[Forked from Mearls] MMOs, virtual vs. imaginary worlds (reply to Umbran)

[Hussar]

Heh, I agreed with pretty much everything you said, up to the last paragraph. Why did you have to go there.

Yes, agreed. I think the yearning for adventure, heroism, and imagination is pretty much universal. But I don't think that video games will, ultimately, satisfy that yearning. The don't go deep enough. Video games are like junk food; they are tasty, satisfy the initial craving, but are largely lacking in nutrition, leaving the individual wanting more.

I've yet to see a DM create a campaign that is half as detailed or as free as something like Baldur's Gate. Game world? Maybe. But actual campaign?

Really, this kinda ties in with another discussion I was having about players not putting enough character into their character. I was talking about how, during the recent WOTC Penny Arcade podcast, one of the players turned to the other player and was completely surprised that the other guy was a half elf. The player had no idea, despite adventuring together for several sessions.

When I commented on this, I was told multiple times that it's perfectly okay to ignore major elements of your character, so long as you're having fun.

This kind of runs very counter to the idea that RPG's are so highly engaging the imagination. I mean, it was so lacking information that the other players didn't know what species the character was, and many D&D players tell me that this is perfectly okay.

We're still pretty early in the design space of the really big CRPG's. You look at something like Eve online, where you have daily newspapers, blogs, stories, etc. all pouring out of people's experiences with Eve. I imagine (although I don't know) the same thing comes out of WOW as well.

When Greg Bear is writing the preview novel for Halo, you know that video games aren't just junk food anymore.

 

[Jack7]

When I commented on this, I was told multiple times that it's perfectly okay to ignore major elements of your character, so long as you're having fun.

This kind of runs very counter to the idea that RPG's are so highly engaging the imagination. I mean, it was so lacking information that the other players didn't know what species the character was, and many D&D players tell me that this is perfectly okay.

I don't know Huss, in this particular instance this seems kinda anecdotal to me. I personally wouldn't play in any game (of any type) where I lacked basic information on the other player's characters because to me it would be a game survival issue. Without accurate information then you cannot assist your compatriots or make valid suggestions for action, etc. I personally would not consider fun to be so over-riding that it limits every other aspect of the game, like basic expectations about character capabilities. Lacking such information would be the very opposite of fun to me, especially in a highly interactive effort like a RPG. Because you rely upon others in game. Then again information is my game, so to speak, both in-game and in real life. I think this is simply a personality issue. Some might be happy to engage in such play for no other reason than fun (however defined) I would not and I know many of my buddies would not. They'd ask questions and expect answers to things they didn't know but naturally expected to find out. They'd gather information and store it for practical use.

I've yet to see a DM create a campaign that is half as detailed or as free as something like Baldur's Gate. Game world? Maybe. But actual campaign?

That may be true, but then again a campaign in a RPG is often a not-for-profit effort by a single initial (unless you specifically mean commercially produced campaign modules, that's a different story, though I have seen some professionally produced campaign books that are quite extensive), with correspondingly limited time and resources. A video game campaign is far more often than not a for-profit enterprise with comparatively large resources. And time and effort is sally distributed over a "team" of creative personnel, yielding a real dramaturge in creating large amounts of content relatively quickly. I'm not sure though that qualitative distinctions can be drawn simply from facts such as "bigger or more expansive." You can have a huge load of crap, and a small dose of very concentrated genius. Then again the obverse or reverse can occur. To me personally though the real test would be the quality of the imaginative enterprise versus the quantity. Of course I'm not saying that was your total implication.

Some video and computer and VR games are of very high quality as well as of impressive content loads. Some are definitely not, or are of high quality but are short, some are of low quality but have huge detail of content. But one other thing to consider. When undertaking an electronic game one usually is not slowed down by group effort or extended periods of group-consideration. In RPGs a party of different individuals may take a long time to make a decision whereas a single electronic game player makes a very quick, unadulterated response (indeed games are often structured to intentionally force quick decision making based upon incomplete information or seemingly unsure circumstances, something that many RPG players would argue over in detail so as to make the best decision for the entire group). Or even if he is playing with a team the group choices are usually very limited as to possible action. Most electronic games lack the fluidity of being able to do "whatever you want." You cannot for instance step off the pre-programmed structure, because there is nothing outside the pre-programmed structure, therefore ad hoc activity is really more illusion than reality. You cannot really make up anything on the spot. The choices are usually pretty narrow as to the range of possible actions. That may eventually change, but right now progression paths are relatively thin.

I personally would say this then. Electronic/information system games may, or may not, inspire imaginative creativity both in design and play for individual players. RPGs may, or may not, inspire imaginative creativity in both design and play for groups (in most standard gaming situations).

But basically those two different forms are geared towards different objectives when it comes to how they engage and employ the imagination.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know Huss, in this particular instance this seems kinda anecdotal to me. I personally wouldn't play in any game (of any type) where I lacked basic information on the other player's characters because to me it would be a game survival issue. Without accurate information then you cannot assist your compatriots or make valid suggestions for action, etc. I personally would not consider fun to be so over-riding that it limits every other aspect of the game, like basic expectations about character capabilities. Lacking such information would be the very opposite of fun to me, especially in a highly interactive effort like a RPG. Because you rely upon others in game. Then again information is my game, so to speak, both in-game and in real life. I think this is simply a personality issue. Some might be happy to engage in such play for no other reason than fun (however defined) I would not and I know many of my buddies would not. They'd ask questions and expect answers to things they didn't know but naturally expected to find out. They'd gather information and store it for practical use.

