When last year Edward Castronova argued on Terra Nova that Horde characters in World of Warcraft are evil, he was widely ridiculed. There is no "evil" in World of Warcraft, players of either faction are constantly on quests that are helping somebody else. Whether you are a holy paladin or a demon-summoning warlock, it doesn't change the way in which you help the farmer get the deed to his farm back from the evil bandits. There is no moral choice, no option to sell the deed to the highest bidder instead of returning it for a lousy reward. Even the undead are "good" undead, fighting the evil scourge undead.
If a game like Black & White, or Knights of the Old Republic, or Fable, gives you the option to play good or evil, that is just a thinly disguised way to enable you to play the game twice. You chose evil or good by what you think is more useful to beat the game, and then if you play it again, you chose the other side, just to see something new. It is not a moral choice, but a tactical one. We don't feel that burning down a virtual village in a game world and killing the inhabitants is an evil act, after all those are just colored pixels that don't feel anything. Advancing in the game is the most important, even that means that in the next mission we have to throw Napalm on that Vietnamese village to continue.
All that ends us in a total inability between gamers and anti-game advocates or politicians to understand each other. The gamer picks up minor points that the criticism got wrong, like "there are no points in GTA for shooting and raping hookers", and fails to see that the criticism otherwise wasn't all that unjustified. Most of what you do in GTA *is* a depiction of very, very evil behavior. By the time you finished the game you have committed more crimes than any known peace-time gangster. The anti-gamer fails to see that all these crimes are virtual, and don't lead to you going out and doing the same in real life.
"Evil" has become a joke. In Dragon Quest 8 one of the heroes has a special combat move with whirling axes, called "Axes of Evil", har, har, nice joke on George Bush. But I wonder if all this making light of evil, all this gaming without true moral choices, is not making the medium of video games poorer. Fact is that in the real world there is real evil, guys like Sadam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, or Robert Mugabe aren't just "misunderstood". And evil isn't limited to crazy dictators, there are people everywhere that like to be cruel to others. And ordinary people have to make hard moral choices sometimes, between good and evil. Previous entertainment media understood that, and made good and evil a major recurring theme in many books and movies. Only video games present the end of evil, a world in which neither good nor evil matters, where "evil" is just a thin plot element to explain why you as the hero have to go out and kill that boss. We end up with players in online games doing evil things that actually hurt real people, if just in a minor way, and not even realizing the difference. GTA won't turn anybody into a mass murderer, but it is hard to believe that hundreds of hours of inconsequential evil and violence should have no effect whatsoever on how you perceive evil and violence in the real world.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Traffic report
June 30, the last day of the first half of the year. So I'm checking how the traffic on this blog developed over the past months, and the growth is astounding. I had more hits in this half year than in all the time from 2003 to 2005.
Instead of 2,500 average visitors per month in the last half of the previous year I had an average of about 5 times that per month in the first half of this year, with the month of June seeing 20,000 visitors.
Despite these large numbers, the readers I value most are the small handful of faithful who read my blog regularly, and who are leaving feedback in the comments.
Instead of 2,500 average visitors per month in the last half of the previous year I had an average of about 5 times that per month in the first half of this year, with the month of June seeing 20,000 visitors.Despite these large numbers, the readers I value most are the small handful of faithful who read my blog regularly, and who are leaving feedback in the comments.
Wifi on the train
Yesterday I spent half an hour on a train in northern England. And there I found out that the local railway company GNER is now offering Wifi on their trains. As I had my laptop with me, of course I had to try that.
The result was mixed. Half an hour of Wifi cost me £2.95 ($5.35), which isn't the most horrendous charge I've seen, but still not cheap. And then the connection was rather slow, and sometimes just stopped. Still I managed to make a move in Travian, and to read my e-mail. But I wanted to write this blog entry *on* the train, and couldn't get connected. For 5 minutes I couldn't get anywhere, and then I got a slow connection again when approaching my final destination, and it was too late to blog.
I'm sure that with time we will see more Wifi connections in public transport. I've heard they are working on solutions to offer Wifi in planes, which for intercontinental flights would be really nice. But right now Wifi coverage both mobile and at places like train stations or airports is still patchy, and often too expensive.
The result was mixed. Half an hour of Wifi cost me £2.95 ($5.35), which isn't the most horrendous charge I've seen, but still not cheap. And then the connection was rather slow, and sometimes just stopped. Still I managed to make a move in Travian, and to read my e-mail. But I wanted to write this blog entry *on* the train, and couldn't get connected. For 5 minutes I couldn't get anywhere, and then I got a slow connection again when approaching my final destination, and it was too late to blog.
