A while ago Clive Thompson forwarded an essay on language and lingo development based on computer game experiments conducted by Bruno Galantucci (also see The Economist article). The conclusion was that necessity was the mother of invention; given need folks would find a way to communicate. Clive then went on to emphasize this interesting question: is the spark of communication all about copying?
Jim Rossigonal recently published an excellent recap of the Korean gaming scene. It is first-hand and well-written. I was struck by Jim's observations about how Starcraft has become a "self-perpetuating phenomenon" in South Korea...
Jim notes that those who started out playing it have grown old with it. The hint is that when nostalgia and habit is mixed into the cocktail of constant media attention -- televised tournaments, and the celebrity of its participants -- StarCraft cannot help but become professional entertainment and big business. "Zerg Idols" indeed.
In The Zergling Rush (of your dreams), "massing players" was cited as a collective expression of enthusiasm in game worlds that transcended StarCraft. It was cited as a desire by a group to push and to generate excitement. Hooliganism of a virtual flavor. The question here is whether zergs can push in from the outside and not just emerge from the inside. Jim Rossigonal seems to suggest that too much enthusiasm in Korea encourages a narrower view of the computer game: some genres and titles are apparently hard to come by.
A very long while ago I asked of virtual worlds whether the language that evolved there leads to simpler (and perhaps too simple) places:
"Dude" could be just another word. However, just maybe in our quieter reflections while we wonder the cultural connections of our human mimicry ..."dude" is there, a creature swimming a greater current. Should virtual worlds strive for more complex and variated social cultures? Or does that get in the way of casual gaming? Are we simply too tethered to the real world with its utterances, short punctuated syllables and all?
Today, I wonder whether those simplifications are in part perpetuated from the identities we choose on the outside (cultural and personal) and the enthusiasm we embrace them looking into the arena of our virtual worlds. Enthusiasm encourages mimicry begets conformity. The greater the zerg pushing in from the outside, the greater the homogenization of the inside?
A term connoting even more negativity is "herd mentality", and it might serve to explain. If Mr. Trendsetter utilizes strategy X and wins, then a dozen Followers will copycat that strategy and see how it works for them. I know that I've picked up a lot of tips on build orders in RTSs from forums or friends' suggestions or just watching replays. If it works, why not use it? Homogeneity is the easy way to survive, and it works up to a point. Innovation, obviously, is the hard way, and that works only after a point. Above two points are not necessarily the same.
You could argue, based on the Economist article, that language (and thus, communication) arose from mimicry. To me, that makes perfect sense, but it's also equally important to note that there has to be something to mimic, first. It's cyclical; if you were to graph it, it'd look like a staircase. Innovate, copy, innovate, copy, innovate, copy. We're on, I think, the final portion of this (first?) wave of "copy". Its survival advantage will slack to the point of zero return, and then only innovation will work.
In one sense, you have reason to worry: these worlds may condense themselves into nothingness. But from the broader perspective, it's not so bad: we're still innovating, aren't we?
Aren't we? =)
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 21, 2006 at 05:14
Nice, nice topic. Could make a good PhD thesis at some point. Here's my proposed title: "Ragging the Noobs: Irony and Sarcasm in Online Games."
It has been oft' said that humor, especially irony and sarcasm, does not translate well in email. I have found that to be very true, and so almost always refrain from such except to very good friends who already know my style in RL. At work I have an almost 100% "no sacrasm" policy, because every time I have violated the rule, I inevitably offend someone, having meant nothing more than to be "cute."
In games, being "cute" translates into, as Michael says, "innovation," which requires knowing the rules. If you try something you *think* is innovative -- but is really "old school" -- those who have already worked out the truly new methodology will probably beat your ass, and laugh you into the dirt.
This holds true for social interaction as well as actual gameplay. But it's harder to tell when you're losing...
In Second Life -- my current VW obsession -- the designation "noob" is given to those who clearly have not spent any time figuring things out, and aren't interested in doing so. Now, my current avatar is only about a month old. So, by temporal standards, I could be tagged "noob" -- but never am. I'm not saying this to brag (well, maybe a wee bit), but to explain. I am, in RPG terms, really, really old, compared to many of the players I encounter in SL. There are lots of college kids (18-25). And lots of people whose only game experience has been highly structured MMORPGs. So... the idea of game-mastering in any sense, or of free-form RPG, is new to SL, even if they've been playing for 2+ years.
So, while I might be "new" to the SL system, I am not "new" to how to engage in character behavior, how to approach others (politely) for information, how to respect character boundaries, how to explore, how to group, how to create a personna, etc.
Thus, no "noob" spanking.
On the other hand... There have been a great number of times I've been hanging out with a group of people in SL, chatting, dancing, clubbing, playing games, etc., only to have somebody come in an start... noobing.
And what happens? You get good (often *really* good) text-only sarcasm and irony. You get SL references that a new person wouldn't get. When I don't get them, I will IM the person who made the gag and ask, and because I have been polite, discursive and (hopefully) humourous and engaging, I get my questions answered.
The noob keeps yammering and yammering, trying to get... well... whatever... and not realizing that there may be a half-dozen conversations going on around him, and that even the open channel is 50% directed at spamming his attempts at interaction.
This sounds mean. It is. But, 100%, I have only ever seen it occur *after* bad behavior has been exhibited on the part of a player: rude, suggestive language or gestures inappropriate to the environment; interruption of private conversations; requests for explanations of game mechanics on the open channel that are covered in the opening game tutorial; profanity; open criticism of others' avatars and/or environment.
What does this mean from a linguistics standpoint? Two things that interest me. One, we are getting better at virtual, non-physical irony. Ways to express ourselves using text and (in some cases) visual (avatar or emoticon) cues. That is funky fresh and fabulous.
