Icarus Studios News

(Continued from Part 2)

Worth examining, whether you personally enjoy them or not, are PVP games in general, and the subject of guilds. They are two social systems on different ends of a spectrum that focus on the players, not on what they see. The point in examining the features that utilize this tactic, whether intended by the original design or not, is that if your environment is intended to support a group, or system of groups, the players ARE your game. The system is not your game, nor the setting created by the system (the main subject in a single player game). If you don't focus on your players or their community as being one with the identity of your game, you render them virtually synonymous to NPCs—at least, insofar as their relation to other players will ever be viewed. In an unexpected turn of events, this is the same quality that makes griefing seem reasonable. Even normally polite people can turn into jerks when conditioned to treat every character they see as an NPC. This conditioning doesn't have to be blatant to be effectual.

(Continued from Part 1) 

Going down the list and taking a brief look at environmental interactivity, as meant in the introduction of part 1:

In this particular reference, “environment” is not equated with “experience” and instead refers to setting (the city, the mountainside, that tree over there, your ability to open or smash boxes)—an important distinction that often gets muddied in conversations about game features. “Interactivity with the environment” doesn't have to mean the ability to plant trees or break rocks. Since we're talking about virtual worlds, we aren't dealing with real objects in the everyday sense of “reality,” so the subject of interactivity with your environment can be referring to interactivity on an intangible level.

Millions of people, hundreds of quests, multiple cityscapes and settings to explore—how could we get bored with MMOs? But we do, and quite often. It is the absence of true interactivity in a massively multi-player game that promotes stagnation and boredom. More importantly, having a barrier to interactivity in a group environment such as a massive creates problems between players who might feel that they are paying for an incomplete service.

But what exactly IS “true interactivity” as far as these games are concerned?

A common complaint about MMOs is that they are too-heavily built on slot machine-style reinforcement methods, effectively turning them into a kind of Skinner box for humans. In the typical MMO, the monthly-subscription model encourages the design to be geared for maximum time involved in the game. To keep players in the game for months on end, the solution is to create enough content that it will take months to consume.

Eternal life, well-served masses, social groups…and a space-time continuum onion.

MMOGs have several unique aspects that distinguish them from other kinds of games. (Games are like snowflakes; they’re all so very special in their own ways.) A MMOG, though, always has a persistent universe; the game and programmed content inside the world goes on regardless of how many players are online. Which is not to discount the presence of players—in fact, players provide the entire foundation for this type of snowflake…er, game. MMOGs rely almost entirely on multi-player game-play; I can’t think of an MMOG that has tons of really involved, developed, single-player missions or experiences. And, unlike many other game types, MMOGs are eternal. You cannot “finish” an MMOG. Even if you complete dozens of mini-games and level up so high that you have to look down to see the virtual clouds, you still aren’t done with the game. Even after you rescue the princess or throw the ring into the fiery pits of Mount Doom or best the biggest boss in the deepest, darkest dungeon, your reason for being in the MMOG still exists. Why? Because other people are there—usually a lot of other people—and interacting with them in an ever-expanding world is what keeps the game interesting.

Thomas Chesney on Terra Nova recently mentioned a short paper entitled Trust in Second Life. In the paper, Duffy states he's interested in Virtual Worlds as a social research tool, especially with respect to economy. However, he is concerned about the lack of controls and culpability in such an environment. To illustrate his concerns, he chooses to take part in a randomly picked experiment taking place in Second Life. He tells us that, during the experiment, he lied to the automation about his age and felt no real responsibility to finish the demographic survey. He opted out after the main experiment was finished.

In the past several years, one of the central theories of tabletop RPG design has been the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (GNS) model. Put simply, the concept is that a game can pursue three different agendas when figuring out how to resolve tasks and structure play: do what makes a fun game, do what makes a good story, or do what seems to best simulate reality. The theory as a whole is much more involved, but it basically breaks down to priorities when gaming. Should the game be set up to feel realistic or feel like a movie or novel? Should the game have fun internal rules that don’t necessarily support either of these factors?

Welcome to Icarus Studios’ blog. In the following weeks, our Virtual World’s Game Designers will upload posts that address both current trends and founding principles of MMOGs and Virtual Worlds. Topics will include everything from the nuts and bolts of game design and world building with Icarus-specific toolsets to the state of the global gaming industry and better ways to enrich the users’ experience. Be sure to check back with us often for updates and announcements!