World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
Serious/Game/Play Final Paper Joost Raessens 9th of November, 2009 Lieke Mandemakers, 3000680
2
Table of Contents
Serious games vs. commercial games ......................................................................... 3 Exploring ‘seriousness’ ................................................................................................. 4 When play ceases to be play ......................................................................................... 6 Serious Play? ................................................................................................................. 8 Literature....................................................................................................................... 10
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
3
Serious games vs. commercial games Imagine a 14-year old crouching and ducking from air-missiles in WWII, trying to take back a watchtower crawling with German soldiers, planning his next move. No, this is not the sad story of a child-soldier, it is the story of a young gamer. This teenager has not even seen maturity yet, but nevertheless can probably assess a battlefield operation better than many adults can. This 14-year old has learned things in this commercial game it would have never learned in real-life. Serious gaming has been a major issue in countless of articles. Especially the concept of a ‘serious game’ poses some problems for academics. Can any game really be serious? If we believe Huizinga, the prerequisite for a game is the fact that a game should be played for the enjoyment of that moment (Huizinga, 41). If we add external, serious goals to these games, will we still be able to call them games? An interesting perspective on this particular issue is the fact that game designers never have full control over their creations. The way in which players use the virtual spaces of games that get offered to them is dependent on the players themselves. Naturally, users can get persuaded into a certain framework by game design, but ultimately, it’s the players that shape the virtual world. Because of this, we see an interesting development in what would be originally commercial games. Players can learn and develop in playing these games, and can even earn money. The game design did not originally intend these serious, external benefits to playing their game, but the players have developed as a community, and sub-cultures have come into existence. Are these players still playing, or do we need to differentiate between normal play and play with external benefits? We witness then, a user-developed form of play, which seems to be a mix being play as we see it in serious games, and play with other serious consequences like material gains. It can be found mainly in commercial games that have existed for some time. These forms of play do not always coincide with known play-theories, but should not be discarded as ‘non-play’ (when play ceases to be play) so easily. It is necessary to take a closer look into these practices to try and define if this phenomenon is a different form of play (so that our older definitions of play might need to be revisited) or a complete new form of play. In this case the new concept of ‘serious play’ seems to fit the description best, seeing as the form of play we witness borrows aspects from serious games, and has been coined as the ‘opposite’ of leisure by academics (Ehrmann, 41). These concerns then, lead to a main question in this research paper: Is there such a thing as ‘serious play’ in commercial games, and in what ways can we recognize it? To be able to determine whether or not there is such a thing as ‘serious play’ it is first necessary to look at the serious-aspect in serious games. At first glance, this approach might seem out of place, seeing as ‘play’ is the main concept of interest here. Yet, as Michael & Chen already mention in their description of serious games, definitions of ‘play’ often are also applicable on definitions of ‘game’, and the other way around (Michael & Chen, 19). Thus, the concept of ‘serious games’ would be equally helpful in exploring a concept of serious play. What is it exactly that makes these games serious? In most cases the answer would be that they are designed specifically to teach the players something (Michael & Chen, 17). Yet, seeing as we’re looking at the user point of view of play, we have to look past design aspects. What is it that players do, that makes the game they’re playing serious? Naturally, the second concept that needs to be researched is ‘play’. In order to determine whether these forms of play we are witnessing in commercial games are new or different, we need to delve deeper into the existing theories revolving this concept. What is play exactly and when does something ceases to be play? When this can be established, we might have more answers about the different forms of play we recognize in some commercial games. Using the theories of Huizinga and Callois, a framework concerning the concept of play will be set up, of which the boundaries can then be explored. Both World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
4 Huizinga and Callois have very strong opinions on when play ceases to be play. What does this mean for forms of play in World of Warcraft that seem to transgress these rules? The focus will be on the user. We will attempt to define play accordingly. This means we will be making use of a commercial game to illustrate aforementioned claims. As the paper will focus on the user, it is necessary to look past design in the game, and thus pick a game that is not designed to facilitate a serious attitude for the player. This essay will make use of the player-base in World of Warcraft (WoW). Developed by Blizzard in November 2004, it has grown out to be the biggest, most popular MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) ever made. With more than 11.5 million subscribers worldwide, it is the best resource for player behaviour one can think off.1 It is a well-established game that offers players a world to play in. Being around for so long has made for an interesting player-base with countless of different user developed initiatives and activities. This is what makes World of Warcraft perfect for establishing different forms of play. Lastly the findings will be discussed and attempt will be made to formulate whether or not we’re dealing with a new kind of play, or if an alteration is necessary to existing theories of play. ‘Serious play’ will be further explored, including older forms of the concept that have been used by other authors.
Exploring ‘seriousness’ Very simply put, serious games are games “in which education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than entertainment” (Michael & Chen, 17). It is the developers purpose, to educate the user, or have them acquire skills. It is the game on itself then, that makes for an educational experience for the user. Most academics see design here as the key-element to have gamers learn something. As the game is responsible for a certain experience for the user, it is here we need to adjust it if the required effect is not reached. A clear example of this can be found with Prensky. When faced with the question of why serious games sometimes lack effectiveness in educating users, he answers: “it’s because those particular games are badly designed” (Prensky, 103). He gives no other reason, which shows the biased opinion of design being solely responsible for effective learning in serious games. The same problem can be seen in Salen & Zimmerman’s articles. While discussing an interesting concept of meaningful play, they concentrate on the intentions of design in the game to facilitate it (Salen & Zimmerman, 60). In their eyes the goal of successful game design is to create meaningful play. A new perspective on the definition of serious games can be found in the importance of the user. In the end, it is the players themselves that determine whether a game is educational or not, by learning something. This way, even entertainment games can become educational games by use (Michael & Chen, 22). Prensky describes the five different levels of learning he recognizes in commercial as well as serious games. He calls them learning ‘how’ (learning game-controls), ‘what’ (learning the rules of a game), ‘why’ (learning the strategy involved), ‘where’ (learning the culture of the game-world), and ‘when and whether’ (learning value-based and moral decisions) (Prensky, 104). All games can teach these things, and thus it is not limited to serious games. It is worth trying to find another perspective than just design to try and define what makes a serious game serious, seeing as the ‘serious’ part is also apparent in games not designed for this purpose. In my opinion then, we should look at the users to explore the aspects of seriousness in games.
1
In December 2008 World of Warcraft issued a press release informing the public its playerbase had reached 11.5 million subscribers worldwide (http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?081121). This is a substantial amount more than any other MMORPG out at the time (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Comparison_of_MMORPGs).
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
5 This change in approach is especially apparent in Jenkins’ et al. ‘from serious games to serious gaming’. In it, he explains the ways in which newer games aimed to be serious are not so much concentrating on being “vehicles for delivering curricular content than as spaces for exploration, experimentation, and problem solving” (Jenkins et al., 2). This way they hope to encourage discussion, meta-gaming and speculation between users. The accent here is on a new way of learning; specifically based upon the gamers’ own initiative to learn while exploring the game in its full content. The activities of the user need to be educational, instead of just exposing them to school-content. One of the aspects that is of importance here is giving the player choices. This is apparent in the example of Revolution that is mentioned. Players were given the freedom to roam in a world constructed as a representation of historical Williamsburg. It is this freedom of choice that allows students to explore the era’s social and political norms in their own time. Either by actively participating or sitting back and watching (Jenkins et al., 4). He also mentions the notion of role-playing as important in this particular example; one goal in design is to foster “deep personal engagement through role-playing immersion” (Jenkins et al., 9). In Revolution this leads to players combining “things they learned in the game with insights from their own lives or things they had read in other accounts of the period” (Jenkins et al., 6). This coincides with Gee’s opinions in ‘Video Games and Embodiment’. He thinks our thinking and perception is for the most part reliant on former experiences, which are stored in our mind. They are stored in the form of dynamic images, tied to our perception of our ‘”bodies, internal state and feelings” (Gee, 255). We quite literally, place ourselves in other peoples (or characters, in the case of a video game) shoes, to try and perceive the situation (Gee, 258-259). This explains the importance of role-playing for the thinking-process in general, and thus also for learning. A second aspect mentioned to be of importance in serious games is a setting that encourages “multiplayer collaborative problem solving” (Jenkins et al., 10). This means offering a virtual platform in which players can interact with each other and work to solve problems. Jenkins sees game play as a social learning opportunity, as opposed to an individual one (Jenkins et al., 18). Lastly, Jenkins defines the enabling of cognitive flow as an important aspect we (should) see in serious games. Flow here means being completely involved in an activity for its own sake (Jenkins et al., 10). “Flow is marked by extreme concentration, pleasure, focus, reward and even exhaustion. Activities that lead to Flow display clear