By Kevin A. "Silverwolf" McKee.
I have a confession to make. I'm a gamer. Have been for years, starting off with old games like Commander Keen and Duke Nukem, continuing through current times with Age of Mythology and World of Warcraft. Even not online, I still am a gamer - board games, card games, and outdoor games such as frisbee. So I wonder, what is the attraction? Some would argue addiction - others, sheer competitiveness. But I think that it's a bit more complex than that.
For one, games provide a trial. They give us an opportunity to prove ourselves in various ways while under duress. Depending on the game, these ways can range from highly physical to highly mental, to highly personal. Those who win pass the trial, while those that fail need more work. Frequently, the problem or the reason of loss is not a gameplay factor. Most games are not that complex. Usually it ends up being some personality flaw - something showcasing a need for quicker thought or more sound judgement. In this way, games are more of a way to prepare yourself and/or keep yourself in peak shape in the desired attribute.
So, about that addictiveness...
People of all ages and backgrounds enjoy games. The type of games depend somewhat upon the person involved, but everyone games. This implies to me that there is something valuable in the act of gaming, something in our genes that drives us to play, to test ourselves. Individual games may draw more fire than some others - usually the bigger and more public the game, the more reviled it is. Why focus on how people that play WoW are addicted? Why showcase how professional football players can rarely move on? Why not instead and as a novel idea focus on how old women are "addicted" to various card games (insert stereotype of your choice here). Or, maybe, how fathers are "addicted" to playing baseball with their sons. That's why the addiction argument doesn't hold much weight with me. Games are such a universal concept that there must be more to it than just that.
Of course, the design aspect enters into the equation as well. In my experience, games with a rapid progression are more "addictive" in nature than those that are more slow-paced. Be it fast-paced in levels, fast-paced in build-up of troops, or just the speed with which the players move, quick games are more likely to be played more. Games with a lot of exploration also seems to be considered more addictive, at least for me personally. I know I love exploring both in online games and in real life, which I plan to have spill over into Sacred Chronicle. And so, in a roundabout way, I admitted it - I want my game to have addicitive elements. In my next blog entry I'll explain why, and what I hope to accomplish with Sacred Chronicle from a designer point of view, instead of a player point of view.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
What Is Honor?
By Kevin A. "Silverwolf" McKee.
Honor is an ephemeral concept. You can rant and rave about how people these days don't have any sense of morality or honor, and will do anything just to get ahead. Then, five minutes later, you can turn around and make somebody else have the exact same rant. No two people's senses of honor are exactly the same, and this creates conflict with both sides thinking they are in fact the ones that did right and are just.
Honor in games, then, can be used as an agent to trick players to advancing the plot, a main plot device itself - or an unintentional X factor that can add flavor to the game world. An example of this would be the "druid peace pact" in Blizzard's World of Warcraft. Although it has declined over time, the "druid peace pact" was a concept invented by the players themselves, where all druids in the game, regardless of Horde or Alliance affiliation, would leave each other alone and/or lend assistance where needed. This wasn't built-in to the game system. It wasn't designed to happen. But due to the lore of the game, and the honor of the players involved, it happened anyway.
The concept of honor can be related to the notion of chivalry - which some say is archaic. The more decadent our culture becomes, the more chivalry becomes archaic, generally speaking. Whether this is a bad thing or not, I cannot say. Honor can be a powerful tool for good, helping complete strangers form bonds with one another and assist each other in times of need. Honor can also become a weapon of evil, spinning webs and continuing cycles of hatred, all in the name of honor. Much of the same can be said for religion, but that remains another blog entry.
The problem with honor is that it has become a rather confused meaning throughout the centuries. It was something akin to the warrior's code, originally...a code of conduct for how one should live his life. In slightly more modern times, it became much more negative in nature. If you offended someone in any way, it became an affront to his honor, usually ending in a duel situation. Thus, honor metamorphosed into a system of suffering, ending many innocent lives because of its imaginary ideals: ideals which nobody could live up to and would eventually become the death of a civilization. In this light, it is perhaps a positive ending that honor has become such a muddled and dead thing.
And so, I personally come to this conclusion. Honor is a conditional system. In this time and place, it may be the best we are allowed to have. In an ideal world, though, honor would be almost certainly considered an evil thing. In said ideal world, unconditionality would have to take precedence. You don't save someone's life because they may one day repay that debt. You don't spare a fallen warrior's life on the battlefield because he may one day return the favor. You do it because it's the right thing to do. I'm curious, what impressions do you, the readers, have of honor?
Honor is an ephemeral concept. You can rant and rave about how people these days don't have any sense of morality or honor, and will do anything just to get ahead. Then, five minutes later, you can turn around and make somebody else have the exact same rant. No two people's senses of honor are exactly the same, and this creates conflict with both sides thinking they are in fact the ones that did right and are just.
Honor in games, then, can be used as an agent to trick players to advancing the plot, a main plot device itself - or an unintentional X factor that can add flavor to the game world. An example of this would be the "druid peace pact" in Blizzard's World of Warcraft. Although it has declined over time, the "druid peace pact" was a concept invented by the players themselves, where all druids in the game, regardless of Horde or Alliance affiliation, would leave each other alone and/or lend assistance where needed. This wasn't built-in to the game system. It wasn't designed to happen. But due to the lore of the game, and the honor of the players involved, it happened anyway.
The concept of honor can be related to the notion of chivalry - which some say is archaic. The more decadent our culture becomes, the more chivalry becomes archaic, generally speaking. Whether this is a bad thing or not, I cannot say. Honor can be a powerful tool for good, helping complete strangers form bonds with one another and assist each other in times of need. Honor can also become a weapon of evil, spinning webs and continuing cycles of hatred, all in the name of honor. Much of the same can be said for religion, but that remains another blog entry.
The problem with honor is that it has become a rather confused meaning throughout the centuries. It was something akin to the warrior's code, originally...a code of conduct for how one should live his life. In slightly more modern times, it became much more negative in nature. If you offended someone in any way, it became an affront to his honor, usually ending in a duel situation. Thus, honor metamorphosed into a system of suffering, ending many innocent lives because of its imaginary ideals: ideals which nobody could live up to and would eventually become the death of a civilization. In this light, it is perhaps a positive ending that honor has become such a muddled and dead thing.
And so, I personally come to this conclusion. Honor is a conditional system. In this time and place, it may be the best we are allowed to have. In an ideal world, though, honor would be almost certainly considered an evil thing. In said ideal world, unconditionality would have to take precedence. You don't save someone's life because they may one day repay that debt. You don't spare a fallen warrior's life on the battlefield because he may one day return the favor. You do it because it's the right thing to do. I'm curious, what impressions do you, the readers, have of honor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
