Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

conversationmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 10 posts

Re: Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

#2

Post by horser4dish »

Along the same vein, Kevin Rose wrote a blog post (http://kevinrose.com/blogg/2011/1/11/cityvilles-viral-growth...) about Facebook games and why they're so popular. He came to the same conclusion that Ian Lurie did: people want to do stuff and then tell everybody about it. And I have to agree with both of them.

I bought Crysis 2 the other day and started playing through the story. For those that don't know, it's your standard FPS with the addition of two superpowers, invisibility and invulnerability. In a nutshell, my classmates and I end up spending quite a bit of time talking about how awesome our last session was, and essentially sharing war stories. And the fact is, we keep going back and playing, as much to finish the game as to have more stories tomorrow and the day after.

Re: Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

#3

Post by GuoQiangBen »

I take issue with one of his contentions that people don't root for the bad guys. There have been many times when I'm watching a film or playing a video game where I support the antagonist. Often the 'evil' character is the most dynamic one, the person responsible for actually moving the plot along. Villains act, heroes react after all.

Now I say this not to just engage in trivial nitpicking, but because I think his thesis needs to be refined. The author attributes his idea to a moral compulsion for people to support the 'good' company, or the one thats trying to slay a monster. What he's actually identified is the natural tendency for people to define themselves in opposition to the other. You can't be insanely loyal to a product unless there is a challenge to it. Its less good versus evil, its group loyalty vs. the outsider.

Re: Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

#6

Post by lucasjung »

GuoQiangBen wrote: post #3

I take issue with one of his contentions that people don't root for the bad guys. There have been many times when I'm watching a film or playing a video game where I support the antagonist. Often the 'evil' character is the most dynamic one, the person responsible for actually moving the plot along. Villains act, heroes react after all. Now I say this not to just engage in trivial nitpicking, but because I think his…

I don't think that he was trying to say that people only root for genuinely good characters. He was saying that when we do root for the bad guy, we invariably rationalize it to ourselves by finding ways to think of the bad guy as not being truly evil. "Misunderstood," or "noble savage," or "at least he has a personal code he follows faithfully," or at the very least, "not as bad as the other guys."

We may start out subconsciously rooting for the bad guy because of our desire to see the plot advanced, but when we catch ourselves doing it we come up with some other reason why it's acceptable to root for the bad guy in that particular situation. We want to identify with the central character--if the central character is not a good person, we need to find traits worthy of our sympathy and/or empathy.

Re: Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

#7

Post by horser4dish »

GuoQiangBen wrote: post #3

I take issue with one of his contentions that people don't root for the bad guys. There have been many times when I'm watching a film or playing a video game where I support the antagonist. Often the 'evil' character is the most dynamic one, the person responsible for actually moving the plot along. Villains act, heroes react after all. Now I say this not to just engage in trivial nitpicking, but because I think his…

I see where you're coming from, I think, but I think both of your ideas can definitely work together. You say that some people can support the antagonist, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. I think there's a difference between objectively realizing and appreciating the necessity of a villain and actively hoping he comes out on top. For example, as much as Darth Vader and the Emperor moved the Star Wars original trilogy along, I don't think anybody really wanted them to end up ruling the universe.

Unless they did, in which case, my point is moot.

Edit: Of course, drawing from another source, you do have a point when it comes to Zuko from the Avatar series. He was a "villain" (that later became a protagonist) who was given even more of a backstory than the main character, and it was very clear that the audience was supposed to be sympathetic towards him, despite the fact that his single goal in life was to kill the Avatar.

Re: Dungeons & Dragons, Marketing, and Everything

#10

Post by phlux »

horser4dish wrote: post #2

Along the same vein, Kevin Rose wrote a blog post ( http://kevinrose.com/blogg/2011/1/11/cityvilles-viral-growth... ) about Facebook games and why they're so popular. He came to the same conclusion that Ian Lurie did: people want to do stuff and then tell everybody about it. And I have to agree with both of them. I bought Crysis 2 the other day and started playing through the story. For those that don't know, it's yo…

I'm predicting the big problem that Kevin Rose will solve on mobile then will be social task-list which lets you check-in to activities and have your social graph digg them up.
Post reply on HN