I like the analogy of the thermometer in terms of hot and cold to symbolize preference in player interactions or lack thereof in a game. I also would like to see this thermometer along a dynamic level as well.
I would explain myself as more of a colder (cooler) gamer overall in terms of my MMORPG's. I prefer having to be more involved within the game and havnig to place myself deeper within the games environment and its context.
However, there are times where I don't feel like doing any of that and just playing something much quicker or more up front (not necessarily limiting to MMOS) like Diablo, Global Agenda, Team Fortress 2 and Dawn of War 2 to get away from the cooler games from time to time.
I believe this thermometer can also represent player's feelings in a given moment towards a gaming preference which can be subject to change later on.
In some cases I wouldn't view "hot" and "cold" as mutually exclusive either. A "cold" MMO example of EVE Online, for instance, has a few "hot" elements that appeal to the eye-candy crowd (especially if you're a Gallente pilot, haha) You can be the type of player who enjoys EVE for the unparalleled depth and complexity of the player-driven universe, or you can be the player who understands enough of the game systems to get into the coolest-looking ship you like and then spend your time flying around in circles panning your camera around so your ship eclipses a star or admiring the metallic sheen on your hull. Overall though I found myself being a "cold" gamer for online PC games, and more of a "hot" gamer for my "jump in and play" console titles, which I suppose echoes the industry trend.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2. Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
At least you are trying right? Understanding human behaviour (yes, just like colour) is very complex with many variables. The induction of age that is correlated to temperature is not 100% correct assumption. You see demographics play the true 'age', in which you are really trying to factor in.
Humans are not all made from the same clay, take your typical adhd child and try your best to get them evolved into a text based rpg; you'll have better luck installing a third eye. You could argue that by enjoying a text based rpg, you filter out the demographics desired to correlate your assumption. Not true since, how long would one have to play in order for you to be grouped? week, year? Someone who could only play the game for a week but very much enjoyed it, would have different desires to one that played it for years.
Rhetorically, what if the person liked the text based rpg because her boyfriend played and liked the social aspects? Falling into the wrong age group? Anyway, your base assumption is wrong but personally my opinion would be replacing age with demographics.... of course the demographics that read these forum wouldn't know what you are talking about and they fall so easily into the "oh I am older I like big people games" argument. You know it's lonely.
I think most people enjoy a variety of activities ranging from "cold" to "hot" (by your definition) depending upon thier mood. I enjoy playing chess, pen & paper RPG's (when I get the chance) and old counter based wargames. I also enjoy going to the movies and sittinng back and watching a good, mindless, action flick. It all depends upon the mood.
I think the key for a game (or any other entertainment experience) is to understand what it wants to be, narrowly define it's goals and execute on those goals well.
That's where I think alot of games fail. They don't have a clear understanding of what it is they want to be...or thier goals are so broad that they can't possibly execute on them well. They try to be all things to all people and end up being none of them. Worse, they define thier goals by what some guy in the marketing department tabulates from media survey results of what's hot today....and end up with inconsistant goals... things that don't work well together.
Take one specific example from LOTRO (which is a game I actualy like quite alot). They wanted to make an MMO that felt (loosely) consistant with the Lore and like you were in Tolkiens world... yet at the same time they they felt they wanted to appeal to traditional sword & sorcery style MMO players...which to thier mind meant they had to have a "Magic User" type class. They started out with the Lore Keeper which was a pretty watered-down magic user type class as a compromise....and then when the Moria expansion hit..and they felt they didn't have enough appeal to the flashy magic crowd, they went the full monty and introduced the Rune-Keeper. While it's debateable whether this helped or hindered them from a financial standpoint....it certainly harmed the overall enjoyment factor of the game for many.
That's because the goals they had were contradictory. You can't make a world that feels like Tolkiens world and have common-place flashy magic of the D&D variety...the two just don't go together. The best you can achieve is putting in something that either group of fans is willing to tolerate or try to ignore as best they can in order to enjoy the aspects of the game that do appeal to them.
It's something I understand a bit from a business perspective but has always annoyed me quite a bit from a consumer perspective...rather then make smaller, narrower and discretely targeted venues targeted at specific audiences...they try to offer large, expansive and broadly targeted offerings. It's a bit like rather then selling tickets to a football game to football fans and tickets to a baseball game to baseball fans....have both games played on the same field at the same time and sell tickets to both sets of fans.
I'd rather they just split the budget in half and make two smaller games...each targeted at it's specific audience.
I totally disagree with the guys hot and cold views of media, for all things boil down to how you view them. For example, a book can be viewed as a hot media just like he says movies are. But then how does your experience and your outlook on life factor into that. If you have 10 people read the same book, they are going to see the book in totally different ways. Some might get more out of the book and view it has a cold experience, while others might view as a linear boring story and as hot. Same could be applied to gaming, I have seen people on these forums argue that WoW is a cold game, and some argue it is a hot. That you make your own level of interaction is the view of the sandbox argument for WoW. While the other group says it is not sandbox because it holds your hand in a linear story. All of this comes from personal view points and outlooks. My opinion is that WoW is hot game because no matter how many choices the game lets you make. You cannot go 5 feet without running into another Orc warrior wearing the exact same armor and looking just like your character. There is no personalization, so that to me makes the game Hot. But in the end this is just my opinion and adding a metric and calling it hot does not make it anything more than just an opinion.
Even to me saying that the old text based games are cold and everything else is warm or hot is nothing but an opinion. Even in those games your choices were limited to what the developers had programmed into it, you cannot do anything that pops into your head. So the level of interaction to me is the same as playing ME2. A game the author says is hot while Muds are cold. I have choices I can make that determine the outcome in ME2, just like I could in text based games. In the end those choices are control by the developers; they are just the illusion of choice. So the whole theory of hot and cold is based on an illusion of choice that is meant to represent the life we have (where all choices are possible). Right now where I am in my life I see books and movies as interactive as games. Of course this is still just my opinion, as the guy that made the hot and cold theory can have his opinion of life.
Planetfall was my first text rpg and loved it. Temple of Apshi by Epyx was my first graphic game, but loved it as well. Today's RPGs do leave out the immagination that past games left for the user to use. Wonder if there are any games out there that meld both hot and cool together. Good article btw.
I totally disagree with the guys hot and cold views of media, for all things boil down to how you view them. For example, a book can be viewed as a hot media just like he says movies are. But then how does your experience and your outlook on life factor into that. If you have 10 people read the same book, they are going to see the book in totally different ways. Some might get more out of the book and view it has a cold experience, while others might view as a linear boring story and as hot. Same could be applied to gaming, I have seen people on these forums argue that WoW is a cold game, and some argue it is a hot. That you make your own level of interaction is the view of the sandbox argument for WoW. While the other group says it is not sandbox because it holds your hand in a linear story. All of this comes from personal view points and outlooks. My opinion is that WoW is hot game because no matter how many choices the game lets you make. You cannot go 5 feet without running into another Orc warrior wearing the exact same armor and looking just like your character. There is no personalization, so that to me makes the game Hot. But in the end this is just my opinion and adding a metric and calling it hot does not make it anything more than just an opinion.
Even to me saying that the old text based games are cold and everything else is warm or hot is nothing but an opinion. Even in those games your choices were limited to what the developers had programmed into it, you cannot do anything that pops into your head. So the level of interaction to me is the same as playing ME2. A game the author says is hot while Muds are cold. I have choices I can make that determine the outcome in ME2, just like I could in text based games. In the end those choices are control by the developers; they are just the illusion of choice. So the whole theory of hot and cold is based on an illusion of choice that is meant to represent the life we have (where all choices are possible). Right now where I am in my life I see books and movies as interactive as games. Of course this is still just my opinion, as the guy that made the hot and cold theory can have his opinion of life.
It was merely a suggestion by the author to quantify the unquantifiable, and for many of us it makes reasonable sense.
No one can really explain what makes certain songs popular and others cater to a niche, but the fact remains, there is something about all media (including games) that makes one more popular than another.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm a cold player in a hot world. I really loved DAOC because, when it launched, you had to explore to figure out what was going on. It wasn't as cold as EQ but not knowing where the object of my quest was made it fun. I spent long periods of time just exploring. If that giant statue with the upraised sword out in Camelot Hills were in any other game today, it would never be found. Just knowing that random thing was up on the hill, hidden from view unless you were right there was just one cool thing that was out there to be found.
He's not just onto something, he's got it. We all realized this beforehand, he just gave us a perfect analogy/metaphor.
We all known that since long ago the games are and haven been neglecting extensive development of gameplay and other stuff like game length and trading those off for improved graphics, Its become a trend since almost a decade. Now this trend is just so obvious that anyone who's not even a serious gamer can notice. Single player games such as rpgs are loosing length, fps aren't really facing that much of a change since they always differed in length one from another, but for rpgs this is a serious punch in the gut, as is for morpgs wich are becoming more and more easier or user friendly, that isnt really a punch in the gut to morpgs but rather to the players, trends are horrible everyone knows that, if they don't swing your way they just serve to starve your gaming spirit to death.
There are ofcourse games that find an awesome balance between cold and hot, and he's right that everyone has a different sweetspot, but if you recall certain classics you can see that there is a balance to be had, specially in the morpg market, and there is also a lot of potential in this zone for such a balance... It all depends on the users after all, how much they focus on the hot or cool aspect of a morpg, after all games have both aspects, specially morpgs, thats why i think the "friend me" era is really coming.
And I agree 100% with the 3 ages stuff, I had a feeling you would call the third one something to do with "human interaction", and i agree totally, i think the next step/trend is that all games will have multiplayer (even single player console games) and most will most likely focus on this function.
Sorry been sick ,no sleep in two days so it is more me than the writer,however i couldn't follow the topic as related to the information .
I do understand both on their own however,the WHY,i think is dependent on majority or individually and in many cases both combined.The WHY for MANY in the NEW age is what i call followers of friends and hype.This basically means a game can be VERY mediocre,but if a lot of people start to follow it and join,it snowballs off of mass players rather than game quality.These same players will pretty much brainwash themselves into beleiveing thereis more to the game than there really is.
First Age
As to the dawning ages,the beginning was a golden time for ALL developers,i would say every dev had a good chance of a decent following,because devs were not really coping too much ,there wass a lot of versatility in games.Example of early stages were Wolfenstein advancing to Doom,then we had the muds advancing to games like Wizardry,Mightnmagic,Ultima,however each of the RPG's had a very distinct feel to it,you did not feel like you were playing the same game with a different skin.I wouldn't really call the earliest mud type games as an age of development,because it was not really puiblic access,just the odd student of computer engineer messing around with some friends,that age of gaming was closer to reading a book than being closer to gaming.
Second Age
The second age was of course the graphical age,SOE and their EQ for RPG's,Unreal/Quake,Wolfenstein 3D ect ect.This was a HUGE step up in gaming ,because it also marked the age where every household ,now had access to high speed internet.This was also a huge step up in game engine design[Epic games/Valve/Crytek],much larger worlds no more 30x30 grids,so this was truly a huge age in gaming.So MASSIVE became a commonly used word ,both for player totals and world sizes.
This second age of gaming also introduced a new trend for gamers,the RAID/End game facination.This age of player really came about as non vets,but the new wave of gamer.These players don't really like to play "the game"instead they look for the spotlight or ideas within a game to showoff/brag or be the king of the hill.These players prefer the most popular game,because it has a much larger stage to get what they want from gaming,it is actually no more about fun,but more about "epeen".
Third Age
I believe we are not quite on the verge of the next age,which i believe is massive physics,Half life and Unreal Tournament ,even perhaps the pioneer was maybe Wolfenstein 3D?It had destructive surfaces.This new age is going to bring about tons of new ideas for game play,already sort of touched on with games like Age Of Empires,where you destroy enemy walls and towers.We are also introduced to a new wave of gaming called social gaming,aka Facebook and the introduction of many APPS and mobile gaming.This new age may last quite a while,because of the high cost of development,it may take some time to move beyond simplified ,streamlined games ,using a few niche physics ideas,into something that feels MASSSIVE both in size and content.
This next age of gamer is going to be a mix of veteran gamers with a lot more knowledge about the way games are made and how developers operate.There will also be a new age of gamer that enjoys only 15 minutes of gaming but likes to be seen by friends on their social networs,example Facebook.I believe we are at a long stand still for TYPES of gamers,the social will remain stagnant and the vets will probably become more demanding.I also believe the gamers in general will follow the "massive "trend,the more people the more praise the game gathers,weather it is warranted or not is another topic for debate.
Future
Gamers and games will launch forth into yet a much larger audience and stage for bragging and showing off your Rare items.This will be gaming through a combined television network that has ALL platforms playing live on the TV against each other.This may very well spark international gaming,where by nationalities form large guilds to conquer the game.Example Team Canada Wow versus Team USA Wow all on one massive giant server.No more tweaking or cheating,because everyone will be using nothing but a standard hub to connect to an online source that sets up and maintains the entire game on an equal balance for all players.
This will really create a lot of anger and hate in gamers,probably lots of racial slurs going back and forth amongst the different nations.This type of fuel is exactly what a developer wants,it creats a NEED and DESIRE for massive gaming,it will pull all sorts of gamers out of the woodwork to defend their nation.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This is a very nice discussion starter. However I would say that it is basically a backdrop to the Sandbox vs Themepark discussion that takes place in nearly every MMO thread.
It is just this discussion branches out into the Show me vs tell me style of information intake that people have, which pretty much directly correlates to what type of game they will enjoy in terms of hot and cold.
Another way is to compare people that prefer to read a book or watch the movie, that will tell you if the person is a show me vs a tell me type of person.
The Show me generation is just hitting its stride though as more and more people wan t more and more instant gratification the slow patient path is becoming old news, in addition as new technology allows companies to do more graphically they are focusing on that aspect, a great story will always be a great story. But since more can be done graphically now then more is expected to be done graphically, which means other areas such as scope and size often suffer.
Dragon Age origins for all its size and epic feel is still not as big as BG 2 was, however it took 3 times aslong with a much bigger team to create. That more than anything is why there will never be another BG 2, Gamers expect more as standard, and game companies cant afford to deliver that AND a story of that scope. The one exception may be Sw TOR since the revenue model means bio can afford to take the time to create a truley massive sprawling story.
That more than anything is why I hope they do and why I hope if they do that it proves a huge success.
Started out with Pong. Yup, I'm old. Graduated to pacman. Stuck with games into the Nintendo age. Loved mario bros. Got PS1, then a PS2. Lots of great games, especially when the systems were newer.
I enjoyed all of that. Still like any of the above tbh. Why? They're fun, they work, I pay my money and I have a nice relaxing time--sometimes by myself, often with friends or family.
Got me a nice computer and noticed all the "MMO" jazz. Am a long-time StarWars fan. Met Darth Vader when I was 9 etc. etc.. Noticed something different about this video game--Star Wars Galaxies they called it. It didn't work.
That was a new one for me. Well, they said they'd fix it, and it was StarWars, so I hung in there. Trouble is, the stuff they said they'd fix, they often didn't. Actually they pretty much deleted most of it, and gave me a completely different game than the one I paid for...and it didn't work. Actually it worked less, and more stuff was missing. Then they told me I liked it, and that it was better, so I left lol.
I'm playing an open source MMO atm as a beta tester and I'm back to playing my old favourite games on the PS2. They even have the old atari games available for that as emulators. Sweet
The moral of the story: I play games of all generations if they work, if they're fun, and if the game company doesn't engage in behaviour that I find unethical. It's pretty simple really. I want to pay my money and have a nice relaxing time. Broken games and b.s. do not equal fun.
very interesting article, I think i'm one of those old school gamers that has a sweet spot that moves around. maybe it's mild case of ADD or maybe my tastes change as i get older and more familiar with what's "new". My first RPG experience was old PnP D&D and then AD&D 1st and 2nd edition. My first CRPG experience was probably Miracle Warriors on the old 8 bit sega master system. I've played everything from Police quest 1, Space Quest 1, Kings Quest 1, Leasure Suit Larry 1, Might and Magic 1 and Ultima 1 thru all sequels to most modern CRPGs. I've played all the gold box AD&D games you name it. I've enjoyed them all.
I guess my standards are not to heavy when it comes to the temperature. But more-so in the quality of the game. But then again I must admit that I do prefer something on the cooler side. That requires a lot more interaction. But it has to be "fun". If that interaction maybe new but if it's more tedious and annoying, ie. Might and Magic 4 or 5 (i believe it was) where there are tons and tons of riddles. I like a few riddles and puzzles but there was one that just had a metric butt ton of them and it got so annoying i quit playing it. I can blab on all night on all the good points of every CRPG i've played.
I've also enjoyed a lot of Bioware's newest games such as Dragon Age, because I love the intricate story elements and dialogue. Especially how those decisions you make effect how Awakening starts off.
But one thing I have noticed in MMORPGs as a whole, the first few MMOs where very cold in nature, but they keep getting warmer and warmer. Especially the games that sport the cliche EQ style "quest" or "task" that most refer to as "fed-ex" missions. I've noticed that I only will stick to those sort of games if i get a lot of instant gratification. Because if i don't level fairly fast under that sort of interaction I get bored fast. But if it requires a lot more intricate maze crawling with riddles and traps along the way that make it more interactive then, it doesn't matter how often I level. Like Asheron's Call in it's early days. Where dungeons actually require you to be able to intricately jump on wooden pillars to make your way through certain parts of the dungeon. ie. the Fire crystal dungeon for Atlatl weapons. Or at least require a lot of Strategy like Guild Wars.
Guess it all tends to be the first few all time favorite games like coin op games: Donkey Kong and Pacman plus games on the old Atari but the biggest that probably effected me where games like Metroid, Super Mario Bros, and Sonic the hedgehog. And I played a lot of Chess when i was younger. And a metric butt ton of CRPGs on the computer and console. Mostly on the computer.
Gamers and games will launch forth into yet a much larger audience and stage for bragging and showing off your Rare items.This will be gaming through a combined television network that has ALL platforms playing live on the TV against each other.This may very well spark international gaming,where by nationalities form large guilds to conquer the game.Example Team Canada Wow versus Team USA Wow all on one massive giant server.No more tweaking or cheating,because everyone will be using nothing but a standard hub to connect to an online source that sets up and maintains the entire game on an equal balance for all players.
This will really create a lot of anger and hate in gamers,probably lots of racial slurs going back and forth amongst the different nations.This type of fuel is exactly what a developer wants,it creats a NEED and DESIRE for massive gaming,it will pull all sorts of gamers out of the woodwork to defend their nation.
Actually I believe Virtual Reality is the next major step. It's something old school gamers like myself have been waiting on since about '92 or '93. One day it will be the best thing for the nursing home, it will be like the Nintendo Wii on crack. But all in a virtual online world with friends and family. All without the use of a keyboard and mouse anymore. because it will relay speech over a voice server, or be able to type out words from your thoughts.
call me crazy, but it could very well happen in the next 20 years.
"Back in the late 80s, RPGs were predominantly text based. For example, MUDs; Colossal Cave; Infocom adventures; The Hobbit; etc. Players parsed the text and had to imagine/infer what was going on. Players interacted “into” the game ... and the game responded."
I think you're getting a little old there :P Infocom games like Zork were late 70's. In the mid 80's we were well into graphical games like the SSI Gold Box series of rpgs, Wizardry by Sir-Tech, and The Bard's Tale series by interplay.
Great article, been a while since i wanted to read some of the comments on mmorpg.com...
an interesting thing to share: just couple days ago i discovered the game called UFO:extraterrestrial and have a total blast with it! although couple of days before that i was preaty much yawning while playing DAO on hardcore since had nothing better to do waiting for APB or Xsyon to come out)
ok, im very predispositioned towards turn based games, being a big fan of JA2 Fallout and some others like Wiz8, but it is a whole load of FUN!
Justed another point to consider: there are still "cool" games coming out which are very good yet involve modern day technologies, a good example is R.U.S.E, increadible RTS with a lot of dynamic tactics
Gamers and games will launch forth into yet a much larger audience and stage for bragging and showing off your Rare items.This will be gaming through a combined television network that has ALL platforms playing live on the TV against each other.This may very well spark international gaming,where by nationalities form large guilds to conquer the game.Example Team Canada Wow versus Team USA Wow all on one massive giant server.No more tweaking or cheating,because everyone will be using nothing but a standard hub to connect to an online source that sets up and maintains the entire game on an equal balance for all players.
This will really create a lot of anger and hate in gamers,probably lots of racial slurs going back and forth amongst the different nations.This type of fuel is exactly what a developer wants,it creats a NEED and DESIRE for massive gaming,it will pull all sorts of gamers out of the woodwork to defend their nation.
Actually I believe Virtual Reality is the next major step. It's something old school gamers like myself have been waiting on since about '92 or '93. One day it will be the best thing for the nursing home, it will be like the Nintendo Wii on crack. But all in a virtual online world with friends and family. All without the use of a keyboard and mouse anymore. because it will relay speech over a voice server, or be able to type out words from your thoughts.
call me crazy, but it could very well happen in the next 20 years.
While I have not seen direct information as per its use in gaming, you may be happy to know such a thing IS actually possible at this time. Its called Braingate, and its to help the disabled to be able to fully utilize computers and other electronic devices. It DOES actually work, though the person needs to be trained. They can simply type, and move a mouse, and everything, even tell their TV or lights, to turn on and off, with just a thought, via a computer interface to their brain.. Give it a google if your interested in how this may some day effect your gamining experience.
Firstly, I enjoyed the OP and the novel use of Marshall Mcluhan's theories on the media as applied to mmorpgs.
My issue is with Mcluhan, I never liked his theories despite their original and revived popularity, So my criticism of the OP is really an extension of my criticism of Mcluhan.
Here goes.
Hot media = low in participation and high in definition or information
Cool media = high in participation and low in definition or information.
McLuhan has also described cool media as inclusive and hot media as excluding. I also reject, for reasons too long to go into, Mcluhan's claim that his categories are value-judgement free and neutral. Cool always comes off better than hot. If you wanna check more then read his rosy descriptions of tribal man compared to Gutenberg man and his belief that cool media like TV was leading to a re-tribalisation of man; it is anything but neutral.
Next, lets consider hot and cool media. TV is cool media while books are hot media. Isn't this counter-intuitive? I always felt that TV was passive, non-participatory and saturated with (useless) information overload. Books, especially novels and poetry, require a great degree of participation: cultural, linguistic, mental and imaginative participation. Some of you must feel this counter-intuitiveness, too. And we feel it because we are missing a fundamental component of Mcluhan's theories summed up in two Mcluhan quotes:
"The medium is the message" and that content "has about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb".
When Mcluhan is talking about hot and cool media he is NOT really talking about people (who are mostly passive in his deterministic theories even with his analysis of Nixon and Kennedy, where attention is on their manner and appearance rather than the content of their policies, words etc) and we are NOT - emphatically NOT - talking about content. We are talking about medium. So a book is just a series of printed letters on a sequence of numbered pages and this is why books are "hot" media - the medium and not the content is what Mcluhan is interested in. The OP and so many replies to OP talk about content features of mmorpgs as being cool or hot. While this made for an interesting debate I am not sure this is what Mcluhan has in mind when he talks about cold and hot media. To get the jist of his hot and cold media theories imo you have to start with "the medium is the message" which is the guiding thread of his theories on media.
In terms of mmorpgs the medium would be your monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound system, internet connection and "the game" in the broadest non-content understanding of the word. I think Mcluhan would simply have regarded all mmorpgs, in fact all video games with online options, as cool media. So whether a game is sandbox or themepark is utterly irrevelant on Mcluhan's own terms because then you are talking about content and if we are disussing content then this is isn't using Mcluhan's theories at all, we are merely borrowing some words like "cool" and "participation" and are on a completely different page from Mcluhan. What would make a mmorpg more or less cooler, according to Mcluhan, would be features relating to the medium, like whether the games utilised a headphone and mic setup, how many chat options there are etc.
If you reject the idea that the medium is the message, or even a revised Mcluhan position that the content has a smidgeon of relevance but is really a footnote to the medium, then Mcluhan's theories are not for you. I personally feel that the medium and the content and human agency are equally important. Especially human agency. But then I subscribe to a form of compatiblism, which is an uneasy belief in both free will and determinism. For mmorpgs I believe content is key and this is what sets me at odds from a Mcluhan approach to the media and mmorpgs.
regards
Melmoth
Ps. Had to write this real fast lol, so apologies for typos and rough-edged reasoning.
Firstly, I enjoyed the OP and the novel use of Marshall Mcluhan's theories on the media as applied to mmorpgs.
My issue is with Mcluhan, I never liked his theories despite their original and revived popularity, So my criticism of the OP is really an extension of my criticism of Mcluhan.
Here goes.
Hot media = low in participation and high in definition or information
Cool media = high in participation and low in definition or information.
McLuhan has also described Cool media as inclusive and hot media as excluding. I also reject, for reasons too long to go into, Mcluhan's claim that his categories are value-judgement free and neutral. Cool always comes off better than hot. If you wanna check more then read his descriptions of tribal man compared to Gutenberg man and his belief that cool media like TV was leading to a re-tribalisation of man; it is anything but neutral.
Next, lets consider hot and cool media. TV is cool media while books are hot media. Isn't this counterintuitive? I always felt that TV was passive, non-participatory and saturated with (useless) information overload. Books, especially novels and poetry, require a great degree of participation: cultural, linguistic, mental and imaginative participation. Some of you must feel this counterintuitness, too. And we feel it because we are missing a fundamental component of Mcluhan's theories summed up in two quotes:
"The medium is the message" and that content "has about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb".
When Mcluhan is talking about hot and cool media he is NOT really talking about people (who are mostly passive in his deterministic theories with the exception of his analysis of Nixon and Kennedy) and we are NOT - emphatically NOT - talking about content. We are talking about medium. So a book is just a series of printed letters on a sequence of numbered pages and this is why books are "hot" media - the medium and not the content is what Mcluhan is interested in. So many replies to OP talk about content features of mmorpgs as being cool or hot. While this made for an interesting debate I am not sure this is what Mcluhan has in mind when he talks about cold and hot media. To get the jist of his hot and cold media theories imo you have to start with "the medium is the message" which is the guiding thread of his theories on media. I think Mcluhan would simply have regarded all mmorpgs, in fact all video games, as cool media.
regards
Melmoth
Ps. Had to write this real fast lol, so apologies for typos and rough-edged reasoning.
+1 for books as cool media, you have to use your own imagination so much while reading, translatingthe written word into mental images, trying to untangle plot threads, playing "spot the twist", whatever. TV is incredibly passive by comparison.
Hm, I can't say, maybe I never got to be the typical MMO gamer, and what I always love way more is a really great story in a single player RPG. The only times I was happy in MMOs was in SWG & EQ2, two VASTLY different games, and in both cases it was because I was in a cool guild. And maybe because I was new to MMOs since they were my first two MMOs ever. Everything ever sicne has more or less felt "meh". But again, maybe I am just not the classic MMO person. I always wanted to copy my pen and paper game experience, travel with a group, experience an epic story, but that never came true since story in MMos is as shallow as can be. From my perspective I still see MMOs in their infancy and maybe with SWTOR they are becoming what I always felt they should be. But thats just me.
Also, seeing things in the making is sure something I don't want. Its the three things you don't want to see being made: sausages, politics and video games.
And why can't the good of both sides come together in a game? Complex (cool) gameplay AND hotness?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
I like the analogy of the thermometer in terms of hot and cold to symbolize preference in player interactions or lack thereof in a game. I also would like to see this thermometer along a dynamic level as well.
I would explain myself as more of a colder (cooler) gamer overall in terms of my MMORPG's. I prefer having to be more involved within the game and havnig to place myself deeper within the games environment and its context.
However, there are times where I don't feel like doing any of that and just playing something much quicker or more up front (not necessarily limiting to MMOS) like Diablo, Global Agenda, Team Fortress 2 and Dawn of War 2 to get away from the cooler games from time to time.
I believe this thermometer can also represent player's feelings in a given moment towards a gaming preference which can be subject to change later on.
In some cases I wouldn't view "hot" and "cold" as mutually exclusive either. A "cold" MMO example of EVE Online, for instance, has a few "hot" elements that appeal to the eye-candy crowd (especially if you're a Gallente pilot, haha)
You can be the type of player who enjoys EVE for the unparalleled depth and complexity of the player-driven universe, or you can be the player who understands enough of the game systems to get into the coolest-looking ship you like and then spend your time flying around in circles panning your camera around so your ship eclipses a star or admiring the metallic sheen on your hull. Overall though I found myself being a "cold" gamer for online PC games, and more of a "hot" gamer for my "jump in and play" console titles, which I suppose echoes the industry trend.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2.
Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic
Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
At least you are trying right? Understanding human behaviour (yes, just like colour) is very complex with many variables. The induction of age that is correlated to temperature is not 100% correct assumption. You see demographics play the true 'age', in which you are really trying to factor in.
Humans are not all made from the same clay, take your typical adhd child and try your best to get them evolved into a text based rpg; you'll have better luck installing a third eye. You could argue that by enjoying a text based rpg, you filter out the demographics desired to correlate your assumption. Not true since, how long would one have to play in order for you to be grouped? week, year? Someone who could only play the game for a week but very much enjoyed it, would have different desires to one that played it for years.
Rhetorically, what if the person liked the text based rpg because her boyfriend played and liked the social aspects? Falling into the wrong age group? Anyway, your base assumption is wrong but personally my opinion would be replacing age with demographics.... of course the demographics that read these forum wouldn't know what you are talking about and they fall so easily into the "oh I am older I like big people games" argument. You know it's lonely.
hehe...tell that to the UO guys.
It's a proven historical fact that beer saved humankind.
I think most people enjoy a variety of activities ranging from "cold" to "hot" (by your definition) depending upon thier mood. I enjoy playing chess, pen & paper RPG's (when I get the chance) and old counter based wargames. I also enjoy going to the movies and sittinng back and watching a good, mindless, action flick. It all depends upon the mood.
I think the key for a game (or any other entertainment experience) is to understand what it wants to be, narrowly define it's goals and execute on those goals well.
That's where I think alot of games fail. They don't have a clear understanding of what it is they want to be...or thier goals are so broad that they can't possibly execute on them well. They try to be all things to all people and end up being none of them. Worse, they define thier goals by what some guy in the marketing department tabulates from media survey results of what's hot today....and end up with inconsistant goals... things that don't work well together.
Take one specific example from LOTRO (which is a game I actualy like quite alot). They wanted to make an MMO that felt (loosely) consistant with the Lore and like you were in Tolkiens world... yet at the same time they they felt they wanted to appeal to traditional sword & sorcery style MMO players...which to thier mind meant they had to have a "Magic User" type class. They started out with the Lore Keeper which was a pretty watered-down magic user type class as a compromise....and then when the Moria expansion hit..and they felt they didn't have enough appeal to the flashy magic crowd, they went the full monty and introduced the Rune-Keeper. While it's debateable whether this helped or hindered them from a financial standpoint....it certainly harmed the overall enjoyment factor of the game for many.
That's because the goals they had were contradictory. You can't make a world that feels like Tolkiens world and have common-place flashy magic of the D&D variety...the two just don't go together. The best you can achieve is putting in something that either group of fans is willing to tolerate or try to ignore as best they can in order to enjoy the aspects of the game that do appeal to them.
It's something I understand a bit from a business perspective but has always annoyed me quite a bit from a consumer perspective...rather then make smaller, narrower and discretely targeted venues targeted at specific audiences...they try to offer large, expansive and broadly targeted offerings. It's a bit like rather then selling tickets to a football game to football fans and tickets to a baseball game to baseball fans....have both games played on the same field at the same time and sell tickets to both sets of fans.
I'd rather they just split the budget in half and make two smaller games...each targeted at it's specific audience.
I totally disagree with the guys hot and cold views of media, for all things boil down to how you view them. For example, a book can be viewed as a hot media just like he says movies are. But then how does your experience and your outlook on life factor into that. If you have 10 people read the same book, they are going to see the book in totally different ways. Some might get more out of the book and view it has a cold experience, while others might view as a linear boring story and as hot. Same could be applied to gaming, I have seen people on these forums argue that WoW is a cold game, and some argue it is a hot. That you make your own level of interaction is the view of the sandbox argument for WoW. While the other group says it is not sandbox because it holds your hand in a linear story. All of this comes from personal view points and outlooks. My opinion is that WoW is hot game because no matter how many choices the game lets you make. You cannot go 5 feet without running into another Orc warrior wearing the exact same armor and looking just like your character. There is no personalization, so that to me makes the game Hot. But in the end this is just my opinion and adding a metric and calling it hot does not make it anything more than just an opinion.
Even to me saying that the old text based games are cold and everything else is warm or hot is nothing but an opinion. Even in those games your choices were limited to what the developers had programmed into it, you cannot do anything that pops into your head. So the level of interaction to me is the same as playing ME2. A game the author says is hot while Muds are cold. I have choices I can make that determine the outcome in ME2, just like I could in text based games. In the end those choices are control by the developers; they are just the illusion of choice. So the whole theory of hot and cold is based on an illusion of choice that is meant to represent the life we have (where all choices are possible). Right now where I am in my life I see books and movies as interactive as games. Of course this is still just my opinion, as the guy that made the hot and cold theory can have his opinion of life.
I don't really get the hot/cool explaination. Where would a game like Mount and Blade stand? The singplayer as cool and multiplayer as hot?
Planetfall was my first text rpg and loved it. Temple of Apshi by Epyx was my first graphic game, but loved it as well. Today's RPGs do leave out the immagination that past games left for the user to use. Wonder if there are any games out there that meld both hot and cool together. Good article btw.
It was merely a suggestion by the author to quantify the unquantifiable, and for many of us it makes reasonable sense.
No one can really explain what makes certain songs popular and others cater to a niche, but the fact remains, there is something about all media (including games) that makes one more popular than another.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm a cold player in a hot world. I really loved DAOC because, when it launched, you had to explore to figure out what was going on. It wasn't as cold as EQ but not knowing where the object of my quest was made it fun. I spent long periods of time just exploring. If that giant statue with the upraised sword out in Camelot Hills were in any other game today, it would never be found. Just knowing that random thing was up on the hill, hidden from view unless you were right there was just one cool thing that was out there to be found.
He's not just onto something, he's got it. We all realized this beforehand, he just gave us a perfect analogy/metaphor.
We all known that since long ago the games are and haven been neglecting extensive development of gameplay and other stuff like game length and trading those off for improved graphics, Its become a trend since almost a decade. Now this trend is just so obvious that anyone who's not even a serious gamer can notice. Single player games such as rpgs are loosing length, fps aren't really facing that much of a change since they always differed in length one from another, but for rpgs this is a serious punch in the gut, as is for morpgs wich are becoming more and more easier or user friendly, that isnt really a punch in the gut to morpgs but rather to the players, trends are horrible everyone knows that, if they don't swing your way they just serve to starve your gaming spirit to death.
There are ofcourse games that find an awesome balance between cold and hot, and he's right that everyone has a different sweetspot, but if you recall certain classics you can see that there is a balance to be had, specially in the morpg market, and there is also a lot of potential in this zone for such a balance... It all depends on the users after all, how much they focus on the hot or cool aspect of a morpg, after all games have both aspects, specially morpgs, thats why i think the "friend me" era is really coming.
And I agree 100% with the 3 ages stuff, I had a feeling you would call the third one something to do with "human interaction", and i agree totally, i think the next step/trend is that all games will have multiplayer (even single player console games) and most will most likely focus on this function.
Sorry been sick ,no sleep in two days so it is more me than the writer,however i couldn't follow the topic as related to the information
.
I do understand both on their own however,the WHY,i think is dependent on majority or individually and in many cases both combined.The WHY for MANY in the NEW age is what i call followers of friends and hype.This basically means a game can be VERY mediocre,but if a lot of people start to follow it and join,it snowballs off of mass players rather than game quality.These same players will pretty much brainwash themselves into beleiveing thereis more to the game than there really is.
First Age
As to the dawning ages,the beginning was a golden time for ALL developers,i would say every dev had a good chance of a decent following,because devs were not really coping too much ,there wass a lot of versatility in games.Example of early stages were Wolfenstein advancing to Doom,then we had the muds advancing to games like Wizardry,Mightnmagic,Ultima,however each of the RPG's had a very distinct feel to it,you did not feel like you were playing the same game with a different skin.I wouldn't really call the earliest mud type games as an age of development,because it was not really puiblic access,just the odd student of computer engineer messing around with some friends,that age of gaming was closer to reading a book than being closer to gaming.
Second Age
The second age was of course the graphical age,SOE and their EQ for RPG's,Unreal/Quake,Wolfenstein 3D ect ect.This was a HUGE step up in gaming ,because it also marked the age where every household ,now had access to high speed internet.This was also a huge step up in game engine design[Epic games/Valve/Crytek],much larger worlds no more 30x30 grids,so this was truly a huge age in gaming.So MASSIVE became a commonly used word ,both for player totals and world sizes.
This second age of gaming also introduced a new trend for gamers,the RAID/End game facination.This age of player really came about as non vets,but the new wave of gamer.These players don't really like to play "the game"instead they look for the spotlight or ideas within a game to showoff/brag or be the king of the hill.These players prefer the most popular game,because it has a much larger stage to get what they want from gaming,it is actually no more about fun,but more about "epeen".
Third Age
I believe we are not quite on the verge of the next age,which i believe is massive physics,Half life and Unreal Tournament ,even perhaps the pioneer was maybe Wolfenstein 3D?It had destructive surfaces.This new age is going to bring about tons of new ideas for game play,already sort of touched on with games like Age Of Empires,where you destroy enemy walls and towers.We are also introduced to a new wave of gaming called social gaming,aka Facebook and the introduction of many APPS and mobile gaming.This new age may last quite a while,because of the high cost of development,it may take some time to move beyond simplified ,streamlined games ,using a few niche physics ideas,into something that feels MASSSIVE both in size and content.
This next age of gamer is going to be a mix of veteran gamers with a lot more knowledge about the way games are made and how developers operate.There will also be a new age of gamer that enjoys only 15 minutes of gaming but likes to be seen by friends on their social networs,example Facebook.I believe we are at a long stand still for TYPES of gamers,the social will remain stagnant and the vets will probably become more demanding.I also believe the gamers in general will follow the "massive "trend,the more people the more praise the game gathers,weather it is warranted or not is another topic for debate.
Future
Gamers and games will launch forth into yet a much larger audience and stage for bragging and showing off your Rare items.This will be gaming through a combined television network that has ALL platforms playing live on the TV against each other.This may very well spark international gaming,where by nationalities form large guilds to conquer the game.Example Team Canada Wow versus Team USA Wow
all on one massive giant server.No more tweaking or cheating,because everyone will be using nothing but a standard hub to connect to an online source that sets up and maintains the entire game on an equal balance for all players.
This will really create a lot of anger and hate in gamers,probably lots of racial slurs going back and forth amongst the different nations.This type of fuel is exactly what a developer wants,it creats a NEED and DESIRE for massive gaming,it will pull all sorts of gamers out of the woodwork to defend their nation.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This is a very nice discussion starter. However I would say that it is basically a backdrop to the Sandbox vs Themepark discussion that takes place in nearly every MMO thread.
It is just this discussion branches out into the Show me vs tell me style of information intake that people have, which pretty much directly correlates to what type of game they will enjoy in terms of hot and cold.
Another way is to compare people that prefer to read a book or watch the movie, that will tell you if the person is a show me vs a tell me type of person.
The Show me generation is just hitting its stride though as more and more people wan t more and more instant gratification the slow patient path is becoming old news, in addition as new technology allows companies to do more graphically they are focusing on that aspect, a great story will always be a great story. But since more can be done graphically now then more is expected to be done graphically, which means other areas such as scope and size often suffer.
Dragon Age origins for all its size and epic feel is still not as big as BG 2 was, however it took 3 times aslong with a much bigger team to create. That more than anything is why there will never be another BG 2, Gamers expect more as standard, and game companies cant afford to deliver that AND a story of that scope. The one exception may be Sw TOR since the revenue model means bio can afford to take the time to create a truley massive sprawling story.
That more than anything is why I hope they do and why I hope if they do that it proves a huge success.
Started out with Pong. Yup, I'm old. Graduated to pacman. Stuck with games into the Nintendo age. Loved mario bros. Got PS1, then a PS2. Lots of great games, especially when the systems were newer.
I enjoyed all of that. Still like any of the above tbh. Why? They're fun, they work, I pay my money and I have a nice relaxing time--sometimes by myself, often with friends or family.
Got me a nice computer and noticed all the "MMO" jazz. Am a long-time StarWars fan. Met Darth Vader when I was 9 etc. etc.. Noticed something different about this video game--Star Wars Galaxies they called it. It didn't work.
That was a new one for me. Well, they said they'd fix it, and it was StarWars, so I hung in there. Trouble is, the stuff they said they'd fix, they often didn't. Actually they pretty much deleted most of it, and gave me a completely different game than the one I paid for...and it didn't work. Actually it worked less, and more stuff was missing. Then they told me I liked it, and that it was better, so I left lol.
I'm playing an open source MMO atm as a beta tester and I'm back to playing my old favourite games on the PS2. They even have the old atari games available for that as emulators. Sweet
The moral of the story: I play games of all generations if they work, if they're fun, and if the game company doesn't engage in behaviour that I find unethical. It's pretty simple really. I want to pay my money and have a nice relaxing time. Broken games and b.s. do not equal fun.
very interesting article, I think i'm one of those old school gamers that has a sweet spot that moves around. maybe it's mild case of ADD or maybe my tastes change as i get older and more familiar with what's "new". My first RPG experience was old PnP D&D and then AD&D 1st and 2nd edition. My first CRPG experience was probably Miracle Warriors on the old 8 bit sega master system. I've played everything from Police quest 1, Space Quest 1, Kings Quest 1, Leasure Suit Larry 1, Might and Magic 1 and Ultima 1 thru all sequels to most modern CRPGs. I've played all the gold box AD&D games you name it. I've enjoyed them all.
I guess my standards are not to heavy when it comes to the temperature. But more-so in the quality of the game. But then again I must admit that I do prefer something on the cooler side. That requires a lot more interaction. But it has to be "fun". If that interaction maybe new but if it's more tedious and annoying, ie. Might and Magic 4 or 5 (i believe it was) where there are tons and tons of riddles. I like a few riddles and puzzles but there was one that just had a metric butt ton of them and it got so annoying i quit playing it. I can blab on all night on all the good points of every CRPG i've played.
I've also enjoyed a lot of Bioware's newest games such as Dragon Age, because I love the intricate story elements and dialogue. Especially how those decisions you make effect how Awakening starts off.
But one thing I have noticed in MMORPGs as a whole, the first few MMOs where very cold in nature, but they keep getting warmer and warmer. Especially the games that sport the cliche EQ style "quest" or "task" that most refer to as "fed-ex" missions. I've noticed that I only will stick to those sort of games if i get a lot of instant gratification. Because if i don't level fairly fast under that sort of interaction I get bored fast. But if it requires a lot more intricate maze crawling with riddles and traps along the way that make it more interactive then, it doesn't matter how often I level. Like Asheron's Call in it's early days. Where dungeons actually require you to be able to intricately jump on wooden pillars to make your way through certain parts of the dungeon. ie. the Fire crystal dungeon for Atlatl weapons. Or at least require a lot of Strategy like Guild Wars.
Guess it all tends to be the first few all time favorite games like coin op games: Donkey Kong and Pacman plus games on the old Atari but the biggest that probably effected me where games like Metroid, Super Mario Bros, and Sonic the hedgehog. And I played a lot of Chess when i was younger. And a metric butt ton of CRPGs on the computer and console. Mostly on the computer.
Actually I believe Virtual Reality is the next major step. It's something old school gamers like myself have been waiting on since about '92 or '93. One day it will be the best thing for the nursing home, it will be like the Nintendo Wii on crack. But all in a virtual online world with friends and family. All without the use of a keyboard and mouse anymore. because it will relay speech over a voice server, or be able to type out words from your thoughts.
call me crazy, but it could very well happen in the next 20 years.
"Back in the late 80s, RPGs were predominantly text based. For example, MUDs; Colossal Cave; Infocom adventures; The Hobbit; etc. Players parsed the text and had to imagine/infer what was going on. Players interacted “into” the game ... and the game responded."
I think you're getting a little old there :P Infocom games like Zork were late 70's. In the mid 80's we were well into graphical games like the SSI Gold Box series of rpgs, Wizardry by Sir-Tech, and The Bard's Tale series by interplay.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
This hot and cold idea, is it for people who can't understand concepts that have words of more than 4 letters?
Great article, been a while since i wanted to read some of the comments on mmorpg.com...
an interesting thing to share: just couple days ago i discovered the game called UFO:extraterrestrial and have a total blast with it! although couple of days before that i was preaty much yawning while playing DAO on hardcore since had nothing better to do waiting for APB or Xsyon to come out)
ok, im very predispositioned towards turn based games, being a big fan of JA2 Fallout and some others like Wiz8, but it is a whole load of FUN!
Justed another point to consider: there are still "cool" games coming out which are very good yet involve modern day technologies, a good example is R.U.S.E, increadible RTS with a lot of dynamic tactics
While I have not seen direct information as per its use in gaming, you may be happy to know such a thing IS actually possible at this time. Its called Braingate, and its to help the disabled to be able to fully utilize computers and other electronic devices. It DOES actually work, though the person needs to be trained. They can simply type, and move a mouse, and everything, even tell their TV or lights, to turn on and off, with just a thought, via a computer interface to their brain.. Give it a google if your interested in how this may some day effect your gamining experience.
Wow, awesome segue! Are we back in the 'Worthless Replies' thread?
Firstly, I enjoyed the OP and the novel use of Marshall Mcluhan's theories on the media as applied to mmorpgs.
My issue is with Mcluhan, I never liked his theories despite their original and revived popularity, So my criticism of the OP is really an extension of my criticism of Mcluhan.
Here goes.
Hot media = low in participation and high in definition or information
Cool media = high in participation and low in definition or information.
McLuhan has also described cool media as inclusive and hot media as excluding. I also reject, for reasons too long to go into, Mcluhan's claim that his categories are value-judgement free and neutral. Cool always comes off better than hot. If you wanna check more then read his rosy descriptions of tribal man compared to Gutenberg man and his belief that cool media like TV was leading to a re-tribalisation of man; it is anything but neutral.
Next, lets consider hot and cool media. TV is cool media while books are hot media. Isn't this counter-intuitive? I always felt that TV was passive, non-participatory and saturated with (useless) information overload. Books, especially novels and poetry, require a great degree of participation: cultural, linguistic, mental and imaginative participation. Some of you must feel this counter-intuitiveness, too. And we feel it because we are missing a fundamental component of Mcluhan's theories summed up in two Mcluhan quotes:
"The medium is the message" and that content "has about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb".
When Mcluhan is talking about hot and cool media he is NOT really talking about people (who are mostly passive in his deterministic theories even with his analysis of Nixon and Kennedy, where attention is on their manner and appearance rather than the content of their policies, words etc) and we are NOT - emphatically NOT - talking about content. We are talking about medium. So a book is just a series of printed letters on a sequence of numbered pages and this is why books are "hot" media - the medium and not the content is what Mcluhan is interested in. The OP and so many replies to OP talk about content features of mmorpgs as being cool or hot. While this made for an interesting debate I am not sure this is what Mcluhan has in mind when he talks about cold and hot media. To get the jist of his hot and cold media theories imo you have to start with "the medium is the message" which is the guiding thread of his theories on media.
In terms of mmorpgs the medium would be your monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound system, internet connection and "the game" in the broadest non-content understanding of the word. I think Mcluhan would simply have regarded all mmorpgs, in fact all video games with online options, as cool media. So whether a game is sandbox or themepark is utterly irrevelant on Mcluhan's own terms because then you are talking about content and if we are disussing content then this is isn't using Mcluhan's theories at all, we are merely borrowing some words like "cool" and "participation" and are on a completely different page from Mcluhan. What would make a mmorpg more or less cooler, according to Mcluhan, would be features relating to the medium, like whether the games utilised a headphone and mic setup, how many chat options there are etc.
If you reject the idea that the medium is the message, or even a revised Mcluhan position that the content has a smidgeon of relevance but is really a footnote to the medium, then Mcluhan's theories are not for you. I personally feel that the medium and the content and human agency are equally important. Especially human agency. But then I subscribe to a form of compatiblism, which is an uneasy belief in both free will and determinism. For mmorpgs I believe content is key and this is what sets me at odds from a Mcluhan approach to the media and mmorpgs.
regards
Melmoth
Ps. Had to write this real fast lol, so apologies for typos and rough-edged reasoning.
Edit for some additional clarification.
+1 for books as cool media, you have to use your own imagination so much while reading, translatingthe written word into mental images, trying to untangle plot threads, playing "spot the twist", whatever. TV is incredibly passive by comparison.
You're right, that's completely counterintuitive.
Hm, I can't say, maybe I never got to be the typical MMO gamer, and what I always love way more is a really great story in a single player RPG. The only times I was happy in MMOs was in SWG & EQ2, two VASTLY different games, and in both cases it was because I was in a cool guild. And maybe because I was new to MMOs since they were my first two MMOs ever. Everything ever sicne has more or less felt "meh". But again, maybe I am just not the classic MMO person. I always wanted to copy my pen and paper game experience, travel with a group, experience an epic story, but that never came true since story in MMos is as shallow as can be. From my perspective I still see MMOs in their infancy and maybe with SWTOR they are becoming what I always felt they should be. But thats just me.
Also, seeing things in the making is sure something I don't want. Its the three things you don't want to see being made: sausages, politics and video games.
And why can't the good of both sides come together in a game? Complex (cool) gameplay AND hotness?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert