“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.

This is a loose reply to an article written by Heamish about “The social experience”. Not a direct critics but just some thoughts that sprang from reading it.
—

Games are about learning but saying that learning is about getting the reward is a total mistake.

Game design, in particular “good” game design, has the duty to help the player to learn, to educate. Mark my words: NOT TO SELECT.

Many people have this absurdly wrong and wicked idea that learning is about getting evaluated. This is terribly wrong and the first reason why the school is in such a wrecked status and why our societies are filled with hate. We learn everything as division and further selections. Always as distiction between “us and them”. Aways between friends and enemies, included and excluded.

The evaluation should come from within. Not from the outside. Originally “education” meant the discovery of oneself. Not shoving in an empty, valueless mind the imposed categories and dictates of a culture.

I always despised and will continue to despise and attack when “learning” becomes a process of selection. I know that this has been a reality of the human evolution, but I just don’t accept as something that I justify and second. I just don’t as I don’t justify murder, even if the murder has also been part of our evolution and history. So we learnt something. Between the things I’ve learnt is that I despise every process of selection that is aimed to exclude, emarginate and create reasons of hate.

In a lesser extent we already have all these situations in these games and have to relate to. About the social fabric, these games should help to connect, facilitate these patterns, create the context for these situations to exist. But not simply create artificial rewards that would just divide between people who are included and people who are excluded. Not external “divine” interventions.

The reward is the consequence of learning, not its justification. (but in our culture we are already saying that “drugs” are the best route)

This is why my own concrete ideas on these aspects have been about criticizing the artificial dependence on other players, that I find unjustified, to create what I define “truly communal patterns” that are instead coherent with the goal. That promote the integration instead of the separation between groups.

We have already plenty of examples of “communal processes” with egoistical goals. Personal rewards are always egoistical goals, like experience bonuses, achievements, epic loot. These are never truly communal objectives. They are just cooperation enforced through egoistical goals. I had already a quick confrontation with Raph about these points and again these are patterns that belong to our culture. But they aren’t patterns that I would promote and reward. They aren’t patterns that I consider fun. Even if they exist, the game shouldn’t educate the players about them, as the game should never facilitate the players to fight one against the other for a piece of loot. As the game shouldn’t facilitate the segregation and the exclusion of players in two groups. Creating tension and attrition between them.

Artificial dependences aren’t fun. Having crafting recipes that make you dependent on other crafting professions aren’t fun. At least till this process isn’t facilitated and made accessible through other structures. If this doesn’t happen it becomes another barrier, not an occasion for the socialization. The same about forced grouping leading to sitting in one place flagged /lfg for hours or the requirement to get included into large raids to progress in the game (when that progression is the sole purpose of the game: what it is “teaching”). Killing a dragon to get your fat loot is again a communal process (you need “x” other players) forced through an egoistical drive (I need the fat loot for my own power growth). Limiting the game only to these patterns is a serious mistake that I’ll never stop to criticize.

There ARE other examples of truly communal goals but these aren’t as easy to identify and are always pushed in the background, always overlooked. They never become the true focus and driving force of the game. Never its priority.

Think if you are ruling an outpost in a open PvP game. It depend on you, you’ll have to hold and defend it from enemy attacks. The NPCs in the outpost are your own, they go work and gather resources for you, pay maintenance costs. You are responsible for this layer of the game, called to gather people, organize the activities, defend your territories. This creates with the game the strongest bond you can imagine. This creates a social fabric because it’s the context that creates the situation. You are together with other players facing a situation that involves everyone. And where everyone relies on the other. This is also why PvP is the best route to achieve these goals. Where the true, till now undiscovered, potential is. What it could become.

Eve-Online already did some on this, albeit on a different genre. The players work together, administrate their properties and territories, they patrol and defend, they organize together, they interact, they create stories, tensions. All within the context of the game. Adding to its depth. Even when you are hauling resources from one point of the galaxy to the other, you still have “fun” because that part acquires a meaning within a greater frame where everything is connected and has a consequence. Because you are together with other players in “truly communal patterns”. Where Eve-Online “failed” is in making these activities the activities of the great majority of the players. Making them more easily accessible instead of something out of reach and demanding an high price of admission (because of the accessibility barriers).

The game should offer patterns to connect the players, but as part of the fabric of the game world, and not through artificial rewards to push them in a specific direction. The socialization and communal activities should be facilitated, but not imposed or justified through Out Of Character design purposes. This social fabric should be the focus of the game, not its drift toward the reward. Its center and not its perimeter.

The real point is that these games should move directly away from that “risk Vs reward” mechanic. Away from granting more experience points to groups instead of solo players. Away from Out Of Character (I mean: “external”) design interventions to drag the players around. And instead moving the collaboration at the true core of the gameplay and objective of the game. To make the transition as natural ans justified as possible. Coherent.

Game design should always move coordinated with the players, not against them, not imposing trends, not fighting habits. If an habit exist it is justified and if it is a “bad habit” it’s because there’s something responsible that should be directly fixed. If the players fight against their own fun, something is wrong in the design. Not in their behaviour. If the players show anti-social behaviours and don’t form bonds naturally (assuming that they would like to), it means that they bumped against an accessibility barrier or that they were steered elsewhere.

What if everything we believed till today was false?

Any good solo class attracts tons of players in any game.

There are a few interesting discussions on the forums and even on TerraNova questioning the role of other players in a mmorpg.

The theme is rather complex and wide and I don’t want to try to analyze it now. But I believe there are some “emergent” traits in the discussion that I tried to bring up as well along these last weeks in EVERYTHING I wrote. From the navel-gazing theories during the Christmas (after Raph’s posts) to the concrete proposals that I added as the natural consequence of those reasonings. I believe it’s also something that every player can feel directly when playing a game.

I always considered one article Lum wrote (or the more recent version) as one basic principle and core value of this genre (and reused it many times) and here I’m not negating it, but I still consider these “doubts” as something that has some value. If understood correctly. In fact my worry about the discussion on TerraNova and on the other forums (where the discussion is continuously chunked and derailed, making it hard to delve) is that those “symtoms” aren’t interpreted correctly. Because that’s the whole point.

Personally I went through a transition and many of my ideas changed in the last year, in a concrete way. But at the same time the basic principles I had are still there, they are only seen in perspective.

This is why I don’t feel surprised if TerraNova reveals that the majority of the players spend the majority of their time playing alone or that “The average guild member collaborates (in quests, etc.) with only 11% of his/her guildmates for more than 10 minutes over the same month”, nor I believe that WoW is showing “exceptional” (meaning “unusual” here) trends. This is instead something I recognize and I believe is widespread, probably even beyond the conclusions on that site. In fact I believe that those conclusions are completely wrong.

Different games show different trends? Are you sure? Take a game like Eve-Online. It’s the exact opposite of WoW and its social fabric and corporations/guilds structure is what makes it truly unique. We could safely postulate that this game would show completely different trends overall, especially about the behavious in the guilds. But are we absolutely sure, again? I’m not. I believe that, from the perspective of this discussion and the conclusions and traits I consider relevant, they would be identic. In fact I believe that both would mirror a graph I already used. Yes, the association between hardcore/casuals and collaborative/solo is deliberate.

The “emergent” level of these games mirrors exactly the model of the “iceberg”. The part visible above the water is only a minimal part of the whole. There’s a HUGE, yet hidden, mass that we systematically forget and remove of any relevancy. We make assumptions on a superficial level that surely makes sense and is valid (like Lum’s article) but it isn’t so absolute and univocal as we assume.

In “game design” this blindness would be a Total Disaster (actually this is false (*), but I don’t want to make things too complicated). If we must strive to design “better” games, also in the commercial sense, we cannot just aim at the visible part of the iceberg. This is foul, inadmissible. It’s “Brad McQuaid”.

All these consideration, if we have some “intellectual honesty”, seem to contradict the theory that the value of these games is in the “community”. The community seems instead a backdrop at best. Just the fluff at the end of the journey to try to retain the subscriptions even when the game is clearly “over”. That “endgame” that, incidentally, most players (me included) seem to criticize.

