Raph's Website » What goes in a worldy game?

blog · games · writing · music · art · shop · about Raph · contact

What goes in a worldy game?

October 13th, 2006 (Visited 4478 times) Tags:

Thought I’d reverse the usual pattern of me making pronouncements from on high and instead ask you questions.

What are the core elements that people see as fundamental to making a game a “worldy” one?

Off the top of my head, I can think of some things:

It doesn’t tend to lock people into one class or profession.
It would offer truly parallel play experiences for different roles.
It would have a player-driven economy as much as possible.
Housing would definitely be a key feature.
Probably strives towards player governance in some fashion.

What else?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

72 Responses to “What goes in a worldy game?”

Jump to reader comments » | Leave a reply »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Faith wrote on October 13th, 2006 at 12:19 pm:

[...] Comments [...]

Game Development News daily updated. 01play.net wrote on October 13th, 2006 at 9:06 pm:

[...] Raph’s Website » What goes in a worldy game? [...]

mmPlay - Was macht �Worldy� aus? wrote on October 14th, 2006 at 10:34 am:

[...] Wenn Raph Koster von "Worldy" spricht, meint er damit ein MMORPG, das im Ansatz das genaue Gegenteil von z.B. Dungeon & Dragons Online ist. (Ja, auch Guild Wars ist das Gegenteil von Worldy) "Worldy" heisst, der Spieler soll den Eindruck haben in einer m�glichst lebenden, atmenden Fantasy Welt zu sein. Ansonsten war seine Frage ja gerade was die Spieler unter einem solchen "Worldy" MMORPG verstehen und was genau diese Atmosph�re f�r sie ausmacht. Wobei man �brigens nicht vergessen sollte, dass Raph gerade am Design eines neuen MMO unter eigener Flagge sitzt Frosty geht in seiner Frage jetzt noch einen Schritt weiter und will wissen, in fern dieser "Worldy" Ansatz denn nun im Einzelnen positiv oder negativ f�r euch ist. Hier ist �brigens das Thema bei Raph Koster, auf das sich Frosty bezieht: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/10/1…-a-worldy-game/ 150)?150:this.scrollHeight)”> __________________ The tools suck! — Raph Koster Ge�ndert von Papillon (Heute um 19:21 Uhr). [...]

mmPlay - Was macht �Worldy� aus? wrote on October 14th, 2006 at 3:25 pm:

WorldIV » What goes in a worldy game? wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 9:22 am:

[...] Raph Koster (of UO and SWG fame) asks the question: “What goes in a worldy game?” Assuming you’re a fan of worldy MMORPG’s, head on over and add your several cents. Who knows, maybe someone will build it. [...]

NotAddicted.com - Merely Average wrote on June 14th, 2007 at 2:35 am:

[...] RPG – at least the leveling part. World of Warcraft as a whole isn’t as much of a MMORPG compared to the competition that it’s destroying in the marketplace, for reasons like,No player housingNo player [...]

Reader Comments

StGabe said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:15 am:
* Narrative emerges from game mechanics and player activities instead of being determined by pre-scripted plot structures and developer activities.
I think that really sums it up for me. Markets, open-ended up character customization, community features, parallel play, housing, player-created content, etc., are all just ways to try to push the narrative into the hands of the players wit hgame mechanics instead of trying to fake it with scripts.
Craig Huber said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:37 am:
Some basic top-o’-the-cranium points…
The setting is probably going to need to be large, and with little to no instancing, and possibly not even utilizing zones.
By way of explanation: hitting a zone boundary always reminds me that I’m “on a stage”, not “exploring a world”… and I always end up obsessing about what might be “behind” the backdrops. I actually got a bit giddy in the early days of AO because it was occasionally possible due to zoning failures to move beyond the zoning areas and essentially get “behind the boundaries”, even walk off the edges.
Not sure if others would necessarily agree, but I do think that a fully or at least largely contiguous geography/setting (no zones, no instancing) is often an expected feature of a “worldy” game.
Far less focus on physical combat
Goes hand-in-hand with the initial “parallel play” bullet point, I suppose. Mr. Schubert’s excellent AGC presentation notwithstanding, I think worldy games are generally expected to be far less combat-focussed. Note: This is not a result of not appreciating the advantages of combat as a play activity, but rather a side effect of raising other activities to a similar level of acceptance… i.e. combat is less of a focus simply because there _are_ other things to do.
The PvP conundrum
Is the possibility of PvP a general requirement of a “worldy game”? I really don’t know: my own answer to that depends upon my mood at that moment in time. I guess I generally think of worldy games as having fewer “boundaries”, fewer situations where the answer to why you cannot do something is “because we (the developer) said you can’t.”
To put it another way, it has always seemed to me that in a “worldy game” the boundaries are based more on what you could logically do if the real world worked under the same physical laws and principles, as opposed to boundaries based on “what makes the game mechanics and design work.”
More later…
Chris Carella said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:39 am:
Friends/IM:
The ability to makes friends and use buddy lists in a very usable way. You should be able to hold multiple IM conversations with friends throughout the world regardless of what you are doing.
Guilds/Groups:
The player should be capable of associating with multiple groups.
Tide said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:41 am:
probably would need to have a player-driven end-game as well. Where the provider offers some background narrative with rewards/constraints, but the players decide for themselves what they want to compete over. So, like Eve, competition for systems, like in SWG for bases. Also, the competition has to be recorded and have some impact. So the “end game” has some persistent (if temporary) affect on the world.
Allen Sligar said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am:
Skill based system, classes do suck
Player driven political/social interaction, that should have an impact on
the actual game world
PVP that has an impact on the player driven political/social world and economy
Supply/Demand function as it relates to resources and crafting
No Alpha class that has a disproportionate power differential
Community building functions that support in/out of game interations
RMT that does not disproportionately or negatively effect those who cannot participate in RMT-a system that forecloses gold farming
Tools to allow for player driven events, as well as developer sponsored events
A real ecology with cause and effect consequences
System that allows for casual and powergamer enjoyment
System that allows for large and small guild impact.
Housing of course, ships definately, player cities, baronies, citistates,
kingdoms-Political influnece could be aggregated by concentration of players, quests, and voting mechanisims, this would allow for organic growth and organization by the player base.
Allowing for open PVP that does not result in griefing.
Crafting-the best items should always be player made, unless of legendary quality…
Just a few observations
Allen Sligar said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:07 am:
Oh, as to ecology & organic development:
Guns, Germs and Steel, Wurm, etc.
Do this let the players naturally “evolve” the world, give them rudimentary tools, let them advance forward using some kind of “logic tree” development (ATITD) and thier own efforts. Perhaps the world only consists of 2 major cities, and a lot of small villages.
I’d love to see a game where there are no “newbie” starting areas, a game that randomly drops players near small villages, and lets them organically form into tribes and communities then expand outward and explore the world as they advance, this would be an awesome way to build player community and connections. To overcome complaints of randomness and players already organized by guild structures you could allow for a specific spawn point if the player so chooses.
Allow the formation of guilds prior to entrance into the game. That way people can communicate and coordinate immidiately upon entry into the game.
Trucegore said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:44 am:
Options.
Tools.
Dotswarlock said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:53 am:
That is an interesting question. If we define a “worldly” game as one that has a very wide audience and concepts that can be applied to most people regardless of culture then here is what I can come up with:
- Combat mechanics: easy to get into but hard to master. Basically the interface and commands should allow a user to understand how to hit the first rat/spider that he comes across without reading the manual for a few hours. The hard to master part is to offer many options that can if properly combined together increase combat effectiveness.
- Combat customization: a user should on a level or another have options to determine his fighting style: skill based (original SWG), talent based (current WoW) or something else. Static templates quickly bring boredom.
- Combat customization guide lines: *If* the system allows a user to pick a really ineffective template then the official game site should post a few guides on possible templates. If possible those would be user made through a contest or something or maybe general voting using forum coding. We had to spent 3 months during the CU of SWG posting guides on my server’s forum to get people out of their *the team with more Jedi wins* mentality (proper templates could create normal *Jedi emulation* templates using melee classes). It worked and the pvp level of our server increased a lot through the efforts of many.
- Game balance: I know it’s hard to make it happen but the game should try to reward equally templates, player skill, equipment and team work. All of these should contribute but none should assure a victory (team work should allow to kill the ones with the best gear, etc).
- Avoid game breaking items or mechanics: instant kill weapons, invincible armor, infinite health… let’s try to avoid those.
- Meaningful pvp objectives and associated rewards: pvp type rewards should be given for participating in pvp activities (keeping in mind that the rewards should never tip the balance too far out).
There’s a lot more to MMOs then pvp but I wanted to touch that part first and I’m out of time at the moment, heh. I’ll post some more later
covert.c. said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:53 am:
A “worldly” game has interaction with that world, a factor glaringly missing from every multiplayer world game in existence.
Cut down a tree, or conversely, plant one.
Destroy an object or structure, or repair it.
Kill a monster, and it stays dead (perhaps replaced with a bigger, meaner one).
Drop an item, and someone else can pick it up.
Patrick said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am:
* Narrative emerges from game mechanics and player activities instead of being determined by pre-scripted plot structures and developer activities.
Thats a good quality, but you’ll likely see that refined in single played games produced at much lower budgets than your typical MMO, before you see it in virtual worlds. I mean, technically WoW raids and aTitD follow that, but its a relatively crude narrative.
Heh, always like an excuse to flog the narrative horse.
DavidTQ said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm:
1) A world with a REAL sense of scale, not a village passed off as a world. This seems to me a major limitation of so many games, I am a big space fan. I would love to see a galaxy of genuinely galactic proportions,
Cant be done due to system resources? I dont actually believe that to be the case. Back in the days when I first started gaming there was Elite which 32k of memory held 2,000 systems worth of data running on a 2 mhz processor, and incorporate 3d graphics.
The technique they used was based on a Fibonacci sequence, and allowed a Galaxy to “grow itself” Couldnt any world be generated in a similiar manner, using seed numbers and rules sets calculated off a coordinates or some other stats, at any time any two players in the same place will see the same landscape, and will see the same landscape everytime they visit the same place. but without having to actually store the data for that location anywhere, You get a persistant world without storing a worlds worth of data. Its easy enough after a world of “real” proportions has been built to create population hotspots in certain areas, starting locations etc. I dont see why mathematically it wouldnt be possible to create changes to this world by applying maths and altering the seed or equation to include newly built structures etc. Surely Maths is what a computer processor is meant for and back tracking and resetting a mathematical equation should be easy enough to do?
Building on scope you would also need a real feeling of “bustle” a population in heavy population areas, not 20 npcs, 1000′s all busy in their daily lives, Again these do not need to be stored as a full data set, again they can be generate by calculations based on a seed, so every one sees the same thing at the same place at the same time, a simple inclusion of a real world time at the right place in a calculation will ensure you never see the exact same scene twice.
I think you need noise and babble and hustle, in a city centre, and vast wide expanses of worlds where perhaps no one has been before or will be after. Quests? missions? Well have a thousand preset mission types and let the maths apply them to npcs, in such a procedural world with a time based part of the equation the missions will never “sit still” there can be no farming when that npc may walk off home and never be at the same place again. 90% of the npcs may want nothing to do with you but to get on with their business, some may have been given “aggressive” personalities by the maths, perhaps a part of the numbers that create this npc will also control attire or facial expression to show this aggressiveness. This sort of procedural NPC generation leads to an endless world full of opportunity which is always fresh, these quests could send you to any part of the huge world, ensuring a constantly “new” experience.
