[MUD-Dev] Towards virtual worlds (and the failure of the current industry)

[Marcdemesel at hotmail.com]

--<cut>--
Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
--<cut>--
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2002Q4/msg00324.php

In relation to the article 'Sins of an Empire'
(http://www.stratics.com/content/editorials/articles/sins.shtml)

I just got an email from the author, Darien Kane, in which she
forwarded an email exchange she had with Brad McQuaid, producer of
Everquest. It's an interesting read:

  <EdNote: The original quoting format was inconsistent and somewhat
  confusing.  I've normalised as best I could.  My apologies for any
  errors.>

--<cut>--
  To: darienkane at stratics.com
  From: Brad McQuaid [mailto:bmcquaid at sigilgames.com]
  Date: segunda-feira, 2 de dezembro de 2002 06:19
  Subject: Sins of the Empire
  
  Hi there,
   
  First, a few questions:
   
  Do you want a reality simulation or a game?
   
  If you are trying to simulate reality in VR, then you have some
  points, and looking back on history and how civilization evolved
  is very valid.
   
  If you are trying to create a game, which by definition is about
  being entertained and having fun, then I think, with all due
  respect, I'd throw much of what you quoted out :)
   
  Let me be more specific and respond to your article more
  specifically:
   
  > Every society must be able to answer the basic biological needs
  > of its members: food, drink, shelter, and medical care.
  
  Brad: True, but finding food, drink, shelter, and medical care in
  a game is typically not fun... these are realities we must endure
  in RL and that most people want to escape from in games.
  
  > Probably the most important of all, this prerequisite entails a
  > number of flaws in current MMOGs that simply make realistic
  > empire managing impossible.  First off, the true importance of a
  > society depends on its efficiency when supplying members with
  > necessities; however, when characters don't need to eat or
  > drink, this importance disappears... and they might as well live
  > as hermits in the woods (as in fact most characters of current
  > MMOGs do).
  
  But they are not.  Most players certainly are not hermits -- human
  beings are social animals, and when you make a game, especially a
  game that rewards interdependence, the majority do NOT act as
  hermits. Finding food, drink, and shelter are NOT the only 'needs'
  you can place into an MMOG to bring people together and I'm glad
  they're not, because I honestly don't think it would much of an
  entertaining experience.
  
  > Therefore, here we have the first sin that stands in the way of
  > a truly meaningful social projects: lack of biological
  > necessities.
  
  Are we making social projects or games?  I guess if it's the
  former, ignore this email, because I'm definitely biased here: I
  want to make massively multiplayer games, not massively online
  simulations of life.  Why?  Well, for one, I want to play in them
  and have fun, and 2. I just don't see any big publishers wanting
  to fund the latter :)
  
  > Shelter has been poorly addressed so far. The human(oid) body is
  > fragile; hence the tendency to band together and try to defeat
  > the harsh conditions that nature presents. If the body is
  > invulnerable to environmental hazards, there is simply no need
  > for shelter. There is no actual need to housing, thus rendering
  > habitation complexes - villages - completely useless... merely a
  > nifty thing to do when you want to pretend your character needs
  > a place to live. Based on these premises, the second sin that
  > must be corrected for the ultimate social experience to succeed
  > is: invulnerability to environmental hazards.
  
  I respectfully disagree, unless you could make vulnerability to
  environmental hazards FUN.  If you can, cool, go for it.  But,
  regardless, these are certainly NOT the only reasons to encourage
  people to build 'shelter'.  UO already proved this: houses are
  places to meet and socialize, they are places to store goods, and
  they are a means to show off achievements to others (I have a
  tower and you only have a house, ha!).  And, trust me, UO has only
  touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to 'house' building.
  
  > Medical care has the potential to enable an amazing experience
  > if implemented correctly. As most of us have been told, an issue
  > of great importance in the Middle Ages was proper
  > sanitation. People that, for one reason or the other, lived
  > outside the civilized areas were found to be much more
  > vulnerable to diseases and other afflictions - often having a
  > very short life span. Poorly treated wounds, reckless nutrition,
  > and a generally mediocre lifestyle were a considerable drawback
  > from living away from the cities..  unless, of course, you
  > mastered the proper skills. In the towns, on the other hand,
  > doctors hired by the State were usually able to stop plagues and
  > ensure an average level of health to the population. This depth
  > of health care has never been seen in any MMOG to date, digging
  > another hole in path to meaningful empire building: shallow
  > implementation of health problems and care.
  
