MMO Gaming - Virtually Too Real? 196
bippy writes "The Rocky Mountain News has an article about the evolving face of massively multiplayer online games. PC MMOGs have fostered debates about free speech, made money for people and been home to virtual and real crime. Or as the Rocky put it: 'In a time of global terrorism, high crime rates and world hunger, the virtual evils of a computer game are really trivial. But in a way, that's the point: Why do even our games have to be subject to crime, no matter how virtual?'" A spokesperson for Ultima Online comments on Electronic Arts' view of virtual crime: "EA owns your gold, your swords, your characters - they are all just digital bits. If your entertainment is to destroy other peoples' entertainment, you're going to be tossed."
pwn3d (Score:5, Funny)
Translation:
EA: pwn3d
Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
The grief of losing an item on which you used many hours of your Very Real time to obtain can be big.
As I have seen the player point of view and the administration point of view of a MMOG, I can say only this:
Nothing is virtual. Players are real persons. They use their real time to play. For the hardcore player their character is as real as the paycheck they receive for doing their more 'boring' job.
Yes, it is easy to toss a player with 'it's just a game, get over it', but anyone who has played any of these games know that it's not that simple.
When you play. Remeber; your virtual comrade/enemy is also a living, breathing person.
Re:Some experience (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that the point? If it was not possible to lose items, if we never felt the grief of games, then the pleasure of gaining the item would be far less. I'm not saying we need people to ruin your game by exploits and the like, but PKing, taking items and the like, it's part of the game; without it, posession of the items would feel shallow, living in a static world.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember (ok, so it starts silly, bear with me) as a kid of 14 getting my 1st summer job. It paid like, oh, $500 a month or something. I was saving for a VCR as my parents were of the opinion that they don't need it, they get enough TV as it is. So I worked for a month and spent all of the money on a VCR. Yes, back in those days they really DID cost that much. I felt really good about that VCR and I don't think a potential threat of someone stealing it might have made it better for me. Ok, in a real world there is always a possibility of getting robbed and thus in a realistic virtual world there should be, too. But in any online game that allows PKing and/or stealing from other players it happens ridiculously often. It should be allowed to some extent but it would also have to be illegal in the gaming world and punishable as well. In the real world you get to pay fines in mild cases and go to jail in the more extreme cases. And you always, ALWAYS lose the benefit from your crime if you get caught and the one you have wronged should be recompensated as well. In the virtual world jail-time would probably translate to losing the gaming time you have paid for and well, fines and suchlike are pretty straightforward. If it needs to be truly virtual as in real-life-like, then make it truly virtual. Implement police force etc. Thief should be a possible occupation but it should also be an occupation that is easily short-lived and/or difficult to play.
This, by the way, from someone who only has experience on Everquest, not UO. All comments are welcome.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I look at the PK's as interfering with my playing "the game" (that's just me, you might feel different about it) and so I had to decide whether or not I wanted to play in an online world where others could interfere with what I was doing. My conclusion was that this wasn't the kind of game for me.
I love playing Q3 online where I expect and intend to play a PvP game but in games like UO and say Diablo 2 I am there to play the game, not play against the game AND the other players. I walked away from UO very early and limit my Diablo 2 playing to closed games where the PK's can't get in. That suits me fine.
People make more of this than it's really worth. If an online game allows the PK's to do what they want and doesn't provide the other players any way of going about their business without having to deal with them then just walk away. Granted you might really want to play that game but if it's not your kind of game then it's just not your kind of game. Add it to the list (we all have one) of crappy games you purchased and move on.
If enough people close their accounts and voice their dislike for the situation then maybe they fix it in a future release and you get to try it again. Probably not but it's possible.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I read an excellent quote on this subject (unfortunately I don't know who said it), it went something like 'There should be a coop button [opposite of the player hostile button]. If the PKs can force me into their game, I should be able to force them into mine.'
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Informative)
I played UO for 2 weeks back in '98 or '99. I expected PVP combat, but for some reason I imagined other players to have some shred of honor. What a rude awakening to walk out of town and repeatedly get slaughtered by players many times stronger, apparently for no other reason than because PK's enjoy one-sided battles.
