Richard Bartle Is A Pussy
I know what you're thinking. Who is Richard Bartle, and why should I give a fuck? Well, my apathetic and potty mouthed friend, Bartle is one of the original Multi User Dungeon (MUD) author/developers. What the fuck is MUD, you ask? MUD was the very first MMO, albeit conveyed all in text. One could argue quite convincingly that Bartle is one of the forefathers of the whole MMO scene. Because of this, when he has something to say about the worlds most successful MMO, World of Warcraft, a few people listen.On his blog, Bartle sounds off on a quest in the just released Wrath of the Lich King expansion, where the player is asked to torture a wizard with a cattle prod of sorts. Bartles bleeding heart, which must of soaked through his sleeve and somehow got in his eye causing him to grow a vagina, does'nt like it. In the midst of what can only be imagined as cramping do to periodic monthly mood swings, he must have forgotten that this non-existant virtual character in a non-existant virtual world is not real.
Read his rant via: Youhaventlived.com
UPDATE: Mr. Bartle has responded to our criticisms and name calling in a far more polite way than we would have, which is surprising because I did'nt think anyone actually read our blog. You can read it by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of this post.
posted by GameCherry at
1:10 AM
Furl This Page
18 Comments:
Or maybe, if you were to read what it was I actually said, you'd figure out that what I'm complaining about is the fact that this messes with player expectations.
You may be fine with torture in WoW. So am I, if it makes sense in the context. Death Knights, showing how evil they are by torturing people, sure thing, go ahead. But Kirin Tor asking you to torture someone? Uh?
When people sign up to play Wow, they have certain expectations of how the game will be. They expect to kill monsters, and indeed would feel aggrieved if they suddenly found themselves in a Habbo Hotel, no-killing world instead. On the other hand, they might get annoyed if they were required to rape every single NPC they killed in order to get XP for it. There are boundaries that they don't expect to be crossed.
Wanton torture is one of those boundaries for some people. Obviously you're fine with it. If it were introduced as a levelling skill, like skinning, you'd still probably be fine with it. Some people, though, aren't fine with it. If they see it, they want a context for it.
So that's what I'm complaining about - the fact Blizzard didn't seem to pick up on this break between player expectations and what was delivered (or, if they did, they didn't acknowledge it through the quest rewards).
It's not a case of my having a "bleeding heart", it's a case of "players see your game world in different ways, and if you're going to do something that will shock them, make sure it's for a good reason".
Richard
Mr. Bartle, you seem to be an intelligent individual whose opinion is well thought out and clearly expressed. I, and I'm sure anyone else who read your editorial, fully understand your grievance and in part agree with it. WoW is not ManHunt nor should it be. The 12 million users who log into the game have certain expectations of what a D&D derived fantasy world should be and may not expect to be confronted with dilemmas that cross religious, political, and/or moral boundaries that they themselves have brought with them.
In a world where player choice and direction is the main selling point, one would expect that the player would be given the choice to do or not to do and either reap the rewards or suffer the resulting consequences. I believe this is the main point you're making. However, (from what I gather) the context in which you must torture this "person" is the end result of futility. There is no other choice.
The developers could have coded a myriad of conversations and quests that would lead the player to the conclusion that "the only way to solve this problem is to get this guy to talk, and the only way to do that is to zap him". Perhaps the frustration of trying to find a "better" outcome would make the end result less unappealing. They chose however, to boil it down to a required action to further the story.
Just like in the real world, we have all been confronted with "choices" we would have rather not had to make, that made us feel dirty, guilty, and cross a line we would otherwise not, simply because the alternative would have been worse.
You can rant and rave that the world (virtual or otherwise) is unfair, but that's a conclusion that the population has arrived at long ago.
My point is, whatever objections you have to torture do not pertain to the virtual world because the "torturee" never existed in the first place and the whole damn idea is easily solved by flipping off the power switch.
GameCherry>My point is, whatever objections you have to torture do not pertain to the virtual world because the "torturee" never existed in the first place and the whole damn idea is easily solved by flipping off the power switch.
Well yes, I'm aware of this.
Of course, you could replace "torture" with "child sex", and your argument would still hold. There's no child being sexually abused, so it's fine for WoW to depict it (well, except in certain European countries such as Germany). If people don't like it, they can quit.
The point I'm making is that when you sign up to play WoW, you have certain expectations of what you're going to get. It has fireballs, OK, so there'll be killing; it has rogues, OK, so there'll be stealing. I know that when I start playing.
What I don't know when I start playing is that on the second expansion (and nor before) I'll be asked to poke a prisoner with a pain stick. Up until now, everything I've been asked to do makes sense in the context. This doesn't.
Now you may have a higher threshold than me. You're fine with torturing prisoners, either because you don't see torture as all that bad, or it falls within the parameters of grittiness that you ascribe to WoW, or because you are not invested in your character or the game and don't regard it as being "torture" at all - you can't torture items in a database.
However, you're not the only player. Some people do think torture is bad, weren't expecting to do it without a good reason, and feel close enough to their character that they're disturbed by it. Blizzard may even be have been hoping for that kind of reaction when they put the quest in. Now for these people, this quest is problematic. For you, maybe it would take child sex to be problematic, or maybe nothing at all could possibly ever offend you. You're not the only player, though, and other people do dislike this quest.
Now what I was complaining about wasn't really any of this. I was complaining that Blizzard don't seem to understand, from a design point of view, that when you shock people out of immersion you need to let them know it was done deliberately. Otherwise, they'll think you (ie. Blizzard) think that the shocking material isn't shocking. Blizzard didn't do that - they simply rewarded you for doing the quest and did nothing if you didn't - which isn't good design.
Richard
Your points are well taken and make perfect sense.
There are things that I would like to do on this site that I would never do, simply because I want users to come back. Now, if my userbase was 12 million like it is for WoW, I would find it very difficult to placate to everyone's personality and morals set.
The character Normantis makes it clear that torture is against his "code of conduct" and that he won't do it (just like you). The hero who does not object to the torture (just like me) may feel empathy for the wizard but quickly realizes that the wizard does indeed have the information the hero seeks. This means that not only the duration and means of torture but the torture itself was directly attributable to the wizard, who could have forgone the whole experience.
It seems to me that someone at Blizzard has come to the conclusion that torture is wrong but sometimes necessary (the ends justifying the means).
On a philosophical bent, a hero is someone who willingly puts himself into harms way for the better of others. In war this means killing or being killed. If every war was fought with torture instead of killing, no one would ever die and the torturees would eventually heal.
So, the question becomes Mr. Bartle, is it better to kill your enemy and move onto the next enemy or to cause your enemy temporary discomfort and in doing so, saving his life and countless others?
GameCherry>So, the question becomes Mr. Bartle, is it better to kill your enemy and move onto the next enemy or to cause your enemy temporary discomfort and in doing so, saving his life and countless others?
Well now you're getting into the wider spheres of morality. Torture is condemned by most civilised societies (hence the Geneva Convention), because it's not morally justified. For a start, it doesn't actually work - you get bad information from it. Also, in practice torture is a mere prelude to death. Usually, you're still going to kill the person you're torturing - victims end up begging for death sometimes as a release from the torture. Plus, your attitudes to torture might not be the same if it were you being tortured and you didn't know whatever it was that the torturer wanted you to reveal.
Oh, some groups use rape as a form of torture of (mainly female) prisoners. Would you be OK with that in Wow, instead of just a pain stick?
This is all incidental, though. It doesn't matter if you think torture is justifiable in some contexts or not. The point is, in that particular context it wasn't justifiable, but you were still asked to do it. That was guaranteed to shock some players out of their immersion, and it's how Blizzard dealt with that that's at issue, not the general morality or otherwise of torture.
Richard
PS: Just call me Richard, no need to be formal. (Besides, if you do want to be formal, it's Dr Bartle..!).
Your arguments are honest and thorough and not with out merit. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
You have been a consummate gentleman and you're alright in my book.
I guess this means I'm not a pussy then (at least until the next time I blog something about WoW!).
Have fun!
Richard
That was a ridiculously brilliant exchange.
Wow. Got here through Bartle's blog and will never return. What a stupid, stupid post.
And this comment: "You have been a consummate gentleman and you're alright in my book."
Pretentious much?
I can't decide if an optional torture quest should have better methods of persuasion (more humane, understanding ones that often result in better information), huge consequences for declining (the way that every "nuclear bomb scenario" neoconservative thinks) or no consequence at all (to reflect the reality that torture rarely leads to any real benefit.
I don't see why this is such a large issue to begin with.
Richard's circular logic aside, his argument is a weak one at best.
Your points are not the problem Mr.Bartle, nobody is going to say they love torture or child rape. Nobody is going to argue that changing the dynamics of a game to something a bit more sinister than some people were expecting would perhaps shock them and break their immersion.
In fact, I'm willing to agree to the vast majority of your points in general.
The problem I can see with your argument as a whole is that you're projecting how this issue made you personally feel onto how it affects other players.
I personally, am not remotely attached to my characters in-game on an emotional level. Sure, I name them and dress them just like everyone else who plays an avatar, but I'm always cognizant of the fact that the character is simply a character I am playing, not a projection of my ego.
It's alarming to think that some people hold their in-game characters to such a strict moral code as real life. How can you enjoy a game where you take the consequences of your virtual actions so seriously? Do you truly weep with sadness when your character dies in-game?
I think perhaps, this is a symptom of the age divide that is ever becoming more visible in the online world. I've personally noticed as a child of the 80s that the more people I meet online, the more I realize how certain virtual stereotypes are becoming ingrained as actual truth.
It seems to me, more often than not, that it is the older players who are playing these games as a method of projecting their egos into their avatars. They don't play the game so much as they "live" the game through their character. It's these players who see these kinds of topics (things like child molestation, which really has absolutely nothing to do with video games) as viable topics to discuss in the same paragraph as online fantasy role playing games.
I've personally met plenty of people online, mainly through MMOs and other role playing environments who project their personal views and "issues" into their gaming characters so much that they ruin the experience of others simply by bringing "real world" problems into the game's environment.
Personally, I find it more shattering to my immersion to have some self-righteous preacher bringing up topics which do not belong in gaming (molestation, war etc..) and comparing them to the acts of fantasy and fiction of a virtual world.
I think the true danger here is not that these kinds of in-game events are morally taxing, moreso, that there are people who are so unable to discern reality from fiction, so emotionally involved with their characters, that they actually become disturbed by such simple things.
Perhaps I am incorrect in my observations, I could be entirely off base, but after reading your post, I just find it completely distasteful to throw in a topic such as child molestation which has nothing to do with your point as some kind of passive aggressive assertion that anyone who is not bothered by in-game virtual violence is some kind of rapist.
The irony here, is that nothing in-game is ever offensive to myself, I can recognize and differentiate between fiction and reality, but your assertions about the people who take this stance have actually upset me, go figure.
I can't help but feel your position on this just a little bit reminiscent (at least, in terms of the "he just doesn't get it" sentiment) of a certain Florida lawyer named Jack.
"Anonymous said...
Wow. Got here through Bartle's blog and will never return. What a stupid, stupid post.
And this comment: "You have been a consummate gentleman and you're alright in my book."
Pretentious much?"
Dear Anonymous,
Please, check the definition of big words before you use them, then please go fuck yourself.
a tortue story line in a game is completely OK as it IS just a game, but the whole sex thing is stupid to compare to because that would be wrong in game or otherwise.
we should just not give this *woman* the oxygen to premote themself
Section 01 Bemused said...
"I don't see why this is such a large issue to begin with."
It's not. Richard blogged it because the design of the quest was flawed and he, being an industry veteran, felt it should be discussed.
Section 02 Bemused said...
"Richard's circular logic aside, his argument is a weak one at best."
If it seems circular in any way it is because most people keep skipping the actual issue he is bringing up and he keeps trying to bring them back to it so that they actually read it and understand what he is saying.
Also, it is an observation with excellent points. Points that most people seam to toss aside in order to turning it into an argument because they don't seam to like what he said for whatever reason and are angry.
Section 03 Bemused said...
"Your points are not the problem Mr.Bartle, nobody is going to say they love torture or child rape."
Not one of his points mind you; merely an analogy.
Section 04 Bemused said...
"Nobody is going to argue that changing the dynamics of a game to something a bit more sinister than some people were expecting would perhaps shock them and break their immersion."
Exactly his point! It is shocking and breaks immersion. The expectations have been violated without prior warning. Thank you for proving his point!
Section 05 Bemused said...
"In fact, I'm willing to agree to the vast majority of your points in general."
So why are you making it an argument if the only point he was trying to make is agreed upon by you?
Section 06 Bemused said...
"The problem I can see with your argument as a whole is that you're projecting how this issue made you personally feel onto how it affects other players."
False, it is an observation with a generalized point given by a long time gamer and game developer who knows what he is talking about. It is an observation which you agreed with remember? (see section 04 and 05 above). You even said nobody would disagree with him.
Section 07 Bemused said...
"I personally, am not remotely attached to my characters in-game on an emotional level... the character is simply a character... not a projection of my ego."
The "ego" that is so big you feel the need to replace a discussion with an argument so you can feel like you've won something?
Section 08 Bemused said...
"It's alarming to think that some people hold their in-game characters to such a strict moral code as real life. How can you enjoy a game where you take the consequences of your virtual actions so seriously? Do you truly weep with sadness when your character dies in-game?"
Actually, the alarming part is how you've taken his observation so out of context and backasswards and created pointless arguments based on points Richard never even made.
Section 09 Bemused said...
"I think perhaps, this is a symptom of the age divide that is ever becoming more visible in the online world."
The only age differential of import is the maturity level between you and Richard.
Section 10 Bemused said...
"It seems to me, more often than not, that it is the older players who are playing these games as a method of projecting their egos into their avatars."
You must be mental. There is no evidence of this nor has anyone done any research regarding this statement. Moreover, everybody is projecting a part of themselves into their avatars, it can't be helped.
Section 11 Bemused said...
"They don't play the game so much as they "live" the game through their character."
The statistics for this are nonexistent and the "older players" you are referring to are people, of any age, with actual issues that need to be resolved, not elderly players. Even still, of course you are living through your character when you play your avatar, and you are expecting something from the game based on information provided to you by the publishers and developers. "Experience may change during online play" is referring to other players, not actual in game content. If the in game content changes, so must the expectations. This is the point Richard is making. Blizzard failed to warn players they'd be ass raping a prisoner with a pain stick.
Section 12 Bemused said...
"It's these players who see these kinds of topics (things like child molestation, which really has absolutely nothing to do with video games) as viable topics to discuss in the same paragraph as online fantasy role playing games."
If one of these things (ex. Torture) is in a game, then it is most definitely a viable topic to be discussed in the same paragraph therein... You know... because its "in" the game... Hurts the brain, I know. "Child Molestation" was brought up as an analogy. Since some people are fine with "Torture" an analogy helps to make a point by letting them see the point from a different angle. Stop taking things out of context.
Section 13 Bemused said...
"I've personally met plenty of people online... who project their personal views and "issues" into their gaming characters so much that they ruin the experience of others simply by bringing "real world" problems into the game's environment."
Meaning in person? Match.com or eHarmony? I jest... but is there any evidence of age for your previous assumptions? (see section 10 above). It is true that this can happen... I have also experience it and it sucks.
There is a massive difference however, between a person bringing in something upsetting to a game (which Richard is NOT TALKING ABOUT), and the game bringing in something upsetting (which Richard IS TALKING ABOUT.
You can block a player and ignore them; but, if the upsetting part is a required portion of a quest to complete a chain you can't "ignore" the game without "ignoring" a part of the game play itself. Therefore it is a problem to the people who might feel upset by seeing it. One thing they could have done is offer and alternative to the quest so that you can still complete it without having perform the torture.
Section 14 Bemused said...
"Personally, I find it more shattering to my immersion to have some self-righteous preacher bringing up topics which do not belong in gaming (molestation, war etc..) and comparing them to the acts of fantasy and fiction of a virtual world."
You are a moron... you are already outside of the game; please stop making stupid, ridiculous points just for arguments sake, it makes you seam even more ridiculous.
Section 15 Bemused said...
"I think the true danger here is...(really stupid stuff follows)"
You are now completely off topic and have made no valid points or counterpoints to the original observation but have turned this into an Ego match where you try to win by taking cheap shots at the other person (i.e. Richard) by eluding to the falsehood that he doesn't know reality from virtual reality and therefore he is incapable of making a completely legitimate and intelligent blog about something that should be discussed.
Section 16 Bemused said...
"Perhaps I am incorrect in my observations, I could be entirely off base, but after reading your post, I just find it completely distasteful to throw in a topic such as child molestation which has nothing to do with your point as some kind of passive aggressive assertion that anyone who is not bothered by in-game virtual violence is some kind of rapist."
Yes you are incorrect, yes you are off base. As stated earlier (see section 03 above), it was used as an analogy for people who are fine with torture to allow them to see the point from a different angle. PLEASE STOP taking things out of context. He is not making any suggestions to anyone about them being rapists of any kind. You have terrible arguments and are obviously insecure about something else to have to turn a discussion like this around so irresponsibly. Get help somewhere else instead of venting on forums and blogs. You are a moron and a prick.
Section 17 Bemused said...
"The irony here, is that nothing in-game is ever offensive to myself, I can recognize and differentiate between fiction and reality, but your assertions about the people who take this stance have actually upset me, go figure."
Again, this is an observation of Richard's about the way a game did something that was unexpected and how it could have been handled better. Seriously, stop being such a douche bag. Also, you agreed to these "assertions" earlier you dumb ass (see sections 04 & 05 above).
Section 18 Bemused said...
"I can't help but feel your position on this just a little bit reminiscent (at least, in terms of the "he just doesn't get it" sentiment) of a certain Florida lawyer named Jack."
Are you really that idiotic? It is a completely valid observation which you agreed with (see section 04 and 05 above) and somehow turned it into a logically impaired argument in which you try to make yourself look good by throwing around words and making terrible use of analogies and comparisons. You are more like "Jack" than any other person who has posted here. You don't get the point. Try harder.
The point is this:
Blizzard should have alerted the community to the change in experience or offered an alternative way to complete a quest that may be observed, by those who are sensitive to such happenings, as offensive. They failed to do so and therefore Richard posted a blog about it. End of story, that is the point, get over it, or discuss it constructively.
"Experience may change during online play" refers to other players, not in game content; in case some of you didn't read it earlier and try to use that as a point of disagreement.
Also, as GameCherry commented on another idiotic poster here, "Please, check the definition of big words before you use them, then please go fuck yourself."
James, your post was initially tl;dr to me, but I figured I'd be irresponsible if I posted here without fully reading the whole exchange.
Anyway, your points were pretty much target, if not a little antagonistic. Because of that, some folks may have still missed the overall point.
Also, I just wanted to throw my two cents into the whole debacle just so I could say it somewhere and get it off my chest.
What the Doc was actually posting about had little to do with *CONTENT* and had more to do with *CONTEXT*. Here is an example of what I mean.
Consider, if you will ToonTown. Players and their avatars go around defeating villains by throwing pies in their faces. If Disney suddenly decided to include a quest that allowed players to shoot villains in the face with a shotgun, as opposed to throwing a pie, there would be some degree of inconsistency there.
Now, shooting people in the face with a shotgun in a game is something most gamers prolly aren't averse to, considering the whole FPS genre allows for a lot of that. But, when people fire up an FPS, they realize that shooting enemies in the face with a shotgun is included as part of their expectations. However, when people playing ToonTown are accustomed to pies, a shotgun slug comes as a bit of a shock.
That shock, right there, is the thing the Doc thought deserved mention. It was purely a *DESIGN* issue, not a *CONTENT* issue. That it seemed out of place, and in some ways unfair to players who were not prepared for that level of escalation from pies to shotguns.
Thats all.
It had nothing to do with what players were actually asked to do, or whether the Doc's gotta hike his skirt up. It's just that from a DESIGN standpoint (which, the Doc is known to dabble in) the inconsistency between pies and shotguns didn't make sense in it's context, and further, Blizzard didn't see to provide any acknowledgement of the fact that they had just made the escalation from pies to shotguns, and just carried on as if it were situation normal.
So yeah. That's all I hadda say.
Actually. nevermind. I'm kind of an ass. I posted before I had better info.
Here's my Noob Membership Card. I've never really bothered to play WoW. I thought I had all the information concerning this situation, but I didn't. So yeah. Foot. Mouth. Got it.
And just to highlight how much of a Noob I've been, I was under the impression that the "design structure" that Blizzard established was that beings of one race didn't kill beings of the same race. Which is why I figured if you don't kill members of your own race in game, then torturing one is surely out of the norm. However, apparently, same-race killing happens all the time in game.
Whoa. Yeah. Like I said, I was misinformed.
But Doc, come on. If you're running around murdering hamsters all day long, then how, exactly, is torturing one a break from the design norm?
Anyway, I'm off to educate myself further. I'm installing WoW now, and I promise to keep my mouth shut in the future until I have better info.
Apparently Richard missed the fact that the game is called World of Warcraft. In a war, things like torture happen. The phrase "war is hell" wasn't a joke. I can't imagine anyone being surprised that a game about endless war has torture in it (then again, I'm not from Europe and don't cry when someone raises their voice). Also, Richard is making a HUGE assumption that people actually READ the quest text and think about it. I don't know anyone who does. Everyone I know (myself included) just clicks "accept quest" then just does whatever they need to so that they get more xp / gold / loot. I've played more games than I can ever count and (besides fun, logical controls, basic stuff like that) I never have any expectations about the game.
Even though it's offtopic, I'd love to find out Jeremy Clarkson's thoughts on Richard's rant. He'd probably tell his fellow countryman to grow a pair and quit crying because it's only a game.
@Totenglocke
Defensive much? Richard isn't even talking about torture. Though since you seem to insist on being as obtuse as possible ("Hi, I'm Totenglocke and I used the example that I do not read anything to make a point!") I can see how you would miss that.
Keep the ad hominem coming, folks! Let's avoid discourse as much as possible by calling him a eurofag. You people are amazingly thick.
Don't Be A Pussy, Post A Comment
<< Home