[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[John Buehler]

Raph Koster writes:

If we keep going on both posts, I'm gonna merge 'em next time.  Too
late to do this time around...

>>  An example of this is your own > Ultima Online, where player
>>  character killing became an unexpected, > but dominant form of
>>  gameplay.  The fact that the game is a > multiplayer game is what
>>  complicates the task of delivering on the > entertainment that you
>>  claim you are providing.

> The entertainment we claim we are providing is that of a multiplayer
> game.  Without the complication, our raison d'etre goes away.

An interesting way to turn my statement on its ear.  You are not
providing purely a multiplayer game.  That may have been a
distinguishing feature, but the game entertainment itself involves far
more than interacting with other players.

>> In a single player game, you have a far greater degree of control
>> over player entertainment and can draw the player in and make thier
>> heart race.  That's because you can present the entertainment for
>> that single player and make sure that they aren't disappointed.  Or
>> at least it's a heck of a lot easier than with a multiplayer game.

> Curiously, actual play patterns strongly challenge this claim,
> though it seems obvious on the face of it. Players get far more
> emotionally invested in online games. They play them longer. They
> draw players in more. And it seems to happen pretty easily.

Yeah, I'm misstating my point.  I'm speaking to the consistent quality
of service of a single player game versus a multi player game.  Not
that a single player game is so much better at eliciting emotion.  A
single player game is better at presenting the fiction of grand
accomplishments.

>> If you are going to get your players emotionally involved in your
>> game, you had better set VERY clear expectations amongst your
>> players.

> To be frank, I fail to see how we STOP players from being
> emotionally involved in our games.

To use an extreme example, consider the game that is only open for one
hour a day.  Or the game that has so many bugs that it's difficult to
develop an emotional connection with other players.  I assume that
because it can be done in the extreme, that more subtle means can be
used to disrupt emotional attachments.

>> My personal take on this is to go in the other direction.  Let the
>> interactions between players and with the game NOT get the players
>> overly invested in the game experience.

> This is a recipe for no players, is it not? If you are successful,
> you have no emotional attachment. Why would anyone play a game they
> do not care about? Or care very little about? We keep doing things
> that we care about, and we stop doing the things that we do not care
> about.

> OK, so that was a little unfair. You actually said, "overly
> invested."  Interestingly, a while back I wrote that "for the love
> of God, we need to stop sanitizing the emotion out of our games." I
> do not regard addiction as being equivalent to emotional
> involvement,so that may be our disconnect.

Yeah, I'm trying to fine tune the words that I use because I'm only
talking about sanitizing the emotion out of the games a bit.  You seem
to enjoy the fact that the players can have such strong positive
emotions come out, as with "A Story of a Tree".  I dislike the idea
that players can define themselves so strongly in a virtual
environment.  In the end, I don't believe that it is fundamentally
healthy to separate the intellectual from the physical.  Especially
when the intellectual side is presented via a completely separate
persona.  Healthy escapism is one thing.  Unrestricted escapism has
such a potential for damage.

>> Keep the experience light.

> I do not see how this directly relates to emotional investment?

Just another attempt at finding words to convey the idea of avoiding
significant emotional investment.

>> Rely on occasional visits by players instead of having them in your
>> game world for 6 hours a day, every day.

> This definitely does NOT relate to emotional investment. I have a
> fair amount emotionally invested in my status and postings on
> mud-dev. I spend less than six hours in a month replying to
> messages. Time != emotional investment.

Your emotional investment is in game design, not just MUD-Dev.  And
you pile a ton of time into game design.  Further, everything that you
invest in the real world carries over to this context, which is not
the case with game worlds in a fantasy setting.

I submit to you that time is a contributor to emotional investment,
and the more intense the experiences during a given time, the faster
the emotional investment builds up.

>>  People are better able to > keep their sense of perspective this
>>  way.  They won't be as intent on > buying virtual achievements, on
>>  powergaming or on being rude or even > abusive to other players.
>>  To be cute about it, less is more.

> They also won't be as intent on actually showing up.

Just so long as they pay their bills.  :)

But to be a bit more serious about your reply, remember that I'm only
trying to shift the balance points around a little bit.  I'm not
trying to produce the game "Watching Grass Grow III".  "Now with
Kentucky Blue Grass and improved root simulations!"

JB

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