Aug 12 2008
Parallel Lives: How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love MMOs
In this seminar we will explore modes of participation within virtual worlds, from the economic to the creative to the social, modes that have always been entwined but become increasingly so with advances in the interactivity and sophistication of gaming technology. There are a number of interesting arguments in the intellectual battleground that has formed around virtual worlds, from ownership of work (does it belong to the player/producer or the game publisher) to just what will the consequences be of a different kind of socialization and cooperation, one that occurs more or less anonymously in massively multi-player online games (MMOs). This seminar will try to tie in some of the things we’ve already been learning about concepts of participation, communication and ownership with what is growing to be the next big thing on the global entertainment scene, computer games and more specifically, MMOs.
Some questions to consider:
[1] In which ways do MMOs mirror ‘off-line’ society? What use is the distinction between virtual and actual in this sense (Dibbell talks about this)?
[2] Could online gamers be said to form a new kind of community, or are the the inheritors of an older tradition (Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps)?
[3] Is there something missing from virtual social communities? Or is the traditional notion of ‘outside’ life a dated one?
[4] Should virtual feudalism be protected i.e. should games publishers own exclusive rights to the fruits of a player’s labour? This extends to such remix items as machinima and mods.
[5] Are games as top-down a form of communication as TV was once thought to be?Or are they a more democratic, horizontal form?
[6] Are MMOs the new social ‘third space’?
Readings:
MMOs
[X] Constance Steinkuehler – Cognition and Literacy in Massively Multiplayer
Online Gaming (not as dry as it sounds)
http://website.education.wisc.edu/steinkuehler/papers/SteinkuehlerNEWLIT2005.pdf
[X] Steinkuehler – Situated Identities as Styles of Play
http://website.education.wisc.edu/steinkuehler/thesis.html
[X] Steinkuehler – A New ‘Third Place’ in AmericanYouth Culture
http://website.education.wisc.edu/steinkuehler/papers/Steinkuehler_ch6a.pdf
Economy and MMOs
[X] Julian Dibbell – Play Money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQfKDff4d2M
[X] Ge Jin, aka Jingle – Chinese Gold Farmers in MMORPGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEegohRPsqg&feature=PlayList&p=760CDCB4FF112F55&index=11
[X] Community and Collective Intelligence in Games
Jane McGonigal – Why I Love Bees
http://avantgame.com/McGonigal_WhyILoveBees_Feb2007.pdf
13 responses so far
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
13 Responses to “Parallel Lives: How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love MMOs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Alright! Much as I am loath to kick off my own seminar, here are the links to those rather digressing things I found while researching.
The full video on virtual relationships:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=0lc&q=wonderland%20BBC&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
The ‘About a Tree’ expose:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/04/14/who_killed_miss_norway/index.html
Enjoy.
I’m still (even more so after the seminar) divided about whether virtual worlds can be as ‘real’ as the real world.
While players in MMOs can make friends, fall in love and experience grief (shown in the clip in the seminar and the ‘About a Tree’ article in the post above) just as they can in the real world, I still think that there’s a difference between living in the ‘real’ world and living in the virtual world. Perhaps its because it depends on what your definition of real is.
If, like for Raph Koster in the ‘About A Tree’ article, it is community (“I think it’s unfair to say that virtual communities aren’t real with a capital R. I’m not going to let anyone tell me that that wasn’t real. No one’s going to say that the friendship wasn’t real because I know the grief was definitely real.”), then MMOs would probably be deemed to be real, as the sense of community is real in these games. I think my definition of the real world includes physical interaction, hence why I’m finding the ‘realness’ of virtual worlds hard to grasp!
Why does everyone else thing?
*what does everyone else think?
(sorry, haven’t had much sleep lately!)
Do we really need actual physical interaction to be engaged in a real world? I guess this is another question that is being amplified by the internet. Pen pals, “line friends” (you talk on phone but have never seen each other), they do not have physical interaction, especially line friends. But they are still friends that they may attach their emotions to. Just like Karyn’s memorial garden in the online game, the grief of people shown in there is real. I think they are all real, they are just intangible. We cannot say intangible things as unreal, right?
Yeah, I think I lean to the side of internet spaces being just as legitimate for friendship formation, particularly when viewed alongside Shemila’s point about pen pals and the like.
Another example that comes readily to mind is a case where you meet someone then come to know them through long distance communication, be it hand written letters or instant messaging or the like.
However, Alex’s point about a physical proximity remains valid to a degree. I’m pretty sure we touched on this in the seminar, but it’s a lot easier to censor yourself with some sort of delay in time/space. Lawrence (with a w) said he was a lot wittier when instant messaging than face to face, so someone who had only interacted with him via the internet may think he’s wittier than he actually is. But then, who’s to say that the real life interaction is the “actual” measure of wit, which to me says the same thing as the people from the second life video were saying, that is, second life gives them the opportunity to be the real them, who they always wanted to be but now for whatever reason aren’t.
Ah yes, and doesn’t it all come back to the definition of real. It’s great to see such a lively debate about the nature of reality. I for one tend to side with both Julian Dibbell, Shemila and Chris that the distinction between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ is a little clunky, given that it is applied in such a haphazard way.
Dibbell’s criticism of the use of the word real and virtual when it comes to, say, the value of the Yen (real) versus the value of a gold piece in World of Warcraft (virtual) when both are, by dictionary definition, virtual is a valid one. The same imaginary vagaries that effect the value of the Yen effect the value of the gold piece, both exist in electronic format, so who is to say that one is more ‘real’ than the other.
Whoever, as to virtual friendships/relationships, I believe that it is easier to deceive those around you in the virtual world than it is in the physical one especially with regards to physical appearance. At least with current technologies, there are some aspects of the self that are very hard to change/hide in face to face relations, especially something like sex. So in this way the physical world represents one side of truth much better than the virtual one can. I think that this is demonstrated quite well by the ‘About a Tree’ expose. The communitys grief was real, Karyn was not.
One thing that is hard to disguise virtually is your personality, and I agree with Chris in this: virtual worlds really bring personality to the fore, I believe, removing physicality and bringing personalities into direct contact with one another.
Just some thoughts.
I agree with Chris on the point that virtual world brings personality to the fore. As mentioned in the article, the virtual world is an escape from reality. Away from the harsh reality.
The way friendships are valued in the virtual world can be seen from different perspectives. If it’s viewed from the MSN/AIM/ICQ etc perspective, it is perhaps, as Lawrence mentioned, really deceptive. However, in the case of Second Life, there could indeed be genuine friendships. These genuine friendships could have arisen from the similar dreams that players share, which they can’t attain in reality. Perhaps they have goals they all want to attain, thus, these friendship bonds encourage one another to pursue and attain those goals. Perhaps in the virtual world (with reference to games), it is really easy to see who are the ones skiving, who are the hardworking ones (while in team work). Thus, the ones with similar character, goals they want to attain… form strong friendships??? This sounds really ambiguous and unclear here… Hopefully you guys understood what I’m trying to say.
I was just wondering to myself… If people enter the virtual world to escape from the harsh reality, why is the virtual world mimicking reality in such a similar fashion? From the economy to the endless worries of getting loot etc etc.
Jo I like your avatar!
As Chris has mentioned about wittiness, sometimes I do wonder what my true self is. I have a self during face-to-face encounter, in MSN, in Facebook, in my blog, etc… How am I being measured, by others, by look at one or more of my selves? Or they have to look at all of them in order to form a complete picture? Or even, they would never actually form a complete picture? (like Karyn)
And to answer Jo’s question, the real and virtual worlds are similar in a sense that players can fulfil what they can’t do in the reality relatively easier (coz not for me… I lose hard in these games). Like the couple engaged in Second Life, they have a big house, beautiful bodies and faces, which they don’t have in reality. These MMOs create a set of rules that are similar to our life experiences, so players won’t find it too easy or difficult. You can say these players engage themselves into another ‘real’ world that replicate their worries in the real life, but they enjoy it though.
