My current grand-unified theory of multiplayer avatar games

My current grand-unified theory of multiplayer avatar games

6 September 2006

by Mike Rozak

Discuss on www.mXac.net/forums

Awhile back, I wrote "My current grand unified theory of avatar games" and "Virtual world equation". It is time to update and combine them. (Note: I've presented most of the ideas here before, but this document cleans them up a bit.)

So, without further ado, here is my current theory of life, the universe, and everything... with respect to virtual worlds.

Single-player avatar games (aka: CRPGs, FPSs, adventure games)

A single-player avatar game needs to accomplish the following:

1. 
   Players enter the game with one or more "goals", many subconscious. These goals might include obvious items, such as: to waste time, to be entertained, or to provide a challenge. Or, they might be more intricately tied to the real world, such as goals to: own a house, make friends, be famous, explore new planets, save the world, etc.
   
   The "deeper" and often subconscious goals, such as the desire to be important to society or to understand oneself, vaguely segue into Richard Bartle's "hero's journey" theory, as described in Designing Virtual Worlds.
   
2. 
   One of the game's tasks is to figure out what the player's goals are so that the game can fulfil the goals. CRPGs accomplish this, in part, by letting players choose their race, class, and how they wish to experience the world (such as Oblivion's choice of fighting vs. thieving).

   Corollary: The game's genre, advertising, and early user experience should indicate to the player what types of goals the game is capable of fulfilling. A player who cannot properly fulfil his goals in a game will either (a) stop playing and give a negative review to his friends, or in the case of a multiplayer game, (b) try to achieve the goal despite the game, leading to whingeing on the game BBS, or in-game griefing.

   
   
3. 
   The game may provide players with game-specific goals, such as rescuing the princess. Such goals should (ideally) align with the player's goals. To get players to take up game-given goals and internalise them, the game may use "story" elements to add an emotional context to the goal. (Occasionally, the story's resolution may be a goal in itself.)
   
4. 
   At any given time, the game should provide players with a menu/choice of goals they work towards. As with a GUI menu, the (figurative) game-menu should be around five choices.
   
5. 
   Players should be given in-game abilities that allow them to achieve their goal in a manner that the player expects. This may require the author to allow for several different solutions to the goal.
   
6. 
   The time and effort required to accomplish the goal should be roughly what the player expects. Players expect that walking to the grocery store will be easy, but rescuing the princess will be difficult. If a goal is easier to achieve than players expect, they'll complain that game is too easy and/or too short. If the goal is too difficult to achieve, players will give up and complain to their friends that the game was too difficult or boring.
   
7. 
   The time and effort to accomplish a goal should be enough to produce a desired effect. For example: If the game is about being an explorer like Magellan or Columbus, then travelling between places might take a relatively long (and boring) time so that players feel like they have travelled a large distance. Another example: Defeating the evil overlord is made pointless if (a) the evil overlord never posed a real threat to the player or (b) the evil overlord never did anything evil to the player.
   
8. 
   Don't give players exactly what they expect, either in the process of attaining the goal, or the enjoyment of the goal. If a game does provide players exactly what they expect, they will find the game boring. Instead, give players something better than they expected. (Easier said than done.)
   
9. 
   Fun comes into play here; Goals should be "fun" to achieve, and to "fun" to enjoy once achieved. Go talk to Raph Koster about this, or read his book, A Theory of Fun.
   
10. 
    By the time a player has completed and enjoyed his goal, a new goal should be found to fill its place. A goal-less player will leave the game.
    
11. 
    No matter what, all players will eventually decide that it's time to leave the game... (Except Peter Pan, who never grows up.) Even if the game always has another goal waiting to be achieved, the player will either achieve his personal goal(s), or (subconsciously) decide that the game either won't fulfil/satiate his personal goals any more, or is making the goals too difficult to achieve. (Again, this hints at Richard Bartle's "hero's journey"). In an ideal world, players are able to achieve and enjoy their personal goals.

    Also in an ideal world, the player's exit should coincide with an end to the content, so that (a) development money isn't wasted on unused content, (b) the player doesn't feel like he is abandoning content that he payed for, and (c) all the content wraps itself up into a memorable ending.

    
    

Multiplayer avatar games are more complex since they not only have all the single-player issues (above), but several new challenges:

1. 
   Every player has their own set of goals that they bring with them, which isn't any different than a single-player game except...
   
2. 
   Players tend to bring their friends into the game, or to leave the game when their friends leave. This means that a multiplayer game must support a much larger variety of goals.
   
3. 
   Multiplayer games have a high barrier to entry (because of Internet connection costs/problems and the sometimes negative affects of other players). Therefore, players who play multiplayer games usually have strong social reasons why they want to play, otherwise they would take the easier/cheaper route and play single-player games. These reasons/goals could be as simple as wanting to meet other people, or could be more complex, such as: the desire to run a business with real customers, to be a leader, or to dominate other people.
   
4. 
   Players' goals often conflict: There can be only one Napoleon. If two or more players want to be Napoleon, then a mechanism must be in place to determine who gets to be Napoleon. Contemporary MMORPGs rely upon "the grind" as a mechanism; he who whacks the most orcs for the longest period of time is crowned emperor. Real money payments, player skill, or a lottery could also be used.
   
5. 
   A player's goals often impinge upon other players' enjoyment of the game. If a player wishes to be an innkeeper, then other players must visit his inn, even though they would prefer to whack orcs and avoid inns altogether. Consequently, some mechanism must exist to ensure that a player's goal doesn't harm another player's experience, and/or if a player's goal does inconvenience another player, the other player should be compensated.

   One obvious solution is to make the player work to achieve his goal: For a player to achieve their own goal, they must play a part in helping other players achieve their own goals. Ideally, players won't even know (or care) that they're playing a supporting role. One solution is to create an in-game system that connects players together: People that want to meet other people "coincidentally" meet up in the street. Leaders are "coincidentally" connected with followers. Innkeepers with clientele. Griefers with people that like being griefed (but who won't admit it to the griefers). Etc.

   In some cases, the "support" is in the form of higher fees, which end up paying the employees, who end up "altruistically" supporting the player by providing them new game mechanics, better eye candy, or game masters whose role is to make the game more fun.
   

6. 
   All of these issues combine to create a complex social ecology. The world must attract a certain percentage of players that want to be followers, a few leaders, and only one Napoleon. If everyone wants to be Napoleon, or everyone wants to be a follower, then the social ecology disintegrates and the game dies. Richard Bartle discusses this in his book, Designing Virtual Worlds.