I started to play Animal Crossing: Wild World with my 5 y/o son the other day, and was struck by the initial game mechanic. After rolling his toon we were informed that we could go and hang out in his house, which seemed like a deeply cool thing. (Aside: one of the things that I've (oddly) missed in WoW and CoH is owning real estate, but that topic is for another day).
Anyway...we went to his house only to be informed by the Chief Running Raccoon of Capitalism, aka Tom Nook, that we owed him some ungodly number of bells (the local currency) for the house. This was a wonderful "teachable moment" for me to explain to my son about mezzanine debt structures, junk bond financing, and the enforcability of oral contracts based on part performance. (He naturally asked about the validity of this contract given the Statute of Frauds requirements of formalities for a contract involving land and the reality of his consent in this case; but quickly answered his own question on the basis of standard conflict of laws principles).
Anyway...(again)...this got me thinking about the game mechanic of debt within virtual worlds, especially as a motivator of behavior that is, frankly, pathological. In WoW, a guildie is currently engaged in grinding faction with Timbermaw, and he has been doing this pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. He jokes about it, of course, and is very aware of the pointlessness of what he is doing. But why is he prepared to do this? It's not the rewards at the end of this, since even though it involves some rawking plans and armor and the like, they're not that good. It's certainly not that the experience of faction-grinding is pleasant. At best one becomes used to the pain of doing it. It might be the sense of completing a difficult task, but that seems to be a weak explanation. There are lots of difficult tasks spread throughout the world, and most of them are interesting; why would my guildie grind faction to the exclusion of hitting BRD or Temple or WSG if it were just about completion of a hard task?
It seems to me (as I'm embarking on my own faction-grinding nightmare with the Thorium Brotherhood) that this is not about the rewards in finishing this Sisyphean task, so much as once you accept the call you have a large debt that you have to pay to the grunting bearmen or those accursed dark iron dorfs. In watching my son respond to the obligation of owing 19,800 bells to the Shopkeeper of Darkness, I was struck that the notion of duty inherent in debt seems to be one of the more significant motivators of behavior in these worlds. I think that part of this is deeply held human response to social obligations, even social obligations to humanoid-like Raccoons of Ultimate Evil like Tom Nook. I suspect that this it linked to Ted's observations about the economy of virtual worlds being an economy of fun. It's just that here the fun is generated by reciprocal obligations that are compelling even though they are--as in the case of faction-grinding or bell-grinding--utterly stupid.
Anyway...(for the last time)...I can't spend any more time musing on this. Gotta go get some bells and some incendosaur scales. Anyone know if IGE carry these?
You can get much Bells on IGE, Dan. In fact, get in touch with Uri, who seems to be singlehandedly supporting the Animal Crossing RMT economy.
Posted by: Mark Wallace | Apr 18, 2006 at 10:56
Mark> You can get much Bells on IGE, Dan.
Figures.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Apr 18, 2006 at 11:44
There is a tight and complex knot that joins reciprocity, moral obligations, and the challenge to perform. The first two of these are frequently noticed, but let's think about the third one and why it might be relevant for game (and game-based) virtual worlds.
Consider the difference between a market transaction and being called upon by a friend in an emergency. In the latter, it is far more likely that one will have to deal with the unexpected, and (hopefully) come through. I don't think we've thought enough about how the moral aspect of the test of performing can drive us to fufill obligations.
Then, of course, it we have to to think about why NPCs should have this powerful moral effect on us. We learn at a very young age that obligations to others are not merely incredibly important to them, but also provide a chance to "shine," all the more so when one goes through extenuating circumstances and still comes through (I think of the extra glow that must show on my face to my three-year old when I learn that he's gone above and beyond the call). Games, of course, provide a structure for a multitude of these morally-charged challenges.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Apr 18, 2006 at 12:13
Then, of course, it we have to to think about why NPCs should have this powerful moral effect on us.
*with a straight face* They're part of The System, man. The System says, "I got a hoop here. Jump through it." And we're like, "Well, that's not going to kill me, and you're going to give me something for it (even if it's below minimum wage, but that's okay), so why not?" And then The System says, "Now jump through all these hoops." So you go... "Well, I started. Gotta finish what I started."
Posted by: Michael Chui | Apr 18, 2006 at 12:22
The "irrational escalation of commitment" effect (as painfully demonstrated in Shubik's dollar bill auction) is another one of those quirks of human psychology that game developers can exploit.
This one does rely on the participants being unfamiliar with the effect, however. Is there a lesson there for designers?
--Bart
Posted by: Bart Stewart | Apr 18, 2006 at 13:26
Watch out, because after you pay off that loan, Tom will ask you if you want to renovate your house to make it bigger. Of course, the Happy Room Academy likes big happy houses. I didn't know in advance (he's a wily bastard), but after the remodeling was complete, he slapped me with a bill for 120 000 Bells, which I am trying to pay off by replacing all my trees with non-native fruit-bearing trees (apples, peaches, cherries, coconuts), and selling the fruit to Nook.
Oh, and if a weasely looking guy comes by, standing outside your door, don't talk to him. He's an insurance agent and he won't go away unless you pay him 3 000 Bells! I learned the hard way.
Posted by: Brinstar | Apr 18, 2006 at 14:08
Thomas> Then, of course, it we have to to think about why NPCs should have this powerful moral effect on us.
A separate datapoint on this that may be illuminating: I was in a relatively poorly populated village in Azeroth the other day, at a time when few other players were on. I wanted some help with an elite quest, and sent out a call, but received no takers. So I checked around the seemingly-populous village, and realized that the only occupants were me and about 50 npcs. Until that point I'd assumed that the village was bustling on, and had had the sense of activity and life. I hadn't remotely considered that I was a lonely loser in an imaginary space, that the only one there was me.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Apr 18, 2006 at 14:22
That leads in an interesting direction. It's frequently remarked (like in the great discussion here) how WoW players have virtually no opportunity to change Azeroth, and also have cripplingly shallow means of communicating cross-faction. Doesn't it follow that WoW's design commitment to narrowing the human agency of players must extend, to a certain degree, even within faction? As you found, Dan, NPC and player toons appear on casual perusal so very similar (how they walk, their conversations, etc), that one can feel amidst a crowd despite the fact that one is alone. So WoW shows the effects of doing something different than just the more regularly talked-about improving of NPC AI until it mimics real player-controlled toons. In WoW one gets similarly blurring effects by constraining player-toons so much that they approach the anonymity of NPCs...
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Apr 18, 2006 at 15:14
Well, for starters, most of these virtual worlds are centered on mechanics of "self-employment." Debt is uncommon. In a sense though, you have tiers of goods and products added to the common wealth of nations.
On the one hand we often discuss goods extracted from the raw bits of unnature and imbued with that thing we call labor, and by extension human agency. From that we can probably go on to create claims of a labor theory of value and the familiar counter theories.
For brevity's sake let's posit for a moment that a currency is nothing more than an universalizing token by which a privelege (or permission to execute a duty)is extended.
Above the first category of goods, we also see original services arise in world that are neither supported nor prohibited by the given mechanics of that world. These have the greater value imbued in them because and when it is explicitly recognized by agents other than the doer. Following this, we see networks of agents creating institions as value or commodities as in the following article about an ingame IPO pursued by multitudes. Trust Me.
Posted by: genericdefect | Apr 18, 2006 at 22:38
Debt in games is, at its "lowest" form, "negative points." You borrow points today in the hope of paying them back tomorrow with interest... in terms of having more points than you would have had you not gone into the debt.
Why do we try to get a high-score in a game? Duh. It's a game. High scores are one of the main points. If we take on a "debt" in a game, it's a promise to play, as opposed to a "promise to pay." We are, in effect, saying the exact same thing that we say in RL when we take on money debt: "I believe in the future of this thing for which I am borrowing."
Because games are meant to model various aspects of life, we see "game debt" as being similar to "money debt," especially if some of the game's points are measured in game currency. If you are measuring successs in terms of "bells," then borrowing bells is a promise... a promise to play the game more. You don't have to, right? You can get your house with the bell-debt and then piss off? Eh? But do you? Not if you have interest in the future of the game. Then the debt is as real (in game terms) as money debt is in life.
Debt = negative points. We play for points.
Now... I'm more and more interested in game systems that model other and more complex rewards systems than money, debt, RL economics, death, wounds, talent levels, etc. What about a game where some kinds of points were based solely on who gave you positive responses? Could you do something nasty and go into "benevolence debt?"
Posted by: Andy Havens | Apr 19, 2006 at 00:56
One thing that Mr. Hunter brought forth that's being ignored in the thread is the sheer mindlessness and ultimate uselessness of the task.
I mean, when readings are assigned for courses, they're assigned not because they're boring, but because they have a purpose. If you get through the Poetics of Aristotle, even if you don't understand a bit of it, you still have a knowledge of what literary theory for the next gazillion centuries is responding to.
I'm not saying a game should be perpetual amusement in the sense that we should be ecstatic all the time. It's just that the rewards IRL, esp. as regards learning, are very real and almost always there. Even a minimum wage job yields money at the end.
Spinoza and Hobbes both hold that if we don't feel keeping an oath is useful to us when all is said and done, we'll break the oath. They're saying this mainly to get rid of the idea that the Word has any bearing on politics, so their statement is an exaggeration. But they're also bringing up the deep question that Dan's post brings up: What is the utility of performing obligations for the sake of relieving debt?
Remember: IRL, you pay your college loans back with whatever work you do afterwards. Work, while it can be awful, still depends on what you make of it. To have a grueling task in a game seems like a far worse torture, esp. if you believe, like I do, that time spent in a game environment is a great opportunity for education.
I don't know if any of that made sense.
Posted by: ashok | Apr 19, 2006 at 12:15
Edit: The last question of the paragraph that begins "Spinoza and Hobbes" should be: What is the utility of performing obligations, contra any morality we may feel binding upon us?
Yeah, I shouldn't have posted all that, now that I look it over. I should have just said "You guys are interested in explaining the phenmomenon, which is great, but I'd like to know if this mirroring of real life in a game as regards paying back a debt is a good thing."
Posted by: ashok | Apr 19, 2006 at 12:31
At the risk of belaboring a point, I would like to point out that the impetus behind the motive principle in a debt is whether or not it is a -recognized- debt (or privelege).
Two agents can agree to acknowledge a debt for any cause, even an unique one. A singular agent, when confronted with a server, knows that the server will always acknowledge or disacknowledge an objective (narratively isomorphic) debt or privelege. The server never recognizes contingencies or denotations in the narrative exchange. The agent can always leave, be obstinate and act counter to the objective unipolar goal and always return to it later.
The goals in a constrained world are much like an accessible ontology in all those hellenic texts. If it was actually accessible, we probably wouldn't care any more, not even to affirm, deny or make the study further nuanced.
Ergo, it is not really fundamental to have preprepared inworld support of centralized exchange mechanics. Narrative agents will remain narrative exchanging agents either way. Prescribed world objectives then can merely inform actions, while the impetus is probably more related to whether the doer understands them to be recognized or no. At least.. this is acceptable if you consider all of the agents actions to be symbols, or semiotes, and therefore constituting narrative expression. Aside from context, narrative is always a collaborative project.
Posted by: genericdefect | Apr 20, 2006 at 00:56
I told you Animal Crossing was evil.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 25, 2006 at 10:40
现在的青少年由于饮食、遗传等原因生理上成熟早,同时身处在这个浮躁的社会,那些被人们盲目追捧的轻浮的流行时尚,到处可见的成人用品,很容易让人们尤其是青少年产生性冲动,了解一些性知识是有益而无害的。
wow gold world of warcraft gold发表
Posted by: wow gold | Aug 10, 2006 at 22:53
悠悠的云里有淡淡的[url=http://www.boomsound.com.cn]wow gold[/url]诗,淡淡的诗里有绵绵的[url=http://www.guqin.org.cn]world of warcraft gold[/url]
祝福...愿你天天沐浴着源源不断的喜悦和幸福。拥有一份美好的wow gold心情,如拥有一份甜美的world of warcraft gold祝福。愿你健康,愿你快乐,但愿我千万个祝福永远陪伴你左右。
Posted by: GG | Sep 23, 2006 at 01:29