Deeply Random Thoughts

drt.gif (46685 bytes)

Virtual world spectrum

20 August 2004

Revised 7 September 2004

For awhile I've been pondering the spectrum of story-like entertainments that can be produced on a computer. The most obvious story-like entertainment is, of course, a story. Computers can display stories as either E-books or videos. Neither of these take full advantage of the computer's abilities since they don't support interactivity (the ability for players to affect the outcome of the story) or multiple users (using the Internet to place several players within the story). Adding both interactivity and multiple users to a story turns it into a completely different beast: a virtual world.

What lies in between a story and a virtual world?

To better understand what happens as each technology is added, I decided to do a thought experiment, beginning with a story, and adding interactivity and multiple users in different steps. After adding the technologies, I pause and see what's happened to the entertainment. Each technology changes the experience, with obvious improvements as well as newly introduced problems, which I have enumerated for each step.

Step 0: A linear narrative (stories) vs. the real world (0 players)

I'll begin with a novel or movie, a form which everyone is familiar with. Novels and movies often take place in imaginary worlds, following a handful of characters (controlled by the author) through the world. The world, characters, and their actions are designed by the author to maximise the entertainment value. Most people wouldn't call novels or movies virtual worlds though.

Both novels and movies can be displayed in a computer, novels turning into E-books, and movies into video. (Note: If the movie's computer graphics are generated real time and played from within a game, the movie is called a cut-scene.)

My first transition is from the real world to a story. Why would anyone give up the real world to experience a story?

Advantages of a story (compared to the real world)

Disadvantages of story (compared to the real world)

The story allows the reader to undertake (imagined) experiences that would be too dangerous in the real world.
Stories let readers have (imagined) experiences that would be very expensive in the real world.
Stories let readers have (imagined) experiences that would be impossible in the real world. They don't even need to take place in the real world.
Stories allow the reader to have (imagined) experiences through other people's eyes.
An author can chose the story's setting, characters, and actions, allowing for fictional stories that would rarely occur in real life. Coincidence doesn't exist in a story.
The reader can chose which story they want to read/view out of millions of stories... Conversely, there is only one real world. Additionally, they can stop reading a story, re-read it, or even skip ahead, none of which are possible in the real world.
One of the author's goals when writing a story is to provide an enjoyable experience for the reader, barring a few morals thrown in. Consequently, stories are relatively safe, compared to the real world where people's interests often conflict with one another.
A story can be built around a single objective for the characters to complete. The story's world is usually tailored to facilitate this objective.
Stories have an ending, which makes them psychologically satisfying.
Time and space can be bent and broken.
Readers don't have to think (much) while reading a story.
A story, especially in book form, can be experienced no matter where the reader is in the real world.
Good size for loners.

The reader has no control of what happens the story, other than the ability to stop reading/viewing. (Reducing immersion.)
Stories are not as sensorally realistic (no 360-degree view, no smell, no touch, etc.) as the real world. (Reducing immersion.)
Reading the story has no impact on the characters in the story, or (for the most part) on the real world.
Corollary: Because of the lack of control and limited sensory realism, stories are not as immersive as the real world.
Stories have an ending, which limits their duration.

Step 0.5: A rail-game vs. a linear narrative (1/2 of a player)

In a "rail game" the player can affect the narrative in very limited ways. Usually this is a choice of camera location, which character will be followed, optional sub-stories, and the occasional "make the right decision or the story ends here." Some rail games allow for a handful of story endings. Adventure games are often rail games. The Dragon Slayer laser-disc game from the 1980's was a rail game. Choose-your-own-adventure(tm) books are rail games.

Advantages of a rail game (compared to a story)

Disadvantages of a rail game (compared to a story)

Choices force/encourage users to think (as opposed to vegetate)... some people like this.
Interactive entertainment is more dangerous than a linear narrative since if something bad happens it could be the player's fault. Some players like the danger. (Danger increases with the amount of interactivity and number of players.)
Because of the ability for users to follow different characters and experience optional sub-stories, they can (somewhat) tailor the experience to their desires.
Choices encourage immersion. (Although rail games don't provide many choices, so their immersion is limited.)
Players know that their choices are limited so they don't get as frustrated when they can't do what they want. (See disadvantages of an interactive experience.)
Replayability - The game can be played a second time and the story produced will differ... slightly. Part of the entertainment of the format is the ability to see "What would happen if...".

Choices force/encourage users to think (as opposed to vegetate)... some people don't like this.
Interactive entertainment is more dangerous than a linear narrative since if something bad happens it could be the player's fault. Some players dislike the danger. (Danger increases with the amount of interactivity and number of players.)
The author must take care that any particular branch of the rail doesn't ruin the story for the player.
The player quickly learns that they can make a choice, and then backtrack if it's not one the like. In Choose-your-own-adventure(tm) books players will return to a previous page, while in games they load a saved game. (This is reduces immersion.)
An interactive experience requires a computer to be nearby; computers are relatively expensive. (Although the classic Choose-your-own-adventure(tm) books made an attempt without a computer.)

Step 1: Adding single-player interactivity to a rail game

Adding more interactivity to a rail game allows the player to take full control of a character in the author's world, instead of just occasional control. Of course, due to technological and simulated limitations, players never have complete control of their characters.

Most "computer games" fall under this category.

Advantages of interactivity

Disadvantages of interactivity

If an outcome is predictable, choices allow the user to tailor their experience to their mood. (Example: If a PC wanders into a dungeon, they know they will meet monsters and be able to take out their aggressions. If they stay in town for the day they know they will be safe and can go shopping.)
Interactive worlds allow users to experience the ramifications of their choices in relative safety. (Example: Grand Theft Auto lets people become car thieves without risking the jail sentences. Some games allow the player a choice between being good or evil, and tailor the game accordingly.)
Choices allow the player to overcome obstacles or change the world, which provides a sense of accomplishment that can't be gotten from stories. (Note: This feeling is magnified in a world where other players experience the same world.)

Linear narratives (stories) and rail games are completely controllable, allowing authors to build plots that are elegant, perfectly paced, and highly enjoyable, but which would collapse if a player were allowed to interact with the world in significant ways. Stories can still exist in an interactive environment, but they area a pale shadow of what can be produced in non-interactive fiction. The more story that the author imposes, the less interaction there is.
If the players aren't given as many choices as they think they should have, or if the UI to select the choice is obtuse, the players may get annoyed and stop playing.
If a choice results in both a negative and illogical outcome, players may get annoyed and stop playing. (A similar effect holds true for stories, but it is more pronounced in an interactive entertainment since inconsistencies can't be explained away as a stupid action on the part of the author-controlled character.)
Corollary: The author cannot produce a system that will allow users to do everything they wish to. An interactive system will always provide some frustration caused by the lack of character control.
Adding interactivity makes content creation, including as graphics and animation, more difficult and expensive. An animated movie is expensive; an interactive fiction with animation as good as an animated movie is impossible.
Time must be linear, although not necessarily constant... The author cannot know the future in an interactive world.

Step 1b: Adding a sustained Internet connection

To produce a multi-player game, we need to add an internet connection to a single player game. Single-player Internet games do not exist (except in rare circumstances) because players don't get any benefit from the combination. Therefore, the configuration is unstable.

However, separating the addition of Internet from adding more players makes things a bit clearer.

Advantages of a sustained Internet connection

Disadvantages of a sustained Internet connection

The author can watch players play, and fine-tune the experience better. (Although a large beta would allow for this too.)
Players can "download" expansions without having to visit the store, or even consciously install them. (They don't need to be connected to the Internet all the time to do this.)
Staggered downloads allow the players begin play without downloading the entire game. (Could be done without a sustained connection, but the connection helps.)
The author can change the world on-the-fly without the player knowing. (Again, this doesn't really require a sustained connection, although the connection helps.)
Corollary: The author (or one of his minions) can fill in for poor computer AI, or perhaps create new content on the spot.
Allows multiple players to play the same game. (See below.)
Significantly reduced piracy... which is good for the author, at least.

Internet connections are slow and unreliable.
Internet connections are expensive to maintain, and the software is more expensive to develop.

Step 2: Supporting 10 players in one world

The next step in the story-to-VW spectrum is to support a small group of players (approximately 10) in a world. Being such a small group, they'll know one another well, probably in the real world too.

Neverwinter Nights is a CRPG that supports small groups of players. Face-to-face RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons are also based upon a small number of players.

Advantages of 10 players

Disadvantages of 10 players

Bleedthrough: Interactions with PCs (directly or indirectly) are more meaningful because real people are being affected on the other side. Making a PC happy is different than making a NPC happy.
Players choose their own character, instead of the author choosing the player's character to fit the story.
Can play with friends (or strangers).
Strangers (or friends) make more clever opponents than does computer AI. (This extra challenge improves immersion.)
Players can experience other facets of people as they play in the world... just as people's personalities differ when they're on holiday vs. at work.
Players begin using the world as a place to meet and socialise, not necessarily play.
Sub-games, like chess or capture the flag, are possible, although they are much better handled in worlds with more players.
Good size for a group of friends to get together and play.
A storyteller (classic D&D dungeon master) can provide a personalised touch to the experience.

Bleedthrough: Interactions with PCs (directly or indirectly) are more meaningful because real people are being affected on the other side. Killing a PC is different than killing a NPC.
If the players can all connect at the same time every week, the world can change as the players progress through the game. However, if players come and go then having the world change based on the player's actions becomes much more difficult. (The second case is more likely.)
A story is much more difficult to handle, not only because the players may go in different directions, but cut-scenes (important for conveying story) are awkward with so many people playing. (For example: What if one of the players isn't in the right place to see the cut-scene.)
10 players consume content more quickly than 1 player.
While a PC can use a spell/skill to read the minds of NPCs, he/she can't read the minds of other users.
The flow of time must be constant, unless all the players agree to the change.
Due to Internet transmission lag, twitch games with multiple players are not possible.

10-player games can be designed so they can be experienced in single-player mode, although the content design is then torn between a single-player and a team-oriented experience.

Step 3: Supporting 1000 players in one world

If the number of players is increased to 1000, the dynamics of the game changes dramatically. The world changes from a cozy outing with friends into a world populated by mostly strangers, some of them enemies.

Advantages of 1000's of players

Disadvantages 1000's of players

A world filled with 1000's of players is much less predictable (and in many ways more interesting) than one filled with only a few players.
1000-player virtual worlds tend not to have an official ending, although players eventually get bored and leave.
Players (alpha-(fe)males) can try to gain power over other players.
Rather than limited the player to a single objective, they are given a range of objectives: Such as be the strongest, wealthiest, most-knowledgable, etc. Objectives competing against other players tend to work the best. The objects are more tailored to fit the world than vice versa.
Meet new people.
The experience becomes a long-term one (sometimes years) where players get to know and participate in the community.
Players join large groups (guilds) that often compete against one another.
Players interacting with one another provide much of their own entertainment. The author's spends a lot of time managing the rules that allow the players to interact.
To some players, changing the world is an important achievement because the changes affect 1000's of other players.
Anonymity is possible.
Corollary: Players can "try on" different personalities and see how other players react to the new personalities. (This gets back to choices available in an interactive world.)
Players can sit back and watch others play. (Are we back to a linear narrative in this case?)
The experience is large enough and long enough that sub-games fit in well.
Sub-games that require 1000's of players are now possible. These include economics, politics, and warfare.
Because there are so many players acting as opponents to one another, good NPC AI isn't as necessary.
Virtual worlds targeted at special interest groups (like role players) will be about this size (100 - 10K simultaneous players).

A world filled with 1000's of players is much less predictable then one filled with only a few players.
1000-player virtual worlds tend not to have an official ending, although players eventually get bored and leave.
Players (alpha-(fe)males) can try to gain power over other players.
The world is too large for a single objective.
Other players cannot be controlled by the author; as a result they often bring the real world into the virtual one, and ruin the immersion for other players.
While the author's goal is to provide every player with an enjoyable experience, players have their own motivations, often conflicting with other players' enjoyment.
Virtual worlds with 1000's of players can't be started, stopped, paused, or be rewound by the player.
Corollary: Virtual worlds with 1000's of players are more dangerous than a world with a few players. (For all the above reasons.)
With 1000's of players, only a few of them can be the hero. An exponential curve for wealth distribution, power, etc. develops.
Corollary: Only a handful of players will be powerful enough to change the world. The rest must accept what they're given or work as a group.
Providing a handful of storytellers whose job it is to add a personalise touch to the world is possible, but made difficult by the likelihood of them getting in each others way.
The world must be larger so people don't feel crowded together.
If there's a bug, a player will find and exploit it at the expense of other players, making testing more critical (and expensive).
The combined brainpower of 1000's of players is much larger than the authoring team's handful of brains.
Small businesses use exploits (or low-cost employees) to play the boring parts of the game for players. (Example: Everquest items and characters sold on E-Bay.)
The flow of time is constant.

1000-player virtual worlds can include design elements intended for single-player or team-playing, but these are never as strong as a design specifically for single-player or team-playing.

However, with "private regions" and other insulating techniques, it is possible to make 10-player worlds, single-player worlds, and pure stories within the larger 1000-player virtual world. At that point, does the large virtual world become merely a way to access the private regions?

Step 4: Supporting 1,000,000 players in one world

Increasing the number of players to 1,000,000 produces further ramifications, only a few of which can be guessed, since no virtual world is even close to 1M simultaneous players. This section is almost pure speculation.

Advantages of 1M of players

Disadvantages 1M of players

Large VW's will be the domain of the largest corporations.
Players provide their own content. The better content comes from business that exist selling products/services in the virtual world for real-world money. (For example: A business might have a host-a-murder service they sell that involves a group of VW players in a murder mystery.)
The VW authors are no longer interested in content, but in providing a platform that allows the smaller businesses to operate and thrive in their virtual world.
The virtual world physics-layer is genre independent.
Corollary: Several genres are bundled into one product, just like cable channels come bundled together.
Economy, politics, and warfare should work best in large worlds.

The cycle goes full circle. While a different world is created, a virtual world populated with 1M players has some of the same systemic problems as the real world. As a result, the larger virtual world needs smaller sub-worlds, geared towards 1, 10, and 1000 players.
While it's possible to have sub-worlds geared towards 1, 10, or 1000 players, their scope is (usually) limited by the physics of the 1M player world, and their effects cannot contradict what's happening in the 1M player world.
Only a handful of 1M+ virtual world platforms will exist.
The virtual world must be huge.
Role playing is non-existent. The real world seeps in at all points.
Do 1M-player virtual worlds have wars? Will real-world conflicts (such as Israel vs. Palestinians) filter into virtual worlds?
A virtual legal system is needed in the virtual world to arbitrate disputes.
Storytellers need to work on a large scale, personalising experiences for guilds rather than individual players. Alternatively, the storytellers need to isolate individual players in sub-worlds.

Sub-worlds

Because a world designed for N players has flaws, designers will inevitably design in sub-worlds to handle smaller groups of players. These sub-worlds can take two forms: Those weakly separated from the main world, and those strongly separated.

A weakly separated sub-world allows uninvited players to enter. Quests, for example, are weakly separated sub-worlds since the quest is a "sub-world" targeted at 1-10 players; only they can "complete" the quest. However, the quest takes place in the same world as all the other players.

A strongly separated sub-world only allows invited players to enter. Private regions/dungeons provide for this. 1-10 players get together and have a private area of the world create. Only they can enter it. Once there, they are separate from the rest of the world.

Conclusion

The transition from a linear narrative to a full-blown virtual world is an interesting one. Each stage of the cycle is different enough from the others to allow for a unique experience.

I have made a small Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that graphically displays what each "step" is best at handling. It's in VirtualWorldSpectrum.xls. Of course, the numbers are only guesstimates. The important information in the graphs are the trends; some world sizes are better for some types of experience.