Slashdot Mirror


eGenesis to Develop New MMO with Orson Scott Card

Johnathon Walls writes "eGenesis, makers of the non-combat, world-building massively multiplayer online (MMO) game "A Tale in the Desert" versions 1 and 2, has signed a deal with Orson Scott Card (author of Ender's game and The Seventh Son) to develop the pre-Civil War American world of "Alvin the Maker" into a new MMO. This is also going to be a non-combat-centered, community-building world. Questions remain as to the amount of interest these non-combat games generate, and concerns about the rapidly dropping population of Tale 2 (a steady decline from 2089 subscribers on Sep 26 to 1582 subscribers on Jan 6) really bring this issue to the forefront."

21 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Great, but... by Lonesome+Squash · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's a great, rich, and compelling world, and I loved the books. But I quail at the thought of all those people getting some twisted view of American history.

    On the other hand, it can't be much worse than what they got in high school.

    --
    Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
  2. But will it translate into a worthwhile product? by Bahumat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Caveat: I'm a raving fanboy of Orson Scott Card's *writing*.

    That being said, as much as I adore the Alvin Maker series, I'm not sure how that will translate into an MMORPG. Ultimately all such games require conflict as much as cooperation, and without combat, conflict feels lacking in many such games.

    Issues of product aside, I'm hoping Orson Scott Card reaps fantastic gobs of money for the license for the stories/setting, as his work certainly is worth it.

    --
    "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
  3. Re:But will it translate into a worthwhile product by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Caveat: I'm a raving fanboy of Orson Scott Card's *writing*.
    I like OSC's *fiction*. Some of his *writing* is downright scary (EG, his infamous homophobic screed).

    It boggles my mind as to how a member of one oft-persecuted minority group (Mormons) can justify persecuting another minority group.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  4. Focus by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never really understood how a MMO would work if based off a "super hero" world. Basicly, this MMO will be set in an alternative world of a godlike Joseph Smith. What's the angle; everyone starts their own church? Can we all sit around and translate plates hidden in a hat? Are we suposed to work together to cross Hatrack River or cut diseased bone from Joseph's (excuse me, Alvin's) leg?

    Seriously, why do people buy into Alvin's story? It's just a fantasized retelling of Joseph Smith's life.

    And OSC's Homecoming Series was basicly a rewritten account of The Book of Mormon.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    1. Re:Focus by fitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You want a funny moderation or something?

      I could rewrite Hitler's autobiography, but use the name "Bob" everywhere that Hitler's is used, but set it in an alternate Earth and the date as 1400AD and it would still be a retold Hitler's life story. The fact that the setting is before or after the real one does nothing to break the tie between the two.

  5. Re:Community building games by CountZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > No game or hobby that requires dozens of hours per week to achieve and kind of success is ever very popular. Life is too full things to do.

    I guess you've never heard of Everquest?

    Five+ years and still going strong with over 400,000 subscribers.

    To "achieve success" in EverQuest, the top guilds (ie: the successful guilds) raid ~5 hours a night, 5+ days a week (ie: avg 25 hours a week, which qualifies as "dozens")

    But it's not very popular....

    And thats just a game example, you included "hobby" as well.

    I can think of many hobbies that are very popular, and also require dozens of hours a week to be "successful" at. Open Source software, anyone? Model Railroading? Quilting? Hell what about "Prime Time Television Watching"? Now there's a hobby that millions spend 40+ hours a week doing, but I guess it's not popular.

  6. Re:For those of you by rackhamh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hogwash. They are both excellent books in their own right.

    Ender's Game will always hold a special place in the hearts of those who read it as children and could instantly relate to Ender's character (in the introduction to later versions of the novel, Card discusses the many letters he received to this effect).

    You may prefer SFTD, but that doesn't make Ender's Game a waste of time on its own. I had read Ender's Game several times already, and loved it every time, before I ever touched the rest of the series.

  7. Pre-Civil War? by oneiron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does that mean it will have slave trading? That would be strange. I guess you could ignore that piece of history for the sake of the game. That would be a little strange, also.

  8. OT - disapproval is not a phobia by tbird20d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As is customary on SlashDot, disapproval of homosexuality is equated with homophobia. One can disagree with something, and even speak against it, without fearing it (at least in the phobic sense).

  9. Sorry, dude, he saw you coming. by Fished · · Score: 3, Insightful
    And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill. (from http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1 .html)
    One need not be a "homophobe" to have serious reservations about the ethics of homosexual practice. One need not be a "homophobe" to feel that marriage is an institution designed to provide for the having and rearing of children. One need not be a "homophobe" in order to feel that a two-parent, heterosexaul household provides children with the best opportunity of developing positive relationships with men AND women.

    "Homophobe" and "homophobic" are nothing but name-calling - terms used to avoid engaging serious discussion on a topic that the new liberal orthodoxy has declared decided, even as the vast bulk of Americans simply disagree.

    As far as your comparison of Homosexuals and Mormons - are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between religious faith and sexual practice? Are you seriously suggesting that we have a freedom of sexual practice comparable to our freedom of religious conviction? Are you seriously under the delusion that the status of homosexuality as a civil rights issue rather than a moral issue is settled?

    The bottom line is that YOU are the innovator here, not Card. To act as though he must, necessarily, agree with your orthodoxy when your orthodoxy has thrown the orthodoxy of 30 years ago out the window, and that any failure to do so must only be because he is "homophobic", is downright insulting.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Sorry, dude, he saw you coming. by MKalus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      One need not be a "homophobe" to have serious reservations about the ethics of homosexual practice.


      What is unethical about it? Seriously, two people consent, so what is the unethical thing about it?

      One need not be a "homophobe" to feel that marriage is an institution designed to provide for the having and rearing of children.


      Interestingly enough you don't need to be married to get a woman pregnant. Thus the logic: Marriage == Children does not compute.

      One need not be a "homophobe" in order to feel that a two-parent, heterosexaul household provides children with the best opportunity of developing positive relationships with men AND women


      Why? If there is only one Gender present does that mean the kid will never have any interaction with the "other" sex?

      "Homophobe" and "homophobic" are nothing but name-calling - terms used to avoid engaging serious discussion on a topic that the new liberal orthodoxy has declared decided, even as the vast bulk of Americans simply disagree.


      I am always curious about the "vast part" that is stated.

      Even if you look at the states that enacted laws against same sex marriage, if you look at the overall voter turnout it doesn't seem to be the majority: Or differently: The majority of people just don't seem to care, one way or the other.

      As far as your comparison of Homosexuals and Mormons - are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between religious faith and sexual practice? Are you seriously suggesting that we have a freedom of sexual practice comparable to our freedom of religious conviction? Are you seriously under the delusion that the status of homosexuality as a civil rights issue rather than a moral issue is settled?


      Ah, now there's a catch 22.

      If Homosexuality is a CHOICE then it would be falling in the same part as religion, thus the religious right who talks of a homosexual agenda might be right and you can have your moral discussion.

      BUT, if you do NOT have a choice, if it is genetic, if you are "made" that way (by god, the genes, whatever), then it clearly falls into the civil / human rights category, if that's the case than there won't be any moral discussion, because they do not at amoral, as they were "made" that way.

      Pick your poision, how ever you want to twist it you can't get out of it. They win.

      The bottom line is that YOU are the innovator here, not Card. To act as though he must, necessarily, agree with your orthodoxy when your orthodoxy has thrown the orthodoxy of 30 years ago out the window, and that any failure to do so must only be because he is "homophobic", is downright insulting.


      Then tell me: What is his motivation? If he is not "homophobic" if he isn't "afraid" of the homosexual men and women out there, if it isn't a distaste for their "lifestyle", then what is it that makes him say those things?
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    2. Re:Sorry, dude, he saw you coming. by madefaction · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One need not be a "homophobe" to have serious reservations about the ethics of homosexual practice.

      Yes you do. Please, if you have any rational basis as to why it is immoral to be gay then please enlighten me. Also, when you describe being homosexual as a 'practice' you are subscribing to the line that being homosexual is something you do and thus something you CHOOSE to do, which is where ethical and moralistic judgements are born. What people like you cannot apparently fathom is that being homosexual does not just mean ass fucking. To you, being homosexual as opposed to being heterosexual is simply a matter of choosing between ass fucking and pussy fucking. This is an absurd notion. Please, get your mind out of the gutter and stop thinking about ass fucking when adults are discussing important issues like freedom of religion and equal rights.

      One need not be a "homophobe" to feel that marriage is an institution designed to provide for the having and rearing of children.

      Valid argument, but just because you 'feel' that marriage is an istitution deesigned for having and rearing children doesn't make it so.

      One need not be a "homophobe" in order to feel that a two-parent, heterosexaul household provides children with the best opportunity of developing positive relationships with men AND women.

      Yes it does, unless you can cite real and rational evidence to back that up. I doubt that you can do so with legitamate sources. Otherwise, your notion that being raised by homosexuals is 'bad for the children' is based purely on your antipathy to homosexuals ... which is the definition of homophobia. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homophobia)

      (this is a duplicate post)

    3. Re:Sorry, dude, he saw you coming. by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is unethical about it? Seriously, two people consent, so what is the unethical thing about it?

      Is everything that two people consent to necessarily ethical? If I consent to you killing me, does that automatically make your killing of me ethical? If someone likes being beaten choked to the virge of death during sex (and there are some who do, and a few die of it) does that mean that choking oneself during sex is not aberrant behavior? You are viewing morality through an individualistic lens - you are assuming that, for something to be immoral, it must necessarily hurt some individual.

      This is not (necessarily) an incorrect position, but it is important that you understand that it is strictly a modern position. Prior to recent times, moral standards were regarded througha communitarian lens. Something could be regarded as harmful to the community even if those participating had no problem with it and there was no direct, discernible effect on anyone else.

      The bottom line is that the prohibition against exclusive homosexuality is not a recent, Christian phenomenon. It has been present in virtually all cultures, at all times, in all places. Even the Greeks, whom gay advocates like to cite as proof that rejection of homosexuality is not universal, did not practice anything like what todays gay movement advocates. "Gay marriage" was simply never an issue. One married for progeny (consider, for example, Alexander, who was "queer" as the proverbial three dollar bill, but who nevertheless married, had a mistress, and had children) - one engaged in gay sex as a fling. Moreover, in both Greek and Roman culture, it was regarded as very shameful to play the "female" part in gay sex. There was no sense in which homosexuality was regarded as an alternative to heterosexuality - instead, it was regarded as a fling, something that one did when young and with the young. (And, frankly, if you look up any authoritative source on this you will find this out. I'm not makign this up.)

      The point is that you can't find any culture, anywhere, that practiced the kind of homosexuality that gay rights folks advocate today. There never has been gay marriage, because gay marriage made no sense when gay sex was just a fling and the absurd notion of "orientation" had not yet been invented. And I challenge you to cite a *single* counter-example.

      Furthermore, it is evident that "gay marriage" - at least among male homosexuals - is not equivalent to heterosexual marraige in an important respect. Namely, it is rarely, if ever, monogamous. This has been borne out by so many studies that it is proven, and it has even been admitted by gay advocates in some forums. Gay marriages tend to define monogamy in emotional terms rather than physical terms.

      Finally, there is overwhelming eviedence, which the gay press willfully ignores, that homosexual orientation can be changed. Here are a few representative, published, peer-reviewed articles to prove the point.

      Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Oct;32(5):403-17; discussion 419-72. Related Articles, Links

      Comment in:

      * Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Oct;32(5):399-402.
      * Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Apr;33(2):83-4; author reply 84-5.
      * Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Aug;33(4):325.

      Click here to read
      Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.

      Spitzer RL.

      Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York 10032, USA. rls8@columbia.edu

      Position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as "reparative therapy." This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexu

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    4. Re:Sorry, dude, he saw you coming. by benna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you seriously suggesting that we have a freedom of sexual practice comparable to our freedom of religious conviction?

      Yes.

      For many years the majority of the population was pro-slavery. The abolitionist movement started with very few people, and grew from there.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  10. Re:Recommended reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did you actually READ that essay, or just grab the title? Because he repeatedly states that -his religion- disallows homosexuality, but that it also disallows extramarital behaviour the like. If you disagree with someone's religion, that's fine; but state that fact up front instead of pretending there's a flaw in his WRITING capability.

  11. Re:A MMO I'd definately try and probably like by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand what you mean, but I have trouble with the idea that you should be able to get into a duel and then talk in the middle of it.

    If you're fighting for your life, and have time to think of witty comebacks, you're probably about to get shot or stabbed for not concentrating.

    Have you never seen a swashbuckler? Three Musketeers? One of the old Errol Flynn movies? Witty banter is a necessity for dueling! Let the sharpest tongue win!

    My favorite implementation of dueling in computer games is still "Curse of Monkey Island"; you have to figure out the correct witty comeback in order to win your duels. It's one of the best (or at least most amusing) puzzles I've ever seen.

    MMOs have very few of the puzzles and riddles that you find in (some) MUDs or the interactive fiction games. They have abandoned a key element of RP computer games (and PnP games) that keep people interested, amused, and engaged. It's a key reason they quickly feel like a grind.

    .
  12. Re:Nice rationalizations, there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you realize that you just managed to fulfil a prediction? He just quoted Card saying that people who take a stand against homosexuality will be branded "bigots." So what do you call him? A bigot. At least do him the favor of finding a thesaurus for any future insecure rants.

  13. Orson Scott Card style character development by derdesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the ultimate OSC-style twist, the game could borrow a trick from Fable only in reverse. As you level up, your character would get younger until all of the high-level uber-characters were less than ten years old.

  14. I would read your comment. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...but like you, I have decided not to read the writings of people who diagree with me.

    No offense.

  15. Re:Recommended reading by rackhamh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Though I believe in the concept of an "informed consumer", if you refuse to frequent businesses, read books, and otherwise engage with people whose views differ significantly from your own, you will quickly become either a cult member or the loneliest person on the planet.

  16. Re:Population stats for various MMORPG's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Those are not estimates, they're completely random guesses, which I think are very very far from the real numbers