"World of Warcraft Teaches the Wrong Things"

[Kalfear]

As one of the LONGEST playing MMORPG players on the net (started in Grapghical MMORPGs back in 1990 and many many muds before that) Ive always thought MMORPGs should be resticted to age 18 or higher.

 

Honestly if there was a way to do it (there isnt really) Id say age 25 or older.

 

MMORPGs can be great fun (not WOW) but they are addictive, no one should bother trying to argue that as the proof has been out there since day one and people under the age of 25 have far more important things to worry about (education and such) then getting bogged down in a MMORPG world.

 

I must admit im also kinda bias. My first MMORPG was the original NWN (back on AOL). Back in those days we payed $2.95/hour (american, $3.95/hour canadian) to play so the amount of kids playing were very minimual because of the financial obligation. With out the kids you see in games now adays the atmosphere and community was much tighter then anything you can encounter in todays MMORPGs.

 

Im not surprised Blizzard closing those threads down to be honest. Its common knowledge WOW was created for the younger, instant gratification crowd. That was their target audience. So dont expect them to allow open conversation regarding the low brow marketting ploy they did through game design. Just not going to happen. Blizzard has never allowed all that much critizism on their boards about their games anyways. Why would they now?

 

In the end though, still comes down to parents. Parents just need to learn to say NO to any kids under the age of 18 (that live at home) when it comes to MMORPGs.

[Cantousent]

I enjoyed that piece.  "Street Fighter taught me about yomi: knowing the mind of the opponent."  Word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, that's the Magic player in you talking, not the Street Fighter. :Eldar's grin and wink icon:

 

I think this Sirlin fellow makes good points in his article. Of course, there are counterpoints. Like meta, I believe in freedom. Freedom for blizzard to create the game. Freedom for me to play it or not. The value of that choice is greater than individuality or merit, because we derive our individuality from our freedom and from it flows our merit. Even then, there is no true meritocracy. Of course, Sirlin dislikes the player's freedom to choose the game, but he wants more freedom within the game. He's got it backwards. Blizzard has the right to decide the rules within the game. Players have the right to choosewhether or not to play. He has a distorted view of personal freedom.

 

I think Sirlin makes an eloquent appeal to the reader with which I do not completely disagree. However, what's his end game? Should the government step in to set the situation straight? Should citizens be punished for playing video games? Taking Sirlin's line of reasoning to its final destination is far more bonechilling than anything he's said about WoW.

[Dark Moth]

I'm surprised so many people take this seriously. Does anyone else here think the guy is majorly over-reacting?

[metadigital]

Guns aren't evil and don't kill people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had a mate that had a shotgun accidently go off in his face when he was putting it away. Needless to say he died.

 

Guns do kill people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would get the shotgun off on diminished responsibility.

[Kalfear]

Guns aren't evil and don't kill people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had a mate that had a shotgun accidently go off in his face when he was putting it away. Needless to say he died.

 

Guns do kill people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would get the shotgun off on diminished responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Guns dont kill people!

 

Husbands who come home early do!

 

(god I love Larry the Cable guy! Thats a priceless quote)

[Kalfear]

I'm surprised so many people take this seriously.  Does anyone else here think the guy is majorly over-reacting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends what your refering to Moth?

 

If your speaking addiction then no.

 

Ive personally seen people go bankrupt back in NWN (back in the day when you were over your limit and visa would let you carry it forever), seen couples get divorces over MMORPGs, and much worse. So far as the addictive nature of MMORGs, its a topic that shouldnt be undermined or ignored.

 

Far as content out there in MMORPGs,

 

Other day Im in game store and saw what looked to me to be a 12 year old buying "the Sims" latest expansion. I wanted so badly to go over to parent and tell them what happens in the sim and how its nothing but a cyber sex game and does he really want his 12 year old girl in that enviroment! I didnt of course but was really tempted!

 

Or back in UO a story that hit main stream press was about 2 16 years who cyber raped a 10 year old girl in game. They used a exploit to trap the girl so she couldnt move and cyber raped her until her father heard the crying and came to see what was going on and shut down computer.

 

So far as content goes, when you focus your design for the youth, you have to be ready to deal with the good and bad aspects that will come from it.

 

Maybe im old but I think its a topic worth discussion and shouldnt be trivialized

[Darque]

mmorpgs are poison for the mind.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Moose, why was he putting a loaded shotgun with the safety off "away?" If I was going to put a firearm away I would unload it and put the safety on.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm surprised so many people take this seriously.  Does anyone else here think the guy is majorly over-reacting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and no: he makes some good points, though I don't agree with a lot of them. There's a serious and interesting topic here of what we learn from playing games, both good and bad, that deserves a nuanced analysis. Too often it gets drowned out by insane Thompsonian cries of 'GTA makes murderers!'. Learning (as opposed to formal education) is fun - are the best games fun because they are catching an aspect of learning that we don't fully understand yet?

[metadigital]

Moose, why was he putting a loaded shotgun with the safety off "away?"  If I was going to put a firearm away I would unload it and put the safety on. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was "learning" all about Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Ah, I see.

[Cantousent]

It's not a matter of games teaching something valuable to people. That's self-evident to the degree I have trouble taking seriously anyone who has the audacity to suggest otherwise.

 

More's to the point, we learn something from virtually any endeavor we undertake. We may choose to confine ourselves by only applying what we've learned to the specific task at hand, but that's simply a matter of choice. It's also a bad choice. Anyone who advocates such a view learned something somewhere, but it was certainly the wrong lesson.

 

Learning how to operate a vehicle imparts a certain amount of care and caution. That understanding of caution applies to tasks from working on computers to caring for and keeping firearms. Taking care of a firearm teaches responsability which is also something useful for such tasks as owning a pet or tending a garden.

