I must admit the situation in this article made me laugh a little bit, I asked myself 'Who really cares what happens in a virtual reality?' But then I thought if I had put time and effort in constructing my own virtual reality, I would probably be a bit annoyed if someone went out of their way to destroy it. So this brings me to the situation between Martha and Dank.
Martha, obviously a real person somewhere in the world went to the time and effort to sow some virtual flowers, meanwhile, Dank went to the effort of looking after a virtual pet. So naturally when Dank's dog died, and Martha's flowers were destroyed, they were more than a little bit peed off.
On the other hand, we really do need to ask ourselves what are we really doing online? If you're willing to invest time on virtual goods, then you need to acknowledge that they aren't really that secure there, so it's probably best not to grow too attached to anything that you create online. This could be a generational thing, as I can hear my mother telling me to grow up if I ever got upset over losing something online. However, I can attempt to sympathise with those who do lose virtual goods, as if you invest time and effort into something and see it smashed to bits, you do get quite a bit upset, even if it was just a very intense game of Tetris.
So this serves as a milestone in the development of the Internet, back in the day 'virtual goods' did not exist, but now there is an abundance of them online, and people have constructed their very own virtual alter egos. The Internet has now developed into a complex web of networks that have surrounded the globe, and has become something that you can not get away form no matter where you go.
In saying this, i'm interested in hearing what other people have to say. Is having a virtual identity with virtual goods a waste of time or what? What is the point of establishing these if they do not represent any real value?
Valid point Ben. As I am not a member of any online 'realms' I find it hard to see the benefit of investing hours of my life into an online world where the basic principles of society do not apply. This makes investing this time and money a huge risk, as it can all be destroyed in such a short amount of time, with little grounds for defence as 'normal' societal rules do not always apply.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do realise that this viewpoint is extremely biased as I have never immersed myself in the arena of online gaming and worlds, and would be curious to see if I would get 'sucked in' so to speak.
If you have a facebook account you are already heavily invested in a 'virtual' world :)
ReplyDeletePersonally to me it might not be real in the sense we can touch or smell it but it becomes real by seeing and hearing as well as emotionally connecting to virtual identities and goods. I have not played second life but as a avid gamer of The Sims (all three of them) there is a similarity and even thought there isn't that interaction with others online I do feel an attachment to what I've made and the characters I create. It might sound a bit weird and crazy but with the progression of technology these things have become real to people!
ReplyDelete:D
I think that investing time and money in something whether real or virtual carries with it a level of emotional attachment.
ReplyDelete"What is the point of establishing these if they do not represent any real value?"
I think it can be argued that any value that you place on something whether it be monetary, emotional or otherwise, can be deemed as real value.
I think it's a matter of whether you are willing to take the risk and I personally believe that there is just as much risk in the 'real' world.
People die, property is damaged and relationships break down. The things you create, invest time, money and emotions in are not permanent therefore there is always a risk of losing them. Whether real world or otherwise.
I think Go_Figure is absolutely right about how risk in the real world and the virtual world correlate. As a huge bookworm and dvd collecter, it often surprises me how easy it is to become caught up in a fictional world and to invest time and emotions there. Even getting angry on behalf of a character when something unfair happens or waiting for each new book in a series has an effect on how you feel and sometimes how you interact with others in 'real life'. It seems silly, but at the same time it says something about people and meaning. It doesn't necessarily matter what it is, if we place meaning on it, it can effect the way we see the world. I think it is partly because we are relational beings and the things we do outside of real-life relationships begin to imitate them because of the way we choose to use them.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about the virtual world described by Lessig is how the rules have changed. Lessig seems to suggest that the ability to manipulate code and therefore change the world around them also changes the way Martha and Dank face problems. Rather than learning to work through them, they simply 'code problems away' by changing the virtual environment. I would suggest however that although the rules for how Martha and Dank interact with space changed, the way they interacted with each other didn't really. The two still interacted, found conflict and had to resolve it somehow. What changed was how they approached it.
Like Nomi, I agree with Go_Figure. I think that this subject is teaching me that there is not a huge difference between our virtual and real selves, and that the gap between these identities is slowing closing as we become such an online society.
ReplyDeleteLike the real world, we get upset if something we have invested our time, money, and emotions into gets destroyed. I am not a Second Life or WoW player, but I guess I can connect to this feeling when I compare my Facebook account. I have built up my friends list, my photos, and memories through comments and messages on this account. If this was destroyed before I had a chance to copy these I would feel pretty upset (and yes I know that Facebook accounts can't be deleted but the point i there). I think that laws will need to catch up to this kind of online communication in order to regulate these kind of disputes in an appropriate manner.
I also, however, find nomi's thoughts about using coding to fix problems instead of communication interesting. How will this affect avid gamers in the future with their 'real life' communications?