never have to worry about the story wearing thin because the players are the story.
Posted by: trooper76 | Aug 16, 2005 at 16:46
AI (unless you actually manage to code a human brain) can beat human vs human interaction for the complexity it delivers
The assumption here is that there are other applications of games AI beyond mimicry of existing PvP interactions (current game design), e.g. simulating more "world-y" places. But that would require new game design to go along with the new capability, again, the assumption.
Posted by: Nate Combs | Aug 16, 2005 at 18:46
[The problem DOES lie in game design, in that player vs player is limited to killing each other or trading in defined items.]
That's not always true though. Shadowbane allowed players to create cities and towns and even stock them with NPCs. The players could then tear down each other's towns.
Posted by: Artheos | Aug 17, 2005 at 07:23
Right now, the majority of MMOGs that feature PvP "alternative play" tack that activity atop a standard numbers game largely still about Performing X in Iterations Y over Period Z. Thus far, the narrative layer has been coating, a flavor added, a means to justify the investment through partaking of "story". This is basically because players must partake in mob genocide in order to advance. Because they want to do so faster each time to advance a new character, or play a new game, mobs have gotten dumber, fights more action-based, and quite a lot less cerebral outside of the zone/encounter-based strategizing.
So it changes the game from one of discovery to one of speed. Faster, more often.
This, of course, is at odds with the nature and compulsion of PvPing.
On the one hand, I agree with thinking that stipulates longterm rewards are a prime motivator for continued investment. However, on the other hand, I feel the methods for building, measuring, and controlling those longterm rewards are not restricted to XP and levels or "skills" (coincident levels mostly).
It's why I'm specifically interested in games like Huxley and Project Offset. RPG themed experiences without the reliance on game mechanics so often iterated I'm really thinking it's that which most holds this genre back.
Tossing reliance on mob kills changes how players build characters, what their longterm rewards are, what it means to "die", and therefore what it means to die to other players. Losing should be a speed bump, nothing more. Game skills to enhance dexterity means changes in methods of fighting, how much control a player has throughout, and therefore their ability to defend holdings previously built up.
Shadowbane is a good example, though the speed at which players advance through the game is driven by having maximized the efficiency of climbing what is a rapid EQ-like ladder. Planetside would be an even better example if there was any longterm reason to play that game at all.
In my opinion, of course :)
Posted by: Darniaq | Aug 17, 2005 at 15:16
Exactly what Darniaq says. Hear Hear!
Posted by: Troop | Aug 17, 2005 at 15:53
I agree with this in principal; however, I feel the latter is a result of a need caused by adjustments to the former.
Game design is the 'dog', AI is the 'tail.' Should keep it straight who shakes whom. Agreed.
So it changes the game from one of discovery to one of speed. Faster, more often.
This, of course, is at odds with the nature and compulsion of PvPing.
This feels like to me the core conundrum.
Strikes me that PvE AI is a lot simpler than it can be (even without stretching much), because, the above would suggest that there is a disincentive to marginal improvements.
Needs a bigger step - a bigger step that can enable a different sort of game design and experience.
Posted by: Nate Combs | Aug 17, 2005 at 18:45
Aside note on Shadowbane: I just did the 15 day trial and could not get into a world where I have to point and click to get anywhere. Feels to much like a gamey Diablo, than a world I want and can get immersed in.
And here is my point: Anything that enhances users' sense of immersion, both immediate and long term is where designers should be digging. Mob Genocide, as Darniaq so eloquently put it, does exactly the opposite to this. So does levelling for levelling's sake, yet this is what the majority of the worlds out there do.
Is this importance of immersion only something I find critical or do others share the same need ?
What would you say are the elements that make you feel more immersed ?
Posted by: Muun | Aug 17, 2005 at 18:53
The development of moving pictures until recently has primarily focused on the "magic". Recent sequels and movie formula seems to indicate a connect-the-dots production.
I think the key innovations will come from the development of the "magic", not game design or AI per se.
Posted by: magicback | Aug 17, 2005 at 23:27
I think the key innovations will come from the development of the "magic", not game design or AI per se.
I think this is a fun thought - and one hard to disagree with. *Magic* always wins, however it is achieved.
The 'fun' extension to this thought here is an idle, somewhat whimsical, but recurring notion on my part. Namely, whether MMO game design discussion/analysis suffers from 'software envy'. Namely, whether these systems can be distilled down to components which, yes, we may agilely iterate (think XP) and call that the 'designer touch', but whether still in the end the trajectory is towards process definition, componentization, and OO-oriented encapsulation...
If one could design a game that could organically engage in serendipity (dynamic exploration of new rules, say)...
Posted by: Nate Combs | Aug 18, 2005 at 09:24
Nate Combs> If one could design a game that could organically engage in serendipity (dynamic exploration of new rules, say)...
Do you mean a game where existing rules can't be changed but new rules can be added?
Or a game whose rules define how players can change the rules?
PvP would take on a whole new meaning in such a game world. (Think "Calvinball." *g*)
--Bart
Posted by: Bart Stewart | Aug 18, 2005 at 18:30
Does PKing have to be violent? Like, I remember how in old NES games, Nintendo used to emphasize words like "defeat" and "destroy" over "kill". I suppose on a tangent, PK makes me think of PsychoKinetic foremost, and certainly Philip K. (Dick). LOL.
I just had a shocking image of, you know, Hello Kitty world, with Keroppi kinda losing it and all. That's pretty frightening.
I wonder what a MMORPG would be like that encourages collaborative PKing? Something Borglike maybe, in which players get assembled into larger cells. Some sort of infection, zombielike... hrmmm...
Posted by: Torley Wong/Torley Torgeson | Aug 19, 2005 at 05:58
"Does PKing have to be violent?"