I totally agree.

Yet, I've been told, repeatedly, that it's perfectly fine to ignore that information, to not bring it up in game and to be totally surprised when that information is revealed, even though it was only being hidden through lack of effort, rather than any sort of plot reason.

In other words, I am being told in that other thread, that I am 100% in the wrong for saying that players should bring up the fact of their character's race. That kinda speaks to the level of immersion that people expect from their games.

/snip
I personally would say this then. Electronic/information system games may, or may not, inspire imaginative creativity both in design and play for individual players. RPGs may, or may not, inspire imaginative creativity in both design and play for groups (in most standard gaming situations).

But basically those two different forms are geared towards different objectives when it comes to how they engage and employ the imagination.

100% agree. I have no problems with the idea that there are differences. Where my issue lies is in the idea that one is superior to the other in any sort of objective way.

 

[Flobby]

Digital vs Analog

I know I am late on coming in on this. Just wanted to add something with the whole CD vs vinyl thing.
Vinyl is generally better quality than a CD. And the human ear CAN tell the difference, just as you can tell the difference between mp3 and CD quality (which is why I can't seem to pay money for an mp3). Really, you can, try it. You don't have to be record collecting geek like me.

Of course it all depends on how it was recorded. Recordings are are usually made on digital equipment sampling at anywhere from 24 to 96 (?) bit. Now when you get up that high the ear can't tell the difference but between a 16bit CD (they're all 16bit) and a record which doesn't need to compress the sound down to 16bit, you can tell the difference.

If you're talking about analog recording it is still in someways better than 16bit CD quality. The "clean" CD sound is because a lot of sound has been taken out in the conversion from analog to 16bit. The "warmth" is that you are hearing more of the "real" sound.

 

[Jack7]

I'm glad we agree on those things Huss.

Vinyl is generally better quality than a CD.

I don't know the particular technical facts of the case, but I know I prefer vinyl to CD. I hope in the future, as technology improves, it will be possible to create new media storage methods that are far less "sterile sounding" than seems to be the trend today.

 

[SSquirrel]

I don't know the particular technical facts of the case, but I know I prefer vinyl to CD. I hope in the future, as technology improves, it will be possible to create new media storage methods that are far less "sterile sounding" than seems to be the trend today.

CDs are recorded at 16bit/44.1khz (dvd is capable of 24bit/96khz, altho wikipedia claims 24bit/192khz possible for dvd-audio). Analog recordings have the entire waveform and are smooth soundwaves, with the full curve. digital to audio converters take the analog signal and process the initial signal and create the digital one. The digital form is never the original smooth waveform, however, the higher the bit-rate, the more individual samples in any given second of the audio. Thus a higher bit-rate will produce a sound closer to the original waveform.

As an example, the NES had 8 bit sound capabilities (as did the ubiquitous Casio SK-1 keyboard many kids had in the 80s). Compare the sounds from that with the SNES or Sega Genesis that had 16bit sound. Then compare that with the sounds produced by modern consoles.

Another interesting example is the recent Beatles album reissues. They released a box set of 11 albums mixed in mono, like many of them were originally mixed for, as well as a 14 disc set of the stereo versions. I've only purchased the Abbey Road disc so far, but I have been able to tell definite differences with the earlier cd pressing. The bass is generally slightly more mellow, the vocal harmonies come out much better. Paul McCartney was talking about the new remasters and he said that listening to the new versions makes him feel like he's back in the room recording them. I wish that author had happened to think to ask him to compare that to the original vinyl

 

[Umbran]

Yup, you might imagine the pictures when you read a book. But, again, it's entirely passive. You consume the book, your eyes scanning from side to side, never once actually contributing in the slightest to the text.

In a video game, you are contributing to the storyline of the game from the second you start.

I'm going to have to disagree with both of these.

Taking the second first - most video games don't change their "storyline" significantly with player action. How many times you have to hit the lieutenant does not generally alter where, when, and how you deal with the End Boss. The world is largely independent of player action. How you deal with things may (or may not) change, but what you have to deal with doesn't. I have a hard time considering videogame resource management details "storyline".

Meanwhile, every English and creative writing teacher I've ever had would argue strenuously with you that reading is a passive activity. Quite the opposite - to create a good piece, an author has to be very aware that the reader is thinking while reading, not passively accepting input without question. Passive readers wouldn't notice plot holes, inconsistencies, or implausible emotional reactions on the part of characters. Passive readers don't gripe about deus ex machina, don't analyze the author's choice of symbolism, and so on.

A writer needs to understand that a reader "reads into" the text. That is an active process, not a passive one.

 

[SSquirrel]

Games like the Fable series or KOTOR have different reactions from people based on how you repsond to their chat options. You also can gradually turn extremely good or evil from all of these responses and have reactions from complete strangers other than the scripted PCs. You have reputation systems in most MMOs and can gofrom being kill on sight with a faction all the way up to best status, which typically gives you access to reduced cost items that are pretty nice.

In WoW, you also have something called phasing, where the game world can change based on what quests you have completed. You might do a quest line to free an area and then you gain a new place to fly to, new quests to do etc. Someone who hasn't done that yet won't see you when you are there and will have enemies all around. The world of an MMO is largely static, but the different companies are working on ways to make things less so.

I agree with Umbran that reading isn't passive. Using your mind to imagine what you're having described on the page makes it active. You could also argue that something like a murder mystery movie is less passive than a sitcom, since you can sit there and try and piece together the clues yourself.