MMO potential isn't actually creating virtual worlds, Elf. Sorry to burst that bubble.

 

You see, the reality is that the potential of the MMO game is to waste your time. That's it. It's purpose, intention and end result is a massive time waste. Seems a bit wrong, sure, but it's all in the name of good entertainment. I mean really, name some for of fun that's productive. It's impossible.

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.

and obviously you just disqualified yourself from any discussion on anthropology.

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

A bit, yeah. But it's the accurate viewpoint. Video games, hell all games in general, were created solely to waste time.

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.

and I feel forced to mention that none of these questions would be asked if humans didn't have five fingers (thumbs included) and didn't create the abacus in the first place to count things that exceeded the number of fingers and toes they had in total.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The problem here is you created a thread based on a subjective measure. There is no objective measure of what "full potential" means for an MMO, or any consumer product really.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

So you have never heard of people who have been financially ruined by MMO's... or for that matter the people who fell over of exhaustion because of a particular boss fight in Final Fantasy XI that at that point in the games history was literally unwinnable without serious hacks and even with said hacks took over 48 hours of continuous play from a full 18 man raid party (this last fact is in true despite the publicity released by the company afterwards) and to save face said company had to seriously increase the level cap and legally permitted some of those same hacks to remain in the game.

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.

You stated this, exactly:

"The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent."

This was untrue. That was really what I was focusing on, and I should've snipped that quote in my first reply, to make it more focused. He certainly did not "practically create" the idea of Artificial Intelligence. In fact, he had nothing to do with the idea in itself. He merely took that idea, and created discussion and thought on the morality of it.

He was NOT included in the Dartmouth Conferences. In fact, if you read some papers on the History of Artificial Intelligence, Asimov's name is not included AT ALL.

While I absolutely love Asimov's work, you should be careful to not falsely attribute things to people because of lack of knowledge. If you'd like to understand the actual history and birth of AI, here are some important names:

Marvin Minsky

Norbert Wiener

Warren Sturgis McCulloch

Walter Pitts

Claude Shannon*

Arthur Samuel*

Allen Newell**

Herbert A. Simon**

* (To a lesser extent)

** (slighly more modern, but based off of early work, not including Asimov)

Although it has been done in a few games (I'm thinking of CoH and STO specifically) I'm still a firm believer in player designed content.

This is the ultimate way to add a sandbox element to an active game with a minimum of resources. You rely on players, themselves, to author missions for players to choose to play.

In this game, if something like this was done, there are two ways it could be done IMO.

1) Use current general voice snippets for your character as well as alien dialog to give players the ability to craft missions without extended cutscenes. Instead, the information for the mission would be conveyed using the communicator. This would be the most tricky method naturally.

2) Make it a completely text based system. Though the missions would pale in comparison to the games main quests, it would still allow players to be creative and share their talent for writing with the community.

I think option 2 is the way to go.

You stated this, exactly:

 

"The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent."

You um... do know what virtually by definition actually means right?

And to be clear, I said Asimov practically created Artificial Intelligence as we understand it in the modern sci fi* culture. While it is absolutely and irrevocably true that he did not and was not the creator of the theory of machine intelligence as it is understood by rationalists and modern scientists... he was in fact the man who inspired all of sci fi to write about artificial intelligence. And he is the primary source of inspiration for all Artificial Intelligences that reject his three laws in some way or form purposefully.

So you have never heard of people who have been financially ruined by MMO's... or for that matter the people who fell over of exhaustion because of a particular boss fight in Final Fantasy XI that at that point in the games history was literally unwinnable without serious hacks and even with said hacks took over 48 hours of continuous play from a full 18 man raid party (this last fact is in true despite the publicity released by the company afterwards) and to save face said company had to seriously increase the level cap and legally permitted some of those same hacks to remain in the game.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying to call it an Addiction because it has the potential, is a mistake. As with most things non-physically-addictive, it isn't INHERENTLY addictive.

People have been financially ruined by purses. Shopping. Eating out.

People have seriously injured themselves from over-exertion in sports.

Most people do not consider alcohol an addiction. Yes, it absolutely has the potential. More-so than a video game.

Most people do not consider collecting things an addiction. Yes, it absolutely has the potential. Look at actual hoarders.

My point is this -- ACTUAL addiction to Video Games happens significantly less often than ACTUAL addiction to Alcohol, or many other "mentally addicting" things.

You um... do know what virtually by definition actually means right?

Did you bother to read my entire post?

Asimov isn't even considered a pioneer in Artificial Intelligence. He contributed almost nothing to the study.

Instead of attacking me out of ignorance, please inform yourself. I was attempting to educate in a polite manner, but arguing with someone when you admit to your own ignorance of the topic -- that is just asinine.

I apologize if I came off as callous. That was not my original intention.

Did you bother to read my entire post?

 

Asimov isn't even considered a pioneer in Artificial Intelligence. He contributed almost nothing to the study.

 

Instead of attacking me out of ignorance, please inform yourself. I was attempting to educate in a polite manner, but arguing with someone when you admit to your own ignorance of the topic -- that is just asinine.

 

I apologize if I came off as callous. That was not my original intention.

read my redacted post.

And for that matter, take longer than two seconds to absorb what I type before replying.

Although it has been done in a few games (I'm thinking of CoH and STO specifically) I'm still a firm believer in player designed content.

 

This is the ultimate way to add a sandbox element to an active game with a minimum of resources. You rely on players, themselves, to author missions for players to choose to play.

I actually think this is a wonderful idea! I haven't played games such as this -- but the idea of using the consumers to create content or solve problems is such a wonderful thing.

Rather recently, we saw a massive problem in the scientific community solved by gamers.* With hundreds of thousands of people playing a game, and creating content they themselves would enjoy -- you exponentially increase the amount of enjoyment and entertainment that can come from a game. One of the only problems is oversight. Unfortunately the community as a whole cannot be trusted, because there will always be the few with malicious intent. I'll have to look up how STO and CoH did it.

Players creating their own fun may sound to some like laziness or a "shady" business practice -- but I do it anyway. We recently held a scavenger hunt competition in our guild -- and will be doing a "recustomization contest" soon, because of the changes 2.1 is bringing. I can imagine the playerbase as a whole wouldn't be interested -- but we wanted to do it, and we did. Having a way to make it more "official" would've been even better!

*I'll try to find a link to share.

Although it has been done in a few games (I'm thinking of CoH and STO specifically) I'm still a firm believer in player designed content.

 

This is the ultimate way to add a sandbox element to an active game with a minimum of resources. You rely on players, themselves, to author missions for players to choose to play.

 

In this game, if something like this was done, there are two ways it could be done IMO.

 

1) Use current general voice snippets for your character as well as alien dialog to give players the ability to craft missions without extended cutscenes. Instead, the information for the mission would be conveyed using the communicator. This would be the most tricky method naturally.

 

2) Make it a completely text based system. Though the missions would pale in comparison to the games main quests, it would still allow players to be creative and share their talent for writing with the community.

 

I think option 2 is the way to go.

I am not 100% certain, but.... I know that Cryptic Studios did plan on sharing the Foundry patent with other companies while it was owned by Atari (I think). But as soon as Cryptic Studio's was acquired by Perfect World Entertainment who is largely owned by a Chinese (and thus Communist) corporation... it is entirely likely that they clamped down on any attempt to share their product with an outside corporation. So do not plan on seeing anything remotely similar to the Foundry in Star Wars the Old Republic anytime soon.

You stated this, exactly:

 

"The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent."

 

This was untrue. That was really what I was focusing on, and I should've snipped that quote in my first reply, to make it more focused. He certainly did not "practically create" the idea of Artificial Intelligence. In fact, he had nothing to do with the idea in itself. He merely took that idea, and created discussion and thought on the morality of it.

 

He was NOT included in the Dartmouth Conferences. In fact, if you read some papers on the History of Artificial Intelligence, Asimov's name is not included AT ALL.

 

While I absolutely love Asimov's work, you should be careful to not falsely attribute things to people because of lack of knowledge. If you'd like to understand the actual history and birth of AI, here are some important names:

 

Marvin Minsky

Norbert Wiener

Warren Sturgis McCulloch

Walter Pitts

Claude Shannon*

Arthur Samuel*

Allen Newell**

Herbert A. Simon**

 

* (To a lesser extent)

** (slighly more modern, but based off of early work, not including Asimov)

Are you guys actually arguing who invented that thing that has yet to actually be invented?

This is like arguing who invented flight... in 1662.

read my redacted post.

 

And for that matter, take longer than two seconds to absorb what I type before replying.

Apologies -- maybe you should've written the entire post before hitting "submit reply." And, you simply stated "The concept of Artificial Intelligence when. . . " While I *might* agree he invented the genre of "robot fiction" -- that is hardly the same as Artificial Intelligence.

On top of that -- Turing was the FIRST person to write ANYTHING about the philosophical underlyings of Artificial Intelligence. So -- not *just* on a scientific level.

I'd love to see some evidence that points to Asimov EVER being mentioned as an inspiration to the creaters of "modern sci-fi AI". And I fail to see how basing a book off of someone else's idea -- one that you don't even fully understand -- is enough to merit him with anything relating to AI.

And, even in SciFi -- he wasn't the first, nor the most influential.

Please see:

Karel Capek

Jack Williamson - Particularly "With Folded Hands"

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Movie)

Forbidden Planet (Movie)

The Time Machine (H.G. Wells)

Astro Boy (Original Manga)

Philip K. Dick

Are you guys actually arguing who invented that thing that has yet to actually be invented?

 

This is like arguing who invented flight... in 1662.

we are actually arguing over who invented the concept of artificial intelligence. I am firmly of the opinion that artificial intelligence has not been invented because there are moral objections that state that inventing it would in fact prove disastrous for our species. My opponent here claims it has already been invented and I am just too blind to the obvious fact that machines already think on the level of human beings to realize it.

we are actually arguing over who invented the concept of artificial intelligence. I am firmly of the opinion that artificial intelligence has not been invented because there are moral objections that state that inventing it would in fact prove disastrous for our species. My opponent here claims it has already been invented and I am just too blind to the obvious fact that machines already think on the level of human beings to realize it.

Please, show me where I said it has already been invented?

Oh, right. I didn't. I pointed out that you mistakenly referred to Asimov as someone who

practically self-invented the entire genre of robot fiction.

And furthermore stated that

The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent.

Both I have shown to be false. You've even admitted to your lack of knowledge in the area, yet continue to argue about things you don't know. I've even given you terms to plop into google -- and would take not even 5 minutes to show you Asimov was BARELY influential to AI in any sense of the term.

And moral objections are HARDLY the reason we haven't achieved that goal. Why? Many scientists think about morality AFTER the fact. Look at the Atomic Bomb.

Generally isn't smart to continue an argument about something, when you know little about the subject.

we are actually arguing over who invented the concept of artificial intelligence. I am firmly of the opinion that artificial intelligence has not been invented because there are moral objections that state that inventing it would in fact prove disastrous for our species. My opponent here claims it has already been invented and I am just too blind to the obvious fact that machines already think on the level of human beings to realize it.

Ahh, well in that case, the concept likely dates back thousands of years to Golems of mythology.

Morality never gets in the way of inventing things to make money or kill other people. The real impediment is that they are trying to invent something to emulate something we barely understand, the human brain.