And when I did manage to explore the countryside, the place was full of houses, often with hoards of items inside (which caused the game to lag terribly). Nice idea, poor execution. Everquest was better, but had it's own problems.
Re:Some experience (Score:2, Insightful)
PvP in Ultima Online was originally a free for all. Anyone could just walk up to another player, whack 'em and take their loot. When I played, they had just implemented the notoriety system but it didn't seem to have any effect on behavior.
It's probably a good thing they finally went to consensual PvP, but kind of sad in a way. That takes some freedom out of the game, but unfortunately there always seems to be an element in online games that exist only to ruin the experience for other players.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people want to play a cooperative game against the "game". Others want to play a battle of wits other players. There is plenty of middle ground, and where you stand on this determines the kind of players you will get.
Since you seem to like the PK aspect, you would probably be *shocked* that people play "talkers" and "MOOs" where combat plays *no part* in the game. (Some MOOs have added combat, but the base code is about creation, not destruction). Yahoo Pirates attracts different players than Dark Age of Camelot.
Personally, have my 12th level character mob-killed repeatedly by 35th level characters that I have no hope against doesn't appeal. But that is my *personality*. Perhaps you will say that I should be mob-killed repeatedly for simply existing.
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Interesting)
You probably mean Yohoho Puzzle Pirates [puzzlepirates.com]. Very different to the usual MM game, although it has its own version of grind despite not having levels as such. It is 2D isometric, written in Java (Linux and Mac friendly), and has a free trial (X free sessions, X is 10 or 15 or so, I believe). I'm not an employee or anything; if you do try it out then please do realize that (in general) it caters to a more mature audience. Although sword fighting tournaments are most popular, there are also fashion
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are the keys I've found to running a successful(100+ player online) PK MUD.
1st off have a safe point about 1/3rd of the way up (so in EQ this would be level 15), up until that point you can be attacked but you lose nothing and the pker gets nothing.
2nd off give rewards for player killing. Give them points, the more challenging the kill the
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Insightful)
You either have PvP or you don't, there is no middle ground that I've found that doesn't eventually lead to the death of an online game.
Normally, the PvP players leave, then the non-PvP players leave(killing mobs for gear only works for so long).
When we added an opt-out option our pbase began to die. Slowly at first then more rapidly as more and more non-pkers were thrown into the mix. There's not as much
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
so, i played neocron. the first person shooter mmporg with lots of pvp because the quake ppl feel right at home with the area damage weapons. the problem with most mmporgs is that when people PK, scam or spread grief they are not held responsible for it. in neocron this meant that someone who just mowed down 20 newbs at some spawn event could stand around in a no PvP zone and shout abuse at the respawning players. GMs just said 'pvp is part of the game'.
so what is the player supposed to do ? try to have a good time with the game or 'take care' of the griefers. in the end i just canceled my account.
there is a specific type of people that play the game in a way where they exploit the game mechanics to grief other players. they dont care about retaliation from other players or temporary bans from GMs, they grief on as long as they can and ruin the game for others in the process. a real world example would be someone who grabs the football from the field at the superbowl and runs away, not minding the horde chasing after him with torches. its just that these people dont care about the virtual world at all, knowing that whatever might happen to their character it doesnt mean anything in reality.
now IMHO.. this is a distance to a mmporg that more EQ players should have, but then no one would be there to grief.
so the mmporg police force will accomplish nothing as to the griefer it means nothing. permanent ban for life is the only option if a company doesnt want to loose players that just want to have fun.
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know the right solution to killing, especially if you want to have character classes such as assassin (what would be the point of making a character specializing in killing if it's not possible?) but I do feel very strongly about the so-called neutral alignment classes. I would LOVE to play a thief or a rogue if I was able to actually pick someone's pockets occasionally and perhaps even break into someone's house but in order for it to be fair it'd either have to be NPC houses (booooring) or there should be a limit to what and how much you can steal or something (not quite fair busting your chops off for that Wondrous Armor of Immortality +792 if the very next night someone busts into your home and steals it) One way of dealing with these issues is to declare that "life is not fair" and another is to ban just about everything.
No MMORPG (that I know of) has the balance between these anywhere close to what I think is right so I don't play any of them. Which is probably for the best, all things considered.
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not true. If the game flags thiefs somehow then the police force could jail them, even if they were offline. Their equipment could be confiscated and yeah they player would still be rotten, but their high level character that was oppressing everyone would be defunct and they would have to start over.... n
Re:Some experience (Score:2, Insightful)
> and/or difficult to play.
Why should it? This is the case in real life, but why should it be like that in a computer game?
People talk about these things as if its the way the whole genre should be, as if every MMORPG should be as close to real life as possible, wheres the fun in that?
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
To borrow from Locke, in a State of Nature everyone has equal liberty and there is a great deal of insecurity. You enter into socities to escape the evils of the State of Nature. This is basic political theory, but is equally applicable to a virtual world. Simply start a government. When people get out of hand you call out the posse and destroy them and take everything they have, possibly putting them in jail or enslaving them as well.
Now, of course, game engines may have to get a little more sophisticated to pull this off, but really I think it would make the games much more exciting. I can not imagine doing this in everquest quite yet. The code is not sophisticated enough...
We have virtual worlds. The next step is virtual government I suppose.
-Craig.
Re:Some experience (Score:2)
As an aside, this fallacy is surprisingly common in the real world as well. Many people, including some famous philosophers, argued that life is valuable only because we will eventually die. This idea led to a widespread (disingenuous) belief that immortal
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a game..
If you hold that it's ANY more then that, then whats to stop lawsuits to say, keep Everquest around after Sony decides it's no longer profitable? Where is the line drawn?
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Some experience (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some experience (Score:2)
Then an ideal game would have a fixed amount of gold. If someone slays the dragon and takes his cash then the respawned dragon needs to go hunt down replacement not just get it free. Shopkeepers beware!
Re:Some experience (Score:2)
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, of course people get upset emotionally if their characters are harmed or their items stolen. Would you not be upset if someone ruined a painting you have been working hard on? Someone keying the classic car you've slaved over many hours to restore it to its former glory? Same deal... you get pissed at the person who is wilfully destroying something that gave you intense enjoyment.
That, by the way, is what so-called 'grievers' do in these games: they go out of their way, not to steal your money or kill your character per se, but to ruin your fun. Game companies are right to boot such players.
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the law in your country. In some places, the law is ambiguous at best, and while you may not actually own the data or demand that it is handed over to you, a court can decide (and in some cases already has done exactly that) that the game company has an obligation to keep your character's data reasonably safe from hackers and the like.
When MMORPGs become more mainstream, I fully expect lawsuits to be fought over virtual property, and at some point I think the law will be changed to cope explicitly with these issues.
Re:Some experience (Score:2)
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Hang out with a bunch of drama majors at your local college and you'll see much weirder things than carrying yellow penguins.
From the inside of this group, it sure looks okay. I mean, from the inside it appears that everyone is doing it. However, if an outsider takes a look at this sort of behaviour ( 101 people walking around with yellow penguins while said penguins beat eachother up and shock eachother with tazers ) they'd get worried and sooner or later, all 101 of us would end up in the local funny farm.
Actually, what you've described is nowhere near as bizarre as the actions of some Society for Creative Anachronism groups. Nobody thinks twice about an SCA meeting and they mostly hit each other with rattan sticks and speak in Olde English.
Now apply this to a bunch of people who ARE their respective RP characters. From the inside it looks perfectly normal; Everyone else is doing it so it's probably okay, right? From an outside perspective, it's still scary as hell to see people going that far for something as simple as a game.
What you're missing is that it's all about context. Walking around in public trying to get non role players to interacts with your role playing is bizarre. Walking around a group of role players (real or virtual) and role playing with them isn't even unusual. You might think that some people overreact when something bad happens to their fictional character, but that's because the fictional character means nothing to you. Example: If one spent months tranferring all one's old Dr. Who episodes from video tape to MPEG captures, but then lost them when the drive crashed, one would likely be quite distressed. To an observer who doesn't care about Dr. Who and thinks also that videotape is an adequate medium, your reaction is totally bizarre. To him, you were wasting your time on a pointless project anyway, so why should you care so much when you lose evrything? Point is, you can't objectively measure the value of someone else's entertainment.
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Insightful)
What's own? Property is a social construct. Nothing
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Some experience (Score:3, Interesting)
The better real-world equivalent of insisting you're "Thorpe the Ranger" isn't walking around town at random with a penguin, it's more like walking around a raised platform claim
Re:Some experience (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviosuly have never talked to someone with a bad case of pagelepsy. When the pager goes off, you can see the attention drain from thier eyes as they consult thier small plastic master.
Technology is bringing all of the features of the virtual world to the real, the virtual world is just a bit ahead of our own in terms of feelings related to technology. Timeouts via pager are one example. Real life PK? Why that would be identity theft in my mind.
I don't feel good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mandatory Zero Wing Reference (Score:5, Funny)
Don't buy EA, for great justice.
obl pun (Score:5, Funny)
later, they started playing the game.
Hello... (Score:5, Funny)
"passion"ate (Score:2)
Internet Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Internet Anonymity - an experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick and easy confirmation: read Slashdot comments with your threshold at -1. Obviously, those morons wouldn't say the same face-to-face: too big risk for a tiny, stupid, reward.
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
Sublimation (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at any moralistically repressive system, and you see the worst crimes imaginable being perpetrated. There is no escape valve. What do you expect?
The classics of horror were written during the most repressed times, and hardly ever do you see horror expanding during times of war. Why bother when people are already acting out in real life?
And as it is for games. The mere fact people are acting in an anti-social fashion suggests a need. You _could_ play nice, but people choose not to. Isn't playing PARANOIA still a social event?
Casual evidence suggests this is a step away from criminal. Kick in the doors to people's minds, and they tend to kick back. And it isn't pretty.
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are anti-social *are* what's wrong with society. If you're not prepared to go out there and make a difference then that is disgusting.
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you retarded?? Society is the one who doesn't care about making a difference. Look around you. The people society calls geeks, outcasts, & losers are the real people who make a difference. Not all the jocks & preppies & mindless sheeple.
Wait a minute (Score:4, Interesting)
He's talking about antisocial behavior... sociopaths who prey on their fellow man and society in general. I happen to agree that those people are what's wrong with society, and that they should be appropriately sanctioned.
Now, those people can come from any social strata (you are making the mistake of equating social strata with social worth). Lots of working class joes volunteer at soup kitchens and work in their local churches... they probably do a lot more good (and proportionally give much more) than some upper-crust aristrocrat who throws a few thousand bucks at the problem and forgets about it. Social position doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a sociopath... and I think sociopaths in online games deserve the same banishment they get in society.
For instance, in addition to revoking accounts, I'd support some kind of game "jail" arrangement, or even something more appropriate to the period (in a fantasy-themed game, throw them in the stocks in the center of town and let the people abuse them... that might teach 'em).
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:2)
Re:Internet Anonymity (Score:3)
What do you mean by "go out there and make a difference"? That is such a morally neutral term. It can cover good and evil things. And I know a number of anti-social people who made the world much better for their presence.
Virtual Reality Games (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, it turned out to be different. It just turned out that huge, smart databases transformed MUDs and BBS games to have many real-world dynamics, and make the virtual world more exciting to some than the real world. And now they are forming relationships in the virtual world. Healthy for some, unhealthy for others.
But the success of different games over others shows that it's all about the gameplay.
What IS the goal of an mmog? (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of making large numbers of people interact could be many things; however the G part of MMPOG means game, thus you might expect peole to treat it as a game and try to win. Now most MMPOGS don't actually have a way to win, so players make up their own rules. For some, winning and "beating the system" are the same thing, or at least, the interesting thing since the AIs have always been too simple.
So while stalking and calling names etc is certainly uncalled for, messing with other people seems to be the whole point of most MMPOGS. With guild v guild and kingdom v kingdom and pvp, what do you expect but that people will be competitive. And competition means winners and loser, and in an MMPOG thats one winner and a thousand losers.
So the games bring it upon themselves in a way, the unhappy newbies being picked on by the powergaming kiddies. Thats what they are designed to do, deep down. And since the rules arent written down anywhere, and in fact change randomly, who is to say what is legal and what is not, really, if the game lets you do it, it must be legal unless they tell you otherwise, and even then like in sports, is it only not legal if the umpire notices?
Re:What IS the goal of an mmog? (Score:5, Interesting)
I will agree with you conditionally-- most MMOS do not make allowances for new players, instead expecting players to learn from the high-level 'masters'. Ultima Online is a key offender; anyone strong enough to teach you is, most likely, not going to because you have nothing to offer them. But in terms strictly of the PVP hierarchy, I do not recall a game at all in recent memory in which PVP was not 'opt-in'; meaning that new players, in general, are not going to be hunted by the big bad bastards.
It is my opinion that part of the monthly fee I pay for an online game is a payment for policing of the online world in which I participate. As long as I play by the rules and pay my money, my $13 a month or whatever not only keeps my character alive, it also guarantees that cheaters and joykilling bastards are quickly and efficiently removed as permanently as is possible (it is of course infeasible to expect that there will be no problems, but the taxes should at least be doing some good). So what is illegal in the game, whether or not you can do it, is illegal. Period. No exceptions, no excuses, no "it was legal yesterday!!" baloney.
Disconnect (Score:2)
There's where t
Re:What IS the goal of an mmog? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hard Core Addict (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets spookier (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Re:It gets spookier (Score:4, Informative)
On a smaller scale, you see things like that in Dark Age of Camelot pretty much every weekend. May only be a 100 or so on each of the three sides (there are three competing Realms in DAOC), but there are some tactics involved.
Kierthos
;e (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't they? Virtual or not, the games, our lives are run and designed by humans. People are people in all their glory and faults. If your looking for utpoia online your looking in the wrong place.
Re:;e (Score:5, Funny)
I've found utopia online
Re:;e (Score:5, Funny)
Because the first Matrix wasn't believable enough.
Player-defined societies (Score:5, Interesting)
The developers have created tests in each of seven 'disciplines' that are flexible enough to be solved a number of different ways. Though blind, malevolent ambition is one way to get things done, the populace seems to have gravitated toward mature, cooperative solutions. This might be partially because of the 'legal system', which allows any citizen to create a legal petition to punish certain behaviour or change certain game mechanics. If 2/3 of the population agrees with the petition (and it's feasible for the developers), that punishment or change is performed or coded into the game.
Respecting the players by giving them this sort of control over the fate of their own society is a risky thing to do for the company, but I think it's paid off. ATITD is by far the most interesting and challenging game I've ever enjoyed.
--Owen--
This is bound to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
I might add one exception I've found; puzzle pirates [puzzlepirates.com]. When I tried this game during the beta testing, I thought I'd accidentally connected to the wrong internet or something. In general the users are helpful and benign, and there's hardly a mention of 'I w1ll 0wnz0r j00 f4gg0t!!'.
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:5, Funny)
And now that you've posted the link on Slashdot, what do you think will happen?
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:2)
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:2)
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:2)
This is an excellent article. One of the most important points, I feel, that can be applied to this discussion is the fact that no online group is a democracy. All online gro
Re:This is bound to happen (Score:2)
EA is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
according to game theory and socialogy and physcology crime is just another way to play the game..the difference being is thqat for soem reason these grousp fo people do not normally have the correct tools to play the game in the correct way..
some choose criem to feed their family and etc..
by subtracting crime form the vr EA has set about to make the vr game unstudiable as far as human behaior..
It might be avaluable to have it thge other way
Re:EA is wrong (Score:2)
Re:EA is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
EA did not create their MMORPG so that people could study it. EA created their MMORPG so that they could make money.
Correct (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Different laws of the universe. Things just don't work the same. In real life you kill someone, that's it, they are gone and, near as anyone can tell, not comming back. In most games they just pop back up in a different spot and maybe come back to kill you. Because of this, the
Ummm... Alcohol?? (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, my friend, whom you don't know, told me he normally plays games while relaxing, late at night, sometimes real late... And during this relaxation period he may consume a few beverages which could hamper judgement...
So during this period of late night, beveraged game playing, he may do things that he may otherwise not do... or so he says...
This could also explain my, errr, his Karma...
(Whats really sad is I had to use google to make sure I spelt alcohol right, you'd think they would have that on the can somewhere)
New area for psychology (Score:5, Interesting)
And not just rules, but what cultural elements make for a stable society. Crime in MMOG may turn out to produce some quality information.
Perhaps games can alter society faster than wars.
Good, bad and non-PVP games (Score:5, Interesting)
Everquest avoided this altogether by simply disallowing players to take each other on. For many though, this leads to boredom. And boredom leads to trying to find ways around the restriction. Using exploits to affect other players indirectly (a form of hacking) is a game in itself.
Games like Dark Age of Camelot and Shadowbane were specificly designed for Player-vs-player combat from initial concept. While classes and levels are a disappointment to those seeking realism, they do allow excellent control of balance by placing some artificial limits on what abilities players can combine. Players attempt to tweak the characteristics of their characters for the best possible combination of features, but the games are becoming so complex now that if they are well-designed there will never be a single "best template" for any character. The best games of such type maximize both complexity and balance, allow players to beat up on each other, and preoccupy them with exploring the intended rules and not the unintended rules.
In the early days of UO, I recall that there were only two or three ways to develop a character for player-vs-player contests. Exploits were much more interesting, and use of them was considered "1337". In Shadowbane there are already so many interesting tactical and strategic avenues to pursue to get an edge over your opponents that using exploits seems positively childish. To label someone an exploiter is insulting.
vreeJack
trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
In the span of a few hundred million years, the Earth will become less and less habitable due to the expected changes to our giant stellar friend 1 AU away, and that's assuming an asteroid doesn't get us first. On this time scale, the evils of global terrorism, high crime rates, and world hunger are really trivial.
What good does it do if we stop terrorism, crime, and eliminate hunger, if we're still doomed to be completely annihilated in ~500 million years?
Okay, I know I'm going to take a hit on my karma for posting this, but the main reason for my post is to simply prove that it does no good to insult a pass-time that many gamers take seriously by calling aspects of its nature trivial in comparison to something else. Everything is trivial compared to the scenario I just described, just as indeed, I suppose video games are trivial compared to the concerns you described.
Now, would you go around telling people not to live their lives the way they do because we've only got ~500 million years left here on Earth? No, you wouldn't?
Then shut the hell up and let people enjoy a video game in whatever manner that wish, including taking its problems as serious as they wish to imagine them. It may not seem right, natural, or even healthy to you, but there are far worse things people can do with their time.
MMORPGs are an excellent way for the socially inept to form rather serious bonds of friendship, and end up living better lives because of it.
But I guess everyone should stop complaining about the faults of virtual worlds, or maybe stop playing in virtual worlds entirely, since it's so trivial in comparison to your examples. In fact, I think I'll turn in my Dark Age of Camelot account and join the police force right now! Thanks for your insight, buddy!
Re:trivial (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be a few thousand million years? The dinosaurs were around a few hundred million years ago, and that's practically recent on your astronomically intuited timescale.
TSG
Re:trivial (Score:2)
The stabilizing factor in the past was that if CO2 content got too low, then plants would start to die and release CO2. If it g
He mentioned nothing about SecondLife (Score:5, Informative)
In Second life, the content player create, is owned by the player [lindenlab.com] and not the company
This is totally against the grain of most online games where the company owns it all.
Additionally, they have started tying in real currency [lindenlab.com] to the in game currency. I know this not unique, as Project Entropia [project-entropia.com] does the same thing.
I personally hope this is the way games will go--giving ownership of virtual property to the players and allowing them to use it, sell it, convert for real $$$. I find these environments more enjoyable and rewarding that environments like Everquest [sony.com], where Sony pretty much owns you.
That doesn't really change the fundimental system (Score:4, Interesting)
That's what people seem to misunderstand about MMORPGs. They are services. You agree to pay the company a monthly fee an abide by some rules, they agree to let you use their servers to play a game. However, the servers and the game that runs on it belongs to them. They can allow you to do what they wish, such as sell your virtual goods, but they can make changes to how that works at any time. A less severe example than discontiniing the service would simple be altering the game balance.
So let's say you work really hard to get a really rare item. You hang on to it, as it is appreciating in real value. However the game company meanwhile is evaluating the balance, and decided these items are simply too powerful, and so they change the stats on all of these items in the world, including yours. All of a sudden, your item isn't worth much. Or maybe, they just remove it from the game entirely.
So no matter how nice they are about letting you auction your stuff in game, ultimately, they own it all. If they decide to discontinue service or make changes, sorry, that's just how it goes.
