November 12, 2007
Evolutionary Primacy
Numb3rs, artificial reality, and playing with emergence

100,000,000 AVATARS
6 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY
54 ALTERNATE REALITIES
2 TECHNOUTOPIAN VISIONARIES

How do we escape the emerging pervasiveness of virtual worlds? While theater appears safe (for now), television may not be the answer, popular culture cross over multiplying by the hour. I made a trip home this weekend to be greeted by the question, "You see Numb3rs on Friday?" Well, no. I had made a temporary escape to the Barclay Theatre to see a modern adaptation of Guy Bolton's Anything Goes. Meanwhile, it turns out the CBS Television series, Numb3rs aired an episode on evolutionary algorithms and the present future of alternate reality gaming. I was happy to know my brother taped it. So late last night I fired up the DVR and will share my response here. Hopefully the analysis will draw you past its spoiler effect, a playful world that awaits beyond the psychological effects of plot.

Synopsis: When a man is found dead, the team enters the world of alternate reality gaming. However, their investigation leads to a danger for a loved one.

The alternate reality game is temporary. Its used to promote the MMORPG which goes on for years...ARG is a treasure hunt played out in the real world using actual media...We could develop an evolutionary algorithm that searches the game's history for abnormally aggressive activity....People aggress in video games.

Law, order and ludocapitalism appear at the heart of this quest for cybernetic justice, questions of "abnormal play" finding its way to Western viewers. However, I was rather struck by questions of emergence and artificial reality. It is particularly interesting the way in which writer Julia Herbert, director Chris Hartwill, and their team of FBI agents play with modern fears of synthetic reality- emergent play, interactivity, digital currency, virtual economies and accumulation underlying our human desires -  all manifest through dramatic high-tech espionage.

The murderer's fear-inducing proposal:
I have a proposal that will change your life. I need a partner to realize a vision unparalleled in contemporary gaming, a paradigm shift...Consider an emerging game economy built around an abstract combinatorial system, played across world wide media imbedded virally into websites, TV, text messages, bill boards, even radio, beyond the control of corporations...

Amita's response:
Your Playing with emergence, where the game takes on a life of its own.

The murder's retort:
Its all real life and death now

What does this sequence say about the possibility of ludocapitalism and emergence? Governance and Control? Granted it is a television program that doesn't carry the same impact as say earth land bans in Korea or US litigation over the sanctity of WoW, but nonetheless draws into question the synthetic dichotomy between life and play, this world and that in cyberspace. The ultimate power is the state, real lives lived in, around and beyond virtual worlds. They are connected in ways generally not acknowledged. But where is the fear of government corruption that may be the next logical possibility after control is wrestled away from developers claiming divinity over any and all aspects tangentially related to warmongering avatars. Conversely, have fears of government surveillance (ie Enemy of the State, The Matrix, etc) given way to a similar fear of corporate surveillance? When did the state become an ally in the fight against a power-hungry game industry? And does it really take actual murder to create this realization? In this Ridley and Tony Scott production it clearly does.

The final message seems to be this: as virtual worlds become more and more persistent their emergent possibilities wane. Yet simultaneously their reality can no longer be denied which leads to obsession with accumulations of control- knowledge no longer to be found solely in books, but hidden in digital worlds across cyberspace. The desert of the real gives way to game economies, providing the tools needed to harness knowledge. Yet control is the opposite of emergence. As stated towards the end of the episode, "Emergence requires allowing natural and unexpected changes to occur."  

But what does the future hold for game economies? Despite their revolutionary potential, virtual currency has the tendency to become monopoly money, growing extensions of corporate control  (some notable exceptions are Eve Online, Project Entropia, parts of EQ2 and Second Life). In the process, individual liberties are being put in the hands of synthetic world builders. The free market becomes increasingly autocratic. Innocent players are killed by divine intervention. Recall Blizzard’s system of exploitation and cyclical account bannings. Justice department meets Blizzard House Unamerican Activities commitee. Who wins? Noone. The game ends. Despite their forced interaction, it is this spirit that seeing the justice department stick it to the game “gods” with a search warrant was quite a sight to behold. When we blatantly claim  the developer can do no evil, we risk losing sight of liberty and justice in a modern era of digital creationism. Perhaps in this light the spirit of democracy should contribute significant value to those worlds upholding strong ethical principles of market reciprocity? And in the end cinematic television makes a comeback to get this message across.  But was anyone watching?