WetWyered

As always, I have been thinking about MMORPGs. In particular the concept of work in MMORPGs. Generally this thought process revolves around crafting generally being more work than play. Typically crafting is ¾ work and ¼ play (a ration that desperately needs to be reversed). Recently a world event was installed in EverQuest 2, a world event with a quest attached to it.

The basic structure is you do a quest that introduces you to a process of “hunting”. Once you have completed the “hunt” you go back to the quest giver and turn it in for experience and coin. You then can repeat the quest as many times as you like for a specified type of currency but no coin or experience.

You then can take this currency and buy items associated with the world event that range in value from 2 units to 5 units of the specialized currency. Part of the reality of these items it that some of them, the armor in particular, are sold as separate parts. To but any armor set you must complete the given task (hunt 9 specific mobs) 15 times… that’s hunt 135 individual destroyable NPCs for a set of armor/clothes. That is about 2 12 hour game sessions solo.

The problem I see here that after the first quest this task become just that, a task. It becomes work. I have two questions. The first is how is it a game developer has come to the conclusion a player (that is a consumer, a person paying for a service the developer is supplying) wants to pay to do work? The second question is if this is the actual demand of players when have people decided they want to work in a “game” instead of play in a game?

My suspicion is that the players requested more of the particular items you can purchase through doing this task and then the developers decided it was a good idea for the players to “work” for those items. Then, when this world event was put on the test server for final debugging the players did not even think to comment on the fact that the EQ2 dev staff was giving them “work” to do rather than a game top play.

Another element lacking fun that must be mentioned id the concept of raiding. The pressure of raiding and the reasons people raid are not strictly fun. It is a grind. The term “grind” is not a term associated with fun. It is an indicator of work.

The disturbing thing about this whole topic is that most people do not even realize what they are doing is tedious prolonged, time consuming, monotonous re-tasking far more repetitive and mind numbing that most jobs players have that pay for their “work habbit” they call gaming.

In my mind THIS is a problem. It is a problem neither players or developers apparently see. To me this type of task is simply not “fun”. Rather, I think somewhere along the line both players and developers have forgotten what exactly real “fun” looks, feels, and tastes like.

Any fun activity does have work-like elements in it such as sports, reading, surfing the net, ect. However ever fun activity I have undertaken, except many elements in MMORPGs, are that reverse ration ¼ work (or less) and ¾ fun. My question to the world: what happened to fun games, specifically fun MMORPGs?

The following is a post I made to the Techrhet list-serve a few moments ago. It was inspired by the beginning quote from a list-discussion I have been involved with for the last 5 days or so that asked what multiplayer games have good tools for a student to do mods or a total conversion of.

I pose essential thoughts and questions for a large new media studies community I do not think has been presented in the past. This post speaks of what I see as as the most important question to be asked of both academia and the MMORPG industry… the problem is the industry cannot necessarily understand my question. Perhaps getting an answer from an academic community can help us rephrase the question in a way that the industry can see what I and a few other s are saying and proposing.

“i just love asking students to research games. they’re always so freaked out that what they have been doing for entertainment can have some value in academia!” {rylish}

I can see how revealing to a student, especially an undergrad, that there is academic value in some forms of entertainment, particularly videogame, could be very startling. For many there is a disconnect between “fun” and school/research. As a student I have been pleasantly surprised by the acceptance of videogames and videogame-like materials at the school and in the department (English) I’m doing my grad work with/in.

The other side of the coin, the side I am most concerned with, is getting the game industry (especially the MMORPG industry) to see the value of critical theory of videogames (as derived/developed from the school of literary theory) in the development process. Developers tend to see the work of critical theory as a criticism rather than a supporting element. From looking at and commenting on various forums and boards I have come to believe the reason for this is most developers out there, especially those who have been at it for a while, develop from the perspective of players. It is as if there is a lack of perspective because generally games are mad for gamers by gamers.

This is not necessarily an incorrect perspective and approach. However I believe having one or more persons on a development staff who have the primary task of informing aspects of design integrity from the angle of the humanities, especially English studies, will deeply improve the quality of games in general. I am currently looking at the holy grail of current MMORPG

development: the move from the second generation of MMORPGs into the third.

As I see it at this time the only way that move can happen sooner than later is to hire people who have the ability to identify those structures made visible by new media studies and English studies education and research to help point the way to better game design.

Richard Bartle has often stuck his neck out e-publically to do just that and is more often met with hostility from both designers and fans alike because of the above mentioned mistaken identification of informed critique for criticism. He has spent the last 30 years examining multiuser game and game-like environments as an academic. His views are thoughtful and informed. By his own declaration (a declaration I share with him) he dose what he does because he sees that multiuser game environments can benefit humanity and improve global standards of living. He dose it for love of the genre and his fellow human.

It seems we can have acceptance of videogames in academia but not the acceptance of academia in the videogame development industry. Who is really losing out in this? Will the industry continue to treat what I am coming to think of as a “new critical theory” with hostility? If not how do we help the industry come to understand what we are doing is not “bashing” their work but is instead an attempt to help make that work more substantial and rewarding for their “readers”?

One of my objective goals in my studies and the development of Providence is to directly inform development of a MMORPG with academic study, in particular the general field of advanced humanities studies, in hope of advancing the genera at least marginally. It is my belief that MMORPG advancement and development has suffered for lack of any direct academic work except that of computer science and information technologies. It is true that other research fields are incorporated in the staffing of development teams. However, people who have conducted intensive research, study, and received an education focusing on MMORPG design as a form of communication and art requiring an understanding of specified literacy, composition, and the development of literary/critical theory to be used in examination of MMORPGs simply do not formally exist.

Recently I have read a few blog posts that clearly illustrate not only the need of this in development staffing but in the general populous (see URLs below). Something not surprising to me is Dr. Bartle is attacked by laymen and developer alike. Why is this not surprising to me? Because when a person like Dr. Bartle, who has spent his adult life researching, studying, examining, and developing MMORPGs and literature similar to MMORPGs levels critical assessment towards a MMORPG it seems like criticism, not critique. What is more is I personally experience similar (though friendly in presentation) responses and attitudes with my own development staff.

I liken the reactions to this being that of a student who poured themselves into a lengthy paper which only received a C or even a B on which a professor has provided constructive criticism but the student can only see the comments as “red marks” against them personally. If methods of traditional literacy, composition, and [developed] critical theory were introduced and implemented, with appropriate modification, to MMORPG development we would see the superior MMORPG environment Dr. Bartle wishes for on the horizon rather than wishing it to be beyond the horizon.

Industry professionals and nonprofessionals must learn to take critique from academic experts. Until that happens I fear that the MMORPG will remain stagnant for a long time to come. Furthermore, because of this odd “blockade” against the academy development companies will be missing out on the opportunity to actually hire a person to a development staff that could provide groundbreaking conceptualization for MUVWs in general and MMORPGs in specific… individuals that may be able to help them create one or more of the oft sought after “WoW-killers”. But, like most industries, until the studied academic is accepted to be the contributor they really are even the professionals will have a laymanesque perspective rather than a truly professional perspective.

Though I speak of resistance from the professional development and the player base it is not exclusively from that side. The academy is also some what at fault. Universities are slow in recognizing and/or accepting new field of study, especially when it is not clear as to the depth and comprehensiveness of which a particular potential field may effect the world. More-or-less introducing a field such as MMORPG studies is a prolonged process of negotiation with the academy. A process I and people like Dr. Bartle have begun to undertake. All I have to say on that account is at least one side of our efforts tends to be capable of rational argumentation and are willing to accept new ideas. It is the other we will have the most difficulty working with. But, in time, as we inform, train, and teach a new generation of world builders the closed door of the design industry will be forced open…

http://www.massively.com/2008/06/20/richard-bartle-on-how-

hed-make-world-of-warcraft-better/

http://www.massively.com/2008/06/23/richard-bartle-expands-

on-earlier-remarks-stated-in-massively-in/

http://brokentoys.org/2008/06/21/richard-bartle-is-a-hardcore-killer/

The Pokémon… I mean the theorist I am looking to for this is going to be Lev Manovich. This is not for any other reason than Manovich deals with the material state of new media. Morris, Filreis, and Perloff deal their cards more from an organic seat. Hayles, as I perceive it, appears to make a proposal for a sixth point in Manovich’s five points of new media object.

Rendering Manovich’s ideas down to their basic goo he deals in the “where from” and “what” of new media. Where new media came from, or rather, the trajectory we can trace the emergence of new media back through which then helps to identify what the most basic material components of new media are. This is very useful, from a pragmatic perspective (you have to love that Russian pragmatism. It makes me smile at times). the element absent from Manovich is the humanity, the visceral response… that which is organic.

Morris starts the discussion presented in New Media Poetics by exposing us to concepts of cyborg. We are given that important starting point with the technology of new media poetics and how we connect with it, how we are part of it and it is part of us. The listing and explanation of the “six snaps from a family album” is as much an introduction of up coming concepts in the volume as it is a thin primer for cybernetic concepts. It is an insertion of homosapien into the machine in that quest for the ghost that is machine consciousness.

Filreis, aside from giving tips on how to fudge grant proposal intent to suit a broader purpose, reminds us that though we can digitize a classroom the human element is still most important. It is true that Filreis supports the idea of the technological classroom but still illuminates the importance of wetware. Though the asynchronicity presented is targeting the digital realm, it serves as a prompt to the importance of personal interaction in pedagogical environments. The example of the classroom in this section is only an acceleration of practices employed before the advent of the webcam and storage capacity of server systems. I could not help but recall the Shakespeare research community that existed long before the Web and how it has operated.

Perloff provides us the notion of the human mind interacting digital output as “natural”. This is especially pointed in the examination of the dream life of letters. The interposed concept of new media poetics creating or constructing a reader with acknowledgment of the originating source of human inspiration and then creative application. The result is a close look at the chain that immerses the digital in the “wet”.

This is not to say they are arguing against the idea of digital expression. In fact, it is the reverse. They seek to imbed the machine in the human. They show us that through application and utilization we can extend the creative of the flesh into the creative of the silicone. They tell of the fact that through the machine we can express and thereby giving license to the machine to express on its own terms. The output, though an automated manipulation of code, warrants, no, demands recognition of the total cybernetic cooperative and how that cyborg condition extends the capabilities of both.