Spoiling the game (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this different? Why do people think it's okay to ruin the game for other players? What about their rights? They have paid good money to play (real money) and enjoy the game. This is like someone who talks through the movie.
And this is happening in LOTS of games too, even Rainbow Six 3. I encountered some moron who though it was funny to stand in front of a door half way through the mission so we (the other players) couldn't complete it. Where did this guy get off? I just don't get it, spend all the money om an online game, just to ruin it for everyone one else playing. Okay the damage done was small, we moved off that server and contiuned, not so easy with other games, but still annoying.
Why can't we all just play the game and get along?
Re:Spoiling the game (Score:2, Informative)
Human nature (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that the game is too close to reality, but in order to keep interest, it must maintain an illusion of certain aspects of reality, otherwise participants will either play only from time to time (as in a hobby) or realize that there is more to life than online gaming and find something better to do. Obviously game manufacturers make more money if more people play more often.
So we find scenarios in games where people form friendships and close relationships. We find cases where the "love" between two individuals is just as strong as in real life, and the consequences of breaking trust just as severe. We find cases where people have real envy, because the game creators create the illusion that there really is something worth envying. We find cases where people become attached to the things they "own" -- when they really own nothing.
Unless human nature is suspended during the course of the game, it's no surprise that crimes and other perversions will happen. And if that happens the game becomes no more interesting than tic-tac-toe or a first-person shooter.
That's probably why some people won't be in heaven (Score:3, Funny)
And people ask why God sends people to hell. I bet there's a limit to trying to change people against their will (given free will, and people being made in the image of God).
Perhaps hell is you, playing alone, for eternity.
I made $12,000 in 3 months off EQ (Score:5, Interesting)
Fact of life/fake reality: The masses will never have access to the elite items in the game because they either don't have the ability to kill the mobs to get the items. They must either obtain it through "hand me downs" or buy it.
I made this possible for ANYONE in the game to get elite level loot. To give you an idea most people in everquest never see more than 20,000pp at one time in their bank account. Through luck and the situation I was in and the character class I was I could obtain almost anything people wanted in Planes of Power.
First, off all loot I obtained and sold was MINE and obtained solo without any assistance. I'm not one of the infamous earthbow sellers (if you don't know you don't need to know.
EQ has never been known to make the best decisions when changing how characters work and when releasing new expansions. Luclin... was a pathetic excuse... I'm not goign there. The first good decision was Planes of Power. The elite guilds needed a challenge and the rest of the game was nothing now.
99% of the Everquest world was alienated by their decision to please the elite guilds. There were around 20 zones or areas if you will. You could access 3 right off but had to beat certain mobs and get "flagged" to continue on. http://everquest.station.sony.com/power/ for more details.
Like I was saying, this basically alienated 99% of the people who play from continuing on. Unless you were highly organized and
A few items to mention are quest clothing/armor which would make your old armor look like a tin foil suit. Also bloodmetal earrings. This one was one of the most incredible items that ANYONE could wear. However, 99% of EQ had no access to it. Being an enchanter I can charm mobs and as it turns out I could charm a certain mob that could obliterate the rest of it's kin by simply giving it another weapon, hasting it by 70% and slowing the one it's attacking down. 1/5 dropped the gem needed for this earring. The rest of the pieces were trivial to obtain and so I started making these earrings.
Low and behold I was pumping them out like crazy to my guild. Then one of the people I knew in game offered me 70,000pp for one of these earrings. Since I'd been using my own materials and time to obtain and make these I was like sure. So bam, 70,000pp. Then i thought... geez... I always wanted a horse so I sold another and had 140,000pp. Mind you this is like making $100,000 in 2 days in the EQ world. I bought my horse and continued to collect the gems. I started to give half to my guild and sell the other half and sometimes I'd watch the auction channel and I'd see an old friend or someone I've heard of who was having a really bad time trying to make money to get something they want and I'd just give them an earring. I lost count of how many I gave away. Think of it. I was the only one the the EQ world who really knew about it and I was giving them away.
