Intertwined relationships

Intertwined relationships

16 March 2005

by Mike Rozak

The more I try to boil down the virtual world experience into a set of simple constructs, the more intertwined the constructs become. This document describes some of the intertwined relationships that seem to arise.

Technology

At the lowest level, virtual worlds are based on technology, such as:

• 
  Graphics engine
  
• 
  Sound engine
  
• 
  Networking
  
• 
  Artificial intelligence
  
• 
  Scripting language
  
• 
  Etc.
  

Sub-games and activities

The technologies are combined together to create sub-games and activities such as:

• 
  Combat
  
• 
  Trade and crafting
  
• 
  Chat
  
• 
  Puzzles
  
• 
  User-created content
  
• 
  Card games
  
• 
  Etc.
  

Sub-games are combined to form other sub-games:

• 
  Quests - A collection of sub-games that are organized according to a story.
  
• 
  Dungeons - A collection of sub-games organized by place.
  
• 
  Events - A collection of sub-games organized by time.
  

Sub-games can vary substantially from game-to-game. A puzzle in Zork is significantly different than a puzzle in Myst.

Synergy between sub-games

A collection of sub-games is combined to produce the final "game". What sub-games are used and how they're combined has a lot to do with the aggregate experience of the game.

Combining some sub-games create synergies that greatly improve the overall experience: Single-player CRPGs almost always combine the combat, trade, quests, and dungeons sub-games. These sub-games seem to go well together, just like peanut butter and jelly.

Some sub-games create anti-synergies that weaken the overall experience: Puzzles and card games are rarely found in single-player CRPGs. Combat is rarely found in adventure games. (Garlic is good in pasta sauce, but doesn't work well as an ice cream flavour.)

Of course, the synergies and anti-synergies are all in the eye of the beholder. (Some people like garlic ice cream, at least theoretically.)

Single-player games tend to be based on just one sub-game, while massively multiplayer games tend to include as many sub-games as possible, including crafting the kitchen sink. I suspect this occurs because, as I'll discuss later, different sub-games attract different player types, who in turn have their own synergies that counteract the anti-synergy of too many or dissonant sub-games.

Furthermore, some sub-games are more fun as single-player experiences, while others are more fun with multiple players. The "chat" sub-game is very boring when there are only AI's around to talk to (aka: Eliza), but enjoyable with other people.

Consequently, single-player sub-games seemed to be grouped into "games" of the following genres:

• 
  Stand-alone sub-game games
  
  • 
    Puzzle games
    
  • 
    Fight games
    
  • 
    Vehicle simulation games
    
  • 
    Card and chess games
    
• 
  First-person games
  
  • 
    CRPG
    
  • 
    Adventure games
    
  • 
    First-person shooters - Which are CRPGs that rely on hand-eye coordination.
    
  • 
    Action adventure games - Which are adventure games that rely on hand-eye coordination.
    
  • 
    Platform games - Which are like FPS-light combined with action-adventure-light.
    

• 
  Second-person games
  
  • 
    Sports games
    
  • 
    Real-time strategy games
    
  • 
    God games
    

• 
  Game-like MMORPG (Everquest, World of Warcraft, DikuMUD)
  
• 
  World-like MMORPG (Ultima Online, Role-playing MUDs)
  
• 
  Socialisation and creation MMORPG (Second life, MOOs)
  

Every player has their own set of likes and dislikes for sub-games. Some players like combat, while others prefer puzzles, and yet others prefer both. If you grouped players by what types of sub-games they prefer, I suspect that you'd end up with the standard game genres listed above. After all, 30 years of trial-and-error has shown which genres (combinations of sub-games) sell best.

A mixed-genre game, which doesn't have all the sub-games expected of a genre, or which extraneous sub-games, results in a weaker game and fewer players.

Just remember though, that genres are quick ways to label large groups of players. They are only vaguely correct, and no matter what combination of sub-games are chosen, a sub-set of players will enthusiastically like that specific collection of sub-games. The group may be very, very small though.

Sub-games attract different multi-player gamers

As I wrote up in Differentiation, players are attracted to multiplayer games because the multiplayer games fulfil a need that single-player games do not. Some people play MMORPGs because they like to compete against other players, as opposed to AIs. Other players like MMORPGs for socialisation. Etc.

If you create a chart that lists the different motivations for players wishing to play multiplayer games, compared to the sub-games, you'll see that some multiplayer motivations are best fulfilled by some sub-games.

In the following chart I list a few motivations and a few sub-games. In each cell I have placed a capital "X" where I think that players with the motivation would really enjoy the sub-game, a lower-case "x" where there is some appreciation, and a blank where the motivation can't be fulfilled by the sub-game. If you don't agree with my sub-games, motivations, or X's, then create your own graph; the principles remain the same:

• 
  Some sub-games are better suited for multiplayer games than others because the sub-games can be used to fulfil more motivations. "Chat", for example, is useful to all the motivations. Puzzles are only useful tools for people that want to hang out with friends (by solving the puzzle together), or to meet new people (by asking them how to solve the puzzle); Consequently, most virtual worlds do not include puzzles, but all of them include chat.
  
• 
  Some motivations fail to correlate to common sub-games. If you want to entertain people, then the only useful sub-game in most MMORPGs is "chat".
  
• 
  If a virtual world doesn't supply the full compliment of sub-games that a motivation be fulfilled with, the player will probably try to find a virtual world that provides the full compliment. If game A has quests, and game B does not have quests, all things being equal, players wishing to meet new people are more likely to choose game A because quests facilitate meeting new people.
  
• 
  If a virtual world has extraneous sub-games they will detract from the experience. A player wishing to partake in PvP is likely to shy away from worlds with puzzles because puzzles are dead weight, and, god forbid, the virtual world might require the PvP player to actually solve a puzzle.
  
• 
  Players cannot be simply placed into just one motivation. Most players will have several, if not half a dozen, motivations.
  

Since players inhabit the world together, they affect one another's experiences. A world whose sub-games attract armies of griefers, will in turn scare away socialisers, whose experience is negatively impacted by griefers. (Richard Bartle pointed this out in his player models.)

I have created a chart of my guesstimate of these relationships using the previously-listed motivations. Each row shows the list of motivations, and the columns indicate how much players of the row's motivation are affected by players with the column's motivations. (Thus, the column for griefers shows negative or neutral results for all other players since no one likes them, not even other griefers.) Each cell is filled with "++" for a very positive effect, "+" for a slightly positive effect, blank for neutral, "-" for slightly negative, and "--" for very negative. Again, if you disagree with the motivations or their effects, change them to suit yourself.

The "warm bodies" columns means that the player doesn't care what motivates the other player so long as the other player is around. "Warm bodies" also include players in the virtual world who really want a single-player experience. Griefers and entertainers, for example, find the the more players in the world, the better. (See The Player Pyramid.)

Again, the specifics don't matter, but some general conclusions are important:

• 
  Many motivations are fulfilled by having warm bodies around. People interested in role playing, in rank, in entertaining others, in griefing, and meeting new people will appreciate more players, even if the players are only playing the single-player game. (See The Player Pyramid.)
  
• 
  Most motivations produce positive feedback with themselves, although a few detract from one another. The more people that like to meet new people in a world, the more of the same will be attracted. However, entertainers, griefers, and leaders find that their own kind produces too much competition.
  
• 
  Motivation-to-motivation synergies are different than motivation-to-subgame synergies. Because of this, people who want to be entertainers will flock to populated virtual worlds, despite most of the world's sub-games being useless as tools for fulfilling the entertainment motivation. Likewise, griefers will show up to worlds with quests because many single-player gamers like quests, even though griefers don't care for the quest sub-game.
  
• 
  Because of the motivation-to-motivation synergies, virtual worlds have more sub-games than single-player games. Adding a card game to a single-player CRPG doesn't make sense because (a) NPCs aren't fun to play against, and (b) it allows players to make money by gambling, as opposed to making money by killing monsters, causes an anti-synergy. However, adding a card-game to a multiplayer game makes a bit more sense because the card game attracts players that like to hang out with one another, competitive players, etc. In turn, these player types attract (or scare away) other player types.
  

Unfortunately, too many constants must be guessed. (I'm sure you disagree with at least half of my X's, +'s, and -'s). The effects of changing a constant are so non-linear, that a simulation would probably produce inaccurate results.

So what's the point of this document if using it as a template to design a modeller won't work?

Intertwined relationships

Some conclusions can be drawn...

Changes to one part of the system affect all the other parts:

1. 
   Changing a technology affects all the sub-games based on it.
   
2. 
   Changing sub-games effects sub-games which are based upon other sub-games, such as quests and dungeons.
   
3. 
   Changing, adding, or remove a sub-game affects what kind of single-game players are attracted to the world.
   
4. 
   Changing sub-games also effects how well they fulfil multiplayer motivations, and what kind of world-like players are attracted.
   
5. 
   Changing the demographic mix of multiplayer motivations produces a feedback cycle (positive and negative) which affects what players are attracted to the world.
   

• 
  Even though it might not be possible to computationally model the behaviour of a new game, the effects of small changes to the sub-games of an existing game can be predicted on an qualitative level. Using a thought experiment, I could add a sub-game to an existing world. From that, I could guesstimate how it would affect synergies between sub-games and motivations.
  
• 
  More sub-games is not not necessarily better. A virtual world that has everything including crafting the kitchen sink will probably have fewer players than a more focused world because the plethora of sub-games will create anti-synergies amongst themselves, and perhaps even attract players who don't get along well.

  Example: Allowing players of a gang-banging MMORPG to play classical music is of questionable value since players that like gang-banging are unlikely to like classical music. Some people that like classical music will be attracted to the world, but they won't intermingle with the gang-banger PCs... although they might make good griefer targets.

  
  
• 
  Conversely, a virtual world should have more sub-games than a single-player game since the synergies between players counteracts some of the the anti-synergies between sub-games.
  
• 
  Thus, it's impossible to make a one-size-fits-all virtual world that will monopolise the market.
  

1. 
   Mass-market worlds emphasise eye-candy "technology", while niche-market worlds don't have the money for the eye candy. Consequently, they emphasise other technologies, such as AI.
   
2. 
   Mass-market worlds tend to dumb-down the sub-games as well as minimise the number of sub-games to keep the UI simple. Furthermore, mass-market games minimise the number of sub-games because they're too expensive to produce with the appropriate eye candy.
   
3. 
   Fewer sub-games in mass-market games means that quests and dungeons, which are based on sub-games, aren't as "good" as those in niche-market worlds.
   
4. 
   Fewer sub-games results in a narrower set of player motivations being met by the sub-games. In turn, fewer player motivations results in fewer players of motivations being attracted to the world.

   In ecological terms, mass-market games are like savannas. They are a relatively simple ecosystem of player motivations. Niche-market games are more like rain forests, with complex ecosystems of player motivations and sub-games. Most of the Earth is covered by savanna and other simple ecosystems, while most of the Earth's diversity is in its rain forests.

   
   
5. 
   Mass-market worlds probably won't even try to meet niche-market player motivations because the market is too small.
   
6. 
   Mass-market worlds will be more game-like, while niche-worlds will be more world-like.