This can probably be applied to real-life politics as well, many MMO concepts can, but I'll stick to the metaphor here.
If you've spent any time on your favorite MMO forum, or even just arguing with someone in game, you've probably heard this one: "This is my game, I'm paying for it, I can play it however I want". It may seem contrary to the concept of freedom that draws so many people to MMOs, but while you're free to make a large array of choices, you aren't allowed to play "however you want".
There are basically two sets of rules in MMOs(and in life). The hard-set legalities of the official system, and the social etiquette. These are going to vary from game to game, of course. A game that tries to project more of a friendly image is going to make the official harassment rules more strict, whereas a more harsh-styled PvP game might let players take advantage of eachother with no official recourse.
Social etiquette, on the other hand, usually tends to be more standardized: Don't be a jerk. The specifics of how to not be a jerk depend on the game, but usually involve respecting other player's PvE areas, not engaging other players in combat when they have no fighting chance (notable exceptions for games that encourage preying on undefended targets), sharing loot, etc.
The main difference here is how you'll be punished should you break the rules. Breaking official conduct can result in tangible recourse, like a suspension of an account, taking of your private assets, or even a ban. In general, these rules are more respected than the ones created by the community because the consequences are inescapable and usually inarguable.
However, not as many players consider the consequences of breaking the rules created by the community, which is where this whole "My money, my playstyle, my game" argument usually comes in. The actions taken by the community against people who break widely-accepted rules can be just as devastating as official actions, and are, ironically, sometimes more respected than the official rules (using 3rd party cheating programs but being careful not to intrude on anyone's camp, for instance). While GMs and customer service staff can remove your character from the game, the community can take the much harsher action of removing *you* from their society.
At its heart, an MMO is a society. Your $15 a month entitles you to use the server, and your good behavior entitles you to take part in the society and all the benefits this implies (for real-life application of these principles, see social contract theory). This relationship between you and every other player goes both ways. As their actions affect you, yours certainly affect them (whether you want them to or not). Each choice you make, at least in most MMORPGs, can ripple throughout the entire community, even if you think you're just off on your own doing your own thing. This is the heart of the difference between a persistent multiplayer game and a singleplayer or traditional multiplayer game: the interdependency of every player with every other player.
This is a tough concept to handle, because it negates the "Mind your own business and let me do my thing" idea that is so often brought up when players complain about other players (both in the most basic in-game disputes and in large-scale class balance debates). Everyone else's business *is* your business, to some extent. This is notably true in games with a thriving player-based economy, while it may be less true in heavily instanced and segmented games.
Few games demonstrate this concept so eloquently as EVE Online. EVE has a number of factors going for it that make it a perfect place to disprove down the "my game" fallacy. First and foremost, there are several completely different (and even opposing) playstyles. Secondly, the intricate player economy makes the effect each player has on each other player a very real thing, even if an individual could have little effect on their own. Browsing the EVE forums, you will find no end to the people who think the game should pander to their playstyle, either by making their particular profession easier, more fun, or safer.
These players, like many others, simply refuse to see the big picture. Yes, you're entitled to get a shot at the game world. Yes, the goal of the developers should be to create a fun, challenging, and engaging game. But it is your responsibility to seek that fun within the rules (both official and social) of the game. If you want to be spoon-fed interesting content, if you want to break everyone else's playstyle on the march towards your own, you have to realize that wouldn't be good design. Such pandering towards one particular segment of the population inevitably makes the others restless. Development time should, of course, be spread around the popular playstyle to insure that most people are enjoying their experience, but all too often players believe that their own personal way to play is in someway better than someone else's.
In the end, MMO players have to realize that despite the fantastical setting of the game, the massively multiplayer nature of the game is going to force it to operate very similarly to real life. You aren't always going to get what you want, you aren't the most important thing in the world, and mere existence doesn't mean you deserve everything the game has to offer. You have to ask yourself: If I really did get everything I want, would I continue to enjoy and play the game? Because the devs ask themselves that every time you propose a change, and they're much better at answering those questions impartially.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would go further, and say that this is the nature of all non-solitaire games, whether it's two people, ten, or twenty thousand, online, in the real world, based in text, physical contact, whatever. Even in fluid games such as improvisational theatre, one of the tenets is to "accept offers"- that is, when someone frames the pseudo-reality, say, pretending they're walking on the moon, you don't say "No, you're a princess, and I'm a prince, and we're in Versailles." You accept their offer and become part of it. If you want all the dark green properties in a game of Monopoly, you don't simply take them where you find them- no one will play with you if you behave like that. If you're playing soccer, you don't pull up the goal net and move it ten metres in some direction.
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me, a while back, that we often self-police and enforce rules better in games than in the "real world." I was sitting reading the EverQuest boards, and there is, naturally, always lots of impassioned dialogue there. It's typical to see one person denounce a conflicting view point with "it's only a game." It's a neat enough ploy- rather than making an argument and letting it stand on your logic, you attempt to invalidate the entire argument in the first place. It got me thinking though. Is it a fair thing to say? Not only in the sense of being dismissive of another person and shutting down communication, but also the thought: How significant is a game?
In the example of moving the goal in a soccer game, whether it's being professionally played for money and prestige, a local competitive hobby team, or a neighbourhood game in a yard, if the mover of the goal attempt to shout down the other players by saying "It's only a GAME," he'd be verbally lynched.
Why are game rules so important?
The social contract in the "real world" is imperfectly enforced. It can have life-changing, or life-destroying, consequences. Unscrupulous individuals frequently bend or even break it, and most of the time, we accept that, just like Machiavelli said we would. But life encompasses the length and breadth of human experience- joy, pain, laughter, grief, boredom, sweat, cradle, grave. Games exist for one purpose: fun. Sure, you can take principles from games and apply them to the real world; You can use sports to train for combat. In the end, games would not have been created, and would not have endured, if they were not fun, and didn't make us happy. Having that narrow focus, brighter concepts, like justice, expression and potential... mean more, uncluttered by the conglomerate soup of reality. Children need limitations, consistently applied, to feel safe. My best friend likes to say that rules, for adults, are supposed to make them feel safe, and if a rule doesn't make you feel safe, then it's not a good rule. Rules in games make it safe for a game to have the single purpose of fun. It makes it okay to expend effort "just for fun," and to concern ourselves simply with enjoyment, justice, expression, potential, and companionship.