Honestly I don't really get the confusion. Isn't a virtual world simply a game that attempts to emulate the fictional world they're trying to create? As in if that fictional game world came to life, would it function the same as it did as a game? The extent to which this is the case seems to be the extent to which the game is a virtual world. That's why things like scripted content are kind of anti-virtual world.
What if the kind of fictional world you want to instantiate is a fictional world with theater-quality scripted experiences? Or the other way around, I think a lot of people on the more sim side of things don't envision a fictional spirit for their world before trying to make the mechanics of it.
If the devs are trying to create a world with animatronic NPCs and mobs then yes, scripted content would contribute to making a virtual world. However, that's not what they're trying to make, so it's a moot point.
I think I have to disagree with that point. Me personally, I want to create a world which gives the player an experience like being the main character of a book, not like being someone just living their life in a world. Real life doesn't have good dramatic tension, pacing, thematic messages, or other things that make reading a story or watching a movie more satisfying than just living life.
There's a lot to be said for the use of scripted content to make a world seem more immersive and alive, however that tends to come at the cost of stepping away from the persistence of the game world.
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
Virtual world is a system where you have virtual resources (earth) and virtual grass grow from that resources , rabbits eat grass and wolf kill and eats those rabbits ,
then it turn for wolf to die by many ways and become resource ect ect ...
Basically it something like virtual circle of life where players are part of that circle .
Of course it not perfect (or complex) circle like real world
(lol , it make me wonder if we are some npc in a virtual world with intelligent)
Originally posted by Loktofeit There's a lot to be said for the use of scripted content to make a world seem more immersive and alive, however that tends to come at the cost of stepping away from the persistence of the game world.
This is true - I personally find it to be a compromise worth making but I understand if others don't.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Originally posted by Loktofeit There's a lot to be said for the use of scripted content to make a world seem more immersive and alive, however that tends to come at the cost of stepping away from the persistence of the game world.
This is true - I personally find it to be a compromise worth making but I understand if others don't.
Agreed. A well-designed, personalized experience can really add to the feeling of being the hero, being the main character.
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 actually like scripted content and instancing and phasing if your game really wants to tell a "personal story". I hate when games make you line up behind 5 people to slay the "one great demon lord who is threatening the realm". They should make the instanced encounters scale if you want to bring friends in which shouldn't be that hard to do with 2013 tech.
Those things don't take away from a virtual world, in some cases they actually enhance it. The "Simulationist Dwarf Fortress" model, while very cool, is only one type of virtual world that a game can create.
I actually like scripted content and instancing and phasing if your game really wants to tell a "personal story". I hate when games make you line up behind 5 people to slay the "one great demon lord who is threatening the realm". They should make the instanced encounters scale if you want to bring friends in which shouldn't be that hard to do with 2013 tech.
Yes! And scaled instances should work the other way too - I love soloing dungeons, the kind normally intended for parties of 4 or more people; it has always frustrated me that it would be so easy for most MMOs to have a single-player version of the boss(es) for each dungeon - that's usually the only part that's impossible to solo - and an achievement or quest to solo the dungeon. You'd think they'd be all in favor of encouraging content re-use like that...
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Originally posted by Distopia In simplest terms a virtual world is essentially a simulation which is something different than an RPG. Need wood? Cut down a tree, Need metal? Get to work mining ore. RUn your own shops/businesses, build cities from resources, farm crops, make food, etc.
I agree. I would still classify the simulation as being a role playing environment. After all, playing the role of the character in the simulation is the primary activity for the player. I hesitate going as far as calling it an RPG, mostly because the "G" gives some the impression that activity must be developer provided / directed.
I might add that in my perspective I don't see Virtual World as being contradictory with NPC population, where the NPC population coexists with player characters in the simulation. The way I see it, the function of NPCs should be to do things that are too boring to be player character activity.
For example, I'd like a village to have a stable where I can rent a horse for a trip. I don't expect a player character to stand there 24x7 functioning as Hertz Rent-A-Horse. This would be, in my opinion, an acceptable job for an NPC.
Yeah that's my bad what I should have said after that was an RPG can greatly benefit from having Sim like features, as they can enhance the believability of that world, which in turn leads to an easier transition into playing a role in it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I actually like scripted content and instancing and phasing if your game really wants to tell a "personal story". I hate when games make you line up behind 5 people to slay the "one great demon lord who is threatening the realm". They should make the instanced encounters scale if you want to bring friends in which shouldn't be that hard to do with 2013 tech.
Those things don't take away from a virtual world, in some cases they actually enhance it. The "Simulationist Dwarf Fortress" model, while very cool, is only one type of virtual world that a game can create.
Yeah, I hate this too, in fact, those five people should be able to turn around and kill you on the spot for being anywhere near them while they are trying to kill the demon lord.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Holophonist Honestly I don't really get the confusion. Isn't a virtual world simply a game that attempts to emulate the fictional world they're trying to create? As in if that fictional game world came to life, would it function the same as it did as a game? The extent to which this is the case seems to be the extent to which the game is a virtual world. That's why things like scripted content are kind of anti-virtual world.
It's not confusion so much as it's different perspectives. If there is confusion it could be the idea that describing the difference or defining the difference is a simple thing. My approach of listing the features seems inadequate to describe the difference. Especially if the difference resides largely in the player's experience rather than a particular set of game features.
A particular feature isn't "Virtual World", "Game" or "Simulation" necessarily. It depends on the implementation I suppose. Scripted content can either enhance the feeling that the player is in a virtual world, or give the player of feeling nothing more than a game. Things that seem obvious, like being able to farm wheat become a whack-a-mole game if the wheat pops up quickly and is just sold to an NPC standing near the player's garden spot. Even open world PvP is something that can make the player feel like they're in a world, or just in a CoD match. It's not just devils that are in the details, it's the angels that are there too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Honestly I don't really get the confusion. Isn't a virtual world simply a game that attempts to emulate the fictional world they're trying to create? As in if that fictional game world came to life, would it function the same as it did as a game? The extent to which this is the case seems to be the extent to which the game is a virtual world. That's why things like scripted content are kind of anti-virtual world.
What if the kind of fictional world you want to instantiate is a fictional world with theater-quality scripted experiences? Or the other way around, I think a lot of people on the more sim side of things don't envision a fictional spirit for their world before trying to make the mechanics of it.
If the devs are trying to create a world with animatronic NPCs and mobs then yes, scripted content would contribute to making a virtual world. However, that's not what they're trying to make, so it's a moot point.
I think I have to disagree with that point. Me personally, I want to create a world which gives the player an experience like being the main character of a book, not like being someone just living their life in a world. Real life doesn't have good dramatic tension, pacing, thematic messages, or other things that make reading a story or watching a movie more satisfying than just living life.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
Originally posted by Holophonist Honestly I don't really get the confusion. Isn't a virtual world simply a game that attempts to emulate the fictional world they're trying to create? As in if that fictional game world came to life, would it function the same as it did as a game? The extent to which this is the case seems to be the extent to which the game is a virtual world. That's why things like scripted content are kind of anti-virtual world.
It's not confusion so much as it's different perspectives. If there is confusion it could be the idea that describing the difference or defining the difference is a simple thing. My approach of listing the features seems inadequate to describe the difference. Especially if the difference resides largely in the player's experience rather than a particular set of game features.
A particular feature isn't "Virtual World", "Game" or "Simulation" necessarily. It depends on the implementation I suppose. Scripted content can either enhance the feeling that the player is in a virtual world, or give the player of feeling nothing more than a game. Things that seem obvious, like being able to farm wheat become a whack-a-mole game if the wheat pops up quickly and is just sold to an NPC standing near the player's garden spot. Even open world PvP is something that can make the player feel like they're in a world, or just in a CoD match. It's not just devils that are in the details, it's the angels that are there too.
Mmmm my problem isn't really with your OP, because all you were doing is laying out some of the details that in most games that could make it feel more like a virtual world. I'm more just talking about the cipher you'd use to judge each feature. It seems clear that if you want to look at any feature and figure out what makes that feature add to or detract from the game being a virtual world, you simply have to ask if it helps the game emulate a living, breathing world.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
Well, fiction in general is intended to be "realer than real", specifically because there's a sense of theatricality guiding the author's mental simulation. The rules of drama shouldn't replace simulation, but should guide the way in which it is presented to each player. I love the word "verisimilitude" in this context because it really gets at the important fact that the goal is for things to subjectively feel real, not to objectively be realistic. Humans have an assortment of instincts and cultural ideas about what life really ought to be like, and these aren't 100% realistic, and a fictional world can satisfy them in ways the real world can't, this making a fictional world superior to a strictly realistic one. Superior meaning that people are more strongly interested in living in that fictional world, and thus developers should be more interested in creating this type of world for their players to live in.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
Take SWG as the opposite. You can go out and randomly explore your surroundings because its attempting to simulate that you're on a world. Its not just about the sandbox either. EQ or WoW is pretty much the same way.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
I got the same feeling. I felt like I was playing in a box. It was a multiplayer game to me, not an mmo. There was no world there, it was just a small section carved out of one, that I got to run around in.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
I got the same feeling. I felt like I was playing in a box. It was a multiplayer game to me, not an mmo. There was no world there, it was just a small section carved out of one, that I got to run around in.
