Post # 14, Pearce, The Conclusion

There is a bit of irony in the way Pearce concludes her study of the Myst/Uru population. We were initially introduced to them for only a brief period before we read of the shutting down of their community. At the time, they are all rightfully devastated and hurt by having their online homeland destroyed. But they picked themselves up from their loss and perpetuated their community in different online locales. So when Pearce had the amazingly serendipitous opportunity to help relaunch the MOUL world, it came as a shock to the game developers that the refugees didn't come running back with open arms. I think this is a good example of the adage, "too little, too late." Uru refugees didn't come running back in the large numbers that were expected because they'd recreated their communities elsewhere like there.com, Second Life, and Until Uru.

The game developers for MOUL were much more humane about the second closing than the developers who conducted the first closing, and that definitely contributed to good will in the community, but what I think Pearce fails to make clear is exactly why MOUL failed. Yes, the refugees didn't come back in mass as was expected, but there were still people that played and they attracted new subscribers. What ultimately doomed MOUL? I think that perhaps the game developers, while more empathetic, still didn't really know what the gamers wanted. Something that Pearce brings up is ownership: who owns these game worlds? While the developers are the ones that created the world, it really belongs to the players that inhabit it. This is something that I have had issue with in the past, the concept of an author's work not being his own. I still resist it to a point. As a creative writer, I think it's a bit insulting to presume to tell me that my writings, that I put my time and effort into, that I brought into existence, don't belong to me. But I also realize that everyone approaches a text with their own perspective (well, usually).

Pearce wonders how game designers can guide emergent cultures and I think it's really a moot question. An online gaming world that promotes customization, interaction, and community will inevitably evolve into what the community makes it, not what the designers want it to be. Pearce eventually makes a pitch for the importance of cyberethnographers like herself. Anthropologists or sociologists, Pearce posits, have an advantage over the community leaders because they are able to step back from the community and observe it without the interference of personal investment; in essence, they are the bridge between the community and the designers. It is important for the future of online play communities for the designers to adapt to emergent cultures, even from the very beginning of the design process.

Questions:

1) Having read all of Pearce's book, are you more inclined to participate in an online play community than you might have been before?

2) Pearce lists her avatar, Artemesia, as a co-author of her book. What are your thoughts on this?

3) Pearce started her book by pointing out that play is and has always been a very important and natural part of human nature. How has her book affected your perception of what play means?