So how we put all these pieces together? Is there a connection? Yes, I believe there is, I also believe that all these “revelations” aren’t contradictory with the basic principles they seem to negate (Lum again). That’s the interpretation that I find lacking on TerraNova or on the forums where this discussion is partially tackled. I believe that all these pieces go together and I don’t think the overall scheme is extremely complicated.

The answer is simple: we are at the beginning. They keywords are those that I keep reusing. Accessibility and permeable barriers. The new mass-market or new mmorpg players are starting a journey. Till today the accessibility barriers were immense and this type of audience was simply precluded. A mmorpg was “catass by definition”. We didn’t have “casual players” or, in this context, “audacious explorers”, because the design didn’t have any place for them. All these things are changing now and this genre is slowly learning from its mistakes. It is opening up in new directions, in particular thanks to WoW and all the work it did toward the accessibility.

So I don’t find surprising that the large majority of the players are still “learning the ropes”. Nor I’m surprised if even WoW still exhibits PLENTY of accessibility barriers despite all the work it did in that direction. Again, we are only at the beginning. We have only seen some timid attempts (and, still, they paid back hugely already).

I believe, coherently with all I wrote in the past, that the hidden part of the iceberg is what matters. But not in the sense that we have to consider it, yet trying to dissimulate this interest. I believe instead that we should work to make that side EMERGE. So not trying to simply “second” it. But understanding its needs and behaviours. Giving it legitimacy and revolutioning the design if the conclusions are asking that.

This is why in my practical ideas I recently focused on the “permeable barriers” (between the servers, the classes, the alignment and the play-styles) and why I used my tripartite design scheme as a “gateway”, where the players are encouraged to discover all the parts that the game has to offer in a natural, progressive way (I also wrote about this more specifically here). Without impositions or mandatory requirements. Without the design strongarming a specialization. And even without the players PRETENDING from the game what they learnt to expect from every other mmorpg they played.

Again all these ideas are only a few possible solutions that I imagined and that I consider valuable. There are surely more and better ones. What is important is about acknowledging all these core points and arrive at the correct conclusions. Those conclusions that I criticize, since I seem to have a point of view that doesn’t seem welcomed.

(*) False why: because, at a basic level, a designer doesn’t need to be omniscient to create a good game.

So I was going to comment Tigole’s “defence” on the forums and why I think it’s just PR fluff. But Lum chimed in. And when it happens things go in another direction and change perspective.

The point is that this time I completely disagree because he goes just with the demagoguery to explain that “what people want” is stupid. Okay, we already knew that.

Demagogy is built through commonplaces. Here are some:

You mean MMO players resent any development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in? O RLY?

False. Noone argues with the development till the game is felt as satisfying. Noone complained that Blizzard was developing raid content till the players began to crush against that wall to discover that the game continued in that direction. With or without them.

Noone cares much if there are (more) options available in the game. In fact most people would be glad. If I’m at level 10 and Blizzard announces they are working on a dungeon for level 50s, I’m happy. Because eventually I’ll get there. If Eve-Online devs decide to build superHUGE capital ships that I will never even remotely hope to fly, I’m happy. Because it creates the context of the world. It gives it scope.

People complain when they meet a signpost that BLATANTLY says: “Go that way”. They try and they find a wall they cannot pass. And they start to see their friends with better luck that manage to “get promoted” and join the “fun stuff”. Returning with sparkling loot and laughing at you while you kill your worms to grind the faction. Which is the only option you have left: Go in a corner and feel ashamed of your condition. Enjoy being oucast from that community that you slowly started to enjoy and integrate with through 60 levels. At that point some jump the fence to reach greener pastures, while some bite the dust and are left with the crumbs.

This is WoW’s endgame and this is what the players complain about. It’s not for the demagogic commonplace about “development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in”. It’s about those patterns becoming mandatory and inaccessible. The community moves onward while selecting who can go and who is left behind. And who could eventually join later and who is out for good.

Another commonplace:

You have a player base composed mostly of people for whom this is their first MMO, and definitely the first MMO they’ve reached the endgame in. They want more stuff. They want more stuff like they already played.

