Random Babble
Cruinh mentioned in a comment that he’d been reading a lot more stuff on the web than he had prior to starting up his blog, and I have to note that I have done the same thing.
What’s interesting is the types of things I’ve found my way into reading, like the various ramblings over game designers, MMO theory, roleplaying theory, etc. There are a lot of people out there, very educated and eloquent people, who think and write about these sorts of things. It’s not all just the B-net kiddies and the Fires of Heavens. It’s amazing, really, and I wouldn’t have found any of it if I hadn’t started up this blog.
Something else that’s interesting is that I had always felt that Jon and I (Jon especially) had a good grasp on roleplaying and on what made a good game, but the things we used to talk about are only the tip of the iceberg compared to what these guys over at the Forge talk about. It’s amazing to me that not only are there people who take roleplaying as seriously as we do, but there are a lot of people who take it even more seriously. I mean, check out this article and tell me this guy isn’t pretty darn serious. It was a pretty interesting read overall, though, especially because I could look at what he was saying and think back on campaigns Jon ran that were good examples of some of his points. It’s just kind of crazy to me that someone actually developed theory about why some of the conflicts in roleplaying come up, as well as a more detailed categorization of gaming. I’m not sure why I was more shocked - god knows there are sites out there detailing far more trivial things, but I guess it was just the scholastic tone of it all. Honestly, I think it’s great and wish I had the general motivation to really get into it myself.
That article by Ron Edwards has also made me think some about what really interests me in a game (my Premise, if you will), and if/how that could be translated to a MMO. The idea bears some similarity to Richard Bartle’s Players who Suit MUDs paper, though obviously there’s a different focus. Bartle’s paper has always been interesting to me, because it seems to me that it has much larger implications that just those related to MUDing. It’s simplistic, but in general those four types of players pretty well represent most “regular” people too. Anyway, I was talking about gaming. It seems like a lot of the trouble with current games in general is that with an MMO, there’s no way to limit those who play it to the types of people it was really geared for. For example, you have games like WoW, that run three different “rulesets” that are supposed to get people onto the type of server that suits them. However, you still get the people who play on a PvP server but complain when they get killed, or the people who play on the Roleplay server but really want to PvP or make fun of the roleplay geeks or whatever. And that’s before you even get into all the various types of roleplaying. Unfortunately, since the world as a whole has yet to figure out how to deal with many people having many various different, and often conflicting, goals, I have little faith that the MMO community will fare better. Also, since the price of creating one of these games is astronomical, I suppose the companies making them really have to make the game cater to a larger audience just to try to break even. What a mess.
cruinh
April 13th, 2005
3 years, 8 months ago
It can be pretty surprising sometimes how seriously some people view games, from an academic standpoint. I see evidence of that pretty much every day now, since I’m building a game for a university
But it’s still kinda difficult to get used to. Maybe because I grew up with my parents constantly trying to convince me that games were nothing more than a waste of time. That’s not necessarily the case (although for a kid putting off his homework to play Phantasy Star, it’s a different matter 
)
M.E. Patterson
April 14th, 2005
3 years, 8 months ago
To further the discussion, there’s actually a huge groundswell of academic interest in gaming nowadays. People like James Gee and Henry Jenkins have staked out spaces in the new field of ‘media convergence’ which aims to find ways to converge all of our current media modes (tv, radio, film, literature, games, etc.) into a cohesive model that can be used/exploited for the purposes of learning and education. That’s not to say we won’t still focus on fun — in fact, quite the opposite — part of the goal is to learn WHAT, specifically, makes things fun and engaging and immersive, so that we can improve both pure-entertainment games and make so-called e-learning truly engaging and immersive.
M.E. Patterson
April 14th, 2005
3 years, 8 months ago
…comment on something else…
I wanted to throw my own idea into the ring. I want to make “mMORPGs” — moderately Multiplayer Online RPGs. What I mean is, games that don’t create a world for thousands of people, but only for a handful, like old-skool MUDs, but with modern graphics engines and a ‘massive’ approach to distribution. So, for example, everyone who plays the game (which might be thousands or even millions of subscribers) plays in an instanced version of the game world that only supports a small number of players, maybe 30 or so, maybe even less. I want to log into a fantasy world where me and my friends are the most important characters in the world, and we’re sent on quests of world-shaking importance… they might be the same quests as everyone else playing the game, but in OUR INSTANCE of the game, we’re the only ones who exist. Everyone else is a highly-advanced AI-driven NPC. Perhaps you could expand this concept and let certain aspects of the gameplay crossover instances, so parts of the gameworld like the market bazaar would be communal to all players, but as soon as you walk outside the city gates into the wilderness, you’re back in your own group’s instance again… anyway… that’s my idea.
jena
April 14th, 2005
3 years, 8 months ago
*nod* Exactly. I am sometimes surprised by the books that come through the library where I work - though, as of yet, I haven’t seen any on roleplaying in particular.
It’s been really cool to see all these people thinking about the theory of gaming and roleplaying and just generally taking such things seriously. Y’know, when I was growing up, I never even imagined doing a job like that (though I know these people don’t necessarily have a job in the “field”); maybe I would be doing it if I’d known more about it then. Even in college, I never really went looking for it, because it just never occurred to me that anyone would take seriously these things that felt so out of the ordinary to me. I could have ended up at the Guildhall so easily, I think. Of course, then I wouldn’t have met any of you or Jon, so perhaps it’s for the best.. but it’s an interesting thought for me.
jena
April 14th, 2005
3 years, 8 months ago
Oh and in reply to Patterson’s second comment, I think that sounds like an awesome idea. In fact, it sounds exactly like the sort of game I would love to play. And ya know what would work, setting-wise? The D&D Planescape world, or something similar. Sigil as the connecting city, but every group goes off into their own “plane” instance. Ka-ching~
Actually, in theory, that’s exactly what Guild Wars will have. All the wilderness and mission areas are instanced - only the main city and meeting areas for forming groups are communal. If the focus of that game wasn’t PvP, I might actually like it a lot.