Reddit Reddit reviews Designing Virtual Worlds

We found 12 Reddit comments about Designing Virtual Worlds. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Computers & Technology
Computer & Video Game Strategy Guides
Books
Designing Virtual Worlds
Check price on Amazon

12 Reddit comments about Designing Virtual Worlds:

u/lennyjump · 14 pointsr/gamedev

Designing Visual Worlds by Bartle

Theory of Fun for Game Design by Koster is a classic and still largely valid

u/Random · 10 pointsr/gamedev

Two books (and you can google talks by the authors).

Jesse Schelle - a book explicitly based on pattern languages (from Alexander's A Pattern Language)
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Game-Design-Book-Lenses/dp/0123694965

Richard Bartle - how do design virtual worlds / types of players / motivations / etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Virtual-Worlds-Richard-Bartle/dp/0131018167/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bartle+designing+online+worlds&qid=1554913435&s=books&sr=1-1-spell

Both have given talks, etc. etc. etc. that are online, but both books are superb.

I can provide lots more to look at but those pretty much bracket what you are asking for and both authors are VERY knowledgeable.

Bartle was the co-author of the first shared world game, for example.

u/browngray · 7 pointsr/truegaming

These are leaning towards the design and development side, but I would recommend The Art of Game Design and Designing Virtual Worlds. The former is a reference of patterns and questions for game design (including board and tabletop games), while the latter is focused on the design of MMOs and MUDs but the concepts can apply to other things like your typical shooter multiplayer.

u/roguecastergames · 7 pointsr/roguelikedev

Divided Kingdoms

I've been very busy at work, so development time was limited this week:

u/luciensadi · 5 pointsr/MUD

One of the most important aspects of game design is that the story should always be written first, with the design and technology then being informed by the story. What you need to do is come up with the game you want to make (which hopefully is also a game you think other people will have fun playing), after which you can create a design plan / feature list / implementation plan from that.

I suggest you read The Art of Game Design for general game design information and Richard Bartle's Designing Virtual Worlds for MUD-specific information. That's probably a good first step for getting you into serious MUD development.

Edit: link formatting

u/cjdavies · 3 pointsr/virtualreality

(These are all (non-fiction) books. If you want research papers I can give you a bibliography of things you might find a few interesting things within.)

Virtual Reality by Howard Rheingold is a very good place to start for a founding in the history of VR (right back to the invention of the HMD by Ivan Sutherland in the 1960's) but was written before the current reignited interest in VR that Oculus has triggered;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virtual-Reality-Revolutionary-Computer-Generated-Worlds--And/dp/0671778978/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396019470&sr=8-1&keywords=virtual+reality+howard

If you like Rheingold's writing style then The Virtual Community might be of interest to you. Not directly related to VR, but as VR becomes more mainstream (& especially with players such as Facebook expressing interest) it is only a matter of time until VR becomes a popular interface to virtual communities;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0262681218/ref=oh_details_o08_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If such sociological aspects of computers/VR interest you, then Sherry Turkle's books are fascinating;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0262701111/ref=oh_details_o09_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0684833484/ref=oh_details_o04_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0262012707/ref=oh_details_o08_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

As somebody else already mentioned, Infinite Reality is a nice read, but is very 'light' on science/technical detail;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0061809500/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If you like your cyberpunk fiction then Cyberspace: First Steps is great - it even has a foreword written by William Gibson;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0262521776/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For more of a brain-fuck read, take a look at The Cyborg Experiments;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/082645903X/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For basic virtual environment/virtual world background I can recommend these two (Richard Bartle is the guy who invented MUD1);

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0131018167/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0631182144/ref=oh_details_o07_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And if by 'the VR experience' you mean 'immersion' or 'the sense of presence' then the first section of Virtual Space is a good start before diving into back issues of MIT Presence;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virtual-Space-Spatiality-Inhabited-Worlds/dp/1447111001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396019722&sr=8-1&keywords=virtual+space+spatiality

u/bstr413 · 2 pointsr/swtor

> In 1996, Richard Bartle published a study of MMO gamers that eventually led to his 2003 book Designing Virtual Worlds, which was at the time the de facto MMO genre's design bible. Of course, this was before World of Warcraft hit the scene, but many of the principles Bartle laid out still hold true. In fact, if you don't believe me, take it yourself: GamerDNA still has an online test based on the Bartle study.
>
> Bartle categorized players based on their interests in the game; I would like to do the same this year as I did last year for Star Wars: The Old Republic since it's a good way to measure the game against the average expectations of certain types of players. Bartle divides us all into Achievers, Socializers, Explorers, and Killers. I'll explain what each of those means as I discuss the different aspects of SWTOR. If you know what that means and so you have a point of reference, my profile is SEAK, which means that I interact with all types of players.
>
> For fun, I've added a grade-card-style of rating system: A, B, C, D, or F. Just remember the information I give about that score counts for more than the score itself.

> ----------------------------
> ###Achiever: A-

> Under Bartle's scenario, an Achiever likes points. These are the people who like to see the numbers go up. I think all MMO players in some fashion are achievers. We like to gain levels or make our armor stats better or fill out little achievement boxes. It might seem as though I'm making light of this type of gameplay, but I'm not. Although I only scored 20% on the Bartle test for Achiever, I do have the drive to fill in some of the Achievement boxes.
>
> Specifically, SWTOR did really well for Achievers when it came to events. Even with my low Bartle Achiever score, I couldn't help but fill in the boxes for the Rakghoul event or the Bounty Hunter event. The conquest system introduced during the Galactic Strongholds expansion was an extension of the base achievement system extended to the guild as a whole. Conquests didn't just introduce the gated guild content; they also rewarded players for their individual accomplishments.
>
> The only reason I couldn't give the achievement system a higher grade is that the game would be better with more varied and dynamic events. The rakghoul event might have been in a different location each time, but the tunnels were exactly the same and so were the quests. It would have been a bit more interesting to change things up a little. I wouldn't turn down more events, either.
>
>----------------------
>### Socializer: B
> Many people who glance at the Bartle study believe that Socializers are roleplayers. It's true that roleplayers are a part of the Socializer sphere, but I don't believe that all Socializers are just roleplayers. I know many people who play MMOs because their friends do and they like to hang out with friends and play the game solely because of the social interaction. I know very few people who play MMOs completely on their own, but even those player are a fringe part of some sort of social circle.
>
> Star Wars: The Old Republic would have likely received a lower grade in the social area if it hadn't been for the Strongholds expansion. Strongholds were an amazing boost to roleplayers and socializers. On my server in particular, there are roleplay events on a regular basis in Strongholds, and most of them couldn't happen the way they do without this expansion.
>
> On the negative side, there is no chance that we will ever see anything like chat bubbles in this game, and the other in-game chat systems are rudimentary at best. And although the group finder pops are now fast because of the tactical flashpoints, it doesn't exactly encourage socialization. My suggestion for next year -- assuming chat bubbles are out of the question -- would be to include more games for players that include social interaction. I know Pazaak and Sabaac have been suggested, and I believe those kinds of games need to be introduced as soon as possible.
>
>---------------
> ###Explorers: C+
> The name Explorer kind of gives away what these players look for in a game: secret, hidden places and exciting points of interest. It's easy to forget in a linear MMO to step off the beaten path. These players will step off the path no matter what kind of MMO the game is.
>
> Because of the narrow, linear story SWTOR presents, it's going to be hard for this game to receive anything but an average grade. However, there are quite a game mechanics that encourage players to step off the narrow road. I'm not a fan of the datacron jumping puzzles, but there are some people who love them. And with each new map, there are similar puzzles. But I think this game improved its standing with conquests and event because they require you to explore the areas we would normally not explore if there hadn't been some sort of event or achievement in that area.
>
>----------------
> ###Killers: D-
> Although Killers in the Bartle papers like to pit themselves against other players, it's not just PvP in the MMO sense that excites the Killer type. Killers also like to measure themselves against other players and show off achievements in that regard. You'll find many Killers checking their status on leaderboards. For them, it's all about the competition.
>
> I can understand the drive to prove that you are better than the next person. Not all that strive for that are looking to lower other people so that they can feel better. Some are just trying to better themselves. I believe there are two keys to making a game work for Killers, and although I might make this sound simplistic, I understand that it's a little more complicated in execution. The first key is pitting players against other players or providing opportunity for players to do so themselves. The second is to allow players to compare themselves against other players, skill to skill. Right now, there are multiple arenas for players to pit themselves against other players in Star Wars: The Old Republic, but the game falls way short on the comparision part.
>
> BioWare has introduced systems like ranked rewards and leaderboards, but those cater only to one type of Killer: the type who favor arena deathmatches. And it's safe to say that not all advanced classes are geared to work in deathmatch. To top it all off, PvPers saw only one new ground map this year, and there have been no additions to Galactic Starfighter since its official launch at the first part of this year. The D- is well deserved.
>
> From achievements in PvE to Roleplay to PvP, Star Wars: The Old Republic doesn't fare too badly for a game that's three years old. Last year, I gave Galactic Starfighter praise, but unfortunately, there just wasn't a lot of follow through. However, the game did turn the tide socially. For me, it's seemed to be in a slump. Heading into 2015, the BioWare team will have to pick up the pace to retain the high rating for Achievers and take on the tremendous job of bolstering the Killer side.
>
> That's my yearly report for the game. What's yours?

u/nickpick · 1 pointr/gaming

The problem is that virtual worlds are, per definition, not games. They have games inside them, e.g. the entire combat element of MMORPGs, but as such, they are "places of interaction". The two articles I've pointed you to, albeit different in nature, point that out pretty well. As such, and I don't mean this as an insult, the statement "Do you understand that its' a game and has nothing to do with real life?" is something you'd hear from a layman, who doesn't really know what he's talking about. It was -very- real for the people who were raided. [relevant literature] (around chapter 4 or so)

u/warpefelt · 1 pointr/SampleSize

The types are from Richard Bartle's work in Designing Virtual Worlds. I agree that some of the functions are either overlapping or hard to differentiate. There may be a need for a new typology.

u/rAxxt · 1 pointr/truegaming

I had a little luck on this wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance

Namely, there is a reference in this article to this book, which sounds interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Virtual-Worlds-Richard-Bartle/dp/0131018167

I suggest you take a look through that book and check it's list of references for more publications like what you want. To study this stuff seriously, though, you are going to want to be up on your calculus and statistics.

u/ElerosVecchio · 1 pointr/leveldesign

Immensely popular book, however a little outdated: https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Virtual-Worlds-Richard-Bartle/dp/0131018167