[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants

[John Buehler]

Richard A. Bartle writes:

> On 15 March 2007, John Buehler wrote:
> >I simply don't believe that the vast majority of graphical combat game
> >players have any interest in emote systems.
> 	By "combat game" do you mean virtual worlds such as EQ, WoW, DAOC
> and the like?

Yep.

> 	If so, does this mean you think Blizzard really wasted their time
> with that /dance command? The one that people always seem to want to know
> how it works for any new player-controlled model (trees, snowmen, arakkoa)
> and are disappointed when there isn't one?

Is that a sign of an interest in emotes for reasons of socialization or for
reasons of seeing something fun for themselves?

The social elements that I noticed catching on in World of Warcraft were
things that fit players who enjoyed collecting items and that had simple
"look at me" value.  Standing in a prominent place and using /dance.
Collecting social pets such as turtles and snakes.

These are not the sort of players who are looking to get to know other
people or are interested in presenting a sophisticated facade of a role -
which is what subtleties such as emoting are most closely aligned with.

> >Any more than they have an interest in chatting.
> 	The issue is not whether they have an interest in chatting; the
> issue is whether they have an interest in being unable to chat. Adding
> chats and emotes may not affect their play, but they'll notice if it's
> no longer available.

The ability to communicate, yes.  The question in my mind is one of what the
players are attempting to communicate.  My experience has been that players
communicate data about the game far more than spending any time at all with
communicating anything about themselves as players or as characters.

> >These are players who are drawn to graphical depictions of
> realtime combat
> >combined with advancement.  "Talking is for girls"
> 	Well, we do have actual girls playing these games.

I didn't mean to be taken quite so literally.

> >For emotes and chat to be pertinent in a game, the game itself must
> >naturally incorporate emotes and chat.
> 	You mean from a gameplay perspective, so if you smile an an NPC
> then you may get a better deal from them than if you scowl (unless you
> scowl REALLY menacingly)? I've no objection to this, indeed it could be
> quite fun.

I think it could be quite fun as well, but the devil is in the details.  If
the entirety of the game is about getting to level N as fast as possible,
then smiling at vendors is going to be a macro on the keyboard and nothing
more.  I was thinking of the ethic of the game when I wrote my last reply.
A game like Second Life is far more social.  Emoting and chatting there can
be very sophisticated, and it makes sense there.  The players are of a mind
to use it.

> >Combat games (as they exist today) are not strong on
> >socialization.  Ergo, emoting and chatting are irrelevant, regardless of
> how
> >well the systems are done.
> 	For emotes and chat not to be present in a virtual world,
> you need to
> explain why they're a bad thing, not why they're irrelevant.

They will remain in "virtual worlds" because multiple players will need to
coordinate, taunt, compete, negotiate, whatever.  The need for subtlety in a
chat system (including emotes) is what I'm focusing on.  Unless the virtual
world's entertainment is structured appropriately, a subtle chat system is a
pointless expenditure of development effort.

> >Chatting and emoting in Second Life? Definitely.  In World of Warcraft?
> >Does it get me my tier 3 gear?
> 	It does if you do it to the right person.

"The right person" is the key.  The "right people" aren't playing World of
Warcraft.  They're all over in Second Life, chatting and emoting.

JB