Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
184
   |
Posted - 2013.05.11 04:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
I confess I am fascinated with EVE. I still don't know if I actually like the game of the game yet. Still in my noobosity looking for it, but really like the EVErse.
That what is represented in this thread seems to happen again and again is fascinating to me and very distinctive about the game. People enter the game. The game has a lot of deterministic structure, but compared to other games a very limited rule set. People often confuse rules and structure.
I have spent a great deal of time over many years creating RW environments with deep structure and very flexible, or even non-existent rule sets in a wide variety of settings, for a wide variety of purposes. I am a type of designer. Some consistent things happen.
When successful in creating such an environment participants often very rapidly come into contact with a rule system and expectations they are carrying around in their own heads, but usually assume exist outside of themselves. EVE is an amazing environment for this. Responses to this moment vary greatly, but the moment is very consistent and recognizable. EVE tears is one kind of response.
The response in which people cannot come to terms with the self generated nature of their own system of rules, generalized expectations, etc. is usually understood in the context of EVE as 'tears'. Something has occurred which does not fit their model of the world, which they take to exist independently from themselves, but paradoxically is also the basis for their functional identity. It is often the case that people in this moment will insist on some wrongness in the world or others, rather than considering whether or not their model is structurally appropriate to what is occurring. More tears.
Often, as in the case of the OP, this seems to involve some fixed, 'authorized' assertion of meaning. Arguments that are proximal to their prefigured model and meaning making are at least considered. Arguments and data that offer meaning outside of their model are dismissed, if they are perceived at all. Sometimes they will complexify their model. Motives are attributed according their own model. There is a consistent investment in 'other' and 'negation' as a way of reinforcing their now 'threatened' identity and world view. Typically the chance that there may be no meaning involved is viewed as completely impossible. More tears.
This moment involves the possibility of a kind of existential crisis. That journey is really quite something. It is also one of the few moments in which liberation and learning are most profoundly available. Creating access to such moments in a safe environment can be considered a compassionate act, as opposed to say encountering them in a situation where the learning curve is so steep that actually dying individually or in great numbers is the consequence of getting it wrong.
In saying this, I am by no means suggesting that everyone or even anyone is consciously seeking to stimulate or particiapte in such existential crisis, emancipatory process or learning. That is the genius of the the thing. Just playing the game seems to result in this again and again. Whether people navigate it 'successfully' or not is another matter altogether.
It is a relatively open environment where you encounter many people of relative diversity. Because of the nature of the environment what you first encounter, however, is yourself. A journey and narrative become available and can be engaged or actively ignored.
Private sig. Do not read. |