chill04 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} chill04) wrote,@ 2006-02-14 19:52:00 |
|
Better late than never...
What a busy weekend. I didn't get a chance to really explain where the questions in the previous post came from.
Games are becoming an increasingly significant fixture in our culture -- almost a culture within our culture -- many problems and opportunities arise. Like anything, the applications of this technology can be used for bad or good, but we must first try and understand what benefits and, likewise, potential dangers exist.
Video game sales already outrank box office revenues. Demand for these games exists as seen in the record breaking number of subscribers to MMOs such as World of Warcraft. Even the United States Army has developed a game as a new strategy for recruitment. Clearly, video games are no longer just a nerdy pastime. They have evolved into something entirely more than a "game" in the traditional sense of the word.
As these games continue to push the boundaries of what one would normally consider a game, hundreds of new applications for these "interactive environments" arise. If we consider these environments to truly be "virtual worlds" then there is no limitation really on what could potentially exist in these games that doesn't already exist in the real world. Moreover, their virtual nature actually strips many of the physical limitations that confine our real world. With the internet, location and distance in the real world no longer pose a limitation.
Suddenly, children of rural families that lack access to a nearby school can log in to a virtual world and attend class with fellow students and a teacher who are scattered across the globe. It sounds like a great idea, and the way players currently interact with virtual worlds makes learning "hands-on." We talked in class last week about the nature of work in EQ2. You're out gathering components and crafting items -- certainly work by standards. And now to learn, you no longer sit in front of a chalkboard and hear a lecture about chemistry. Instead you're studying compounds in the virtual world. Observing, visually, how they interact on the microscopic and macroscopic level. I'm excited just thinking about it. It's interactive and engaging, adding a whole new dimension to traditional classroom learning.
Of course there are sure to be pitfalls and drawbacks. And that's where my curiosity about the advantages and disadvantages of learning in a virtual classroom rather than a traditional "real life" school come in.
But beyond this, is there a line we need to worry about crossing? In the extreme it's possible that we could one day conduct our entire lives in a virtual world, never needing to interact in real life or see the light of day except to maintain sustenance and other basic needs of surviving.
Before waiting for this extreme possibility to become reality, I'm curious if we're not already following down this path with current MMO games.
Obviously it takes time and money to create and maintain the virtual worlds that exist today. Players usually pay a flat monthly rate to access the game content. In order to hold the player's interest in the game (ie. to keep him or her paying) the game must always be attractive to the player -- usually this means keeping it fresh with new content to explore, new storylines to follow, and new challenges to test the player and his or her avatar in the virtual world.
Already studies show that many players spend more hours playing in-game per week than they do working a job or producing in real life. Many of these players openly admit that they are addicted. By continuing to release game updates with new content and new opportunities for the player to explore, it's possible for game developers to (unintentionally) trap them in an unhealthy environment, leading them down a road no different than any other addiction.
Where does the responsibility lie, then? The players? The developers? The service providers? And who, if anybody, should be in charge of enforcing regulations if they one day become necessary? And lastly (well, hardly lastly -- this whole idea is a bottomless can of worms, but it's the last question I'll consider at this time), what kind of adverse effects will regulation have on the potential uses for virtual worlds?
This is a serious ethical issue that I'm curious to look at in greater detail and highly important because it could potentially direct all future development of virtual worlds one way or another, for better or worse.
What a busy weekend. I didn't get a chance to really explain where the questions in the previous post came from.
Games are becoming an increasingly significant fixture in our culture -- almost a culture within our culture -- many problems and opportunities arise. Like anything, the applications of this technology can be used for bad or good, but we must first try and understand what benefits and, likewise, potential dangers exist.
Video game sales already outrank box office revenues. Demand for these games exists as seen in the record breaking number of subscribers to MMOs such as World of Warcraft. Even the United States Army has developed a game as a new strategy for recruitment. Clearly, video games are no longer just a nerdy pastime. They have evolved into something entirely more than a "game" in the traditional sense of the word.
As these games continue to push the boundaries of what one would normally consider a game, hundreds of new applications for these "interactive environments" arise. If we consider these environments to truly be "virtual worlds" then there is no limitation really on what could potentially exist in these games that doesn't already exist in the real world. Moreover, their virtual nature actually strips many of the physical limitations that confine our real world. With the internet, location and distance in the real world no longer pose a limitation.
Suddenly, children of rural families that lack access to a nearby school can log in to a virtual world and attend class with fellow students and a teacher who are scattered across the globe. It sounds like a great idea, and the way players currently interact with virtual worlds makes learning "hands-on." We talked in class last week about the nature of work in EQ2. You're out gathering components and crafting items -- certainly work by standards. And now to learn, you no longer sit in front of a chalkboard and hear a lecture about chemistry. Instead you're studying compounds in the virtual world. Observing, visually, how they interact on the microscopic and macroscopic level. I'm excited just thinking about it. It's interactive and engaging, adding a whole new dimension to traditional classroom learning.
Of course there are sure to be pitfalls and drawbacks. And that's where my curiosity about the advantages and disadvantages of learning in a virtual classroom rather than a traditional "real life" school come in.
But beyond this, is there a line we need to worry about crossing? In the extreme it's possible that we could one day conduct our entire lives in a virtual world, never needing to interact in real life or see the light of day except to maintain sustenance and other basic needs of surviving.
Before waiting for this extreme possibility to become reality, I'm curious if we're not already following down this path with current MMO games.
Obviously it takes time and money to create and maintain the virtual worlds that exist today. Players usually pay a flat monthly rate to access the game content. In order to hold the player's interest in the game (ie. to keep him or her paying) the game must always be attractive to the player -- usually this means keeping it fresh with new content to explore, new storylines to follow, and new challenges to test the player and his or her avatar in the virtual world.
Already studies show that many players spend more hours playing in-game per week than they do working a job or producing in real life. Many of these players openly admit that they are addicted. By continuing to release game updates with new content and new opportunities for the player to explore, it's possible for game developers to (unintentionally) trap them in an unhealthy environment, leading them down a road no different than any other addiction.
Where does the responsibility lie, then? The players? The developers? The service providers? And who, if anybody, should be in charge of enforcing regulations if they one day become necessary? And lastly (well, hardly lastly -- this whole idea is a bottomless can of worms, but it's the last question I'll consider at this time), what kind of adverse effects will regulation have on the potential uses for virtual worlds?
This is a serious ethical issue that I'm curious to look at in greater detail and highly important because it could potentially direct all future development of virtual worlds one way or another, for better or worse.