Though I may have really read this in the wrong mindset, the Hayles piece drove home for me, time. Yeah, I know that IS the over all purpose of the essay but it highlighted a particular aspect of my thought processes. Though the term is not actually mentioned in it I came away with an acute awareness of what can only be called time dilation. The acuity of this is rather sharp. Once again, I find that I stumble out of my trained notion of linier time passage into the nebula of time expansion.

Hayles’ exposition of load-times as being different or variable dependant on the many uncontrollable factors of networked access and individual hardware and reader-responsive/authorial-intent construction/modification is the beginning of this necessary concept in new media poetics. The further description of various works dealing in sequential representation/intent and the expression and violateability of that intent and then the provision of violation of those sequences informs the tenant that time passage is subjective, especially in new media objects.

The result is the indirect submission of the idea of including time in Manovich’s five points of new media, which is not explicitly dealt with in that string of binding materializing concepts. The modification, or better yet, the modularity of time itself is shown to be intriguing and even vital in its import to the work of Manovich.

Recently, I have described Providence as being an emulator of life. For a long time I have been seeking a term I find comfort in for describing this “thing” I have been working for several years now. Life emulator is really the “it” of what it is. How is a life emulator different from a game (in this case the difference between living and playing a MMORPG)? And why must it be different? What are the ramifications and consequences of such a thing? But what exactly does it mean to aspire to make a life emulation?

The basic difference is a game is a simulation of a particular, and often specialized, activity; it is the highlighting of particular skill or aptitudes for a theoretically enjoyable or useful activity. It is not an immersion but a (re)version. Immersiveness is the idea of losing oneself in an enwrapping encompassing experience. (Re)version is a remediation of a particular aspect, a point in, of a singular form, into an isolated activity.

Think of your life and what you do to live it. The things you undertake day to day to be you. You are immersed in your life. It surrounds you, it is inside you and it is shared. Then, think of games you play. One game many of us play is that of driving. Yes, driving is a game, one of the more complicated games we play actually. Think of all of the things you do when driving. You need very good pattern recognition skill, you need good eye hand coordination, and you need to be able to do cross compilation between those two skills/abilities. Even those two aspects of the driving game can be isolated. Now if you isolate good pattern recognition skill and produce another game for it  you come up with something like Tetris. Living life is a series of games, some very complicated like the game of acquiring a promotion or raise, others are simple, like determining the best order of various activities to accomplish a task such as getting dressed. Life is, in essence, an immersive multi-game.

A life emulator is just that. It is a multi-game that results in, essentially, an alternative life full of meaning and consequence resulting in the sum of all of those big and small games we play through the course of a life. It is a mirror to or reflection of the multi-game humans have always played. The greatest difference between life emulation and life itself is that life itself possesses a physical materiality a life emulation really can’t. but there is a materialism in a life emulation, which I will discuss shortly.

The difference between a life emulation and a game is a necessity. The reason is a game has a point specific meaning (I finished that level faster than you!). a life emulation possesses multi-meaning found in the many game aspect of life it emulates that all add together to a larger substantial meaning that elicits a “whole being” response. It must be different because a life emulation can be as rewarding or more rewarding than a life in “the real”. The idea is that a person involved in a life emulation can supplement “the real” with the “near real” for an improvement or enhancement of “the real”. A game cannot do that as well or at all. A game is only a small part of a larger thing. A life emulation can be and wants to be equivalent to “the real”.

The ramifications of a life emulator are huge! When one achieves the creation of a life emulation there has to be embedded within that emulation substance and material equivalent to “the real” for it to have meaning and be as meaningful as, well, life. This means there has to be all of the good and bad conceptual potentials within the emulation system. There must be a set of consequences that enhance the experience of the emulation. There must be a push and pull of negative and positive on a scale beyond that of an isolated game. This is where the material meaning comes into play and makes its presence known and identifiable.

Making a life emulation carries with it an immense responsibility! The proposition is that you are generating a [life]form that has all of the inequity found in “the real” but is still satisfying in the way life can be. In life, in living we have no real choices presented to us. The master game that is life ends when we “run out of life” or we, regretfully, may find that “jacking out” is the only amicable act. Undertaking the creation of a life emulation means you are responsible to the individuals who will or are involved in it. It means you must attempt to satisfy every participant of that emulation equally or not at all. To be the creator of a life emulation is placing yourself and the others involved in the position of a servile deity. You are there to satisfy those who are living in your life emulation. This is where the balancing act of satisfying the many over the few must also take in account the few.

Why have I undertaken this task? Because it is a very complicated multi-game that, if I do well at it, I will provide a great deal of meaning for a potentially large number of people. It is a selfless act, really. I want to make something that people find an uncommon satisfaction in doing, in being. I am not looking for praise, though that may come along with it. I am looking to improve the condition of “the real” for others. To provide a substantial alternate set or series of material satisfactions to, believe it or not, improve the human condition for as many people I possibly can. I intend to create a service for the heart as much as the mind.