Telling: Like it Is

This post was intended to be Part 3 of a look at Micazook's closed-beta Project X. But, the feedback I got from Mikey (both in the comments to Part 2, and by email) made me realize something: it's too early to be engaging in any sort of meaningful evaluation of that project, and any more speculation is fruitless. There are too few facts on the virtual ground from which to extrapolate.

This is my first time beta-testing anything, so maybe the bar of my expectations was set too high. It was, after all, based on archived reportage and reminiscences of Second Life's beta phases, plus a few blogs about the first days of Blue Mars. Those two examples could define a pair of scales upon which to compare other virtual world startups: one of graphic content, and one of activity available to the user. Graphic content is probably an unfair comparison anyway; Second Life and Blue Mars use entirely different engines to render their content, and their beta phases were separated by 7 years' worth of technological advancement in hardware and software. Even so, the initial consensus about Blue Mars' closed-beta was, "It's gorgeous, but there's nothing to do besides look at it." Second Life, on the other hand, developed plenty to do while in its alpha "Linden World" phase before moving to closed beta, though the graphics were less than stellar, even for their time.

OpenSimulator should also be mentioned, while taking care not to concatenate it with the many virtual worlds that use it -- a mistake made all too often. OpenSim is the server software; not the grid, and not the viewer. On their main (wiki) page, they state clearly that "OpenSimulator is still considered alpha software..." and yet in many ways it operates as well as the Second Life server code upon which it is based, and is accessed through many of the latest versions of SL-compatible viewers.

All of the above can be summarized simply: "alpha" and "beta" phases of software development are arbitrary labels assigned by the developers. There is no independent standard by which one offering can be compared to another from a different project. All such comparisons, therefore, are in the "eye of the beholder", are necessarily as arbitrary as the labels themselves, and perhaps inherently unfair.

As has been emphasized often, Micazook are four guys coding in their spare time, whose other work has been in game design for mobile phones. Project X began its "alpha" some time in 2004. Samples of its graphic quality can be found here, and in my previous two posts. At present, in its closed-beta phase, you can do the following in it: stand, walk, run, chat, customize your avatar's look to an extent, and play "Texas Hold 'em". You can also use a clever function in the menu to submit suggestions for improvements and added features, and to vote in favor of others' suggestions, while in-world -- a feature other VW's should think about adopting.

Plans for Project X's future are in the minds of its developers. I will be asking them directly, and reporting their answers here. Speculation, on the other hand, is not worth the writing time.

In Part 1, I referenced an interview granted by Micazook's co-founder/managing director Michael Fotoohi ("Mikey" in-world) to Victor Keegan of The Guardian in October of last year. Here's some more from it:

Buildings further away become 3D shells as his team hasn't the resources to fill in details.

Bryant Park, 6th Ave. at 41st St., with the NY Public Library beyond [source: Google Maps street view]

6th Ave. @ 41st, Project X

How can he get around this? Simple. Anyone, anywhere can build on the 3D foundations of any mapped house [sic] in the world. He wants it to be the Wikipedia of a 3D internet with a revenue stream to finance expansion which their own company, micazook.com, can't afford. When those who build houses get to a trusted level they can become moderators, just as happens with Wikipedia.

As previously mentioned, I'm a closed-beta tester for "Project X", a virtual world with the hugely ambitious goal of mirror-mapping the entire planet Earth.  Think of it as the final steps of zooming in on Google Earth/Google Maps: from the highest-resolution aerial photo to the street view, except you can walk around in it.  The first distribution of the viewer software was emailed to the testers Monday evening; as of this writing (13 May), the closed-beta phase* is three days old.

Its developers, Micazook, are not the first to try this; there's Twinity, which has been in open beta since September 2008, and has (as far as I can tell) 'realized' portions of three cities so far: Berlin, Singapore, and London.   And there's Near, which so far only reproduces London's West End... but Near London isn't a virtual world the way we have come to think of it.

Near London shuns humanoid avatars; visitors are instead represented by a colored shaft of light. "If you give them bodies, it gets in the way of the experience," says Alex Wrottesley, founder of Near Global, the firm behind the London site. Because you're shopping for yourself, not your avatar. Moreover, he adds, humanoid avatars "really don't look very good." You can also access Near London through Facebook, which means friends can browse and shop together in real time. (Talking to strangers is not allowed.) [source]