Second, it is fascinating, to me, that every VW will end up having, to some extent, a tiered system of involvement by which users will be able to identify "real players," by language (in game vocabulary), symbols (good avies, decent skins and hair, etc.) and behaviors (mastery of game mechanics, knowledge of game space).
Some tools of mastery will be specific to each game, of course. Being a 60th level Paladin in WoW won't necessarily earn you much mojo in EVE... but the real-life skills necessary to help you get there will probably help you succeed in other VWs.
Which brings me back to the issue of RMT... "Money can't buy you love." As one of the best GM's I ever knew once said, "It's very hard to role-play somebody smarter than you." Same in VWs. You can lay down heavy $USD for a Greater Vorpal Crown of Ultimate Smoothness... but if you haven't done the time necessary to become a better RPer... you'll always be a noob.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jan 21, 2006 at 11:17
As a Korean game player, I feel love and hate toward "Starcraft" at once. Without it, Korea could not have had such a huge industry/culture around gaming. It was a decisive momentum for us. But, as Rossigonal suggested, it hindered gaming market or environment from evolving into more diverse ones.
I would like to point out two things.
1. Obviously, "Starcraft" was the facilitator for most of MMOGs of Korea. No "Starcraft", No "Lineage" (Don’t be misled. "Lineage" is a really(maybe the most) successful virtual world in Korea). The first massive contact with computer games made broad ways for other computer games. It’s a sort of unique history that are not easily understood by watchers who are from other (western) gaming experience or culture. I think that Rossigonal’s wonderful article is relatively not so well on this account.
2. In my opinion, huge or fanatic success of "Starcraft" in Korea came from its enduring ludic momentum or motivation. In a sense, "Starcraft" in Korea have gone far beyond videogames. Its position in (especially) Korean youth culture is much more like that of the Chess or the Go. Anyone easily find enthusiastic "Starcraft" players but have little interests on computer games.
"Starcraft" was a clinching door that led to computer/online games in Korea, but that was not so wide that made computer gaming full-blown. As I said, "Starscraft" is a mixture of bless and curse to Korean gaming.
Posted by: Huhh, Jun Sok | Jan 21, 2006 at 12:39
Andy points out a phenomenon that I can encapsulate in a linguistics term: diglossia. Well, that's an extreme term, but it refers to a set of cultural (linguistic) knowledge reserved to those who, in some way, deserve by means of elitism. In the case of SL, he's describing an exclusionary diglossia: the noobs have no idea what they're talking about, because they stepped up into jargon. (I'm butchering the term a little, since diglossia refers to a (supposedly) different language altogether, but I've personal beefs with linguistics in general. =))
"It's very hard to role-play somebody smarter than you."
This is true. But perhaps its pertinent to note that Orson Scott Card, in the Shadow Saga, refers to the notion of "the old trick" of "imagining what someone smarter than you would do, and then doing it". Of course, he also says, "Perhaps it's impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be." So perhaps you can become smarter by pretending to be. =)
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 21, 2006 at 16:14
"It's very hard to role-play somebody smarter than you."
This is true. But perhaps its pertinent to note that Orson Scott Card, in the Shadow Saga, refers to the notion of "the old trick" of "imagining what someone smarter than you would do, and then doing it".
We've all had a friend who apparently believed as much in real-life. I don't know about you, but I wasn't fooled.
Posted by: randolfe_ | Jan 21, 2006 at 17:30
But not impossible. It's not like you have a reliable yardstick for intelligence. Or any certainty that intelligence is one-dimensional.
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 21, 2006 at 21:01
Wouldn't Mark Twain suggest that most people could roleplay a more intelligent person by remaining silent? haha :)
Posted by: splok | Jan 21, 2006 at 23:54
It occurred to me that Toontown is similar. I've only watched it being played over a shoulder, so I don't really know the interface, but isn't one of its central features a minimized ability to communicate? Perhaps it provides too much for the kids to develop their own forms on top of what's provided?
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 22, 2006 at 03:12
I gave Toontown a spin awhile back--I was checking out just about every virtual world on Betsy Book's website!
I know it's targeted at a very young audience, but one of the first things I had a frustration with was not being able to get the shade of my shirt exactly the way I like it. It was pretty simple to set up an animal avatar tho, and trot into the world.
What I found funny were the opponents, who appear to be monochrome robots of some soulless corporation. I ended up fighting them with jokes and cream pies, altho not being able to type full sentences on my trial was constrictive. I tried to interact with some others to get them to come with me and team up, and to the best of my ability, couldn't do it well.
I was always a rookie in Starcraft. I never got a hang much of the tactical implements, but I liked playing as part of a bigger team with friends. Including Zerg games. One of the great wonders for me was being a part of something bigger. I could rush alongside other rushers, and watch this absolute pandemonium erupt on the screen. A similar thing, albeit with slower buildup, happened to be using the Protoss Carriers and their swarms. Just that collective horde amassing and attacking the enemy, explosions all over the place.
Posted by: Torley | Jan 22, 2006 at 17:02
But not impossible. It's not like you have a reliable yardstick for intelligence. Or any certainty that intelligence is one-dimensional.
I'm convinced intelligence is anything but one-dimensional. I think the issue isn't one of assessing intelligence, which cannot be done with certainty. But rather that most people believe they can assess the inverse with incredible accuracy. (I think this leads back to Samuel Clemens.)
Posted by: randolfe_ | Jan 23, 2006 at 12:11
Andy Havens> As one of the best GM's I ever knew once said, "It's very hard to role-play somebody smarter than you." ... if you haven't done the time necessary to become a better RPer... you'll always be a noob.
Maybe that GM watched Star Trek....
"It was far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men." -- "Spock", from the Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" written by Jerome Bixby
--Bart
Posted by: Bart Stewart | Jan 25, 2006 at 19:26