The games commonly associated with anti-social behaviour are multiplayer online worlds such as Everquest, Second Life and World of Warcraft.is a little strange. In fact, I'd say it works better as a counter-point, in that these are multiplayer games, so they have to be interacting with someone, just not their lovers, school, or jobs. Perhaps it merely means that the game world is favourable to the real world. It's addictive because of the social aspects of the game. You don't want to miss out on a raid because it affects other people, and you don't want to let them down (or something). Help me out here MMOG players. Am I right or am I right?
7/24/2006
I'm not exactly a big fan of MMOGs, and I've had enough friends play enough MMOGs that I know of their addictive qualities. However, reading this:
1. Your personal skillset is completely replaced by an artificial one, perhaps with the exception of "strategery". Often, a small personal skillset (compared to the universe of personal skills) can be used to develop a massive artificial skillset (compared to the universe of artificial skills).
2. Your personal traits are "hashed" into a different set of traits. Potentially negative personal traits (e.g. obsessive need to play said game every waking moment, bloodthirsty murderous streak, or manical despotism) could translate to character traits that are positive (e.g. lots exp/cash, devastating power, and no-mercy-annihalation). Of course, the converse is also true.
3. Your "appearance" is manifested by the character/equipment combo you choose/build as opposed to your physical self. The most important implication is that you have a certain degree of control over this - just as people who in real life value looks over skills/personality, so will such players choose characters/equipment that "look good" to them over functionality.
4. You get to have a say in "pre-determination". Just as we're all born with varying degrees of potential to achieve certain things, so are the characters. The difference here is that we get to choose with the characters. Similarly, instead of living in the world we do, we get to choose which world our character lives in, based on the rules/environment of our chosen game.
I suppose it could be summed up by point #4. In any case, while I agree logically that playing a multiplayer game is indeed a form of interaction, can it be considered "socialising"? Is socialising defined purely by interaction? This depends on your definition of "socialising" and "society".
In traditional contexts (which is the standard against which everything having to do with human behaviour is judged I suppose), gaming would then be considered anti-social. To be honest, I personally use this context based on the following argument: interacting face-to-face allows one to use ALL our (recognised) senses with no exception. Interacting indirectly (via a device/machine) limits you to the subset of senses catered for by the chosen device. My personal stance on this will be open to reconsideration when a device catering to all our senses is available widely-enough to represent a decent portion of human society.
I suppose I'm nit-picking with regards to the statement in question here. However, it does affect the discussion as to the validity of it. On the other hand, the above statements do not address the validity of your claim that the games are "addictive because of the social aspects". That could (and probably) does also hold true, because one does not have to "socialise" while partaking in the "social aspects" of anything.
1. I don't see the difference between the "personal" skillset and the "artificial" skillset, other than perhaps the negative connotations behind "artificial", and the assertion that a small subset of personal skills lead to the set of "artificial" skills in-game. I don't agree with this. In fact, setting up and running a guild takes social and technical skills which are beyond every-day social skills. Even most ordinary MMOGs involve getting a social network together, despite the fact that there are tools specifically in game to assist this.
Point 2. is about the time I figured this was just prejudice. Bloodthirsty murderous streak? I have friends who play these games, and I wouldn't say that they're bloodthirsty murderers. I also wouldn't think that bloodthirsty murderers would be especially good at MMOGs. I agree with the fact that your personal traits are different in-game, but there's nothing to suggest that negative ones would be especially positive or vice versa.
3. is possibly fair enough, but that doesn't explain roughly half the people in WoW who play the (ugly) horde. I don't quite see what this has to do with anything, other than the assertion that the skills of looking good apply both in real life and in-game.
I think 4. says nothing of substance. You seem to merely be using "society" as a veil to hide behind. You can clearly consider the game-world society as a society that's just as valid as real society, but you place more weight on IRL society.
At the end of the day, this is all done to muddy the waters. Real-life society is addictive like in-game society because it ties you up.
Add Comment
<< Home