I mean, they weren't giving me anything to give the guild items. I didn't have to do it at all so I kept a few and soon amased over 1million plat in less than a week. About this time the need for "dummy" accounts came into play. That is, mage accounts that we can place all over the EQ world and use them to Summon us past a lot of wasted time. The problem was noone wanted to pay for these. I happened to know someone who bought platinum and sent my guild leader to him and thus it began. It's how we paid for 14 mage accounts that basically let us fly by any other guild that was trying to get mobs that dropped elite loot. It was fun, though bullish, but that's part of the EQ world. You MUST be like that or be walked over. Even the GM's wouldn't so anything. But typically if
Re:I made $12,000 in 3 months off EQ (Score:4)
I don't play the online games anymore so I don't have as much of a stake in it these days, but my initial reaction from your description is no, I don't think I would hate you.
Unless you cheated, hacked into the system, used security exploits -- which it sounds like you didn't -- then you were simply "playing the system". The game rules allow you to do all this so you did it. Many people play real life systems this way. I know I do come April when I try to squeeze the biggest refund legally possible from the IRS.
To anyone here playing EQ: If the methods that this person used are considered "unfair" to anyone else here playing EQ, just remember to direct your bile towards the people that designed the game and allowed things like this to happen, not at the people that use the system according to the rules.
Re:I made $12,000 in 3 months off EQ (Score:2)
Re:I made $12,000 in 3 months off EQ (Score:4, Funny)
I don't like how it sound... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm making a game called utopia (yes, it's a rant) (Score:2, Interesting)
This game will ship on time, be under budget, work flawlessly the first time, and be programmed by american programmers. No one will hack it, because it will be such a small and
Re:I'm making a game called utopia (yes, it's a ra (Score:2)
All your base are belong to us (Score:3, Insightful)
The only record of my money in the bank is digital. If I take some of that money and play the stock market, I can do so by just transferring it. If I make money, it goes back into my digital account.
Does this mean I don't own my money? Hmmm...
Who cares if it's virtual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, just as in the real world someone elses hapiness may depend on my being unhappy. But traditionally the line has been drawn there: the one overtly trying to mess with others loses.
So, to reiterate: virtual shmitual. You mess with people, you pay the price.
Cheers.
Check EBay for UO Goods (Score:4, Interesting)
Gods aren't subject to democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think of game makers as just people who own a virtual world. Since they created this "common space", that would kind of make them god. As god, they can conntrol, change and do to that world as they see fit. And if you piss god off, he will smite you.
It's a teaching tool (Score:4, Funny)
Sorta like self defense classes
High crime rates?? (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't new (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it just depends on what sort of game you are looking for. Some people want to play cooperatively against the computer. Some people want to have a virtual world, where competition between players is a strong part of that. Different games will appeal to different crowds.
The mud I used to play and really liked, had a very realistic feel to it. If you wandered into the wilderness, and fought something too hard for you to handle, you died. When you died, you started over with a new character. That's it, game over. Very harsh, but more realistic.
If you got stolen from by another character, you lost things. That's the way it goes. But, if they got caught, the soldiers would throw them in jail, and a templar would likely take all of their things. If they got caught murdering people, they were killed on sight by the guards. And the guards were pretty tough. You could get tough enough to take one, or maybe two if you were really good, but 4 or more would team you to death.
So there was crime, but if you stuck to the safe areas, that were heavily patrolled, you could successfully play a very non-competative character, where social interaction was all there was to the game. But for those that liked the seedy life, they could venture into the slums or the lawless wilderness.
There is a lot of potential to MMO Games. You just have to know what you want from one, and wht the designers have created to accomadate that.
EA's Attitude and PK vs non-PK (Score:3, Interesting)
EA owns your gold, your swords, your characters - they are all just digital bits. If your entertainment is to destroy other peoples' entertainment, you're going to be tossed."
is just trash. I really can't stand them or anything I've bought from them recently. I'm not buying anything made by them this year. Not that they will care...
One thing I never understood about PvP vs Non-PvPers, why don't the non-PvP or social type people ever team up? It's like, most grief players are so anti-social they only have a few friends online, and most of the social type people run around in these huge cliques. Instead of securing a town or two and just PKing anyone that causes trouble they just whine to the GM's.
I don't understand the point of most MMO's nowadays anyway, the reason I would play a MMO is to get away from the real world. Who wants to play a MMO with a bunch of rules on how you have to act, and what you can and can't say. Shouldn't a game be about freedom?