To what extent do you think hardcore gamers subconsciously see computer games as a vehicle for attaining virtual power and glory?

Quote:

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his empire he wept, for there were no more worlds left to conquer."

Uh, or something like that. I've been brooding over the idea of meaning and fulfilling accomplishment for quite a bit of late and wondering what underlying factors may be driving games and game design into the realm of simulations, fully realized worlds and greater and greater realism. Of course there are many different causes, ranging from technology to economics, but what's been bugging me the most has been the question I posed above-- to what extent are we, consciously or not, designing for some sort of wish fulfillment for greatness or glory? Elliptical as the idea may be, I wonder about it because of the constraints it may place on our designs. In a great many games, from the RPG to the FPS to the RTS genre, it's rarely enough to enjoy what you have. It's almost painfully overstating the obvious that players expect and are expected to get better and better. Bigger guns, bigger empires, bigger and bigger stakes. D'uh! Who doesn't want that???? Even if it's not realized in actual gameplay, it's quite often implied by narrative-- how many games start you off as ye old rat exterminator and end with you killing the evil overlord with the uber-sword of ass-kickery, or make you a buck private and end up with you being general? Rare is the game that starts you off with everything you need, or even takes more and more from you, making you smaller and smaller as you progress. The latter idea is probably so preposterous as to be laughable as a game idea-- yet it would fit a game exploring loss or humility or a decent into madness. But such ideas would embody loss of control, and there's no power and glory in that. "What, lose control? How can that be fun. I play games to..." Well, to what? If you assume that many games targeted at the hardcore are in fact vehicles for attaining virtual power and glory (and I admit it's a big assumption), what does it tell you about the psychology of your players? Does it tell you anything about them psychologically, or socially, or is that way too big a leap from something that's still largely regarded as a hobby? What do you think?

I know that since I started playing games online I've found it hard to play any type of offline game, even if they share the same genre. When I have thought about why this might be I could only really come up with how I feel when playing with others or affecting someone else's game. I've been a griever but I've also spent a ton of time helping and assisting players, I'd say a pretty even balance between both styles.

I know the extent I try and achieve is always the best I can be in the game but I'm happy if I'm not the very best so long as I still have a place. I love power, like you said "Who doesn't?"

I don't know how a shrink might see my gaming habits but I love the highs and lows a game can offer either way emotionally.

Edit Note:
I also thought a game where you go from having everything to nothing would be interesting to play but like Pinguin007 said it would have to be highly narritive with the story keeping the player engaged.

[Edited by - Robert-Glen on September 18, 2009 12:01:34 AM]

In my example, I play games, I guess, to put myself in an another character's feel. In real life I can't jump around from building to building or killing every person I see, and it doesn't mean that I want to, the video games just give this liberty that , I think many players find appealing.

And what's more appealing that power and glory. In real life you'd take a lifetime or a stroke of genius to achieve what you achive in a few days of playing a game. The games give that liberty, of becoming a person totally unlike ourselves.

Also starting from scratch gives it a certain feel of reality. In real life, few are those who begin with massive wealth or capabilities, and since people tend to be a bit pessimestic about their lifes, starting from scratch creates an immediate feel of empathy by the player.

In my opinion creating a game where the gameplay centers around a top to bottom progression would be an interesting concept and if accompained by a good narrative, it would keep many players interested, to see the end of their character fate.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator If you assume that many games targeted at the hardcore are in fact vehicles for attaining virtual power and glory (and I admit it's a big assumption), what does it tell you about the psychology of your players?

It tells me that they're human, which is only slightly reassuring. [smile]