Now finally Bump! , no i didnt know you were bipolar and I know that all to well (for more info you have my mail) but no i am not bipolar. Your review is where i stand give or take ...as i posted earlier that only when the OP replies or failure to do and in the manner of which the reply will be , Personally i ll see if i ll take more time on this as well you say "satire" ...it surely has drama( action in greek) , but as said it misses the "God from above element= Deus Ex Machina". I really can't take this any further and i am getting tired of this thread. Yet as many said incl. me , it comes down to the OP. AS for me and this post (unless i see something worth my time) I am out of this post , as for any chat , you know where to find me ! that's all
Originally posted by Antipathy 1 Her point could be re-phrased as "There should be more lefty intellectuals like me. Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad". If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything. 2 Whilst many (not all) people would agree that real opiates are bad for a person, does it necessarily follow that metaphorical opiates are also bad? For the last 15 years, economies throughout the west have been largely successful. The vast majority of people have shown little interest in politics, and many would far rather go out and party than attend a rally. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming 3 The most interesting remaining question isn't whether MMOs are an opiate for the masses (they are), or whether metaphorical opiates are a bad thing (debatable), but whether MMOs are a more effective opiate than many of the alternatives, such as TV or religion. The amount of time many people spend on MMOs is enormous, and it can prevent other forms of social interaction from taking place. Whilst a TV watcher can always turn on the video recorder if his friends invite him out for the evening, an MMO player may find it very difficult to tell 20 or more other raiders that he can't play tonight because his real life friends want to invite him out at short notice. People have been kicked from guilds for less... So do MMOs interefere with the formation of many low level social bonds with neighbours - things that are necessary pre-requisites for any political involvement? Probably. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
I don't want to respond to everything you discussed. For the most part the discussion seemed reasonable and well thought out and I didn't feel compelled to add anything to it, so I've chopped out entire paragraphs and labelled the parts I wanted to comment on.
1. "If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything."
I'm no intellectual even though I'm lean left. I personally hate how all some ones views are narrowed down to left and right but anyway.
What you said is completely without basis, untrue, unfair and doesn't make sense. Firstly there are an enormous amount of "lefty intellectuals" who have fought to get in a position to actually change things and even more who have tried but failed. Secondly being in "a state of perpetual preachiness" is no motivation within itself, the whole driving force behind preaching is to persuade. So at best your generalising your experience with people you consider "lefty intellectuals" and making broader assumptions as to there motivation for preaching that are logically flawed. No one gets respect from the masses by being "in a state of perpetual preachiness" when they aren't constantly telling the masses things they want to hear so its hadly a "mountaintop". Even if your generalisation and consequent assumptions are slightly accurate in anyway its more of "anthill" with there peers.
The original quote by Antipathy went: "Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad." Sure, the preachiness hopes to convince (if it has any sincerity), but lefty intellectuals might expect you to lean left once you are convinced, but never be on an equal footing with them on the intellectual front. And I'm sure that, deep down, the only leftism they see as reasonable is the one best achieved on paper, because as much as they try they can't deny what Marxism has led to in practical political terms throughout the 20th century (much as they'd try to disavow it).
If the OP is now exposed as a plagiarist (I had my doubts of that, but the one sentence I ran through Google didn't return anything), look up Bernician's posts in this thread, that prolific six-post writer. There's always a great questioning of credentials affecting posters with little time or contribution here, and here's one of those occasions where caution might be warranted. But anyway, her posts: Snobbery, combined with a need to educate the poor masses that we are about the "state organized capitalism" around us (pray tell us of the Soviet Union, then, which was state organized something else, if I recall?), complete with plucking an article from one of the typical Leftist academic reviews (because nothing outside of those bears any credibility, right?), and typically by one of the less postmodern of Continental philosophy hogwash peddlers, typically discussing French policy by extending the Petainist stigma to Sarkozy; I don't like him or his policies (based on what I hear of them), but to compare him with an ultraconservative French president who also happened to kowtow to the Nazis is just dishonest.What have those guys ever done for the working class? Can you imagine Badiou ever sitting with José Bové, for example? I can't. Much as they might agree on some things, the former, from the ironclad position of university tenure, probably thinks the latter to be an uneducated bumpkin who also happens to be a militant leftist. Besides, the subtext was clear: Glib, enlightened Europeans versus dimwitted North Americans. They care for you -- oh they do -- but they don't ever give you any f*cking respect because they see you as too dumb as to know what's good for you.
2. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming.
I don't think the question about "who should've been next american president of the US" needs to be addressed at all but it deffinetely needs to be addressed before you start making assumptions as to the answer of the question you say "needs to be addressed". Again your making assumptions based on generalizations. Your assuming because a few avatars seemingly supported Ron paual and Bob Barr that the majority feel the same way. Forget the fact that the US elections are of international interest and these boards are international and your poll would be less likely to have those canidaites winning as a result (to my knowledge as a non US citizen Pauil an Barr aren't known globally like Clinton, Obama and McCain.) Lets just try to get a half way accurate percentage of people who are interested in politics and play MMO's rather than making assumptions based on generalizations.
First, I have to disagree with the US elections always being of "international interest"; it just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world. Second, while Ron Paul and Barr aren't much known outside the US, their names appeared here so often that I, as a non-American, was compelled to look them up a few months ago. Trust me, you'd think those guys would be the main politicians in the US if you knew nothing else about it. Third, I'm sure you could do the same exercise with non-Americans after finding out what the most free-market political ticket is in their own country.
In fact, while Obama and McCain represented the two main parties, I don't particularly recall seeing people supporting them with their avatar or signature; in fact, I do recall seeing one person here calling himself "obamaphony". What I do remember is all the Paul/Barr electioneering. Yeah, there's nothing scientific about it, but if you want to go through such an analysis, be my guest.
3. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
This time instead of a assumption based on a generalization your doing vice-versa making a generalization based on an assumption. I don't understand how you could come to that conclussion. Now forgetting that its a generalization based on an assumption I personally think its either a misleading or misunderstanding about what a libertarian stands for. Yes they stand for rights of idviduals but that in no way means its only there own idvidual rights and they care nothing for there neighbors. I didn't bother to make the difference between civil and economic libertarianism; my concern was exclusively with the latter. In fact, the former can usually be reconciled with the left, based on support for things like privacy rights and legal rights which do indeed extend to other people. The latter is a case of me and my taxes. Sure, there are exceptions; people for instance who support charity works but don't think the government should meddle, or people who are still attached to the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mystique. But the guys who invariably get serious about libertarian ideas -- if eight years of Bush weren't enough -- are the rich who want to shirk their social obligations.
The OP's post is interesting. Some commentators complain about her "wall of text", whilst others complain about her lack of academic rigour. Of course, if she had been rigorous, then the post would have been considerably longer - so these two demands contradict eachother. These two demands contradict one another only when iterated by the same person. For my part, I love skyscraper-sized walls of text, so there's no contradiction here. I meant that they are incompatible - the OP would piss at least some posters off no matter how well she expounded her point
The author seems to come from a left wing intellectual tradition, of a type that's common in many english, history and economics departments of universities The first two I agree with, but economics? The Chicago School notwithstanding, I don't think that much of what is being taught in economics is particularly left-wing, considering they more or less advocate the free market (with varying levels of government intervention), unless Keynesianism is being regarded as lefty stuff these days. You may be right abou tthe economics departments. I'm not sure. I should have perhaps said english, history and sociology
. Her point could be re-phrased as "There should be more lefty intellectuals like me. Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad". If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything. I think a distinction could perhaps be made between tenured academics, and those who follow them. There are still idealists out there, and those idealists wish to spread the cause.
Could her attack be likened to the attacks some religious groups make on video games? Gaming competes with both god and socialism for the attention of young people, and hence, at some level, all 3 are opposed to each-other. In many cases, according to critics of gaming (read: Jack Thompson), games would be fine if their morality matched religious tenets. That's why those guys try to harness it (as they've done with "Christian rock") to promote their cause, so we can't really be talking about competition. Of course there is competition - would you say that if a right wing organisation adopted the occasional left-wing policy (e.g. subsidised health care) then it ceases to be in competition with the left? Trying to embrace and then subvert the opposition is a standard Christian tactic that's as old as Christmas.
As for socialism, well, I have no idea where that came from. Academic leftism is for all purposes impractical; it denounces, but can never implement. I can't see such "socialism" competing with anything. It came from Karl Marx and his claim that religion was the opium of the masses (i.e. the source for the title of this thread). During the 19th and early 20th centuries, communism and religion were very much in conflict.
Whilst many (not all) people would agree that real opiates are bad for a person, does it necessarily follow that metaphorical opiates are also bad? For the last 15 years, economies throughout the west have been largely successful. The vast majority of people have shown little interest in politics, and many would far rather go out and party than attend a rally. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming? I was talking about the "vast majority of young people", and hence my point still stands. Just witness low turnouts at many elections.
Hedonism has ruled, and gaming has been only a part of this wider movement. Now that we have entered an economic downturn, I would expect far more young people to become heavily politicised, regardless of the presence of MMOs. As I wrote above, this would go against all the promotion for libertarian ideals espoused by some members of these boards; and if I may be allowed a political aside, it was precisely laissez-faire capitalism which led to the current economic crisis. So in this case, young players weren't being politicized by the economic downturn; they already were, and ironically threw their support behind the causes of the mess we're now going through. So, it seems to me, that the OP is attacking the symptom (gaming) rather than the cause (affluence). If the cause is "affluence" and the symptom, "gaming", it would go against the entire "opium of the masses" thing. Implied in the phrase is a sense of escapism from one's plight -- and "affluence" isn't a plight (unless you're a lawsuit magnet); Marxism in fact would have you squarely on the side of the exploiters, not the exploited. If the cause is other than monetary, for example psychological (such as inability to communicate in real life), then "opium of the masses" could still be used, but it would be hollowed of its traditional Marxist sense. That was my point - namely that it's wrong to blame gaming for political apathy, since the apaty is a larger thing that extends well beyond gamers.
But that's only a part of why people play. An amateur footballer may mesasure his success by how many games he has won, or how many trophies are in his club's cabinet. But he plays because he likes football, and he'd keep playing even if his team was relegated. Similarly, MMO players play because they like some aspect of the game - whether it be raiding, PvP, socialising, exploring or even grinding. The trophies (levels, epics) are just symbols of progress, rather than the reason for playing. You'd have to address the question of those doing the same WoW raid every night in the hope of getting that missing piece of armor. You are showing your ignorance of WoW here. Raids have weekly resets, and raids that are on farm normally take 2 nights max to clear. Most successful guilds I've seen have had this attitude, whilst loot whore guilds seldom last more than a few months.
The most interesting remaining question isn't whether MMOs are an opiate for the masses (they are), or whether metaphorical opiates are a bad thing (debatable), but whether MMOs are a more effective opiate than many of the alternatives, such as TV or religion. The amount of time many people spend on MMOs is enormous, and it can prevent other forms of social interaction from taking place. Whilst a TV watcher can always turn on the video recorder if his friends invite him out for the evening, an MMO player may find it very difficult to tell 20 or more other raiders that he can't play tonight because his real life friends want to invite him out at short notice. People have been kicked from guilds for less... So do MMOs interefere with the formation of many low level social bonds with neighbours - things that are necessary pre-requisites for any political involvement? Probably. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve. Not sure this is a symptom of MMO playing. I remember libertarianism being popular amongst geeks 20 years ago (cf Niven / Pournelle). People who are both intelligent and frequently misunderstood will often adopt an anti-authoritarian agenda of some sort, whether it's libertarianism, anarchism, punk rock or dance music.
MMOs are pretty much just a way to pass the time, like watching TV or listening to music.......Saying that they are some kind of drug that we have to have is a pretty far fetched assumption.
MMOs are pretty much just a way to pass the time, like watching TV or listening to music.......Saying that they are some kind of drug that we have to have is a pretty far fetched assumption.
A quick catch up for people less academically inclined:
It's not an assumption. It's a metaphor. Important difference.
Metaphor's shouldn't be judged according to true/false. If someone says "camels are the horses of the desert", then you shouldn't expect a camel to make "neigh" noises. Everyone knows that camels and horses aren't the same thing. So saying that the camel/horse thing is a big assumption is missing the point, since nothing is being assumed - all a metaphor does is point out similarities.
So are MMO's and drugs similar? In some ways yes - MMOs can, for some people, be addictive. They can also become so important to some people that other activities are neglected - for example, hygiene, or having a social life. So they are a bit like drugs.
But to be any good, a metaphor should not just collate similarities. It should, in some sense, be predictive. For example, if someone who had never heard of camels was told that "camels are the horses of the desert", he may be able to guess that people ride camels, or that camels can be used to carry goods, and he would be correct.
So if someone says "MMOs are like X", then the question becomes "does this give us any useful insight into the nature of MMOs"?
The point made by the original poster carries yet more intellectual baggage. It refers back to the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, who claimed that "Religion is the Opium of the masses". His point was that, like Opium, religion created a sense of passive contentment. People addicted to the religion drug could be treated badly by the upper classes, but would not try to do anything about it (such as fight their oppressors), since they were told by the church that violence was bad, and "render unto caesar".
So really, what the OP is saying is that MMOs are similar i.e. that people who play MMOs tend to be so wrapped up chasing the next level or boss kill in their little virtual worlds that they ignore the way they, and the people around them, are treated badly in the real world.
So is she correct? Is this a useful metaphor? Does MMO playing induce a state of political passivity? That's the heart of what's being discussed.
The OP's post is interesting. Some commentators complain about her "wall of text", whilst others complain about her lack of academic rigour. Of course, if she had been rigorous, then the post would have been considerably longer - so these two demands contradict eachother. These two demands contradict one another only when iterated by the same person. For my part, I love skyscraper-sized walls of text, so there's no contradiction here. I meant that they are incompatible - the OP would piss at least some posters off no matter how well she expounded her point Oh, ok. Put it this way, I agree. It has to be noted, by the way, that the OP never bothered to address any of the critics here, even after part of her text (at least) was exposed as having been plagiarized.
The author seems to come from a left wing intellectual tradition, of a type that's common in many english, history and economics departments of universities The first two I agree with, but economics? The Chicago School notwithstanding, I don't think that much of what is being taught in economics is particularly left-wing, considering they more or less advocate the free market (with varying levels of government intervention), unless Keynesianism is being regarded as lefty stuff these days. You may be right abou tthe economics departments. I'm not sure. I should have perhaps said english, history and sociology
. Her point could be re-phrased as "There should be more lefty intellectuals like me. Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad". If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything. I think a distinction could perhaps be made between tenured academics, and those who follow them. There are still idealists out there, and those idealists wish to spread the cause. Agreed. As a matter of fact, I was reading about the New Left Review, which one of the OP's defenders linked to in this text. One source claims that its failure began when it distanced itself from the actual working class and started talking about "the working class" as though it were little more than a theoretical concept. Maybe there isn't one cohesive working class (which is what I'd say; for starters, just compare the service industry with the traditional factory sector, and even low-level bureaucracy), but it doesn't mean that it becomes purely theoretical either.
Could her attack be likened to the attacks some religious groups make on video games? Gaming competes with both god and socialism for the attention of young people, and hence, at some level, all 3 are opposed to each-other. In many cases, according to critics of gaming (read: Jack Thompson), games would be fine if their morality matched religious tenets. That's why those guys try to harness it (as they've done with "Christian rock") to promote their cause, so we can't really be talking about competition. Of course there is competition - would you say that if a right wing organisation adopted the occasional left-wing policy (e.g. subsidised health care) then it ceases to be in competition with the left? Trying to embrace and then subvert the opposition is a standard Christian tactic that's as old as Christmas. A video game is more of a tool than a specific idea (such as subsidized health care); theoretically it can support any agenda that does not go against its own nature (aka: this TV show tells you to avoid TV shows). In other words, video games are not in direct competition (on an ideological level) with religion or socialism -- unless they become associated with one ideology in particular, or against another ideology without directly proposing any. Have video games reached that point? Jack seems to think so, but I'm not too sure of the answer myself.
As for socialism, well, I have no idea where that came from. Academic leftism is for all purposes impractical; it denounces, but can never implement. I can't see such "socialism" competing with anything. It came from Karl Marx and his claim that religion was the opium of the masses (i.e. the source for the title of this thread). During the 19th and early 20th centuries, communism and religion were very much in conflict. Yeah, I gathered that, and this as late as the mid-20th century. I think that the best fictional representation of that, on a microcosmic level, is Guareschi's "Don Camillo" series, which pitted a priest against the local Communist mayor (though in private they seemed to enjoy each other's company, they could never acknowledge as much in public) in a series of petty incidents, such as fixing a soccer game in which both sides tried to bribe the referee. But I mean, what about today? Sure, there is socialism in some circles, but it's no longer the potent political force it used to be. Only in the minds of its proponents (and as some bogeyman evoked by its opponents) does it remain in competition with anything. It is now purely academic, even though issues of class need to be discussed at large.
Whilst many (not all) people would agree that real opiates are bad for a person, does it necessarily follow that metaphorical opiates are also bad? For the last 15 years, economies throughout the west have been largely successful. The vast majority of people have shown little interest in politics, and many would far rather go out and party than attend a rally. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming? I was talking about the "vast majority of young people", and hence my point still stands. Just witness low turnouts at many elections. I won't dispute that, and it's liable to affect every young generation in turn. Let's just try to stay clear of the syllogism that would go: "Many young people play MMO's; young people are disillusioned by politics; therefore MMO's are played by disillusioned people (presumably because of it)." We'd have to take into account other factors such as available play time, technological savvy, etc. This is a hornets' nest. Also, see my next point.
Hedonism has ruled, and gaming has been only a part of this wider movement. Now that we have entered an economic downturn, I would expect far more young people to become heavily politicised, regardless of the presence of MMOs. As I wrote above, this would go against all the promotion for libertarian ideals espoused by some members of these boards; and if I may be allowed a political aside, it was precisely laissez-faire capitalism which led to the current economic crisis. So in this case, young players weren't being politicized by the economic downturn; they already were, and ironically threw their support behind the causes of the mess we're now going through. So, it seems to me, that the OP is attacking the symptom (gaming) rather than the cause (affluence). If the cause is "affluence" and the symptom, "gaming", it would go against the entire "opium of the masses" thing. Implied in the phrase is a sense of escapism from one's plight -- and "affluence" isn't a plight (unless you're a lawsuit magnet); Marxism in fact would have you squarely on the side of the exploiters, not the exploited. If the cause is other than monetary, for example psychological (such as inability to communicate in real life), then "opium of the masses" could still be used, but it would be hollowed of its traditional Marxist sense. That was my point - namely that it's wrong to blame gaming for political apathy, since the apaty is a larger thing that extends well beyond gamers. But can political apathy, conversely, be considered a cause of gaming (especially MMO gaming), and if so, to what extent in comparison to other forms of entertainment?
But that's only a part of why people play. An amateur footballer may mesasure his success by how many games he has won, or how many trophies are in his club's cabinet. But he plays because he likes football, and he'd keep playing even if his team was relegated. Similarly, MMO players play because they like some aspect of the game - whether it be raiding, PvP, socialising, exploring or even grinding. The trophies (levels, epics) are just symbols of progress, rather than the reason for playing. You'd have to address the question of those doing the same WoW raid every night in the hope of getting that missing piece of armor. You are showing your ignorance of WoW here. Raids have weekly resets, and raids that are on farm normally take 2 nights max to clear. Okay, I'm not going to dispute that. Still, same boring treadmill anyway; never got high enough to start raiding myself, but I've seen those guilds advertising their raid times with all the rigidity of a shift at McDonald's. Most successful guilds I've seen have had this attitude, whilst loot whore guilds seldom last more than a few months.
The most interesting remaining question isn't whether MMOs are an opiate for the masses (they are), or whether metaphorical opiates are a bad thing (debatable), but whether MMOs are a more effective opiate than many of the alternatives, such as TV or religion. The amount of time many people spend on MMOs is enormous, and it can prevent other forms of social interaction from taking place. Whilst a TV watcher can always turn on the video recorder if his friends invite him out for the evening, an MMO player may find it very difficult to tell 20 or more other raiders that he can't play tonight because his real life friends want to invite him out at short notice. People have been kicked from guilds for less... So do MMOs interefere with the formation of many low level social bonds with neighbours - things that are necessary pre-requisites for any political involvement? Probably. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve. Not sure this is a symptom of MMO playing. I remember libertarianism being popular amongst geeks 20 years ago (cf Niven / Pournelle). People who are both intelligent and frequently misunderstood will often adopt an anti-authoritarian agenda of some sort, whether it's libertarianism, anarchism, punk rock or dance music. This is where some additional scholarship might be interesting. Is the structure of MMO's particularly conducive to libertarianism (or plain old fashioned Social Darwinism)? Maybe I'm putting too much stock into games such as Darkfall being advertised with the promise of "complete freedom", even though anyone with a brain knows what that means for the losers. Still, I'm guessing this is something that libertarians would drool over: No government interference (despite the fallacy that results from games being designed to favour a certain type of gameplay, even if it's in something as inconspicuous as the map layout), just your own potential.
But that's only a part of why people play. An amateur footballer may mesasure his success by how many games he has won, or how many trophies are in his club's cabinet. But he plays because he likes football, and he'd keep playing even if his team was relegated. Similarly, MMO players play because they like some aspect of the game - whether it be raiding, PvP, socialising, exploring or even grinding. The trophies (levels, epics) are just symbols of progress, rather than the reason for playing. You'd have to address the question of those doing the same WoW raid every night in the hope of getting that missing piece of armor. You are showing your ignorance of WoW here. Raids have weekly resets, and raids that are on farm normally take 2 nights max to clear. Okay, I'm not going to dispute that. Still, same boring treadmill anyway; never got high enough to start raiding myself, but I've seen those guilds advertising their raid times with all the rigidity of a shift at McDonald's. Most successful guilds I've seen have had this attitude, whilst loot whore guilds seldom last more than a few months.
Just a little quick clarification on the above point. Raiding in WoW can take vast amounts of hours - but very few of those hours will be spent chasing "one last item". Normally, the raids that take a lot of time are the ones a guild is still learning, where bosses haven't been killed before, or have only been killed a small number of times. In some cases, an entire evening can be spent wiping continually on the same boss. The main reason many people raid is the sense of achievement that comes with killing a boss for the first time, enjoyment of the teamwork involved, and the potential for seeing more of the game (the next boss).
Bosses that have been killed many times before (i.e. they are on farm) can normally be dispatched quite quickly by a competent guild - both because everyone already knows the tactics involved, and because many of the raid members may outgear the boss, since they have equipment dropped from more difficult raids. It's amazing how much more simple some raids can become. I remember wiping on Attumen (the first 10 man boss) near the start of TBC - but by the end of the expansion we were 5-manning Nightbane for fun (a much harder boss). And I wasn't even in a particularly hardcore guild.
Farm bosses are used for gearing up both existing members and newcomers to the guild. But any guild that doesn't try to, at least sometimes, push onto harder content, will likely find itself stagnating, and the more skilled and ambitious players will go elsewhere. But it's the harder content that takes the time.
Originally posted by ozmono I don't want to respond to everything you discussed. For the most part the discussion seemed reasonable and well thought out and I didn't feel compelled to add anything to it, so I've chopped out entire paragraphs and labelled the parts I wanted to comment on. 1. "If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything." I'm no intellectual even though I'm lean left. I personally hate how all some ones views are narrowed down to left and right but anyway. What you said is completely without basis, untrue, unfair and doesn't make sense. Firstly there are an enormous amount of "lefty intellectuals" who have fought to get in a position to actually change things and even more who have tried but failed. Secondly being in "a state of perpetual preachiness" is no motivation within itself, the whole driving force behind preaching is to persuade. So at best your generalising your experience with people you consider "lefty intellectuals" and making broader assumptions as to there motivation for preaching that are logically flawed. No one gets respect from the masses by being "in a state of perpetual preachiness" when they aren't constantly telling the masses things they want to hear so its hadly a "mountaintop". Even if your generalisation and consequent assumptions are slightly accurate in anyway its more of "anthill" with there peers. The original quote by Antipathy went: "Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad." Sure, the preachiness hopes to convince (if it has any sincerity), but lefty intellectuals might expect you to lean left once you are convinced, but never be on an equal footing with them on the intellectual front. And I'm sure that, deep down, the only leftism they see as reasonable is the one best achieved on paper, because as much as they try they can't deny what Marxism has led to in practical political terms throughout the 20th century (much as they'd try to disavow it). If the OP is now exposed as a plagiarist (I had my doubts of that, but the one sentence I ran through Google didn't return anything), look up Bernician's posts in this thread, that prolific six-post writer. There's always a great questioning of credentials affecting posters with little time or contribution here, and here's one of those occasions where caution might be warranted. But anyway, her posts: Snobbery, combined with a need to educate the poor masses that we are about the "state organized capitalism" around us (pray tell us of the Soviet Union, then, which was state organized something else, if I recall?), complete with plucking an article from one of the typical Leftist academic reviews (because nothing outside of those bears any credibility, right?), and typically by one of the less postmodern of Continental philosophy hogwash peddlers, typically discussing French policy by extending the Petainist stigma to Sarkozy; I don't like him or his policies (based on what I hear of them), but to compare him with an ultraconservative French president who also happened to kowtow to the Nazis is just dishonest.What have those guys ever done for the working class? Can you imagine Badiou ever sitting with José Bové, for example? I can't. Much as they might agree on some things, the former, from the ironclad position of university tenure, probably thinks the latter to be an uneducated bumpkin who also happens to be a militant leftist. Besides, the subtext was clear: Glib, enlightened Europeans versus dimwitted North Americans. They care for you -- oh they do -- but they don't ever give you any f*cking respect because they see you as too dumb as to know what's good for you. 2. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming. I don't think the question about "who should've been next american president of the US" needs to be addressed at all but it deffinetely needs to be addressed before you start making assumptions as to the answer of the question you say "needs to be addressed". Again your making assumptions based on generalizations. Your assuming because a few avatars seemingly supported Ron paual and Bob Barr that the majority feel the same way. Forget the fact that the US elections are of international interest and these boards are international and your poll would be less likely to have those canidaites winning as a result (to my knowledge as a non US citizen Pauil an Barr aren't known globally like Clinton, Obama and McCain.) Lets just try to get a half way accurate percentage of people who are interested in politics and play MMO's rather than making assumptions based on generalizations. First, I have to disagree with the US elections always being of "international interest"; it just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world. Second, while Ron Paul and Barr aren't much known outside the US, their names appeared here so often that I, as a non-American, was compelled to look them up a few months ago. Trust me, you'd think those guys would be the main politicians in the US if you knew nothing else about it. Third, I'm sure you could do the same exercise with non-Americans after finding out what the most free-market political ticket is in their own country. In fact, while Obama and McCain represented the two main parties, I don't particularly recall seeing people supporting them with their avatar or signature; in fact, I do recall seeing one person here calling himself "obamaphony". What I do remember is all the Paul/Barr electioneering. Yeah, there's nothing scientific about it, but if you want to go through such an analysis, be my guest. 3. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve. This time instead of a assumption based on a generalization your doing vice-versa making a generalization based on an assumption. I don't understand how you could come to that conclussion. Now forgetting that its a generalization based on an assumption I personally think its either a misleading or misunderstanding about what a libertarian stands for. Yes they stand for rights of idviduals but that in no way means its only there own idvidual rights and they care nothing for there neighbors. I didn't bother to make the difference between civil and economic libertarianism; my concern was exclusively with the latter. In fact, the former can usually be reconciled with the left, based on support for things like privacy rights and legal rights which do indeed extend to other people. The latter is a case of me and my taxes. Sure, there are exceptions; people for instance who support charity works but don't think the government should meddle, or people who are still attached to the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mystique. But the guys who invariably get serious about libertarian ideas -- if eight years of Bush weren't enough -- are the rich who want to shirk their social obligations.
Firstly I really don't want to get into political debates to far off topic here. That's one of the reasons I didn't respond to that link from Bernician's post and more importantly because I didn't read it I didn't read it because I don't know much about that specific period of time in France and I'm hardly going to learn from a source that was given to me to explain political viewpoints.
Now as for your reply to my point 1, you didn't really address me and what I said in point 1 at all besides from saying "sure the preachinees hopes to convince (if its has any sincerity)". You seemed to just took it a step further for the most part. Now I can understand from that, you don't have a very good opinion of anyone you believe flaunts there supposed intellect and looks down there nose at others while doing it. Mate, either do I but I still respect the scientific process. I make assumptions and generalisations as much as anyone but when you start stacking one ontop of the other and talking about your conclussions from them as absolute truth, than you lose me. As I said your making a generalization and than assumptions based on that. Again as for your reply to the 1st point that I addressed, for the most part you ignored it, maintained the same generalization (atleast you mentioned a specific person this time while doing so) and continued with your rhetoric.
As for your reply to the 2nd point I raised. I didn't say the US elections are "always" of international interest but I will now, the US elections are always of international interest. They are still and have been for my life time, the most powerful country economically and military and despite that the world hated Bush they still have an extreme amount of influence, if for nothing else than the size of there military and economy. "it just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world." Well its not an assumption and I'm not an American. You can treat it as an assumption because I'm not going to support what you should know as another non US citizen. In your country, whats the coverage on the American elections when they have them in comparison to other foriegn countries? Now even if international media didn't show interest, there elections are of interest intentionally if for nothing else than elections in the most powerful nation in this age has ramifications far beyond its borders and its not like they are still isolationist like they were pior to WWI "It just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world." Yeah, I agree but in this case I'm not an American and I believe it no more of an assumption than believing in gravity on earth, its there and I experience it. Now as for the rest, there is nothing else to discuss, I was simple pointing out that your grasp of truth (if thats what your holding) is loose, because your not grabbing it properly.
Re to the 3rd point I raised. I don't know much about economics so I'm not going to argue with you there as to the ramifications of that.
Not sure this is a symptom of MMO playing. I remember libertarianism being popular amongst geeks 20 years ago (cf Niven / Pournelle). People who are both intelligent and frequently misunderstood will often adopt an anti-authoritarian agenda of some sort, whether it's libertarianism, anarchism, punk rock or dance music. This is where some additional scholarship might be interesting. Is the structure of MMO's particularly conducive to libertarianism (or plain old fashioned Social Darwinism)? Maybe I'm putting too much stock into games such as Darkfall being advertised with the promise of "complete freedom", even though anyone with a brain knows what that means for the losers. Still, I'm guessing this is something that libertarians would drool over: No government interference (despite the fallacy that results from games being designed to favour a certain type of gameplay, even if it's in something as inconspicuous as the map layout), just your own potential.
Back from the wilderness so pardon the late reply. I am glad this generated some decent discussion. Vetarnias I would be happy to debate the finer points of this with you in client chat mode. For now, it is worth saying I find your overall position confusing and ambivalent. One the one hand, you extol a loose libertarian defence of freely choosing individuals, who are unencumbered by their social circumstances; on the other hand, you accept there are forces beyond our control that impinge (implicitly) upon our dispositions. MMOs are either engines of docility or they are not. Antipathy is exactly right to suggest the metaphor of "opium of the masses" as symptomatic of a wider malaise. In your terms Vetarnias I doubt whether any of this is postmodern. In plain terms we can understand the MMO phenomenon as a very modern thing. By this is meant that MMOs (whether constructed in terms of a libertarian or communitarian by-product - though I doubt they have any intrinsic political value along such lines) very much form part of a political economy of signs that rehearse fantasies of life and death, wealth and poverty, rank and status and so forth. (It is interesting in this respect that "race", that is race as a felt ethnic determinant, never gets played out in any way other than the race of the class of character. MMOs are entirely colour blind) The fact that MMOs have a semblance of the virtual amounts to nothing more than appearance over reality, or what someone earlier in the post referred to as "form over content". In this sense there is no moral or political worth at stake. The recent post "Fathers who play MMOs" is a perfect example of this at work. Fatherhood gets transformed into what Fathers do with MMOs, not what Fathers do as Fathers, in relation to children, families or spouses. Here MMO's become emblematic of Fatherhood.
So we can conclude, there is no value in their value (excepting of course their short term trivialization of the life-world (e.g. entertainment, fun, leisure) In this sense, they are little more than in Baudrillard's (non postmodern) terms a simulcra. That is, a re(representation) that precedes an original, whereby the distinction between reality and representation breaks down. Along with other consumer indulgences they are responsible for blurring the lines between goods that are needed and a good for which a need is created by 'playful' commerical motives. They represent a social space which not only dissimulates signs into signs but dissimulate signs into nothing. When you extract from the experience of the MMO (e.g. immediately after you log out) you occupy a liminal empty space, until eventually you are forced to reconnect with a reality. MMOs are symptomatic of the appeal of the inorganic, by which the opposition between humans and things (digital formats) is transformed. Of course, we can debate to what extent MMO's actually signify the conflation of reality and representation or indeed whether they are indicative of a culture in decay. I believe they are.
Originally posted by Antipathy So is she correct? Is this a useful metaphor? Does MMO playing induce a state of political passivity? That's the heart of what's being discussed.
"Bread and circuses" was the solution for Roman emperors. That worked because most people don't spend much time worrying about scruples, ethics and such. They just want something that ensures that they don't suffer inconvenience, unhappiness and the like. Bread and circuses kept them distracted. For a while.
Like bread and circuses, I'd say that all forms of entertainment are a kind of opiate including games, whether board, card or electronic. It is why so many people were concerned about television, rock and roll and so forth, and I think they were right to be concerned from the start.
Electronic games are particularly dangerous beasts because they have the greatest potential to produce a sensation of the player(s) being in a custom-built virtual world. Roman Colosseum games did that, television does that, and many other forms of entertainment do it to a lesser degree. That sensation will only increase with time, producing less and less interest in the world at large - so long as the world doesn't intrude on the experience of the people immersing themselves in these virtual worlds.
I suspect that this is a boiling frog scenario, where things are constantly progressing to worse and worse conditions, but the changes are happening so slowly that society is able to adapt to them. As we adapt, our lack of interest in scruples and ethics means that whatever situation we're in is acceptable so long as we have our entertainment to keep us drugged. With virtual worlds, that entertainment is highly effective at keeping us distracted.
Consumerism is the ultimate opiate of the masses. Pandering to the individual is the way to keep people politically apathetic. Marx believes that religion did that. I think the opposite is true; religion focuses people on how a society should function. It is a means of training people to concern themselves with scruples and ethics.
Islam in the middle east. Christianity in the west. Buddhism in Tibet. Judaism in developed nations. It is a powerful force.
Comments
Now finally Bump! , no i didnt know you were bipolar and I know that all to well (for more info you have my mail) but no i am not bipolar. Your review is where i stand give or take ...as i posted earlier that only when the OP replies or failure to do and in the manner of which the reply will be , Personally i ll see if i ll take more time on this as well you say "satire" ...it surely has drama( action in greek) , but as said it misses the "God from above element= Deus Ex Machina". I really can't take this any further and i am getting tired of this thread. Yet as many said incl. me , it comes down to the OP. AS for me and this post (unless i see something worth my time) I am out of this post , as for any chat , you know where to find me ! that's all
Signature!!!...
I don't want to respond to everything you discussed. For the most part the discussion seemed reasonable and well thought out and I didn't feel compelled to add anything to it, so I've chopped out entire paragraphs and labelled the parts I wanted to comment on.
1. "If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything."
I'm no intellectual even though I'm lean left. I personally hate how all some ones views are narrowed down to left and right but anyway.
What you said is completely without basis, untrue, unfair and doesn't make sense. Firstly there are an enormous amount of "lefty intellectuals" who have fought to get in a position to actually change things and even more who have tried but failed. Secondly being in "a state of perpetual preachiness" is no motivation within itself, the whole driving force behind preaching is to persuade. So at best your generalising your experience with people you consider "lefty intellectuals" and making broader assumptions as to there motivation for preaching that are logically flawed. No one gets respect from the masses by being "in a state of perpetual preachiness" when they aren't constantly telling the masses things they want to hear so its hadly a "mountaintop". Even if your generalisation and consequent assumptions are slightly accurate in anyway its more of "anthill" with there peers.
The original quote by Antipathy went: "Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad." Sure, the preachiness hopes to convince (if it has any sincerity), but lefty intellectuals might expect you to lean left once you are convinced, but never be on an equal footing with them on the intellectual front. And I'm sure that, deep down, the only leftism they see as reasonable is the one best achieved on paper, because as much as they try they can't deny what Marxism has led to in practical political terms throughout the 20th century (much as they'd try to disavow it).
If the OP is now exposed as a plagiarist (I had my doubts of that, but the one sentence I ran through Google didn't return anything), look up Bernician's posts in this thread, that prolific six-post writer. There's always a great questioning of credentials affecting posters with little time or contribution here, and here's one of those occasions where caution might be warranted. But anyway, her posts: Snobbery, combined with a need to educate the poor masses that we are about the "state organized capitalism" around us (pray tell us of the Soviet Union, then, which was state organized something else, if I recall?), complete with plucking an article from one of the typical Leftist academic reviews (because nothing outside of those bears any credibility, right?), and typically by one of the less postmodern of Continental philosophy hogwash peddlers, typically discussing French policy by extending the Petainist stigma to Sarkozy; I don't like him or his policies (based on what I hear of them), but to compare him with an ultraconservative French president who also happened to kowtow to the Nazis is just dishonest. What have those guys ever done for the working class? Can you imagine Badiou ever sitting with José Bové, for example? I can't. Much as they might agree on some things, the former, from the ironclad position of university tenure, probably thinks the latter to be an uneducated bumpkin who also happens to be a militant leftist. Besides, the subtext was clear: Glib, enlightened Europeans versus dimwitted North Americans. They care for you -- oh they do -- but they don't ever give you any f*cking respect because they see you as too dumb as to know what's good for you.
2. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming.
I don't think the question about "who should've been next american president of the US" needs to be addressed at all but it deffinetely needs to be addressed before you start making assumptions as to the answer of the question you say "needs to be addressed". Again your making assumptions based on generalizations. Your assuming because a few avatars seemingly supported Ron paual and Bob Barr that the majority feel the same way. Forget the fact that the US elections are of international interest and these boards are international and your poll would be less likely to have those canidaites winning as a result (to my knowledge as a non US citizen Pauil an Barr aren't known globally like Clinton, Obama and McCain.) Lets just try to get a half way accurate percentage of people who are interested in politics and play MMO's rather than making assumptions based on generalizations.
First, I have to disagree with the US elections always being of "international interest"; it just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world. Second, while Ron Paul and Barr aren't much known outside the US, their names appeared here so often that I, as a non-American, was compelled to look them up a few months ago. Trust me, you'd think those guys would be the main politicians in the US if you knew nothing else about it. Third, I'm sure you could do the same exercise with non-Americans after finding out what the most free-market political ticket is in their own country.
In fact, while Obama and McCain represented the two main parties, I don't particularly recall seeing people supporting them with their avatar or signature; in fact, I do recall seeing one person here calling himself "obamaphony". What I do remember is all the Paul/Barr electioneering. Yeah, there's nothing scientific about it, but if you want to go through such an analysis, be my guest.
3. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
This time instead of a assumption based on a generalization your doing vice-versa making a generalization based on an assumption. I don't understand how you could come to that conclussion. Now forgetting that its a generalization based on an assumption I personally think its either a misleading or misunderstanding about what a libertarian stands for. Yes they stand for rights of idviduals but that in no way means its only there own idvidual rights and they care nothing for there neighbors. I didn't bother to make the difference between civil and economic libertarianism; my concern was exclusively with the latter. In fact, the former can usually be reconciled with the left, based on support for things like privacy rights and legal rights which do indeed extend to other people. The latter is a case of me and my taxes. Sure, there are exceptions; people for instance who support charity works but don't think the government should meddle, or people who are still attached to the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mystique. But the guys who invariably get serious about libertarian ideas -- if eight years of Bush weren't enough -- are the rich who want to shirk their social obligations.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
MMOs are pretty much just a way to pass the time, like watching TV or listening to music.......Saying that they are some kind of drug that we have to have is a pretty far fetched assumption.
A quick catch up for people less academically inclined:
It's not an assumption. It's a metaphor. Important difference.
Metaphor's shouldn't be judged according to true/false. If someone says "camels are the horses of the desert", then you shouldn't expect a camel to make "neigh" noises. Everyone knows that camels and horses aren't the same thing. So saying that the camel/horse thing is a big assumption is missing the point, since nothing is being assumed - all a metaphor does is point out similarities.
So are MMO's and drugs similar? In some ways yes - MMOs can, for some people, be addictive. They can also become so important to some people that other activities are neglected - for example, hygiene, or having a social life. So they are a bit like drugs.
But to be any good, a metaphor should not just collate similarities. It should, in some sense, be predictive. For example, if someone who had never heard of camels was told that "camels are the horses of the desert", he may be able to guess that people ride camels, or that camels can be used to carry goods, and he would be correct.
So if someone says "MMOs are like X", then the question becomes "does this give us any useful insight into the nature of MMOs"?
The point made by the original poster carries yet more intellectual baggage. It refers back to the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, who claimed that "Religion is the Opium of the masses". His point was that, like Opium, religion created a sense of passive contentment. People addicted to the religion drug could be treated badly by the upper classes, but would not try to do anything about it (such as fight their oppressors), since they were told by the church that violence was bad, and "render unto caesar".
So really, what the OP is saying is that MMOs are similar i.e. that people who play MMOs tend to be so wrapped up chasing the next level or boss kill in their little virtual worlds that they ignore the way they, and the people around them, are treated badly in the real world.
So is she correct? Is this a useful metaphor? Does MMO playing induce a state of political passivity? That's the heart of what's being discussed.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Lately our dealers been givin' us some really crappy opium. I think it's mostly sticks and stems.
Just a little quick clarification on the above point. Raiding in WoW can take vast amounts of hours - but very few of those hours will be spent chasing "one last item". Normally, the raids that take a lot of time are the ones a guild is still learning, where bosses haven't been killed before, or have only been killed a small number of times. In some cases, an entire evening can be spent wiping continually on the same boss. The main reason many people raid is the sense of achievement that comes with killing a boss for the first time, enjoyment of the teamwork involved, and the potential for seeing more of the game (the next boss).
Bosses that have been killed many times before (i.e. they are on farm) can normally be dispatched quite quickly by a competent guild - both because everyone already knows the tactics involved, and because many of the raid members may outgear the boss, since they have equipment dropped from more difficult raids. It's amazing how much more simple some raids can become. I remember wiping on Attumen (the first 10 man boss) near the start of TBC - but by the end of the expansion we were 5-manning Nightbane for fun (a much harder boss). And I wasn't even in a particularly hardcore guild.
Farm bosses are used for gearing up both existing members and newcomers to the guild. But any guild that doesn't try to, at least sometimes, push onto harder content, will likely find itself stagnating, and the more skilled and ambitious players will go elsewhere. But it's the harder content that takes the time.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Firstly I really don't want to get into political debates to far off topic here. That's one of the reasons I didn't respond to that link from Bernician's post and more importantly because I didn't read it
I didn't read it because I don't know much about that specific period of time in France and I'm hardly going to learn from a source that was given to me to explain political viewpoints.
Now as for your reply to my point 1, you didn't really address me and what I said in point 1 at all besides from saying "sure the preachinees hopes to convince (if its has any sincerity)". You seemed to just took it a step further for the most part. Now I can understand from that, you don't have a very good opinion of anyone you believe flaunts there supposed intellect and looks down there nose at others while doing it. Mate, either do I but I still respect the scientific process. I make assumptions and generalisations as much as anyone but when you start stacking one ontop of the other and talking about your conclussions from them as absolute truth, than you lose me. As I said your making a generalization and than assumptions based on that. Again as for your reply to the 1st point that I addressed, for the most part you ignored it, maintained the same generalization (atleast you mentioned a specific person this time while doing so) and continued with your rhetoric.
As for your reply to the 2nd point I raised. I didn't say the US elections are "always" of international interest but I will now, the US elections are always of international interest. They are still and have been for my life time, the most powerful country economically and military and despite that the world hated Bush they still have an extreme amount of influence, if for nothing else than the size of there military and economy. "it just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world." Well its not an assumption and I'm not an American. You can treat it as an assumption because I'm not going to support what you should know as another non US citizen. In your country, whats the coverage on the American elections when they have them in comparison to other foriegn countries? Now even if international media didn't show interest, there elections are of interest intentionally if for nothing else than elections in the most powerful nation in this age has ramifications far beyond its borders and its not like they are still isolationist like they were pior to WWI
"It just seems to be an assumption that an American would make, ever so secure in his position at the centre of the world." Yeah, I agree but in this case I'm not an American and I believe it no more of an assumption than believing in gravity on earth, its there and I experience it. Now as for the rest, there is nothing else to discuss, I was simple pointing out that your grasp of truth (if thats what your holding) is loose, because your not grabbing it properly.
Re to the 3rd point I raised. I don't know much about economics so I'm not going to argue with you there as to the ramifications of that.
Back from the wilderness so pardon the late reply. I am glad this generated some decent discussion. Vetarnias I would be happy to debate the finer points of this with you in client chat mode. For now, it is worth saying I find your overall position confusing and ambivalent. One the one hand, you extol a loose libertarian defence of freely choosing individuals, who are unencumbered by their social circumstances; on the other hand, you accept there are forces beyond our control that impinge (implicitly) upon our dispositions. MMOs are either engines of docility or they are not. Antipathy is exactly right to suggest the metaphor of "opium of the masses" as symptomatic of a wider malaise. In your terms Vetarnias I doubt whether any of this is postmodern. In plain terms we can understand the MMO phenomenon as a very modern thing. By this is meant that MMOs (whether constructed in terms of a libertarian or communitarian by-product - though I doubt they have any intrinsic political value along such lines) very much form part of a political economy of signs that rehearse fantasies of life and death, wealth and poverty, rank and status and so forth. (It is interesting in this respect that "race", that is race as a felt ethnic determinant, never gets played out in any way other than the race of the class of character. MMOs are entirely colour blind) The fact that MMOs have a semblance of the virtual amounts to nothing more than appearance over reality, or what someone earlier in the post referred to as "form over content". In this sense there is no moral or political worth at stake. The recent post "Fathers who play MMOs" is a perfect example of this at work. Fatherhood gets transformed into what Fathers do with MMOs, not what Fathers do as Fathers, in relation to children, families or spouses. Here MMO's become emblematic of Fatherhood.
So we can conclude, there is no value in their value (excepting of course their short term trivialization of the life-world (e.g. entertainment, fun, leisure) In this sense, they are little more than in Baudrillard's (non postmodern) terms a simulcra. That is, a re(representation) that precedes an original, whereby the distinction between reality and representation breaks down. Along with other consumer indulgences they are responsible for blurring the lines between goods that are needed and a good for which a need is created by 'playful' commerical motives. They represent a social space which not only dissimulates signs into signs but dissimulate signs into nothing. When you extract from the experience of the MMO (e.g. immediately after you log out) you occupy a liminal empty space, until eventually you are forced to reconnect with a reality. MMOs are symptomatic of the appeal of the inorganic, by which the opposition between humans and things (digital formats) is transformed. Of course, we can debate to what extent MMO's actually signify the conflation of reality and representation or indeed whether they are indicative of a culture in decay. I believe they are.
"Bread and circuses" was the solution for Roman emperors. That worked because most people don't spend much time worrying about scruples, ethics and such. They just want something that ensures that they don't suffer inconvenience, unhappiness and the like. Bread and circuses kept them distracted. For a while.
Like bread and circuses, I'd say that all forms of entertainment are a kind of opiate including games, whether board, card or electronic. It is why so many people were concerned about television, rock and roll and so forth, and I think they were right to be concerned from the start.
Electronic games are particularly dangerous beasts because they have the greatest potential to produce a sensation of the player(s) being in a custom-built virtual world. Roman Colosseum games did that, television does that, and many other forms of entertainment do it to a lesser degree. That sensation will only increase with time, producing less and less interest in the world at large - so long as the world doesn't intrude on the experience of the people immersing themselves in these virtual worlds.
I suspect that this is a boiling frog scenario, where things are constantly progressing to worse and worse conditions, but the changes are happening so slowly that society is able to adapt to them. As we adapt, our lack of interest in scruples and ethics means that whatever situation we're in is acceptable so long as we have our entertainment to keep us drugged. With virtual worlds, that entertainment is highly effective at keeping us distracted.
Consumerism is the ultimate opiate of the masses. Pandering to the individual is the way to keep people politically apathetic. Marx believes that religion did that. I think the opposite is true; religion focuses people on how a society should function. It is a means of training people to concern themselves with scruples and ethics.
Islam in the middle east. Christianity in the west. Buddhism in Tibet. Judaism in developed nations. It is a powerful force.