Yes. Remember the other thread talking about refined games. This is basically themeparks being refined. Themeparks have become to be about the story which is also the progression. The rest of the world is unnecessary to tell the story or ride the rides. You go down a path or in and instances and level up. That is that.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
Take SWG as the opposite. You can go out and randomly explore your surroundings because its attempting to simulate that you're on a world. Its not just about the sandbox either. EQ or WoW is pretty much the same way.
I felt the same way in Neverwinter. "A stage" seems a very fitting description of it, especially when compared to something like SWG or even WOW.
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 game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
Take SWG as the opposite. You can go out and randomly explore your surroundings because its attempting to simulate that you're on a world. Its not just about the sandbox either. EQ or WoW is pretty much the same way.
I think I have to disagree with that point. Me personally, I want to create a world which gives the player an experience like being the main character of a book, not like being someone just living their life in a world. Real life doesn't have good dramatic tension, pacing, thematic messages, or other things that make reading a story or watching a movie more satisfying than just living life.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
I don't see why telling a dramatic story should disqualify something as a virtual world. To take an example from single player RPGs, I find I enjoy the story more in The Witcher games because they take a lot of effort making that world seem lifelike and it has really good immersion. I would say The Witcher games create a virtual world although they certainly aren't a simulation (you don't even get to choose what character you play).
There are some games that strive to create virtual worlds and others that just follow the path of least resistance and don't seem to care much. A lot of MMOs. unfortunately fall into the second category.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
I got the same feeling. I felt like I was playing in a box. It was a multiplayer game to me, not an mmo. There was no world there, it was just a small section carved out of one, that I got to run around in.
Yes. Remember the other thread talking about refined games. This is basically themeparks being refined. Themeparks have become to be about the story which is also the progression. The rest of the world is unnecessary to tell the story or ride the rides. You go down a path or in and instances and level up. That is that.
An interesting comparison would be a game like Castleville (facebook game). It's not an MMO but it has an interesting way of combining strongly story-driven quest chains (which reward XP that levels you up) and sandbox/sim play. The main thing you do, much like in a crafting-focused MMO or strategy MMO, is build buildings and set them to craft various items which are needed to complete the quests. You don't actually have to do any quests; you could just spend your daily energy cleaning up and customizing your territory. But the quests are delivered by NPCs who have vivid personalities, and there's lots of good writing giving humorous explanations of why you need to produce, say, 3 pies and 3 swords to help out your neighbor the duke, who is nervous that his territory might be invaded by bad guys (and when he's nervous, he wants comfort food).
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
Well, fiction in general is intended to be "realer than real", specifically because there's a sense of theatricality guiding the author's mental simulation. The rules of drama shouldn't replace simulation, but should guide the way in which it is presented to each player. I love the word "verisimilitude" in this context because it really gets at the important fact that the goal is for things to subjectively feel real, not to objectively be realistic. Humans have an assortment of instincts and cultural ideas about what life really ought to be like, and these aren't 100% realistic, and a fictional world can satisfy them in ways the real world can't, this making a fictional world superior to a strictly realistic one. Superior meaning that people are more strongly interested in living in that fictional world, and thus developers should be more interested in creating this type of world for their players to live in.
Yes that's why I'm saying it's supposed to emulate the world that they're trying to present. I'm not saying a virtual world has to be like real life, I'm saying it has to be like A living, breathing world, not OUR living, breathing world.
It's not that a strong narrative and good drama would detract from a game being like a virtual world, I'm just saying that's not a determining factor. It's not a coincidence that sandbox games are usually the ones that are described as being a "virtual world" and they typically lack that strong personal storyline narrative. Likewise themeparks are usually the games that people complain aren't much like "virtual worlds" and they DO have a heavy emphasis on that scripted personal storyline business.
I think I have to disagree with that point. Me personally, I want to create a world which gives the player an experience like being the main character of a book, not like being someone just living their life in a world. Real life doesn't have good dramatic tension, pacing, thematic messages, or other things that make reading a story or watching a movie more satisfying than just living life.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
I don't see why telling a dramatic story should disqualify something as a virtual world. To take an example from single player RPGs, I find I enjoy the story more in The Witcher games because they take a lot of effort making that world seem lifelike and it has really good immersion. I would say The Witcher games create a virtual world although they certainly aren't a simulation (you don't even get to choose what character you play).
There are some games that strive to create virtual worlds and others that just follow the path of least resistance and don't seem to care much. A lot of MMOs. unfortunately fall into the second category.
A virtual world is going to be one that emulates a.... world. That's all it means. So by him saying that he wants a game that tells your personal story like in a book and not make it feel like you're just somebody living their life in a world, that's not really describing a "virtual world", that's describing a game that may be immersive to somebody who wants it, but nothing about what he describes is something that is specific to creating a virtual world. That's why I brought up that a few times in this thread people have kind of drifted away from "virtual world" and more towards "what I like." You can like a game with scripted content and a heavy emphasis on your personal narrative, but that's not really something that should be associated with creating a "virtual world."
As I define it, it's a believable world with cities, diverse landscapes, and simulated activities that create the illusion of a world. It can be the smallest thing like NPCs with schedule and conversations, it can be seeing ships coming in and out a harbour, or it can be survivalist mechanics. It can also be all of those. You paint a good example with Rift - there's two cities, one per faction. It feels like a glimpse of a world, rather than the actual world. I feel it's immensely important to have a unique feel to the world, and this is something the older generation accomplished well. I always appreciated that about Everquest and Vanguard - it was believable and real to some extent.
Yes that's why I'm saying it's supposed to emulate the world that they're trying to present. I'm not saying a virtual world has to be like real life, I'm saying it has to be like A living, breathing world, not OUR living, breathing world.
What I'm saying is that your definition of "a living, breathing world" is too realistic. You seem hung up on what the world is doing in the parts that aren't directly interacting with the player. Our human experience of the world is inherently subjective and self-centric; there's no reason a virtual world can't be subjective and player-centric. More to the point, I think that dramatic structure IS directly relevant when we are talking about "good" virtual worlds, as opposed to just any virtual worlds. I believe that a virtual world is inherently improved by using dramatic principles to organize the experience presented to the player; so this element is important when discussing virtual world design and quality even though it isn't directly related to the world's virtuality. But, if you still disagree, I think we've both presented our opinions clearly, so it's probably "agree to disagree" time.
(Also, I'm a she, but no big deal about that; I tend to assume posters on a game-related site are male too.)
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Yes that's why I'm saying it's supposed to emulate the world that they're trying to present. I'm not saying a virtual world has to be like real life, I'm saying it has to be like A living, breathing world, not OUR living, breathing world.
What I'm saying is that your definition of "a living, breathing world" is too realistic. You seem hung up on what the world is doing in the parts that aren't directly interacting with the player. Our human experience of the world is inherently subjective and self-centric; there's no reason a virtual world can't be subjective and player-centric. More to the point, I think that dramatic structure IS directly relevant when we are talking about "good" virtual worlds, as opposed to just any virtual worlds. I believe that a virtual world is inherently improved by using dramatic principles to organize the experience presented to the player; so this element is important when discussing virtual world design and quality even though it isn't directly related to the world's virtuality. But, if you still disagree, I think we've both presented our opinions clearly, so it's probably "agree to disagree" time.
(Also, I'm a she, but no big deal about that; I tend to assume posters on a game-related site are male too.)
Oh sorry yeah until now I've always just assumed everybody on the internet is a guy.
At any rate, I'm not saying that a game with a strong narrative or sense of personal storyline CAN'T be a virtual world, I'm just saying it's not something that makes a game a virtual world. It doesn't disqualify it, it just doesn't add to it. The point of saying it's a virtual world is obviously to say something about the world of the game, the things around you, not you yourself.
I agree about the quality thing though. I'm not saying making a perfect simulation of a given world would be fun or interesting, but when people on these forums talk about games feeling like a virtual world, it's usually in contrast to that emphasis on scripted content that themeparks enjoy.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to the "too realistic" thing.
It's certainly possible that making a perfect simulation of any kind of world (fictional or otherwise) wouldn't make for a good game. But that's just a question of degree. All I'm saying is that a "virtual world" is one that simulates an actual world. Doesn't have to be OUR world, just whatever kind of world they're trying to create. That's why the behind-the-scenes thing that I'm focusing on is important, because that's what makes it a "world", instead of the stuff that's just happening to you.
Comments
There's a lot to be said for the use of scripted content to make a world seem more immersive and alive, however that tends to come at the cost of stepping away from the persistence of the game world.
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
Virtual world is a system where you have virtual resources (earth) and virtual grass grow from that resources , rabbits eat grass and wolf kill and eats those rabbits ,
then it turn for wolf to die by many ways and become resource ect ect ...
Basically it something like virtual circle of life where players are part of that circle .
Of course it not perfect (or complex) circle like real world
(lol , it make me wonder if we are some npc in a virtual world with intelligent)
Agreed. A well-designed, personalized experience can really add to the feeling of being the hero, being the main character.
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 actually like scripted content and instancing and phasing if your game really wants to tell a "personal story". I hate when games make you line up behind 5 people to slay the "one great demon lord who is threatening the realm". They should make the instanced encounters scale if you want to bring friends in which shouldn't be that hard to do with 2013 tech.
Those things don't take away from a virtual world, in some cases they actually enhance it. The "Simulationist Dwarf Fortress" model, while very cool, is only one type of virtual world that a game can create.
Yes! And scaled instances should work the other way too - I love soloing dungeons, the kind normally intended for parties of 4 or more people; it has always frustrated me that it would be so easy for most MMOs to have a single-player version of the boss(es) for each dungeon - that's usually the only part that's impossible to solo - and an achievement or quest to solo the dungeon. You'd think they'd be all in favor of encouraging content re-use like that...
Yeah that's my bad what I should have said after that was an RPG can greatly benefit from having Sim like features, as they can enhance the believability of that world, which in turn leads to an easier transition into playing a role in it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah, I hate this too, in fact, those five people should be able to turn around and kill you on the spot for being anywhere near them while they are trying to kill the demon lord.
Waiting problem solved
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's not confusion so much as it's different perspectives. If there is confusion it could be the idea that describing the difference or defining the difference is a simple thing. My approach of listing the features seems inadequate to describe the difference. Especially if the difference resides largely in the player's experience rather than a particular set of game features.
A particular feature isn't "Virtual World", "Game" or "Simulation" necessarily. It depends on the implementation I suppose. Scripted content can either enhance the feeling that the player is in a virtual world, or give the player of feeling nothing more than a game. Things that seem obvious, like being able to farm wheat become a whack-a-mole game if the wheat pops up quickly and is just sold to an NPC standing near the player's garden spot. Even open world PvP is something that can make the player feel like they're in a world, or just in a CoD match. It's not just devils that are in the details, it's the angels that are there too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ok well that's fine of course. You can make whatever kind of game you want to make, and you can enjoy whatever kind of game you want to enjoy. But I don't think what you're describing should be classified as a "virtual world." This discussion seems to sometimes shift from what a virtual world is to what it is people want. I think the whole point of calling something a virtual world is that it feels like there's stuff going on around you that isn't just about you.... just like in the real world. And the way you do that is with simulation.
Mmmm my problem isn't really with your OP, because all you were doing is laying out some of the details that in most games that could make it feel more like a virtual world. I'm more just talking about the cipher you'd use to judge each feature. It seems clear that if you want to look at any feature and figure out what makes that feature add to or detract from the game being a virtual world, you simply have to ask if it helps the game emulate a living, breathing world.
Well, fiction in general is intended to be "realer than real", specifically because there's a sense of theatricality guiding the author's mental simulation. The rules of drama shouldn't replace simulation, but should guide the way in which it is presented to each player. I love the word "verisimilitude" in this context because it really gets at the important fact that the goal is for things to subjectively feel real, not to objectively be realistic. Humans have an assortment of instincts and cultural ideas about what life really ought to be like, and these aren't 100% realistic, and a fictional world can satisfy them in ways the real world can't, this making a fictional world superior to a strictly realistic one. Superior meaning that people are more strongly interested in living in that fictional world, and thus developers should be more interested in creating this type of world for their players to live in.
To me a game like Neverwinter Online is a game that's not a "virtual world" or at least focused on a virtual world. The world is more a stage that blocks you into experience the story. You're not going into the background or over the hill... unless the story takes you to another closed off point there.
Take SWG as the opposite. You can go out and randomly explore your surroundings because its attempting to simulate that you're on a world. Its not just about the sandbox either. EQ or WoW is pretty much the same way.
I got the same feeling. I felt like I was playing in a box. It was a multiplayer game to me, not an mmo. There was no world there, it was just a small section carved out of one, that I got to run around in.
Yes. Remember the other thread talking about refined games. This is basically themeparks being refined. Themeparks have become to be about the story which is also the progression. The rest of the world is unnecessary to tell the story or ride the rides. You go down a path or in and instances and level up. That is that.
I felt the same way in Neverwinter. "A stage" seems a very fitting description of it, especially when compared to something like SWG or even WOW.
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
Yeah, this is pretty much a great example.
I don't see why telling a dramatic story should disqualify something as a virtual world. To take an example from single player RPGs, I find I enjoy the story more in The Witcher games because they take a lot of effort making that world seem lifelike and it has really good immersion. I would say The Witcher games create a virtual world although they certainly aren't a simulation (you don't even get to choose what character you play).
There are some games that strive to create virtual worlds and others that just follow the path of least resistance and don't seem to care much. A lot of MMOs. unfortunately fall into the second category.
An interesting comparison would be a game like Castleville (facebook game). It's not an MMO but it has an interesting way of combining strongly story-driven quest chains (which reward XP that levels you up) and sandbox/sim play. The main thing you do, much like in a crafting-focused MMO or strategy MMO, is build buildings and set them to craft various items which are needed to complete the quests. You don't actually have to do any quests; you could just spend your daily energy cleaning up and customizing your territory. But the quests are delivered by NPCs who have vivid personalities, and there's lots of good writing giving humorous explanations of why you need to produce, say, 3 pies and 3 swords to help out your neighbor the duke, who is nervous that his territory might be invaded by bad guys (and when he's nervous, he wants comfort food).
Yes that's why I'm saying it's supposed to emulate the world that they're trying to present. I'm not saying a virtual world has to be like real life, I'm saying it has to be like A living, breathing world, not OUR living, breathing world.
It's not that a strong narrative and good drama would detract from a game being like a virtual world, I'm just saying that's not a determining factor. It's not a coincidence that sandbox games are usually the ones that are described as being a "virtual world" and they typically lack that strong personal storyline narrative. Likewise themeparks are usually the games that people complain aren't much like "virtual worlds" and they DO have a heavy emphasis on that scripted personal storyline business.
A virtual world is going to be one that emulates a.... world. That's all it means. So by him saying that he wants a game that tells your personal story like in a book and not make it feel like you're just somebody living their life in a world, that's not really describing a "virtual world", that's describing a game that may be immersive to somebody who wants it, but nothing about what he describes is something that is specific to creating a virtual world. That's why I brought up that a few times in this thread people have kind of drifted away from "virtual world" and more towards "what I like." You can like a game with scripted content and a heavy emphasis on your personal narrative, but that's not really something that should be associated with creating a "virtual world."
What I'm saying is that your definition of "a living, breathing world" is too realistic. You seem hung up on what the world is doing in the parts that aren't directly interacting with the player. Our human experience of the world is inherently subjective and self-centric; there's no reason a virtual world can't be subjective and player-centric. More to the point, I think that dramatic structure IS directly relevant when we are talking about "good" virtual worlds, as opposed to just any virtual worlds. I believe that a virtual world is inherently improved by using dramatic principles to organize the experience presented to the player; so this element is important when discussing virtual world design and quality even though it isn't directly related to the world's virtuality. But, if you still disagree, I think we've both presented our opinions clearly, so it's probably "agree to disagree" time.
(Also, I'm a she, but no big deal about that; I tend to assume posters on a game-related site are male too.)
Oh sorry yeah until now I've always just assumed everybody on the internet is a guy.
At any rate, I'm not saying that a game with a strong narrative or sense of personal storyline CAN'T be a virtual world, I'm just saying it's not something that makes a game a virtual world. It doesn't disqualify it, it just doesn't add to it. The point of saying it's a virtual world is obviously to say something about the world of the game, the things around you, not you yourself.
I agree about the quality thing though. I'm not saying making a perfect simulation of a given world would be fun or interesting, but when people on these forums talk about games feeling like a virtual world, it's usually in contrast to that emphasis on scripted content that themeparks enjoy.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to the "too realistic" thing.
It's certainly possible that making a perfect simulation of any kind of world (fictional or otherwise) wouldn't make for a good game. But that's just a question of degree. All I'm saying is that a "virtual world" is one that simulates an actual world. Doesn't have to be OUR world, just whatever kind of world they're trying to create. That's why the behind-the-scenes thing that I'm focusing on is important, because that's what makes it a "world", instead of the stuff that's just happening to you.