Mercurius
Legend
I'm forking this from here because we're (or I'm) going a bit off topic.
Yes, I agree--in terms of the market. I was talking more about the larger picture, that no simulating technology will ever be able to surpass reality. I think High-Definition TV is a good example--the ads say that it is "more real than life"; I find it to be glaring and harsh. It might have a sharper picture and even brighter colors than real life (sort of), but it doesn't have the same qualitative aspects, the same richness. Or we can look at CDs (or MP3s) vs. vinyl; vinyl, despite its imperfection, has a warmer tone, even more real I would say.
One of the problems with simulation technologies is that we can bypass that which we don't like; we can "smooth the edges" of the virtual space so that we don't have to experience them. This is one of the reasons, I think, many equate computer games with drug use (in addition to the addictiveness, of course!). You can kill things without feeling the blood spatter on your face. I would argue that, like junk food, you forever want more because there is little nourishment in the activity of video games. Where junk food feeds the body and by failing to give it sustenance tricks the body into thinking it wants more, video games feed the "soul" and fail to give it sustenance, thereby creating further need.
But yes, even now MMOs are far more popular than RPGs and other imagination-based activities. I see no way that this trend won't continue into the future. On the other hand, it may be that RPGs will continue to evolve, that they will even "morph" into something else, perhaps trickling into mainstream society in another form or fashion. It depends on whether there is a significant backlash against the rise in virtual technologies that we will see over the next few decades.
By way of an example, from what I've heard the business world is looking for more "right-brain thinkers" because of, for one, the exportation of the left-brain tasks overseas, particularly India; but it is also because creative, aesthetic thinking is becoming more and more relevant as our culture becomes ever-more "noospheric" (ala Teilhard de Chardin; that is, based within inner, mental space). So it may be--and this is my hope--that the imagination will continue to evolve alongside virtual technologies out of necessity; that in order to create and work within virtuality (whether games or the internet or the "Next Thing"*), we need greater creativity and imagination.
But the problem then (and now, really) is this: By relying on the imagination of others it is all too easy to not develop our own so that it atrophies through disuse. To quote Emerson: "Genius is always sufficiently the enemy of genius by over-influence." I am reminded of something Ursula K. Le Guin said, that she was glad that she didn't encounter Tolkien until she was an adult, until her own creativity had already come alive. The creative works of others may serve to inspire, but they also may imprison--if we do not take up our own work, if we do not light the creative fire within. This relates to what I called "soul sustenance" above, and my belief that each of us has an inherent need to create, to imagine, to explore inner space and "bring forth worlds" (in a non-specific way).
*NOTE: By "Next Thing" I mean the next major technological revolution. We had the telegraph then the telephone, radio, television, and now the internet. What is next? I would think some sort of interactive virtual reality or space that we can enter into. When? Well, let's look at history. 1794 is considered the date for the invention of the non-electric telegraph; the electric telegraph was developed over the first half of the 19th century, with 1844 bringing the first commercial (news) usage. The radio and telephone became commercially available in the 1890s, television in the late 1930s, and finally internet in the late 80s and early 90s. So it is interesting to see a pattern of about fifty years between developments, which would mean that we won't see the next leap until the 2030 or 2040 (which, eerily enough, corresponds with Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity", but that is another discussion).
Mercurius said:
Yes, I agree--in terms of the market. I was talking more about the larger picture, that no simulating technology will ever be able to surpass reality. I think High-Definition TV is a good example--the ads say that it is "more real than life"; I find it to be glaring and harsh. It might have a sharper picture and even brighter colors than real life (sort of), but it doesn't have the same qualitative aspects, the same richness. Or we can look at CDs (or MP3s) vs. vinyl; vinyl, despite its imperfection, has a warmer tone, even more real I would say.
One of the problems with simulation technologies is that we can bypass that which we don't like; we can "smooth the edges" of the virtual space so that we don't have to experience them. This is one of the reasons, I think, many equate computer games with drug use (in addition to the addictiveness, of course!). You can kill things without feeling the blood spatter on your face. I would argue that, like junk food, you forever want more because there is little nourishment in the activity of video games. Where junk food feeds the body and by failing to give it sustenance tricks the body into thinking it wants more, video games feed the "soul" and fail to give it sustenance, thereby creating further need.
But yes, even now MMOs are far more popular than RPGs and other imagination-based activities. I see no way that this trend won't continue into the future. On the other hand, it may be that RPGs will continue to evolve, that they will even "morph" into something else, perhaps trickling into mainstream society in another form or fashion. It depends on whether there is a significant backlash against the rise in virtual technologies that we will see over the next few decades.
By way of an example, from what I've heard the business world is looking for more "right-brain thinkers" because of, for one, the exportation of the left-brain tasks overseas, particularly India; but it is also because creative, aesthetic thinking is becoming more and more relevant as our culture becomes ever-more "noospheric" (ala Teilhard de Chardin; that is, based within inner, mental space). So it may be--and this is my hope--that the imagination will continue to evolve alongside virtual technologies out of necessity; that in order to create and work within virtuality (whether games or the internet or the "Next Thing"*), we need greater creativity and imagination.
But the problem then (and now, really) is this: By relying on the imagination of others it is all too easy to not develop our own so that it atrophies through disuse. To quote Emerson: "Genius is always sufficiently the enemy of genius by over-influence." I am reminded of something Ursula K. Le Guin said, that she was glad that she didn't encounter Tolkien until she was an adult, until her own creativity had already come alive. The creative works of others may serve to inspire, but they also may imprison--if we do not take up our own work, if we do not light the creative fire within. This relates to what I called "soul sustenance" above, and my belief that each of us has an inherent need to create, to imagine, to explore inner space and "bring forth worlds" (in a non-specific way).
*NOTE: By "Next Thing" I mean the next major technological revolution. We had the telegraph then the telephone, radio, television, and now the internet. What is next? I would think some sort of interactive virtual reality or space that we can enter into. When? Well, let's look at history. 1794 is considered the date for the invention of the non-electric telegraph; the electric telegraph was developed over the first half of the 19th century, with 1844 bringing the first commercial (news) usage. The radio and telephone became commercially available in the 1890s, television in the late 1930s, and finally internet in the late 80s and early 90s. So it is interesting to see a pattern of about fifty years between developments, which would mean that we won't see the next leap until the 2030 or 2040 (which, eerily enough, corresponds with Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity", but that is another discussion).
