I’m referring here to this BoingBoing thread from late 2008. And maybe Clive Thompson’s response in Wired.

Is it a good idea to provide virtual rewards for playing out simulated acts like these? Is it okay because it’s a violent game anyway? Is it ok because it’s an NPC? Would it be better if doing so led to the character’s inevitable degradation from virtual humanity?

Discuss. :)

Alan Schwartz - 03 March 2009 10:07 PM

Would it be better if doing so led to the character’s inevitable degradation from virtual humanity?

From my personal experience, most players enjoyed the introduction of these quests in WotLK while some others felt offended by the gratuitous violence. Either way they provoked responses from the player community. It’s another item in the long list of “Is having X in video games good or bad for the player?”.

I believe these quests add flavor to the game world (especially appropriate for WotLK’s dark themes) and they break the monotony of the quest grind from 70-80. From a storytelling perspective, then, torture should always be included when it is appropriate.

As for the article, I think Chris asking for too much from these quests. Blizzard has to churn them out by the hundreds. It’d be impractical for Blizzard to give all or even most of them a sense of moral depth. And if only the torture quests gave players the impression of choice, they will be seen as: A) Gimmicky or B) The standard for quests. This is not World of Warcraft.

WoW is an easy MMO, its appeal lies in the gameplay’s simplicity. It gives the players enough freedom to be enjoyable, but does not overwhelm them with choices. The author cites BioShock and how its ending could be affected by the player’s actions regarding the Little Sisters, but Bioshock is a single player game. Other similar games such as Oblivion and Fable are all, again, single player games. It’d be much more difficult to apply the same kind of storytelling to a (mostly) static world MMO.

CCP’s EVE is a good example of the impact of choice on themselves, game world and other players, but EVE the way it is now drastically differs from CCP’s original vision of EVE. It evolved out of the system, and although EVE will never approach WoW in terms of popularity, I think it is closer to what Chris had in mind while writing the article. As for WoW, Blizzard should just keep doing what they do to make it a fun game and a great gateway MMO for their players.

(One would argue that the act of griefing is far more detrimental to a player’s mental health than NPC torture quests.)

/essay

I don’t play a lot of MMOs, but I can see arguments for either side. On the one hand, I’m all for breaking up the grindy parts of games *coughcoughnomoreheroes*, and on the other hand I can see that unpenalized torture can send a less-than-saintly message to players. I’d say it all depends on the player’s ability to differentiate between the actions they perform in games and the actions they perform in reality.

Having never played World of Warcraft, I must begin by saying that the name itself implies gratuitous violence (World of Warcraft), does it not? ... in the same way that Grand Theft Auto implies “stealing cars”???

Having gotten that initial premise out of the way (the game does not, in any way shape or form, purport to be peaceful and saintly), I move now to Bartle’s assessment of his experience which was that he had no choice (if he wanted to get to the nexus) but to perform the act which repulsed him.

I’ve experienced situations like this in many subtle forms in various games… situations where what I would do playing my chosen character just isn’t one of the available options… and this brings me full circle back to this question…

Are the emerging generations of gamers even attempting to achieve any level of separation whatsoever between “me” and “my character”? Or, are they simply putting on a costume as though going to a costume party and then “being themselves” once they arrive… rolling with the flow of whatever happens (it’s amazing what people will do when following the crowd… people get trampled to death at concerts and such).

I remember a couple decades ago, there was this movie that came out about some young gamers (back when we used books and dice) who “lost a friend to virtual reality” or whatever (i.e., their friend who played a wizard became “totally immersed” and lost touch with reality, and became incarcerated or whatever). I don’t remember the name of the movie, but I was saddened that they depicted this story as though it were based on some factual event, rather than the fiction that it was (enhancement of the irrational fears of parents of A D & D-ers). One great irony of this movie in correlation to my own experience with AD&D is that I (in retrospect, after 25+ years of various fantasy gaming experiences) discovered that there IS NO SEPARATION. Good role players, just like good actors, can pick up a role (good, bad, or ugly) and play it for a limited time, BUT… EVERY ROLEPLAYER (not just hack-n-slash gamer, but an actual ROLE PLAYER) inevitably gravitates toward some level of constancy with characters that are basically “in theme” versions of themselves. (This notion has been debated here.)

.... raising this next question (assuming my assertion in the previous paragraph holds water)....

If the game manufacturers know this—i.e., that people either: a) follow the crowd, or b) inevitably cultivate “themselves in theme”—doesn’t this make them fully accountable for abhorrent content in their games ... especially if their games are based on some real world environmental concept (such as GTA)???

I fully admit to being pacifistic by nature most of the time (not claiming to be perfect or whatever… just that my upbringing and collection of life choices imparted that value system into me), so I’m not necessarily wanting to debate this with those people who love playing the more violent genres of games as an after work outlet or whatever (Halo2 comes to mind). But there do seem to be correlations emerging in some high school situations (acting out violence in RL, in the ways they learned to do it in VR), the Columbine tragedy being the iconic stereotype example, but not necessarily the only example one could point to on this matter.

I will say this in closing: I believe everyone should be allowed to choose to play whatever they want, within certain limitations… such as age restrictions for certain types of content, etc.

The problem here, however, is that the restrictions (e.g., games with sufficient graphically adult content to be rated in a heavily restricted manner) are not being enforced AT ALL. I refuse to be the guinea pig narc in this matter by reporting all the under-aged people in my neighborhood playing games they, legally, shouldn’t be allowed to play… because they’re only 15 years old and they got their 18 year old friend/brother/sister to buy them the game and sign up their account…. completely uninspected and uncorroborated by the gaming company.

There is, nonetheless, an issue here which needs THOROUGH investigation, observation, and research. (at least in my humble opinion).