Slashdot Mirror
MMO Gaming - Virtually Too Real?
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."
I'm assuming that the game was Lineage, as it's the (IIRC) most popular one over there. It isn't the only game that you see things like that in, but given the relatively high percentage (4%) of South Koreans who play it, it's probably the best example. (And before someone says that 4% isn't that high, if 4% of U.S. citizens played EQ, that would be a player base of 11.6 million, as opposed to the roughly 500,000 they actually have.)
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
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
In Second life, the content player create, is owned by the player 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 to the in game currency. I know this not unique, as Project Entropia 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, where Sony pretty much owns you.
You will always meet maladjusted people. IRL you can always dial 911. In games what can you do? Your answer was to go to another server. That may have been the only answer. Other games have more complex answers, but until you can dial 911 and have an intelligent person show up with the power and authority to enforce real justice, your only options are to either suffer or form your own police force. Fortunately I play a game which effectively captures the latter concept. In fact, that is probably a good starting point for a Massive Player-vs-player design.
vreeJack
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
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.
The reason UO was so different was BECAUSE it had player killing and thieves. Believe it or not, these actually balanced the economy and prevented a flood of gold. As soon as the "safe-world" was introduced, there was massive and endless inflation that persists today. When there is a common threat, there is more incentive to band together for the common good. I'd rather slay thieves and murderers than a dragon that will just respawn. And the risk of losing items or gold just makes victory sweeter when I mount their head on my wall.