Slashdot Mirror
Designing Virtual Worlds
It never occurred to me that my review would be read by a wider public, most of whom had never heard of me or even Dr. Bartle, and would see only the hostility, and not understand the narrowness of the focus. When the column was picked up by Slashdot I was stunned, when I realized it was also linked by Clay Shirky in Many to Many and by Joystick101 among other places, I felt slightly ill. Without intending to, I may have damaged the reputation of Dr. Bartle and of his book, and I feel an obligation to set the record straight with an actual review of his book. I'm not sure why it has not already received such a review, except that only a few dozen people in the world currently make their living at virtual world design and would really be qualified to write it.
What is in the book? The "Introduction to Virtual Worlds" of the first chapter does a very good job of laying out what a virtual world is, and defending that definition as a category that includes but is not limited to the online games that are the most common examples of the type. The history lesson included a lot of information even I, after six years in the industry and a serious attempt at studying it, was not aware of. The second chapter gives a very good overview of the process by which the world is created both in business terms and in structural arrangements. The third includes a reprise and updating of Dr. Bartle's now-classic Players that Suit MUD's, the touchstone for every theory of player motivation in online games, and continues into a description of the properties and dynamics of the communities that form in and around the worlds.
Where most of the first three chapters are a primer -- containing the base knowledge needed to understand the whole field in functional terms -- the 4th and 5th chapters focus much more on the worlds as games. The mechanics of game systems, the structure of "advancement" systems and the psychology that makes them run, all of the myriad elements that make a virtual world a game.
Chapters 6 and 7 take a more academic overview of the field, discussing the "why's" of the worlds, what they are, what they may become, and what other fields of human endeavour they are most similar to and therefore may have lessons to offer. Chapter 7's effort to establish the academic and artistic "legitimacy" of virtual worlds was the main source of my disagreement with the book: I think that virtual worlds are entirely capable of standing on their own merits and do not need to be considered credible by the academic arts to be worthy. But this is the "almost theological" issue, and although significant to myself and a handful of others in the field, it's not something that should be counted against the work as a whole.
Chapter 8 focuses on the fact that as virtual as the worlds may be, the people in them (and therefore the relationships) are real, and therefore certain ethical factors normally not considered an issue in game design become much more important. Added to this are questions of "ownership"; if there is no game without the players, but the operator has a finger on the power button, who is in control? Who should be? The book doesn't solve many of these problems (every solution is likely to be unique to a particular setting), but does lay out where most of the fracture lines occur.
What I liked: The book establishes good points and brings the reader up to date on the known principles of the field, with copious references to other writings on the subject provided in the footnotes. The general focus on the "players eye" view is a very important attribute: too often, discussions of virtual worlds have the "God's Eye" designer's view from orbit, and forget that in the end it's the ground-level "fun or not-fun" experience of the players that makes or breaks a design.
What I didn't like: Dr. Bartle is much more broadly educated than I am (they don't give out any titles for an Associates degree in electronics), and tries very hard to make a case to the academic community that virtual worlds are worthy of consideration as serious works of Capital-A "Art." Since I am not concerned about credibility with the dilettantes and dabblers who make up most of academia in the Arts, the repeated references to the Hero's Journey and the effort to define a dramatic theory of online games in Chapter 7 distracted and occasionally annoyed me. But those interested in such things will probably find his efforts there as workmanlike as the rest of the volume.
Summary: This book is a must-read for anyone who works in the field of online games, and highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand the theory and structure of the systems that make them run, or to effectively discuss them with the teams that work on them.
You can purchase Designing Virtual Worlds from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
you can bet that Dr. James will back him up...
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
I think that virtual worlds are entirely capable of standing on their own merits and do not need to be considered credible by the academic arts to be worthy.
Having played on and assisted in development of a host of muds for over 10 years (ranging from old diku and lp based all the way through EQ, Planetscape, etc...) I would agree 100%. There is no substitute for 'Fun Factor' in a mud. In fact the more reasonable and sensable (our world like) a mud becomes, the less interesting I find it.
---
Jedimom.com, now with twice the pudding!
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
I think a lot of these problems can be solved simply by observation of the real world, and then deciding to either subset it or superset it. It is easy to think of current existence as a black box with certain properties, that one would either want to take a subset of those properties, or extend them in some way. I don't think it takes a special book -- if you're looking for a book on life, try all the millions of great novels out there. Those writers (i.e. Steinbeck) present a lot of information about the design of a world in the way that they create their "virtual worlds".
stuff |
Start breathing a little more rapidly after discovering that their article (or worse website) has been posted up on a major site such as slashdot. Pending bandwidth disasters aside, many things are meant to be shared with the general "world-at-large," but not with a large portion of the world. More scary is when they only focus on part of a story or opinion, leading to the appearing of bias on the part of the writer.
/. was good enough to post it up.
It's nice to see that not only did Mr Rickey put in a "full-opinion" follow-up, but that
Personally, I have a lot of stories, postings, etc that I really have no problem sharing with a random interested netter... but having several thousand people poring over and commenting on it would make me a bit green.
A lot of slashdotters write that "if you don't want it read, don't post it"... but really there's a difference between putting something up so that global interested parties can check it out, and having it swarmed on by the masses. Makes me wonder if I should append a "property of owner XYZ, please do not copy or link this article without permission"... at least to cover my ass in some form if such an article got in the wild.
Calling the environments created in the glut of recent MMORPG "virtual worlds" is a disservice to the term. Most of these so-called worlds are woefully small in scope and the inhabitants reduced to a very small subset of brainless activities.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Dr. Bartle is much more broadly educated than I am
I like books written by people more educated than myself, that way I learn things. If you want to feel intellectually superior, check out the local thrift/used book shop for some old "choose your own adventure"s
Or read anything by Grisham or Clancy.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It's all so inane to me. They are crappy games, that's all. I wish people would stop trying to find some mystical and spiritual meaning in them.
I think one of the most interesting things to me in the games, esp. set in virtual worlds is the relationship of cause and effect.
In real life, we get to "learn" some cause-effects, and use them in making future decisions. But, I personally believe, that there are no hard and fast cause-effects that do not alter when the frame of the system in question is either reduced or enlarged.
I play the games so that I can understand the cause-effect equation. I can sometimes try something in the virtual world and see a real world physical or psychological effect. At other times I can try something in the real-world and see its effect in the virtual world.
The round trip i.e. real-virtual-real is very much possible and observable by me. But the other round trip i.e. virtual-real-virtual is not possible for me, and the only way that I can imagine that is to consider it to be loosely a "mirror" form of the real-virtual-real string.
These cause and effect in the real-virtual-real and virtual-real-virtual strings, and how they in some way help me make sense of my body-mind duality is why the virtual worlds are very real for me .... That is why I am drawn to these "virtual" worlds that very "real" for me ...
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
We thank you for your support.
Don't be fooled by the MMO description, EQ, UO and their ilk are still MUDs. Adding pretty pictures to a concept does not change what it is.
I've been writing some lecture notes for a class on designing virtual worlds that illustrate the real world (usually under water here) and have not discussed with those in the class the how, why, and philosophy of designing virtual worlds.
thanks for the review!
Just a small plug for one of the incarnations of his game MUD2 www.mudii.co.uk .Having also met Richard at a few mudmeets (where the players and wizzes all meet up in a pub and get very drunk :-)) not only is he clever with the text based games, he is also a funny chap.
Huff
I think the reviewer needs to define just what the book's scope is, and just what "virtual worlds" consist of. The phrase "a few dozen people in the world currently make their living at virtual world design," makes me believe that he's only considering the chief designers at high-profile commercial MMORPGs, leaving out everyone who might design non-online gaming worlds, sub-designers, etc. Not to mention all those people creating things off in Hollywood. Not to mention pen-and-paper game designers. And not to mention my science fiction writing breathern, of which there are, at a minimum, some 200 or so making their living from designing "virtual worlds" consisting of words on a page...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
From where I stand, I see two very distinct type of "gamers" these days.... Rather than get to the point, I'll regail you with a story.