  Oh man, but who wants to get sick?  Again, I have to ask are we
  making Bubonic Plague simulators or games where you can wield
  flaming swords or fly X-Wing fighters and blow up the Death Star,
  saving thousands?  Worrying about health care sucks enough in RL
  -- I certainly don't want to see it in a game; rather I want to
  have fun and, most importantly, partake in activities I can't in
  real life.
  
  > Every society must provide for the production and distribution
  > of goods and services (perhaps through a division of labor,
  > rules concerning property and trade, or ideas about the role of
  > work).  Once the need for biological necessities is
  > acknowledged, actual ways of producing and transporting food is
  > the next step. While this area has been reasonably covered in
  > previous games, industrial scale food production requires a new
  > level of variety and complexity. First off, resources MUST be
  > limited in order to create an atmosphere of purposeful
  > industrialization; where clever handling of resources is
  > rewarded with profit/abundance. Unlimited resources end up
  > creating a messy grab-and-go feast, with no concern for
  > rationing, refining or careful evaluation of use.
  
  Well, I don't think MMOGs have truly unlimited resources -- there
  is a mechanism that limits the influx of resources and that is
  time, just as the influx of resources in RL is controlled by
  location, means to obtain the resource, distance to resource, etc.
  I do think game designers could use a lot more of that to make
  their games more interesting as LONG as what they end up doing is
  FUN, and I know many are dabbing with item degradation, etc.  But
  they are also finding out that it's really hard to do so and keep
  the game fun as well.
  
  > Which points out one more defect in some systems of the present
  > time: simplistic processes of refinement/ crafting.
   
  I'll agree and disagree.  I don't think it's a 'flaw' per se, but
  rather an aspect insufficiently explored and advanced (like
  everything else -- I don't think anything's near perfect in MMOGs,
  but you probably could argue that crafting is one of the worst).
  Yes, MMOGs should explore more detailed, complex, interesting,
  rewarding and fun crafting systems.
  
  > So the flaw here is: lack of fully methodical and varied ways of
  > passing knowledge.
  
  Well, again, not sure if I consider it a flaw... sure, it could be
  better and games could promote the distribution of knowledge to a
  greater degree, but it's very difficult.  As important and key as
  it is to MMOGs, it is also something that cannot be controlled
  because MMOGs don't exist in a vacuum -- as long as players can
  exit the virtual world and access information about that world
  from web sites or spoiler books or what have you, it will be quite
  a challenge.  But I think we're up to it :)
  
  > Every society must provide for the maintenance of internal and
  > external order (laws, courts, police, wars,
  > diplomacy). Understand this: human nature is chaotic. Our
  > primary tendency is self-destruction. The challenge when
  > building societies in RL is to overcome that tendency;
  > therefore, it is just fair to expect the same in the virtual
  > environment where the bad side of human nature is so much more
  > evident. Now, one could read this and think: 'Well, so far MMOGs
  > have been doing a good job in this sense, with flagging,
  > reputation and all.' To these people I say: nothing could be
  > farther from the truth. See, the very concept of law and order
  > is subject to free interpretation. Different societies have
  > completely different ideals of justice itself; forcing one
  > inflexible system upon all the players is basically the worse
  > approach one could possibly choose. Building an empire is about
  > freedom to disagree, its about the ultimate in customization. If
  > people cant have the liberty to choose what to believe in, we
  > shall never get even close to a glimpse of roleplaying
  > game. That said, the imperfection here is clearly: imposition of
  > arbitrary legal systems and policing.
  
  No offense, but didn't you end up contradicting yourself?  The
  'law' at the beginning states that you have to have law, courts,
  police, etc.  Then at the end you indict MMOGs for the imposition
  of arbitrary legal systems and policing?  And then earlier you
  assert that law and order is up to free interpretation? Well, with
  all due respect, no it's not, and for at least two reasons:
  
    1. All civilizations come up with ultimately the same systems
    because people inherently have in them a sense of right and
    wrong... they may argue the specifics, degrees, and details, but
    the core is there: don't kill me, take my stuff, harass me, etc.
  
    2. MMOGs are GAMES.  Games are not societies, which is why I
    asked you up front what you are really after here.  Do you want
    a virtual world that is truly a society free to do certain
    things, to own things, to basically mimic real life but inside a
    virtual world?  Great!  So do we all.  What was described in
    Snowcrash and elsewhere is intriguing and I look forward to the
    day when the technology on a variety of fronts is there so a
    construct such as that can actually exist.  But MMOGs are online
    games... I guess I could ask this: are we taking about Soccer or
    Football, or are we talking about the United States and
    Australia?  Definitely apples and oranges, though they could
    theoretically exist both in real life and in a virtual world.
    To that end, if we are talking about a game, there needs to be
    rules to the game, lest the game is no fun.  There needs to be a
    body or group of people who are responsible for the integrity of
    the game.  And there needs to be a group of people within the
    game that act as referees or umpires to make sure people aren't
    cheating and/or to make judgments on issues where, on the
    surface, it's unclear as to whether what's occurred is or isn't
    against the game's rules.
  
  > Unfortunately, the conclusion is the same for both: when it
  > comes to building an empire, the MMOG industry is a foul
  > spectacle of incoherence, a true mockery of reason and logic.
  
  Wow! With all due respect, sir, are you sure you're being fair?
  They are in their infancy and despite their many flaws, over
  800,000 people just in the United States not only regularly play
  them but PAY to play them... I don't think a rational person would
  do so were they engaging in foul spectacles of incoherence and
  mockeries of reason and logic... no offense, but you're being a
  bit rough on both us developers and players, methinks,
  
  > But in a sunny morning in a near future, one mysterious company
  > will stand up and announce a game of untold respect for human
  > intelligence; the holy grail of online roleplaying. That
  > morning, players will chant praises in one single voice,
  > acknowledging the MMOG of all MMOGs. But until then, we count
  > the days in front of the computer, shooting mongbats in the dark
  > and helplessly watching as the bastions of creativity repeat the
  > same errors all over again.  Failing to realize that all these
  > mistakes of other times are simply... the sins of the empire.
  
  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.  Like many complex
  constructs the world has developed over time, they usually advance
  slowly but surely, building upon their predecessors, fixing
  mistakes, trying new ideas, some of which work and some
  don't... and then, over time, get pretty darn good (take the first
  black & white movies with no sound vs. watching Episode 2 on a
  progressive scan DVD on a sweet home theater system).  A Ferrari
  is a far cry better than a Model T, but then I'm sure glad Ford
  made his car, and I sure hope there are cars in 40 years that
  smoke today's Ferrari's :)
  
  But do I think someone will come along and suddenly introduce some
  radical paradigm shift that will instantly solve all the problems
  and inadequacies found in today's MMOGs?  No, I really
  don't... forgive my cynicism, but as someone whose worked on a
  variety of them for the last 6 years and who knows a great deal of
  very smart people working on them, I just don't see it happening
  (if it does, by the way, I'll happily put my foot in my mouth and
  sign on up to play) -- I see, rather, an exciting yet still
  incremental path upward and onward until, one day, we or our
  children or our children's children can truly escape into a
  Holodeck of sorts and lose themselves into a completely immersive
  world, civilization simulation or game... whatever they desire :)
  
  A humble request: encourage gamers to support those who trying to
  do just that rather than criticize them for not producing the
  Messiah or Holy Grail of online games tomorrow, ok? Thanks :)
  
  take care,
  
  ------------------------------------------------
  Brad McQuaid
  Original Producer and Co-Designer, EverQuest
  President & CEO
  Sigil Games Online, Inc.
  ------------------------------------------------
--<cut>--

<EdNote: The rest of this text appears to be a reply to Brad, but
was formatted and presented as a string of free text.  I've
formatted it as if it were a message, forging the assumed header
block>

--<cut>--
  To: Brad McQuaid [mailto:bmcquaid at sigilgames.com]
  From: darienkane at stratics.com
  Subject: Re: Sins of the Empire

  Hey Brad,
   
  Great points, all of them. Your view of affairs is very solid,
  very concise. I will, of course, extend you the same courtesy you
  showed by addressing my statements point-by-point, but I will ask
  you to mind the fact that Sins of the Empires was written almost 2
  years ago. Back then I couldn't count on the experience or the
  perspective gained during the development of Archaean and the
  projects that followed. Its safe to say I dropped much of the
  idealism - and the harshness - you now see in these lines.
   
  Nevertheless, there are some observations I'd like to put on the
  table.
  
  > True, but finding food, drink, shelter, and medical care in a
  > game is typically not fun... these are realities we must endure
  > in RL and that most people want to escape from in games.
   
  I think this is where we bump into one of those root beliefs about
  gaming that will virulently undermine our discussion if we don't
  get it out of the way now.  Perhaps what draws people to play
  games is not just an urge to escape reality, but also an awareness
  of inconsequence. An awareness that no matter what unfolds in that
  environment, they are safe from real-world outcomes and the labels
  that come with them. They're free, not necessarily to be elves or
  cyborgs, but to be rejected by a date (see The Sims) or to be
  killed by afghan terrorists (see the load of games on the subject
  even with all that's been going on, no, because of all that's been
  going on).
   
  Think about it, Brad. Lead psychologists all over the globe agree
  that the underlying cause for all sorts of psychiatric disorders
  is a chronic loss of perspective on life - an addiction to seeing
  erradication behind one falling tree. Taking out the fear we all
  have of reality is already enough to enliven a context, and to
  turn failure and victory into shades of gray. Not everyone is
  trying to escape from a context in games, to blast off into a
  world of orcs and spells -- some people are merely looking to
  phase out the life-threatening component that comes in the package
  of Life, and try out that same context under the light of
  inconsequence.
   
  > But they are not.  Most players certainly are not hermits --
  > human beings are social animals, and when you make a game,
  > especially a game that rewards interdependence, the majority do
  > NOT act as hermits.
   
  Human beings are indeed social animals, and, not surprisingly,
  much of that is owed to the specifics that define us as a race:
  the need for food, drink, shelter, and medical
  care. Anthropologically speaking - and please bear with me on the
  anthropology part - these factors gave birth to a chain of events
  that are ultimately responsible for the way humankind turned out
  to be after all these million years. We're social largely because
  we must, in the face of adversity. Some MMOGs force players to
  band together in order to fend off monsters or get through
  trap-ridden caves - the game of life lacks dungeons and dragons,
  but excels in offering open-ended and non-linear challenges in the
  form of physiological needs. Who can say which one is more fun? 
  Perhaps we're so biased to believe games are all about escape that
  we never got to explore the value of inconsequence.
  
  > Finding food, drink, and shelter are NOT the only 'needs' you
  > can place into an MMOG to bring people together and I'm glad
  > they're not, because I honestly don't think it would much of an
  > entertaining experience.
   
  It would be foolishly stoicist of me to say that there isn't an
  intrinsically social component to the way we coexist - the
  uncondicional human bond. At the risk of being accused of
  overanalyzing human relationships, I'll dare to name that
  component, which is the third of the three fundamental appeals
  games in general offer (preceded by escape and inconsequence):
  that would be unpredictability. This is truly what all humans
  seek, in the form of exploration, reasoning, storytelling, gaming
  and of course, socializing. So humans will seek humans to play
  with, as a general rule, because of the unpredictability no
  algorythm can fully provide. There is nothing you or I can do to
  ever change that.
   
  So let us get ourselves on the same page here, Brad. What I'm
  professing is that the humans will play together without any
  incentive whatsoever -- the characters won't. The humans will play
  together simply because they want to, propelled by
  unpredictability, and they'll control their characters to reflect
  that desire.  But Brad... the characters have no such
  motivations. But because they are controlled by the humans, their
  behavior seems erratic, disconnected, uncharacteristic. Unhappy
  with that trend, players all over the world started making up
  excuses, little fancies to justify their characters' behavior:
  guilds, housing, player towns, wars, you name it. Chimeras with no
  real backing to support them, but that make their behavior fit the
  context. Even more accurate: they changed the context to receive
  their behavior.
   
  What I want, Brad, is just to extend to characters the same
  motivation players have the luxury to afford. Right now, the
  characters are hermits, the players are not. By using the tools of
  the developer to aid customers in creating their chimeras, maybe
  we can engineer a world that truly molds itself to embrace the
  players' unique behavioral patterns. Only then our games will be
  wholly immersive, for their workings will feel so real customers
  will never have to concoct tricks that will make them feel
  in-character again. I sure overdid it in the last paragraph of my
  ill-fated article, but I truly believe the paradigm of MMORPGs
  won't feature seventy races, two thousand spells or anything one
  might expect... but an innocent respect for the ways man deals
  with man, and an awareness that creativity is only a gift when its
  not a demand.
  
  > No offense, but didn't you end up contradicting yourself?  The
  > 'law' at the beginning states that you have to have law, courts,
  > police, etc.  Then at the end you indict MMOGs for the
  > imposition of arbitrary legal systems and policing?  And then
  > earlier you assert that law and order is up to free
  > interpretation?  Well, with all due respect, no it's not, and
  > for at least two reasons:
  
  >   1. All civilizations come up with ultimately the same systems
  >   because people inherently have in them a sense of right and
  >   wrong... they may argue the specifics, degrees, and details,
  >   but the core is there: don't kill me, take my stuff, harass
  >   me, etc.
  
  I don't think this is so, Brad. And I believe the difference
  between paying a fine, losing your right hand and being put to
  death would hardly be construed as a 'detail` by a player whose
  character was found guilty.
  
  >   2. MMOGs are GAMES.  Games are not societies, which is why I
  >   asked you up front what you are really after here.  Do you
  >   want a virtual world that is truly a society free to do
  >   certain things, to own things, to basically mimic real life
  >   but inside a virtual world?  Great!  So do we all.  What was
  >   described in Snowcrash and elsewhere is intriguing and I look
  >   forward to the day when the technology on a variety of fronts
  >   is there so a construct such as that can actually exist.  But
  >   MMOGs are online games... I guess I could ask this: are we
  >   taking about Soccer or Football, or are we talking about the
  >   United States and Australia?  Definitely apples and oranges,
  >   though they could theoretically exist both in real life and in
  >   a virtual world.  To that end, if we are talking about a game,
  >   there needs to be rules to the game, lest the game is no fun.
  
  I may be guilty of trying to erect societies instead of games
  here, yes. I'll concede here. But if fun is what we're ultimately
  after - and you've made it evident that this is the case here -
  then merely reestating that something 'is a game` may not serve
  the best interests of that purpose. Game is a sorely broad word,
  Brad, you understand - it is a dynamic of options. It is said that
  mathematics is the only science that exists by the force of
  intention alone.  Likewise, game is the only form of art that
  exists from the moment two or more options make themselves
  available. The strength of the game is therefore determined by the
  quantity of said options, and their disposition amongst
  themselves. That which detracts from the score of options is thus
  proven to be detrimental to the game - that which only adds, is
  good.
  
  > There needs to be a body or group of people who are responsible
  > for the integrity of the game.  And there needs to be a group of
  > people within the game that act as referees or umpires to make
  > sure people aren't cheating and/or to make judgments on issues
  > where, on the surface, it's unclear as to whether what's
  > occurred is or isn't against the game's rules.
  
  Again, we may be talking about two different issues here,
  Brad. There must be referees or umpires to look after the world
  and its health. I don't dispute that. But consider that, ideally,
  that group's allegiance is sworn to the world, not to individual
  players and their characters. As such, their jurisdiction is
  limited to protecting the world's welfare, that is, the principle
  of universal balance. This is done by making sure no player
  procures advantages that are not normally available to the other
  members of that world - cheating and hacking fall in this
  category.
   
  The second type of 'infraction` in MMOGs is much trickier, and
  source of great controversy. I'm painfully aware people can never
  fully agree on what's acceptable and what's not among players -
  thankfully so. But I've laid out a two-item 'code of honor` to
  making that distinction that you might find interesting, if
  anything for the party story ;)
   
    1. Does the action affect world balance?
   
      If an action does not instantly put the perpetrator one notch
      above the rest of the world in a universal comparison, it does
      not threaten world balance. Duping a sword affects world
      balance, since because that course of action is not available
      to everyone, it benefits the perpetrator from outside the
      context.  Killing a fellow PC does not.
   
    2. Does the action draw from character stats to determine its
    success?
   
      If so, the perpetrator may be merely reaping the fruit of
      his/her contextual development. Who is to say someone who
      breaks into a house and steals a gem is not just exercising
      his right to interact with the world?
   
  If the answer to 1. was 'no`, and the answer to 2. was 'yes`, then
  there is a chance the action is better left to be judged by the
  players themselves.
   
  I sincerely believe you see the beauty I refer to in this issue,
  Brad. Come on, we're both passionate gamers - we're both after the
  same thing, on the same side. Don't you look forward to that game
  where a player town won't be defined by the color of its walls or
  a charter on some website... but by its citizens` visions of
  justice, expression and prosperity?
   
  I'll save housing and distribution of knowledge for another time,
  lest you'll be smothered with abstracts. If you should e-mail me
  again (as I hope you will), feel free to use
  darienlkane at netzero.net instead of my Stratics address - I don't
  know for how long they'll keep that forwarding active.
   
  Be well, Darien
--<cut>--  
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev