Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsWorld of Warcraft as evolutionary model
by Mike Schramm 
Feb 14th 2009 at 1:00PM
This must be the time of year for zany social theories about videogames. First, we heard that World of Warcraft might quality as being a religion. Then we heard that it might make for better citizens. And now, in an essay over at Gamasutra on the event of Charles Darwin's birthday, Noah Falstein suggests that games like World of Warcraft are actually models for evolution -- as we level up with experience points, our characters get stronger and more evolved, and we feel comfortable with that because that's exactly what we see happening in the world around us.Technically, of course, you can't model Darwin's theory of evolution with a single character -- evolution isn't about one individual getting better, it's about a process of natural selection in a species over a period of time. To really model evolution, you'd have to play hundreds of alts, and quit them each time you ran into a problem, leaving you with just a few characters that worked really well. Wait -- maybe some of you are already doing that.
But Falstein makes good points in saying that certain elements of what Darwin described as evolution have shown up in game design as well -- the idea of specialization for certain character classes, tribal and national allegiances, and even the idea of memes (which are certainly widespread in WoW -- anyone ever heard of Chuck Norris or Leroy Jenkins?) are all drawn from Darwin's thinking and definitely embodied in the game we play.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Odds and ends, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Kanuris Feb 14th 2009 2:37PM
I strongly disagree. I've seen some terrible gemming, talent speccing and dps rotations in my gametime. Both from freshly dinged 70/80's to peoples alt specs. (No Mr NoobAltSpecadin, you do not Gem for AP!)
Jp Feb 14th 2009 1:46PM
PvP = survival of the fittest.
You either get better(evolve), or /quit (die).
Jeremy Feb 14th 2009 1:55PM
/sigh
This is the antithesis of an evolutionary model as there is nothing a species can willfully do to increase it's own "fitness" to survive. In WoW that is the entire point.
Daniel Feb 14th 2009 1:56PM
The truest thing ever said about Darwin is that he is frequently invoked, occasionally quoted, seldom read, and almost never understood.
90% of what that author is claiming is evolution isn't. Or to be precise, it is not Darwinian evolution. For the theory of evolution itself has evolved since Darwin, and many of the things he thought were true has been shown to be false. Nor is there just one theory of evolution, there are many different theories.
Stop pandering to simple minded folk by invoking Darwin's name as an incantation for things that have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin.
kthxbye.
Alamo Feb 14th 2009 2:01PM
Um Is it supposed to say "Qualify as a religion"? I love this site its super helpful but sometimes you just need to re-read what you've written to see if you make a really simple mistake....
Beelzebud Feb 14th 2009 2:54PM
Daniel, there really aren't other theories of evolution, unless you're counting creationism, which isn't science.
Modern biology, genetics in particular, have proven many bedrock ideas of the theory of evolution.
Chaotique Feb 14th 2009 7:29PM
I think Daniel was referring to other scientific theories such as Lamarckism, not intelligent design. And I have to agree with him that a lot of the analogies people try to draw to Darwinian evolution are extremely loose and hand-wavy, including the essay linked.
Joe Feb 14th 2009 4:03PM
Wow proves intelligent design!!
unless we can say the wow program somehow came into being from a random assortment of 1s and 0s. :P
Tymaishu Feb 14th 2009 4:12PM
To bad the majority of our morality hasn't evolved!
Sisco Feb 14th 2009 4:50PM
To stay that wow's competition with other mmo games is an example of survival of the fittest is not only out of context but kinda lame.
Also i'd like to fowarn all of you of the coming internet apocalypse, in which there will be no middle class, but instead a peasent subservient class that avoids their pains of real life by diving into MMOs and the internet. It will be a refuge for the poor masses and a tool for the upper class to exploit those below them.
Eventually they too will fall victim to it and we will all enter a matrix of our own design.
The Lesson: take a jog, hike,bike ride, etc. read a book and educate urself. Embrace the outdoors and humanities natural surrounding so that when this time comes.......................You too can reap the benefits of the Internet Induced Class
No joke Exploitation is BadAss
Rob Feb 14th 2009 6:49PM
I"m really amazed at how few people actually understand evolution. There is no natural selection in wow, unless you count the flavor of the month class, which is really driven by the devs. To think that your character somehow evolves is laughable.
(I am an evolutionary biologist).
jim carey Feb 15th 2009 1:00AM
im sorry but comparing wow to evolution in any way is just completely far fetched.
and pvp equaling survival of the fittest? if this were true then bg's would be nearly void of any noobs and would require lots of strategy (or strategery (lawl)).
and falstein makes no good points haha. specialization? in nature species adapt into different roles (that even change over time) due to circumstances and whats required to survive. in wow *specific* roles are created by the game designers to create variety within each specific class.
sorry but i just dont buy this at all.
xnn Feb 15th 2009 7:45AM
Now this is just getting ridiculous...
I feel the comparison is horribly lacking, anyone who would think of evolution as organisms getting "bigger, stronger, faster" etc clearly does not understand some of the most basic concepts of evolution.
Yes, talent points are customization, but it is not random, and by picking a bad spec we are not removed from the gene pool.. in fact, there is no passing on of our "talent point DNA" to another character, where is evolution then?
An analogy is just that, it might compare two things to get a point across but is severely limited beyond that original point.
... and I fail to see the original point.
Robert Feb 15th 2009 2:32PM
There's the general theory of evolution, and then the specific theory of evolution. Macroevolution vs microevolution. Creationist scientists (yes they exist and no it's not an oxymoron) agree with microevolution, that evolution occurs WITHIN a species. Think of dog breeding. Think of birds whose beaks grow or shrink. This is the only kind of evolution I think you can compare WoW to, because from level 1 to 80 a character's stats increase. Then again, every naked level 1 Dwarf warrior has the same stats, and every naked level 80 Dwarf warrior has the same stats. So could that even be defined as microevolution, or just normal growth, akin to a human progressing from infancy to adulthood? (not accounting of course for differences in personality, environment, influences of gathering profession etc)
Macroevolution applied to WoW would mean that a Dwarf could become a troll. Won't happen, period, you can't even pay for it. Sure, you can pay for a gender reassignment, but you're still a Dwarf...with the same stats.
Even if you try to apply [SPOILER ALERT] evolution of Iron Dwarves to the Azerothian varieties, or those mecho-Gnomes to Azerothian fleshly Gnomes...they're still Dwarves and Gnomes.
This whole comparison of WoW to evolution is just someone's pathetic attempt to jump on the 150th Darwin anniversary bandwagon.
xnn Feb 15th 2009 5:23PM
There is only one difference between micro and macroevolution.... time. The processes which create variation remain relatively unchanged.
Although the whole WoW to evolution comparison is horribly flawed, you must understand that it might not be best compared to a "dwarf turning into a troll." The best analogy I can muster is that it would be more like a troll and a dwarf having a common ancestor a great deal of time ago.
We simply have not been around long enough to even observe macroevolution (although there is some interesting observations regarding microevolution), and it would not be some magic "ah ha!" moment where we would see a dwarf giving birth to a baby troll. The variations are slight, and as certain groups of a given species in various areas find a new niche, or deal with any change in environment, those whose genes allow them to more easily survive and pass on those genes. Given enough time, those variations would continue until there would be distinct differences (such as say a wolf and a domesticated dog). As even more time progresses, the differences in genes would be so much that they could no longer mate and produce viable offspring... and so on and so forth until we would consider them a "different species."
I won't even dare touch on the subject of "creationist scientists," as I'm trying to keep this civil.
Cambro Feb 15th 2009 5:38PM
I don't even know what to reply with. It's all so convenient how it works out that macroevolution simply must be true even though we haven't been around long enough to observe it, yet by the same token creationism is completely out because it would have happened so long ago that it simply can't be observed. Creationist scientists don't deny science itself, my friend. Creationism is simply another, viable (yes) explanation for how we are here, like intelligent design and evolution. One hinges on random chance events, the other two hinge on a designer with or without a purpose. Science's job is to answer how, not why. And science certainly must not rule out a reasonable hypothesis simply because it cannot be completely observed.