Google GGA:
|
|
Links
Alice Taylor
Clint Hocking Costik Derek Daniels The Edge electro^plankton Gamasutra Game Critics GameDevBlog GameFAQs Game Jew Game Poets Society Game Set Watch Gamevideos.com Gewgaw Got Game? Grand Text Auto Grrl Gamer Henry Jenkins Heroine-Sheik IGDA Indie Game Jam Insert Credit Invisible City Julian Dibbell KillerBetties Kim Pallister Kongregate Kotaku Lost Garden Ludology Magic Box Margaret Robinson Matteo Bittanti Memory Card Ogre Cave Penny Arcade Raph Koster Reality Panic Serious Games Shiny Shiny Slash Dot Games Surfer Girl Terra Nova ToastyFrog Tokyopia Water Cooler Games Women Gamers Zen of Design
Thank You for Donating!
If you'd like to help keep GGA afloat, we thank you!
Mascot by Penny Arcade!
|
October 20, 2007
WoW Succeeds Because It's NOT Immersive?
Isn't it funny how when you get together with a fellow gamer, especially an MMO player, you immediately start sharing experiences of how you play the game? I was out for a walk with my neighbor Jack and we got to talking about World of Warcraft, and I had a sudden realization about the success of the game. Yes, it's a solidly designed game, friendly for newbs, and all that, but - it's also a game that supports what I think of as layerability. In other words, you can sometimes layer the experience of WoWing over and under other experiences. In WoW, about ten percent of my time in the game requires ninety percent of my attention. The other ninety percent of the time requires anywhere from five percent (say, flying to another area) to fifty percent (grinding a familiar area, or helping to power level a low-ranking friend). So I find that more often than not I am checking email, on AIM, making tea, etc. during my WoW sessions. That goes against the notion that games have to be immersive, or that the strength of games as a medium is that they are so immersive. And yet WoW *is* immersive, in the sense that I played last night until 3:30 am without even noticing it. "Just finish up this one last quest" we told each other in our group, "just one more quest item, just one more mission." I'm wondering if the layerability of the game contributes to the play sessions - because you can continue to do some other things as you play, you are more likely to keep playing longer. Hm! I don't think most console games can get away with this - can they? Posted by jane at October 20, 2007 08:55 AM | TrackBackComments
This reminds me of a current trend in casino design. The old-school model was to make it as hard to leave the floor as possible, so you'd still be there dropping quarters in the slots. They realized that not being able to see an exits makes people anxious, and that makes them less likely to take risks. If they feel comfortable in their environment, they're more likely to stick around and keep their money on the table. Here's an excerpt from the writeup: "Confusion creates worry," Steelman says. "Worry creates doubt. Doubt brings less empowerment. The less empowered gambler won't spend much." Mirrors are bad, too. They can shatter the illusion that you're James Bond. on October 20, 2007 09:21 AM
For the most part, console games cannot do this. However, I'd prefer that they don't. I like the immersion of being in the game, and if I could just make tea or do things while the game is running, the immersion is pulled right out. Usually if I want to entertain myself while doing something like make certain foods, I'll just put on Guitar Hero. That way I can play five minutes, and then check on what's going on. Yet if the point of the game is that I'm supposed to want to adventure, then I'd rather sit down and enjoy it for the whole time. Of course, I never got into WoW, or any MMORPG for that matter, simply because they feel a lot less like games and more like work. Only MMO I've enjoyed yet is Planetside. Posted by: cesarano on October 21, 2007 06:31 AM
You're still playing WoW? XD Knit your way to 70. =D (I have, just not on Eitrigg yet. But now I'm about to start dual boxing... oh gnoes...) Posted by: hikaru on October 24, 2007 11:08 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
|
Archives
November 2007
October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Category Archives
About GGA (15) Academia (25) Advertising (3) Art (22) Books (9) Business (42) Conferences (18) Criticism (21) Culture (17) Design (4) Economics (4) Entertainment (19) Events (64) Experimental (32) Fashion (25) Features (18) Food (2) Fun (16) Gender (25) Humor (32) Jane's Journal (71) Journalism (27) Law (18) Marketing (10) Military (2) MMOG (33) Movies (14) Music (14) News (15) People (37) Politics (41) Preview (4) Research (12) Review (4) Scandal! (2) Sex (12) Society (44) Technology (22) Television (4) Theory (25) Travel (1) Trends (25) Upcoming Releases (12) Web (12) WTF? (28) |