Weekend Whammered

So, courtesy of a $5 purchase at Fry's, I found myself in possession of a key to unlock access to Whammer's (Warhammer: Age of Reckoning, aka WAoR, WAR) preview weekend. Whammer is the next big thing in the Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMO/MMOG) industry. Even better, the makers of Whammer, Mythic, lifted their NDA so I can actually say what I think (gee, lucky you). This preview weekend was for this last weekend only and will be supplemented by an open beta slated to start September 7th, followed by early access to the released version before the general public (the latter, as long as you purchased the game). Beta releases still fall in the bug-fixing stage and the application was peppered with feedback forms soliciting information during the course of play, and was understood to be lacking in aspects intended for the general release. Judging by past betas, beta characters will likely be wiped whereas early access characters will persist as long as purchased product key is offered up. Nevertheless, at well over nine gigs of download and at this late date, one can expect this beta to have much of the same look & feel of the final product.

That's not always the case: Funcom apparently pulled off an industry hail-mary between the beta and release of Age of Conan (AoC), which was said to be plagued by problems and apparently foreshadowed yet another disasterous MMO launch from an industry keen to tap into the huge revenue stream presented by Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WoW) phenomena, but often without the wherewithal to put together a product that will ultimately stand to the test of thousands, or what all competitors hope to be millions, of players. In Funcom's case, probably through caffeine and other stimulant-induced development overdrive, managed to overcome most of the issues that haunted their beta and deliver what is oft-stated to be one of most successful product releases since WoW's own launch years ago. To date, AoC is the only competing MMO, a fact noted by Blizzard executives, that has managed to take a noticeable bite out of WoW's marketshare, and that that bite being very overstated, being really no more than a nibble. How at 400k players, AoC qualifies as a success whereas EVE Online (EVE) is considered a more niche MMO at 250k excapes me. I would think compared to WoW's 10.9 million, both are rather niche. Still, the fact that 60% of WoW players who left for AoC seemed to have left WoW altogether, presumabely for AoC but possibly for other titles, has provided some notice, one might presume concern, for Blizzard executives and shows that WoW is starting to show it's age, with the inference that that lucrative revenue stream that has flowed and swelled each year into Blizzard's accounts is at jeopardy of being channelled into other coffers. Put another way, if only WoW's monthly fathful can be lured to pop into other gaming temples to partake, they might be seduced to convert, congregate, and hence tithe at a new fount of fun.

With such a hope, Mythic, supplemented in development funds after their purchase by Electronic Arts (EA), hopes to spin the Warhammer franchise into gold, and not the virtual kind mind you. For those that don't know the history, there is also said to be a bit of rivalry between these titles. The original Warcraft and Starcraft RTS computer games were originally developed by Blizzard as spin-off products for Games Workshop's successful roleplaying and miniatures tabletop wargames, Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and Warhammer 40K. Due to a falling out along the way, they were rebranded, leaving superficial and obvious similarities but no direct tie between game universes. If any of that is at all true, then the irony is that both Warcraft and Starcraft have eclipsed their inspiration to dominate the computer game arena. Though Warhammer FB and Warhammer 40k have continued to success on the computer and game consoles in various incarnations and continue to be successful in their miniatures forms, nothing to date has equaled the raging monetary success of the Warcraft and Starcraft titles through all their incarnations, including and especially WoW.

I predict that Warhammer Online will be a success. In fact, given the horde of Warhammer miniatures players that will be tempted to try out an MMO, if only for the Warhammer name, success seems almost guaranteed as long as the product is viable and captures some of that Warhammer feel; Whammer is and does. But niche success is not what EA Mythic, nor any vendor I would argue, is after. There has been a continual parade of MMOs since WoW's breakthough that have embarked on the seas of public fancy, with dreams of plunder and fame. Many it seems have either sunk on their journey, landed and died or are dying via subscriber starvatation, or have washed ashore, barely clinging to life in a market landscape that cannot support them all. Yet more come, lured by the sirens' call of money - a lot of money. Blizzard's annual revenue is stated to be somewhere between 1.1-1.3 BILLION dollars anually, WoW contributing most of that. Though subscription rates in the hundreds of thousands guarantee a profit stream, the ROI is not titanic, given the time to develop these monster offerings. Game manufacturers, who had been quite content before with the raging success of two-hundred thousand monthly subscribers consider such to be niche titles nowadays - sustainable and perhaps a small cash cow for new offerings - or at best something that will grow over time but will never be the market dominator. I suspect this shift in perspective has something to do with the WoW banner that each company holds up when attracting investors. The problem is, use WoW as a showcase for potential, understand that investors will expect WoW-like returns - which in turn puts pressures on development to deliver and deliver early.

Mythic was said to be shielded somewhat by a massive cash infusion from EA so that items previously on the shelf were back in production, though several key features will still be absent at launch, such as key tanking classes and cities for some of the races. So how did Mythic EA do judging by my eyes over this weekend? Well, to be honest, though I devoted many hours last weekend to try the product out, that demands on my time would not allow for anything other than a cursory examination. So take what you read as being simply superficial observations in the context of personal preference and not a good valuation of the product beyond that context. Games are like movies and books, each title speaks to its own audience and people find such that best fit their own personal tastes and are valuable only if you lean towards the same kinds of material in a similar manner. For myself, I tend to value MMOs as a casual social function to hook up with IRL friends, and value their environment and storytelling (quests) immersive experience - which puts me squarely in the PvE camp, admittedly though I have a blast when mixing in PvP and love to go on PvP jags as a welcome break. I also have an admitted short-MMO-attention span and will jump titles, being more interested in the mechanics and game aspect, rather than in creating any long-term presence.

Cost

Whammer is intended to be a subscription-based MMO with a monthly fee ($14.99), same as WoW, like EVE, like LOTRO, like AoC, like Pirates of the Burning Sea, like Dungeons and Dragons Online, like City of Heroes/Villains, like Everquest (EQ), like Star Wars Galaxies, like Final Fantasy XI (FFXI), like Tabula Rasa, like Huxley, like Vanguard, etc, etc, etc. Does anyone see a pattern here? Does anyone see a problem here? Well, I suggest the problem is that these vendors are starving themselves of revenue by trying to outdo WoW in ways other than monthly revenue model and, often, even pricing. An interesting thing about products is that you tend to go with what you know. Before Macromedia was ingested by its competitor, Adobe, I once went to a product review where Macromedia was showcasing it's new line, including Freehand. We oohed and ahhed and rightfully admitted that Freehand was a better product than Adobe's Illustrator on many counts. Why then was Freehand a minority product at probably less than 5% of market share? Why did, in a crowd of hundreds, only two people who were admitted Illustrator users, commit to switching to Freehand? Because people like to go with what they know, despite their products perceived inferiority. There's just more efficiency, less new learning, less cost, and a realization that your product will probably rip off those fancy new features given time anyway - which Illustrator did. I guess it won't come as a shock then that every MMO on the market is derivative of others in some way, in most ways, and that process is ongoing, with even venerable WoW not above incorporating "new" features in their forthcoming expansion that already exist in current competitors like LOTRO. And beyond that, something very particular to virtual worlds in general, you tend to go not with what you know, but with who you know. Unless you're a game jumper like me who just follows the fun, MMOs are also social ventures where you build up an online relationship of friends and associates; you're less inclined to try out a competing product because you'll miss your friends and whatever social distinction and ego-loot you wasted half your life in accumulating when your MMO alter-ego (emphasis on ego) goes away and you're a miserable peon again, possibly mimicking your real life.

In order to break through that tough skin of resilience and "loyalty" in such a lop-sided market, competing vendors really need to start thinking about ways to entice users into trying their products by being cheaper and more accessible AND better since better is almost required but not enough. Several of the above MMO products, at least to my thinking, are far superior to WoW - having learned from WoW to do what WoW did and cherry-pick the most successful vendor's (that would now be WoW) best features and either ignore or improve on the worst. But trying to steal WoW's thunder by costing the same is admitting defeat before the battle. Cost, trouble and especially sad farewells of leaving friends and associates (and armour) behind who will not exodus the old venue will always give the homeground advantage to WoW. I think one of the shocks for the Turbine's execs was how many people were willing to pony up a one-time $200 for a lifetime subscription to LOTRO in lieu of the normal monthly fee option. Though LOTRO has a healthy population that's growing, it's estimated to be quite small for all the quality that LOTRO presents and certainly when compared to WoW or upstarts like AoC. Just imagine if LOTRO had lowered that fee a bit. People who just cannot stomach the thought of another monthly subscription fee, especially in this economy, might be enticed if the fee was only a third of that fee or there was a fixed-price pay-up to reach that mark. The sucker punch is that, like micro-transaction and "free" MMOs, you still get people to pay, just through expansions and other extensions of an optional menu of ala carte bonuses and items and expansions, so the savings are somewhat illusionary.

Which is why I think that micro-transaction MMOs, if they ever manage to a) get over the cultural barrier in their penchant for grinding b) manage to get some quality writing and content will be the most likely challenge to WoW's market dominance. He who gets the most money wins, despite the revenue model. And if people paid more attention to the fact that Guild Wars (GW), which does not have a subscription fee, but bases its revenue model on expansion sales has sold millions and millions of copies and still has millions of users, despite also being rather long-in-the-tooth - gee, guess who's the real winner in the take-home sweepstakes? The answer is, unless you're WoW or GW, it's not any of the above. And my guess is it also won't likely be Whammer. So for cost, Whammer won't be more than other vendors, but since game-jumpers like me who have no real loyalty and leave for the next new thing aren't a good basis for long-term revenue stream, Whammer, coming as late as it does into the market, will really have an uphill battle seducing established MMO players away long-term. They might have a better job bringing in new players who adore the Warhammer brand name but who are new in general to MMOs. For Whammer's sake, let's hope so.

Combat & Quests

(/yawn) Sorry? What did you say? Sorry, let me read that quest text again: OK, it's no secret that all MMOs pretty much all use the same types of quests: kill x, get x, carry this, find this, rescue and escort some hopeless git, yada yada yada). Whammer cannot likely find a new paradigm, nor does it even seem to be trying. But given the wealth of lore already extent in the Whammer universe, can this MMO create engaging quests that hook me and move me through the story? Well, perhaps I was just distracted by the ugly graphics and bad animations but though I should have been engaged, I wasn't. Whammer really doesn't ease you into the world, and help you get a sense of your character's place in it all. Oh yes, you get the basic quests and if you know about the lore, you're probably ready-set-go. But compared to stellar quest writing as exists in games like LOTRO, and certainly AoC's maturely written quest lines - especially those on Tortage, Whammer is snoring boring. And there's little attempt to help you create that construct that makes for more emotional engagement (which means I'll want to log in and find out what happens next in my "personal" story). I mean, the Whammer races are full of nuance and rich lore and backdrop - and yet, Chaos felt as cookie-cutter as did Dark Elves as did High Elves. Greenskins maybe had a better feel and more time with them might have helped verify that. For someone who was not already versed in Whammer lore, I would find it pretty disjointing. I mean I know the factions are at war with each other - but why? And more to the point, why should I care? I was pretty much dropped into the world and quests were an excuse to go whack-a-mole - despite a veneer of racial context. Not until I got into the Public Quests, and that probably more due to the fact that that quest mechanic was fun rather than the quest itself, did I find myself getting engaged. And this is from someone who knows the backstory. I think not having a good springboard into the world probably left me with that sense of distance which is so regrettable because of any titles with a huge wealth of engaging lore to draw upon, Whammer would be among that number. Perhaps Whammer suffers a bit from being the offspring of Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC) developers married to an offshoot of a game where lore and story were merely a backdrop of getting together for a massive battle. Stories in Warhammer miniatures are like building a lovely sand-castle but where the real act is the tearing down and the anticipation of the destruction and carnage to come. The real story is in the battle and anything that comes before need only been a pretext for the action. And the quest writing for this game, the game itself in fact, feels much the same rote mechanism of laying out the props, terrain and dressing for that battle.

Do I get the sense that the quest NPCs had any real depth or personality behind them? I did not. Certainly AoC's uneven yet slowly expanding quality voice-acting has yet to be matched. But even LOTRO and WoW, through just good story writing, managed more presence than Whammer did from what I experienced. And I'll have to hand it to LOTRO for a nice touch in that quest givers remember and respond to your character based on past actions, which even if its a bit of flavor text, helps preserve some of that epic story feel. There were some small exceptions but overall, Whammer quest-givers were as bland and forgettable as the environmental textures around them.

But, let's give props to Whammer that, like AoC, quest drops are more like they should be in a game to help cut down on the needless tedium of grinding. No more liverless boars or tongueless turtles that you find in WoW. But again, this should be a given, so it's welcome, but something that many if not most MMOs are doing now.

Public Quests are one of Whammer's strongest points and my personal favorite. I can't say how much fun it was to play in the Public Quest areas: general open areas tied to a quest where the goals and rewards can be contributed to by anyone in the area and therefore a chance at the lucrative (virtual albeit) rewards. Funny thing about virtual worlds, but I often find myself a bit shy in a crowd - even a virtual one. With open game arenas like those presented in Whammer's public quest area (which were not zoned or instanced in any way), you simply discovered them and when the short timer reset (if you happened upon them too late for the loot rolls at end), you could just pitch in and lend a hand next round and pretty soon you're on your way to meeting people. It's a great feature that many other MMOs would do well to borrow (as apparently Whammer did I am told, as this feature is/was part and parcel of another MMO: FFXI). In fact, being an avid observer of virtual world use in general, not just those for gaming, I would say that activity zones where people can just opt into an event or game or fun challenge without invitation or a need to partner or group or ask permission is a great feature that would benefit any communal medium for its social draw and benefit. The ones I experienced in Whammer consisted of three linked events comprising the overall quest and really did more than any of the other quests to help capture that faction feel for self-definition as regards character and a character's place in the overall world.

Combat? Hit a button and watch an animation, watch the numbers and eventually it dies. But will anyone care? I didn't. Combat was repetitive. Though later, I did unlock some buggy timing aspects that gave me a little variety in that one ability might unlock others and once I started getting the hang of that, I was finding myself getting more engaged and finally some of the intent of the game started shining through. But it took some time and effort for that to happen. Right off the bat, I wasn't having much fun. It reminded me somewhat of LOTRO, though I got the inkling that Whammer will eventually do a better job in keeping me focused on the combat, it still didn't offer the same level of engagement as AoC's simple 3-key targeting. Still, I got the sense that the method of this madness was very nuanced and was one of the potentials of this game, even if the visual execution - though varied - was a bit off. It still all felt very WoW-like, but with funky animations where blows didn't seem to quite connect with foes. Also, aggro radius was so minimal that my character was hardly in danger unless he/she wanted to be, and therefore hardly challenged. Quests became very boring as a result and PvE combat was a thing to be suffered rather than relished, as it is in AoC.

Death penalties: none, nada, no repair bill; runs back were short. Like that? Yeah, I did. But.... not sure if death penalties are always a bad thing as they do lead to a bit of caution and discipline and use of tactics. I think the summation is that I don't miss death penalties when they're gone, nor do I mind them much if they're there as long as they're not excessive, as EQs was said to be. Both treatments have some merit. And I have to say, WoW still has the classiest death experience - or did. I haven't played in ages and I think someone told me they got rid of the b&w ghostly vantage, which is a shame since it was beautiful and surreal. Whammer does have a repair function though, which is for damaged loot that can be reconstituted by a merchant to something nicely useful in many cases. Now that was a repair bill I was happy to pay.

Crafting

Didn't see it; didn't do it. Did read about it in the PDF that came with the download though. Seems like there are more abilities to influence craft outcome than in WoW - similar to what LOTRO does in some ways, but more complex and to my mind, more interesting for its implied nuance - insofar as one can get from reading a manual and looking over intended interfaces. However, only a true test will bear that assumption out. I really can't stand crafting in most MMOs. I like the products of such because they help my characters look dudded out and their whack-a-mole abilities get nicely boosted but the means to those products are often dull dull dull process of hours of tedious gathering and used, as in the case of games like WoW and LOTRO, to disguise the fact that people have run out of things to do in the game. I don't know that Whammer will be any better, but at least the process adds a lot of complexity (hence wasting even more time but let's face it, some people, many people I'm guessing because these things keep getting added, like games with crafting complexity) getting "leet" and "uber" craft gear and abilities now to have some boasting and usefulness beyond whacking or sizzling things. And as proven by EVE's complex and studied virtual economy, rare crafting abilities can and will help your characters money pile grow, hence opening up other opportunities (sadly, like the real world, the lust for the bestest and mostest is everpresent and money, virtual or otherwise, is key if that's what you're after).

