Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is this 'Virtual World' thing that people keep going on about?
TheLizardbones
Member CommonPosts: 10,910
I started thinking about this because of another thread (I'll post a link in a minute). All MMORPGs have virtual worlds. They may be large or small, dynamic or static and they may or may not even be worlds so much as empty space.
Now, I'm not completely stupid. I get the gist of what someone says when they say they want a 'Virtual World'. Something that seems like the player is in a world that could exist naturally if the laws of physics were a bit different. For instance, it wouldn't be impossible for dragons to fly around if they absorbed an energy source from the environment that gave them lift or something, steam engines would make a decent basis for long term industrialization because it's possible to pack a much higher energy density and water recovery was as simple as putting an ice crystal in the mix.
I'd like to get closer to a clear definition though. For instance, Ultima Online tried to have a dynamic environment where animals spawned based on how many there were, how easy it was for the animals to survive, etc. It turned out to be a wasted effort because people just murdered every single thing that moved. UO finally gave up and just spawned in animals. Ryzom didn't have the issue of too many players, so their npc animals that follow natural patterns (for an alien world) are often cited as an example of a virtual world.
There are some areas that must be addressed to give a definition, but they are certainly not the only areas that need to be defined.
Landscape - the world itself needs to have some properties to qualify as a 'Virtual World'. Rift's world is not appreciably different in nature from WoW's world, but WoW's world is considered to be a 'Virtual World' while Rift's world is just a stage. One difference is the size of the world itself, and the size of each of the areas that the player travels through. WoW's world is considerably larger than Rifts, and WoW's zones themselves are considerably larger. Something else WoW has that Rift doesn't is tucked away areas that do not serve a use, other than for exploration. They may have served a use at some point, but game play changes or the developer's plans changed so that those areas exist, but the player has no particular reason to visit. Is that enough for the landscape to be considered a 'Virtual World' landscape versus a video game landscape?
Non Combat NPCs - I'm not sure about this. NPCs don't seem to be appreciably different between games. They can be vendors, quest givers or just be there to fill in space. Perhaps here, more is simply better and pushes things closer to the 'Virtual World'. More NPCs doing 'stuff', looks like a living world.
Crafting and Economy - A 'Virtual World' will have the players interacting in ways that are similar to social structures in the real world. People buy, build and sell things to each other all the time. Some aspect of this really needs to exist if a game world is going to be a 'Virtual World'. Some aspect of this needs to exist between players and NPCs too. This is a little trickier, since NPCs will always follow a script, but players can be very forgiving of that type of thing if it provides game play and some immersion.
What else? What type of thing would you add to establish that a game world is indeed a 'Virtual World'? What would you add, change or remove from what I've described up here?
**
Here's the thread that started me thinking.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/400975/page/1
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If a MMOrpg Player says "Virtual World" that means a living adventurous world and lving lore like in Skyrim and a Herders, Crafters, Harvesters, Explorers dream like Minecraft.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
You're looking FAR too much into this OP. At the risk of sounding like an ass, I didn't read you're post but I think I have the point of it from the title.
MMORPGs are not virtual worlds anymore. They ARE techinically virtual worlds but that is like saying ice cream is milk. You see, when I played EQ, back in the day, I got lost multiple times. I fell off a boat in the middle of an ocean and had to swim using a skill called 'sense heading' and a paper world map that came with the game box to get back to butcherblock mountains. There was no zone that could fit in any minimap. I even got lost in Greater Faydark one time after not paying attention to where I was going for a few seconds. The night time was dark. MOBs didn't sit around waiting for you to kill them. Unless it was a camp of mobs, they would roam across entire zones making you look for them.
When was the last time you got lost in an MMORPG? Better yet, when was the last time you had to choose where to go instead of the monsters just being herded up outside of a town?
Nowadays, there is no deciding where to go. You get the quest, you see the highlighted area on the map, you go there, then come back. There is no exploring. There is no looking for any special enemy to kill that you need something from. There is no gear you can get that is worthwhile from doing important quests. Hell, quests aren't even important anymore, they are just a means of gaining experience.
These are just a few of the reasons these games are not virtual worlds anymore but more of a virtual play ground. You can only go down the same slide and swing on the same swing set so many times.
This is a good definition. Id also like to add that to me, a virtual world is a simulation first and a game driven mechanic second. Not to say that game mechanics are not important in a virtual world, but that its primarily a sim first and a game second. Balance could be 90/10 or 51/49 sim/game ratio. But it does need to feel more simmy than gamey for me to consider it a virtual world heh.
