On Many-2-Many there is an ongoing discussion about online conversation and communicative technologies. The question for here is, what is the nature of the conversation in the MMOG?
...The Sept. 11 post of “The Power of Conversation" leads to a critical point via a comment by David Weinberger:
Conversation doesn't just "process" information. It appropriates it -- it's how we make it our own. But in conversation we appropriate ideas mutually with another, which is exactly how a culture of individuals manages to stay a culture.
Our question is on the form of 'the conversation' in the MMOG. Are conversations amongst players separate from the play process, or is play somehow an active participant in a broader sense of conversation? In other words, does the component of play differentiate these places from other online conversations?
If play can be appropriated, might it also be said that it, as well as its measure of fun, can evolve?
It is interesting that all the discussion there to date focuses on the utility of conversation to obtain, appropriate, gain, take information for oneself.
There is no discussion of conversation as a way to share, or give, information--let alone as a social mechanism by which we build, sustain and maintain emotional connections.
The former myopia seems to me to be a legacy way of looking at information as a finite resource, as property. Otherwise, why value getting information over giving it? Information is not lost when we share it.
The latter myopia seems to me rather autistic, a blindness to the social aspects of communication in favor of mere utility, a view of other humans as no more than resource wells.
Conversations are inherently two-way phenomena, and conversations in MMOs or other social environments are not limited to asking for directions or pumping people for lewt--at least not in healthy, functional online communities.
To talk about conversation solely in terms of personal benefit is to miss what social contact is all about. It seems a rather bizarre way to look at things. And, in fact, the discussion on that thread seems rather strange and detached:
"Talking with someone is probably a more productive means of getting valuable information than, say, running a web search."
"If conversation - detached from the conversants actually knowing what they're talking about - becomes a value unto itself, it seems to me that GIGO becomes an inevitable result."
"At some point in grad school it occurred to me that in most cases doing a database search at the library (or even at my desk) was much less efficient than asking a professor who knew about whatever it was."
"When I was a journalist, one of the principles drilled into me was to stop wasting time looking at primary sources and just get hold of an expert, fast."
"Actually what you are describing is how I find a lot of information on the Web. Instead of scouring the Web or a mass of feeds daily, I have a "relationship" with a handful of sites that I visit daily to get the news I need."
I don't think that is what most people think of when they use the terms "relationship", "conversation" and "community". And I don't think that is sufficient to sustain community and conversation in a virtual world.
Posted by: galiel | Sep 16, 2005 at 23:25
It is interesting that all the discussion there to date focuses on the utility of conversation to obtain, appropriate, gain, take information for oneself.
There is no discussion of conversation as a way to share, or give, information--let alone as a social mechanism by which we build, sustain and maintain emotional connections.
There seems to be some of that going on. However, I also get the sense that 'conversation' as it is being used there exists on a number of levels. Some of it is cooperative insofar as:
The individuals catalog, sort, tag, and filter ideas as they are drawn into the shared space of the conversation.
But interestingly, that discussion focuses a great deal on the conversation as a first class concept - it haves a life of its own:
The upshot of this is that the memes, or actual ideas, gain a tremendous advantage in establishing new connections when conversations happen. Similar to Dawkin’s principle of the “selfish gene,” these “selfish memes” promote their longevity every time humans converse. For memes, the conversation is like sex, an opportunity to mingle, merge, and generate offspring that will outlast them.
Where then does 'play' play in the MMOG tapestry of conversation, if at all?
Posted by: nate combs | Sep 17, 2005 at 00:08
I'm not sure I understand the question, nate, so forgive me if my response seems off topic. Are you asking about conversation that occurs within a role-playing or meta, game-play context? Or, essentially social conversation, independent of gameplay but using the virtual world as a context and medium for conversation that becomes itself a form of play? Or both?
It seems to me those are very different kinds of conversations, and you may have hit upon one of the fundamental splits in approaches to MMO design:
Between a primary view of communication between players as a tool to achieve game objectives, vs. a primary view of communication between players as a community-building tool.
That is, to oversimplify things, between conversation as a means and conversation as an end.
Posted by: galiel | Sep 17, 2005 at 10:33
Are you asking about conversation that occurs within a role-playing or meta, game-play context? Or, essentially social conversation, independent of gameplay but using the virtual world as a context and medium for conversation that becomes itself a form of play? Or both?
Either. The Q is wide-open...
Having said this, I originally wondered whether play can be viewed as another means of "conversation" (with properties cited earlier) in an MMOG. E.g., is play there embued with information sharing which takes on new meaning as a culture evolves.
Example: is grinding alone in a single plyaer game different from grinding within a world grounded in a 'grind culture'? If there is a difference, is that difference because of new meaning that arises from the act of shared play ('conversation')?
Posted by: nate combs | Sep 17, 2005 at 11:12
Well, conversation IS play on in at least some cases.
One-to-one conversation is the human equivalent (among others) of animals testing out their potential mates.
There are also word games, banter, word associations, one-upping, and so on. But this is a natural derivative from the fact that language and its usage is a fundamental tool for human civilization, so it makes sense that we'd develop play for it (citing the oft-repeated justification that play teaches usage).
But in the case of MMORPGs, play isn't the conversation between individuals; it's the context in which that conversation occurs. The conversation of MMORPGs retains the topic of a phenomenon we term play; the conversation itself wouldn't generally be considered play if the observers were 100% immersed in the world. I.e., chatting about which boss to take on for the next raid might be considered play by a random ignorant, but if you happened to be an adventuring Elf living in Norrath, it'd make perfect sense and might even be considered "all in a day's work".
Posted by: Michael Chui | Sep 17, 2005 at 12:50
But in the case of MMORPGs, play isn't the conversation between individuals; it's the context in which that conversation occurs.
...the conversation itself wouldn't generally be considered play if the observers were 100% immersed in the world.
Is it implied that the conversation might be considered play if the observers were **0%** immersed in the world?
It may be that current MMORPG's are more about work and less about play... but does that have to be always the case? And in the case where it is not, can play be more than a context, but the main banter, the conversation?
Posted by: nate combs | Sep 17, 2005 at 17:23
The upshot of this is that the memes, or actual ideas, gain a tremendous advantage in establishing new connections when conversations happen. Similar to Dawkin’s principle of the “selfish gene,” these “selfish memes” promote their longevity every time humans converse. For memes, the conversation is like sex, an opportunity to mingle, merge, and generate offspring that will outlast them.
Personally, I find the celebrity of memes to be unfortunate in that a rather good writer and scientist is known by one of his worst theories, and it overshadows older, stronger, and better-supported theories for talking about ideas and conversation.
But I really can't claim to be without prejudice in that regard.
galiel: Between a primary view of communication between players as a tool to achieve game objectives, vs. a primary view of communication between players as a community-building tool.
Well, I'd disagree with this pat dichotomy given that most attempts at "community-building" seem to make a passing nod to Lave and Wenger's Community of Practice. Under this view of community, you can't really separate out "game objectives" from "community-building."
But then again, not only am I skeptical of the ends/means duality invoked here, but I'm skeptical of "play" as a concept for something that can be locked away and isolated as a distinct category of human activity.
Posted by: Kirk Job-Sluder | Sep 17, 2005 at 20:15
Personally, I find the celebrity of memes to be unfortunate in that a rather good writer and scientist is known by one of his worst theories, and it overshadows older, stronger, and better-supported theories for talking about ideas and conversation.
This is probably off-topic, but... I'm currently learning about memes through Balkin's Cultural Software. Any recommendations on learning about these better-supported theories you speak of? I don't know much about the subject.
Is it implied that the conversation might be considered play if the observers were **0%** immersed in the world?
Essentially, it can be play. For instance, a dwarf might joke with his elven buddy about his penchant for spending time in wide open forests, while the elf might retort that dwarves are foolish cave-dwellers, stuffing themselves in dark, dank places. After all, the banter between Gimli and Legolas can be easily replicated.
After full immersion, it becomes just like the real world again, recursively. You have work and play (or whatever) in the immersed world, and if someone makes a virtual virtual world, then the immersed version can speak of those who play it in the context of play.
It may be that current MMORPG's are more about work and less about play... but does that have to be always the case? And in the case where it is not, can play be more than a context, but the main banter, the conversation?
In this case, it's perspective. We aren't really sure whether or not the grind is considered work or play, and it's probably one to some and the other to, well, others.