With a world procedurally generated like this, would it be possible to not have loading times between areas? to flow naturally though the maths sequence generating the world around you.
With dual core procesors arriving, set one core aside with that immense amount of processing power to do this procedural world building client side, raw maths like this shouldnt be a problem. whilst the server side holds the seeds and formulas for the client to process.
Im not sure but perhaps even buildings can be created like this setting rules for what “must” happen, but allow whole cities and buildings to be grown by themselves without deliberate and individual design.
2) Environment interaction, Why cant I pick up that stick? Why cant I open that door, Why cant I jump over this fence? I want to be able to do in game what I could do in real life, If I see a tree why cant I climb it, it may not serve ANY advantage, but if theres an object there it should be more than a void zone. If I run ful tilt into a tree I should be falling backwards not running on the spot. If I drive a big enough vehicle into that tree maybe it should fall over? If I cause criminal damage in a populated area, perhaps the npc police will be arriving? Perhaps my toon will be locked up for 48 hours in a prison people can actually see. perhaps my actions wont be noticed and I will get away aving left my mark. Kill an npc? Well I should be able to pick up anything they are holding or wearing. Maybe it will be damaged? But it should “feel” real, it should be explainable. Were they using a souble headed axe? I should be able to pick that up. Were they wearing a fluffy pink jumper, Well I should be able to take that, although it maybe damaged beyond use .
3)an exconomy where you need to work to eat and eat to work. Sure for the casual player there will perhaps be cheap dwellings in the city tower blocks, Living on the basics will cost next to nothing, but for the serious gamers perhaps they want a larger apartment with a view? an individual place in the country, Well let them, but let that extra dimension cost them an amount that actually necesitates serious game time. If you want to live in a mansion thats great but it might mean 16 hours a day of “work”. Perhaps there may be far flung locations of unclaimed lands that you might discover where youd want to set up your home? it might be cheap but it might be a long way from civilisation In order for a economy to work there needs to be a living cost, its what gives value to the in game currency, the game gives and the game takes away. Perhaps an income tax . People should become “millionaires” but it should never be the case that most of the population are.
4) Talents \ character developoment, avatar “stat modifiers” should not have the biggest impact on gaming experience, a players understanding and proficiency at various parts of the game should be the only deciding factor, systems need to be built to encourage people to jump though hoops to learn systems, the only limits on a avatars “skills” should be what the player has learnt to achieve. Why are we still playing top trumps? Is it not possible to give a genuine feeling of learning to a avatar developments, Instead of xp grinding, you are problem solving memorising etc, your limitations in game should be like in life, based on your time effort and aptitude.
5) society, interaction, grouping, It must be necesary to group up for a lot of activities, no man is an island. In real life are any of us trully independant? Perhaps its the challenge of the environment, perhaps its the gaining of new knowledge. Perhaps it asking favours? there should be some activities that are solo pursuits, Heck I might want to go sight seeing by myself, I might want to go about this bit of DIY around the house by myself. Tasks that require grouping should be logical should be obvious and shouldnt be overly contrived with “just so” stories and stat modifiers.
Tarek said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:15 pm:
Interaction between NPCs and mobs that are not player-driven.
The old ‘ecology’ AI of Star Wars: Galaxies was the example of this, and so far as I have seen was the only example of this.
I have not seen anything like it in any other game, though some of the npc mobs in City of Villains do act like this in a less dynamic and realistic way.
Creatures not only fought each other, some would stalk ‘favored’ prey (and player characters, too!). Some would hunt in packs. Some ill-tempered ‘herbivores’ would actually go and attack nearby ‘predators’ preemptively.
When this went away to save processor cycles so that particle effects could be added, much of the ‘real world’ feeling of SW:G went away with it.
Tholal said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:30 pm:
I think it can be summed up with two basic concepts:
1) Players can have a permanent effect on the world.
2) The world can alter and change without any player interaction.
Kohs said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:34 pm:
look at those comments fly!
Options.
Tools.
that has to be the best one so far. distilled down to it’s core and right on the money.
Narrative emerges from game mechanics and player activities instead of being determined by pre-scripted plot structures and developer activities.
also a good one.
and the suggestions you made, Raph, are spot on too.
the only thing i can add is that a “Worldy game” needs a cohesive context.
something Second Life lacks. which is why i don’t consider it a “Worldy game”.
Ryan said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:41 pm:
Worldy games focus more on evoking different feelings.
Character-centric games focus on evoking the feeling of success and advancement. They focus on overcoming obstacles and defeating goals.
World-centric games focus on creating and satisfying curiosity, creating relationships between player’s expectations of worlds and the world the player sees (usually players want to see something that they can identify with, but still be amazed by), and creating feelings of discovery.
MikeRozak said on October 13th, 2006 at 12:44 pm:
1) What do worldly-world players really want, at a subconscious level? Sure they want houses and to be able to cut down trees, but why?
2) As worldly-world players strive for and achieve their subconscious desires, you’ll find that Player A’s desires conflict with Player B’s desires. To solve this, you need a conflict minimization system (and/or desire maximization system), as well as means to determine who “wins out” in a conflict (as well has how).
3) You need to produce a stable ecosystem of players. Too many players with desire X and not enough with desire Y, and your ecology could collapse, and your game fade into obscurity. (Which also implies the need for ecosystem monitoring/balancing tools.)
David (Tal) said on October 13th, 2006 at 1:01 pm:
I think we tend to focus too much on mechanics and not enough on what people actually do within the game. In truth, what makes a game worldly isn’t whether it has a class system or a skill system, or whether it uses instancing or zoning – at the end of the day, it’s adding tools, features, and content (yes, content) to help give the game world a more permanent feeling, and that allow players to feel like they are having an impact and are part of something bigger than themselves. It’s all about making the game feel like a living, breathing world, rather than a collection of avatars all running around killing monsters and chatting or whatever.
Even a game with 3 very simple classes (fighter, mage, thief) could qualify as a virtual world if the players are able to make it their own and truly have an impact.
What this means is providing support for players to organize, create, and interact as much as possible.
Here is something I wrote for an MMORPG design I have been tinkering with for a couple of years now. My game, which may never ever see the light of day (particulary since I’m not working in the industry at the moment) would be considered a swords and sorcery MMORPG (although with a unique setting). I think it serves a good example of what I think a “worldly” game is:
————————————————————–
I’m of the firm opinion that what makes or breaks a game is content. If you don’t have enough content, then no one sticks around to play long enough to really get the cooler metagames going. So first and foremost, the game needs content.
To my mind, there are three levels of content: Solo, Group, and Guild. Solo content are things that someone can do on their own. Group content is things you might team up with someone for. And Guild content is things that you would want a guild to enable you to do. There’s actually a fourth level, which I’ll call Alliance content, but at that point you’re better off just building robust metagames that allow multiple guilds (or whatever organizations you have) to work together for common goals if they so choose.
So, here’s some examples of what that content would be:
Solo – individual quests, and free-form hunting in the wilderness. I envision about half of all quests being solo endeavours.
Group – quests, free-form hunting, and “dungeons”. I’m a firm believer that no one should be able to tackle a true “dungeon” alone. A “dungeon” is defined as an area that exists, usually in conjunction with one or more quests, that provides a set of encounters for players to overcome in close proximity to one another.
Guild – warfare, territorial control, some quests, and some dungeons. Obviously there should be traditional dungeons and quests that are epic in scope and span the game world, requiring guilds to work together for their members to achieve them. But there should also be other combat reasons to be part of a guild. The various cities and nations that players will encounter aren’t always peaceful, and player guilds could take up arms in the name of one side or another. They could attempt to stake their own claim in the wilderness and defend it against all comers.
Of course, content isn’t all about combat, so here’s what I see for noncombat content as well:
Solo – crafting, building a home, running a shop or a tavern.
Group – Regional trade
Guild – Inter-regional trading, building fortresses and towns.
Wow so that’s a lot huh? Here’s a little bit more about the metagame vision.
Individual players have the choice to join one of the NPC city-states or tribes. Doing so would allow them to purchase housing or set up a shop in that city-state or tribal settlement. It also gives them the ability to participate in warfare (both PvE and PvP) on behalf of that city-state or tribal settlement and earn rewards based on their performance.
Individual players also have the ability to go out into the wilderness. Throughout the world there will be areas where players can build small houses, taverns or shops outside of any settlements. If you want to have an inn in the middle of nowhere, you’ll be able to.
Groups of players can cooperate in these endeavours, but it’s at the guild level that more options open up for you.
