Refactoring Game Communities

by Jon on May 17, 2010

Most people hunger for human connections with each other.  I believe that’s what is at the center of the “social” phenomena: social networking, social gaming, social everything.  When future historians look back at the early 3rd millenia, I think we’ll be noted more for the massive social changes that happened as a consequence of our new technologies (the Internet), but not so much for the technology itself.

Before the industrial revolution, people lived in authentic communities.  They knew each other, depended on each other, played with each other.  They raised barns together!  With the industrial revolution, the nature of work changed–most people became organized around synthetic communities based on their specialized skills (we call them corporations).  Since some of these specialized skills were scarce, they paid more, which caused a further refactoring of residences along economic boundaries.  That’s why your next-door neighbor is likely to make a similar amount of money as you, drive a similar car, and live in a similar house–but might have very different values and interests.  Their life’s challenges are likely to be entirely independent of yours.

If you live in an apartment building, and if you’re like most people–you don’t really know your neighbors.  The fact is, you don’t have much in common with them.  Consumer goods companies and the mass media emerged to fill the void left by our lack of human contact–but the hunger for human contact never went away… although it was largely forgotten for a while.

Enter social networks: they give you the ability to maintain connections with people based on interests.  Games have given people a new way to confront challenges, organize and achieve things within this new community.

The greatest innovation of the last decade (in my opinion) is the re-realization that human connections play in every aspect of our lives.  However, we’re still at the beginning of learning all the implications; and technology has a long way to go to catch up with a billion years of biology.  For example, we know from psychological experiments that people act much different when they can’t see another person: they can become indifferent to pain.   And anyone who has played an MMORPG can tell you that people act much differently (read: much more rudely) than they do in real life.

However, Facebook is built upon a schema of real identities.  Sure, it isn’t perfect and it isn’t enough to overcome the organic nature of face-to-face communities, but I do think it has created somewhat of a shift in how people behave toward each other online.  People are much more concerned about how they’re remembered.  Honor, reputation and trust become important in ways they aren’t within anonymous communities and anonymized games.

Whole new types of social applications are already taking advantage of this phenomena.  However, games haven’t really done so (yet).  A challenge: can games take advantage of this in a new way?  What does it mean to take away the anonymous “safety net” from an immersive gaming experience?

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Twitter to hear more from me on innovation, games and entrepreneurship. If you'd like to learn how games can transform your business, also check out my book, Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Aaron WhiteNo Gravatar May 17, 2010 at 11:42 am

I think there’s a lot to be gained by incorporating real-world identities into games in a very primal fashion….. with a caveat: it had better be deliberately included (or excluded).

Amongst my friends, we do this “anyway” when playing with each other, we all know who-is-who, whose-alt-is-whose, etc. And in environments like Facebook, casual games create ‘casual’ reminders of how my casual friends are passing the time. Feels very ‘neighbor-hoody’ to me (in a good way)

However, despite how anonymity can bring out the worst in people, it also brings out the competitive, creative, or experimental aspects of one’s personality that might normally be hidden in more socially-transparent situations. And if games offer us an ‘escape’, that may mean escape from the responsibilities and constraints of our lives, which more often than not is particular to our social situation.

So I’d view anonymity/identifiability as a feature choice that is now tenable, and hope that game designers actively make decision about which is most appropriate for the experience they hope to create.

That said, games are often an excuse to interact with others around a set of rules & common context that makes socialization easier than attempting to suss out interests via small-talk. If the new breed of games broaden the circle of real-world identities I can interact with to a global scale, there are a lot of great new interactions, and relationships, that can be forged.

jediNo Gravatar May 17, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Anonymous or not, reputation is quite important. Look at serious raiding in WoW as the example. People don’t know my name but they know or have heard of my toon and that reputation affects my ability to participate. Playing with integrity means my fellow raiders can trust what I’m going to do and when.

And all without my name.

Geoffrey HyattNo Gravatar May 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Jon, I mostly agree. But I’m not sure what you mean about ‘authentic’ communities 200+ years ago. People lived and died where they were born, with the other people that were born there. If authentic community is based on blood ties, then those communities were authentic. If authentic communities are based on shared experiences, then they were pretty authentic, but then so are corporations and suburbs. If authentic communities are created around common interests, then all of those examples also generally qualify to about the same degree.
Maybe it is just academic conversation, but I don’t think that any of the communities is more authentic than another (pre-industrial, workplace, apartment building, internet), I think they all have a basis in common interest and common experience, which is what makes them communities.

JonNo Gravatar May 17, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Thanks for the great comments on this!
@Aaron: Is small-talk partially a function of the alienation we feel from others in our natural community? Is it that games eliminates the necessity of small talk for a lot of interactions?
@jedi: no question–reputation is really important in an MMORPG, even if it is only the reputation of your character identity
@Geoffrey: I think what’s I’m questioning is the role of anonymity in communities. I’m suggesting that merging real identities to communities might make them more authentic; I’m also suggesting that communities that are based on shared interests and goals are more authentic than purely economic boundaries. I agree that corporations can often be great communities–in properly-run startups that’s certainly the case–but often they aren’t. A year ago I would have said that strong communities were heavily dependent on “real” identity, but now I’m questioning my old assumptions.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: