WoW vs. Rift and Gamers

I’m finding as time goes on, Gamers are perhaps the most obnoxious group of people.  I don’t know–there must be something about playing the hero all the time, donning our pixel armor and awesome hair (you have to admit, the blood elves have GREAT hair) that make us feel like social skills are something not worth grinding.

This all comes out of the Facebook post for the Rift 1.3 patch announcement.  While most of the comments on the post are positive, there are some people who come on just to say how horrible the game is, how they can’t wait for it to die, etc.  This is responded to by people to telling them to go back to that heinously terrible game, World of Warcraft.  The whole thing degraded (at the time of this writing … 13:27pm EST) into a name calling fest.  And in my rage, wrote a huge post on there, that decided was better served on my blog … which has been sadly neglected of late.

I just don’t get it – why is it so alien to some people that they cannot like a game, but someone else can …with good reason?  There was so much vitriol flying around about which game was better, it’s like no one cares whether they actually enjoyed the game.  At that point, what’s the point?

I have a subscription to WoW, but I haven’t logged in to actually play in probably 6 months.  The game, for me, lost the luster because it lost the ability for me to be wrong.  I have just as much of a chance of failing in raid because I lagged than I did because I didn’t know the fight.  Blizzard’s current definition of skill is not something I find engaging. I want my skill to be measure by more than knowing not to stand in fire.  Complex rotations, having to do research and find out what others have done – that’s engaging to me.  Mutlimodally engaging as well (across multiple media, if you were unsure).

 Does that mean the World of Warcraft is a horrible game?  Absolutely not.  Does it mean that I think WoW is the greatest game ever?  Absolutely not.  You see, I have my personal opinion on the matter, but  I treat my opinion as subjective, not objective fact.  It’s a matter of taste, not a matter of fact.

That being said, I still  my subscription open in the hopes WoW will again become a game I want to play.  Right now, I find the game Rift to be so much more engaging – even though it’s not perfect.  It does a lot of really great things, and actually has some staying power against WoW, which is great.  Most sub-MMOs can’t say that.  Rift took some cues from WoW, but it also took them from WAR, AoC, and a few others try and make something new, and better.  One of the best qualities in my mind is the class system.  It feels like Anarchy Online a little bit where I could choose however the hell I want.  It might not be the best choice, and it was harder to level up and harder to make use of, but damn I could do it I wanted.  While not 100% the same, it has the same spirit.

It also reminds me a bit of D&D with the open ended way they do things.  They do lots of things well–public groups, public quests, zone wide events regularly.  The class system is complex enough that it’s almost impossible to have true cookie cutter specs, but not so complex that you need a PhD to figure out what to do.

Clearly, as it stands Rift is more to my taste at the moment.  Is Rift better than WoW?  Nope, not at all, but it is different, and those pieces that are different are the pieces that I dislike about WoW.  So, I prefer Rift.  So why the vitriol?  Why the trolling?  Why do gamers have to be on the forefront of proving the Internet Fuckward Theory?  I wish I had answers to these questions.

Other people say it’s the anonymity of the Internet that brings it out, I have to say I feel like it’s more than that.  Sure, that helps, but I can’t help but feel like it’s something else.  Maybe it’s the feeding the trolls–they do it cause they get a rise out of people.  But why the absolutes – what is it about the Internet that says that everything has to be good and bad.  Black and white, if I dislike something, it automatically has to be bad.  Maybe it comes from our polarizing in games – the clear cut good guy and bad guy.  The faux-moral choices of “Save the Maiden” or “Eat the maiden’s baby off of her face,” that make people so willing to fling around the absolutes–but doesn’t explain the vitriol spewing forth.

I don’t know – just a rant – this bothers me.  I just want everyone to get along.

TL;DR – I hate trolls; Rainbows and Ponies for everyone!

A Few Facebook Related Articles …

While considering myself an avid gamer, I have never played a Facebook game.  I’ve been slightly intrigued to do so, but I haven’t really cared enough to do more than attempt to look up information about various games, gave some feedback on the development of a new social game, and that was it.

So it’s really more with a kind of academic interest that I look at the Facebook move to a universal credit system across all the games — the Facebook Credit.  In reality, it makes sense to be able to move currency between games and even between developers.  It’s no doubt that sleaze-dev (in my totally, utterly and completely unbiased opinion cough ) Zynga had a few choice words to say, which is pretty much implied in the IndustryGamers article about it, which states that there “tense” negotiations between Facebook and Zynga.

Speaking of Zynga, staying true to their sleazy reputation, is now going after developer “Blingville” for trademark infringement over the letter combination, “ville.”  Which is pretty ridiculous no matter how you slice it.  It’s been my (admittedly somewhat meager understanding) that you cannot trademark pieces of words – even Frankenstein’d works like “Farmville.”  Anyway, not at all surprising from a company with a repuatation as slimy as Zynga.

Via IndustryGamers: Facebook Confirms Plans to Make Credits the Mandatory ‘Universal Currency’
Via IndustryGamers: Zynga Tries To Enforce ‘Ville’ Trademark

An Argument for the Stand-Alone Avatar

I read this article over at IndustryGamers about the idea of a having a single avatar for all of your virtual interactions.  While I agree this is a great idea, I feel like they didn’t consider all the important pieces that I think they need to consider.  

First and foremost, the creation of the ArchAvatar, the avatar that travels between different services, is an artifact of cultural identity.  The urge for the creation of an Arch Avatar is driven around the desire for a continuity of identity within the new metaphysical cyberspace.  In a cyberworld where I could be everything, how do I define myself as any given thing?  Questions like, “What does my pure (outside the content of a service) avatar look like? How do I view my avatar?  Can my avatar only exist in the context of a ‘service?’ immediately come to mind.  The people you are trying to appeal to are those who want continuity to different disparate parts of their cyber-life, which you are attempting to give them through this very abstract concept of the “avatar.”

You should also keep in mind that people define themselves beyond just their physical appearance.  The kind of house I own, how I decorate my house, the clothes I wear, the books I read, the games I play, the banks and stores I frequent all play a role in the definition of who I am in a very tangible way in reality.

Even on something like Facebook provides this needed level of defining one’s self within the cyber-realm.  In fact, what is Facebook but the definition I who I am in a cyber context?  Everything that goes into who I am is contained within my Facebook page.  If you want to create a CentralAvatar, lets call it for simplicity’s sake, the ArchAvatar, you will need to take certain aspects of what Facebook does to assist in the definition of the self.

BUT what Facebook lacks is a cyber-reality by graphical representation.  Within Facebook, the abstract avatar you created (meaning it has no identifiable manifestation–either physical of cyber) can never truly be seen by anyone–there’s not “Home Space” for it, though Facebook has become a bit of a “Home Space,” within cyberspace, but ultimately an imperfect one.

So the issues are, 1) creating a unified graphical representation of myself 2) In such a way as to make it simple for developers (and time/resource saving) 3) Simple but not restrictive for users while creating a value for using the service and making the user actually “care”.

This is a pretty tall order, I think.  BUT not unsurmountable, but I’m not sure if the author of the post is going about it the right way.  There are 3 main ways to look at this issue – the interaction with user, the interaction with the developers, and the interaction with the cyberspace.  These are by their very nature all very much interconnected and related, so talking about one without referencing the other two is pretty much impossible.

First, the interaction with the user–this is pretty self-explanatory.  How does my avatar relate to who I am really am?  What do I get from my avatar?  How does that make me want to do anything with it.  Does it have a gateway (Do I have to sign up for it?  To use avatar services, do I have to log in a different way?)?  What barriers does having a unified avatar present to the user in terms of playability and utility?   What options of customization do I have?   How do those effect my disparate avatars within the different services?  How do those different services effect my unified avatar?  Do they effect my unified avatar?

With the developers–instead of forcing the developers to confirm to the unified avatar (let’s be realistic, not the most feasible expectation), why not create a spec for if they choose to, you can import certain features of your unified avatar into their disparate avatar.  That way, instead of forcing (and limiting) the representation of disparate avatars, you put in on the developers to take what you send and determine how much it can effect their disparate avatar depending on how much customization/which customizations they offer.

Then, create a standard protocol for sending the information from the games back to the avatar.  This is where it would get a bit tricky because invariably people would want to use the images of l33t gearz they have–which might run into some copyright stuff, but assuming that the game opted to use the export protocols, it stands to reason it would be OK.  Similarly, you run into a manpower thing–most companies are not going to have the resources to model/skin/texture items twice – once for the game and once for the export to their unified avatar.  I think the easier way to solve this would be to create a framework where if the developer doesn’t export the models, the community can work to recreate the models they want from their individual games–potentially pending source-developer approval?  The increasing popularity of achievements would be easy to centralize, just exporting from the game in a standardized protocol to be imported into the the unified avatar service.

One of the most important aspects, that the IndustryGamer article doesn’t tackle is the idea of having a graphical “home” within cyberspace.  There are bits and pieces of my avatar that I may want situationally.  Typically, this handled via a menu in other games.  While this isn’t a horrible way of doing things, image a virtual “space” within cyberspace that has a PublicSpace, where I could put achievements from games, games I play, places I’ve been, and pictures and additionally pure vanity items–windows, wallpaper, room layout, furniture (think living room).  Then I could have a PrivateSpace – a place to keep those things I wouldn’t want people who visited my public space to technically be able to see all the time (think: bedroom).  Or even be able to have models of those bosses I’ve beat from games, that legendary item I won in WoW hanging on my wall in my public space–my “taxidermed” familiar.

The idea isn’t radical– it’s essentially the concepts of Facebook, SecondLife, and an RSS aggregate all put into a virtual space.  It’s technically possible, just hasn’t been done yet.  You could even expand on it by creating the use IM, Skype, GooglePhone all from your HomeSpace.  Your email gives you a visual indicator within HomeSpace.  Open it up the community–allow them create APIs into the HomeSpace and the avatar, create plugins, themes.  Maybe I can access Amazon via a wall-picture–when I purchase an item a virtual model of it appears for me to use in the HomeSpace.  Create the frame work and let the community (being users and developers) fill in the gaps.

The fun part is all of these pieces of what I just mapped out exist today, they just don’t play well together.  They don’t mesh on the level I’ve mapped out.  True, SecondLife creates a platform where you can create a “HomeSpace,” but it’s not user friendly, and difficult to learn.  It also doesn’t play well with other services–it’s pretty well silo’d.  Facebook solidifies your virtual existence, but without a space to call you “own.”  Most of the feeds from games are text or achievement notification– not the whole of true interaction of data.

All in all, I think this is the way things are heading in the virtual realm, and on the venture, we’ll get it wrong along the way … a lot.  I’m sure there are a thousand and one reasons why what I mapped out won’t work, but it’s not meant to be the end all.  It’s a continuation of an idea started by Mr. Gerson and which will undoubtedly be continued well beyond both of us.


Google in Talks with Social Game Makers

There’s an article over on ArsTechnica about Google, Inc. talking to some of the biggest name in social game makers — presumably to help with their new social platform which as of yet unnamed, but which there’s some unconfirmed speculation will be called Google Me.  Not much else there at the moment, other than it’s poised to be a competitor to Facebook, but not a Facebook clone.

Check it out:
Google social gaming service reportedly in the works