• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"Consequences in Gaming and their effect on the Gamer"

Kimawolf

Member
This is a long article, but I feel it is a good read about the possible future of online videogame interactions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...of-consequences-in-video-games.html?full=true

When Adam Ruch was kidnapped at gunpoint while playing DayZ, his first thought was to quit the game. But he chose to stick with it, and then took to Twitter. "I am currently surrounded by about 5 guys with military weapons telling me that I'm their slave," he tweeted. "This is bizarre. They're making me pose for a photo." Before a sniper hiding in the bushes killed them, his captors – who were polite to him throughout – made him carry out dangerous scouting missions in return for scraps of food. Ruch, a games researcher at Qantm College in Sydney, Australia, says it was one of the most authentic social interactions that he had ever experienced in a video game.

DayZ is a game about surviving on an island full of zombies. First cobbled together in 2012 by a single developer in his spare time, it is a modification of an existing game, the military first-person shooter (FPS) ARMA 2. It has no missions, no scripted events, and is unusually strict in that dying means you have to restart the game from scratch. But the lack of a set narrative and the heightened investment that players have in their characters have produced some of the most emotionally charged experiences in gaming. And unlike most mainstream games – such as the blockbuster Grand Theft Auto series – DayZ is so open-ended that players are forced to deal with the consequences of their choices.

This week Rockstar released the free online multiplayer extension to Grand Theft Auto 5, allowing up to 16 players to run amok at once, racing down highways, playing tennis and updating Lifeinvader, the social network of the fictional city where the action is set. The game is the height of big-budget world-building, a playground where the thrill is that actions have no consequences for their perpetrators.

Staying alive

DayZ is different. Its creator, Dean Hall, had the idea for it while doing survival training in Brunei with the New Zealand army. What DayZ lacks in environmental detail, it makes up for in the authenticity of its simulation of trying to stay alive. Players start out unarmed and, with almost no food or equipment, must scrounge what they can by exploring abandoned buildings or stealing from other players. You can easily break bones, go into shock or fall unconscious from loss of blood. To make the desperate situation worse, when your character dies you can only restart the game with nothing that you earned in the previous attempt. "You really don't want to die in DayZ," says Ruch.

Until now, death in games has simply been a metaphor for failure, says Marcus Carter at the University of Melbourne, Australia. "But we're beginning to see games that are using this metaphor in ways that explore moral choice and issues of culpability."

Carter and Martin Gibbs, also at the University of Melbourne, have been studying the social interactions between players in DayZ, looking at game logs, forum posts and videos posted online. "The consequences of dying add to the experience of players' interaction with each other," says Gibbs. "By playing this game we can explore those questions of survival, trust and betrayal in a society that has lost the rule of law."

In one video, for example, two players try to decide whether or not to shoot a third approaching in the distance. "Please turn around, please turn around," one of them says. But the third player keeps approaching, they shoot, and then they talk through their guilt. "I didn't want to shoot them." "Me either! But you know what happens when we don't shoot first."

Moral anguish

Most FPS games reward fast reactions, not moral deliberation. But Carter thinks that the consequence of killing another player in DayZ – restarting their game from scratch – can invoke genuine moral anguish. "This is really exciting to see," he says. "And a real testament to the growing maturity of video game design."

The high price of death in the game also means that players often would prefer to surrender their possessions or freedom rather than be killed. This can lead to spontaneous interactions when players meet in the game, such as muggings and kidnappings. But often players also wander through the game looking for wounded people to heal.

"The way in which death has been designed in most mainstream games, particularly the FPS genre, has devalued lives in games," says Carter. "What DayZ demonstrates is that if you put this value back, you can create some really deep and meaningful emotional experiences that are evidently attractive to players." Last weekend he was at the Interactive Entertainment conference in Melbourne, Australia, to present the results of the study he and Gibbs carried out.

Carter thinks the ideas behind DayZ could soon become more widespread. "We're going to start seeing a lot of other online games implementing similar systems," he says. For example, Hall is now working with a team of developers and bigger budget on a completely reworked version of the game, to be released next year. Mainstream games publisher Ubisoft says it wants to recreate the social interactions of DayZ in its forthcoming online FPS Tom Clancy's The Division.

Kill and be killed

"You should feel responsibility for what you're doing," says Leonard Ritter, an independent game developer based in Dresden, Germany. "But most games do not give you the option." Ritter wants to explore consequence in games even further. He is working on a title called Nowhere that aims to simulate complex social interactions between players and computer-controlled characters, showing players how their actions affect not only those characters but also future versions of themselves. The full game is not due for release until 2015, but early versions will be available next year.