I've been playing video games of all sorts for plenty of years now, and I have no problem admitting that I am not hooked on Counter-Strike. I'm involved with a gaming center that hosts one of those servers, and it is regularly active. I don't love CS, but I don't consider myself a bad player either.... Most of the maps in rotation are simple deathmatch type maps, none of the maps from version 1.5.... Typically, I rank in the top 3 or 4 out of 20 players when I hop on once or twice a month, a stat that surprises me even now. However, being the "old school" gamer, I often switch to maps that aren't so usual... With the CS 1.5 maps or classic maps (vegas, 747, as_ maps), I completely blow everyone else out of the water. I wouldn't say that it's the "lag" of newer maps, nor the fact that most of these guys don't know the maps... Heck, I hardly know some of these maps, so much of this is just a raw skill competition.
I honestly believe that well over 80%, maybe up to 90% of "regular" online gamers are in it primarily for the social contact and environment. I'm sure there's plenty of people (like me) who would rather play for other primary reasons, such as the andrenaline rush or competitive nature, and those factors influence the social gamers greatly, but nontheless.... The vast majority of gamers seem to enjoy or are addicted to the social aspects more than anything else, and learn how to "go through the motions" and base their gameplay on mastery of these motions, and complain when things are altered in the slightest, even to the benefit of gameplay.
I would have been much more interested to hear from the author about his own firsthand experiences with the dynamics of balancing social and gameplay components.... How *DO* you improve a game that people are addicted to, when addicts tend to fight change of any sort? As for that entire article, it seemed too pseudo-intellectual, and I see no benefit of questioning where the lines are drawn between art, social matters, and gaming... After all, I could classify the results of a masterful promoter attracting masses to an art exhibition as art itself.
There is a lot more there worth reading.
Also, Richard Bartle is also doing a column at Skotos called Notes from the Dawn of Time.
-- Herder of Cats
The University of Illinois PLATO system had "Multi-User Dungeon" type games before 1978. Just a reminder that lots of innovative things happened on PLATO that then got "reinvented" years later. Having a 512x512 plasma(AC) screen based terminal hooked up to a mainframe and being able to write interterminal games easily was a lot more fun than trying to use the "graphics" on a trs-80 or apple.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Take Big Brother 4 for example, the participants acknowledge the show for what it is: a game. Therefore, they don't take it quite as seriously as The Amazing Race, which is also a game.
Now, you probably all are wondering where I'm going with this. Games are still that, games. No matter which way you play them, or how seriously you take them, they are still games. And the beautiful thing about them is they are designed to provide entertainment. Whether you find watching them and being pulled into the drama entertaining, or laughing at them, or debating the philosophy behind the strategy, you are still being entertained, which is allowing the game to do what it was designed to do.
+5, Female
lots of good art history and how it relates to immersive worlds:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735 711712/
motivator for more than half of our very large clan as well. It can be seen by the number of people just chatting, I also see a corelation between age, the younger are generally more driven and competitive, while the older are generally more relaxed and there for the social aspect. This does not always hold true of course but I've been playing online games for a long time in many formats and that's what I've seen.
Also I reallt think in games like EQ, people underestimate the number of women playing and just NOT telling anyone they are female. After a long term association with several guild members I was able to pick out numerous closet women playing male characters and actively trying to hide there sex.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Not necessarily. More accurate to say that it's a stage without actors. You could still have a setting, or even multiple settings, props, etc.
And in fact, that's how you want it -- because ideally your players are your actors, and the stories are those that they make up themselves.
The ideal experience for a game company is to set up a stage so compelling that actors flock to it to tell their own stories, thus lessening the work on you.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Well, is it *all* of them or *most* of them? If its *most* of them then there must be some that are worthy of the term "virtual world" and thus something to write about. If its none of them, then why not say so...
In any case a virtual world (The Matrix if you will) is hardly going to spring into being fully formed. There have to be steps to get there. Hopefully this book is about what steps have been tried.
What MMOGs have you tried, and what would you do differently?
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
You miss the point.
The game is the background for social interactions between real people. Without that there would be nothing much to wax philosophical about.
the book is about making these kinds of games more fun/successful. In single-player games the experience is entirely about the one person playing it. Some of the same principles still apply, but it is the added dimension of social interaction which distinguishes MMOGs from regular games.
And guess what - when you get a bunch of people together you have to be able to satisfy as many of them at the same time as you can.
That's what MMOG designers need to learn, and that's what this book is mostly about.