They absolutely do not want different stuff. They want stuff like they liked.

False again. The great majority of the players would appreciate some variation in the gameplay.

I’d gladly mix in my playtime some PvP, casual PvE and raid content. But this is EXACTLY what WoW is negating. Because Lum, as everyone else, you are missing the point. It’s again not the availability of options. It’s not about the variance.

It’s instead THE LACK OF THEM.

WoW’s endgame isn’t a scenario where many doors suddenly open to offer you a whole slew of options to choose from. IT’S THE EXACT CONTRARY. These doors shut in your face. Those door that become mandatory become also more and more SELECTIVE.

The game SHRINKS. Till the point that it is so tight that you cannot breath. Till the point where it chokes the fun. Till the point that people start to complain.

WoW’s raiding isn’t criticized because it’s another of the many options available. But because it is the only one and, in particular, because it’s the one THE GAME REWARDS THE MOST.

If the games offer feedback through rewards. If the games are patterns of learning and the feedback is used as a guide. Think about it. Where the game is pointing the players to? Where?

This is why the two player types are now two FACTIONS, one at war with the other. It’s just the consequence of a tension that the design of this game actively built up.

And that’s where some people get REALLY ANGRY. Because they have a lot invested into their characters, their friends and the connections between the two, and they REALLY. DO. NOT. LIKE. BEING. TOLD. NO.

And this is the final point. The players see their friends move on a level they cannot access and are cut out. This is the process of exclusion and this is the original nature of a mmorpg. A concept that goes beyond the “competitiveness”. Because it’s a broader system where the community builds the game and where the game world acquires depth and significance depending on other players.

Of course they are pissed off if they are lured in and if they can only stare when their friends move on and kiss them goodbye. They aren’t needed anymore. They are out.

This is the process of a culture. This is what a culture builds. This is the “mass market” and its effect on the people. The need to belong and be there. The need to share something and don’t feel different. The need to “succeed” in the same way they see their friends succeeding.

If you forbid this process, you build up a tension that sooner or later will explode. A tension that didn’t explode before only because mmorpgs have been considered “catass” by definition till today. From level 1 to whatever.

Continuing on the same tone.

We always wonder about the magical recipe that would lead to “better games” and “humongous success”. Everyone would like a slice of Blizzard’s pie. The new kid on the block that stole all the market with just one game and as a first attempt. The MMO Jesus that multiplied the number of potential customers like the bread and fishes. Leaving all the other veteran companies to bite the dust and run salvage what’s still salvageable.

So what’s this magical recipe? What did Blizzard’s genial devs to make everyone else feel done? Well, it’s simple. They worked on the accessibility of the game to make it more polished and appealing and introduced a quest system that was partially able to hide the feeling of grind and pointless repetition by adding some convenient variance in the patterns. Which is exactly what our “rant communities” HAVE POINTED OUT FOR YEARS. Ignored.

Blizzard gave a decent answer to a problem. A better answer. Making a game “for everyone”.

We don’t need brilliant and experienced game designer like Raph because this genre is already stuck *at the most basic level*. It needs common sense, maybe, but there isn’t anything complex or arcane to understand.

MMORPG design is really that simple.

And what will be the market of the future? The true answer to this quastion is worth billion dollars. It’s like finding the Philosopher’s stone. It would turn everything into gold. And the answer is just IN FRONT OF EVERYONE’S NOSES. Exactly like Blizzard’s “brilliant” design was already so obvious if just some people at the decision-making level had a clue and woke up before.

The future of the genre is to make these world even more accessible and immersive. Working on the qualities that we already discovered and going to tap that potential that is still dormant. The future of the genre will be about offering *solid answers* to the problems that are now dodged or dismissed. It will be about games that bring the players together instead of apart and that will continue to appeal to casual players, without imposing them unacceptable strains and dependencies. Games that will let you contribute to the “world” without the need to schedule your life around it. Games that are accessible and don’t separate the players in social classes of uberness.

Bringing together, and not apart. Removing the barriers, accessibility. It’s always *the same shit*. We don’t need geniuses or Civ4’s “Great People” to advance this genre.