Well, it's called Player Killing for a reason... "Defeating" and "Destroying" are euphemisms for the same violent actions... The difference between a Hello Kitty/Keroppi paradigm and the typical PK MMOG is that PK MMOG games specifically want to convey the feeling that you are killing someone's avatar, and in essence, killing someone virtually. The devil's in the details.
"I wonder what a MMORPG would be like that encourages collaborative PKing?"
You obviously haven't played shadowbane, dark ages of camelot, lineage 2, or world of warcraft... The ultimate endgame is collaborative PKing.
Posted by: hikaru | Aug 19, 2005 at 15:31
Ahhh thanxies for da info, hikaru -- altho I should mention I wasn't so much interested in the words as a lateral path. Hard to explain, but we have these cultural paradigms we lift and beam out like cosmic rays to each other. There was this very beautiful work of art I saw once, a transposition of Warhammer 40,000 onto Hello Kitty! You've prolly seen it.
I'm familiar with those games you mentioned but that's not the type of collaborative PKing I'm looking for -- I know I left something out intentionally there, leading to other threads. Instead of a team (with several distinct characters), I wonder what it would be like if you had a sole automaton puppeted by several independent offline humans. There's a sequence in the anime Robot Carnival that reminds me of this, say you have several peeps controlling a giant robot... out to bash another robot. Now, I've seen traces of this currently, but I've yet to see something that really makes me go "AHA! That's what I saw in my mind!" :)
What about the zombies thing? What are some examples of that? Resident Evil MMORPGesque? Thanx!
Posted by: Torley Wong/Torley Torgeson | Aug 19, 2005 at 16:00
Bart>
Do you mean a game where existing rules can't be changed but new rules can be added?
Or a game whose rules define how players can change the rules?
The latter sounds more interesting.
PvP would take on a whole new meaning in such a game world. (Think "Calvinball." *g*)
Calvin and Hobbes url>
the only way to break the rules is by using one rule twice.
Interesting. Think of rules as a resource, the more you use them the less effective they become. Fuzzy rules.
It's friday.
Posted by: Nate Combs | Aug 19, 2005 at 18:27
Calvinball ... the only way to break the rules is by using one rule twice.
Interesting. Think of rules as a resource, the more you use them the less effective they become. Fuzzy rules.
Sounds a bit like Nomic, "the game of self-amendment." Another site (among many) here, and a Nomic wiki here.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Aug 19, 2005 at 18:58
Nate> Think of rules as a resource, the more you use them the less effective they become.
Hrmm. If the competitive/cooperative thing I've noted is right, then if rules are a finite resource we should expect a rules-changing game to at some point be forced to become a competitive game.
Or is it more likely that the freedom to create new rules is more likely to lead to cooperative play to generate more entertaining rulesets?
> Fuzzy rules.
Yeah! Fuzzy rules! He's a better man than I am.... (Sorry. *g*)
Ultimately, I suppose Hobbes (the tiger) would be in favor of fuzzy rules, wouldn't he?
(Thanks for the link to Nomic, Mike -- that's what I was trying to think of, but brainlocked.)
--Bart
Posted by: Bart Stewart | Aug 20, 2005 at 00:53
- Dynamic self-amending rules, as per the discussion that follows the above. We get a slight variant on this right now with subtle rules tweaks that come to MMORPGs each major patch/build/publish.
- Calvin and Hobbes changed the rules themselves. This gets deeper, sort of into ATITD and deeper still into Second Life, where the world's rules are directed by the citizenry, and further where the world structure itself is.
To me, SL and SWG are kinsgames, driving toward the same goal differently from different sides. SL says players want to build everything, including the walls of the sandbox and to truck the sand in. SWG says players want to play a game where they can eventually unlock the ability to pull new toys from the toybox alongside the existing sandbox.I think there's something achievable in the middle. For example, a SWG Player City where players could construct a wall like the long-defunct Battlefield energy barriers (long-ago accessible instantiated content PvP arenas, like on Tatooine and Corellia among others). Players would have to jump through many hoops, perhaps into an Elite Profession Politician tree even. But having done so, not only do they get to build the wall, they get to make the rules in that city.
Even just using the standard UI of +/- choice-making (ala the Guild Management Terminal UI), players could get all sorts of fancy options like:
The options are endless, the players are in full control over their little biosphere, and the developers are absolved of the usual harassment from players crying inbalance and uber templates because it's players themselves that made and adjusted the rules.
Anyway, that's one way to achieve a middle ground I think. Players outside the city play the game they know while players inside get to build the game they want (and reap the rewards/suffer the consequences of good/bad decisions).
Posted by: Darniaq | Aug 23, 2005 at 20:57
New data point: China seeks to zap perils of online game addiction (Financial Times)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/89ea206a-13f3-11da-af53-00000e2511c8.html
Key points announced yesterday:
1. Up to 3 hours of play is healthy
2. More than 5 hours of play is unhealthy
3. So a coded anti-addiction system cuts in-game benefits after three hours!
5. Warning spam every 15 min. after 5 hours.
Online game operators have to implement this "software" system into their games by late October.
Frank
Posted by: magicback | Aug 24, 2005 at 02:19
To elaborate what the 3hr/5hr transitions mean-
(Financial Times:)
The anti-addiction system cuts in-game benefits to players after three hours... awarding fewer “experience points”... reducing the value of virtual goods such as magic weapons that they acquire...
After five hours online, players will be subjected every 15 minutes to the warning: “You have entered unhealthy game time, please go offline immediately to rest. If you do not your health will be damaged and the benefits you can win will be cut to zero.“
Posted by: nate combs | Aug 24, 2005 at 06:49