|
August 15th, 2007
05:22 pm - New Study Dispels Asocial Online Gamer Myth
Apparently, people who play inherently social games are not asocial. No shit!
A new study conducted by researchers at Nottingham Trent University in the UK, and published in U.S. journal CyberPsychology and Behavior, has found that three quarters of online role-playing gamers make good friends with the people they meet in their virtual worlds, with almost half meeting in real-life situations and one in ten going on to develop physical relationships.
Other findings from the study, entitled “Social Interactions in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Gamers” indicate that more than 30 percent of participants found themselves attracted to another player and 40 percent chose to discuss sensitive issues with online friends rather than their real-life friends.
One in five participants believed that massively multiplayer role-playing games (MMORPGs) had a negative effect on their relationships if their partner was not a player, while more than two-thirds felt they had a positive effect on their relationships with those who did play.
Women were significantly more likely than men to be attracted to other players and were far more likely to go on to date them. Most women gave “therapeutic refreshment” as their main reason for playing, whereas most men stated “curiosity, astonishment and interest” as their reasons. Around a third of gamers suggested they could be more themselves in the game than in real life.
The study interviewed almost 1,000 online gamers from across the world and found that the average number of hours played per week was 22.85. The most popular MMORPG in the study was World of WarCraft, with almost half of participants naming it their favorite game.
Professor Mark Griffiths, from Nottingham Trent University’s School of Social Sciences, said: “This study has revealed many aspects of MMORPGs that were not known before. Previous research has suggested that gamers are socially inactive, but MMORPGs are actually extremely social games, with high percentages of gamers making life-long friends and even partners.”
“As well as making good friends online, 81% of gamers play with real-life friends and family, suggesting MMORPGs are by no means an asocial activity, nor are the players socially introverted,” he added. “The virtual world that these games offer, allow players to express themselves in ways they may not feel comfortable doing in real life because of their appearance, gender, sexuality, age, or other factors.”
Some of this I think is probably a bit behind the times; the gender assessment wasn't exactly 'previously unknown' - the only new thing here is that it's been subject to a formal study.
The same goes for the fact that MMOs are a social activity. I'm surprised, actually, that a games industry site would make such a big deal out of that: MMOSGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Social Games) have been around almost as long as MMORPGs. There is debate as to whether or not they actually count as games, and have instead recently have turned to branding themselves 'virtual worlds', but the idea of a 'game-world' where there isn't any precise goal other than socialising is not by any means new; and these are often as popular if not more so than their MMORPG counterparts.
Personally I prefer the 'non-game' version. The 'game' part of MMORPGs is often the dreaded grind; repetitive actions only undertaken to farm levels. The social aspect has always been far more interesting.
Anyway, the thing I found most interesting about this article was: "Around a third of gamers suggested they could be more themselves in the game than in real life." I'm not so sure that's true, but I can see the direction it's going. I can quite easily be myself in real life, and can also quite easily be myself ingame or online, but 'myself' as a variable doesn't refer to the same thing in both situations. As I've said before, I have a problem with the idea that anything that's on the internet is somehow 'not real', but most opinions I've seen on the matter suggest either that it's real or that it's not real. I think that's a totally false dichotomy: I think they're both real, but not the same.
My identity online is different to my identity offline, but they are both my identity, or at least different aspects thereof. The online world, to me, is an extension of reality. It may have different rules and attributes to the rest of reality, but those are special-case rules and attributes, not individuating rules and attributes.
Sorry about the rambling post...
|
April 11th, 2007
10:14 am - Str-emo of consciousness.
If anyone's wondered why I haven't been updating so much, I am here to explain. It's because I've become less and less fond of emo entries and how-my-day-was entries. There doesn't seem to be much point to doing them; they're not interesting to anyone. I know at least one person will contest that, either out of politeness or whatever. But what's uncontestable is that they're not as interesting as what I could be writing.
So, that's why I've been quiet for a while, and also why I'm transitioning more to a blog register than a "Wah my life sucks!" personal-journal register. I've considered moving off of livejournal completely and doing a 'serious' blog, but then I realised no-one would read it, no matter how interesting it was. Does anyone even read these? Hello? STOP PLAYING WITH YOUR SCROLL WHEEL!
The reason for this change is somewhat personal: I never have thought I was 'supercool', but for a while there that's what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to be. I can't pinpoint exactly why, but that's changed now. I have embraced my true nature and thus come into my TRU P0W4H! That is to say: I'm weird, and I'm a bit of a geek, and I'm entirely comfortable with that.
You're probably well aware that this doesn't represent a huge change, though. Maybe that's the way you always saw me; the only thing that's really changed is my perception of myself. At the risk of sounding pretentious, it's really been quite liberating.
Ah yes, the risk of sounding pretentious, the risk of sounding stupid, the risk of sounding some way I don't want to sound. I guess another thing that's changed is that those risks have started to bother me less and less. I'm using the Preview button more, but only to check that the layout looks right; I've stopped checking the content (other than for spelling and punctuation), and stopped hesitating before committing these posts to public scrutiny. Obviously I still try not to outright offend anyone, but in a perverse way I want to be wrong sometimes. I'd rather people disagree with me (and say so) because that opens the gates for dialogue, which I love. The things I write about here, I write about not because I want to talk about them, but because I want to discuss them. That said, I'm well aware that some of the things I write about are irrelevant to 100% of the people likely to read them, so I can't complain about not discussing them.
This is the core of the matter: it's why I write the way I do, and it's probably the thing that attracts me most to Second Life. Those of you who remember my oooold old entries (those of you who don't: please don't go and look - they're embarrassing >.<) will remember that my mother couldn't understand how I was capable of spending so much time online. I think I always understood the distinction between the way she sees the internet and the way I see it, but I've only recently been able to articulate it. She sees 'using the internet' as a passive activity; something like consulting an encyclopaedia. I see that as a pretty narrow view. Using the internet to me comes into its real power as an active, participatory medium. I know I'm probably preaching to the choir with that profundity ("OMG All this time I've been looking at the screen, you mean I can press the keyboard and make things appear on the internets too?!?!1") but it's worth articulating.
The idea of 'participatory media' is a relatively new one. It's not that new - the idea was in its early infancy as my parents were - but there's a line of thought that suggests most of the young are inherently neophiles while the older generations (for the most part) inherently become neophobes. (I should point out that Robert Anton Wilson, most commonly credited with the terms, made the distinction of these two personality types, but never connected it to age. And just as well, since it's perfectly possible and not even all that unlikely to have 70-year-old neophiles and 16-year-old neophobes, but I'm twisting it a bit to fit in with the idea that people tend to be comfortable with the things with which they grow up, and less comfortable with the things that are introduced after they reach adulthood.) The only way for a neophobe to make sense of something new that is all-pervasive (i.e. not easily ignorable) is to analogise it with something familiar: and all the analogies we have for the internet do a very poor job of explaining what it is.
I may pick up on this subject again in the future, but another reason I suspect no-one reads these things is that I write too damn much, so I'll stop here :P
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
thegooseking's journal