To extend off of your description, I'd say that "Virtual World" MMORPGs are ones where players in them can be successful (defined in terms of wealth & noteriety) in the game in other roles, outside of combat related ones. So if you want to be a really awesome merchant, you can level your skills / gain experience such that you are able to craft the best items and sell them to players for money / goods (provided there is a demand for said goods)
To contrast, games like World of Warcraft have crafting professions....but they are more of a side attraction, that really isn't helpful to the player economy, and still requires you to primarily be an adventurer in some combat based role.
Virtual World MMOs generally have player focused economies, where players are capable of crafting better / on par items with monster loot, and where players of all kinds of professions (not just combat related ones) all work together, and barter for services.
You are more dependent on others in the game (like a real world / society), than in the more modern types of MMOs, where there might be a stronger focus on solo activities, or where other players are less consequential to your experience.
This..
how I long for those days again.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Pretty much. People expressing that complaint aren't looking for a virtual world. They're all virtual worlds. They are looking for ones that feel more like a virtual world to them than like a game. For example, I enjoy EQ2 and Ageof Conan but they feel more like games to me. UO, EVE and even Puzzle Pirates feel more like worlds to me. They're all virtual worlds, but everyone has different things they are looking to get from the virtual world, and the more a game hits on those points, the more it has a world feel to it.
Lizardbones, it's probably easier to understand when you replace World with the aspect that individual is looking for. It's most often Simulation, Society, Struggle or a combination of them all.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I guess I was confused by it as well. To me WoW had a virtual world I could run around in. Had towns that where a real distance from one an other...that whole thing. But it didn't really have farming or building ...or crafting :P of any kind. Yet I'd always see that argument come up that games don't have virtual worlds anymore.
It almost sounds like virtual world is just another word for sandbox.
No I don't think this is it. It's not simply "what that person wants", if that's what you're saying. I think it's interdependence rather than linear design. A virtual world will have relationships between professions/players that create a complex eco system... just like how it would be in a "world." A virtual world will tend to create more organic events/content rather than scripted content.
One of my first MMO's was FFXI, now while some would not call that a sandbox.. and it lacked a few of the "world" aspects. One of the biggest things that made it a "world" in my opinion was forced grouping..
"WHAT DEWM!!? WAT!? how can forced grouping make it a world? that is a stupid game mechanic!"
well...it may be stupid.. but it forced people to interact, I don't know how many nights I spent 3-5 hours in a group leveling with random people, and it was a slower combat so you had time to chat and discuss stuff while waiting to heal before the next pull. etc..
I met more people and made more friends from that 1 MMO then all the other MMO's I've played combined. And I still play other games with a few of them, I know a couple that played FFXI back in 05' and now we play league of legends togeather..
stuff like that makes it a world for me.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I want to focus on this statement because it's really disappointing to me that you would write this. One iteration of a simulation did not react as intended to be played with ... and you seem to be drawing from that the conclusion that the entire concept of simulation is a failure?
The core of a virtual world is simulation. In a book, the author just creates a body of lore and rules that they stay consistant with while they write. In a movie, this expands to creating asthetics, backgrounds, the way things move and group. In a computer game, this expands to simulations - what the game does when nobody is playing. In a static game, that means a flow of movement in the background, events that may or may not be actual game content. However, when I use the term, I usually mean a design philosophy of pushing the devs further and further away from the player - systemically replacing static content with simulations that can generate content simular to the static content.
Consider an economic lifecycle where devs introduce a new item to the game by first making it purchasable from a certain type of vendor, then make it a drop in the world while decomissioning the vendors, then make it a craftable from raw materials in the world,. This is a virtual world philosophy to me: you're constantly interating content to make the simulation of how and why it exists richer and more dynamic.
If I had the drive to actually make my dream game, I would want to create a version of my pencil-and-paper world that, once turned out, felt like it was growing and evolving without me actually manually writing adventures. But that end state would be a goal - not something I'd start with. The path to building it would first take me through building some static content as simulation equivilent of concept art, but the next expansion would replace that static content with simulations that generated similar events sponteneously.
So, my virtual world devlopment path might look something like this:
1.0 a nest exists that spawns of rats
2.0 rat nests can themselves spawn and be killed
3.0 rat nests now consume crops in the area where they spawn, increase decay parameter of the area.
4.0 rat nests now spawn new rat nests in neighbouring areas, but be inhibited by predators (eg: cats)
5.0 rat nests now spawn in mutant forms, influenced by the magical forces in the area - hunting rat nests can now be a form of research into what types of corrupting influences are in the area.
as opposed to the typical modern MMO design model which is:
1.0 a nest exists that spawns of rats
2.0 a nest exists that spawns red rats
3.0 a nest exists that spawns green rats
4.0 a nest exists that spawns blue rats
5.0 a nest exists that spawns purple rats
The idea that people still point to one UO ecology simulation not performing as desired as a failure of the entire idea of simulations is incredibly frustrating to me. Imagine if the reaction to Doom or Quake had been "there were some perspective problems that gave me headaches therefore 3d engines have been proven to be a dead end" That said, simulations are harder than simply repeating a formula. Complexity overload in maintainting it all is a risk.
It's easy for me to sit here dreaming on the sidelines, too lazy to actually roll up my sleeves and make something, not have to do the coding, Q&A, project managment or hit release windows year after year. to make sure there's food on the table. I think that just from a raw manability-of-production, I expect there will probably always be a place for static stories. But ignoring my own motivational failings for a moment, I firmly believe that simulations that are generating news and lore whether or not I'm logged in is where the worlds I've dreamed about dwell.
I think you are giving credit to the wrong aspect of the game. FFXI, much like DAoC and LOTRO, brought together players with a common interest that they can connect with - interest in a mythology/pre-existing world, which is something people can actually relate to above and beyond 'i like to play teh mmos'. It was also at a time when people were actively looking to play with others. Forcing people to group ... well, was it really 'forcing' if the people playing knew that's what it would be and were actively looking for team gameplay?
no, it wasn't some draconian imposition - GROUP OR FAIL!!! - that made that game great. It was a great community that was looking for exactly what the game offered.
The reason you get the "WHAT DEWM!!? WAT!?" response is probably because 'forced grouping creates a feeling of being in a world" is ridiculous. Yes, in a horrible situation, people band together, Dewn. Was FFXI really that horrible? Or was it a fun online game with great people?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"A virtual world will have relationships between professions/players that create a complex eco system"
Are you suggesting a single player game cannot feel like a virtual world?
"A virtual world will tend to create more organic events/content rather than scripted content."
It seems like your criteria for virtual world is how heavily it focuses on the simulation aspect.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Funny thing is I actually wanted to make a topic: Sandbox or Virtual World.
To me they are both 2 different things. As some have explained a virtual world presents you with a believable world.
For a long time I thought I wanted a sandbox MMORPG but as I looked upon my most favorite MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies it was more a virtual world then it was sandbox.
The core of a virtual world is simulation. In a book, the author just creates a body of lore and rules that they stay consistant with while they write. In a movie, this expands to creating asthetics, backgrounds, the way things move and group. In a computer game, this expands to simulations - what the game does when nobody is playing. In a static game, that means a flow of movement in the background, events that may or may not be actual game content. However, when I use the term, I usually mean a design philosophy of pushing the devs further and further away from the player - systemically replacing static content with simulations that can generate content simular to the static content.
Consider an economic lifecycle where devs introduce a new item to the game by first making it purchasable from a certain type of vendor, then make it a drop in the world while decomissioning the vendors, then make it a craftable from raw materials in the world,. This is a virtual world philosophy to me: you're constantly interating content to make the simulation of how and why it exists richer and more dynamic.
If I had the drive to actually make my dream game, I would want to create a version of my pencil-and-paper world that, once turned out, felt like it was growing and evolving without me actually manually writing adventures. But that end state would be a goal - not something I'd start with. The path to building it would first take me through building some static content as simulation equivilent of concept art, but the next expansion would replace that static content with simulations that generated similar events sponteneously.
So, my virtual world devlopment path might look something like this:
1.0 a nest exists that spawns of rats
2.0 rat nests can themselves spawn and be killed
3.0 rat nests now consume crops in the area where they spawn, increase decay parameter of the area.
4.0 rat nests now spawn new rat nests in neighbouring areas, but be inhibited by predators (eg: cats)
5.0 rat nests now spawn in mutant forms, influenced by the magical forces in the area - hunting rat nests can now be a form of research into what types of corrupting influences are in the area.
as opposed to the typical modern MMO design model which is:
1.0 a nest exists that spawns of rats
2.0 a nest exists that spawns red rats
3.0 a nest exists that spawns green rats
4.0 a nest exists that spawns blue rats
5.0 a nest exists that spawns purple rats
The idea that people still point to one UO ecology simulation not performing as desired as a failure of the entire idea of simulations is incredibly frustrating to me. Imagine if the reaction to Doom or Quake had been "there were some perspective problems that gave me headaches therefore 3d engines have been proven to be a dead end" That said, simulations are harder than simply repeating a formula. Complexity overload in maintainting it all is a risk.
It's easy for me to sit here dreaming on the sidelines, too lazy to actually roll up my sleeves and make something, not have to do the coding, Q&A, project managment or hit release windows year after year. to make sure there's food on the table. I think that just from a raw manability-of-production, I expect there will probably always be a place for static stories. But ignoring my own motivational failings for a moment, I firmly believe that simulations that are generating news and lore whether or not I'm logged in is where the worlds I've dreamed about dwell.
I didn't base what I said off of my personal experience or even my own thoughts.
From Richard Garriott:
They never got the ecology simulation out of beta. This isn't an example of simulations failing, but an example of how hard it is to create something that simulates how a world would work when faced with the behavior of players. UO does have a simulation, but it's simplistic. It hasn't really improved much since UO's first implementation either, mostly because of the players.
EQN sounds like they are going to tackle this, and it might be great.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well I thought we were talking about MMOs. A lot of things go into making a game feel like a virtual world. If you don't have multiple players, then obviously depending on other players isn't going to be a factor. But I would say that single player games are going to be gimped in that aspect when trying to create a virtual world. They may make up for it by having somewhat complex AI and enough NPCs to recreate a life-like world, but they're kind of at a disadvantage from the outset.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it's not simply based on what a particular individual wants. There are things that make a game either more like a virtual world or less like one. Somebody can't say "well I want a game with no mobs and no functioning economy, so a game like that would be more of a virtual world to me." No, in reality that is functioning less like a world than a game WITH those things, so it's less of a virtual world.
Yet the people who want that in an MMO typically dislike how it was done in Skyrim. I love Skyrim's implementation and freedom and huge world to play in, but that's never what the "virtual world" advocates seem to want when the subject comes up.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
@Damonville
I thought WOW felt like a great virtual world in many ways, too. The Tauren and the Undead both had a feeling of living worlds to them for me, although that bit by bit broke down the longer I played as the world itself was extremely static.
@Reklaw
One is a type of environment (platform, even) and the other is one type of mechanics it can contain. An MMO is a virtual world environment. Some have more sandbox mechanics than others.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
To me, a virtual world doesn't need things like simulated ecosystems or sandbox economy. Those things would probably help create a virtual world feeling but you can have one without them. A virtual world is simply one that has a coherent theme and stresses immersion. Anything blatantly reminds me I'm playing a game like achievement spam, "magic teleportation" fast travel or lots of obvious real-world pop culture references detract from the virtual world feeling.
Vanguard and LOTRO are two examples of games that do a pretty good job of feeling like actual virtual worlds even though they have themepark design.
I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that a game is a virtual world based on a person;s preference. I said ones perception of how much a game feels like a virtual world is dependent on how much its features overlap what a person is looking to get from the virtual world.
As for your mobs and economy thing, Endless Forest has no NPCs and it's as much a virtual world as any. A 'functioning economy' - production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services - is too broad a term to be useful as you would need the game to be played in an empty box to not have one.
However, your personal criteria for such a thing is what defines how much the MMO feels like a virtual world to you. For example, Endless Forest has consumable resources but no auction house, trade, mailbox or crafting system. To some, the game is an immersive virtual world. Others may need those or other extras to gain the same impression of a functioning world environment.
An MMO is a virtual world, and 'world' can meaning anything from a room to a universe. Those saying they are looking for a virtual world are looking for specific criteria that makes it feel such to them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"They're all virtual worlds, but everyone has different things they are looking to get from the virtual world, and the more a game hits on those points, the more it has a world feel to it. "
I interpreted this quote from you as basically saying that how much a game can be considered a virtual world is dependent on what that person is looking to get from it. What I'm saying is that the term virtual world is more objective than that. What you're talking about is immersion. Somebody can be more or less immersed in a game based on what they want to get from it, but that doesn't change how much of a virtual world it is.
But let's keep things in perspective. When we're talking about a game being more or less of a "virtual world", nobody is talking about Endless Forest. Sure if you're trying to create a game that isn't SUPPOSED to have other players (or NPCs) then adding NPCs or other players isn't going to make it a virtual world. But if you're making a game that does (which almost all games do), then having those players and NPCs interact in ways that they would in a real world is more of a virtual world than a game that doesn't.
Nope. It's Friday and I'm ready for the weekend. Not going to play this game with you. Maybe another time.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
booooo! I just found out we have to work tomorrow