goals, high concentration, feedback, appropriate challenge, personal control and intrinsic reward” (Jenkins et al., 10). The three aforementioned aspects are an important part of a serious game. They encourage the learning process in a more intrinsic way. It is interesting then, that we can recognize all three aspects in a commercial game. When taking a closer look to World the Warcraft, the first main recognizable facet of intrinsic learning tactics in serious games that we witness is role-playing. As the genre suggests (MMORPG meaning Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game), World of Warcraft is a game in which the player assume the role of an avatar. By doing this, the player develops its perceptual thinking as mentioned by Gee (Gee, 258-259). World of Warcraft then also offers the possibility of communication with other players. This gives them the ability to interact and solve problems together, better yet, it is required to do so in certain situations. When players for instance, play on more competitive levels, so-called ‘raiding’ requires you to work together in a bigger group (40 people in the first years of the game, brought down to 10 or 25 people in the last years) to kill certain monsters and get the items you’re after. Playing WoW then, is a social activity, not an individual one. The third aspect of flow is apparent in commercial games as well. Offering all activities that lead to this aspect including clear goals, feedback, challenges and rewards, World of Warcraft delivers the experience of flow to its players. The system of feedback and rewards for instance is very detailed in WoW. “In World of Warcraft, the quantifiable aspect of a player’s achievement is not marked with a single number that serves as a proxy for a player’s achievement, but by many different types of metrics” (Rettberg, 6). Levels, attributes, armor, reputation and honor are all aspects that serve as ‘rewards’ or feedback. Aspects like this enable an experience of flow to take place for the player.
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
6 Commercial games then, can inhabit the same aspects needed in serious games for learning purposes. In the virtual world serving as a platform for user activity, the players of World of Warcraft have developed their own form of ‘seriousness’ in the game. Yet, when players are active in these different facets of the game, can we still call it ‘playing’, or is it necessary to redefine this concept? To further delve into this subject, it is necessary to explore the boundaries of ‘play’, as well as ‘seriousness’.
When play ceases to be play Play is one of the most diverse and wide concepts that can be mentioned, making it very hard to pinpoint a universal definition. Play is apparent in and applicable on a countless of activities in human life, ranging from television to tourism to gossip (Sutton-Smith, 3). This in combination with the innate ambiguity of play in its purest form and the rhetorics underlying its scholarly definitions make it one of the hardest concepts to grasp (Sutton-Smith, 1-2,15-17). An excellent place to start though, are the findings of Huizinga. One of the most influential and quoted scholars to write about the concept of ‘play’ in general, his ‘Homo Ludens’ is the first academic piece to explore this concept as a cultural phenomena, not limiting it to an activity excusive to children. Huizinga recognizes the concept in play in all of our modern age facets of culture including politics, war, literature, art and language. He summarizes ‘play’ as follows: “From the standpoint of form, we can define play in short as a free activity, experienced as “makebelieve” and situated outside of everyday life, nevertheless capable of totally absorbing the player; an activity entirely lacking in material interest and in utility. It transpires in an explicitly circumscribed time and space, is carried out in an orderly fashion according to given rules, and gives rise to group relationships which often surround themselves with mystery or emphasize through disguises their difference from the ordinary world.” (Huizinga, 34-35) This definition carries in it at least eight prerequisites for something to be considered ‘play’. Huizinga has a very firm belief in the bordering of play. Play in his eyes is an action on its own, separated from the ‘real world’ completely (this means no ties whatsoever with it) commencing in a different time and space as our reality. It is useless, no value comes out of it and it gives the opportunity for groups to bond over it. An important aspect of Huizinga’s play-definition, as well as his complete line of thinking, is the fact that he sees play as opposed to an activity in the real world. He is very clear about his assumptions that ‘play’ takes place outside of reality. When we play, we enter the realm of the game, in which other rules apply than outside of it (Huizinga, 37-38). Besides the literal space in which the game takes place, this disconnection of play and the real world is also apparent in the fact that according to Huizinga, play cannot have any ‘material interest or utility’. Play has no value at all, it is done for the activity in itself, no external gain is possible or it ceases to be play (Huizinga, 36-37). This approach shows a certain tendency of Huizinga to think in dualities. ‘Reality’ is opposed to the game world. Leisure is opposed to work, play is opposed to seriousness (Ehrmann, 41). This particular line of thinking is recognizable in