 

Games do impart useful skills, at least in the broadest sense, to the players. This truth is so self-evident that I will simply approach any discussion from this standpoint. You might want to advocate the devil's position, but that, more than anything else, trivializes the conversation.

[Moose]

Moose, why was he putting a loaded shotgun with the safety off "away?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I forgot to ask his corpse.

[Cantousent]

I'm sorry about your friend. I remember a debate from a few years back where someone made a passionate statement concerning a friend who had been the victim of a violent crime. She was advocating stricter gun laws and tied her point to the weapon that killed her friend.

 

I sympathised with her, but I had to ask if the weapon used to kill her friend had been legally purchased or stolen. It was a valid point, I thought, as the point of stricter laws was mute if the weapon were secure through illegal means in the first place. Still sucks to demean someone's personal loss.

 

So, don't get me wrong, but your friend killed himself. It was a terrible accident, to be sure. Nevertheless, the shotgun didn't jump off the shelf and shot your friend.

 

If we look hard enough, we might actually find the few specific instances, unlike your friend's accident, where a weapon literally killed someone by some freak of nature, but those exceptions only serve to highlight the underlying truth to meta's statement. Guns are the instrument by which people kill people.

[alanschu]

As one of the LONGEST playing MMORPG players on the net (started in Grapghical MMORPGs back in 1990 and many many muds before that) Ive always thought MMORPGs should be resticted to age 18 or higher.

 

Honestly if there was a way to do it (there isnt really) Id say age 25 or older.

 

MMORPGs can be great fun (not WOW) but they are addictive, no one should bother trying to argue that as the proof has been out there since day one and people under the age of 25 have far more important things to worry about (education and such) then getting bogged down in a MMORPG world.

 

I must admit im also kinda bias. My first MMORPG was the original NWN (back on AOL). Back in those days we payed $2.95/hour (american, $3.95/hour canadian) to play so the amount of kids playing were very minimual because of the financial obligation. With out the kids you see in games now adays the atmosphere and community was much tighter then anything you can encounter in todays MMORPGs.

 

Im not surprised Blizzard closing those threads down to be honest. Its common knowledge WOW was created for the younger, instant gratification crowd. That was their target audience. So dont expect them to allow open conversation regarding the low brow marketting ploy they did through game design. Just not going to happen. Blizzard has never allowed all that much critizism on their boards about their games anyways. Why would they now?

 

In the end though, still comes down to parents. Parents just need to learn to say NO to any kids under the age of 18 (that live at home) when it comes to MMORPGs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That would explain the huge amount of old players that play the game.

 

 

Funny though, his big beef is that the game isn't playable by yourself. Perhaps you should point out how wrong he is.

[metadigital]

It's not a matter of games teaching something valuable to people.  That's self-evident to the degree I have trouble taking seriously anyone who has the audacity to suggest otherwise.

 

More's to the point, we learn something from virtually any endeavor we undertake.  We may choose to confine ourselves by only applying what we've learned to the specific task at hand, but that's simply a matter of choice.  It's also a bad choice.  Anyone who advocates such a view learned something somewhere, but it was certainly the wrong lesson.

 

Learning how to operate a vehicle imparts a certain amount of care and caution.  That understanding of caution applies to tasks from working on computers to caring for and keeping firearms.  Taking care of a firearm teaches responsability which is also something useful for such tasks as owning a pet or tending a garden.

 

Games do impart useful skills, at least in the broadest sense, to the players.  This truth is so self-evident that I will simply approach any discussion from this standpoint.  You might want to advocate the devil's position, but that, more than anything else, trivializes the conversation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eldar! That riposte is somewhere between damning with soft praise and belittling with condescension for having the mental acuity of someone from a sheltered workshop.

 

Pwnd, dear sir!

[alanschu]

Other day Im in game store and saw what looked to me to be a 12 year old buying "the Sims" latest expansion. I wanted so badly to go over to parent and tell them what happens in the sim and how its nothing but a cyber sex game and does he really want his 12 year old girl in that enviroment! I didnt of course but was really tempted!

 

Oh my...you ARE Jack Thompson.

[Moose]

I'm sorry about your friend.  I remember a debate from a few years back where someone made a passionate statement concerning a friend who had been the victim of a violent crime.  She was advocating stricter gun laws and tied her point to the weapon that killed her friend.

 

I sympathised with her, but I had to ask if the weapon used to kill her friend had been legally purchased or stolen.  It was a valid point, I thought, as the point of stricter laws was mute if the weapon were secure through illegal means in the first place.  Still sucks to demean someone's personal loss.

 

So, don't get me wrong, but your friend killed himself.  It was a terrible accident, to be sure.  Nevertheless, the shotgun didn't jump off the shelf and shot your friend.

 

If we look hard enough, we might actually find the few specific instances, unlike your friend's accident, where a weapon literally killed someone by some freak of nature, but those exceptions only serve to highlight the underlying truth to meta's statement.  Guns are the instrument by which people kill people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you're saying guns can kill people against their owners will.

 

That would imply that guns have a will of their own, to kill.

[metadigital]

Evil guns. :angry:

[alanschu]

I guess you'd have to find a way to determine responsibility.

 

Couldn't the accident have been avoided if your friend had exerted more caution?

[Moose]

[Llyranor]

That's not funny. Not everyone likes to play murder simulators. Shame on all of you.

[metadigital]

I guess you'd have to find a way to determine responsibility.

 

Couldn't the accident have been avoided if your friend had exerted more caution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And used his brain (before the gun removed it from his concern)?

[Moose]

Well according to you he didn't have a brain in the first place so your point is void

[metadigital]

So the gun wasn't evil, it had no choice! It was fate!