I'm sure that with time we will see more Wifi connections in public transport. I've heard they are working on solutions to offer Wifi in planes, which for intercontinental flights would be really nice. But right now Wifi coverage both mobile and at places like train stations or airports is still patchy, and often too expensive.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
WoW paid character transfer started
The paid character transfer from one World of Warcraft server to another went live. Conditions are found in the official FAQ. But up to now this only works on the US servers, and the list of eligible realms is still rather short.
Blizzard is obviously still a bit unsure about how much demand there will be, so they are phasing in the service slowly.
Blizzard is obviously still a bit unsure about how much demand there will be, so they are phasing in the service slowly.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
WoW Journal - 28-Jun-2006
Not much to report today, except that I finally found a good group for the Stockades and managed to do all the quests I had there. The only quest I didn't do is the one that starts in the Wetlands, because it has a stupid level 30 elite quest as prerequisite to be allowed to go on a level 25 dungeon quest. So I guess I'm finished with the Stockades, it is one of the most boring dungeons in World of Warcraft. And I never found any blue loot in there. Next stop: Blackfathom Deeps, a dungeon with a lot more character, and much better loot.
In other news my priest made level 26 by handing in the quests, and he will remain there until the weekend. This evening and tomorrow I'll be out on a short business trip to Newcastle. I hope the hotel has internet access and I can at least make a move or two in Travian, but I certainly won't have the time to play WoW on the laptop.
In other news my priest made level 26 by handing in the quests, and he will remain there until the weekend. This evening and tomorrow I'll be out on a short business trip to Newcastle. I hope the hotel has internet access and I can at least make a move or two in Travian, but I certainly won't have the time to play WoW on the laptop.
Nintendo wins console wars
For christmas I am going to buy a Playstation 3 for myself. I'll buy it because it is backward compatible with library of PS2 games, and because the Playstation historically has the best selection of strategy games and role-playing games, and I expect the PS3 to follow the same trend. I want to play Final Fantasy XIII on the PS3! But at the same time I am aware that I am not a typical consumer. I'm adult, have a good job, and spending $600 for the better version of the PS3 console isn't killing me. The average consumer will be a lot more price sensitive.
The XBOX 360 in the better version (with hard drive) costs $400.
The Wii will cost "less than $250", lets say $200.
Now if you were a parent with your children pestering you for new game console, and a tight budget, would you buy the console for $200, the console for $400, or the console for $600? The PS3 just isn't a simple game console anymore, it is a complete home entertainment system with Blue-Ray DVD player, online capabilities, and everything. Most people simply don't need all of that, thus they will buy the console that they understand, and which is affordable. And that is the Wii. By the end of 2008, unless Nintendo has production problems, the Wii will have outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Nintendo wins this round of the console wars.
The XBOX 360 in the better version (with hard drive) costs $400.
The Wii will cost "less than $250", lets say $200.
Now if you were a parent with your children pestering you for new game console, and a tight budget, would you buy the console for $200, the console for $400, or the console for $600? The PS3 just isn't a simple game console anymore, it is a complete home entertainment system with Blue-Ray DVD player, online capabilities, and everything. Most people simply don't need all of that, thus they will buy the console that they understand, and which is affordable. And that is the Wii. By the end of 2008, unless Nintendo has production problems, the Wii will have outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Nintendo wins this round of the console wars.
Individual vs. Guild
Alan was writing me about an interesting subject, the tension that sometimes arises between the general good of a guild, and the wishes of the individual guild member. That happens most often when raiding, when it turns out that the perfect raid group and the reality of people actually showing up are two very different things.
The perfect raid guild has exactly 40 members, with a perfect mix of classes, and all of these members turn up punctually for every raid and never have to leave early. Hands up who knows such a guild. Nobody? Thought so!
The first problem for a raid is getting 40 people together at all. Now if your guild only has 40 members, you can be sure that less than 40 will turn up. Not everybody can raid every night. So what most guilds do is having more guild members eligible for raiding than raiding slots, in the hope that 40 of them will turn up for the raid. If just 38 or so turn up, that is still okay, but if you fall below 30 you might have problems with encounters that would be easy for 40. The problem starts when more than 40 people turn up for the raid, because then somebody has to decide who goes and who can't go.
Most guilds have some sort of sign-up system, either on their website, or using addons like the Guild Event Manager GEM. So if in doubt, the first 40 people to sign up get a spot in the raid. Unfortunately that isn't ideal either. Why should somebody who just happened to be around when the raid entry was put on the calendar have priority over somebody who happened to not log on that day? Besides sign-up systems lead to perverse incentives, people signing up "just in case", and then not showing up for the raid, while somebody who would have had time didn't sign up, because the raid was shown as full. The next problem is what to do if among the first 40 people that signed up there are 10 hunters and not a single priest. If more than 40 people show up on time for the raid, it might be better for the guild as a whole to take some priest from the waiting list in preference over some hunter who signed up early.
Probably a better system is a blind sign-up system, where nobody gets a guaranteed spot. When the raid begins, the raid leader has to make some tough choices based on optimum class mix, competence of the players, who signed up when, and who didn't get a spot in the last raid. Very difficult to handle, but unless somebody comes up with a brilliant raid-spot-distribution point system, there is no easy way. Actually I find raid-slot distribution more difficult than loot distribution.
A related problem pits the player's right to play what he wants against the guild's need of certain classes. I have both a level 60 warrior and a level 60 priest, but as the guild usually has a lot more warriors than priests in any raid, it would create some tension if I would chose to bring my warrior. And imagine if a guild's main tank declares that now that he is full epic, he doesn't have any interest in coming to raids with his warrior any more, but wants to come with his rogue alt.
World of Warcraft raiding guilds are often more a confederation by necessity, than a band of brothers. Churn rates are high, and few people are willing to put their individual goals behind the greater good of the guild. That is only logical if they don't know if they will be with the same guild in half a year. On the one side a guild needs to be fair to everybody, because otherwise people simply leave. On the other side a raid leader needs to be able to take decisions like who to invite with a view to maximizing the raid's chance of success, and not only on perceived "fairness". The more people learn to trust each other, and to look out for the good of the guild, the easier it becomes. A guild full of egoists is bound for failure.
The perfect raid guild has exactly 40 members, with a perfect mix of classes, and all of these members turn up punctually for every raid and never have to leave early. Hands up who knows such a guild. Nobody? Thought so!
The first problem for a raid is getting 40 people together at all. Now if your guild only has 40 members, you can be sure that less than 40 will turn up. Not everybody can raid every night. So what most guilds do is having more guild members eligible for raiding than raiding slots, in the hope that 40 of them will turn up for the raid. If just 38 or so turn up, that is still okay, but if you fall below 30 you might have problems with encounters that would be easy for 40. The problem starts when more than 40 people turn up for the raid, because then somebody has to decide who goes and who can't go.
Most guilds have some sort of sign-up system, either on their website, or using addons like the Guild Event Manager GEM. So if in doubt, the first 40 people to sign up get a spot in the raid. Unfortunately that isn't ideal either. Why should somebody who just happened to be around when the raid entry was put on the calendar have priority over somebody who happened to not log on that day? Besides sign-up systems lead to perverse incentives, people signing up "just in case", and then not showing up for the raid, while somebody who would have had time didn't sign up, because the raid was shown as full. The next problem is what to do if among the first 40 people that signed up there are 10 hunters and not a single priest. If more than 40 people show up on time for the raid, it might be better for the guild as a whole to take some priest from the waiting list in preference over some hunter who signed up early.
Probably a better system is a blind sign-up system, where nobody gets a guaranteed spot. When the raid begins, the raid leader has to make some tough choices based on optimum class mix, competence of the players, who signed up when, and who didn't get a spot in the last raid. Very difficult to handle, but unless somebody comes up with a brilliant raid-spot-distribution point system, there is no easy way. Actually I find raid-slot distribution more difficult than loot distribution.
A related problem pits the player's right to play what he wants against the guild's need of certain classes. I have both a level 60 warrior and a level 60 priest, but as the guild usually has a lot more warriors than priests in any raid, it would create some tension if I would chose to bring my warrior. And imagine if a guild's main tank declares that now that he is full epic, he doesn't have any interest in coming to raids with his warrior any more, but wants to come with his rogue alt.
World of Warcraft raiding guilds are often more a confederation by necessity, than a band of brothers. Churn rates are high, and few people are willing to put their individual goals behind the greater good of the guild. That is only logical if they don't know if they will be with the same guild in half a year. On the one side a guild needs to be fair to everybody, because otherwise people simply leave. On the other side a raid leader needs to be able to take decisions like who to invite with a view to maximizing the raid's chance of success, and not only on perceived "fairness". The more people learn to trust each other, and to look out for the good of the guild, the easier it becomes. A guild full of egoists is bound for failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)