Are MMOs fulfilling their potential?

I disagree completely with your first statement.

The reason behind an MMO -- from a consumer standpoint -- is entertainment. Creating a virtual world with perfect immersion is the fantasy, the hope, and what we wish developers would strive for.

The reason behind an MMO -- from a corporate standpoint -- is to make money off of people who get addicted to it. The "amount" of time they play doesn' t matter, only the amount of money they spend. They'd prefer a sub that plays for 3 years, and only 10 hours a week, to one that plays for 1 year @ 40 hours a week.

Its purpose is not to waste time. While that is the end result, it isn't the purpose.

That is an extremely nihilistic view. Carry it over to life -- the end result of life is a waste of time, no? So, by that logic, the purpose of life is to waste time.

As for the last question -- you have my sincere sympathies if you haven't found anything productive AND fun. I, for one, LOVE programming. Problem solving, to me, is both productive and fun. Obviously this is 100% subjective -- but the most influential and successful people in this world find something productive that they love. That is why they do so well.

Good thing this isn't anthropology. This is fun. And fun is always created by boredom.

Videogames are an art form, like any other. If your viewpoint is accurate, then all a moviegoer, museum goer, book reader and music listener is doing is merely wasting time.

I would appreciate it if you didn't alter my point.

You attempted to state that "The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent." This is false. I was merely pointing this out.

Comparing Turings view of AI in relation to Asimov is NOT the same as comparing an abacus to current-day mathematics.

Exactly.

But again, it's not a bad thing. It's good for you to waste time. Otherwise, you'll go completely bonkers. Balance of work and play makes for a better human. Lovely.

The sad and frightening truth of what you just pointed out is that MMO's are very very much an addiction. Just like cigarettes. Just like any designer drug. The problem is it is an addiction that society does not categorically frown upon. And it is an addiction with no obvious health hazards other than weight gain. Which is unfortunately not enough of a health risk to cause the FDA to ban it.

So it is in essence the perfect addiction for corporations looking to make quick money off of addicted citizens of a given country to sell to those citizens. In this way it is even more perfect than cigarettes which for a long time were the designer drug of choice.

I could be wrong, but that is exactly how I approached this thread. And I think it has the potential for great discussion.

Obviously the entire idea of "full potential" is subjective. But, opening up discussion on what others believe *could* be full potential is great. What more could they do? What would we love to see, in a perfect world? What companies have already started?

This is how new ideas are born -- and how innovation happens. When group of people come together and discuss vaugue questions like this. It could be that, from one persons post about what they'd love to see, a new game is formed. Or the idea of a game, to be carried out in the future.

Or, it could just be filled with complaints about what we don't have. :-D The title could've been worded better -- or, I could be completely mis-interpreting the OP. I do have a habit of being overly optimistic.

The entertainment excuse is a cop out that excuses the game makers from bad design.

Games are supposed to be contests, or challenges, that is where they historically derived their entertainment value, not from being a shiny ball that is just entertaining to look at.

Games can challenge players by pitting them against each other (PvP) or, in the case of PC games, against the computer (PvE). When that challenge is diminished and watered down to the point we are nearing, then they are little more than badly-made movies that make us click buttons to see the next scene.

okay your proposition is based upon the Turing Test I assume? I have never really studied Turing in any great depth. But based on what I found on the internet in a quick cursory glance.... you are right. He invented the most rudimentary concept of artificial intelligence. However to say he was the founder of the entire genre of Sci Fi Artificial Intelligence just because he thought of the question "Is there an imaginable scenario in which machines can think in a manner which is indistinguishable from humans."

I will concede that he raised question. I will concede that with the partnership of Isaac Asimov they together founded the Genre. But I will not conceive that he all by himself founded the entire genre. And I never ever said that Isaac Asimov created the whole thing by himself. I said he practically created it. There is a distinct difference between saying he did something and he practically did something.

And your wrong. by the way. Turing did not know whether it was possible for computers to think. He never set out with the goal of proving whether it was possible for computers to think. And he certainly did not intend to spawn generations of sci fi enthusiasts based on his work. What he was trying to do was to falsify his assumptions about whether or not computers could think.

I have to disagree with this argument. EVERYTHING in life can be an addiction. Literally everything has the potential for it. Television is an addiction. Technology as a whole is an addiction. Hiking can be an addiction. Working out can be an addiction.

The problem here? With the majority of these things, there is no PHYSICAL addiction. You can develop a mental addiction for absolutely anything. Quite literally, I had a friend in College who was addicted to chapstick. If she lost hers, she would have a full-blown anxiety attack. Granted, she also had OCD and it was highly tied to that, but OCD is more common than people think. Just to varying degrees of severity.

Calling things like this an addiction do more harm than good. In two ways:

1.) It belittles the severity of actual addiction. Like methamphetamines, cigarettes, opiates, etc.
2.) It takes focus off of personal responsibility. Blaming the "addiction" is quite common -- and used as an excuse for most people to continue with their addiction, or for others to be enablers.

When an addiction begins to have SEVERE negative affects, it should be dealt with. Like gambling addiction, alcoholism, eating disorders, etc.

If an MMO (or any video game, for that matter) starts to affect you that strongly -- to the point where you literally do nothing else, or get fired for staying home, or allow your health to erode severly, or spend all of your money on them, etc. -- it can be considered an addiction.

To say that, because something has the potential to be abused and form an addiction, it is inherently an addiction -- that is completely flawed.