There are ways to mess with this, though. MMORPGs are regarded as Play with respect to the real world, but with respect to the virtual world they encompass, it's not Play; it's Reality. Admiring landscapes in, say, SL would be considered play if it's in-character, but it would be considered aesthetic appreciation BY the character.
Now, if you want to extend the metaphor of "conversation" beyond "chatter between people" to "discourse between entities", then you get things like "playing God", or "playing politics", or "playing soldier". Is it play if America and Russia are playing wargames with each other for the fun of it, as a kind of conversation between each other? "I don't like amusement parks, so I'm going to bomb Disneyland." "Well, I think Disneyland is symbolic of majestic grandeur, and if we're going to lose it, you should lose the Kremlin."
I think, though, at the end... the dialogue regarding MMORPGs and the play and conversation in them doesn't register as singularly significant. MMORPGs generally have a simulationist tendency that mimicks the real world sufficiently so that our primary mode of communication, conversation, is our primary mode of communication in the virtual world, too.
I read, earlier, some of the posts on Animal Crossing. Was leaving messages for your kids to find play? Or just communication? Or is there a difference?
Posted by: Michael Chui | Sep 17, 2005 at 20:38
This is probably off-topic, but... I'm currently learning about memes through Balkin's Cultural Software. Any recommendations on learning about these better-supported theories you speak of? I don't know much about the subject.
Well, I'm a fan of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations. If you want some tough but good reading on it, find some of Umberto Eco's nonfiction works on semiotics. In addition Loftus' research into memory as a highly ephemeral and mutable cognitive phenomenon.
My primary objection to memetics is that quantitative genetics is grounded in evidence that genes are highly stable over generational time frames. In contrast, cognitive science appears to be uncovering evidence that ideas are highly unstable between expressions. As a result, the claim that we can apply theories derived from quantitative genetics to the transmission of ideas seems highly questionable to me. In addition, genetics doesn't really have an analogy for the context dependence of ideas.
I think there are a whole can of problems that can be opened up with trying to separate "play" from "work." Is programming or writing "play" when you get into the flow and it's fun, and "work" when it stops being fun? Are SCA members, "playing" when they pay to do an event, while professional Rennfaire actors "working." And at what point does athletics stop being "play" and start being "work?"
Rather than to try to classify conversation as play/work, I'd just ask the question, "How does conversation change participation?" Then start looking at in-character vs. out-of-character play.
Posted by: Kirk Job-Sluder | Sep 17, 2005 at 21:21
Kirk, I used the modifier "primary" for a reason. It is not a question of a pat dichotomy, it is a question of differing approaches, different starting points.
There is a consequential difference between a design approach that views conversations primarily as a means for advancing goal-oriented gameplay, and a design approach that views conversations primarily as a natural and critical component of community. Of course there are elements of both (and everything else you can think of) manifesting in games, but the question as developers is what kind of affordances we build in, and what kind of biases and skews we introduce that influence player's approach.
For example, when a newbie enters some games, he or she can hardly get an acknowledgement from others racing by while everyone shouts their trade requests; in other environments, newbies are greeted, welcomed and invited into community--because they are valued for whatever reason. Those distinctions are largely accidental and organic in today's games. I argue that they can and should be deliberately designed, and that it matters from which edge of the communication spectrum one approaches design.
Posted by: galiel | Sep 17, 2005 at 23:19
My primary objection to memetics is that quantitative genetics is grounded in evidence that genes are highly stable over generational time frames. In contrast, cognitive science appears to be uncovering evidence that ideas are highly unstable between expressions.
My impression from Balkin's book is that he is not only aware of this, but pointedly addresses it directly by highlighting the differences. I'll make you a deal. I like what I've seen in Balkin's book thus far; you read his book, I read Diffusion of Innovations. =)
Rather than to try to classify conversation as play/work, I'd just ask the question, "How does conversation change participation?" Then start looking at in-character vs. out-of-character play.
More or less, I simply agree. I've never liked the work/play dichotomy, anyways, but it IS the language Nate started out with, so... And while I probably ought to output a proper response, I am dead tired and the bed calls like a siren... a really quiet, yet magnetic one.
Posted by: Michael Chui | Sep 18, 2005 at 05:43
Kirk>
I think there are a whole can of problems that can be opened up with trying to separate "play" from "work." Is programming or writing "play" when you get into the flow and it's fun, and "work" when it stops being fun? Are SCA members, "playing" when they pay to do an event, while professional Rennfaire actors "working." And at what point does athletics stop being "play" and start being "work?"