more academic work. Especially Callois uses the basic principles of Huizinga’s theories on play. Focussing on the cultural implications of games, Callois bases much of his play-definition on Huizinga’s theories, though he adds four different attitudes in play, namely: agôn, alea, mimicry and ilinx (Callois, 44). Like Huizinga, he mentions prerequisites for play: it is an activity that is essentially free, separate, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules and makebelieve (Callois, 9-10). The similarities with Huizinga are numerous. We witness this in for instance Callois’ claims of ‘play’ being a free act, separate from the real world as being defined in space and time, unproductive in the ways of any gains stemming from it, objective to rules and make-believe, explained here as ‘against real life’ (Callois, 10). As with Huizinga, we see the innate tendency of World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
7 looking at play in a dualistic way. This particular way of theorizing play is also the exact cause of what ‘corrupts’ play, or what makes play ceases to be play. Both Callois and Huizinga seem to suggest that play gets corrupted or contaminated when the game crosses these ‘holy’ boundaries from the game world into the real world. “In strongly opposing the world of play to that of reality, and in stressing that play is essentially a side activity, the inference is drawn that any contamination by ordinary life runs the risk of corrupting and destroying its very nature” (Callois, 43). It is reality then, which corrupts play. This notion poses a problem for numerous games, including World of Warcraft. Being an online role playing game, one would expect the activities taking place in it to be primarily play. Yet, in some cases, users seem to cross the boundaries of the game into the real world and back, all while playing. This is most clearly portrayed by the ability of having material gains or other external benefits for playing the game. There is, for instance, the matter of acquiring certain skills while performing certain roles in the game: “in a larger sense, the game is training a generation of good corporate citizens not only to consume well and to pay their dues, but also to climb the corporate ladder, to lead projects, to achieve sales goals, to earn and save, to work hard for better possessions, to play the markets, to win respect from their peers and their customers, to direct and encourage and cajole their underlings to outperform, to become better employees and perhaps, eventually, effective future CEOs. Playing World of Warcraft serves as a form of corporate training” (Rettberg, 3). Comparable to a serious game, players in World of Warcraft learn certain skills, sometimes even resulting in better job-skills (leading a guild is classified as an ability you can put on your curriculum vitae). These gains are external; they have their uses in the real world. A second aspect of World of Warcraft that takes this concept even further is the notion of socalled (Chinese) goldfarmers. Goldfarmers are players that use the avatars in the virtual world to make money. They do this by ‘farming’ a certain area in the game over and over again sometimes for days on end. ‘Farming’ here means appropriating valuable items and virtual money from killed mobs (hostile creatures in the game) for an extensive amount of time normally in one place. These valuable items get sold to ‘normal’ players, resulting in more money for the goldfarmer, which then can be sold again. Next to their own personal ‘gold-selling sites’, Ebay is a popular platform used by goldfarmers to sell their wares. “… Ebay hosts about $30 million annually in trade goods that only exist in synthetic world. Much of this trade involves currencies, which means Ebay is effectively hosting a foreign exchange market for synthetic world money” (Castronova, 149). Now are these players still playing? Or can we say that because of crossing the boundaries of real life and the virtual world, the behavior of these users ceases to be play and becomes work? According to Huizinga, the gold–farmers wouldn’t actually be playing. Making money while playing can be compared to turning professional in sports, which is seen as a corruption of play, effectively transforming play into non-play (Huizinga, 229). Huizinga and Callois even go one step further in their definition of play in relation to benefits and gains. They see play as effectively ‘worthless’. Not just external gains are frowned upon, but also benefits in the actual game world can corrupt play. “Play is an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill, and often of money for the purchase of gambling equipment or eventually to pay for the establishment” (Callois, 6). Play can have no value or worth, it is an activity done for the sake of itself, effectively reflecting upon itself in the process. Yet, not everyone agrees with this assumption of the transition to non-play when ‘worth’ is involved. Castronova seems to think that worth or value in games does not have to equal an absence of play: play can have value/worth. Castronova mentions that considering the time and effort put into virtual commodities and money, it is as real as anything in our ‘real world’, seeing as this mechanism of effort and time values things in real life as well. (Castronova, 148) Same values, play not worthless? (Not even within the boundaries of the game?) This way, play could have a value or worth, even in the game world itself.
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
8 It is Ehrmann that takes these theories one step further. Criticizing Huizinga and Callois, he addresses their urge to assume that ‘reality’ is this mystical, unobtainable truth, completely separated from play. Huizinga and Callois never seem to question ‘reality’, or analyse it, but just take it for granted as a stationary, pre-set factor. They both have an innate tendency to think in dualities, opposing games to reality (as seen in Huizinga’s magic circle theory). ‘Play’ gets measured by external criteria, which means it remains secondary to its yardstick ‘reality’; therefore considered to be ‘primary’ (Ehrmann, 33). Both Callois and Huizinga grant ‘seriousness’ precedence over play (Ehrmann, 38). Ehrmann illustrates the misconception of the dichotomies used by Huizinga and Callois (Seriousness/Play, Work/Leisure, Reality/Unreality) by different examples. One of which is ‘the economy of play’, which is an answer to the different forms of play we’ve mentioned above, witnessed in World of Warcraft. In this he states that instead of a subtraction of value/worth in play (like Huizinga suggests) there is really only a relocation of this worth or value. It is still there, just reachable by a detour in the form of rules (in a game) or law: “In play there is no subtraction of value (depreciation) but relocation/redistribution... in pursuit of immediate satisfaction of needs and desires.” (Ehrmann, 44) He thus recognizes worth and value in games, regardless of its source, which would mean even ‘real life’ value of play should not so easily be dismissed as a corruption of play, but could be a part of it. “…play and reality, being inseparable, can only be apprehended globally and in the same movement. In other words, the distinguishing characteristic of reality is that it is played” (Ehrmann, 56). If reality is part of play, and play is part of reality, we should not so easily consider external gains as a contamination of ‘play’.
Serious Play? Players of commercial games can be responsible for a gaming experience that differs from the one the producers want them to have. As we’ve seen, there are multiple aspects of the experience in World of Warcraft that resemble experiences in serious games. This ‘seriousness’ present in the game comes to fruition by the players themselves; it is not an aspect that was calculated in the design of the game. A second facet of players’ experience deviating from a ‘standard textbook’ game experience lies in the ways in which some experiences defy well-established play theories. In World of Warcraft we can witness types of play that fall outside of the classical play theories as mentioned by Huizinga and Callois, yet this does not have to mean we should completely dismiss them as forms of play. Ehrmann has dared question the dichotomies so easily used by Huizinga and Callois, and while doing so, has opened up possibilities of different forms of play. It is apparent that the aforementioned activities in World of Warcraft can still be considered play, yet, do we think of them as new forms of play? Or is it necessary to adjust our existing definition of ‘play’ in general, to include these hybrid forms we have encountered? Ehrmann sees ‘play’ as part of reality and the other way around. It is therefore possible for the boundaries of realism and play to blur, including material gains and benefits. In his eyes, the entire concept of play should be redefined while keeping an eye out for any dualities we might presume exist. It is necessary to look at play without all of these preconceptions about reality and seriousness as opposites of game and play (Ehrmann, 56-57). We should not forget however, that the forms of play we’ve encountered are fundamentally different from the ‘regular’ play without serious consequences. This is why we should differentiate between these two by labelling the former as ‘serious play’. ‘Serious play’ is a concept used by few academics before this, yet seems to be all-important for the clarifying of the forms of play witnessed in World of Warcraft. The uses for the concept of serious play vary greatly. We for instance recognize it in Michael Schrage’s book ‘Serious Play, how the world’s best companies simulate to innovate’. In it, he describes serious play as a way of innovating the corporate World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
