[MUD-Dev] Advancement considered harmful (long)

[Zak Jarvis]

> From: Raph Koster [rkoster at austin.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:48 PM

> > From: Zak Jarvis [zak at voidmonster.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 2:01 PM
> > Once the shininess wears off, it becomes mundane. The more known it is,
> > the less the experience of playing can convey any Numinosity. Kind of a
> > spiritual Uncertainty Principle.

> My first reaction was, "can't you say that about everything?"

Yep, but gaming is an industry heavily leaned upon by the threadbare,
chain-smoking specter of novelty. With MPORG's, I really do think a lot of
people get stuck playing them for a while because of they provide a kind of
nourishment, and the nourishment can diminish with the novelty.

I'm quite surprised that the movie eXistenZ hasn't received more discussion
here, having just done a search through the archives. It provides a nice
illustration of what I'm getting at. For a lot of players (especially of
text-based MUDs), the world initially has the solidity and 'reality' that
TransCendenz does in the movie. As it does in the film, the unreality of it
begins to accrete around the edges of things until the alternate reality
isn't sustainable for the player.

(If you're in this industry, and you haven't seen eXistenZ, you REALLY
should, preferably twice.)

I'm not trying to say that this is the only way that people play these
games, because some people aren't after that particular experience. Maybe
even most, in large commercial games. Further, I strongly suspect
graphics-based games have a shorter hold in this regard.

> My second reaction was, "there are some things that always make
> me feel the numinous."

Even though a huge number of the moldering dead were put in the ground
because of differing experiences of the numinous, I agree with you here...

> My third reaction was, "a heck of a lot of those things are creative
> endeavors. Some of them are other's people's creations, in cases
> where I now know enough about what was accomplished to appreciate
> the creation more."

Curiously, as an artist I experience the numinous mostly through music, a
form I have little to no formal understanding of. Further, my experience of
it runs the gamut of musical experience. Bach's fugues, Nick Cave's 'The
Mercy Seat', bits and pieces of Diamanda Galas, whole pieces of Lisa
Gerrard (but that's so cliche...), Brian Eno's militantly nonsensical 'The
Roil, The Choke', Gorecki's 'Piece in the Old Style 1', Ute Lemper's
'Little Water Song', Massive Attack's 'Teardrop'... It goes on for quite a
long time.

I occasionally find it in movies (and pretty much in *any* Kurosawa you
care to mention), but best is when it's just there -- out in the world,
some random thing with a resonance I cannot pin or describe.

> Oddly enough, this led me to thinking that the answer is
> allowing players to build more in the game. And more than
> just build the mud--let's put in as many of the RL creative
> endeavors into the game as we can.

I think that's a great idea, but it raises some profound issues of
ownership, copyright and intellectual property, as well as philosophical
issues.

Here's the scenario:

I create a game which allows the players to paint pictures, write music,
enact plays, sing, dance, make petroglyphs and craft items from any
material they can think of. Part of my boilerplate TOS is that I, Game
Developer, Inc. own any material created within the game. Quite standard
stuff, if I recall correctly.

An artist plays my game and creates a picture which is better than anything
he has ever created before. Yet, his work is totally bound to my world. He
burns out on the game (as per my original discussion. ;) and moves on to
yet another game that supports rampant creativity (yes, this example takes
place in a mythical, nearly-perfect world). He still doesn't create
anything that surpasses or even equals the painting he created in My
Game(tm).

The questions this raises for me as a designer are troubling.

If this player feels that I've robbed him of his best creative work, have
I? I'm not certain. Even if I have no such clause in my TOS, can his work
be sufficiently separated from my game to be meaningful elsewhere?
Certainly some artists appreciate impermanence in their works, but I'm a
bit queasy about mandating it at the same time I'm encouraging them to be
creative and artistic. It's like teaching kids to paint on flashpaper and
then burning all the paintings at the end of the day.

The implications run straight into what Cronenberg was getting at with
eXistenZ: can a game become art which is dangerous enough to elicit a
Fatwah?

Even with questions like that though, I think you're right. Giving players
tools to be creative within your world gives them authorship (a concept
we're really keen on in the game we're developing here), and authorship
makes the experience meaningful. Good does not always come without a price.

-Zak Jarvis
 http://www.voidmonster.com





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev