This assignment came at an interesting time for me, having recently re-discovered the magic of Diablo II thanks to the appearance of a version that my (really, really crappy) laptop can actually run. I'd been playing single player, but it wasn't difficult to log on and begin a multiplayer game.
The game is relatively similar to World of Warcraft in that it involves running around and killing things in order to gain levels, thereby becoming stronger; and to find rare items, thereby becoming stronger. Players can team up as well in order to gain experience faster and to benefit from the skills of other people in their party.
The thing about Diablo II is that the player isn't given much of a choice with regard to avatar customization; there are only seven possible character types, and every character of a given type has the same basic model. I chose to be a barbarian, just because they're big and intimidating.
Indeed, Yee & Bailenson's Proteus Effect prediction about the avatar influencing a player's behavior proved at least partially true, as I rudely and aggressively stole my teammate's kills and took items that shouldn't have been mine without a second thought. Barbarians are the biggest, after all, so why not? If I had been a different sort of character, I doubt the avatar would have instilled me with the confidence the barbarian's did.
Nobody said anything to me about this, but I don't know whether that was so much a reflection of the avatar I chose as it was simple meekness on the other players' parts. If they had spoken up, in all likelihood I would have settled down and stopped being so barbaric, despite my avatar, although I'm sure it still would have influenced my behavior somewhat.
Their prediction about more attractive characters walking closer to confederates proved true as well, but this was likely a result of the game mechanics: the paladin class (more or less undeniably one of the more attractive male avatars) possesses abilities called "auras," which provide benefits to other party members but only when these members are within a certain range of the paladin. Naturally this will lead to the characters walking closer together regardless of attractiveness; it effectively renders this hypothesis untestable in this particular game.
COMMENTS:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=5256628508386732744
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=4829372640518105808
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your post is very interesting. Diablo II is a game I would not have expected to be looked at. Like you said, it’s very limiting that each distinct class has its own unchangeable appearance. When you’re a different class than the barbarian, do you act less aggressively towards loot? While the battle style definitely changes (it has to if you want to be succesful) I’m not sure if other people’s looting style would be affected. Your discussion about the Paladin brought up a great point. This more attractive of the male characters has abilities that can be considered more “extroverted.” Whereas the Necromancer is very unattractive and his abilities don’t deal with other players (he raises his own army of skeletons). It shows to some extent how the artists created the character to reflect to a degree what kind of role he would have.
Post a Comment