I have nothing technical or special insight to offer; I'd just like to say I teared up a little reading that. I don't know why. I hadn't heard of the game until I saw this article. Never played the game either. The game character is just a made up character with no background story and is nothing more than simple ajax and timers.
Any psychologist care to offer some opinion?
I find it beautiful that people could come together --- even for a pointless cause. And I find it tragic that their overzealous response led to the failure of their objective.
Even though the game was "pointless" (aren't all games) I think it lends a surprisingly deep allegory for life, community, and collaboration.
I think the game (and our collective response to it) is fascinating. I would love to study how adding/removing game elements affects players' and observers' emotional responses.
An article I read the other day about human consciousness touched upon our tendency to project consciousness/will/agency onto non-living things, like the puppet controlled by a ventriloquist. I wonder if game elements promote similar response.
I would be interested in extended psychological explanations about the social dynamics and factors that led this concept go viral and engage in such way the people. It's excitingly well-crafted vision and story.