9 world: playing with innovations and ideas (Schrage, xvi-xvii). The focus here lies on play in ‘real life’. Play as a tool to reach a certain goal in real life. A second use of serious play is seen in De Castell & Jenson’s ‘Serious Play’. In this article, serious play is defined as the form of play found in a serious game. They make use of a definition by Rieber & Matzko: “In commenting on the design of an educational computer game, Rieber and Matzko (2001: 16) define 'serious play' as 'purposeful, or goal oriented, with the person able to modify goals as desired or needed” (De Castell & Jenson, 18). They see the form of play in serious games (serious play) as “a process of immersion: the players' attention, fully engrossed and absorbed in the activity results in significant learning. As such, serious play and schooling are frequently at odds (De Castell & Jenson, 18). In both cases, serious play has been used to describe a form of play in which reality and the game intertwines. Described as taking place in a serious game or real life, it is a form of play that includes serious consequences in its activity. In my opinion though, it is necessary to add to this concept the notion of play with serious consequences in commercial games. As with the two previous forms, the ‘real world’ gets mixed with the virtual world, the experiences of them intertwine. Yet, being apparent in a commercial game it differs from previous definitions of serious play. The biggest difference here being the fact that ‘serious play’ seems to be dependable not on game design but on user activities. More research needs to be done to fully explore this new concept of serious play. It is necessary for instance to include the aspect of ‘fun’ in the equation. In World of Warcraft we witness a phenomenon in end-gaming that seems to resemble ‘work’ in the game itself. Not qualifying as work completely because it does not offer real-life money or items for the players, it is a form of play that can be most easily referred to as ‘virtual work’. In order to participate in raids (as mentioned before) the player has to acquire items, (virtual) money and reputation. Because of this, the player needs to ‘farm’; an activity not normally enjoyed by the player but tolerated. Although not crossing the boundaries of reality and the game (this activity plays itself out completely in the virtual world) can this be considered ‘serious play’? Is fun a determining factor in play, and if it is, what will the absence of it say about the experience? ‘Serious play’ might very well be the first steps into the development and research of a hybrid-way of gaming. One in which serious aspects can be encouraged while still retaining the carefree nature of commercial gaming.
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games
10
Literature Primary Sources: Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press De Castell, S. & Jenson, J. Serious Play 2003. http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/JCS/Vol35/decastell.html Castronova, E. Synthetic Worlds, The Business and Culture of Online Games Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Castronova, E. On Virtual Economies July, 2002. Ehrmann, J. “Homo Ludens Revisited” Yale French Studies no 41, 1968: pp. 31-57. Gee,J.P. ‘Video Games and Embodiment’ Games and Culture vol. 3, 2008 Huizinga, J. Homo ludens. Amsterdam: Atheneum Boekhandel Canon. 1938. Jenkins, H. et al. From Serious Games to Serious Gaming. LoPiccolo, Phil.”Mining for gold” Computer Graphics World, May2005, Vol. 28 Issue 5, p2-4, 2p Michael, D. & Chen, S. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform. Boston: Thomson. 2006. Prensky, M. ‘Computer Games and Learning: Digital Game-Based Learning’ in Handbook of Computer game studies ed. J. Raessens & J. Goldstein. 2005. Rettberg, S. “Corporate Ideology in World of Warcraft” Salen, Katie & Zimmerman Eric. ‘Game design and Meaningful Play’ in Handbook of Computer game studies ed. J. Raessens & J. Goldstein. 2005. Schrage, M. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate 2002. Sutton-Smith, B. The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Harvard University press. 1997. Secondary sources: Official site Blizzard: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?081121 MMORPG-comparison site: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Comparison_of_MMORPGs
World of Workcraft The search for ‘serious play’ in commercial games