For this assignment, I decided to compare the designs of Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR), the only MMOG I've ever subscribed to, and Second Life (SL). While my experience with the former is much greater than the latter, from what I was able to divine from my studies (both within SL and from the readings), the ways in which I (and, presumably, other players) interacted within each digital environment were quite distinct. While many of the readings dealt with gender, one of the things I found the most fascinating about virtual worlds (as opposed to MMOGs) was the importance of user-generated content, and the increased sense of embodiment that users of virtual worlds seem to experience. For the most part, I will draw on specific ideas from SL and WAR where appropriate, but for the most part want to deal with the high-level concepts of virtual worlds and MMOGs as a whole.
It's clear to me that the act of construction is much more important in SL than it is in WAR. The architectural puzzles that are described by Fullerton et al in There.com (2007,p.7) are present in SL – players create items, avatars, and buildings solely for the joy of creating, but SL takes it a step further. Players often buy and sell items, allowing some players to actually make a business out of their game-like creation activities. There is an economy in WAR as well, but it typically deals with illicit activities such as selling characters and gold farming, and is somewhat less meaningful than the actions of many of the inhabitants of virtual worlds. The SL economy is an example of a breakdown of the “boundaries between play and production” (Pearce,2006,p.2), as is the recreation of Uru by the diaspora Pearce describes (2006,p.4-7). These players are actually manufacturing new creative assets as part of the “game”, rather than simply playing (or cheating) to be the best, as one does in almost every MMOG.
The value that SL places on identity is very apparent from the outset. Like the designers described by Taylor (2003), it is clear that Linden Labs consider the importance of “responsibility, accountability, and community” alongside their promotion of freedom of choice (p.30). True, the user can customize their avatar almost endlessly, but the character's name remains constant (or, at least, it does as far as I could tell), thus tying a definite personality and entity to that particular name, most likely to prevent “troublemakers” from avoiding “public censure by changing identity” (Taylor,2003,p.31), and possibly to prevent such hooligans from infiltrating the well-defined communities of SL to cause mischief.
Taylor (2003) talks a lot about the online socialization structure of MMOGs, but in my experience it rarely goes beyond the level of “simply talk[ing] to people in the digital environment” (p.26). Typically, in WAR, the only times I talked to people was to organize quest groups, or to get people together for an RvR (Realm vs. Realm) large-scale assault. Social interaction was somewhat incidental and far from the focus of the game. Perhaps I am an anti-social monster, but some of the rich social interactions Taylor (2003,p.26) describe in EverQuest I have never witnessed or experienced in WAR. Indeed, even the idea of “identity play” Taylor (2003,p.27) describes has not been my experience with MMOGs. I have several fraternity brothers who play WoW, and none of them treat their characters as new identities, but merely as playing pieces in the game. The social interaction is, once again, incidental.
The sense of community in virtual worlds seems much stronger than in MMOGs. Once again, the formation of social groups in WAR (and WoW) seems primarily due to convenience and necessity – you need guild mates to go on the larger raids to get the better loot. In WAR, there are public quests that are virtually impossible for solo characters, but are one of the best ways to level characters and gain treasure. In virtual worlds, however, you seem to get clear social groups that form from simple common interests, such as the Uru diaspora described by Pearce (2007,p.5). Pearce describes MMOGs and virtual worlds as analogous to theme parks (2007,p.5), and I feel this comparison is partially correct, and applies mostly to MMOGs. The amount of control exercised over the user by the game space is as constraining as the controlled experience of most theme parks. Virtual worlds, on the other hand, give the users a degree of freedom that raises them above mere theme parks, to “new cities” complete with their own cultures and subcultures.
One of the interesting things about virtual worlds is their treatment of social order. While there may be actual hard-coded rules implemented by those running the system, they are typically less strict than they are in MMOGs. True, one can get in trouble for swearing too much or posting threats in a chat, but for the most part, one is in an MMOG to play the game, and the game's rule are part of the software, and can't be broken except through glitches. An good contrast is the difference between rules about violence. In WAR, you can kill other players in designated PvP realms, and that's it. It's part of the game. No one questions it. But in a game like Lucasarts' Habitat, as Farmer and Morningstar (1990/1991) describe, the nature of violence, even when moderated by rules, was still an issue because the experience, like SL, is a community, not a game. The Order of the Holy Walnut, which did a lot to influence violent actions even in the areas where it wasn't moderated, is an example of how communities within virtual worlds establish their own rules and social order (Farmer & Morningstar, 1990/1991), as opposed to solely relying on the game and it's masters as they would in an MMOG.
As a quick aside, I would like to address the point the Ludica article raises about "kombat lingerie" (Fullerton et al,2007,p.3) applies very directly to WAR, and indeed to most MMOGs in general. While it is true that some of the inhabitants of SL do have scantily clad female characters, they do not have to wear such clothing – it's a conscious choice. In WAR, the female characters' armor (especially the Witch Elf) are always skimpy. It may be linked to the mindset of many male players that they want to look at something sexy while they're playing (something I've heard many, many male MMOG players say), and it is clear that the sense of embodiment and personal connection to one's avatar is much, much less in most MMOGs than it is in most virtual worlds. This will be dealt with in greater detail momentarily.
Further extrapolations about the power of “player” implemented social order in virtual worlds is evidenced by Dibbell's (1993/1998) analysis of the Mr. Bungle incident in LambdaMOO. While eventually the “wizards” did step in, the action was initiated by the inhabitants themselves, and the debate over whether or not to “toad” the offending party was held by the inhabitants as well (Dibbell,1993/1998). In WAR, such an incident would be handled as follows – someone files a violation report, offending player is banned, the end. And there would be little debate. I believe this is because most MMOG players are not inherently connected to their avatars or virtual identities – they are not truly embodied by their characters. Losing an account represents the loss of a game, not the loss of an identity. In a virtual world, however, the sense of embodiment is the entire point of the experience. Take the idea of gender, for example. As I mentioned above, many male MMOG players pick female avatars because they want to look at eye candy. They feel no identification with the avatar. However, in LambdaMOO, players described the choice of their gender as something “of great consequence and forethought” (Curtis), because they were creating a true virtual identity, not just a playing piece in a game. This sense of embodiment also elevates virtual world, and the actions of those who inhabit them, above mere gameplay. As Mnookin (1996) succinctly states, “LambdaLaw is superfluous if LambdaMOO is merely a game”. Replace LambaMOO with any other virtual world, and the statement's value is the same – if these are just games, and not new spaces for people (or at the very least, identities) to interact on a meaningful level, why should there be anything more than the GMs and software rules that traditional MMOGs employ? The answer is no. This is because virtual worlds like SL and LambdaMOO are not games inhabited by players – they are spaces inhabited by people, and the necessity of new forms of social order in such a space is much greater than it is on the virtual tabletops of modern MMOGs.
Bibliography
Curtis P. Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities.
Dibbell, Julian. (1993/1998). A Rape in Cyberspace.
Farmer, R. & Morningstar, C. (1990/1991). The Lesson of LucasArts Habitat.
Fullerton, T., Morie, J. & Pearce, C. (2007). A Game of Ones Own: Towards a New Gendered Poetics of Game Space. In Proceedings, Digital Arts & Culture 2007, Perth, Australia. 1-11.
Mnookin, J. (1996) Virtual(ly) Law: The Emergence of Law in LambdaMOO. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication: Volume 2, Number 1: Part 1 of a Special Issue, June 1996.
Pearce, C. (2007). "Narrative Environments from Disneyland to World of Warcraft." In Space, Time, Play: Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: The Next Level. 1-6.
Pearce, C. (2006). "Productive Play: Game Culture from the Bottom Up." Games & Culture. Volume 1, Issue 1. 1-8.
Taylor, T.L. (2003). Intentional Bodies: Virtual Environments and the Designers Who Shape Them. International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 19, No. 1. 25-34.
Taylor, T.L. (2003). Multiple Pleasures: Women and Online Gaming. Convergence, Vol. 9, No. 1, 21-46.
Comments