We just need to pay attention. Observe. React. There are already plenty of hints suggesting where the market is going and what are its true demands.

Part of the current success of Eve-Online (and, in particular, the “viral” part of it) is the direct consequence of their “one-shard” model. Which lets you “hear” about the game from your friends and join them right away (and as simple as a direct download for a full, updated client not shattered between a moltitude of expansion packs). Its viral success strongly depends on veteran MMO communities that slowly build up interest and curiosity. Letting the new players join the community without having to crash into barriers and discover that all your friends are spread between twelve+ servers and an arbitrary number of levels. Or that require a videocard so “uber” that would suck alone a whole month of real life work.

Things “come to life” in Eve, despite the shallow initial impression, because the game provides the right conditions for the players to organize and create something.

The pattern was really simple:
1- The devs work hard to make the game appealing on certain aspects (In Eve it’s the sandbox mode, the freedom and scope of the players’ interactions).
2- The players arrive and start to grow in number, bringing their friends in and constantly creating more curiosity and interest. The new players aren’t segregated and dispersed into hundreds of servers, but share the same space. Creating “permeable barriers” that don’t isolate them and encourage them to *connect* with the bigger, emergent community.

CONNECT. Get some “hints” from Xfire. Or its clones. That’s where we are going.

The games of the future will be those where the players won’t be fragmented and isolated between hundreds of servers, but those with permeable barriers. Where from a side you create “cozy worlds” where the community can build up still within a manageable scope, while from the other allowing the players to cross those barriers.

In the same way the players should be able to partially bypass their forced dependence on other players. Permeable barriers, again.

Leaving behind the restrictions and narrow design limitations of level-based treadmills. Removing that silliness that segregates the players till the point where there are huge gaps between the catasses and those who are left behind and are kicked out of the system. Excluded because they couldn’t “keep up” with the power creep and time requirements.

Creating more immersive, consistent worlds where the player will be able to interact more directly and naturally with the game world. Without the interfaces growing and crowding the screen till the point that you can’t see past them. Immediate, visceral, direct gameplay and not “try to find and hit the right button between a million others” while micromanaging everything at the most insane level.

Some of these problems were analyzed and explained by Raph brilliantly and in great detail. But we didn’t need Raph to bring those problems up! Our community already pointed them out from a long time! It was already all so fucking obvious. GLARING.

You just need to open your eyes.

And no, we don’t need fancy new genres or crazy Korean stuff. Because fantasy-themed games can be all that and SO MUCH MORE. Can’t you see?

We need *answers*. Practical, concrete answers and not more, endless dissertations wasting time like I’m doing here. I cannot provide those kind of answers because I have no powers on that front. I can only offer ideas opinions for what they are worth. But there are those, out there, who can. And they have this responsibility to start to move things forward. Concretely.

P.S.
It’s MMORPG design to be stupid and obvious. Execution is still hard. There are no shortcuts for that, I’m sorry.

Before I forget, I need to archive some comments, some from Raph’s page and some from Darniaq’s. The context is the same and we are all contributing to the same argument at the moment.

These definitions don’t pretent to be absolute and objective. They just define my personal perspective and my beliefs.

After the two wonderful articles that Raph wrote and that we are still discussing (broken link till I don’t copy/paste it), I believe that what is important to do is see what there is past those considerations. Focus on the conclusions and the possible answers to those problems. Or the discussion would become just redundant and not usable.

After having pointed the flaws of “level based mechanics” my motto is: “doing better, not doing without.”

To begin with, an assumption: sandbox = systemic

—
There are “content” games and there are “sandbox” games.

The first category is about natural single-player games that follow a linear direction. From a point to another. The game doesn’t end till you reach the other point, but the premise is that there is an end. You can stretch this model and make the gap between the two points bigger or smaller. You can even further extend it at will (think to games rising the level cap, or expansions to the classic RPGs) but the “end” is still there.

You are supposed to play this type of game till the developers have stuff to show you. Basically the playtime is proportionate to the development. In a game dependent on a monthly fee the dependence/addiction mechanic is preferred because it’s easier for the developers to find hooks and carrots, and make them desirable. It is also comfortable because there’s a definite direction and you have a precise idea of what you have to offer. It takes time but it is also predictable.

Then there’s the sandbox game. Here we move away from a single-player game because the focus is more on the actors as active subjects more than a linear, fixed story that is narrated or re-enacted. In the sandbox you can fit pretty much everything, even the whole game of the first type. But, in general, the sandbox has “toys” into it that you can use freely and “creatively”. The player here can have different roles and the model is particularly appropriate for the myth of “satisfying repetable content”.

This second model works like a complex system. The development time is still important but it’s not directly proportionate. The linearity is lost and the system is even supposed to move on its own once it is “closed”. Here the “end” is only represented by the boundaries of the sandbox (possibility space) but the longevity depends more on the ties between the elements within more than the actual number of elements.

The “sandbox” types of games are harder to make, in particular because the industry has less experience with them, while it has plenty to make the first type.

But it’s this second model that is simply more appropriate for an online game based on subscriptions and that is supposed to last in the longer term. It’s this second model to use the innate strengths of the genre and the uniqueness it has to offer.

—
From a simplified point of view:
– If you add one point to a linear path (the classic idea of content), you are increasing the ‘weight’ by one. It’s predictable and the system is so simple that you cannot really expect to optimize it.

– If you add one point within a system, instead, you increase considerably its complexity. This because all these elements are connected together and affect each other in a complex relationship (and often retaining a specific function, so never aging).

—
(These types of) Mmorpgs have life cycles. So noone actually cares if the newbies are turned off. It would require a long term planning that is just uncommon in this industry.

The point is that, after the initial sales, no other (linear) mmorpg has shown an increasing number of subscribers. Which is the other graph that Raph shown here.­ The strategy is to rise as much and possible, “milk” all you can and then, eventually, the profit will be used for some sort of “sequel”.

I ranted about this in my posts about the mudflation and “ecology”. The worlds get littered till they aren’t livable anymore, but noone really cares. We burn what we find. Use, throw away and replace.

It’s how the consumer society works and what gets replied in these games. We produce because we use and we use because we produce. There’s always “somewhere” else where you can go.

The other way is what I have as an ideal: the living world. A living world is a sandbox, or a complex system. In a complex system all the elements have a precise function that isn’t “replaced” or “mudflated”. All these elements are tied together, forming a complexity and shaping up a “world” that is self-consistent and self-contained. Where you just don’t need “more space” to justify more content and where you don’t need to mudflate and replace anything because every element has a purpose and is justified.

This model ideally allows the system to never age. Both new and old players exist on the same level and play together, not far away. There’s no need to build barriers since the game itself takes advantage from the ties between the elements. The development can go on at the same time on all the levels without leaving out either side.

And if you happen to enter it five years after the launch, you would be able to see it improved on every part and not just fragmented and left half-broken. It would inherit the innate qualities of life: grow and adapt.

One is built to last. The other is built to be consumed.

—

Darniaq:
Linear games are easier to sell to a larger crowd it seems.

The point is that the “sandbox” games are still rudimental and the industry doesn’t have a lot of experience making them. The outcome just cannot compare to a linear game that is the direct heritage of a single-player game with a long history behind.

Making a good sandbox game is just way harder than sticking with a simpler, consolidated model. It’s more risky, less predictable (so the industry rejects it).

But then we have to go back at the roots. Why WoW is successful? Because it is accessible. Because it’s the very BEST game for a new player approaching this genre (without a doubt).

And what’s the first flaw of a sandbox? It’s lack of direction. The fact that you don’t know what you are supposed to do next and you feel overwhelmed and lost.

This CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.

In my personal experience I had the exact same problems in UO, SWG and Eve-Online. It’s definitely not a coincidence. All these three games are very hard to figure out and enjoy. I’m not a total newbie but I had LOTS of problems in these games and I can see clearly why something like WoW is more popular. I know because it affects me as well.

In all those three games, for example, I found really, really hard to find people to group with, while it’s almost impossible to not get invited in a group in WoW at some point. I wrote about this in various occasions but the first, supposed quality of these games was instead my very first issue: the socialization.

