Order! Order! - The Psychology of Gaming (3)

                     An article by Sue

Even those of you who don't play RPGs will know about Richard
Garriott's Ultima series. Classic games, they revolutionized the
spirit of role-playing with their gripping storyline which
developed through the series. The Ultima universe eventually
spanned over a dozen games, each of which built on its
predecessors, ultimately creating a believable game world which
now lives on as Ultima Online, the live RPG which can be played
over the Net.

Many people, who played the games as they were released, told me
that the series started properly from Ultima IV. They explained
that the earlier games didn't have the depth of atmosphere, and
that it took a while for Origin to develop the full storyline with
its underlying moral aspect and the system of Virtues which had to
be followed.

At that time, I had an Atari ST and not all of the earliest games
had been produced for that machine, so my backlog of Ultimas on my
'to do' shelf consisted of Ultima II, IV and V. But I didn't start
any of these because I really wanted to start from the first game
and experience them in the order they'd been written.

Eventually I got my first PC - and Ultima VI and VII came out. VII
was in two parts, each of which had add-ons. My pile of Ultima
games on the shelf grew because I still hadn't got hold of I or
III. At last, a CD compilation was released, about the same time
as Ultima VIII appeared.  And somewhere in the middle of all this,
Origin released the two Underworld games, plus Savage Empire and
Martian Dreams, all of which linked into the series to various
degrees. The shelf was now full!

But I was happy; I had Ultima I and could start playing. I loaded
it up ...  the graphics were, naturally, very simple. I may have
been a hero but I looked like a stick figure. Never mind, the
game's the thing, and I got stuck in, role-playing my little socks

off and completing the game in a few months, which is pretty quick
for me! One down, umpteen to go.

I loaded Ultima II. Graphics still pretty awful, but I persisted.
After a few weeks or more, I got to one part of the game where I
had to fly an aeroplane through a time gate. Remember, I was
playing a game, which had been written in 1982, on a PC which had
been built ten years later and which was just too fast to cope. I
spent ages trying to fly that plane and failing dismally and in
the end, even I had to admit defeat.

So, what did I do? Go on to Ultima III and keep climbing the
ladder to the Promised Land of Ultima VIII? No, I abandoned the
complete series. If I couldn't play them in sequence, I didn't
want to know.  I'm phrasing this in a rather OTT way, but you get
the idea, and I know other people who've done similar things. Two
other people have mentioned to me recently that they're "really
looking forward to playing such-and-such" but of course they "have
to finish" its predecessor first.

On the other hand, I know other SynTax readers who see a game they
want to play, buy it and play it. Simple. They don't ask - is
there a game before this and if so, should I play it first? No,
they say, THIS is the game I like the look of and THIS is the one
I'll play.

Why don't we all do that?

Sometimes we also play a game longer than we're really enjoying
it. As you know, I've been playing Rollercoaster Tycoon for the
last few months. It has 21 scenarios and, to be honest, that's
about five too many. But did I stop playing? Don't be silly!

One of my dog-walking friends went through a similar thing with
... erm, I think it was Quake. He said the last level was a
struggle to complete; he'd had enough and several other games were
beckoning. But did the lure of Lara Croft drag him away from the
final level? Nope. "I finished it!"  he proudly told me. And while
part of me thought - why did you bother if you weren't enjoying
it? another bit of me silently applauded his persistence. It's a
matter of honour to complete a game - the principle can be summed
up as a 'touch of the Magnus Magnussons' .... "I've started, so
I'll finish." Playing time in particular is hard to find (and
sometimes to justify - but that's another story) and life's too
short to spend doing something we aren't enjoying, so why do we
find it hard or even impossible to stop playing once we've
started?

Once again, I called on leading psychotherapist Adrian Blake to
explain.  He said:

"Perhaps it's important to remember that playing computer games is
not done in isolation from the total personality. What I mean is
that how we play a game is a reflection of how we approach life
issues in general.  If we have a cautious methodical approach we
will start from the beginning and work our way to the end to find
a solution.  The gain is that we don't miss anything.  We cover
all eventualities.  It's laborious but safe!  The downside is that
we probably cover a lot of unnecessary ground as well.  We miss

out on some of the spontaneity, the risk-taking, the
devil-may-care fun of a game.

"The person who isn't so concerned about getting it right can
afford to take more risks.  They can start at the middle, or even
the end, take breaks when they want.  If they come across
something they don't understand it doesn't matter, it's still
okay.  The methodical person is more likely to beat themselves up
for not getting it right.  They feel they can't afford to not
understand something.  They may give up rather than take that
risk.

"If we want to change then it means, for the step-by-step person,
taking some risks by *not* sticking to the established order.  As 
I say to clients, familiarity is safe but not necessarily useful!
The reward? More fun - which after all is what games are all
about. Be assertive with the old 'shoulds', i.e. 'I should start
from the beginning'.  Who says you should?  Perhaps you *should*
tell that part to get lost!"
                              - o -