Dancer Archive
Thread: Interesting Study
Page 1 of 1
AnakinSWG
Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:31 am
#1
I read this quite some time ago, as it certainly seems to be a clear argument in the favor of the abolition of unattended gameplay. Written last year, it summarizes many of the advantages and problems with SOE's treatment of "social spaces" in SWG. Of course, we've seen some recent changes that will completely negate the research done here, but I'm rather impressed with the amount of information available. Our developers should be reading this...
If somebody has access to those secret CU forums that I've been removed from, I think you should post a copy this link there in a thread titled "Downtime in SWG?"
Maybe somebody will actually read it if it doesn't scream "ENTERTAINERS!!!" all over the thread. 
The following requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Nicolas Ducheneaut and Robert J. Moore
Lynnaea
Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:41 am
#2
Even from a non-entertainer persepective, this is still really fascinating. I'm a psych major myself, so maybe it's just me, but this is really cool. *giggle* Anyway, I posted it on my galaxy boards, hopefully it'll make it's way about. Thanks for bringing it to attention!
Ihareo
Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:48 pm
#5
OK... here's the problem with that whoe paper.
It was written by an SWG player who was looking for a topic for his class paper. So firstly, it's an amateur study at best. I'd like to see what grade he got. Probably a decent one.
Secondly, this paper is an example of a very commone practice among sociology majors, and that is to write a paper from a certain point of view in order to validate their own viewpoint. Usually this happens with divorcee's and abuse victims, wherin they write a paper that is not specifically aimed at the person who hurt them, but rather villainizes they 'type' of person that the one who hurt them is. It is all very common.
Anyway, now that I'm done deconstructing the paper itself, all I can say is that to me (and I could be wrong mind you) is that it's nothing more than a well written rant at asects of MMORPGs that the person doesn't like. It in cludes some loose facts, that can be easily debated and debunked, and makes use of gross generalizations.
ANyhoo, that's just my opinion, and I could be over analizing it.
Panthu
Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:57 am
#6
Ihareo wrote:
OK... here's the problem with that whoe paper.
It was written by an SWG player who was looking for a topic for his class paper. So firstly, it's an amateur study at best. I'd like to see what grade he got. Probably a decent one.
Oh no no no, this is the real deal. These are real live research monkeys at the big scary PARC. These weren't kids.
You can't get much more established than a researchstudy from PARC staff, lol.
AtheneNoctua
Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:03 am
#7
Panthu wrote:
Ihareo wrote:OK... here's the problem with that whoe paper.It was written by an SWG player who was looking for a topic for his class paper. So firstly, it's an amateur study at best. I'd like to see what grade he got. Probably a decent one.Oh no no no, this is the real deal. These are real live research monkeys at the big scary PARC. These weren't kids.You can't get much more established than a research study from PARC staff, lol.
I probably would grind 30 professions in RL to get a PARC character slot
(It would be interesting if they would repeat their study and evaluate the changes as well...)
AnakinSWG
Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:18 am
#8
AtheneNoctua wrote:
(It would be interesting if they would repeat their study and evaluate the changes as well...)
That's exactly what I was thinking when I went to look for it.
Ihareo
Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:24 pm
#9
Panthu wrote:
Ihareo wrote:
OK... here's the problem with that whoe paper.
It was written by an SWG player who was looking for a topic for his class paper. So firstly, it's an amateur study at best. I'd like to see what grade he got. Probably a decent one.
Oh no no no, this is the real deal. These are real live research monkeys at the big scary PARC. These weren't kids.
You can't get much more established than a researchstudy from PARC staff, lol.
Are you sure? Maybe it was written by an intern.
It seems a little informal to be a pro's work.
Oh well. You know, I could be wrong.
Panthu
Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:21 pm
#10
Esharra
Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:45 pm
#11
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) is probably the most influential, privately funded, think tank in the US (originally a subsidiary of Xerox, PARC incorporated independently a couple of years ago). PARC's research is mostly oriented toward studying how we use and interface with technologies.
Ihareo
Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:53 am
#12
Esharra wrote:
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) is probably the most influential, privately funded, think tank in the US (originally a subsidiary of Xerox, PARC incorporated independently a couple of years ago). PARC's research is mostly oriented toward studying how we use and interface with technologies.
I know from PARC. It just doesn't read like somthing from PARC. That's what is confusing me. I'm used to scientific papers from professionals I read to being almost psychotically detatched. That paper has personal written all over it, almost like Diane Fosey's papers on gorillas. No one can argue that she was a professional, and one of the best in her field, but the few papers she did write were almost worthless in the eyes of the scientific community do to the incredibly personal feel of what she wrote. That could be the same here. Or I could be reading too much into it. Or I could just be flat out wrong.
Page 1 of 1