Every city-state and tribe maintains several fortresses. Control of these fortresses is awarded to individual guilds or alliances based on the favor that the guild or alliance holds with the leadership of the city-state or tribe. What this means is that if your guild (or alliance) is highly favored, you may be granted a fortress to control.
At the start of the game fortresses are not in great shape – they are litte more than partial walls with little in the way of actual facilities or defenses. The controlling guild or alliance is expected to improve their fortress by building structures and defenses and employing NPC workers and troops. So, for example, if a guild is granted control of a fortress, they might construct a barracks, which grants them additional squads of NPC troops to help defend it. They might build a forge, which causes the NPC troops to be better equipped. And they might work on strengthening the walls, granting them additional siege defenses.
The key thing to remember here is that fortresses can come under attack and everything that can be built or added can be destroyed. So if your fortress comes under attack and is damaged, you would then have to work on rebuilding it. Obviously having good defenses helps prevent or mitigate the damage.
Fortresses serve another purpose, and that’s as a mechanism for the warfare system. Wars are won by attacking and destroying the other side’s fortresses in order to force a surrender or peace treaty. Occasionally, depending on relations, two cities or tribes may go to war. When that happens, NPC armies will form and begin marching on enemy fortresses. Players may of course assist in the attack or defense. Players and guilds who successfully bring down an enemy fortress, or who successfully defend an allied fortress, will gain significant favor with their city or tribe.
So why are fortresses important in the first place? Resource control. Hunting grounds, mines, quarries, and so on are guarded by fortresses. The bigger the fortress, the easier it is for the city or tribe it’s affiliated with to gather those resources, and this directly benefits the residents of that city or tribe by allowing access to more goods and services. For example, if a city’s fortress guarding the western woods is at a sufficient level, hardwood becomes available as a trade good, which can be exported by enterprising players to other cities and tribes and sold for profit. Guilds can even organize trade caravans to distant lands. Likewise, the more available resources are, and the more money a city or tribe has, the more services one can find within. Advanced training, higher quality merchandise, and so on.
So what about the guild or alliance that wants to stake their own claim on the world and not be aligned with an NPC city or tribe? They have options too.
Each region of the world has several areas where ancient settlements once existed. Long abandoned, these areas have yet to be reclaimed. An enterprising guild or alliance could venture out to one of these areas and begin to rebuild it.
Settlements function very much like fortresses but are primarily a PvE endeavour (at first anyway – warfare with other settlements or even NPC civilizations might be possible at a certain point). The heart of a settlement is the keep, which is basically a small castle/fortress. As the keep grows so too do the boundaries of the settlement and the territory it commands. Control of the territory means control of the resources, and players may create mines, farms, and hunting lodges in areas their settlement controls to gather those resources for trade.
Notice I keep talking about resources and trade. That’s the driver for everything. Wars are fought over trade and resource rights. Cities rise and fall based on it. Not every resource will be present in every area of the world. Your settlement may be rich in lumber but may need to import metal from somewhere else. That’s where the trade caravans come in. Every settlement, village, or city maintains a tally of resources they currently have access to. The counts will decay over time (as resources are used by the city, settlement, or village). If a resource is present in the territory that the city, settlement, or village controls, then the resource it automatically replenished to a certain level. However if the resource is not present in the territory, or if there’s not enough of it to maintain the level that residents would like, then the only way to raise the count is through trade caravans from other cities, tribes, or villages.
The price you pay for those goods in trade? Well, that’s determined by your relations. If metal is too expensive for your settlement to purchase in the quantity you desire, then you could pursue diplomatic, economic, or even military means of bringing that cost down.
There’s a lot more that I could say here but hopefully that outlines what the game would be beyond mere adventuring.
———————————————————————
JuJutsu said on October 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm:
The PvP conundrum
Is the possibility of PvP a general requirement of a “worldy game”? I really don’t know: my own answer to that depends upon my mood at that moment in time. I guess I generally think of worldy games as having fewer “boundaries”, fewer situations where the answer to why you cannot do something is “because we (the developer) said you can’t.”
This is a big conundrum for me. If PvP at both the level of individuals and groups isn’t handled well, It won’t be a worldy game I want to spend time in let alone spend money on.
As worldly-world players strive for and achieve their subconscious desires, you’ll find that Player A’s desires conflict with Player B’s desires. To solve this, you need a conflict minimization system (and/or desire maximization system), as well as means to determine who “wins out” in a conflict (as well has how).
Yup.
Kev R. said on October 13th, 2006 at 1:35 pm:
1) Competing for “stuff”….doesn’t have to be loot.
I was always displaying my gear in my SWG house, even the well crafted stuff. I was fortunate enough to be on the same server as, and be friends with, the SWG Weaponsmith Correspondent. I displayed her insanely good weapons in my armoury room with pride! It’s not the fact that you looted it that makes it good, it’s the fact that it’s so rare that other players are jealous of it. Look at people’s bios in EVE….this effect has even extended to listing the most damage they have achieved with their ship setup. I know many SWG players whose aim in life was to get that almost unattainable 125 badges, never mind jedi
2) Make it viable for the solo player as well as the group.
WOW’s downfall in the end will be the fact that people get hacked off with requiring a group almost 100% of the time to be effective once they hit 60. I know of about 30 people personally who played WOW; about 25 of them left at 60 (myself included) because they couldn’t be bothered to hang around Ironforge all day hoping for a decent PuG
3) Expand on player chosen goal options.
A classic example of this is EVE. I tell all new players that when they login for the first time, imagine that it’s already the “endgame” as in other MMO’s – no grinding, just choosing what goals they want to achieve. EVE’s massive but simple structure allows a great deal of free reign for players to do what they like, and no two players are ever exactly the same. Nothing makes for an immersive persistant world like knowing that you are the only “you” in the game
Tholal said on October 13th, 2006 at 1:37 pm:
I think focusing on minimizing conflict is the wrong way to go when attempting to create a meaningful world. Without conflict, all you have is a sanitized amusement ride.
BadMisterFrosty said on October 13th, 2006 at 1:57 pm:
* Its persistent.
* Ultimately, is driven by players actions.
* It has a strong colonialisation aspect.
* Is non-linear, non-directional.
JuJutsu said on October 13th, 2006 at 2:24 pm:
I think focusing on minimizing conflict is the wrong way to go when attempting to create a meaningful world. Without conflict, all you have is a sanitized amusement ride.
This is pretty much a sidetrack so I won’t push it again after this but there are some fundamental conflicts between playstyles that have to be dealt with. If the ‘meaningful’ world gets its meaning from allowing Player A free reign in ‘roleplaying a homicidal maniac’ while Player B who wants to bake bread is forced into ‘roleplaying the victim of a homicidal maniac’ I’ll take the sanitized amusement ride.
Here’s my suggestion for Raph: PvP has to include an outcasting system or equivalent.
Klingsor Grailhunter said on October 13th, 2006 at 2:31 pm:
My first reaction to the replies so far was “impressive – these are good ideas”, but then I realized I’m not sure what you mean by “worldly”. So I use your examples as a guide.
It all comes down to constraints and mechanics. At the top, what if a worldly game means:
players have as much choice as possible (but actions have consequences)
constraints are invisible to players (but exist to enforce the “world” as you define it)
it seems “realistic”, but players are offered a chance to move just a little beyond reality
With those maxims as a guideline, maybe they would be manifested as:
what players can “do” – either by action or creation – is based on the combination of some basic element. Not so atomic as the SL widget or whatever they call it, but granular enough that they can be combined in various ways. I’ll have to think of examples, but basically you constrain your world through the physics of these widgets. That may mean all right angles to buildings, or limits on regeneration, it all depends
remembering that a sense of purpose is less important than freedom to develop one. Do I have a sense of purpose in real life? Yes, and it wasn’t dictated to me in the opening credits. If the constraints of your “worldly” world create conditions evoking a response, player’s senses of purpose will develop just fine.
lots of responders have picked up on the ecology idea – I like it. Players may need wood, but there is not an infinite supply (nor, sadly, can farmbots hoard all of it either). While resources could regenerate over time, I like better the idea of physical remoteness; resource gatherers simply move further afield, with all the consequences of being far away from main gatherings of players. But whatever, players impact the world for both good and evil. You sure would need a large world, though
classes (rogue, shaman, whatever) don’t exist per se as much as manifestations of those aforementioned widgets do. A player could choose to learn skillsets that seem totally incongruous to us with current mindframes, but make sense to them and how they interact with the world (woodcarving warriors or whatever)
allow player’s creativity to thrive, but not at the expense of breaking character. This is why I despise SL; total incongruity in the game. Those invisible constraints need to enforce some theme or mindset – remember what happened to customized housing in UO?
some standardized way of preserving knowledge in-game. Maybe it could be allowing written volumes, but maybe you could allow people to learn a storytelling skill which allows them to remember large amounts of text (or recipes or whatever). I like libraries best, but maybe people would need to consult a player “bard” who has knowledge (stored systematically) that they need to create or quest or whatever?
a personal plea: keep instancing to a minimum. I’ve learned to live with it in WoW, but GW was too much – how’s that for a guideline?
