eGenesis’ A Tale in the Desert (ATITD) is unusual in many ways. There is no killing (well if you try very hard you can kill yourself – permanently), there is a highly evolved legal system, and the player voted to the position of Demi-Pharaoh has the power to terminate the account of another player.
ATITD also ends.
When the players, or citizens as they are called, reach a certain level of development and the story arc reaches its climax – that’s it. For a long time players and commentators have been wondering what comes next. We knew that after the First Telling there would be a Second, but what? Would eGenesis just re-boot the servers and off we go again?
Oh, no. They had something hidden in their robes.
They’ve even announced it in an unusual way. In this video (AVI, Torrent) Andrew Tepper / Teppy / Pharaoh (all the same person - chief game designer of ATITD) announced the Endgame.
The narrative conceit is that the current generation will leave wisdom to the next. The ‘game play’ instantiation of this is that players have to create a new set of tests that will form part of the structure of the second telling. So, the current players are actually designing ATITD 2.0, a process that includes in-game elements (creating monuments) and a design workshop at eGenesis in Pittsburgh.
Reactions from the player base have ranged from “Whoah....” to “a brilliant way to avoid hiring more employees”.
For most MMOs I might think that this is just a lame way of the designers shirking their responsibilities, but ATITD is not most MMOs, the relationship between the designers and players is different, closer than in many others; also the whole point of the game was for the player base to develop into a community so it even makes narrative sense – though I’d be interested to find out when exactly Teppy thought of the ending.
For most MMOs I might think that this is just a lame way of the designers shirking their responsibilities, but ATITD is not most MMOs, the relationship between the designers and players is different, closer than in many others;
---------------------%<-----------------------
Would be ATITD game systems like the legal one work in another environment with multiple shards? And with multiple players? We need to remember that the current ATITD has around 7k players, which is less the global population of a single shard of a main stream MMOG. Still in the micro environment there are for sure some elements that could be adopted in larger MMOGs. What game mechanisms of ATITD would you suggest?
Posted by: Luca Girardo | Jul 04, 2004 at 13:43
Actually, the end game was planned even before the game went live. As the game progressed I tried to inject hints that it might end this way.
For instance, as we got further along in the game, more and more "ancient technologies" that came from past civilizations were unearthed. That was intended as a hint that we were not the first great civilization, and (players would have to make this inference) maybe not the last.
In fact, on a few occasions we explicitly referenced a King Octec from a past civilization that was known to be technologically advanced.
When the ending first came to me I immediately knew that this was it. It made such perfect sense, and fit the game's overall philosophy ("building the perfect society") like a glove. I was so paranoid that the secret would get out that only one other person would know it (Josh Yelon, lead developer), and we agreed to refine it and not commit it to writing at all.
Like so much of ATITD I have no idea if this will be a success, or a big turkey. I've seen some of the ideas players are floating around as possible Tests. A few are brilliant, and many are terrible. Whatever the case, we'll implement what they come up with, and help to refine it. I have no doubt that the release of these "challenges from the past" will be a highlight of Tale 2.
Posted by: Teppy | Jul 04, 2004 at 20:21
"tail", dude? The tale's wagging the dog.
Posted by: tbelcher | Jul 04, 2004 at 20:44
Eh, Ren's a bit loose with his spelling. Nothing to lose sleep over. Right, Ren? :P
Ren>...current players are actually designing ATITD 2.0, a process that includes...a design workshop at eGenesis in Pittsburgh.
This part is somewhat unclear; what exactly is the involvement of the players? Similar to that of level designers, or more like empowered dev forum jockeys?
Posted by: Tek | Jul 04, 2004 at 23:50
I played ATITD last year, and I participated in one in-game meeting between Pharaoh and the players. He had prepared several pieces of code as solutions to problems players had mentioned. He then proceded to list the problems, asking each player to give a score on how urgent the problem was, and which solution they preferred. After thus having identified the most urgent problem (travel), and the most popular solution (public waypoints), he released the code for that directly, without a server reboot being necessary. We were all able to use the new feature immediately.
I was duly impressed. That is the sort of customer relationship the players of bigger games can only dream about.
It was always clear that there would be a second telling of the "tail", aeh, tale. And even during the first telling the game changed a lot, it was very much a work in progress, so it was obvious that the second telling would be quite different from the first. Already during the first telling the players were able to modify the game by proposing laws. Having the players from the first tale adding content to the second is just a typical example of how close the players are to the developers in this game.
Posted by: Tobold | Jul 05, 2004 at 02:59
tbelcher > tail", dude? The tale's wagging the dog.
/blush
Tek > Eh, Ren's a bit loose with his spelling.
/BLUSH
Posted by: ren | Jul 05, 2004 at 04:42
Tek > Ren>...current players are actually designing ATITD 2.0, a process that includes...a design workshop at eGenesis in Pittsburgh.
>This part is somewhat unclear; what exactly is the involvement of the players? Similar to that of level designers, or more like empowered dev forum jockeys?
It’s more on the designer level. The players are not being asked: is this system nerfed or what? They are being asked to create entirely new game elements. The basic game designs will be then be refined at the Pittsburgh meet up.
If you have broadband – or a looong time, the video is well worth watching.
Posted by: ren | Jul 05, 2004 at 05:05
Not necessary a step of "the hero's journey", but can't help point a finger on the fact that a certain group of players are elevated into the pantheon of "dev gods" ... "demi-gods", perhaps?
Is eGensis leading the evolution of player-developer relationship?
Posted by: magicback | Jul 05, 2004 at 09:54
This doesn't seem particularly dis-similar from dozens of text muds. In quite a few of them, the goal of many players is to reach immortal-hood, at which point you can use building tools to create new areas, script mob AI, and so on. Some games, such as ours, have explicitly out-of-character requirements (you apply, tell us why you think we should let you have that power, possibly get accepted and spend a long time in training), while others have in-game methods to achieve this. For instance, you may need to get to the highest level and then risk a ton of your xp on what is essentially a die roll to see if you achieve the dev power you're looking for.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jul 05, 2004 at 13:51
magicback>Is eGensis leading the evolution of player-developer relationship?
In the commercial, graphical worlds field, maybe, but (as Matt says) this has always gone on in textual worlds. Players are continually coming up with ideas, and all but the most arrogant of designers are willing to consider these. Although most are inappropriate, poorly thought-out or just plain bad, some are excellent; others may not be great, but they're harmless and the work of but a moment to incorporate, so these will often get in too. This has been going on since MUD1.
It's not only for virtual worlds, either. According to Soren Johnson's GDC presentation (slide 41), Firaxis have a 200,000-word list of suggestions from fans of Civilization III which they are using as a basis to write Civilization IV.
As for promoting players to admin level on the basis of their having "won" the "game", again this is something that has been there since MUD1. The way we did/do it is to have a manual switch that we have to throw before the players actually get their full powers; this serves as a practical defence against any bugs players may find that give them googols of points, but it also means we can train/mentor people so they know how to behave when they get their handy management powers.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 06, 2004 at 07:10
Richard>In the commercial, graphical worlds field, maybe, but (as Matt says) this has always gone on in textual worlds.
Richard>As for promoting players to admin level on the basis of their having "won" the "game", again this is something that has been there since MUD1.
I ask my "leadership" question fully understanding that this not new (and this goes for ending-of-game too). The question is whether this activity by a peer will encourage other peers to do likewise.
Given that I believe fan faires are now a required community function, is eGensis raising the the min. level of feature set required of current MMOs?
Posted by: magicback | Jul 06, 2004 at 10:59
Magicback>The question is whether this activity by a peer will encourage other peers to do likewise.
It may do, but I suspect the bigger companies would want players to sign all kinds of legal documents to ensure that if their ideas are used they don't get paid for them (or, perhaps, that they do get paid but as a one-off in order to secure any rights they may have).
This leads to an interesting set of legal issues. If a developer uses your idea for their product, are you due any royalties from it? In Hollywood, scripts that are sent to studios without being solicited are routinely returned unread. To be read, you have to ask permission to send the script, and only when you get this permission do you send the actual script. This is so that film producers are protected from accusations that they've ripped off someone's idea for their latest blockbuster.
This works for Hollywood, but what if someone tried it in a virtual world? "I suggested that you nerf Nerf Herders, and now you've done it I want recognition and reimbursement for my expertise".
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 07, 2004 at 03:13
Magicback>The question is whether this activity by a peer will encourage other peers to do likewise.
To me this depends on what you mean by peer. As far as I am aware ATITD total subscribe base is less than 10k, the total active player population is lower than that, and I would speculate (just from experience of the game and the boards) that the number of really engaged players is much much lower.
What’s more I think that ATITD is highly self selecting, the point of the game is construction and co-operation to build a perfect society.
Thus I would imagine that running this type of design exercise for ATITD is waaay different from how it would be with a 500k player game or even a 100k one. So, I’m not sure if this kind of methodology is going spread. However, I feel that even for the big games – early beta testers are more involved these days.
Richard > This leads to an interesting set of legal issues. If a developer uses your idea for their product, are you due any royalties from it?
I assume that it’s either covered in the EULA or some kind of uber-EULA for this process. There could be an argument for joint ownership. There has been a very recent case concerning this sort of stuff in the UK.
Pam Brighton (director) brought a case against Marie Jones (writer) claiming that her input during the first production of the play Stones In His Pockets entitled her to some part of the copyright (joint author status). The case was rejected on the grounds that there was a contract that established rights. It was held that Ms Brighton did hold copyright in her notes on the play. See: Writers Guild interview with Ms Jones.
Posted by: ren | Jul 07, 2004 at 05:55
Ren> Thus I would imagine that running this type of design exercise for ATITD is waaay different from how it would be with a 500k player game or even a 100k one. So, I’m not sure if this kind of methodology is going spread. However, I feel that even for the big games – early beta testers are more involved these days.
Perhaps, but I think not. I see it as a formalize process whereas beta feedback are informal process without clear commitment by the developer to implement suggestions.
From the formalize process perspective, the community of 10K or 500K should not make any difference except administrative overhead.
Ren> Pam Brighton (director) brought a case against Marie Jones (writer) claiming that her input during the first production of the play Stones In His Pockets entitled her to some part of the copyright (joint author status). The case was rejected on the grounds that there was a contract that established rights.
The laws are well-established on these matters. I'm sure participants will have to sign lots of waivers :)
For certain companies that do expect lots of unsolicited materials, they have set up policies and procedures that handle the legal liability.
Example: many game companies have a policy that if you submit demo material with your job application, you agree that the demo material becomes property of the company.
The above is not the best example, but you get what I mean, right?
Posted by: magicback | Jul 07, 2004 at 08:24
Ren>I assume that it’s either covered in the EULA or some kind of uber-EULA for this process.
So an EULA can be so powerful that it not only claims IP over what you say in the virtual world, but what you say on web pages related to the VW, and what you say in person when you show up at a developer meeting? Would the latter two apply even if you weren't a player and therefore hadn't signed the EULA?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 07, 2004 at 17:03
> Richard wrote:
>
> This leads to an interesting set of legal issues. If a developer
> uses your idea for their product, are you due any royalties from
> it? In Hollywood, scripts that are sent to studios without being
> solicited are routinely returned unread. To be read, you have to
> ask permission to send the script, and only when you get this
> permission do you send the actual script. This is so that film
> producers are protected from accusations that they've ripped off
> someone's idea for their latest blockbuster.
This is an issue that lurks at the back of my mind all the time. In my company's games, we heavily solicit player feedback and suggestions, and pride ourselves on implementing as many as possible. Obviously, players love this.
The lawyer in me (reformed, retired lawyer that is) lurks in the depths getting nervous about the potential legal implications of this. I've yet to find a good legal analysis of this question and it often makes me wonder if I should stop expecting someone else to do the research, and do it myself.
I do, however, derive a sense of calm from the fact that ideas cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, and thus they shouldn't preset any potential intellectual property issues. Entire creative works, however, are intellectual property (scripts) and that is why you get the above quoted phenomenon.
Thus, my policy has always been that I will NOT read any suggestions for areas, quests, or story elements of that type. The kind of suggestions we read and implement are gameplay ones, game mechanics ideas, etc.
Beyond that, I think having people sign away the rights for their ideas is a good step. If you involve players in a very significant way (like this meeting in Pittsburgh for ATITD) I think it might be wise to pay everyone who attends a nominal fee (the old magic $1) along with the signing away of all IP rights.
Posted by: Michael Hartman | Jul 08, 2004 at 01:37