[MUD-Dev] Bay Area Press re: UO, the good the bad and the Ugly.

[Zak Jarvis]

> From: F. Randall Farmer [randy at communities.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:54 PM

> Here's the question: Are we designing systems that _encourage_, or
> event _require_ massive numbers of online hours, without end, in order
> for the customer to succeed? Are we building little Skinner boxes that
> are commercially successful at the expense of human (social) lives?
> What if anything, should we do about it (before others get really
> pissed and do something about it for us?)

This whole thread is where I was really trying to go with my bits about
creative input. As is usually my problem, I got sidetracked by small
details.

My angle was the creative addiction, but the real one is what everyone is
talking about.

I've seen it argued here that no one *must* spend their time in our games,
the implication being quite clear that addiction is *their* fault, we just
make the product.

The lot of us producing these games are doing it for a wide variety of
reasons and with a wide range of intended products. Some of us want sims,
some of us want games, some of us want virtual theater, some want
combinations of all of the above, others want to find something new that
isn't any of the above. That's all fine and well, but the truth is that we
are all attempting to immerse other humans into worlds that we -- at some
level -- have created. And so I say to those foisting the blame of
game-dependency wholly onto the player: bullshit.

As designers of these products we absolutely *do* have some responsibility.

The amount of time players spend in our games is -- of course -- ultimately
determined by them. This is obvious. What's also obvious is that we as
designers are attempting to influence the amount of time they spend with
our product.

Whose will wins here? Who is responsible? The player obviously shoulders
some -- maybe even most -- of the weight, but the designer is *not*
absolved.  Some of us here on this list have certainly achieved a great
deal of authoritive power in the field, but I don't think anyone feels
confident enough to start handing out indulgences yet.

And now to undercut some of what I've said.

With the current market we have, (IE, largely 'enthusiasts') we have a
player population which is (in my not-very-humble opinion) exhibiting a
higher than average degree of some rather extreme psychological
dysfunction.

As designers, we're *not* responsible for that (except for those designers
who are themselves falling under more than 2 personality disorders as per
the DSM IV).

I really don't think this issue is a falling sky issue, or perhaps it is
depending on which side of the story you look at. There's definitely some
blue-painted plaster laying around, but last I checked the sky itself is
quite colorfast and this plaster is decidedly faded.

However, I find it quite asinine to put all the blame at the feet of the
players whose lives are screwed up. There really and truly are things that
can be done to improve the designs and create games which aren't actively
feeding problems to players.

Hrm, I'm lecturing, and a lot of the posters here are looking greedily at
the soap-box I'm standing on. I'll quit here before someone takes away my
asterisk key.

-Zak Jarvis
 http://www.voidmonster.com






_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev