We need to talk about how we talk about stories

Now that I have more time, I want to say you do have a point, OP. But then you lose me on the junk science you purport as gospel.

For example:

That is a good point.

If the audience is missing information that has been dispersed through various media, and that information is not represented to the general audience, the creators of the story have failed at their delivery and presentation.

We all know Teldrassil burned. But some people might not know the Night Elves are in Mt Hyjal unless they read about it in outside media. Cairne’s death is a similar thing. I remember many people were like “WTF?” because it was off screen, and Baine was suddenly important. Blizzard could be better at weaving in events from other media into the game, so the subscribers are informed. That is a valid point.

But then you go on to make claims about some “undeniable science”, and you lose me, and others, by the responses.

I would say the same thing about a previous thread you made. The one about Night Elves being treated badly. You make a good point, but then you throw in some junk science about today’s Classic population and the population in Vanilla, amongst other claims.

Somehow you make a good point and detract from it with your “proof”.

8 Likes

Curse, you should have saved yourself the time.

If you wanted to do what Zarrin did, and discuss what you felt was a weakness in the method, there’s something concrete about that - that works for me. We could build a conversation on that, but you literally stopped in the middle of the hypothesis, wouldn’t consider the four studies that were performed, and declared it to be “junk science” without a further thought.

Even Baalsamael, even if I disagree with him trying to throw out the whole notion of peer-reviewed literature on the basis that it’s influenced by the prevailing set of social norms, at least offered up a reason as he was throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I didn’t throw out the whole method, I simply reject it pretending to be the arbiter of truth.

Research is to be analyzed, and determined carefully how far it’s conclusion can be generalized, and what problems were done in the methodology.

Example: Almost all medical papers to this day still only use white people in the West for its research, and attempting to generalize that to the whole world is a huge problem.

Doing research on gamers as a population without taking into account age, ethnoracial group, class/income (both current and when they were growing up), country of origin/immigration status/migrant generation (1st, 2nd, 3rd), education, etc is incoherent.

You have this habit of presenting research as universally generalizable.

6 Likes

well, see, here’s the thing. The writers do own the thing, it’s intellectual property. The audience doesn’t own the creation, it’s not like a business where you determine where the story goes because you invest your subscription fee. I feel like this on the whole is the problem with fandom.

The writers are under no obligation to write the stories people want, and as an audience you can choose not to consume this entertainment.

At the end of the day this is a big franchise with many different plots and characters who don’t all play well together and the writers are doing their best to keep this story interesting, sometimes that involves creating conflict. Usually when something begins to stop giving you joy, it’s time to walk away from that thing.

Maybe it’s just time for you to take a step back, find something else to invest your time in and come back when the story shifts to something you enjoy.

2 Likes

Doubt.

Like the fact Blizzard didn’t expect Bwonsamdi to be popular and had to change swarths of BFA and Shadowlands to adjust for that is hilarious, a hot mess, and demonstrates a failure to grasp and failure to want to grasp what the playerbase likes/enjoys.

10 Likes

No, I reject this and you should know that I always will reject it. Saying “I know you’re unsatisfied and maybe you should quit” is not an appropriate answer to criticism, it’s a dismissal of it masquerading as concern.

@ Baalsamael

I’m still not completely with you, primarily because I’m skeptical and a tad queasy about saying things like “members of different races think differently from one another”, but I will acknowledge that your objection on sampling is more concrete and easier for me to see where you’re coming from than assertions about the sociocultural hermeneutic.

I don’t necessarily think so.

The fandom is random at the best of times, how are they supposed to anticipate what this fandom wants, we barely can’t even agree on a single topic.

1 Like

Eh, it’s not quite so random. People tend to represent their sides - and from there we can map out stakeholder groups. It’s not actually hard in the MMO as a format to give those different stakeholder groups what they want. WoW hasn’t attempted to do that, however. Rather, it has gone out of its way to attack various stakeholder groups’ investment, especially with its insistence not simply on destroying rather than building, but its attempt to shove a larger ubernarrative over a customization-in-identity-heavy RPG sandbox.

? I was talking about medical papers.

Example on this front: My medical school is majority white people. A common symptom for “fever” in most medical textbooks is that “skin turns a bit red” or “they look pale”; my classmates had no idea what either symptom looked like on a black patient.

Or for example, only recently have we discovered/confirmed that only ethnic groups who for centuries have eaten wheat and milk products have a genetic predisposition to produce sufficient enzymes to manage either. Indigenous communities in the American continent and Subsaharan Africans, who had neither wheat nor cows (lactose content is even higher in llamas, and don’t produce enough milk in a sustainable or useful manner), are often gluten sensitive and lactose intolerant.

On the other hand, beans as a staple food (good calcium content) have been more widespread in both the Americas and Asia than in Europe or Subsaharan Africa for centuries, and so on average there is less “bloating” and other bodily reactions due to bean consumption for those peoples than Europeans or other historically beanless peoples.

And no, ethnoracial group matters for video game justification because different peoples have different histories.

When’s the last time there was a civil war in the US, or the US was invaded by a foreign country?

Now compare that To The Rest Of The World.

Now ask yourself on whether you’d take a bet that an equal percentage of say Modern Warfare playerbase is “People Who Have Lived Through Or Their Parents Lived Through Civil War” vs “People Who Have Not Lived Through Civil War Nor Has Their Family In The Past Three Generations”.

It’s not that “members of races think differently”, it’s that one’s ethnocultural background (and the histories, traditions, languages and war that implies) shapes your choices as a person.

15 Likes

Trying to tack it back to physiological medical concepts obscures the point that I’m making when I refer to the notion of people “thinking differently”, and the notion that different groups have been subjected to different historical experiences doesn’t resemble something that approaches either the approach to this paper, or the foundational work that it’s trying to relate to this question. It’s the foundational work that really trips this up because the concept that this study asks about in relation to whether it relates to video games has been studied for the past fifty years and rather uncontroversially accepted. In taking the last step of the way, you have to say things like “this 730-person study that selected people via an offer on an online MMO forum is necessarily subject to biased sampling on a demographic basis that renders it unrepresentative of the target audience for video games” - and I don’t think that’s supportable.

That isn’t to say that the study doesn’t have limitations but to say that it has this limitation - especially after it has been shared, published, replicated, presented, used as the basis for a gamification firm, had a book written about it, and held up as something useful to game designers in GDCs lectures - feels less like a real objection and more like a general-purpose countermeasure. If you’ve got something a bit more concrete and targeted for me about why the application of the foundational work doesn’t work or something critical concerning flaws in the method, then we might have something to talk about. But until then, I am bluntly going to take the word of a paper like this over the objections of two laypersons.

1 Like

A lot of things have been studied for the past 50 years only being questioned right now because everyone realized all the studies were done on white boys lol

7 Likes

Which gets us back to that throwing the baby out with the bathwater thing. I disagree with the idea that we get to throw out science wholesale on the basis of some notions - especially when we are relating physiological medical notions to psychology - being challenged.

If the specific notion is being challenged, and by people who are having this debate with the factual basis to do so, then I think we can talk.

Sure here’s an excerpt of an independent study I did, I can give you the long list of references if you so desire that goes against this principle

“lay person” I mean really

3 Likes

Fair enough, but your objections didn’t really attack what I had shared. However, reading what you wrote there - I’d actually be quite fascinated to look at your sources, particularly those discussing the player avatar and its and the gameword’s status as phantasms. I make a link between the player and their player avatar as well, but I largely get there based on my consideration of the mimesis effect. I feel like your model might be a bit more robust, and would help me to fully flesh out my own understanding.

I’ll share the work on the mimesis effect. If you intend to build on your study, and I hope you do, it might be useful to you.

http^s://ciigar.csc.ncsu.edu/files/bib/Dominguez2016-MimesisEffect.pdf

The same could be said about you making this thread in the first place. But, we do as we will.

As for how we discuss the lore:

There is good reason why many posters here try to stick to what is canon - because Blizzard writes the story.

Your little theory is worthless in this regard. Perhaps if you think your feelings matter more than what Blizzard considers canon, you would be better of posting this tripe in the World’s End Tavern Fan Fiction/RP sections.

Your little theories have little bearing on the lore discussion. I have noticed that you seem fixated on discussing things that are not there. You want to discuss things based on how you feel, or how things should be, rather than what is. And if I see something like that posted, I will challenge it. I try to keep lore discussions focused on what is and where that may lead.

7 Likes

Full references: Fox Harrel is the phastasm dude

5 Likes

Sweet, thank you so much!

Edit: I should say - I’m not sure if you were intending to post that as a contradiction to the assertion that Self-Actualization Theory can explain underlying core motivations to play video games, or a contradiction to Rigby’s empirical research that sought to (and did) answer that question, but I don’t feel that it does - and if I am to plug in your work to both Rigby’s and the mimesis effect, I might come up with a conclusion such as this.

An Orc player is anchored to the game world with an Orcish avatar, which itself is a phantasm of the cultural coding that orcs have picked up since the origins of fantasy, but especially to that of the mongols and of asian steppe peoples. The mimesis effect causes the player to subconsciously “role play” as that phantasm, an experience that within the context of the game is one that the player engages in to satisfy needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Concentrating on the middle of these, World of Warcraft sought to deliver the feeling of relatedness - or the feeling that our actions matter to the world around us in (when we pair the concept with autonomy) a way that we choose and desire to change it - in the context of a noble savage trope, which itself grafts itself onto, and into the phantasm that the avatar represents. Initially presented as a contradiction of previous games’ iterations, the idea of what an Orc “was”, regressed into the negative depictions that the initial games presented.