Graphics

It has been said for graphics that the real deal will be in the installed product. The graphics in the beta download, in order to keep the file size down given it was already over nine gigabytes, was stripped of higher resolution textures and defaulted to medium/low. So there's no way to really accurately and fairly judge the product until release. Sadly, Whammer did not take a page out of LOTRO's book by giving out a disc in its preview package that included high resolution textures. Even so, since many who participated in the LOTRO preview did so via download, like Whammer, that game also was criticized for looking poorly - which when you think about how lauded LOTRO is for its environmental graphics, makes one wonder how many dissed the game and never looked back not realizing that they were missing key files. There is that maxim that you can only make a first impression once; I think for general public access like these open betas - best to not assume that everyone realizes the unfinished state of the product. Not everyone is that experienced or savvy about these things. And not including the high resolution textures as a seperate download or really overstating the point that the beta did not include final graphics I suggest was a mistake because it has led to the proliferation of rumour that Whammer is a somewhat ugly game, which may or may not be true. Insofar as an unfinished beta will allow then...

Character graphics were limited. I found very few of the "pretty" race faces to be appealing. If you're going for character as opposed to beauty - well, maybe a bit more choice then for your orcs and dwarves but really, character models and combat animations rather dull and limited - and actually I think Whammer really does less well than most other MMOs since WoW. Some of the incidental animations, like characters' hair moving or different poses adopted while standing still were welcome, but for the most part, the rather oddly rigid stance of standing and running mimicked the limited mobility. Sometimes I was wondering if they were taking being miniatures' game inspired a little too far. I had to check and see if there was a bit of plastic underneath my characters' feet.

Whammer, sadly to my mind but I think I understand the reasoning, went with a cartoony look from the school of WoW - certainly better looking - for cartoons, but toons nonetheless. I suspect this one done to help create the stability required for engaging in the huge PvP battles that will govern much of Whammer and pay homage to its miniatures roots as well as keeping the game accessible to a variety of systems. Still, it's hard to find a recent MMO that has worse looking character models in fact. Several "free" toony MMOs like Silk Road, Sword of the New World etc even manage to outdo Whammer. I would say, even venerable Guild Wars and its giraffe-necked creations looks far far better in this aspect.

Environmental graphics are a mixed bag. The overall art design is really fascinating to someone who played in the Warhammer world, either in computer RTS or miniatures. So to virtually step through this world - there were some really great buildings, weapons, and structures to see. Several NPCs or dressing characters marching to war were stock out of game replicas - only moving - so how cool is that? (<-- yeah, geek factor - so what!). But the execution again was very disappointing, flat, well, again, cartoony. It was good looking for a cartoon world. But given the environmental richness of LOTRO, EVE, or even to some extent, AoC, very ho-hum. When you've seen dynamic shadows, specular lighting from a moving sun or moon, water, or clouds, as well as varied weather - it's really hard to get excited about something as dated looking as Whammer. In fact, Whammer reminded me of nothing more than Dark Ages of Camelot (DAoC), another Mythic title that I believe predated even WoW. I never played DAoC but I've seen it enough on YouTube videos to not get the sense that perhaps that the Mythic art department was falling back on old styles a little too much. Item variety, even for what little I saw, was actually quite good. I was presented with a number of very interesting upgrades, which if it holds true to endgame, bodes well for the game. Sadly, in the rush to get such a large offering out the door, item variety and textures can sometimes suffer - well often suffer, let's face it. Not everyone has the development resources of Blizzard and this aspect has a "we'll fix it later" aspect to almost all MMOs. AoC is rightly held up to lacking in such - characters at 80th level looking hardly different than at 30th. The items look fantastic for their detail, but the world has the uniform look of an Orwellian state for its lack of clothing options. Now, though this is an aspect of vanity, it does showcase what people are like within an MMO: object variety, perhaps more to the point, object recognition based on its graphics helps lead to that status aspect at a glance and people crave such. A good MMO will understand this need to cater to vanity and variety and Whammer, from what I can see, is well on its way to doing a stellar job, and certainly better than many.

PvP

I really had a good time in PvP. It was just like WoW (*ducks for cover*). It was fun, yet hardly groundbreaking. Since I was playing ranged classes, I probably missed out on collision detection (if they got close I died and that was that), which opens up a whole new world of strategic possibilities, so kudos to Whammer for that. But given the fact that AoC has collision detection already, the fact that Whammer introduced it into their version of WoW's battlegrounds is welcome but more a statement of what I think all MMOs should be doing anyways rather than something special in and of itself. Collision detection will I think really make for some very interesting and engaging, strategic even, uses in Realm versus Realm (RvR) combat (imagine a shield wall of armoured melee protecting your squishies). As for RvR areas, I did not experience them. My reading suggests that they are massive battle auto-flagging zones with capture goals. And the fact that hundreds of players can engage in open-air battles and sieges (with all those fun siege engines from Warhammer) is fantastic when you think about it. And the fact that they even reshape the world boundaries a bit, right up into the capital cities is huge - and might also be a huge pain if Whammer suffers from some of the faction imbalance that plagued WoW. But for general PvP, when you think about the fact that you might now be able to PvP in mobs numbering hundreds on a side, for anyone who's suffered through WoW's open world PvP or LOTRO's PvMP Ettenmoors stutter-fest on a crowded night, you really appreciate that its the game not the graphics that drive the fun in these sessions. And Whammer is crafted for the game and delivers fun through this kind of game it seems. But we'll have to see how they shape up post-release. And that is probably also indicative of DAoC roots and the intent of Mythic - to build upon the tradition of what is said to have been the best massive PvP game that ever existed, even if it means some compromise for graphics. But then I would argue that EVE manages to do massive battles and look good doing them.

One thing really welcome, something that was promised for AoC but has yet to makes its incarnation, is that you get XP for PvP. So instead of being tied to quests, you can exclusively PvP for levels or more likely do a mix as your mood strikes you - which is even better than what I get a sense of from what AoC intends, given that PvE and PvP bars are parallel, meaning an either or. In Whammer, it's both at once. PvP, PvE - whatever. You do, you learn - brilliant. And, unlike AoC, it was great to see it actually implemented in a game. In fact, the whole rewards structure for achievements and PvP and other was very well done and had me going for "one more" round of action, just to see what I could unlock in the way of titles, accomplishments, etc.

Sound

It was present but not something to make note of. Games like AoC especially, but to a lesser extent LOTRO, do a much much better job of ambient sound. But again, this might be a case of having to limit media files for the beta. For now, having experienced AoC's rich but never intrusive treatment, I'm not likely to be impressed by other vendor offerings. Sound in Whammer does what it is meant to do, seems accurate to the setting but did little to draw me in and was in fact absent in many cases when compared to AoC or LOTRO.

Music

Very martial and in keeping with the tone of the game, really helped me focus on the fact that my characters were at war. But otherwise, ironically uninspiring. Certainly music seemed far substandard compared to WoW's wonderful score. AoC and LOTRO also do a much better job, both with incredible music scores. For Whammer, I found that music seemed more as a required afterthought and dressing to the whack-a-mole events and indicative of the intent of what I take as more of a PvP venture then a story and quest exploration.

Stability

Whammer didn't crash my system but once (and that wasn't a system crash but a client lock. I just forced quit and restarted happy as could be). Those other graphically rich games crash me like mofos - so that's something to be said about Whammer graphics: like WoW's, they're hardly taxing and very approachable to the masses. I'd say they did this at risk of being dated but they seem to have purposely made them dated. Retro Whammer runs just fine and that's a blessing to be sure. And this really impressive when you factor that this game is still in beta.

User-interface

I really liked the Tome of Knowledge interface that included not only quests, but social standing, awards, titles. This was easy to access, well-organized, and often contextual, as in I could right-click on the quests visible in my tracker (displayed on the screen) and if I forgot any details, I could find them easily as the book opened up to the right page. Map objectives were clearly indicated, though not as well as in AoC, pretty much the same and certainly a lot better than in LOTRO and WoW. This of course is a mixed-blessing in some ways as it tends to cut down on exploration. But let's face it, who doesn't run to Thottbot or some other such at the first sign of "can't find" anyway.

There was a wealth of information other information within the Tome including some very tantalizing hints at future exploits and accomplishments ready to be unlocked. "Good" MMOs tend to tease, a bit or a lot, in holding off access to ultimately valueless items or titles or abilities (except in the context of the game), where their exclusivity makes them a desired commodity among people who share the delusion that virtual items have real worth (which leads to virtual items actually being worth something since people can and do play even exorbitant money for something that exists only virtually - but that's fuel for another blog post). Anyway, this was a very nice feature as a lot of this stuff gets thrown all over the UI and can be a bit of a search in other games. Here's it was well organized and well at hand, and shows that Whammer devs were analyzing the competition to do what every good MMO (and product) should do: do the competition better.

