Achievements in Digital Media

August 9, 2010 in Theory

John “Kaseido” McKnight recently wrote about a proposed ‘achievement’ system for Second Life which, some believe, might help shift online world demographics from a niche, free-form crowd to the lucrative gamer market. So soon after The Internet Crashed had posted an interview with Gary Ballard, this idea had me musing on notions of genre and medium again. I hope to draw a divide where social achievements can and cannot enrich a digital experience, but by doing so I must first separate MMO games from their ‘offline’ predecessors.

A Trio of Media

“MMO’s [sic.] need to be thought of as a medium, not a genre of video games. You take an experiment like Second Life and put it up against a refined, Skinner-box profit machine like World of Warcraft and you’ll see two very different experiences. Both have elements of game, but such widely varying goals that they can’t be considered in the same genre at all. You have to view them as two examples of different genres within the medium of an online multiplayer experience.”

Gary Ballard, for The Internet Crashed

Ballard’s point is a potent one, upon which Kaseido seized too – that although MMOs and games share much in common, it is almost always impossible to win an MMO, and so they are ultimately for play. The only time an MMO defies this is in player vs. player combat, when strict deathmatch rulings and the enclosure of an arena ensure that all play is taken outside normal MMO flow. A single-player console game may instead be completed once its story is run or a series of puzzles is finished. Note that for the sake of clarity, I consider the PC to be a games console too, despite the fact they run most MMOs.

I consider online games to be a separate medium indeed. The balance of constraints and opportunities open to a community-based game’s design are too many to let us treat such work as we would a console game. I currently classify these media by their chief intent: social interaction, gaming within rules, and playing.

  • Console games, typically free of social input (save for multiplayer modes), may feature ‘game’ or ‘play’. Examples would include Half-Life 2 (game) and LittleBigPlanet (play);
  • Online worlds feature no overarching goals save whatever the user brings to their own spontaneous play;
  • MMOs or online games occupy a middle-ground, since they feature directed gameplay delivered in a freeform fashion – players are allowed to embrace or disregard quests and challenges at their own discretion, and may in fact ‘level up’ without any heed paid to these features. They are also encouraged to share this experience in a social environment.

It is these differences in function and reach which I think demand careful attention when suggesting new features like achievements. The system as we understand it is, as Kaseido says, a relatively new phenomenon, though ‘offline’ achievements have featured in console games for decades. Hosting these accomplishments in an online environment has allowed players to create ‘game passports’, detailing their exploits and granting them bragging rights.

Read the rest of this entry →

Back to First Life

March 27, 2010 in Uncategorized

I’ve decided to terminate my naive, creator’s relationship with Second Life. I realise it’s a whiny and melodramatic statement to make, but I can’t ignore a feeling that I’ve seen the light.. or chosen to accept it after years of ignorance.

What triggered my finite decision is an email; one of Linden Lab’s ‘editor’s picks’ in which the Lab promotes a sim or project happening on their Grid. Some are educational programmes or shopping events, but most are artistic developments like Nemo, a Jules Verne-inspired creation. Part of what causes my negative mood is the framing of such ‘picks’. In this one newsletter we are given an unrealistic portrayal of life on the Grid, as a 3D artist’s detailed and impressive work occupies a space Linden Lab wouldn’t dare to fill with a postcard from the chaotic ‘mainland’. The best work I have seen on the Grid is completed without any apparent concern for profits or sustainability, and I’ve seen a few favourites disappear altogether. Even those projects which charge for land rental or for services run a rickety trail as administrators seek to balance an appealing price with the costs they have to cover in maintaining their Grid presence.

Then Linden Lab come along, photograph the build and promote it as a reason to visit. Those who can support their own projects will no doubt reap some joy from this, as their work is promoted by an official source for all to see. But does the everyday creator stand to benefit from presence on the Grid, promoted or not? I strongly believe that this isn’t the case. With Extropia as my example, I’ve found an emotional and creative minefield. Work on the region has been fulfilling, has taught me a lot and has helped stamp some online world entrepeneurship onto my CV, but it has never made its financial backers any money. I believe that most projects manage the reverse in fact, sustained only by their creators’ passion and emotional investment in the work.

I’ve had to say “enough”, however. After nearly three years stewarding the region as its architect, I’ve managed only to keep those parts I’m responsible for steady, as they struggle up a downwards escelator. The design risks are obvious: in order to compete with the mainland and other developments on land rental costs, the region has to charge the bare minimum to run to cost. In order to support three regions we have to rent a lot of that land out, which means there’s little room to make money off the top. Even if the region is sustained on that income, it’s entirely within Linden Lab’s practice to swoop in and highlight the region as part of their own campaigns. End result? Linden lab makes money from our hard work where we’re left drained.

It’s often said that online worlds hold vast possibilities beyond that which Linden Lab’s own product offers, and I too have promoted the idea that Second Life is not the ‘be all and end all’. Yet software runs to trends; if at last there were a new world supporting user-generated content to the extent Second Life does, it’s likely its producers or backers would seek to deviate only slightly from Linden Lab’s models, further setting back the idea we can make money from them. I find it hard to devise a world of my own with this criterion because it assumes the developer would be content in a role as internet service provider (ISP). Though it has attempted to fulil this role it seems unlikely Linden Lab ever could, and so money remains a sore point.

I didn’t start working in online worlds because I wanted to make money. I did it because I relished the challenge and found a fulfilling and creative platform for my ideas. But the project is extremely costly, and the online environment makes it nearly impossible for a designer like me to earn any sort of living. Either I devote every waking hour to the design and maintenance of a world ultimately earning Linden lab more money than it would us, or I treat it as a casual hobby and risk it running huge debts. neither is a happy picture, and neither one makes good sense as use of my time.

Where I Would Improve "Second Life"

February 8, 2010 in Uncategorized

I am a games designer, and as such my view of online worlds design passes through an amateur lens. Still, I take from my education and my research some valuable lessons on motivating users and directing them towards certain tasks. My sadly stifled research project into interactive tutorial design took Second Life as its platform, and even then I found myself fighting unnecessary obstacles. As I sit upon a new project in which I attempt to design a new 3D communit, I’m finding even more. While I don’t wish to nitpick or rant, I do wish to share some of my generally negative criticisms of the world in the hopes I can take those points away, work on my design vocabulary and perhaps improve on them some day:

SL offers next to no functions for interaction between communities. Visitors come and go, and some landowners may allow them to build or live on their virtual estate, but with the exception of the wild and sprawling mainland properties there is almost no passage between communities. What Second Life offers is a custom search function; think up the appropriate keyword term, rummage through the various clubs and shops which spam that keyword to attract customers, and you can click one button to teleport to that land.

SL almost punishes communities for trying to expand. One problem I kept riding up against as lead designer in Extropia was that its (then) six-region complex was quickly joined on the world map by a three-region university project to the north-west. Because I’d designed Extropia as an easterly-facing coastline it effectively halted all prospects of building out a mainland. Were Extropia to expand at any time, we would either have to sweep through an entirely new layout, uprooting paying tenants and teleporter bookmarks in the process, or shell hundreds of dollars out to move the three regions to a new space on the world map, for reasons I still cannot grasp.

SL‘s worthy new direction in corporate and educational hosting is at odds with its more vocal community of founding patrons. I only joined Second Life three years ago, and even then it was still a world offering second lives. Users would sign up, go shopping, socialise and effectively create a reality for themselves. Linden Lab’s wave of identity verification, corporate hosting programmes and acceptance of the fact only these endeavours will actually make the program any money are quite worthwhile but have effectively alienated a generation of enthusiastic users. This is less of a flaw considering that Second Life pioneered the market and was bound to attract a fairly typical audience of keen web geeks before its developers would realise where the market truly lays. Still I think it a shame that Linden Lab announced such a focus on verifying their users’ ‘real’ identity, instead of finding a way to allow these two user types to co-exist.

This and, of course, I still believe that their new user experience bears close scrutiny and a more game-influenced approach to teaching.

The Ever-present Transhumanist Cause

August 17, 2009 in Uncategorized

Some people won’t like what I have to say today, but I’ve been building in Second Life long enough to find one aspect of the culture utterly unpalatable. Transhumanism. It’s an okay concept brought about in science fiction, as both the catalytic theme of works like Ghost in the Shell and the evil agenda of nutjobs from Cowboy Bebop to World of Warcraft. The notion of ‘posthuman’ progression, i.e. releasing consciousness from the body into a digital format or enhancing the body somehow, is a fantastical one. But come on – there is no place for such fiction in arenas of serious discussion.

I’ve lived and worked in my ‘homeland’ of Extropia for long enough to see many conversations diverted by transhumanist fundamentalists, keen to put their agenda to any given topic. In salons with guest sci-fi authors or futurists, then of course one expects such dialogue. With futurists it’s often the case that ‘brain uploading’ and such are swiftly critiqued too, much to my personal glee. But I am sick and tired of seeing such agendas crop up in even the most practical of talks, such as last night’s Copper Robot discussion on designing environments inside Second Life.

It is literally the case that, while those in the know theorise as to the future of 3D design in corporate and entertainment venues, only one transhumanist need say “oh, it doesn’t matter – soon we’ll be uploading our every sense and consciousness to the web”. At that point, we see a time-tested pattern: I and others of my persuasion grind our teeth and bury our faces; most, including the speakers, ignore the derailment and continue talking about what can be done in reality; and a small pocket of transhuman fundamentalists carry on sharing ideas lifted right from science fiction as though they were genuine suggestions for new platforms. It’s distracting, rude, and moreover pretty pitiful when conducted in otherwise intellectual arenas.

I implore these people to wake up. Grow up. I’ve had enough. I am ashamed to think of myself as being interested in transhumanist ideas, when all I want is to enjoy the likes of Ghost in the Shell from the confines of my DVD player. I do not want to have these fantasies sullied by the knowledge that some people actually believe in it. Nor do I want my work and my passions associated with cult religious ideas, or worse, to see them used as a platform.

I think my friend Kas put it best: “disembodied transhumanism for the lose”.