Ritter got the idea when, while playing Grand Theft Auto 4, he was struck by how players played two types of game. Sometimes they would run around shooting people without thinking about the consequences; at other times, they would concentrate on achieving a strict objective. He wondered what would happen if your disruptive self suddenly showed up during a mission and shot you. "You would ruin your own game," says Ritter. "I thought that would be powerful."

So what does Gaf say? Do you feel that a game can invoke some kind of moral thought in you, and if so, why?

I thought the part of the players actually hoping the guy turned around and then feeling genuine guilt for killing him even as they try to justify it to themselves is indeed a powerful thing, and shows just how much a game with perceived real consequences can affect someone. I also thinks it's absolutely amazing people would rather be slaves and give up everything to avoid being killed in a game, and come back for more.

And do you think games like Dayz and to a lesser extent Zombi U will be the future of online games, where real consequences are enforced and death has meaning? Or is the author of the article simply off base in reading the trends?

And your prior mindless gta like rampage coming back to bite you, genius,
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
I felt like a pretty big douchebag in Spec Ops when I just unloaded into everyone. It wasn't until after the fact I realized I could have just fired a few rounds into the air to disperse everyone. It's a little scary how games have just conditioned us into shoot and kill everything instead of taking the time to think about what we're doing and if there can be alternatives.

You guys know what I'm talking about, if its spoilerific I'll mark them as such.
 
I suppose I had inklings of cognitive dissonance for the first time I can remember in Grand Theft Auto IV. I mean, I had moments like that before, but GTA IV was the first time I was adamantly pissed off about how constrained gameplay was on the moral/emergent end instead of just annoyed. I only played a little bit of that game, but every time I did go into story bits I was wondering why I couldn't set Niko along a better path. Claude, Tommy, and CJ seemed almost perfectly content with becoming the monsters they are. Niko had this whole air of wanting better and doing nothing to make it so. The player doesn't have an opportunity to really make much better for Niko, either.

I'd still like to see Rockstar revisit GTA IV's primary moral concept and offer a branch where the player can become a cop or something. I know what Grand Theft Auto is all about, but damn if IV's missed potential make me feel as though it could be a little more than just crime satire.
 

Kimawolf

Member
Yeah i feel the same way. When a game is based in reality (sort of) you shouldn't simply be able to go on a killing rampage in broad daylight, get the FBI and SWAT after you then simply go hide out for 10 minutes and all is well, nothing is left of your rampage despite the hundreds of people you killed. It drives me nuts.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I think people respond to significant consequences to their actions. Minecraft seems like an alpha proof of concept for a game world that can be despoiled or wrecked by careless and malevolent human interaction. Take that concept and make it more sophisticated.

Real potential there for massively multiplayer worlds. Take a granular Minecraft-like MMO, where human actions can really destroy function and beauty in it. What social conventions would arise? Would some players devote themselves to being "police"? Guarding precious resources against psychopaths? What kind of pressure would the game's society put on people to be good and not ruin the world for everyone? What kind of temptations would develop for people to be evil in-game?

I suppose games like Ultima Online got there years ago. Along with Eve Online. It's still mostly unexplored territory though. Most games present cartoon worlds (and cartoon here doesn't mean art style) which are effectively indestructible. So encourage the player to romp around indulging in a race to the bottom for a thrill.
 
He's kinda talking about stuff that existed in the 80s and 90s. Growing is the wrong word "relearning what went up in flames during the burnings of the Video Game Library of Alexandria" is a better phrasing.
 

Mulgrok

Member
They will learn that all it takes is 1 griefer to ruin a whole bunch of players' experience. There has to be some exceptional consequence to rampant destruction. Perhaps deleting that account and the player has to purchase another to continue. Sort of like making the griefer compensate the developer for costing them profit.
 

Kimawolf

Member
They will learn that all it takes is 1 griefer to ruin a whole bunch of players' experience. There has to be some exceptional consequence to rampant destruction. Perhaps deleting that account and the player has to purchase another to continue. Sort of like making the griefer compensate the developer for costing them profit.

True you'll always have those outliers who just go into the game to wreak as much havoc as possible, but I think they believe that's where things like "player police" and other type things come into play. Sure he may kill or severely wound one or two players, but word spreads quickly, and putting on a timer like 30 minutes you can't log out after killing another player or you character sits static in the world is punishment enough. Or hell branding entire accounts with "player killer" status until they "make amends some kind of way.
 
Top Bottom