I just finished reading Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. I was skeptical at first; I thought it would be horribly patronizing through it's portrayal of gamers, which is much worse than stereotyping. I was hooked after reading the first chapter though. Cline doesn't just paste a stereotypical gamer nerd character in place of an everyhero. He touches on things prevalent in gamer culture like illusion replacing reality, online only relationships versus IRL ones, and places them in a classic apocalyptic backdrop complete with a giant evil corporation.
What it made me think about the most though was the old Illusion vs. Reality problem. How does this affect the ambitions of the game designer? The OASIS was, essentially, the ultimate video game that appeals to all people and does all things. Professor Brackin always warned us to never try and make “the ultimate video game”. I believe that, if given an infinite amount of time, money (resources), and freedom most game designers would end up with the OASIS or something similar. For example, one of the last analog games I designed in school had no rules behind it. Usually professor Christopher gave us some sort of rules, inspiration, or limitation we had to follow. Our game turned into a white board & markers package where the only rule was that each player got to create a rule on their turn. This was basically a game where anything was possible, an analog version of the OASIS. Players were limited by the size of the whiteboard, which could be expanded, by the levels of ink in the markers, which could be replaced, by their own patience, which can be replenished. It was basically an analog version of the Unity engine or the UDK.
Back to my fleeting point. Why should anyone wish to create something that let's people escape from reality? Or is the point of games and other media (or entertainment) to let people escape from their reality?
At what point does escape become replacement?
Let's improve on Cline's OASIS. Let's make it perfect. Let's say that on top of everything else it does, it also nourishes the user's body via the virtual food they ingest, it works out their muscles and such via the actions they perform, interacting with other users and NPCs will feel exactly as it “should” IRL. For all intents and purposes, and through whatever wonderful machinations, the “New OASIS” is a complete and total replacement for reality, akin to the matrix. Would this be such a bad thing? Would it instead be an improvement on reality? Human audacity certainly knows no bounds as we take sentience to new heights.
An alternate reality. Another true reality that does not feel like a game. Our imaginations would not be limited by being stuck inside our brains, we would not be limited by the rules that govern society or even the universe. Anything we think can be brought to “life”. It would improve our brains by allowing everyone access to all knowledge of the human race, and imagine the possibilities for collaboration. It would improve our physical bodies by requiring “real life” movement to control in-game actions, along with control-via-brain for the handicapped. For all intents and purposes, mankind would ascend to godhood since we would have the power of creation and be immortal by suspending our brains Futurama-style.
This brings me back to those who spend 51% of their time awake in an MMO. Their waking life is successfully replaced by their online one. Is an existence spent in illusion a wasted one? I find it empowering to master one's reality by completely disregarding the cards that have been dealt. The problem is finding an illusion worthy of replacing reality.
This brings me back to those who spend 51% of their time awake in an MMO. Their waking life is successfully replaced by their online one. Is an existence spent in illusion a wasted one? I find it empowering to master one's reality by completely disregarding the cards that have been dealt. The problem is finding an illusion worthy of replacing reality.
One could argue that by spending all of ones time in an illusion, they have wasted their life as they have achieved nothing. The problem here is that the whole concept of "achievement" and "legacy" boils down to a longing for immortality (a bug that is solved in our New OASIS): people strive to be "immortal" by leaving a lasting impression on this planet. What happens when the human race is no longer around, when all records/traces of our existence has been erased by whatever cataclysmic means of destruction?
Where does this place the game designer, the architect of the matrix? Games themselves, like movies and music, are little illusions; bite sized glimpses into the "ultimate illusion". How can a designer be so content to create a slice instead of a whole pie? I think this is why things like "going out of scope" and "feature creep" are so prevalent in design. We always want to add more to our illusion, we want to make our slice bigger. We want to reach that New OASIS level, but have to be content with our slice. But then isn't the "pie" of the New OASIS just made up of "slices" of linear content? If the whole is judged by the pieces, then the pieces become most relevant.
To answer the proposed question(s), escape becomes replacement not by a measurement of time, but rather when the strings that pull one into the illusion are greater than those that tie one to ones real life. If one lives to work to pay ones subscriptions (or purchase more games) then real life has been replaced; ones life only serves to fuel ones illusion.
The game designer is in a unique position of both consumer and creator. His strings pull him so hard through the illusion that he comes out the other side back into reality. He depends on the illusion to support his reality. His mastery of illusion leads to a mastery of reality.