that elusive balance of simplicity and complexity. People need a gentle learning curve so as not to be put off initially, but the real breakout game will be just like golf – eternally frustrating to master, but always beckoning, and a thousand different approaches to consider. Allow players to discover Ezekiel’s crystal spheres, but in a small manageable way
Oh, and gnomes. A world’s just gotta have lots of gnomes, right?
Klingsor Grailhunter said on October 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pm:
Hey Raph:
Apparently the HTML markup that appears in the preview doesn’t travel along with the finished product – I swear I used bulleted lists. I really do look like I’m babbling…
MikeRozak said on October 13th, 2006 at 2:54 pm:
Tholal wrote:
I think focusing on minimizing conflict is the wrong way to go when attempting to create a meaningful world. Without conflict, all you have is a sanitized amusement ride.
I’m using conflict in a slightly different sense:
The “conflict” and miminization I’m talking about is this: Some people want to be leaders. Some want to be followers. The game should help connect leaders up with followers, since they are mutually beneficial relationships. Conversely, if there are two leaders and two followers, the game should encourage one follower to group up with each leader, maximizing the “desire fulfullment” for all players. If the game encouraged one leader to get two followers, then the other would-be-leader would be follower-less and unhappy (and might leave the game). This is where conflict (my sense of the word) minimization comes in.
The mechanism for determining “who wins” comes into game when there are too many leaders for the number of followers, or vice versa. The game then needs a mechanism to determine which leader wins. The most common mechanisms used today are the grind (He who spends the most time whacking moles wins), real-money transfer (He who pays the most cash wins), player skill (He who is the best leader wins), luck, politics, take-your-turn, etc.
Some players are griefers/achievers and their “desire” is to either beat and/or be better than other players. Thus, their desire is for a competion, which means conflict (your meaning). Achievers are okay with mutually agreed-to conflict, such as sports. Griefers want non-agreed to conflict, such as muggings. Hooking up achievers with achievers is a no brainer since its mutually beneficial. However, griefers need to be hooked up with victims… and not too many people want to be victim.
Allen Sligar said on October 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pm:
JuJutsu-
“Here’s my suggestion for Raph: PvP has to include an outcasting system or equivalent.”
Spot on, just like UO, where uber guards in the cities prevented having the RP the victim of a dreadlord.
However out in the wilds? Well its always good to travel in groups….
Therefore the size of the NPC settlement: Village, Town, City, Capital, should correlate to guards strength and range. This would allow for things like player groups (and even strong individuals?), even small tribes/guilds to take over or influence things politically. Either by violent overthrow or settlement. This was one of the things DNL was onto that I thought wouldve worked well.
Example: Small group (10)of players forms a small guild/tribe, they finally get enough materials to build a few huts, they place them next to a NPC village, this allows them to “influence” the NPC village. Some skill set in the game allows the placers to effect the NPC’s faction, receptivity, and disposition toward this group, eventually the NPC’s are under thier control, for taxation, resource aquisition, and as source of quests (minor ones since this is only a village). In turn the players must protect the village, and foster its growth, build a small fortress, add villagers, crafting, run shops etc. This village, now a town, then a city grows in size, area, influence, becomes a hub for other players…and eventually…comes into conflict with similar player based “communities”.
Take this same example, except rather than the small player group “homesteading” the NPC city with huts nearby the group kills the village elder and his 5 guards with the same result. Except the skill set required to expand the player community is perhaps a “militarty leadership” skill set rather than a “political” one.
It just occurred to me that worldly may require, not one big world, uninstanced, but many many worlds to facilitate enough opprotunity for this type of growth….which means as the game develops you could get into interplanetary conflict….perhaps a cross between Spore/Stargate in a DIKU style?
Prokofy Neva said on October 13th, 2006 at 3:12 pm:
1. Private property rights, i.e. real estate, virtual land that can sell. If that’s too hard, at least houses where you can pick the style, i.e. rural, urban.
2. Activities that involve gathering stuff like mushrooms or berries, making stuff like jam, and growing stuff like flax (Sims Online, A Tale in the Desert).
3. Currency that cashes out to dollars and an upfront recognition that you allow people to sell the game currency.
4. No forced learning/skilling/levelling with groups — make groups an opt-in but allow solo skilling. Do not reward groups and group cooperation only; get rid of forced communism/socialism and allow individuals to shine.
5. Ability to move/fly around the world to explore and look at the amazing scenery and just chill or socialize without having to risk being killed in warfare, and no requirement to be forced into constant warfare and fighting to advance.
6. Pets that can be taught, trained, and can die if you don’t take care of them.
7. Animations that enable kiss, cuddle, pat on the shoulder, dance, etc. as in TSO.
8. No random nasties like the Sims fires in the kitchen, opt-in for that stuff only.
9. Trade and inventory storing.
10. What I do on my land/sim/city stays put and doesn’t change unless I or my group changes it, but outside scenery or public infrastructure that does change, i.e. sunrise/sunset, seasons, etc.
11. Meaningful jobs that produce game currency that can be traded for goods inworld or cashed out — the biggest challenge, as there are few jobs a game comany could conceive it needs from newbies, but these might include laying out roads/infrastructure, orientation help to other newbies, picking up trash, community policing, etc.
12. I’m sure I could think of lots more, I just would like a game that doesn’t force killing/warfare/death on you, at least not in the first few frames, that makes it op-in, and that also doesn’t force group collaboration on you. Socializing, without socialism.
Mike said on October 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm:
I’ll keep it short and sweet;
For me, it’s a virtual world when the game play isn’t directed content but is instead player created content.
Devs either give you tasks to do or they give you good tools and options to create your own tasks to do.
Think of it as the difference between coming up with a fanatsy world where people can create characters with an interesting backstory and coming up with a fanatsy story where people can create an avatar to experience it.
Prokofy Neva said on October 13th, 2006 at 4:23 pm:
Yes, I should have thought of that: I don’t want one of these ridiculously arcane and complex back stories. I hate opening up games and finding scenes of a planet in flames and a voice droning about the Ennui Clan that was forced to flee the Realm of Lassitude through the Valley of Torpor due to an evil Drone and now much face a harsh existence blah blah blah. Keep all that stuff. Instead, have the players make up the story as they go along. Sketch out only the barest of lines. It should be like those New Yorker cartoons that have a scene, and a contest where you make up the caption. Keep the scene low-rez.
Brew said on October 13th, 2006 at 5:04 pm:
Give us ‘reasons’ to achieve goals, and give us ‘tools’ to create content
Pvp without reason (benefits and perks) leads to boring play. At the same time, Pvp should have substantial deterrants available – both on a community level, and a personal leve (ie, community effects would include criminal status, banning from marketplaces and villages, territory/status loss, etc, while personal deterrants would be armor decay, cash/loot loss.)
Regional control is a great mechanic, if implemented with reasons to gain control.
Player based tools – this can affect the creative players and reward them in various manners –
- the often asked for player bounties system in swg
- an RP creation kit – give players the ability to fashion temporary NPC’s, with scripting, for use in quests, rp events, etc. Allow us to summon/create temporary buildings, objects, etc (which don’t function in the real game world- weapons, tokens, cash, etc)
Sonjaya’s Neutron-7 events in swg were an idea of what gamers CAN do without tool. Implementing character driven tools could really increase this kind of community creation ability.
And also, world affecting abilities, city building, regional controls, etc, storylines that fluctuate/change based on those factors
RMT/Economy stabilization – to KEEP economy from suffering, as well as to decrease the divide between players who support RMT and those who dont –
Create RMT allowed servers, a la station exchange, and then implement a hardline stance on outside RMT
on non RMT allowed server, implement a closed economy – items/loot/tradeables have a FIXED value, all trades done thru NPC vendors, with variable price caps/taxation based on product availability.
SWG’s resource harvesting/crafting system was brilliant, with true effects on the end products based on resource quality, player character builds, and in some ways player skill.
Brew said on October 13th, 2006 at 5:12 pm:
I have to say one more thing… single character per server in swg was much more effective at creating a solid character/player rep in the world than anything else.
I’d take it even further – 1 account per player only. (tracked thru ip address, credit card, registry files, etc) – allowing for families – ie multiple pcs from same location/card would be differentiated by the registry file on each individual pc- If multiple accounts are located on the same pc, they could only be logged in individually-no multi boxing-
this could never be 100% effective, as you have to accomodate multiplayer homes, but could go a long way to prevent RMT botting.
Give the players the ABILITY to do what they usually use multiple accounts for – (harvesting character, crafting characters, fighting characters) and crack down on the mechanics that were abused to get around the Single character per server limitations
Athela said on October 13th, 2006 at 6:02 pm:
Probably not what you had in mind but here is my list:
Plot: Story arc, background, quests, Ip or original storyline. Everything in the game should tie into and revolve around the plot in some way.
Character creation options: Face customization including options for all features, eyes, nose, mouth, hair (long hair! not in a braid or bun!), hair and eye color options, cosmetic options, body size options including height and weight. If there are different species they should be very different and have tons of ways to customize appearance.
Classes: if there are various classes, whatever they may be called, they should have very different roles, abilities, and functions solo and within groups.
Advancement: There need to be a variety of ways you can advance your character. It cannot be that the only viable method is following a particular quest string, or even only quests period as the way to move forward. Sometimes, you just want to explore or craft, or gather resources by shooting stuff. You have to able to break free of a set path.
Option for good and evil and other faction types. In order for the world to be more complex, there should be a choice between being good or evil. How this plays out can vary widely. There should also be some neutral/gray areas or other factional influences that will distinguish your character and their life in the world.
Setting: Time period and genre: Too many fantasy games for sure, but they could still distinguish themselves from one another by varying the time period they are set in. There is a huge body of science fiction literature, could someone please look at setting games in future times, other planets, or involve time travel!
World Size: Yes size does matter! If people are to spend alot of time in the world, then it needs to be large and varied and worthy of exploration.
Travel options: We all want to drive cool machines, ride amazing creature on land and in the air, move freely about the large world that has been built.
Instancing: Some things should be instanced, mostly group type stuff so some camping fiend can’t spoil things. Some instancing can be for mazes, puzzles, or such things that can be randomly reset for each user or group so it is a new experience each time.
Sandbox! Yes, make the world a big, open, explorable many optioned thing. Let those who wish a more predetermined path set out along quest sequences if they choose. Give people choices all along the way between being led by the snoot and doing what they want to do next.
Mail: make is easy and intuitive to send/receive mail. Make it simple to send to multiple players. Allow some sort of mail save feature that puts it in Notepad or someplace you can get to it out of game.
Bank: easy to use, includes storage.
Bazaar: system for buying on the spot or searching player vendors.
Player vendors: Different vendor options. Customizeable to look like player or other in game characters.
Group sizes: Small for regular groups, larger for raids, larger yet for social groups (entertainers).
Tutorial: Well defined tutorial area. Basics of chat, combat, social interaction, money and banking, User Interface should be covered.
Guild management: Guild lists, chat, halls, management of membership should be easy to use.
Resource management and collection: It isn’t all about the loot! There should be a deep crafting game that includes resource collection of many types, both hunted and mined. Both combatants and crafters should be involved in and interdependant.
Crafting game: This should involve being able to be a combatant or not. You should be able to create and customize a wide variety of useful and decorative objects. What a player makes should always be the best item available factoring in their skill level, resources used, and the requirements of the object.
Loot: I love loot! I want it to be decorative or useful to somebody though. No need to spend time or effort making pure crud dropping, we’re talking no brains, stomachs, glands or whatever, that I can’t use in a recipe or schematic or drop onto something to make it better or more attactive.
The Arts and Imagination: Entertainers should be in the world with the ability to dance, sing and compose. Artists should be able to paint and sell their creations. Writers should be able to author and sell their stories. There should be some version of a newspaper or other way of allowing events in information to be passed to the denizens of the world.
PVP: Consensual. Instanced or allowed in certain areas so there aren’t people clogging up the main game areas with their showboating and pissing contests. Competitive. Duels, fields of battle that require tactics, Capture the Flag, tournaments with leaderboards. Perhaps put versions of real world sports contests such as soccer in so that it fits with the world.
Solo vs Group: There should be both solo and group advancement and play options. There should be no required quests that you need to do with a group only that will keep you from advancing your character through the story or their skills. There should be other advantages to grouping–more money, more resources or loot collected, better chance at phat loot in a group, faster character advancement (xp gain) perhaps so it is desirable to group but not necessary.
Quests: Story arcs (static and monthly/serial); side quests that develop the story or give depth to a region/city/planet/area; repeatable killing quests that yield xp and resources or money; delivery quests that do not involve long distances or backtracking; race or profession specific quests; quests that allow you to solve a problem or piece together an item or puzzle. Quests that can be done solo and quests that need a group.
Player Housing and shops: Ack I can’t believe I left this out. One thing that will always bring me back to a game is the ability to have and decorate a home. It allows me to rest my weary traveler in a safe cozy spot, I can drop as decoration things I can use later or maybe not use as weaponry or armor but purely as decoration. Being able to move things around to suit myself is important too. I’m thinking of Oblivion where the houses are drop dead gorgeous, but dropping your loot in an appealing manner or moving stuff where you want it isn’t easy or possible. Still, I loved my Oblivion houses (restarted with a Mage).
Regarding shops, I love to craft and stock a vendor and know anytime someone logs in they can visit and buy things they need or want from my character’s stock. It makes the world more real and allows me to feel like I am contributing to the game world in a good way.
Rik said on October 13th, 2006 at 7:17 pm:
Seems to me a lot of us here are off-topic, listing things that would be good in a game or virtual world, but not really answering “What goes in a worldly game?”
I don’t think story needs to be removed, nor do I think NPCs need to be removed. They can both fit in the world, which needs at the very least a setting. I think it has more to do with
* Its persistent.
* Ultimately, is driven by players actions.
* Is non-linear, non-directional.
OK, so I didn’t we were all off topic.
I’d add
* everything an NPC can do that a player can’t pushes us further from worldly, and vice versa. Ditto for mobs.
* People should be able to do just about anything without creating a new character, but they might not be able to do it well to start.
* levels belong in games, not worlds
* Players need something to fight about, land, oil, wood, something needs to be short supply.
Ultimately everything we include to make it worldlier will increase player freedom and difficulty and create a chance of failure. I a player-made world, it’s easy to lose your shirt as a shop keeper, invest in being a crafter only to find out while the money is good you’d rather hunt, be on the wrong end of “player governance” or buy housing that’s either too expensive for you to maintain or the value of the property is not what you expected. (Location, location, location!) I think that’s a good thing, and I think players gravitate towards a game that gives them the risk of failure chance that they most enjoy.
Allen Sligar said on October 13th, 2006 at 7:51 pm:
Prokofy bring up something solid. And others have brought up crafting and detailed it from SWG, resources, quality etc, and others have brought up skill based systems.
Im just kind of doing some freeform thought but arent what we all seem to be after is a system of knowledge aquisition in a worldly game that refelcts our experiance IRL to create our own stories and impact those around us?
So the history of your tribe/guild and the community it builds and its advancement is premised on aquiring the knowledge to advance, knowledge “points” as a community forming an aggregate which advances your player community, unlocking more knowledge “trees” (I mentioned logic trees earlier). Same with crafting, etc.
Im just thinking of the Guns Germs and Steel thing again I guess. Technology (in this case skills, community, crafting to combat) advances/spreads through dissimination of knowledge and techniques.
Sheesh theres a lot of good reading on this thread for such a seemingly basic question
Per Hellberg said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:09 pm:
Maybe a game world who acts like a world. Not like in some games with wolfs walking in peace, side by side with deers, but attacking players on sight. Bandits and criminals shouldent stand in hordes out in the wilderness, while the citys are safe non-criminal zones.
Professions should be able to live of what they should live of (hunters hunt, crafters craft, etc).
Ross Smith said on October 13th, 2006 at 10:16 pm:
Apologies for coming on like a wet blanket here, but I feel somebody has to say this…
So far this thread has done a pretty good job of convincing me that the answer to “what goes in a worldy game?” is “not me”. It reads like a catalogue of everything about the real world that I play games to get away from.
My point (I knew I had one of those around here somewhere) is that there seems to be a completely unwarranted attitude of “if you build it they will come”. I’m more and more convinced that they won’t, at least in any great numbers. The stuff you lot want to put into your worldy games — politics, forced grouping, nonconsensual PVP, winners and (mostly) losers, and above all, work, work, work for a living — will be a big turnoff for casual players. There will always be a place for tiny niche games like this, I guess, but I expect they’ll always be down in the weeds at around 1% of the market, as they are now. (Going by the oft-quoted figures of about 6 million for WOW vs 60000 for Eve, the archetypal worldy game. Frankly I think even WOW is a little too worldy (=grindy) for the casual player, but I’ll spare you yet another WOW rant, you’ve heard them all before.)
It seems to me, by the way, that most of the posters here are taking a much more extreme attitude than Raph did in the original post. I actually liked more of his suggestions than I disliked, but I think the only comments I had any sympathy with were DavidTQ’s first two points in comment 11 (and then he went and lost me with the other three).
For most of us, the whole point of gaming is escapism. Realism isn’t a feature. It’s a bug.
Morgan Ramsay said on October 13th, 2006 at 11:14 pm:
Occam’s Razor.
DarkYoda said on October 14th, 2006 at 2:19 am:
Occam’s Razor is something to keep in mind.
I think Options and tools is good as well. Drop a good physic engine in a world and allow people to do what they want. Gives a lot of options with one tool.
But for me one of the most important aspects of a “worldly game”
People. Creative, visionary leaders with their own view of what they want the game to be(and the tools/options to do it).
I don’t have to like what they are doing but what is the point of a game if there isn’t an antagonist aspect.
Tuebit said on October 14th, 2006 at 5:24 am:
For me, ‘worldy’ involves probably only three basic concepts: diversity of role, relationships between roles, and impact on the world.
Diversity of role is important (not just figher, healer, crafter). SWG had 32(?) skill trees … but by roles, I mean: guild leaders, mayors, militia, event organizers, merchant leaders, hunters / farmers (suppliers). What people do in the game rather than what character template people choose. Within the activity of combat, tank / nuker / healer of course matters.
Everyone needs to feel different. Everyone needs to have their own niche.
You could inflate the diversity of role by further subdividing known roles. As others have said, rather than just city mayors, how about regional directors and emperors as well. Or more finely subdivide crafting or combat specialization.
Diversity can be inflated with customization: of your shop, if you’re a merchant; of your city, if you’re a mayor or militia; of your particular skill set, if you’re a fighter, and of course customization of your toon.
Once you’ve got the diversity, you have to make sure all roles interact. The “parallel play experiences” can’t be perfectly parallel (as in parallel lines … they have to interact). A sort of ecology among players.
Finally, impact on the visible world is important. With a player driven economy, players impact pricing. With players housing and cities, players impact the environment. With zone of control mechanics, players impact political structures.
What other ways could players be permitted to impact the world:
-Mob distribution through some sort of mechanic (in a meaningful way) … the sorts of mobs that spawn, their strength and frequency.
-The virtual landscape and flora (digging trenches, planting trees)?
-Floor plans for buildings (ala UO)?
-Control of NPC’s?
John Arras said on October 14th, 2006 at 6:44 am:
Tholal said:
I think it can be summed up with two basic concepts:
1) Players can have a permanent effect on the world.
2) The world can alter and change without any player interaction.
Yup, I agree with this…you gotta have these two things. The second is vitally important or else the players will destroy the world and nothing new and interesting will happen after a while. And to extend a bit, the second is roughly equivalent to the world generating (or at least populating) itself, so you should basically generate (most of) the world, too.
But “generating the world” is unlikely to happen right out of the gate. I think a more reasonable way in which things will occur is with people attempting to make tools that let them alter the world more easily, then over time automating those tools until much of the world can update and alter itself. One thing I am excited about is Lee Sheldon’s project since he has written for soap operas (requiring creating a lot of content quickly), they will (I assume) be looking for ways to speed up the content updating process. So…if they start to take baby steps toward automating their alteration process as they see what can be automated, it should turn out really well.
magicback (frank) said on October 14th, 2006 at 7:23 am:
The question on fundamental core elements that make a game more worldly. So instead of specifics, I’ll suggest some broad high-level elements.
If the game is about characters, then the game have to put to the foreground humanist components: purpose, morality, virtues & vices, etc.
Purpose could be translated as class, role, craft, profession or quest.
Virtues & vices could be translated as rewards and punishment for actions.
Morality could be defined by the back-history or evolve from player norms.
Whatever the case, the design of the game allows characters to explore the possiblity space of myth, legends, heroism, downfall, redemption, and other humanist elements.
—
If the game is about characters developing in a world, then the game should have the core elements of a world: social, political, and economic dimensions.
Developers have given some economic powers to the players via enhanced features such as a mean of production (crafting) and means of transactions (auction houses, NPC vendors), etc.
Developers have also given some social powers to the players via player housing, guild features, etc.
Developers have also given some plitical powers to the players via the ability to develop and control cities, institutions, etc.
As most games already have these core elements already, it’s about giving players greater possibility spaces rather than higher degree of power given, so the last element is the possibility of emergence.
In summary:
Game about purpose, virtues & vices, and morality
With large probablity space in social, economic, and political dimensions
That foster emergence: continuity and change in all core elements.
A worldly game should be persistent, but not static.
Frank
Slyfeind said on October 14th, 2006 at 7:59 am:
I’m not sure that a good physics engine is enough to make a worldy game. It’s the old saying about a tree falling in the forest and nobody’s around to hear it.
“Options and tools” is a good start, but how many options and tools, and what kind? WoW has options and tools, as does M59.
I think the more different minigames into a game, the more worldy it becomes. You don’t need the wolves eating the deer to make it a world, but if the player has options to help/hinder/exploit the wolves or deer, that’s one game. You don’t need trade routes for a world, but if the players have the tools to make them, then that’s another game.
Almagill said on October 14th, 2006 at 3:57 pm:
Love, hate and a real reason to compete.
Factional NPC’s should respond to players based on their standing with that faction.
If I’ve built up a lot of -ve faction for killing masses of members of one group, they should hate me. They should attack me regardless of the difference between my level and theirs. It’s as if we’re all running around with numbers over our heads… Even their low level members should be aggressive, or at least run off and get some help.
If I’ve built up +ve faction with a group they should help me. Aid me in battle or tip me the wink about nearby goodies (shinies and trinkets). Or just give me a cheery “good morrow!” as I run back and forth on my endless quest to kill another ten rats.
Rik said on October 14th, 2006 at 7:30 pm:
Realism isn’t a feature. It’s a bug.
Hmm, I don’t see worldly as meaning realistic. I see it as meaning more about the system being alive, not predetermined. I see it being as adding things on the basis that it would be fun, not “This will make players do what we want, and they will accept it because it’s a game.” I see it as being about the players having choices, not just “Do I kill things with an Axe or a Sword” but even doing things that game designers might not have pictured, like healing the deer over and over again, until it takes down the wolf. Idealy, I’d then want my reward, either my share of wolf or Deer rep or XP or an increase in my healing skill. Now, don’t get me wrong, all of those rewards are gameish, but since today’s question is about a worldly game it’s assumed that we can have some game elements.
It’s really about thinking of the system as a world, as alive, as things happening with an internal logic. If the mouth of the cave always has an Orc that wanders from the green tree to the red bush then pauses three seconds before walking back to the tree, no mater how many times you have killed that orc, then it’s a gameish system. If the number and strength of Orc goes up and down based on a number of factors, such as number of times that lookout post has been attacked in last 24 hours, and strength of nearby Orc city, then you are looking at a more worldly system. Idealy, the whole place could be taken over by a tribe of nearby Wererats.
Mark T. said on October 14th, 2006 at 8:36 pm:
One 3 words from me Raph, even though everyone else has said it one way or another.
players, interdependency and an enabling setting = an online world
Mark T. said on October 14th, 2006 at 8:38 pm:
3 words from me Raph, even though everyone else has said it one way or another.
players, interdependency and an enabling setting = an online world
Michael Chui said on October 15th, 2006 at 12:18 am:
I think it’s fascinating how people seem to be pulling old feature sets and tweaking them a bit.
Re: realism vs. escapism, I feel I need to comment on that.
Escapism depends on realism. Escapism depends very much on a reminder of what you’re escaping; if you lose that, you lose your orientation and you succeed in escaping, and merely float. It’s no longer a suspension of disbelief, but utter disbelief. That happens when something is so unrealistic that your mind rebels; realism is what comforts it and assures it that there’s nothing to worry about.
I would suggest that the “worldiness” of a game is derived from the relaxation of rules. In other words, opening up possibilities to apply paidia, and permitting ludus to be enforced through players, rather than by code.
So, my answer to Slyfeind’s “how many options and tools, and what kind?” is: “more and any”.
Morgan Ramsay said on October 15th, 2006 at 1:44 am:
Michael Chui wrote:
Re: realism vs. escapism, I feel I need to comment on that.
I prepared a comment about the escapism-realism issue earlier, but I decided not to post for some reason…
Ross Smith wrote:
For most of us, the whole point of gaming is escapism. Realism isn’t a feature. It’s a bug.
From an epistemological perspective, the indisputable law of reality is that all models of reality, including what we refer to as fantasy and what we individually perceive as "reality", cannot escape being models of reality, and therefore realism is a component of escapism. In essence, you cannot escape your perception of reality—no matter how distorted.
Amaranthar said on October 15th, 2006 at 8:08 am:
That’s pretty much the way I see it as far as “realism”. No one wants total realism, if that were the case most of us would be playing serfs locked into a world of toil. Realism is only the foundation, adjusted for fantasy and gaming.
To me realism has a purpose for a game in that it is a well established basis to make decisions on, to draw on for the fantastic game play we want. If you want to search for a special ore to make a special alloy with, you wouldn’t look under the city streets (pardon me Raph, hehe). You’d go to mountainous areas and then look for signs of the ore in question. Just because you want more realism doesn’t mean you don’t want a metal that glows in the dark.
Raph, what’s missing in your original topic post is things that revolve around the natural world, as I’m sure you know. To make a game more “worldly”, the nature of things needs to feel realistic. You shouldn’t have to wonder how it is that every time you kill a MOB, another one pops up. You shouldn’t have to wonder how it is that that bear you killed happens to be carrying plate armor, or why a deer just stands there while you walk up to it and start hacking at it, or why you can’t pick an apple from that tree when you’re hungry. Realism really means making sense of things.
One of the things that drove me crazy was in early UO with the rampant PKing. They said it was “realistic”, but how could a society possibly evolve when such crimes ran rampant and there was no recourse for justice? How could those cities possibly survive and thrive? It just didn’t make sense.
So, as you can see, I just moved from realism in the natural world, into the player/social aspects with my thoughts on “making sense” realism.
