Blog #4

In his book Synthetic Worlds, Edward Castranova presents an interesting view of the growing genre of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, or MMORPGs. MMORPGs include popular titles such as EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and Guild Wars. Castranova begins by giving an overview of how these games work. He adopts the point of view of a new player navigating through the game for the first time. He creates a character named “Sabert” and then leads the reader through the beginning stages of the game, introducing them to the elements that define an MMORPG, such as gathering objects, meeting fellow characters, battling “mobs,” and trade. As Castranova described how these games are played, I became more and more intrigued. My interest was piqued and I wanted to create a character and explore the game for myself. However, I was afraid I would get sucked into the game and not finish the book, so I chose to skip trying the game until I have more free time.

Castranova discusses many interesting points throughout the book. One that struck me the most was that the economy inside the game and the world economy are somewhat tied together – although it is expressly forbidden by the rules, many people buy and sell game money, equipment such as swords, and even entire user accounts on websites such as eBay. I was really surprised when I read this because I had never heard of this phenomenon before. Castranova explained that these types of trades began to occur because “some people who had lots of dollars happened to want more EverQuest play money, and some people who had lots of EverQuest play money happened to want more dollars” (36). As I thought about it, this began to make a lot of sense. Some people also argue that it’s a waste to spend money on objects in the game because they are not tangible; however, in my opinion, it’s no different than spending money on any other hobby. A sword in the game EverQuest will do someone no more good in their everyday life than an authentic Civil War sword will do a reenactor in his everyday life – but both things are a part of a hobby, and both make the person happy. I don’t think one is worth more just because it’s a tangible object.

Another interesting point Castranova makes is the extent to which players identify with their character and the in-game world. He first displays this when he is introducing the game play in Chapter One. Castranova explains, “Coming to own the avatar, psychologically, is so natural among those who spend time in synthetic worlds that it is barely noticed. No one ever says, ‘My character’s strength is depleted,’ or, ‘My avatar owns a dune buggy.’ They say ‘my strength’ and ‘my dune buggy’” (45). Having not played MMORPGs myself, I can’t identify with this phenomenon. In fact, I generally don’t even enjoy playing first-person games. I have watched friends play EverQuest and I actually prefer to watch in third-person view. I’m guessing if I played, I would do the same. I’m not sure if playing regularly in third-person view would cause me to identify with my character as much.

I was also surprised by the fact that there are people who actually consider themselves to live in Norrath, the in-game world of EverQuest. I couldn’t believe that 20% of those surveyed in a study would say that they considered Norrath to be their full-time home (59). I was expecting these players to be very hard-core, so I was even more surprised when more statistics revealed that those players only spent 1-2 additional hours playing each day than the other players surveyed (61). However, those who were willing to participate in a survey are likely more hardcore players in general.

Another point Castranova raised was that these games are basically microcosms of our everyday lives. The economics of the game closely mirror real-world economies, and many of the same motivations and problems that plague the real world appear in synthetic worlds as well. Castranova states, “Everything that happens in a synthetic world is the consequence of the interaction of human minds, and our minds have things like Love, Property, Justice, Profit, War, and Exploration hard-wired into them. We could not create a world and put people in it without also enabling sex, trade, and battle” (48). I think this is one of the reasons why the games are so attractive to players. They are a fantasy world, and give players a sense of escape from their everyday lives, but still include the things that are most important to us.

Castranova wraps up by giving his thoughts on how synthetic worlds will operate in the future. He seems to have, in my opinion, a rather limited view on the subject. He seems to think, first of all, that everyone will have access to these worlds, which I disagree with. There will be many people who lack access to these worlds due to lack of money or even infrastructure in less-developed areas. There will also simply be some people who are not interested. It’s hard to imagine the Amish tapping into World of Warcraft anytime soon.

Additionally, he seems to think that these spaces will either become rosy paradises to which people move their entire lives, or that they will become corrupted by commercialism, or that we will all become the pod people from The Matrix. I think these games will grow in popularity for awhile, but eventually they will level off with a core group of people playing and the rest of the world basically uninterested. The virtual reality of synthetic worlds might become somewhat more pervasive than it is right now, but I doubt it will be taking over the world anytime soon. However, I’m sure there were people who forecasted that the internet would be a bust, too. We will just have to wait and see where this technology takes us in the future.

Blog Assignment #3

Is video game addiction a real phenomenon? Several researchers, including Griffiths and Davies, the authors of “Does Video Game Addiction Exist?” have attempted to prove that game addiction is actually real. However, I personally remain dubious about their claims.

Supposedly addiction consists of six required elements: salience (which basically means the addiction monopolizes one’s thoughts and activities), mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict (with others, self, and activities), and relapse. However, the researcher’s attempts to correlate these elements to video games are a bit of a stretch. I can see how the researchers might attempt to show video game addiction through salience – when anything is completely dominating your thoughts and actions, it’s probably not healthy. I can also easily see how conflict could occur – with school, work, sleep, relationships with others, etc. However, I’m not sure I believe that one activity causing conflict with another or even with relationships constitutes addiction.

Additionally, I’m not sure that the fact that gaming can cause “mood modification” proves addiction either. Any activity that one enjoys is likely to cause excitement or a “buzzed” feeling, or else a feeling of escape. One can even get these feelings from watching an engaging movie, but that doesn’t mean the person is addicted to the movie, or watching movies, or anything else for that matter. Relapse I can sort of see – for example, I know people who have tried to quit playing WoW, but have gone back to it – but the person can make a choice to return to the activity without that constituting relapse.

The two elements I find hardest to equate with game addiction are tolerance and withdrawal. It’s very difficult to prove that gamers need to play more and more in order to feel the same effects. Additionally, withdrawal is equally hard to prove. Most people would get irritated or moody if forced to stop playing in the middle of a game, but this certainly does not mean they are addicted. Physical symptoms such as headaches or tremors from lack of game play seem even less likely.

The studies that researchers have used to measure game addiction have many flaws. One such study involved handing out questionnaires to gamers. The question meant to measure salience read, “Do you play video games most days?” In my opinion, this question measures nothing. I mean, I brush my teeth every day, but that doesn’t mean I’m addicted by any means. A better question would have been “Do video games occupy your thoughts even when you aren’t playing?” but even this question would not have accurately measured salience.

Researchers have also tried very hard to correlate video game addiction with gambling addiction, probably because there has been a great deal of study related to the latter, and not so much for the former. However, just because the games share certain attributes like shiny pictures and flashing lights does not make them the same. Video games, for one, do not offer the promise of money. Sure, you can rack up a higher score, but the psychological lure of money is much greater and completely different, and in my opinion, should be studied differently.