“I think, therefore I’m virtuous”.

The thought started from a derailed discussion about “what is a virtual world”.

—
Raph was on this (the definition of virtual world) recently.

Virtual worlds are implemented by a computer (or network of computers) that simulates an environment. Some — but not all — the entities in this environment act under the direct control of individual people. Because several such people can affect the same environment simultaneously, the world is said to shared or multi-user. The environment continues to exist and to develop internally (at least to some degree) even when there are no people interacting with it; this means it is persistent.

The quote is from Richard Barttle, though. But I agree. The core concept is the persistence. The “objectivity” of some parts and the depth and variety of interactions, where these interactions don’t happen linearly but in a systemic relationship (elements within a set, so where each can be potentially linked with everything else instead of elements one after the other, where each element is only linked to the previous and the next).

There’s no precise definition of a virtual world, but the more there is “persitence”, variety of interactions and systemic complexity, the more you go closer to a legitimate virtual world.

These definitions come right from sociology since a virtual world is exactly a complex system.

“Virtual world” and “sandbox” are synonymous to an extent.

Put in another way: if the author dies, the world continues on its own. This is another interesting definition. If we assume that god is dead we can think of reality as a virtual world :)

—
Now you would wonder what’s the logic sense that brings to that last line, because there is none. The truth is that I was quickly writing while chasing multiple thoughts spawning all at once and I jumped at that odd conclusion without explaining how I landed on it.

The original thought was that the “objectivity” of the game is exactly what Raph defines as “the server is authoritative”. The keyword and premise for a virtual world, from my point of view, is the persistence, but this persistence is then actualized in different forms and these forms could bring to quite different definitions of “virtual world”, where the original element that joins all of them is exactly that persistence actualized in those different forms.

For example let’s take three hypothetical virtual worlds: a mmorpg, Oblivion and the Middle Earth. All three could be loosely defined “virtual worlds”.

(1) In a mmorpg there’s a continuity set by “what happens”, you log out and the world continues to exist without you. Its existence is actually independent from the single character. It’s a “world” as it has an identity that “emerges” from the level of the single player.

(2) Oblivion is often defined as a sandbox. It is “single player” but it can be considered as a virtual world. It allows you to be who you want, shape your character the way you like and interact with the world with a degree of freedom. Hopefully, observing it react and adapt. This last part is actualized with the levelled lists that spawn mobs and loot to your approriate level, a feature that wasn’t really well accepted by the players but that is still an attempt to “allocate freedom” and make the game world “react and adapt”. This is the “western” idea we have of RPGs, the player choice, the possibility to create your character the way you like, pursuing different goals and attitudes. The persistence here is in the world. The “context”. The strict history, geography and culture of the world where you are immersed. That world is objective and the interaction is between your subjectivity and the impact you have on that objective world.

(3) Finally there’s the Middle Earth. Tolkien shaped a virtual world with its own history, cultures, myths, languages and so on. The detail and depth of this world is staggering and it’s what transforms it in a virtual world. Tolkien is dead, but the Middle Earth is still alive. Virtual worlds outlive their creators.

That’s the first step. Now let’s go back at the standard idea of persistence so that I can reach the other core point: the free will.

The persistence of the character in a mmorpg, or the idea of the “objectivity” I quoted above, mean that things happen on a server and not on the client. This ultimately brings to the fact that if you log out (cease to exist) the virtual world continues without you. In a single player game the world is dependent on you. If you aren’t there, it doesn’t continue on its own in the background. But in a mmorpg the virtual world continues to exist in its own persistence. The core concept here is that you may log in another day and possibly find a different situation: the world has changed. Whether you are there or not.

This specific idea of persistence underlines a weakness in the current mmorpgs: the world never really changes. The truth is that the players have little to no impact on the world. They don’t have real choices, they don’t really exist. It is not a virtual world.

My idea is that the concept of a virtual world is *tightly connected* to the possibility for the players “to create content”. Which doesn’t mean that they repleace the content designers of the game creating quests and new zones (or rules). It just means that they should have an impact on the world, the players should become the subject and focus of the game, where the world can be shaped by their hands and choices. The persistence would become real and the virtual world would actively change, becoming the emergent product of the actions and choices of the players. Only in this case someone logging in after a long time would be able to find a world that truly changed, that truly evolved toward something else. A world with a true persistence and that truly puts the players at the center of the experience.

The “emergence” here represent a jump of quality of a whole medium. We don’t have anymore a set, objective game with goals strictly defined and pre-planned patterns to discover. Instead we have a game, as a virtual world, that is open to the interpretation.

Give a look at these slides that I keep reusing (still from Raph). Some old quotes:

– We talk so much about emergent gameplay, non-linear storytelling, or about player-entered content. They’re all ways of increasing the possibility space, making self-refreshing puzzles.

– We also often discuss the desire for games to be art – for them to be puzzles with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation.

– That may be the best definition of when something ceases to be craft and when it turns into art – the point at which it becomes subject to interpretation.

– Games will never be mature as long as the designers create them with complete answers to their own puzzles in mind.

The “interpretation” here is the keyword. The possibility for the players to define their own patterns, create their own characters, manipulate the game objects the way they like with the possibility to recombine them and define their own personal patterns. There’s a degree of “immersion” in all these concepts but I think this definition of “interpretation” doesn’t grasps the real value of this discovery.

Raph did a good work to isolate that concept but I believe that his definition doesn’t fully discloses its actual value. It’s not a sole matter of interpretation. It’s instead about a larger, broader concept: Arbitrium – Free Will.

In a world with strictly codified patterns that you are forced to follow and “embody”, there’s no “free will”. There is no responsibility, no guilt, no merit. There aren’t true choices, there isn’t a subjectivity. You are just forced in a pre-planned path and need to accept it for what it is. The lesson is imposed. The learning process forced into a precise direction. In a world without “free will” there’s always a “third power”, a god, that is responsible for everything. There aren’t other “players” into the system. The world is already set, it has a start and an end right from the first instant it was created and all the elements within this world can exclusively follow a set program on which they have no control nor responsibility. Passive executors who can only observe. There is no judgement, no moral, no facets, but just imposed rules that must remain undiscussed. A fixed state that cannot change in any way. An authoritarian regime. One thought.

My belief is that the ideal of a virtual world goes against this enrooted model to implant not just different, possible interpolations (the interpretations), but the true core that is missing: the “free will”. The possibility for the players to self-determine within the virtual world, the possibility of choice. This goes beyond a superficial personalization but opens up the potential of a complex system where the choices you make bring to actual consequences and the game world reacting and adapting to what you do. To what you are. Your “free will”. This is what misses to a true virtual world and the ideal to reach. The final myth to pursue.

Now, if you connect all the dots, if you gather all the pieces of the puzzle, you can clearly see the conclusion. The true aim and nature of a virtual world: the emancipation from its creators.

The persistence becomes the state for a virtual world to “continue to exist”. Its future will be determined by the emergent behaviours. The possibility for the players to truly react and impact the world where they are going to “exist”. The possibility for them to see the true, concrete result of their choices. The possibility for this world to outlive its creators, to constitute a form of persistence that becomes concrete and that is truly affected by the actions of the “players”.

The reunion of the three concepts of persistence:
– The world is persistent because it can change, react, adapt, be transformed. (history)
– The world is persistent because it gives the players the possibility to determine themselves. (free will)
– The world is persistent because it is emancipated from its creators and acquires a life and emergence on its own. (maturity)

And, maybe, we’ll move from virtual worlds to “virtuous” worlds.