So much of this topic is in expectations and in degrees. How much does it take to make a game “worldly”? I don’t think there is a definit answer to that, it becomes a question of how much. But I think a solid foundation in this effort is required if you want a more worldly game. But the critical point is that after you have this foundation, that meets expectations of simulated reality, then you add the fantastic and the heroic into the game. But always under the rules of this simulated reality that’s already been established in the foundation.
So, if dragons get hungry and if players hunt out there food, they start to roam wider areas including into player societies for their food. This makes sense, feels more worldly realistic, yet has the fantasy.
mavis said on October 15th, 2006 at 12:18 pm:
Player ownership of the world. Which means player actions can alter the world – from housing to winning wars and claiming areas.
David said on October 15th, 2006 at 4:08 pm:
You did it perfect with Start Wars Galaxies PreCU
Brew said on October 15th, 2006 at 11:25 pm:
i wouldn’t go that far david…. there were MANY things WRONG with swg at launch up thru the CU-
-mob spawns being impacted by player development (which they denied completely, but the effects were obvious)
-bazillion bugs that could be exploited in a way that negatively impacted the economy, missions, duping, double/triple slicing, etc
-crafting class imbalances, making some classes complete winners, and others complete losers
-broken classes (ranger, SL, droid engineer, BE)
-tons of storyline/npc issues –
-GCW? WHY?
-imperial crackdown, aka rebel smackdown…
-a consistent shift AWAY from the real starwars universe/vibe/genre
But there were many things RIGHT as well.
damijin said on October 17th, 2006 at 9:03 pm:
Just a word on PvP right quick,
To me, a “worldly” game does not reward pvp in any way, but PvP exists in it. In a worldly game, PKing innocents should be penalized, but not disabled, and PvP between people who have disputes should have no reward other than the winner proving his might.
It is worldly to have PvP, but not worldly to “reward” it. It exists only as a means to settle the most heated of disputes between two parties.
damijin said on October 17th, 2006 at 9:15 pm:
Oh, and one more thing. I feel that auction houses and the like are extremely unworldly. I’d much rather see player vendors either in the form of set up NPCs in a certain “market sector” of a town, or player owned shops, or a combination of the two. Auction houses dumb down the economy and make comparing prices and location of goods nearly pointless.
Down with the auction house!
Michael Chui said on October 17th, 2006 at 11:12 pm:
It is worldly to have PvP, but not worldly to “reward” it.
I disagree. It is very rewarding for me to, in The Real World, survive a spar, full-out fight, or life-and-death battle. It permits a very large spectrum of conceivable reward, from respect by others to greater combative skill to greater knowledge of my opponent even to looting my opponent’s corpse, should I choose to.
The question is what the reward is, how it is rewarded, and why.
I would ask the other respondents a pair of questions:
1) Is it worldy to have a deity who participates in the world? If, for instance, in LOTRO, Ulmo appeared to the elves and passed judgement on some dispute?
2) Are overtones of predetermination or predestination, Fate, Destiny, and other half-theological, half-traditional epic, mythological constructs worldy? What if they were somehow code-enforced, and thus “real”? (For the record, I can’t imagine how that could be done, but I’m sure someone could come up with something.)
Amaranthar said on October 18th, 2006 at 9:26 am:
If the world is “realistic” and worldly, there should be reward for PKing. What kind of sense does it make that a murdering thief can’t take from his victim? The key is to also allow for player justice through a social mechanism. Coded in, a way to seek to end the crime by using a form of justice. Punishment, so that others don’t want to risk the penalties. Or at least, most of the others.
Also, if there’s no incentive, then few are going to play the evil bad guys. Even in the form of highwaymen, or conquerors.
But that’s just my feelings on that topic. You can still have a worldly game with more realism without going to this step. It just would be as worldly, all other things being equal.
Michael, your two questions don’t seem to have anything to do really with making a “worldly” game. They’re part of what would be built on top of, and placed in, this worldly/realistic fantasy game. That’s my opinion.
Brew said on October 18th, 2006 at 9:29 am:
in the real world, the sense of achievement is the reward behind coming out on top in a sparring match.
in a full on fight, rifling thru the losers pockets after gets you sent to jail. Thus the reward is set off by appropriate penalties.
In a life or death fight, 2 men enter, 1 man leaves. Permadeath is its own deterrant. And you still have potential jail time for the victor!
In a worldly game, pvp should be allowed. But the repurcussions should be sufficient to make people think before they go down that path. The rewards should be noticeable as well, enough to entice people to risk community action (jailtime, merchant restrictions, city/housing limits)
However, for game balance and ‘fun factor’, the deterrants must be larger than the rewards when it comes to attacking newbies, noncombatants, crafters, etc.
David (Tal) said on October 18th, 2006 at 9:51 am:
I think we use the word realism when what we really mean to say is believability.
Is a deity interfering in mortal affairs realistic in the purest sense of the term? Probably not. Is it believable in a fantasy game? Most certainly.
Michael Chui said on October 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pm:
I think we use the word realism when what we really mean to say is believability.
Consider the possibility of using the term “immersability”, which I would tentatively define as believability from within the experience.
the sense of achievement is the reward behind coming out on top in a sparring match.
I have lost enough spars to know there is reward in losing, but surviving.
Michael, your two questions don’t seem to have anything to do really with making a “worldly” game.
Hrm. Perhaps considering it in reverse. Would their addition make a game less worldy?
Rik said on October 18th, 2006 at 12:17 pm:
I have lost enough spars to know there is reward in losing
So very true, and at the risk of going on a tangent (hey, it’s post 60, it’s time) it brings up interesting questions.
Why do these games tend to only reward (XP, loot) winning? How can a model be set up differently that doesn’t go too far and encourage losing?
Amaranthar said on October 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm:
The combination of death penalty (in whatever form) and skill gain would seem to be an example of losing but escaping. If dragons are ultra powerful in the game, and you take one on and survive, you should get some skill gains from it. Or you can die for your foolishness, and I don’t think you should get anything here.
Hrm. Perhaps considering it in reverse. Would their addition make a game less worldy?
No, depending on how they are implemented. The term “immersion” is a good one and helps define the answers here. But I’d suggest that it’s “immersion in the world”, not just immersion that can equally define “end game” content. (Although I wonder if that isn’t immersion in the world also.)
Michael Chui said on October 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pm:
Why do these games tend to only reward (XP, loot) winning? How can a model be set up differently that doesn’t go too far and encourage losing?
The question seems to suggest the notion of a consolation prize; an “Oh, you lost, but here’s a cookie.” In combative games, one way to do this is to make death interesting and conceivably preferable in some cases.
One way you could reframe it, perhaps, would be, “How do you show people that there are multiple ways of ‘winning’ a scenario?” So yes, I lose the spar and thus I don’t get X rewards for winning, but I ‘win’ because on certain metrics like experience in general, it’s a win/win scenario.
That felt confusing to write… I’ll let you guys sort it out. =P
JuJutsu said on October 18th, 2006 at 5:01 pm:
In a worldly game, pvp should be allowed. But the repurcussions should be sufficient to make people think before they go down that path. The rewards should be noticeable as well, enough to entice people to risk community action (jailtime, merchant restrictions, city/housing limits)
However, for game balance and ‘fun factor’, the deterrants must be larger than the rewards when it comes to attacking newbies, noncombatants, crafters, etc.
I don’t think deterrence cuts it in the real world let alone in a virtual one. My buddy the game theorist down the hall makes a living working with rational choice models and since he’s a nice guy I don’t begrudge him his fantasies. Can anyone here tell me of a game where player justice/governance or deterrence has worked with griefers…with a straight face?
That’s why I proposed Raph’s outcasting system earlier. It has 2 features I find very desirable: the punishment fits the crime [removal of the ability to kill other players], and the decision rests where it should, in the hands of the victim. Sure, let them wreak havoc in localized ‘hives of scum and villainy’ if you want but in general it’s 1 strike and you’re out.
acmtalk said on October 18th, 2006 at 9:10 pm:
One world: SWG!!!!!
Gunman21 said on October 28th, 2006 at 5:01 am:
Balance between professions/skills/etc
Depth
Challenging (yet simple – challenging doesn’t mean complex!)
Theme – Does the content in the game fit the theme? (IE in SWG the “theme” of the game was rebel vs empire – yet this theme was 98.9% absent in the game)
Fun – I work 40 hours a week. I don’t want to come home to play a game I pay for to have to grind another 40 hours a week (or even 10 hours a week) in order to feel like I’m playing the game. This is why I believe time based training like in eve-online is the BEST way for an MMO to work.
The developers – I want to play a game where the devs do whats right for the game, and not what directly serves the marketing department (although, if the devs make the game right, the marketing department is served indirectly already!!!). Basically I want a dev team that makes its own decisions and isn’t directed by the marketing executive.
Per Hellberg said on November 1st, 2006 at 7:43 am:
What i´m talkng about is not to have “another work”, but to feel like a merchant or a hunter you need to have skills who really makes you able to actually do something you should do as the profession of choise.
As a hunter for example, i want do be a specialst at wilderness/survival skills, and not just be yet another fighter (as in wow or eq2) using hunter-inspired combat skills (bows and traps). Of course it must still be fun and meaningfull to do. Some people seems to think that if you want a worldy game you also want to have boring.

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin

Recent Trackbacks

Twitter @raphkoster

At the Genius Bar getting daughter's iPhone fixed. Good thing it was the back and not the front! http://t.co/RKo9YcJs 1 day ago
ARRRGGGHH I feel very inadequate RT: @s_bura: http://t.co/jo76KjUp A flying castle in about 400 moves #TripleTown 2 days ago
Huh. http://t.co/RJwQRmPK just told me my song hit their homepage. I haven't gone there in 2 yrs. FWIW, album here: http://t.co/FYXvw6CV 2 days ago
More updates...