Whither Innovation?

The design of virtual worlds proceeds by a process of evolution rather than revolution. New virtual worlds usually draw heavily from one or more “parent” worlds, even to the extent that it’s possible to map out an entire family tree for all the various codebases ¹. This being so, it is becoming increasingly important that designers of new virtual worlds become aware of innovations arising in other branches of the tree. Not only does this ensure that the best ideas spread, but there is less danger of standards problems arising from the same concept being implemented differently in different virtual worlds.

Because graphical virtual worlds take so long to develop, their designers in particular must keep an eye on what’s happening elsewhere. These games (they do tend to be games) have their own strengths, of course: Their visual representation demands new levels of virtual world physics, and the huge number of players they have opens the door to all manner of interesting developments that would be impossible on a smaller scale. However, they are still several years behind text-based virtual worlds in nearly all other areas.

Furthermore, they’ll probably stay behind for some time. When it comes to implementing new ideas, text-based worlds are more:

• Responsive: Adding a new object doesn’t mean adding a new texture map.

• Enfranchising: Many more people can write well than can draw well.

• Adaptable: Program changes can quickly be made anywhere in the system.

• Experimental: The test/edit cycle is much shorter, so changes can be made almost on impulse to be later refined, retained or rejected.

• Open: Players give new ideas more of a chance.

• Pragmatic: Players accept crashes and other failures more readily if they’re not paying.

• Tunable: Minor changes don’t mean major down-time.

• Promising: More is possible with text than with graphics.

• Robust: Balance is less of an issue with fewer players.

Besides, the consequences of a failed programmed-in-your-spare-time virtual world are far less agonizing than they would be for a $15,000,000 graphical extravaganza.

So how does a designer keep up to date?

Anyone with time on their hands ² can check out a sample of the several thousand text-based virtual worlds that there are in existence ³ if they want to find out “the word on the street.” However, as I pointed out earlier, knowing what is available without knowing the theory behind it can be disastrous. It’s therefore in the best interests of all virtual world designers to discuss ideas with one another. It isn’t for sentimental reasons that luminaries such as Raph Koster, Damion Schubert, Brad McQuaid, and Jessica Mulligan not only subscribe to the MUD-DEV ⁴ mailing list, but are active posters to it. Neither is it surprising that the best informative and speculative articles about virtual world design are being written for—and made publicly available for free by—a company specializing in immersive text-based worlds, Skotos ⁵. There’s even a print magazine, The Mud Companion ⁶.

The future of virtual world design is therefore rosy, although obviously not as rosy as it would be if people richer than Skotos were to throw money at it.

The future is just that, however: the future. There’s little point in discussing what may happen to virtual worlds unless you understand what has happened and what is happening.

The timeline I’ve presented here has outlined how things came to be the way they are in the virtual worlds of today ⁷, but it has given few hints as to what actually comprises a virtual world, let alone the wider effects of including or excluding particular components in a design.

It is to this topic that the major part of the remainder of this book is concerned.