From: John Eagan <76130.2225@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Sci-VW: Re: CULTURE:   Battletech Center makes me gag
Date: 22 Feb 92 23:53:39 EST



Rob Jellinghaus writes:

>In article <1992Feb14.082359.1763@u.washington.edu>
>cyberoid@hitl.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes:
>
>>Battletech, the multiplayer wargame, may be a fine technological 
>>achievement, but this is ludicrous (from the brochure):
>
>>(stuff deleted)

(Rob responds: )

>Is this thread appropriate for sci.virtual-worlds?  The root reasons
>why the game designers chose Battletech are varied:  there is a long
>Japanese animation series about these human-shaped tanks; there are
>several role-playing strategy games based on the idea; violent arcade
>games sell well.

>And beyond that, there are other questions this thread could lead to:
>why is violence so prevalent in our society?  Why does science fiction
>frequently predict futures very similar to the present, and sometimes
>to the past?  Why is writing "realistic" futurist science fiction
>becoming an almost intractably hard problem?  And why is it the case
>that the Battletech designers can _make money_ from designing the
>system they way they did?

>Of course, the last question is really the relevant one.  If anyone
>else out there has any better ideas for VR-based arcade games, that
>are at once nonviolent and addictive to the many arcade gamers who
>will be supporting your company, go for it!  But bemoaning the impact
>of the Battletech game on virtual-worlds technology is like saying
>that violent movies will be the ruin of cinema.

>The bottom line: please, let's keep this discussion out of sci.
>virtual-worlds.  We all have our personal preferences about what is
>and is not "appropriate" use of this technology.  But the way to make
>those preferences matter is not to criticize those who make other
>choices, but to build successful systems embodying _your_ choices.

I certainly hope this sort of thing is *not* kept out of
sci.virtual-worlds. The discussion of what is *done* with VR is most
certainly important in any discussion of the technology!

To ignore the applications of a technology under development is ignorance
and apathy at its absolute *worst*. Among the readers and contributors to
this list are many of the people who will, or can, be the foundation of a
new technology that has the potential to have the biggest effect on human
perception of any technology yet created. The very people who should be
thinking very, very, carefully about what it is they are helping to
create, *while* it is still being created.

I do not buy the idea that you can take the attitude of:

... "we're only going along with what the market demands...."
... "we don't make philosophical decisions, that's not our job.."  
... "what is done with the technology isn't important to us, the        
     technology itself is what's important..."

I do have my own personal preferences regarding what is "appropriate" use
of the technology, just like Bob Jacobson and many others. I certainly
don't expect Rob, or anyone else, to agree with my own opinions, or
anyone else's. I have no illusions that I am omniscient; I do not believe
that the universe revolves around a point on my forehead. I *do* believe,
however, that opinions need to be thought out, and voiced, and where the
subject is virtual reality and its uses, *this* is one of the best places
for these things to be aired.

Throughout history, unbelievable acts of evil and destruction have been
committed by people who have been willing to let somebody relieve them of
the difficulty of making moral and ethical choices. Read the works of Ayn
Rand. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson. You will find underlying them
a profound point about the importance of freedom and independent thought
by individuals.

-->If YOU don't choose to attempt to do the right thing, WHO WILL?!

I don't view the act of voicing a considered opinion in an open forum to
be "preaching". If that's the term you want to describe it with, so be it.

I don't consider thought about the consequences of work being done to be
"inappropriate". What you do has effects. This is reality. If you choose
to ignore that fact, you can do so. That will not remove the results of
what you do, or relieve you of the responsibility for them.

Voicing opinions on matters of purpose and ethics may or may not have an
effect on people who are working in a particular field, but at least they
can be aired out. If they are disagreed with, that is one thing. At least
there has been thought given to the issues. If opinions about purpose and
ethics are simply *ignored*, that is another matter. If opinions about
ethics and purpose of work are actively squelched, hang on! There will
always be somebody, most likely somebody with less than benevolent intent,
who will be glad to relieve you of the burden of moral choices, with you
along for the ride.

So, the question was, is it desirable to make games of killing and
destruction the main public applications of virtual reality technology?
I won't try to tell you all I have the final answer on that one. 
I *will* tell you that you had better think about it, and think about it
NOW.

******************************************************************
*John Eagan                         "humans is funny critters.." *
*VR section leader                                   -me         *
*Computer Art Forum                                              *
*CompuServe                                                      *
*compuserve:76130,2225                                           *
*internet:76130.2225@compuserve.com                              *
******************************************************************