I always found *extremely hard* to talk to strangers in UO, SWG or Eve if not within strictly formal relationship (like to repair my things in UO).

So the point is that the sandbox games aren’t simply “not successful”. The fact is that they aren’t ready. Just that. They are still too partial, incomplete, rough and inconsistent.

Still today the sandbox games are those where I had the LESS fun. So why I love them anyway? Because what I see is their potential beyond those flaws that have been impassable barriers for me. And if have that silly dream of becoming a developer it’s because I dream about what these games will be when those barriers will be removed.

That’s the myth I’m chasing.

(give a look to these ideas for some context)

—

Harold:
Kinda pie in the sky but it would be nice if the zones could evolve or regress based on usage.

Dynamism works better in PvP. So those ideas are more interesting if applied in a PvP environment.

Instead PvE needs good stories and good stories need staticity or it would be just impossible to narrate good ones when you don’t have the controls on what is going on.

Dynamism means contingency and the contingency is the opposite of identity. Identity is essential to narrate stories. So the needs of PvP and PvE are antithetic.

—
Simply put: in a “systemic” game world all elements are tied together, the dots are connected. Each element has a “weight” in the system that affects everyone else.

In a systemic model:
– The players are brought together. The model is represented as a circumference, where the players/dots create groups or “cells” and move within while bouncing one against the other (creating alliances, conflicts, politics etc..). The space belongs to them (known) and is “managed”.

In a linear model:
– The players are spread apart. The model is represented as a vector, where the players are pointed toward an obligatory direction and have a set position that “qualifies” them toward the other players. The space is external, alien (unknown) and only conquered and progressively consumed.

By delving some more it is possible to transform those two into cultural models but I won’t do that here. Which one is more appropriate for an online game? You choose.

And yes, mmorpgs work as living bodies.

I tried to correct Raph’s graph because it doesn’t show what actually matters, from my point of view.

Raph’s graph isn’t supposed to figure out why some players leave the game. It should just compare the volume of content available with the volume of players. And what is relevant in THIS context is the volume of players at the same time. Also because it’s what matter to make the game accessible, bring the players together and enjoy the game. Something that is NOT POSSIBLE if all the players are spread thin around a desert.

So yeah, I’m not interested to find out why the players are leaving. Or maybe I am, but I think that another perspective will tell me a lot more about this specific argument.

Following this line of thought, Scott Hartsman wrote a “defense” of level-based games, as it is plausible considering that he is EQ2 producer and he must believe in what he does:

All of that “database deflated” content is called “shared experiences,” and they’re critical to a game’s success in the era in which they’re relevant. In the long run it loses value. That’s a given.

However, it’s absolutely critical to have it there in the short term, in order to get a game to the point where it can actually lose that value. That’s a problem of success. We should be so lucky to have that content beginning to lose its original value. We’ve both seen what happens when games (intentionally or no) appear to assume that success is a foregone conclusion and skip straight to “Aha! It’s going to lose value anyway. We’ll think ahead and not do as much of it in the first place, saving long term pain!” I’ve got all the proof I need to even more firmly believe that it doesn’t work that way if the goal is to satisfy those who enjoy character growth.

Here I believe that the only mistake Raph did in that article is about the title. I don’t think he is trying to prove that “levels suck” and that the successful games we have now are crap that shoud be thrown away and replaced. I just believe that he is trying to explore and delve in the mechanics that make levels fun. See their origin, discover their flaws and finding out if this research can open the path to something different that could solve or improve some of these aspects.

It isn’t about going “against”. It’s about creating a debate to use as a source. A source that is useful to improve and explore new possibilities more than rinse and repeat models that are now consolidated and “safe”, but that are still problematic. Are there possibilities to do better? Are there better solutions available?

The point isn’t about devaluing the current games. The point is perceiving possible developments and use the experience as a ladder to reach something else. It’s about taking risk. In this industry it’s *fundamental* that the risk is excused and motivated so that it is plausible and justified. This is why it’s overdue to analyze the flaws and propose ideas that MUST start from those problems and offer valid answers.

My idea, about what Scott wrote, is that the current level mechanics are killing these games, in the longer term. So an apparent, superficial “lesser issue” is, instead, CRITICAL for the future of an online world.

—
Here are my graphic leet skillz:

Now, the first graph represents the situation on a server a few days after the launch. The blue line traces the *activity* on the server in a set moment and not the number of characters created that never come back. In the first weeks all the players are concentrated in the first levels and then slowly decrease. During this phase there’s overcrowding and if you were in WoW at launch or at the launch of a brand new server you know how this is absolutely true. Everyone is running around the newbie zones and only a few players that never log out are able to reach an higher level compared to most of the other players.

Do you remember all the queues that lasted for multiple hours during the first days and all the players raging against Blizzard? That wasn’t simply the server load, it was because all the players were packed in the newbie zones and the early levels in general. The red line here shows the volume of the content available targeted at those levels. At the beginning of the graph there’s more of it to accomodate the number of players, but it’s still not enough. There’s more of it compared to the mid-levels because each race has its own newbie zone and content.

(the graph still doesn’t factor the “time” needed by each level, or the first levels still wouldn’t compare with the amount of content in the mid-levels, since each level takes more time and so requires more content available)

The second graph, instead, shows the situation of the server after a few months. Only a few new players are active at the same time and 99% of the game is emptier and lonely even if the game remains hugely successful. There’s basically more than enough content for the whole level curve. At the exclusion of the last few levels where all the players start to amass. If you notice, the red line at the end of the graph rises more than the red line of the first graph. This because Blizzard developed and added more “endgame” content. But as you can see, even after this effort, the content is still nowhere enough for the number of players that are hoarding at that end.

And this is why right now we have all the complaints about not enough raid content, or not enough viable progress for casual players after level 60.

Now what even Raph seems to overlook and that from my point of view is the BIGGEST problem, is that the situation shown in the second graph gets worse over time. Till the point it becomes a plague for the whole game. A plague that will just shatter the game in the longer term, creating a number of unsolvable side-effects that will slowly kill the game. Till the point where it will need a replacement because broken beyond repair. As I said the inequality between the content available at the mid-levels and the few players populating those zones is still somewhat bearable and a non-issue in WoW because the game is still hugely successful and, between alts and new players, even the early levels are kept somewhat playable and fun.

But what would happen if the game wasn’t a so huge success, and what will happen in the longer term? That the early game will be totally DESERTED. Only a few alts will dot the graph here and there, having an hard time finding someone alive to group with and, maybe, do those instances that were so popular the months before. The consequence of this trend is a recursive aggravation where less and less players enjoy the loliness of the early levels, deserting them even more till they won’t become just a lonely “desert”, but a swamp that you won’t be able to cross anymore.

And here we hit something bigger that was again always overlooked. Why the possibility to solo is considered so fundamental today? There are surely various reasons, but the main one is that the possibility to solo is a somewhat effective antidote to a deserted game. So, even if there aren’t enough players or if you cannot play during the peak time, the game remains playable. You won’t crash against impassable barriers because the content is still accessible. It’s not because playing solo is more fun. It’s because, after the gap between the players grew so huge, the solo play becomes the only viable solutions when playing with your friends is not anymore possible because the game put a WALL between you and them.

The huge gap that was created between the veteran players and the new ones will transform into an impassable barrier that will progressively isolate the game and the community (the elitism will to the rest). Slowly killing it in the longer term.

This is how MMORPGs die.

It’s true that extended treadmills and character progression are effective mechanics to retain the subscriptions. But it’s also true while going in that direction you progressively isolate the game from new players. It’s as conservative approach that aims to preserve the current situation as long as possible but that is still cruising toward an unavoidable collapse.

An healthy online world that slowly *grows* instead of slowly collapsing, is one where new and old players are brought together and not cut apart. A type of game where the content is experienced together and brings life to a world, and not burnt and thrown away as junk. The difference between a place where you live and one that you colonize and leech till there’s nothing left.

Perfect mirrors of the American capitalism and colonialism.