I also liked the built-in key options and easy and varied binding options. It took me a while to get used to what keys could do what, but once I got the hang of it all, I was clicking away. I was annoyed however by the delay in getting my character to react to my input, but I'll put that down as an obvious beta bug. If there was some sort of lag indicator, like framerates or latency, I wasn't able to find it. If it's there, it should be as such is really helpful to analyze problems or at least give a heads up if you think you're about to drop connection so that your team can wait before launching that key attack.

Summary

Whammer is more about being a good game than looking good. Its strengths are in its well-organized support features like guild organization, the Tome of Knowledge, and offering several ways to level - and in its ability to apparently deliver on the massive battle feel. But like the wargames it derives from, I often felt that the content was merely dressing for a prepared battleground and of secondary importance, as were the graphics and other attendant media.

In a nutshell, I would say that the product is rich in context, which is not unexpected given a quarter-century's worth of gaming lore spun from the original products, even if that context is not fully explored as it could be for more emotional and storytelling engagement. The execution, therefore, is uneven. What results is what seems on the surface a fairly dated product that has a lot of shortfalls but when examined in more detail offers great potential and delivers a lot of fun, often despite initial concerns. In fact, I was surprised at how much fun I had once I got over my initial disappointment. MMOs based on intellectual properties share a lot of the same pitfalls as does anything based on a shared genesis. It's like reading a book and then going to see the movie. The book sent you to the movie but colours what you expect to see and almost sets the movie to disappoint at some level: same with MMOs. That said, though I was surprised in ways I hadn't expected, overall I was very underwhelmed and somewhat disappointed in the product. Compared to some already existing titles, Whammer seemed fairly lacking in several key points, though achieving high notes in others.

Still, whether you're a Warhammer fan, or an MMO player just looking for the next big thing, or you just need a break from WoW-fatigue, Warhammer: Age of Reckoning is certainly worth taking the time for a look-see and virtual spin. It's going to be a great game for some people. And anything that helps foster competition and diversity in this area of virtual interaction is welcome and will make for a healthier climate for everyone, WoW devotees included.

Sims Online gets second life

Now the question is: will The Sims Online (TSO)'s, now dubbed EA-Land, bid to become the next big simolean come up "a day late and a (linden) dollar short?"

TSO arrived at the virtual gate just a bit before Second Life. Unlike the new runner, it came with an impressive pedigree, having been a No. 1 computer game with millions of sales and, presumably, users. A lot of good money was probably expecting that to translate well to the MMO field. The bets were on. But at first go, TSO's eyes weren't on that skinny new horse, Second Life, saddled with the rather odd notion of a non-gaming virtual world, but on the lead thoroughbred, the one with all the derby crowns and the prize money to boot: Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WoW). As it turned out, TSO failed to win, place, or even show. Second Life continued to run just happy to be in the race, and would eventually come to dominate the non-gaming track. TSO could still be seen on the field, but in time, it became obvious its running days were over. Those who wanted to remember it fondly from its game incarnations kindly said it was in semi-retirement. Others looked to TSO's lack of motion, the cloud of bad buzz hovering around it, and the stench of failure permeating from it's direction and concluded that it was, in fact, a dead horse.

As it turned out, TSO was running the wrong race. The strengths of the computer and console game: the ability to craft a personal environment, meddle in virtual lives with god-like powers, and hone one's stable of sims to better or worse ends, were best enjoyed as a solo venture. These sorts of activities did not translate well to a multi-player environment. The attempts to instill some sort of multiplayer gaming activity overlay were said to be non-productive and boring. And one of the core strengths of The Sims game, the ability to create objects, houses, neighbourhoods and share them with other players, was not allowed for in its online incarnation, essentially alienating this core and beneficial group of users who enjoyed creation more than "playing." By the time user-created content was somewhat allowed, TSO was already a non-entity, nearly abandoned by its owners, and populated only by small cadre of hard-core users. As an MMO game, it had failed.

Had the owners of TSO and The Sims seen the growing interest and potential in social virtual worlds and the Social Web, and had they not been so fixated on the gaming and monthly revenue model, they might have taken similar steps as Linden Lab. They might have fostered a game economy that tied to real currency, the concept of personal space in virtual land ownership, and the notion of the sim avatar not as a gaming construct but as a personal extension of self. Had they done those things, they might have shifted gears, providing more avenues for social venture as the main raison d'etre for TSO. They might have reopened the flood gates for uploading user-generated content. After all, having dedicated modelers (modders) who actually like to make content to share is like having a club where the patrons bring the booze, food, and music and are happy to pay for the privilege. Looking back, imagine the what-if had TSO done all these things and to boot offered a free downloadable client and access, realizing that their "game" was never going to be another WoW, but that it had the chance for a successful niche nonetheless for social users and modders. What if they had also made each install and supplement of the game function as well as an online client and as a bonus come with both game and online objects, homes, and neighbourhood access that could only be found by buying the supplements? On start-up, one could have had the option to log into personal space or into the communal grid. I mean, as virtual worlds of all sorts have shown, there's a passion for virtual kitsch hoarding. With the ability to use registered product keys for existing customers to get their online goodies retroactively, and the notion of fostering the communal online grid as a means of collecting even more objects and additions, even if the sole intention was just to use them in the installed version, owner, Electronic Arts (EA) would have seen existing players enticed to at least try out the online version and likely return. Online players would have been eager to buy the next install supplement, if only to get the proprietary additions that such offered. The installed versions could even have been marketed as good modder tools, a way to actually create and share new content. Online and install, each would aid the other.

Had this been done, the existing user-base and modder community already existing in The Sims could have provided both an overwhelming head-start in numbers, and a defined activity in the form of modding environments and objects, and an active core user base, who were willing to add content on their own time with no cost to EA. Second Life had the same thing I suppose but they were just getting started. The thousands upon thousands of existing Sim objects, landscapes, buildings, already in existence, most of them free, would create a tsunami-like inundation of rich content comparison that would swamp any challengers. Even the fact that Second Life was a fully realized three-dimensional space compared to TSO's 2d/3d rendering I think would have worked in TSO's favor since mainstream computers then lacked a lot of the graphical power to work well with something like Second Life, whereas they would function just fine, or certainly better, with a graphic rendering already tested and applied in the desktop version. And a focus on social activity but keeping and expanding on the gaming functions of the failed version, adding things like maybe How to Host a Murder sharded "dungeons" etc, would have given TSO as a social world something still today very lacking in Second Life, more fun activities to help embellish and support the social function. Increased sales of games and supplements by online players as well as increased use of the online version by installed players, finally add to that a modest surcharge for uploading user-generated content and EA would have seen a healthy revenue stream. I doubt Second Life would have survived such competition and I suspect that the virtual landscape would have seen TSO as the WoW equivalent to the non-gaming set.

But hindsight is 20/20. And the leap of faith taken by Linden Lab and Philip Rosedale in establishing Second Life in the face of conventional wisdom is to their credit and it is the reason why Second Life, not TSO, is synonymous with virtual worlds in the minds of the general public. EA was only dabbling in online gaming, though I suspect with high hopes. I imagine the focus of developer, Maxis, and parent company, EA, was always more on development for the next Sims incarnation, The Sims 2. And that was the smart move. Game sales were a proven success and The Sims 2 went on to foster a whole new set of users and aficionados (my niece for example) as well as keeping the franchise healthy and active. Success is proven by the never-ending, it seems, list of supplements that can be purchased. And there are rumours of a Sims 3 on the way. So there's nothing to really fault Maxis/EA for dropping TSO. I can conjecture the "what if" and they might be thinking the same. But, a censured world like TSO would have been, and that EA-Land will be, for modded material would not have satisfied those who sought more adult activities, like gambling, etc. Those activities underscored much of the initial growth of Second Life, just as they did on a much larger scale for the Internet in general. Even the Sims enjoyed a fair bit of risque modding judging by some downloads. It was not the issue for the Sims because each install was a "world" unto itself. Having the desire for more "exposure" in a communal setting and not having an outlet might lead to dissatisfaction if such users turn out to be significant in numbers. And as far as the dress code, if one were to judge by a lot of the stuff one sees in Second Life, perhaps social worlds have to at least allow for King Crap and Queen Skank strutting their stuff as there seems to be a significant number of users who seem to enjoy the expressive freedom for this kind of display. Freedom of expression, I propose, will ultimately be more attractive and lack of censorship is one of the reasons for Web growth and adoption in general among adults. And this equates also to scripting and construction. Second Life constructs have the potential to be much more powerful, having nearly limitless underlying functional properties, whereas those embedded in Sims objects seem to be purely for manipulating game parameters: useless in a broader social sense beyond their cosmetic features. To say that a TSO that undertook some of the popular conventions of Second Life, as EA-Land proposes to adopt now, would have made TSO the dominant social virtual world (or least a successful venture as opposed to an outright failure) is not the same as saying that TSO would be either the most successful non-gaming virtual world ultimately (not even Second Life can knowingly claim that) or by extension, some sort of 3d incarnation of the next Web.