Haha, thanks Shemila! It’s called Onion Head, my avatar, I mean.
Anyway, got this off Henry Jenkin’s webpage/webblog about being “Dumbledore for a Day: The Things You Can Do in Second Life”. Interesting article & videos! Have a go.
Here’s the link:
http://henryjenkins.org/2008/05/dumbledore_for_a_day_the_thing.html
He mentioned:
“For this event, a teen designer, Sylver Bu, developed a perfect melding of my own iconic persona and that of Dumbledore, the Wizard. As wizards go, I was not particularly skilled — in part because I use Second Life so infrequently and because I am clumsy in my off-line persona too, so I muffed my dramatic entrance, but I got much more comfortable as the event went along.”
I was pretty amused when this article further emphasised how Second Life blends fantasy and reality altogether. Furthermore, Jenkins understood the grandeur of being Dumbledore, yet he just couldn’t do it! I just found it a little amusing on how our personalities can control our characters even in the virtual space!
Yet another interesting article which posts a provocative question to one and all…
http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/my_main_question_to_jenkins.html
A late entrance to the discussion (imagine if I’d been killed in a car accident?! How long would it have taken you guys to notice? – sorry, that’s probably inappropriate…)
I’m interested in the earlier distinctions between ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ and I’m reminded of an article read probably two years ago that clarified it for me – unfortunately I can’t remember who it was, but I might be able to dig it out when I go home. Anyway, the argument was that the distinction should actually be between ‘actual’ and ‘virtual’, and that ‘real’ applied to both of these in some way. I agree with this, because I think ‘actual’ can refer more specifically to the physical world, and ‘virtual’ to the non-physical, esp that experience across physical distance via the net. But ‘real’ is relevant to both. That is kind of the core of what Raph whatsisname was saying in the ‘Who Killed Miss Norway’ article, that the friendship and the grief was no less real. Of course it wasn’t. The interaction with other humans (since I think it’s safe to say all avators would be human, at least) is a real experience whether in the virtual or the actual world.
Agree/disgreements?
I think the point that Shemila introduced, about true selves and how they may change across different mediums, is very interesting to think about!
I don’t think that anyone can ever get a complete picture/idea of an individual – whether they have met them in person, in an online community or through talking on an instant messaging service, or even if they interact with them through several modes of communication.
I think that each ‘person’ that an individual presents to the world (through different communication mediums) has elements of the ‘real’ them, but no one mode of interaction can truly convey one’s character/personality/ nature.
Been thinking about real versus virtual worlds that last few days, and have come to the conclusion that the perhaps the physical world should no longer be referred to as the ‘real’ world… as even if people are not always entirely honest or they are presenting, the interactions and emotions that develop in the virtual world are just as real as interactions and emotions in the physical world.
OK, well allow me to be the first to say… at the moment I would prefer a real cupcake to a virtual one.
However, with the rapid pace of modern technology that could change. This isn’t merely digressing, it is fodder the point that a number of you have made – how real is physical life, if we can even call it that these days? The technology exists to feel sensation across the gulf of the internet already, thus problematising any easy distinction between the two spheres. Relating back to ‘virtual’ v. ‘physical’/'real’ friends, not only do they take on the realness of phone friends or penpals, but much of the realness of of the so-called real world, so these distinctions really need to be examined. Perhaps ‘processor mediated’ or some such alarming term would be more appropriate, if still a little ambiguous/incorrect, when referring to the ‘virtual’, because these interactions still exist in every sense of the word. Hope that made some sense, and apologies if I didn’t get people fired up earlier with something controversial, I was curious to see what people would make of what is a fairly interesting subject, when it comes down to it.