I am going to keep this as simple as I can as I work my way down from organizing concepts to operational details. The social contract in a role playing game is between a game master and a collection of players. The game master agrees to provide rewarding opportunities for personal growth and the players agree to buy into the lusory goals. A few clarifications are in order.
First, this is a social contract, not an economic or legal contract. While there may also be economic benefits or legal restraints, the social contact, if satisfied, results in greater social status. The may be recognition, respect, goodwill, reputation, loyalty, or some other social capital. It is easy to see the distinction between economic and social gains. A game's high or low regard may well be inversely related to its profitability. A social contract differs from a legal contract in that a social contract is enforced in the court of public opinion rather than in a legal venue.
The obligation of the game master to provide rewarding opportunities for personal growth is derived from earlier comments in this blog about why people play. Play is fun because it provides rewarding opportunities for personal growth. So, a role playing game should as well.
The responsibility of the player to buy into the lusory goals is derived from Bernard Suit's definition of a game as a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. We play games and games are fun because following the lusory goals of the game makes it so. It would not do to have a quarterback pull out a gun and shoot a rushing tackle. It is achieving the goals of the game within the constraints of the game that makes it fun and rewarding.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
RPG's as a Social contract
I need an overarching theory for evaluating the design of a MMORPG video game. I have chosen the Role Playing Game as my unit of analysis. I don't think the size of the game is a major factor. Hence, I have ignore the MM or massively multi-player part. I do think that size will be a factor further down the line. But, initially I am going to ignore it. I also believe that the statements I am going to make will apply to role playing games that are not implemented on computers. The great thing about a blog is that I don't have to get it exactly right the first time. I can express my current thinking and change it later as I learn more or gain more insight.
The overarching theory will be that of the social contract. The game master enters into a social contract with the players. Usually, this contract is implied although I am going to try to make it more explicit. The game master agrees to do certain things in providing the game environment. And the player pledge certain things as well. The design of the game can then be evaluated in terms of the obligations of the game master and how well those obligations are met. At the level of the game design, a game that is way too hard or way too easy; way to simple or way to complicated; would be a poorly designed game. But, even if the game were well designed it may be implemented poorly. On the other side of the contract, players who play merely to interfere with the enjoyment of others (commonly known as greifers) are not good players. Player who do not wish to spend the time to learn the game and constantly complain are not good players either. Those are broad brush extremes that I will flesh out later.
Further, the contract is hierarchical. A well designed game could have a poorly design quest, for example, or vice versa. The ideal game would have all elements contributing to and consistent with the overall game design.
Well, those are my thoughts for now. I will add and/or modify as I think this through.
The overarching theory will be that of the social contract. The game master enters into a social contract with the players. Usually, this contract is implied although I am going to try to make it more explicit. The game master agrees to do certain things in providing the game environment. And the player pledge certain things as well. The design of the game can then be evaluated in terms of the obligations of the game master and how well those obligations are met. At the level of the game design, a game that is way too hard or way too easy; way to simple or way to complicated; would be a poorly designed game. But, even if the game were well designed it may be implemented poorly. On the other side of the contract, players who play merely to interfere with the enjoyment of others (commonly known as greifers) are not good players. Player who do not wish to spend the time to learn the game and constantly complain are not good players either. Those are broad brush extremes that I will flesh out later.
Further, the contract is hierarchical. A well designed game could have a poorly design quest, for example, or vice versa. The ideal game would have all elements contributing to and consistent with the overall game design.
Well, those are my thoughts for now. I will add and/or modify as I think this through.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Cataclysm
I've been a little remiss in posting to this blog. All I can say is that I have been busy and I view my blogs as on going journals where I accumulate thoughts over time rather than daily postings of current events. Whew! OK, I feel much better now.
I have been focusing, almost exclusively on World of Warcraft. It is an amazing thing to study. Yeah, yeah, I know, its fun to play as well. But, I seriously doubt that it would have held my attention for this long if it were just fun.
Cataclysm came out in December and this is the third majorly successful expansion of World of Warcraft. I tried out the new characters (Worgen on the Alliance side and Gobblins on the Horde side) and I have to say that the expansion designers did a pretty good job. They also fixed a number of my pet peeves which is always good.