Rather than to try to classify conversation as play/work, I'd just ask the question, "How does conversation change participation?" Then start looking at in-character vs. out-of-character play.
This sounds compelling.
However, for the sake of discussion, I wonder if this simply rearranges the problem: if we can't adequately separate work/play as a "verb", why then will we be more successful with its nouns ("in-character vs. out-of-character play", ...and shouldn't there too be "in-character vs. out-of-character work" in this approach?).
Posted by: nate combs | Sep 18, 2005 at 08:46
Social darwinism? Working outside of the WOW game mechanics to shake down same faction players?
The following thread seems to have an interesting issue thats possibly relevent http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4916114&s=new&tmp=1#new
Posted by: ed | Sep 18, 2005 at 11:06
nate: However, for the sake of discussion, I wonder if this simply rearranges the problem: if we can't adequately separate work/play as a "verb", why then will we be more successful with its nouns ("in-character vs. out-of-character play", ...and shouldn't there too be "in-character vs. out-of-character work" in this approach?).
I don't think so. I think there is a very interesting question here, (one that I wouldn't mind working on). So I'm just trying to brainstorm ways to turn this interesting question into a question that I think I could address using the kinds of methods I like to use. I can see a way to use discourse analysis to examine "in-character" and "out-of-charater" conversations. I don't see an obvious way to use discourse analysis to identify whether a player is "working" or "playing."
Michael: I'll put Balkin on my list. (But it's a long list.)
Posted by: Kirk Job-Sluder | Sep 18, 2005 at 14:51
I think part of the problem here is that the working terms have not been sufficiently identified and defined. Generally speaking, I would say that game playing (be it MMO or solo) falls under the category of "recreation". The division between "recreation" and "work" is, in my mind, easier to define that between "play" and "work".
When I am playing a game alone, be it an MMO or solo game, I am very clearly "playing the game". That's all I'm doing. Solo in an MMO (for me, and probably for most) is just like playing any other game solo. You're doing what you want, ignoring the outside world, including anyone you happen to know in-game.
When I play with friends, though, it's often with those who live on the other coast (in the USA), so for us it's more about "hanging out" than it is about playing the game. We setup a private channel and catch up on each other's lives, maybe talk politics or shop or whatever. It basically turns into a graphic IM session.
Most WoW sessions fall somewhere between the two examples above, where I'll spend part of the time talking about the "real world" and the rest of the time playing the game. And when I talk about the game it's about nouns, facts, and verbs. Where is X? What is Y? I need to go kill Z. It's never "The Nerd king has soiled my fair sister's maidenhood and must be made to answer for his trespasses!", but rather, "Who's got the Nerd King quest?" I've only seen the former in the case of the oh so rare Role Player. The latter is how most people discuss events in game.
And I think the reason most people think that Role Playing is completely retarded in the context of MMOs is that our "roles" have absolutely no effect on the game world whatsoever. Everyone has to do the same stupid quests, so roleplaying your need to do so just feels...weak. And when you're done, the only evidence that you've completed the quest is flag in your quest log, and maybe a new trinket. The world is no different. No matter how many times you kill the King of the Gnolls, he always comes back. So talking about it as an RPer would, as though it were a meaningful world event in which you participated just seems stupid to most people.
To summarize my point which is probably not at all clear:
In think that for most MMO players, "conversation" and "playing the game" are separate, but that both of them fall, simultaneously, under the umbrella of recreation.
Posted by: Mr Rabbit | Sep 19, 2005 at 13:16
Kirk>
I can see a way to use discourse analysis to examine "in-character" and "out-of-charater" conversations. I don't see an obvious way to use discourse analysis to identify whether a player is "working" or "playing."
What to say. ;) It strikes me that if the line of reasoning culminating in this conclusion may be notable. Would also seem to dovetail nicely with Julian's observation:
What then to say? As Brian Sutton-Smith and others have pointed out, the hard distinction drawn between work and play is a peculiarly Western and modern one. I would further argue that computer networks in particular and the drift of modern capitalism in general are working hard to collapse that distinction throughout our culture,
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/01/buy_the_farm.htmlhttp://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/01/buy_the_farm.html
Posted by: nate combs | Sep 22, 2005 at 18:21