So given these realities, how does this new old version of a virtual world shape up now that it's found itself, supposedly? Well, I won't be able to judge until I'm able to get in. But on the surface, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have created a version of the Sims 2 (or 3) that mimicked an online version of that incarnation, which as I understand it, is a fully realized 3d space. Since user content was essentially denied for most practical purposes, it would have been a lot easier to make this migration for existing TSO users (just translate the existing objects) before opening the floodgates to user mods. Once they happen, it will be much harder, akin to impossible, to make the migration to a new graphical look, ala Sims 2/3, without abandoning some user content. People apparently think that the 2d/3d graphical use, being as it is popular in worlds like Habbo, which has users in the millions, means that there is nothing to worry about in the lack of graphic panache - and they could very well be right. But an online Sims 2 would be more akin to existing virtual worlds that EA-Land will be compared to by users first trying it out. Again, just my gut feeling that a more realistic virtual space will have the legs for the final race to who ultimately succeeds as a virtual worlds vendor for adults.

But maybe trying to capture the adult virtual landscape isn't what EA is really after. If EA is just, like so many companies with a wealth of media titles to offer, trying to establish it's own virtual gateway for its products and test the virtual waters, then I think the reincarnation of TSO as EA-Land could be a great success and is a wise move given the cost to reinvigorate an existing property rather than create it anew. EA has a lot of titles and the course of advertising and trying to entice users of EA land to explore some of these could be a bridge to offering what a lot of social virtual worlds lack, fun activities beyond the scope of social, shopping, and roleplaying. Many EA titles are going to appeal more to a younger crowd. A Sims-like incarnation, sharing as it does, the 2d/3d aspect of worlds popular with young children, might find a good niche in that space in-between when children are older than the Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin set, but younger than MTV Virtual Worlds users, say ages 9 - 13 years old. I think that could be a recipe for success. EA-Land looks more like worlds they're coming from but more sophisticated. It's a safe environment; it's social; it has more options for them to contribute, and hopefully will have some fun activities to keep them engaged. Thing is, I think if EA-Land can capture this market demographic and offer activities that would appeal to them as they got older, they'd have the adult crowd of tomorrow and younger users today just might stick with something like EA-Land as they got older, rather than trekking over to another offering en masse. But to achieve this, there must be a realization that the same steps that might have made The Sims Online a raging success when there was hardly any competition years ago are not going to have the same impact today. Couple to that the likely reality that many fans of the original The Sims game have probably migrated and cannot be considered to still offer the overwhelming figure they might once have been, both as users and contributors. Considering that children's virtual worlds are the most successful to date, the retro appearance of EA-Land can play to its favor if it were to be rethought of in terms of whom it is intended to target.

This is all good conjecture. But I'm still a little confused though who EA-Land is actually intended to appeal to for the here-and-now. The Play-doh logo makes me think children. EA games tie-ins, if they even exist, would appeal to a broad range but shifting more to the younger demographics. But the demographic of the original game, and any TSO returnees, are going to be older. Also the notions of a real currency equation, virtual real estate market, and Facebook tie-ins make me think of adult users.

So can TSO make a successful go of it in this crowded list of virtual worlds? Again, I really need at some point to get into the sim to see for myself, and that will need some precious weekend time for that, but on the surface, my list of pros and cons to offer for consideration toward answering that question are as follows:

Pros

• Product recognition - people are generally aware of The Sims, even if they didn't play it
• Adopting conventions of virtual land "ownership," currency, user-generated content, and other Second Life conventions should help make EA-Land what TSO could/should have been
• Continued thriving user-base that can be tapped into (The Sims is still sold, supported, and used by fans of the game)
• EA has an impressive list of titles and could/should expand EA-Land to be a springboard for all of these - hopefully with free content that could not only further interest and sales but as well, help provide activity content.
• Online version could stimulate games sales and vice versa (they really need to think about how to bridge these products, if not my suggestions above, some way)
• Thousands of mods online, some better than the original content, potentially to make their way into the online version (rich content area ready to be tapped into)
• Millions of former users don't need to be sold on the concept and can get up and running if they find their way to EA-Land.
• Predominately female demographic of the original game represents a key market focus group as yet unavailable to most virtual worlds and MMOs, which could attract investors, corporate participation and use
• Some game functions existed in the older version, so there's a promise they still might exist (though poor from what I heard. Still, they could represent an activity function lacking in many social worlds, though they should be improved/expanded upon - especially if more EA titles are brought into the mix.)
• 2d/3d diametric graphic display works wonderfully for many popular children's virtual worlds and is a natural bridge to adoption
• Display requirements a lot less than other virtual worlds (I can really see EA-Land translating well for mobile use say and with mobile use projected to increase, this could be a key factor)
• Censorship - given user content oversight, a much "safer" environment potentially than other virtual worlds
• Facebook/Social Web tie-ins (Nice! Very good idea, IMHO and one of the best features).

Cons

• Product recognition - Can former users of TSO especially, but anyone, trust that EA can deliver the goods to be worthy of the time and emotional investment to get involved in personal space and avatars in EA-Land when they failed the first time?
• Is abandoning The Sims name in re-dubbing the offering going to make it harder for current and former The Sims aficionados to find or realize that it exists?
  
• In some ways, Maxis/EA are their own competitors. The Sims 2 has probably wooed many away from the original The Sims and adopters of Sims 2 aren't necessarily going to like the function and environment of EA-Land, which is essentially more like the original.
• If there's no tie-in between online and installed products, success of one will have less impact on the other. (As far as I know, there are no plans to say offer unique "goodies" for online use from purchasing installed expansions nor any mechanism to bring installed users gracefully into the online fold. If this continues, I see this as a lost opportunity).
• Just because there are thousands and thousands of mods online for The Sims doesn't mean the creators of that content will ever bother to have it offered for EA-Land. Many will likely have gotten bored with the Sims concept and moved onto other games, or will have adopted successors like Sims 2, or even Second Life, or some other virtual world, and enjoy more making objects for those spaces instead. This would lessen the resource potential for fast object growth from users to enrich the experience.
• Demographic target still seems to be adults. Realizing that the virtual world market has changed and focusing on young teens might see better results.
  
• Activity space still an unknown; original game did not translate well to multiplayer (Prior versions obviously failed to inspire people to stay with TSO. Will there even be any attempt at gaming functions within EA-Land?)
• Graphic display dated, lacking the panache of many competitors (but this could actually be a plus if EA intends to target a younger demographic used to a similar display format)
• Censorship (it imposes overhead on the part of the space owner and it could turn people away Eg. Branded objects are highly desirable to create a realistic living space since they populate real homes and lives: Coca-Cola, Apple, Mercedes). But when "officially" reviewed and approved, they present copyright problems. Censored worlds will probably decline to see these uploaded, which can lead to some dissatisfaction perceiving a lack user control I'm not saying it's right but it is reality. In fact, I read an article that suggested that such "pirated" virtual goods actually helped promote brand recognition and were still a positive force for the brand owner).
• Censorship will also turn away adult users unless some form of zoning or demarcation (combat zones, etc) is provided for, which doesn't sound like will be the case.

So can they make a go of it? Can a dead horse be flogged to life? (/shrug)

You tell me.

Virtual druthers: social union of games and Web

This is the second part of a three-part post that examines potential aspects of a future Virtual Web experience. Part 2: Virtual druthers: social union of games and Web discusses asset management, sourcing and standards, and offers a list of 15 salient aspects and why I feel each is something to be considered for a successful offering. Part 1: Reshaping the ego for the Virtual Web makes the case for the essentials of self and a review of the current phenomena of the Social Web to conjecture what might take shape and work well in any virtual successor. Part 3: Virtual contenders is a list of some of the major virtual words, current and future, and how I feel they stack up against the former arguments.

Notions for a Virtual Web

What makes for an ideal virtual web? I think whether there will even be a sole Virtual Web near future or ever is debatable. Certainly virtual worlds have really captured the imagination and press recently. But if product history for web clients hold true, it is more likely at this state that a number of virtual worlds will come to market and co-exist, carving out various niches in their activity zones with committed clientele. But I couldn't help thinking about what aspects might take shape in such a phenomena as would constitute the Virtual Web. We are standing at a very exciting time, near to the big bang of explosive virtual growth. Even if several worlds ultimately evolve to co-exist, I think there will always be a push to bring them together into a comprehensive or mutually intelligible format. For that reason, I think that a lot of people are thinking about the potential Virtual Web, seeing in the manifest crop of current simulations the promise of the most significant change to potentially impact social networking since the onset of the Web itself.

It is not hard to begin a feature list of something that is itself an extension, abstraction and recreation of an existing highly successful system. The current Web offers us proven qualities that recommend themselves by default: open distribution, platform independence, open source structure and maintenance, extendibility, indexing, interaction, anonymity, customization, security (relative), persistence, lack of censorship (relative), and free access.

I would argue that each of these aspects has led to the success of the Web and has made the Web as much a mainstay of social interaction and commerce as has the telephone for some, a growth pattern that will only continue. Yet, as we shall see in Part 3, most, if not all, of the offerings examined will be seen to have departed in one or more significant points from the model offered by the existing Web. Even if one does not accept the points model as I've presented it as being the most accurate rendition, there is still clearly a strong deviation in those simulations that preclude them from being a satisfactory extension of the Web experience in virtual form. If one accepts that these aforementioned qualities are proven, why would anyone consider deviating from them as a baseline moving forward to a new form? - Well, I have come to believe that such is the wrong question to ask.

Though there are some few virtual world products that have either aspirations or at least some small hope of their virtual world being the basis of the next Web, for the most, there seems to be no attempt to recreate or to capture the Web experience. What we are seeing in this rush to market is not the competition to recreate the success of the Web, but to stake out a market share in the virtual world collective medium. If such virtual colonies are successful, I believe that the thinking is probably that expansion can come thereafter. But for the time being, it is such a new medium, that exploration, exploitation, and engagement are the most important factors.

So the question, imho, should be not which virtual world could be the basis of a future Virtual Web, but how might a Virtual Web evolve from such competing closed systems? And then how might successful aspects of these spaces fold over into a more communal offering, preparing and raising expectations in terms of behaviors, access, persistence, and use?

I have posed that the existing Social Web can provide a clear roadmap to successful interaction on some levels and should factor in the overall goals for any standards body or intelligent vendor. But there are those aspects of the virtual experience that not only recommend themselves, they are germane to why virtualization is so much more engaging for some than the existing Web. If a Virtual Web is to come about, these newer features, some possibly that have yet to be discovered or displayed, will likely suggest themselves from the most successful of the virtual worlds that will thrive and prosper over their counterparts. To try and predict, plan and be prepared, to react to such a manifestation, I suggest it is best to start thinking outside of the box that is the web browser. Consider that a common yet mistaken assumption that all such virtual worlds are "games" still realizes a fundamental truth: that the other parent model to study is that of social gaming.

Collectively, social games are the most popular form of virtual world currently in existence. The most successful of these, in terms of revenue and active use, are fully realized three-dimensional spaces known as MMOs (MMO comes from Massive Multiplayer Online). In MMOs the game activity is paramount, but most offer varying levels of social activity as a by-product, often unplanned. These games offer us another model that deals with visual and aural manifestation: three-dimensional space, avatars, interactive physics (between avatars and the avatars and environment), inventory (items carried by and used by the avatar), group association and organization, avatar and group communication, persistence of space, both ambient and reactive sound and music, game engines and graphics rendering, and, for some, personal space and/or the customization of space and avatar.

Clearly, in trying to reimagine the Web into a visual format, we have clear working examples. Though such games might be proprietary, they still offer excellent proofs-of-concept. And since we have a large number of working examples, a list that compounds each quarter, a qualitative assessment can be done to decide on what features of each work best, which don't, and which ultimately might suggest themselves to a comprehensive solution that seeks to bridge the visual and interactive environment of social games to the broader use of the Social Web.

Mixing the models

The Web is mostly open, interlinked. It has evolved to include mechanisms and standards so that it can be managed, adapted, and transformed by the uses put to it. Growth is organic and ongoing. The Web is accessible on most levels by nearly all computers. MMOs are exclusive, closed systems. They are software applications where change must be managed, and with more limited resources, requirements assessed against many demands: user satisfaction, technology changes, time to market, and competing products' features. Growth is therefore more structured and scheduled. Because of their technology requirements, MMOs cater to select target markets, some more exclusive than others. Not everyone has satisfactory access.

So if we wish combine the extendibility, user control, and open standards of the Web with the sensory richness and sophistication of the MMOs, how might such an experience come to be, given the different requirements of each?

Probably the biggest hurdle in visualizing such a system are the requirements put forth by graphics rendering and scripted interaction. As we shall see in Part 3, most vendors choose to accommodate these by controlling the number of choices, essentially using MMOs' concepts of fixed asset libraries and animation rethought of in non-game terms, or supra-game terms when considering hybrid models. These work because these are closed systems, with all that such entails. Second Life is currently the only virtual world to offer the ability for users to interject their own creations into the environment (HiPiHi has stated its intention to offer same). There is only a limited fixed library. But though these user-created objects are not the sole cause of performance problems, they are a contributing factor and Second Life suffers for it. Second Life has much poorer performance and currently no ability to scale well for users in any numbers in a given area. Though an outdated graphics engine is partly to blame, one can see where bloated scripts and excessively complex object models can slow rendering to a crawl or even crash the server, harking back to when bloated nested tables and excessive JavaScript could slow the rendering of web pages in the early Web.

Any solution for a Virtual Web that presupposes both state of the art graphics and extensibility, if both parent models are valid conceptual ancestors, must need have the ability to at least offer the option for a rich immersive experience, and yet have the ability to allow for user-created objects and spaces as part of its makeup - and both with an acceptable level of performance. The solution I propose is to to apply an adaptive model that borrows from each parent. It is not necessarily the most likely model. I see several ways this might come about. It is simply a hypothesis that I find attractive.

First need is that a common baseline set of standards, which would govern not only behaviors, but script, visuals, rendering engines requirements, and a visual reference language, would need to be monitored and maintained by an open standards body, much as HTML/XML are by the W3C and JavaScript is by the ECMA. Such a body would provide a neutral platform for change and it is a proven concept already in use. A Virtual Web browser would need to include a graphics engine, like games do. The graphics engine might change over time, or different vendors might prefer different versions of it in their own products, but as long as the requirements are set for in open standards, everyone knows the minimum requirements that will be tasked to any such engine.

To achieve efficient quality, I suggest the solution also needs to follow one of two tracks: the markup model or the library model.

The markup model is an exception to my argument as it excludes the game ancestor and reimagines virtuality based on a markup language, something akin to VRML (virtual reality markup language), X3D, or a scripting language, like ActionScript. This would be rendered in a web browser using a plug-in and would be akin to a more robust version of the Shockwave/Flash player. There is much that is very attractive about this. One of the biggest virtual worlds existing is based on Shockwave technology. It is a closed system but it is not hard to imagine a similar product that is open to user generated content based on a rendered language. The overhead of such would be a lot less than managing user created objects amalgamated through scripts and graphic textures of various file sizes. And objects could be linked rather than uploaded. Though existing Shockwave virtual worlds have a rather cartoony look one often sees in vectored animation, that is more typical of their market (mostly teens and children) than an indication of the limits of the technology. Even if Shockwave is not the channel for this sort of effort, one can imagine something similar coming to market. And though I see much promise in this avenue of approach, the current crop seems more focused on game-like offerings which use or seem to use embedded library objects.

The library model would borrow from the methods used by games. Games achieve much of their performance by maintaining almost all of the objects, textures, and sound that comprise the visual elements on the host system, either directly on a drive or kept on a CD or DVD, to be accessed as needed. For MMO games, the game engine needs to then rerender the scene based not only on the actions of the local player, but on the actions of those around the player as well as the game AI, all transmitted via network connections. But having the bulkiest files kept locally in asset libraries means that the amount of information that need be passed through the network pipeline would be much smaller, and the time to render much faster, than it would be had everything needed to be downloaded.

Static local libraries vs dynamic linked rendering

For the library model to achieve customizable quality, we need to find a correlation that equates media elements to both HTML and XML, and that makes use of the built-in understanding of the former, along with the extensible open-ended application of the latter. HTML is preconfigured to render in such a way because it is governed by a standards body. Anyone seeking to build a browser, be it Explorer, Firefox, Opera or Safari, knows how to build their application to render the markup correctly because these standards are open and available. Hence the "understanding" for HTML is built into browsers, and even though they include references to conforming DTDs, such are not utilized for the sake of performance and speed. There's no need to when expectations have already been set.

If builders of virtual worlds know which visual and media elements have been downloaded to any user's computer via the browser, they can use such knowledge to craft their worlds. Virtual world builders would have a hopefully large and updated library of assets they know they could call upon, at minimal impact to bandwidth. So, for the sake of virtual argument, if one takes the preconfigured asset library of a game as potentially being the same as a virtual HTML, assets hosted not on the collective Web to be downloaded and rendered dynamically, but on the host systems as part of the "browser" installation, then one understands the correlation between the two models. This creates for a very rich experience, providing visual, aural, and scripted building blocks which are then reconfigured according to instructions coming in via the Web. Everyone experiences them the same because they are the same on everyone's system.

Therefore, the default or baseline Virtual Web, like a closed game system, will have a finite number of choices available. And like a closed system that seeks to keep its users engaged, textures, objects, scripts might be corrected, modified, replaced over time, and the choices extended with care. Stored assets would obviously be faster to load. But how to expand the experience to be open-ended? Two ways: optional library downloads and linked dynamic objects. These would be akin to our visual XML. The former might even have conformance instructions, like DTDs or Schema. The latter would be self-describing. For this hypothesis, assume that all objects, standard or optional, library or dynamic, have a fixed reference number to call upon.

Optional library downloads would be like the initial library installed as part of the viewer, added to the local asset files to be potentially called upon by builders, using provided documentation indicating reference calls. Such stored assets could be based on themes or uses. They could be provided by the standards body as optional files to help extend the experience of the Virtizen, or could be offered as part of product promotions or activity vendors, such as game providers who want to ensure a specific graphical look or style to their activity zone. To keep file size down, the challenge for library extensions would be to not recreate objects and textures already installed as part of another library but only include those aspects different from the baseline, including ones that might be imagined to be better. For "open" extended libraries, anyone could use the assets in their building calls, and the call details would be provided in library documentation. But some vendors might also offer "closed" libraries, where the assets are provided for download for efficiency, but which could only be used in specific contexts - say on a specific server.

Much like current Web users are sometimes prompted to download a specific font, sound file, or browser plug-in, to optimize their Web surfing experience on a specific site, users entering into activity zones that required new library assets would be notified and asked if they cared to download them. Opting out would force the objects to render to a baseline texture provided in the default library, or render certain scripted objects inoperable. Breaking libraries into specific families of use or themes would help keep the initial browser download smaller and ensure that virtizens only downloaded files that they actively needed to by way of their own use activities. And the impact of exploration could be spread out over more time. Virtizens content with the experience in the main entry zone would never need download anything further except for those files provided as updates or extensions as part of browser upgrades based on new standards. And, as standards updated and older textures and scripts were replaced or embellished by newer offerings, one could see that the more useful and popular public domain open library assets might be added to the official libraries as part of standards maintenance. Optional library sets maintained by the standards body could include highly complex and useful common objects: vehicles, avatar hair, plants and rocks, scripted animals, or theme libraries, such as science fiction, Renaissance, Moghul India, etc. Where optional libraries included the same optional elements, including more than one library would only update the object or item in question if it was older.

Not all objects would recommend themselves as candidates for installation into the local library assets. This might be because the creator did not wish the item to be installed on someone else's computer. But most of the time, user creations would not suggest themselves for such because, not coming from a "trusted" source such as a standards body or activity zone vendor, or because they are limited to only a few files, they are just not candidates for such. And in those instances, objects would be rendered dynamically, based on instructions carried by the object itself when downloaded from the objects' or owners' servers. Such objects would render somewhat slower since the information for their construction, including all baseline textures and scripts, would need to be downloaded to memory and/or cache and then rendered, much like what is currently done in Second Life. The difference between this solution and Second Life's is hopefully that by sharing the load between stored and downloaded files, with the understanding that hopefully the most graphically intensive and complex are likely to be local, helps create a more efficient render and allow for richer objects than one currently has in Second Life.

Typical dynamic objects would likely relate to avatar embellishment: clothes, hair, skins, vehicles, etc. Probably avatar or other dynamic objects acquired would include a local download copy so one can see one's own avatar render as quickly as possible. The "browser" would first check to see if the dynamic object had a local copy kept in the asset library and if it did not find such, would then proceed to follow the rendering instructions. Dynamic objects would be self-describing, carrying their own scripts, textures, and rendering instructions as part of their object package. Dynamic object creators, for the most part, would probably like to see their objects added to local libraries, not to use per se, but at least to speed up viewing. With a hopefully good metadata system in place, users might be able to right-click/ctrl-click an appealing object and download its makeup to the local library so that it rendered faster, and as well find out how to secure their own copy, if such options were possible. (I suspect though that given the desire for unique appearance, that there should be a user option to not let others view avatar or owned-object details). The most popular objects might even make their way into asset libraries at some points.

World builders or virtual site builders would not be limited to using the static library elements, but rendering efficiency, like like in the current Web, would put pressure on builders to use methods that ensured a satisfactory visit or be willing, to put up with smaller crowds. But just like when creating complex scripting or heavy structuring in the current Web, the choice is always up to the user.

Of course, packaging efficiency, graphics processing power, and transmission speeds might someday soon render such methods obsolete, in which case all objects could be rendered dynamically, just as they are in Second Life. As equipment improves and bandwidth becomes less of an issue, asset libraries could be removed over time. But until that day, in the quest to serve as many users, the final trait inherited from the games parent for this mixed model would be a graceful de-evolution of graphics intensity, so that users not blessed with cutting-edge systems could still make use and function within the Virtual Web. Either textures could be provided in differing levels of quality, such as base, midline or high. Or the graphics processor could be set to have different levels of graphics rendering, allowing for the most pleasurable experience at the cost of processing power or functional pleasing use for most systems.

Protocols and growth

Finally, we're back to the Web ancestor. How to manage an interlinked distributed system of virtual sites like the Web? Though the application I'm sure is complex, the answer is simple: grow the Web. Virtual worlds would just be another type of access point and in the spirit of convergence, having a Virtual Web browser being the same application as a Web 2.0 browser makes sense, especially given tabbed browsing now available in nearly every Web browser. The Virtual World just becomes another layer of interaction in the existing Web, not a replacement as some have posed.

What would be needed is a protocol to take the stateless experience of HTTP to a new method of bidirectional stateful communication. One's browser isn't simply a passive recipient, it actively injects you - all right, the collection of dynamic objects that constitute your avatar - into a distant server and you are able to function and effect that space just as it and other visitors effects your alter-ego.

And yet, that same protocol might give you access to sensitive personal information retained in your browser, but not allow access to same by the owners of the server you are visiting until you actively choose to offer such to enable transactions.

I cannot speak to the state of stateful Web services, but essentially that is what is required. I know that WebSphere, among others, are working on stateful applications. One can see that one of the keen benefits of a Virtual Web, as opposed to the feudal baronies of closed competing virtual fiefs, is all the rampant growth in infrastructure that a Virtual Web would create were it to take off as projected. I suspect that existing protocols wouldn't allow for a lot of avatar/packet injection resulting in a somewhat low user ceiling, ala Second Life. But that would change in time and demands for more powerful servers and new software to host and manage traffic would ramp up. Businesses poised to sell servers, software, and routers could really see a long-term windfall that would spill over to other support industries as the means to populate this new endless Virtual Web created new job opportunities.

None of this would happen to anything like the same degree if the virtual world collective remains disjointed and disconnected. That I think is both the challenge and incentive to realizing a universal Virtual Web.

Druthers in 15 points

Combining the arguments for ego, asset management, standards and extendability, my ideal for the Virtual Web would address the following points in its construction:

1. It must be distributed, allowing one's avatar to move from server to server and yet retain basic visual and functional integrity. (a)

2. It should either allow for multiple avatars or an infinitely malleable avatar whose visible identity is distinct from an absolute verification identity. (b)

3. It must be platform independent.

4. It must be based on an open-sourced, scalable, and extendable language and asset library, such as a series of common media libraries (that are download with all viewers) and user-defined (optional download or linked) media libraries. (c)

5. It must allow users to upload their own content and define their own activities and own their own creations.

6. There must be a way for all activities and content to be typed with metadata to let search and indexing function properly. (d)

7. Though governed by standards designed to regulate its structure so that everyone has a common reference when building (like the W3 to HTML or ECMA to JavaScript) – it must be unregulated in terms of content – leaving regulation to the users and to governments to enforce.

8. It must be fully linkable with existing web-based content and existing technologies, being able to direct traffic and information to web sites and web services and vice versa; as well being able to embed web-based and media content where it makes sense to do so.

9. It must integrate high-quality multi-channel voice client, allowing people to communicate in teams or groups (useful for business and games).

10. The social space should act as an umbrella through which one enters into business, activity, and educational spaces. The social space must remain distinct but linked, so that avatars can move back and forth, from activity to activity, using the social space as the bridge. (e)

11. Activity spaces should be "zoned" or demarcated in some fashion to help indexing, search, and access (or avoidance, for areas inappropriate or offensive) to certain users of the social space (e.g. children). (f)

12. There should be social controls should that extend down to the user level. (g)

13. It must be secure.

14. It must persist.

15. It must be free of cost (h)

(a) This to allow for the full growth of the system and also the ability to host one's own offering and yet have it tied into the "grid." And in this way, market forces would come to bear, allowing for cheaper alternatives and richer experiences. Some systems might require avatar changes and restrictions based on themes, for example a fantasy game space like World of Warcraft, should it be linked – but the avatar should retain it's basic form preferences and revert upon leaving that kind of space back into the common social area. One should not discount the appeal of avatar persistence and embellishment as a form of ego extension.

(b) In the former case, I suggest an unlimited amount, but that there should be a fee (nominal but enough to discourage willy-nilly avatar escalation ($15 U.S?)). Validation, though sub-surface respective to appearance, allows anyone's avatar access to methods for payment or access confirmation when needed. Yes, people can just change their avatar at will but not always their avatar name. OR – make the exposed name itself malleable to allow for those people who want to disappear into the virtual throng without being recognized. Then no need for multiple avatars (again, "true" identity being linked to the hidden validation mechanisms). Any system really needs to account for somewhat diametrically opposed needs and function of avatars: ones that require anonymity and permutation, and ones that require authentication and fixed identity link. If we disconnect the displayed name and appearance from the latter, then we can have both. – I cannot overstate this strongly enough, part of the strength and appeal of these environments is the ability to level the social field of perception and allow everyone the ability to either appear as they wish to, regardless of social, ethnic, class, gender, wealth, religious, orientation, cultural or other conventions.

(c) Common libraries installed on system as part of the application viewer will help efficiency, reduce load times, reduce bandwidth usage, help offer high-quality graphical objects for free to help encourage building and use and help maintain the appeal of the space. This is basically taking the idea of common tagging and extending it to graphical and scripting elements. A common library lets users build say a brick edifice and have comfort in knowing that it will appear as intended. One possible use for this user-defined libraries would be to let vendors who are selling a certain "look" for avatars to use in their proprietary space have access to those textures and media files only within and while the avatar is in the vendor activity area. Avatars leaving that area, if they lack the vendor's permissions to retain the look or objects, would have such become inoperable and textures would render to a default common value or the avatar would need to "change clothes" so to speak. Like any media files, library elements could be linked for download to user system (faster loading) vs linked to load off of owners' servers (helping guard ownership and restrict unauthorized reuse). Activity vendors might also use avatar embellishment as a marketing tool to encourage subscription, such as the ability to show off a hard-won item used for the activity in the social space. ("were u git kewl rabit ears?") - Another option, is as stated, to use markup solely for rendering. But I think markup married to embedded graphical elements still allows for the best experience.

(d) Such typing should be encouraged, though users will learn this necessity themselves once better search methods come to being. This is key since objects and services are unlimited.

(e) Though social spaces are just their own activity zone, and though there should be an option to enter from a "homepage" like the Web, offering a one or more likely several communal entry points helps bring a focus and discovery point for new objects. I suspect that should such a proposed Virtual Web come about, one good way to think of this is to realize search sites like Google and Yahoo as social zones. There might be many and we'd each not have the same ones, but each would provide ready access to new features. Probably many spaces might try to attract people to "home" there and therefore be exposed to other host branded offerings on the way to doing whatever one does in virtual worlds. And I think one way to help this is to require that avatar's be "homed" somewhere - be it communal social spaces hosted by the standards body or search engines (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft), private offers that include advertising and access to fun activites (Games for Windows, Sony Home, AWOMO, Gamespot), personal worlds hosted on a home server, or even corporate or information sites (Apple, IBM, Guardian Unlimited, NY Times).

Keeping social space and its economy in real dollars distinct from activity spaces insulates the social/business space from the effects of "gold farming" and other manipulative techniques already affecting game economies. It also protects vendors doing business from dealing with inflation or devaluation of the game currency when trying to convert back to real dollars. IF game vendors want to link their game economies directly with the overall space, they will have to be the ones who pay for money taken from game to social space and account for such in their subscription fees. A good working example of games sitting within or under the social framework can be found in Second Life's Dark Life game – where "gold pieces" the game currency are tracked by the HUD given to control the game and in no way are translatable to objects or services outside the game. In other words, one cannot take gold and purchase anything outside of the game. Gold remains strictly to buy items in the game. Conversely, one cannot take Linden dollars and buy game objects – one needs gold for that. However, there is nothing to prevent people from making side deals to sell game items for minimal gold in return for a side transaction of Linden dollars, or to just sell gold themselves, all to help elevate one's game avatar abilities faster than the game designers probably would wish. But this is just the same as the issue of real money being used to purchase game items in online games, like World of Warcraft, which his the basis of the "gold farming" service industry. I suggest that game designers either decide to get into that business, as Sony did for EverQuest, make items non-transferable, instill a game tax for in-game transactions, or some other such controls.

(f) A way to enforce this "zoning" through a common media library (point 11) is to always require a "safe" baseline texture for any object so that moving back into the social space, certain types of media textures or objects would simply not render in the transition but would be replaced by a default unless the avatar user remembered to adjust. That way, there would be no way for a character to leave a game space (say a Star Wars franchise) wearing their game kit if the game vendors did not want that stuff used outside the space (or perhaps required for a separate purchase) or say, if an avatar left an adult-zoned area, there would be no danger of offensive avatar embellishments being exposed after the avatar reset to baseline (Again, all custom or user-defined textures would require or come with a default common texture, certain objects would just disappear). Also, zoning, in combination with some sort of verification, could be used to keep children out of adult-only areas and vice versa.

(g) And by inference to any and all avatar permutations. I think, borrowing from game conventions, the ability to self-edit one's own experience is key to keeping enjoyment level high. Unlike the real world, we do have the ability to filter out unwanted intrusions into our experience and I think an intelligent system should account for such. Say for example, typical of many games, if I see someone spouting nonsense that I find offensive I can simply ignore them. But is that enough? How far should it go? Let's extend that further to be more informative. Say a given decision to ignore someone is temporary and times out but a warning e-mail/IM is fired off to the person letting them know that they had some sort of social filter applied against them. That person can then decide if the action or dialogue that precipitated this is worth the cost of alienation or that the person(s) was just too thin-skinned. Or, a person can even make that ignorance of the other person permanent (reversible of course but only through the application interface). "Property" owners could use such controls to ban or warn persons abusing (in their opinion) their offerings or spaces; such is already is done in Second Life. Such social controls should permeate all the way down to the user level so that a person simply can't fashion a new avatar and then go back to the same venue or activity as if nothing had happened. I think even more powerful would be to turn off collision-detection and visibility for the mutually offended parties, and have any aspect of an unwanted user's avatars made invisible and unable to interact with the banning person or location – basically as if they weren't there. – Though I think there is a highly questionable issue of social sterility to such a solution, it would be a very powerful and appealing tool. The amount of trouble and effort it could save might justify social stagnation. Though my gut-feeling is that maybe to allow for some "in your face" "griefing" as a necessary part of any life, real or virtual. People who do not face such at some point fail to learn to the tools to maturely handle such situations. One of the strengths of virtual worlds, imho, is to be able to interact in a safer environment.

(h) ...for end users.

In the concluding third part to the original post, I will examine a number of current and future virtual worlds, organize them into types, pose them against my arguments, and conjecture what sorts of perceived strengths and weaknesses they offer.