As I play this game, I am always reminded of when I first learned operating systems. There are many parallels. They are both wonderfully complex. I find myself amazed that somebody actually thought things through as well as they did. And the devotees seem to have way too much invested in the learning curve to acknowledge the flaws.
My highest toon is now a 77 which has two major implications. First, I heard that the game changes dramatically when you hit 80. I have heard other such claims in the past which have turned out to be way over stated. But, I will wait and see on that one. Second, Cataclysm raised the bar from 80 to 85 and I have no idea what that will mean. Will it be just more of the same. Or will it be a whole new world. I have no idea.
Most of the changes I have noticed in Cataclysm (Cata for short) are positive changes. Some very positive. It would be interesting to take them one at a time and pick them apart. I may even do that some day. But for now, I have something else in mind. As I play one of my characters and pursue quest after quest I often get a visceral reaction to the quests which ranges from "that was a really good quest" to "that was a majorly dumbass quest". In a fit of frustration, I wrote in guild chat "I am getting tired of doing quests that were designed by people who got C's in design school." One of my guildies types "Agreed".
Being a reflective person I began to wonder what differentiates a good quest from a bad quest. It there some sort of theory that would allow one to assess the quality of a quest? Is a quest good because it matches a theory of good design? Or is it good because people say they like it? This has given me much to think about. I think World of Warcraft will become an object of study in the future much like, say Moby Dick or The Brothers Karamazov. Designers studying WoW will point to its major design success and its major design failures. Next time I am pursuing a majorly dumbass quest I am going to try to curb my frustration with the knowledge that this will be a good example for designers of the future of what not to do.
I have been focusing, almost exclusively on World of Warcraft. It is an amazing thing to study. Yeah, yeah, I know, its fun to play as well. But, I seriously doubt that it would have held my attention for this long if it were just fun.
Cataclysm came out in December and this is the third majorly successful expansion of World of Warcraft. I tried out the new characters (Worgen on the Alliance side and Gobblins on the Horde side) and I have to say that the expansion designers did a pretty good job. They also fixed a number of my pet peeves which is always good.
As I play this game, I am always reminded of when I first learned operating systems. There are many parallels. They are both wonderfully complex. I find myself amazed that somebody actually thought things through as well as they did. And the devotees seem to have way too much invested in the learning curve to acknowledge the flaws.
My highest toon is now a 77 which has two major implications. First, I heard that the game changes dramatically when you hit 80. I have heard other such claims in the past which have turned out to be way over stated. But, I will wait and see on that one. Second, Cataclysm raised the bar from 80 to 85 and I have no idea what that will mean. Will it be just more of the same. Or will it be a whole new world. I have no idea.
Most of the changes I have noticed in Cataclysm (Cata for short) are positive changes. Some very positive. It would be interesting to take them one at a time and pick them apart. I may even do that some day. But for now, I have something else in mind. As I play one of my characters and pursue quest after quest I often get a visceral reaction to the quests which ranges from "that was a really good quest" to "that was a majorly dumbass quest". In a fit of frustration, I wrote in guild chat "I am getting tired of doing quests that were designed by people who got C's in design school." One of my guildies types "Agreed".
Being a reflective person I began to wonder what differentiates a good quest from a bad quest. It there some sort of theory that would allow one to assess the quality of a quest? Is a quest good because it matches a theory of good design? Or is it good because people say they like it? This has given me much to think about. I think World of Warcraft will become an object of study in the future much like, say Moby Dick or The Brothers Karamazov. Designers studying WoW will point to its major design success and its major design failures. Next time I am pursuing a majorly dumbass quest I am going to try to curb my frustration with the knowledge that this will be a good example for designers of the future of what not to do.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Signing Off, For Now
I began this blog about a year and a half ago because I was thinking about doing some research in video games. I wanted to explore some of the foundation ideas such as 1) what is play?, 2) what is a game?, and 3) how can a deeper understanding of these things improve video gaming experience. I wasn't just interested in making video games more fun to play. I was actually more interested in applying what we know about video games to making work and education more fun and satisfying. However, I have not gotten as much traction with these ideas as I would have liked. So I am putting this blog aside for now. As an academic you follow many blind paths and encounter many dead ends. At the same time, you have to follow your curiosity and nothing that I have ever learned has ever gone to waste. You never know when something you learned in one area will be exactly the thing you need to know to make progress in another area. So, I have no regrets. It was fun. It was interesting. And eventually it will all be useful.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Come On Now, Why All the Bitching?
World of Warcraft is a truly outstanding game. Not only is it the most popular MMORPG ever, it has become a cultural artifact and the object of academic study in books such as The Warcraft Civilization and Digital Culture, Play and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader. So, why am I whining about the annoyances? Well, there are two main reasons: aesthetic and economic.
The aesthetic reason is that these flaws, small as they may be, tarnish an otherwise amazing creative effort. Consider your favorite classic movie, one you like to watch over and over. Now, think of how it would be with a major flaw in it such as an obvious continuity error or a character slipping briefly out of character. Over time these flaws would become major distractions and you would view the movie as a flawed classic. It might even be used in film classes as an example of what to avoid.
World of Warcraft has the potential to transcend being a video game and truly become a cultural artifact. It is possible that people play this classic game long after new technology moves us to new kinds of games. It would be like King Kong coming out on Blu-Ray However, this is not going to happen with these flaws. So, fixing these annoyances it important for the legacy of the game.
There are also economic reasons. Blizzard boasts 11.5 million users which is pretty impressive. But, why can't that number grow by a factor of ten or even a hundred? They have pretty well tapped out the gamer market but there people who do not see themselves as gamers who represent a huge potential market. People who play Wii, Free Cell, or Farmville are known as casual gamers and the size of this market dwarfs the size of the gamer market. But, they are reluctant to try WoW because of the steep learning curve. With decent books, documentation and customer service it may be possible to tap this potential market and break even more records for numbers of users.
Going back to the aesthetic argument for a moment, there is also an economic reason behind that as well. While the preceding economic argument expands the potential market to new users, the aesthetic argument expands the potential market over time.
So, I am not just being petty and whining about these annoyances. I think this is a phenomenal game and believe it can be even more phenomenal.
The aesthetic reason is that these flaws, small as they may be, tarnish an otherwise amazing creative effort. Consider your favorite classic movie, one you like to watch over and over. Now, think of how it would be with a major flaw in it such as an obvious continuity error or a character slipping briefly out of character. Over time these flaws would become major distractions and you would view the movie as a flawed classic. It might even be used in film classes as an example of what to avoid.
World of Warcraft has the potential to transcend being a video game and truly become a cultural artifact. It is possible that people play this classic game long after new technology moves us to new kinds of games. It would be like King Kong coming out on Blu-Ray However, this is not going to happen with these flaws. So, fixing these annoyances it important for the legacy of the game.
There are also economic reasons. Blizzard boasts 11.5 million users which is pretty impressive. But, why can't that number grow by a factor of ten or even a hundred? They have pretty well tapped out the gamer market but there people who do not see themselves as gamers who represent a huge potential market. People who play Wii, Free Cell, or Farmville are known as casual gamers and the size of this market dwarfs the size of the gamer market. But, they are reluctant to try WoW because of the steep learning curve. With decent books, documentation and customer service it may be possible to tap this potential market and break even more records for numbers of users.
Going back to the aesthetic argument for a moment, there is also an economic reason behind that as well. While the preceding economic argument expands the potential market to new users, the aesthetic argument expands the potential market over time.
So, I am not just being petty and whining about these annoyances. I think this is a phenomenal game and believe it can be even more phenomenal.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
What's So Annoying? Bored 80s
This is really a problem of meta design and it is unfair to place the entire blame on Blizzard for it. In the previous examples, a designer or design team just made some dumb mistakes and those mistakes for some reason were not caught in design reviews. At least I hope that is the case. It would be disturbing to find out that Blizzard actually saw those things as good design.
World of Warcraft is a "Game World" as has come up before in this blog. And meta design deals with the design of the game world more than the design of the game. There are many games within World of Warcraft. And those games exist simultaneously within the game world.The problem of meta design is - how do you set up the world so that people playing different games can co-exist with each other without diminishing each others game experience.
Most of the time this works out pretty well. So we should give credit where credit is due. However, certain kinds of game play leads to aberrant players who reject the lusory goals in favor setting their own goals. In some cases this is ok. A person may enjoy making things for friends or guild members in lieu of leveling. However, when one sets their goal as grieving others, it creates problems.
What happens with bored 80s it that people have advanced to the top level without having really earned it. They may have friends they use as a body guard. They may have friends who run them through dungeons. The may have bound on account gear, armor, weapons, or spells that make them more than a match for challenges appropriate to their level. The point is that they ramped up to 80 without having really earned it and don't want to put for the effort required to advance as an 80.
So, what do they do? They do the World of Warcraft equivalent of picking on little kids. They hang out in areas where they are likely to encounter people leveling at ten or twenty levels below them. These are easy kills and are not very satisfying. But the alternative is legitimate leveling which is way to hard. So, they redefine the game goals to grief as many lower level toons as they can.
On one hand I feel sorry for these players. They are seeking a satisfaction from the game that they will likely never achieve. On the other hand, the are ANNOYING!!
World of Warcraft is a "Game World" as has come up before in this blog. And meta design deals with the design of the game world more than the design of the game. There are many games within World of Warcraft. And those games exist simultaneously within the game world.The problem of meta design is - how do you set up the world so that people playing different games can co-exist with each other without diminishing each others game experience.
Most of the time this works out pretty well. So we should give credit where credit is due. However, certain kinds of game play leads to aberrant players who reject the lusory goals in favor setting their own goals. In some cases this is ok. A person may enjoy making things for friends or guild members in lieu of leveling. However, when one sets their goal as grieving others, it creates problems.
What happens with bored 80s it that people have advanced to the top level without having really earned it. They may have friends they use as a body guard. They may have friends who run them through dungeons. The may have bound on account gear, armor, weapons, or spells that make them more than a match for challenges appropriate to their level. The point is that they ramped up to 80 without having really earned it and don't want to put for the effort required to advance as an 80.
So, what do they do? They do the World of Warcraft equivalent of picking on little kids. They hang out in areas where they are likely to encounter people leveling at ten or twenty levels below them. These are easy kills and are not very satisfying. But the alternative is legitimate leveling which is way to hard. So, they redefine the game goals to grief as many lower level toons as they can.
On one hand I feel sorry for these players. They are seeking a satisfaction from the game that they will likely never achieve. On the other hand, the are ANNOYING!!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What's So Annoying? The Documentation!!
This may be a generation gap, but I don't think so. The documentation for World of Warcraft is abysmal. There are three sources of information about WoW: books, websites, and other players. Each leaves a great deal to be desired.
You would think there would a wide range of volumes available for World of Warcraft. With over 11 million players there is a ready made market. Further, it would be in Blizzard's interests to make WoW more accessible as that would mean an even larger customer bases. But sadly it is not so. The main offerings in print are Strategy guides by Brady Games. These are dense volumes that are more like a specifications manual than they are documentation. I have most, if not all of them, and rarely refer to them at all. They are simply unusable. I'm sure there are people who find them useful. But they come under the umbrella of driven singularities which I will get to in a moment. There are also numerous online guides that you can download, some free, some you pay for. The problem with that is that there is no way to know if they are any good or if the information is accurate.
Websites are the primary form of documentation. This is the generation gap that I was referring to earlier. I am used to books. Younger people are used to websites. The question is - is this just a question of different modes or it is a difference of quality. I would say that it is a difference of quality. The WoW main sight is pretty good at giving you the most superficial of overviews, but getting to any depth is nearly impossible. There are sites like Thottbot that are pretty good for quest information. And there are numerous other sites that various people swear by. Nonetheless, there are several problems with all these sites. The first is that there is no systematic overview of the information available. So, figuring out even where to look is an uphill battle. Second, the information is hit or miss. If you are lucky, you may find what you are looking for. Chances are you won't. Third, these sights are organized as wikis making them nearly impossible to use. All this does not mean that people never find what they are looking for at these sites. They do. And this is again the driven singularity problem.
The third source of information is other people. People ask questions in guild chat. Sometimes other people will try to answer. People ask questions in the open chat channels such as the trade channel. Sometimes other people will try to answer. But, using other people as a source of information is even more hit or miss than going to websites. First, if you ask a question in any of the channels, you are lucky if you get any answer at all. If you get an answer, you don't know if it is accurate or not. And the person providing the answer probably does not know if it is accurate. So, any information you get from other people is suspect at best.
Does anybody ever find what they need when they have a question? Yes, they do. And that brings us to the driven singularities.You can say "there is no way to find where a quest is" and somebody might say "sure, just go to Thottbot". You can say "there is no way to figure out if +8 spirit is better than +8 stamina" and somebody might say, "sure just go to wowwiki.com". Just because specific individuals have had the persistence to find specific things does not mean the documentation is adequate. There are, what I am calling, driving singularities. Individual people who persisted enough to find some obscure piece of information.
There are several problems with driven singularities. First, it takes way to much time to find something if you happen to be a driven singularity. Second, if that driven person doesn't happen to be within earshot when you ask a question, you just won't get an answer. Third, that person might not know what they are talking about. People often over claim their expertise. And finally, this approach only works in a very, very, very small percentage of the cases where people are looking for information.
WoW brags over 11 million users and that is, indeed, an accomplishment. However, with decent documentation, that number might be ten times, a hundred times, or maybe even a thousand times the current level.
You would think there would a wide range of volumes available for World of Warcraft. With over 11 million players there is a ready made market. Further, it would be in Blizzard's interests to make WoW more accessible as that would mean an even larger customer bases. But sadly it is not so. The main offerings in print are Strategy guides by Brady Games. These are dense volumes that are more like a specifications manual than they are documentation. I have most, if not all of them, and rarely refer to them at all. They are simply unusable. I'm sure there are people who find them useful. But they come under the umbrella of driven singularities which I will get to in a moment. There are also numerous online guides that you can download, some free, some you pay for. The problem with that is that there is no way to know if they are any good or if the information is accurate.
Websites are the primary form of documentation. This is the generation gap that I was referring to earlier. I am used to books. Younger people are used to websites. The question is - is this just a question of different modes or it is a difference of quality. I would say that it is a difference of quality. The WoW main sight is pretty good at giving you the most superficial of overviews, but getting to any depth is nearly impossible. There are sites like Thottbot that are pretty good for quest information. And there are numerous other sites that various people swear by. Nonetheless, there are several problems with all these sites. The first is that there is no systematic overview of the information available. So, figuring out even where to look is an uphill battle. Second, the information is hit or miss. If you are lucky, you may find what you are looking for. Chances are you won't. Third, these sights are organized as wikis making them nearly impossible to use. All this does not mean that people never find what they are looking for at these sites. They do. And this is again the driven singularity problem.
The third source of information is other people. People ask questions in guild chat. Sometimes other people will try to answer. People ask questions in the open chat channels such as the trade channel. Sometimes other people will try to answer. But, using other people as a source of information is even more hit or miss than going to websites. First, if you ask a question in any of the channels, you are lucky if you get any answer at all. If you get an answer, you don't know if it is accurate or not. And the person providing the answer probably does not know if it is accurate. So, any information you get from other people is suspect at best.
Does anybody ever find what they need when they have a question? Yes, they do. And that brings us to the driven singularities.You can say "there is no way to find where a quest is" and somebody might say "sure, just go to Thottbot". You can say "there is no way to figure out if +8 spirit is better than +8 stamina" and somebody might say, "sure just go to wowwiki.com". Just because specific individuals have had the persistence to find specific things does not mean the documentation is adequate. There are, what I am calling, driving singularities. Individual people who persisted enough to find some obscure piece of information.
There are several problems with driven singularities. First, it takes way to much time to find something if you happen to be a driven singularity. Second, if that driven person doesn't happen to be within earshot when you ask a question, you just won't get an answer. Third, that person might not know what they are talking about. People often over claim their expertise. And finally, this approach only works in a very, very, very small percentage of the cases where people are looking for information.
WoW brags over 11 million users and that is, indeed, an accomplishment. However, with decent documentation, that number might be ten times, a hundred times, or maybe even a thousand times the current level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
