RJ Layton

I've been trying to puzzle out what it is about your thoughts that doesn't ring true for me. I'm not sure I've figured out, but here's a shot at it anyway.

I think generally you are right about each of the points you talk about. I keep trying to take something you said and go on a tirade about why you're wrong, and then I re-read what you actually said and find that you were accurate after all.

But I suppose my issue is with the idea of which is the "superior" method for player-generated narratives. You seem to prefer the EVE method, but after careful re-reading... it's not actually something you explicitly touch on.

I find it difficult to fault WoW for trying to be an equalizing experience. One of the primary reasons people play games is, after all, to have extraordinary experiences... relative to every day life, that is. Sure, you may not be the first to kill Onyxia or clear Karazhan, but you still had fun succeeding at something that took at least some time and effort on your part. So what if two hundred other people have done it before you? For the tourists who fly to France and visit the Eiffel Tower, they are not the first or only people to have ever done so. Does that diminish the experience for them when they personally stand at the base of the famous French icon? Of course not.

On top of that, the very fact that so many other people have done it creates an extra level of bonding between players, just because everyone has had so many of the same experiences. This is not quite what you'd describe as narrative... merely shared experience. Rather than making people stand out, it brings people closer together, which is more often than not a positive feeling for all those involved.

Now, having never played EVE, I can't really say anything for sure. But it seems that in EVE, mediocre people will always be mediocre and only skilled players stick out. Personally, I can't perceive the reasons that will keep these mediocre players playing, if they never achieve anything that could be perceived as extraordinary by any scale whatsoever. Individual players being inspiring through their heroic actions sounds amazing, but ultimately feels like it would be frustrating to players who would like to achieve similar things and yet will never be able to meet their goals.

(i also question the idea of the EVE experiences being completely unique. once one player has done it, is it not duplicable by another, merely with different names on the companies, etc? in which case, the originating player only has notoriety because they managed to pull it off first... which is a concept that has equal value in WoW, even today. "server firsts" and all that jazz.)

Of course it's paradoxical that if everyone can achieve something fantastic, it's no longer fantastic. So maybe this isn't a problem that can be solved. At least, not until Spore comes out. :P

Thank you for this article and the previous however... both were extremely engaging reads.

So it seems like a lot of this post, and Cynthia's rebuttal, are related to the personal narrative of each player experiencing the two games, and the strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. What I'd like to hear your thoughts on is, at the meta or "whole game" level, what are the different approaches to narrative? I know, for instance, that WoW has a lot of lore behind it, with a really solid backstory that sets the stage for an epic war between Alliance and Horde. The narrative of EVE seems to be similarly grand, though more influenced by the deeds of players. So do the differences that occur at the individual level ("tourism" versus "notoriety") carry into the larger picture? And if so, does that work for the two worlds and the experiences they're going for?

Good question, Diana. Both WoW and EVE have pretty extensive backstories (although I think WoW's is larger) -- but I think that neither matters other than they inform the construction of the world. As a player, I haven't read either game's backstory beyond a rudimentary point, and I think a lot of that is because the story isn't changing. We're sort of "stuck in time," which is something I'm explicitly trying to avoid. EVE, I feel, deals with this better because player actions have more lasting effects on the world itself, whereas actions in WoW generally affect nobody else.

Thank you for this comment though, because the issue of time is hugely important. But I also think that a driving statement for my thinking is that I want to make a game where the backstory is generated by the players, and that it's good enough for players to want to read it.

Cynthia, I believe this is your first time posting on my blog! Thank you. Maybe I baited the blog well enough by mentioning WoW ;)

I think you make some interesting points. I do think that EVE is superior in generating interesting stories due to meaningful player interaction. Obviously WoW is a more successful game (for many reasons), but I think a large part of that is because it's more relaxing due to the fact that actions have little permanence, and really little consequence.

And actually, I think that being able to see the Eiffel Tower for the first time would be an awe-inspiring experience. Then again, public exhibits have a different purpose. I'm not arguing that seeing the same Stormwind that you see makes Stormwind less fun for me; I'm arguing that I can't do anything to Stormwind to make my mark on it. It makes the world less meaningful in my opinion.

Your comment about bonding is important. I agree that WoW is a more social game. But like most social games, it requires a significant amount of equalization, luck, etc. But bonding can take place in a more hardcore setting too. We're talking about something like the difference between hardcore D&D players and casual Pictionary players. Both offer bonding experiences, but in different ways.

You're right about EVE being a less inviting experience. It's another reason why WoW is more successful. I'm not arguing the economic merits of either game. I do think that EVE generates deeper, more exciting experiences for those willing to get into it. Of course, it depends on the players getting involved as to whether you have fun or not.

I am glad you are bringing up these points because it helps remind me that I am tailoring my game to a more hardcore audience. To be fair, I have played a lot more WoW than EVE. But I find myself compelled by EVE and more immersed into it because of the nature of its gameplay and the significance of player actions.

I'm not totally sure I adequately responded to your comment, but I really do appreciate your taking the time to post such a thoughtful response. Hopefully I'll see more of them in upcoming posts.

My take on the two games goes like this. Wow reminds me of play-by-the-rules society in the sense that you are rewarded for a dedicated work ethic, even if you are not that good at it. When everyone shows off the same sword that proves that they all beat the single dragon, it’s not so much a narrative disruption, but a badge creating a connection among all who are truly dedicated fans. All the people who have received an employee of the month award. I make it sound a bit pathetic, but I don’t mean to. Perhaps there are two types of desires going on in Wow. One is that we’re an epic figure, which can probably be summed up as a desire to be famous. And the other is related, but more grounded- that are careers are dyanamic and provide consistent discovery. Wow seems to find a balance in satisfying both. One’s job is mostly a grind, with high points in the day, often involving others, without end, but we might achieve the American dream.

And competition works in a comparative way. You don’t have to defeat anyone directly, just outdo them. If your friend gets a 98 on the test, then you will have to get a 99. Even Wow PvP is about rankings.

Of course EVE requires that you directly defeat and take from others. It is a fully realized PVP model. This provides a clear fantasy, that you are a warlord, or a criminal. It is a safe place to steal and hurt others for your own gain. A lot of single player games to this well of course. But the grinding side of EVE is necessary so that you will truly miss the items and money that you lose.
This makes me think about Jesper Juul’s book, Half Real. He says that games are fictional worlds but with real rules. Real activities, real rules, and real outcomes.

For me MMO’s add a whole other dimension as the realness has witnesses. Everyone is an audience to each other. We’re all in the stage play as well at watching it. In this era of user-generated content, the Warcraft effect is not unique, and reminds us of our non-virtual selves (our lives).

EVE satisfies a fantasy, but at the same time since you can have tremendous influences it truly is real. RJ, maybe that's what impresses you.

I tried to explore some of these ideas in my game Meanwhile. A community with one avatar, in which players compete to most significantly effect the character’s stats. Every individual has the same goal, but people have different ideas about how to get there.

As a professional designer and an amateur writer, I share your desire to deepen storytelling. You shed insight on the different treatment of storytelling between WOW and EVE, but I think you are mapping a field you understand better to a field you understand not as well, and would encourage researching the target field directly; i.e., storytelling.

'''The result is that like socialism, WoW makes everyone as equal as possible, but this equality comes at the price of true excellence'''

I suspect there are more apt analogies. A socialist MMORPG might give everyone the same items and level, and then charge them a fee every time they gained a level or item. World of Warcraft is egalitarian in that if you play for a long time you gain tokens of prestige. Like most every MMORPG, the system rewards perserverance and ignores (as much as possible) capital, including the human capital of superior strategy.

I think there may be more apt analogies, but at the same time I do feel that the theories of human interaction that reside beneath capitalism and socialism are related and actually of interest to me in particular in my game design. I would prefer to design my game with the model of human interaction, needs and desires as suggested by capitalism. My analogy was meant to apply to the way the game treats the player, as opposed to trying to model the game mechanics themselves. The analogy was probably a little too complex to map onto these games, true. But I suppose my argument was that the "intent" of World of Warcraft is to make the experience as equal among players as possible while EVE's intent is to encourage and reward competition.