Its all about the research

Ok, so I am off to a running start. I have plans upon plans in place. A reading plan, a writing plan, a plan to plan. This is where I plan to collect my thoughts about readings and other information. Not notes per se, but thoughts.

The reading plan is to read at least 3 articles and 1 thesis (or book chapter) per week and pull all the relevant references, and so on and so on. I read somewhere, you know you are ready to start the literature review, when you no longer find articles you have not read. Amazingly enough, I am seeing about 40% of repeat references all ready. And if not the same article, then certainly repeat authors.

It seems that MMORPG research space is not very well populated. Most researchers have been interested in the negative effects of gaming. Few have examined other outcomes. The other day, I started a book that made a specific distinction between games and gaming. Where games were the object of study, perhaps looking at the design, the aesthetic, or other matters. And gaming was examining the humanity wrapped up in the games; the why, the how, the draw.

I guess then I am looking gaming and by extension the gamer.

From that respect there have been a lot of statistics bandied about regarding gamers. Who is gaming seems to be a big conversation, with odd undertones. Apparently (according to S. Ross’s thesis), there were a bunch of assumptions made about the MMO space. She explained that the video game space (the console space) had been examined extensively and found that male teens were the most populus demographic. Thus by drawing the "obvious" conclusion the MMO space must then necessarily have the same population. To add to the confusion the distinction between video game taxonomy was never considered in the first studies, I think. Researchers  just simply looked i the window and saw a console and that was it. So regardless of the game content, it was all lumped in together.

I know from personal experience that console games are very different (as are MMOs). And certain games draw a certain demographic, very much in the same way certain movies draw specific crowds. And since I dont want to make this post too long, let me conclude by listing the taxonomies, I am aware of. And of course, there are more, but generally, video games have the following distinctions:

Game type, content type, player locus,  group play type

Game type: we have computer games, console games, and hand-held games

Content type: first person shooter, strategy, adventure, action, reconstituted board game, sports, puzzles, combat (war)

Player locus;  multiple player network single player network, single player local, multi player local

group_play type: cooperative group, combative group

I am sure there are more.

MMOs or massively multiplayer games have distinctions that console network games do not have; persistence, minimal limity space, sociability at the least. MMOs share the space with MUD (multi usre dungeons) which are apparently persistent but are text based. Therefore they lack the "immersive" quality that sets MMOs apart and groups them later with console games.

To recap:

• network console games are immersive, non-persistent, ’some what’ sociable
• MMOs are immersive, persistent, and sociable
• MUDs are text-based (non immersive), persistent, sociable

I think next I should post a terminology page that might be useful to be able to refer to.

Powered by Qumana

This entry was posted on June 2, 2009 at June 2, 2009 and is filed under Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.