Lucasfilm's Habitat was the first attempt at creating a largescale, commercial, many user, graphical virtual environment. Users can communicate with other users, play games, go on adventures, open businesses, etc. It includes a frontend, which is the user's home computer or interface, and a backend which maintains the world model, enforces rules, and keeps the frontend informed on changes, etc. Avatars represent players, and it consists of regions which the avatars can move to and from. There are also objects, which usually have some function or purpose. Habitat is implemented by an object-oriented model. Basically, a message travels from the users input into the frontend, an action is taken, and the state changes, the backend sends a response to the frontend alerting it of the results and notifies any other players in the same region of what happened.
From making Habitat, Morningstar and Farms learned a number of lessons:
Idea of many-user environment is central to cyberspace – automatons will never have the same level of completxity as humans
communications bandwidth is a scarce resource – available carrying capacity is limited.
An object-oriented data representation is essential – description should be in terms of what exists, not what it looks like. Superficial data can be generated at local basis.
Implementation platform is relatively unimportant – cyberspace is a communications medium, not simply a user interface model
Data communications standards are vital – communicating object definitions, adding new classes/objects without new software.
Also in the article, Morningstar and Farms cover the challenges of building and running a virtual world. Firstly, they have to create a working piece of technology, and then they have to create the Habitat world and manage it. In creating the technology, the quickly crossed the complexity threshold, where the designer loses control because of the complexity of what they are making. The virtual world has to be in scale with its population, but it was discovered that it is impossible to control everything. Given that people are ultimately unpredictable and uncontrollable, it was much more successful to let them have control. The game is open-ended, with no fixed set of objectives. However, the user should only have control over the experiential level, not the infrastructure level. Meaning they have control over how they play, but not the actual program. The same idea goes for the designers, who, if at all possible should make changes at the experiential level, aka operating within the system.
Inquiry
I agree with what the authors say about operating within the system. In a simulated world, where the user is meant to be totally immersed, it completely ruins the illusion if serious changes are made that are not within the game. Just like in reading a book, no one wants to be immersed in a character's life who tragically dies, and have the explanation be that the author was just tired of writing; they want it to have meaning within the book. Today, there are many examples that build on the technology of Habitat. As in my previous blog, these include World of Warcraft, Xbox live, second life, and many more. User interaction is everything today. The media present today, have the ability to create much more realistic worlds than those present in Habitat. While the authors don't believe that aesthetics are vitally important, today I believe they are more important than ever. The abilities of graphics today are essential to selling a video game. The article did spur a couple of questions:
In the “Great Debate” about whether or not killing should be allowed in a virtual world, the split was 50/50. Today, many games involve killing other participants, for example, Call of Duty. Are games based on killing morally acceptable? How far is too far?
Would a game where the user has little control still be popular today, or does today's user require complete control?
Is anarchy a good or a bad thing, and how should the societies in games be governed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found this article to be very interesting and relatable. Just as Kelsie said, virtual reality is similar to books in that we lose ourselves in them. But in the game, we have the ability to control our own actions. That control is what drives us to come back for more. Real life is full of obstacles where as virtual reality gives us the power to do as we please. Control is why these games are and will stay more popular than those with less control. As for anarchy in the societies in games, I think that whoever has the authority should not try to play God. Actions of the players should be watched but not picked apart. The reason people play is to have their own control and anarchy would destroy that. I think as long as people realize the virtual world they play in is not the same as the real world they live in, authority should be limited.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel the distinction between a users control and the administrations ability to maintain a secure infrastructure with which to run the game has become essential. As games such as Call of Duty become increasingly popular the standard for realism dictates that players have the perception they are in complete control but have zero ability to manipulate the user interface or infrastructure in a manner that could not be possible in the real world. Violence has always been one of the driving forces behind video games and I feel human nature and our basic primal instincts toward violence and the satisfaction “killing” something brings to many, make it so the question of morals in relation simulated killing is null and will always offend certain people. I have no problem with graphic violence but my mother most definitely did, as she opposes violence in general so naturally she would dislike the increasingly realistic aspect that has come with video games.
ReplyDeleteI think that games based on killing are morally acceptable with limitations. The games should blatantly post that they do not condone killing people in real life and that nothing that occurs in the game is real beyond the conversations players have with each other. The majority of games center around defeating an opponent of some kind, even monopoly. Is it moral to take all of someone's money and send them into bankruptcy strictly for your own advancement? In real life no. In monopoly, sure. Games that involve killing opponents have just taken defeating an opponent to a new level. However, young, impressionable youth should not be playing games that involve killing people. They are too perceptible to outside influences. Thus, while I believe games that involve killing opponents is acceptable, I do think there should be disclaimers and age limitations.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Beck
The games based on killing are morally accepted to a point. I think that the games where you are fighting monsters or other creatures like in Gears of War is more acceptable than killing other human characters in a game. I do not think that a game would make people want to go out and go on a killing spree, but the age limit on certain games is a very smart idea. Now days, most people would say that the game should be mostly controlled by the user. For example the movie that just came out called Gamer, where the prisoners are put into a video game and are completely controlled by the outside user. I do not think it matter how societies in games are governed, as long as there is an age limit on the game, so the user knows that it is just a video game.
ReplyDeleteUser control is the nexus of today’s video games-it is what separates them from movies or television. The ability to take total control over one’s video game experience is something that gamers seek in every new game that comes out. Game developers are coming up with more and more ways in which to make each player’s experience unique-customizable avatars, environments, abilities and even personalities. Gaming culture demands full control over every aspect of the games they play, and what gamers want, they get.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the issue of killing and graphic violence in video games, I think the central factor is the person who is holding the controller or sitting at the computer. Players need to be able to distinguish between right and wrong, real and virtual. Age limits are certainly a good way to attempt to control the audience, however negligent parents and mass marketing campaigns counteract this. Discretion is called for. Kids need to be taught the value of human and animal life, and the gravity of the difference between killing one’s opponents in games like Halo and Call of Duty and gunning down people on the street. I personally play violent video games frequently, and I have no moral objection to causing the brutal death of the virtual characters on my screen. However, I feel that any sort of unnecessary violence is fundamentally wrong.. Closely related though they may seem, violence in video games and violence in our world are on opposite ends of the moral spectrum.