Again, considering the mimesis effect - you stated that “role-play is by necessity performative of what you think the character should act as while identity regards personal association with one’s invented avatar”, but that “identification with the avatar within the scope of an RPG is a sort of spectrum”. I agree with that, but would add that the natural tendency to role play, even on a subconscious level (again, the essence of the mimesis effect) blurs the lines between that performance and the identification of the player with the avatar. They do not perfectly mesh of course, but there is overlap, and an attendant feeling of identification that of course is influenced by the phantasm.

For the Orc player, one problematic trope is replaced by another. The “noble savage” gives way to the “mongol savage”. The mimesis effect means that the player internalizes this feeling, and because it violates his or her autonomy by overwriting their very identity, as well as their feeling of relatedness because they have now affected the world, negatively, in a way that they did not choose - this shift in the Orcish phantasm is amplified in them. It is routed through a denial of the psychological needs that they engaged with the experience for in the first place, which may have an outsized effect on a member of the ethnoracial groups that Orcs are coded as, or worse, they may intensify feelings of prejudice among other groups when associating that feeling of betrayal with said ethnoracial group. Additionally, because an MMO is fundamentally an experience where self-constructed avatars cooperate, compete, and compare themselves with, against, and to one another, other players, in interpreting the shift in phantasms, may leave the experience with artificial feelings of “justified” antagonism, especially if it is the role of their avatar to oppose the orcish avatar.

Sure. The best medical science when I was growing up provided good empirical reason to believe that dietary fat was a major risk factor in cardiovascular disease and recommended high-carb low-fat diets. Later research, however, has demonstrated that carbohydrates play a significantly larger role than fats in obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other life-shortening ailments. As a result, modern nutritional recommendations flatly contradict expert opinion of not too long ago.

This kind of thing happens all the time i academia. “Peer reviewed” junk Ph.D theses get published constantly in junk journals and you can find “academic” evidence for anything if you are willing to go to the right source. This is particularly acute in psychology and other social sciences where even the most prominent experiments have lately shown to have serious problems with replication (“grit”, “mindset theory” all come to mind) or to be outright fraud (Stanford Prison Experiment).

All anyone is saying is that while we should give academic work greater weight than other evidence, it doesn’t get absolute weight.

But I’d go even further. I’d argue that appealing to the authority of an academic researcher requires relatively little work on your part but a great deal of work from anyone who wants to disagree. All you have to do is point to the credentials, but they have to get into the nitty gritty of methodology and research for alternative perspectives while trying to parse academic jargon aimed at academic audiences and not the general public. And of course if there ISN’T alternative research yet (for frankly an obscure area conducted by one researcher), we’re just out of luck. We can’t conduct replication studies or test alternative hypotheses accounting for the same data because we don’t have funding or expertise or time.

So while I think academic work has its place, I’d argue its role in casual video game discussion is pretty limited. There’s so much junk science (even among the slim few respectable journals), and it’s so hard for people who aren’t specialists to decipher academic texts, that relying on the authority of researchers to make your case is more impediment to conversation than anything else.

Am I saying you should excise your arguments of all academic references? Of course not. I’m saying make their arguments and use the meat and logic of what you’ve learned to make their case, not mere reliance on authority and hand-wringing about how we can ever learn anything if we don’t have RESPECT FOR SCIENCE.

8 Likes

Regarding your last paragraph, I will point out that Mr. Rigby did the legwork in gathering responses and interpreting data, which is why I’m content to rely on his work. In college I took a psychology research methods class (it was a mandatory science elective that I needed to complete my accounting degree) - that allows me to understand what I’m looking at and to understand the process of peer review. In addition to that, I am again aware that this man published a book, spoke at GDC, had his work uncritically shared in a Game Theory episode, and used his work to form a gamification firm. His chops are well established.

Regarding “respect for science”, I am well aware of how scientific consensus has been transmogrified from elements where there is consensus to support for certain policy objectives - the objection to which the rhetoric seems to come from - but the matter at hand is the direct conclusion from work actually performed. Furthermore, we are not talking about work published in junk journals, or flash-in-the-pan observations, because as discussed previously, this has become foundational in discussing motivations in video games.

So, would there be a lot of work that would have to go into refuting this? Yes, but that reflects the stability of the foundation.

My point is more that a great deal of work would be required to attack ANY academic text, junk or no, and that this excludes almost your entire audience on this forum.

You may be 100% right that this research is unimpeachable. Even so, your audience knows that peer reviewed work is often junk, and they often don’t have the time, expertise or frankly motivation to vet your claim that this one’s legit. So they’re going to ignore it if it doesn’t fit with their priors, and they’re perfectly reasonable to do so. Investing that kind of energy in a casual internet discussion is a poor use of time most of the time for most people.

So if your goal is actually to get people to understand and engage with the ideas in the research you’re referencing, then “this is foundational research you must accept at face value no discussion unless you’re willing to have an academic level argument” is bad rhetoric. And I think almost 100% of the considerable and derailing pushback you’re getting is a result of that rather than any actual premise in your argument.

Ignoring the role that this kind of rhetoric plays in how discussions play out is, imo, a bit like fixating on whether lore is logically consistent rather than emotionally compelling.

15 Likes