It’s invisible. But it is. There. Walk forward into the space it occupies, you find yourself within the tent.

The tent only exists when one is within it. When outside, we see the world without the tent.

This article explores the implication of this uncanny art form on how we build and use virtual environments. It first explains why this invisible tent is considered to be a software bug. The article explores how our ability to accept the uncanny varies from person to person. It then suggests that the spatial, built, environment is far less important than the social structures that exist within them. This topic contains a lot of images. On this page:

• Impossible Objects
• Improbable Spaces
• The Final Frontier
• Exploring the Uncanny
• Urban Art
• The Mean Streets of Dalaran
• It’s Irrational, Stupid!
• The Importance of a Big Tent

Impossible Objects

Maurits Cornelis Escher‘s Waterfall, 1960. Oscar Reutersvärd’s idea of the “impossible figure” was popularised by Roger Penrose, as the “Penrose triangle”. Escher has drawn an impossible object: The geometry of the structure is an illusion, which logically breaks once the position of the artist (in 3D space) changes.

Like our invisible tent, the (illusion of) reality in the impossible object is dependant on the position of the observer. This mirrors a key problem in quantum mechanics: That one set of things can simultaneously exist in more than one state (Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead). It is only the observer of the system that resolves the outcome. Hence, the definition of the observer becomes critical to understanding, well, everything.

In the invisible tent we can both change the position of the observer, and simultaneously (through the “eyes” of 2 separate in-game characters) confirm the existence of both states of the tent. And obviously conclude it’s an unintended graphical programming bug.

But why is that so obviously a bug?

Improbable Spaces

There are many different ways to visualise impossible objects. True 3D renderings can be made. However, the illusion is only maintained when viewed from a certain angle.

Escher’s art has been recreated in various video games from Realm of Impossibility to Diablo 2. These games use isometric-style graphics, which already involve creating the illusion 3D, while restricting the observer to a single angle of view. Such alternative realities are acceptable to us because they appear to be very similar to what we see on planet earth.

Some “innovative” video games like Portal or World of Goo design gameplay around rearranging the physics of the game’s world. In Portal, the player creates 2 portals (holes) in different walls of the same room. An object thrown through one hole, exits from the other hole with the same momentum, but with different direction.

Yet even in such a radical title, the majority of the game’s world is earth-like. In Portal, the player’s character has a head at the top, and legs at the bottom. Those legs walk on a surface textured to resemble a floor.

Look out the window. Ever wondered why the sky is at the top of the view, and the ground is at the bottom? Thought not. The brain is processing information from our eyes, but how it chooses to arrange that information seems somewhat arbitrary. Much as western civilisation draws maps of the world with Arctic at the top of planet earth, not the bottom. In a virtual environment, it would be easy for characters to walk (upside-down) along the top of the screen. But that doesn’t happen, because it “feels” uncomfortable. We’re so used to processing information where the sky is above the person, that such a radical rearrangement would be distracting.

The Final Frontier

Except. Space-based science fiction routinely defies Newtonian physics and nobody seems to care. We implicitly understand that there isn’t much friction in outer-space, and that a relatively small projectile would be enough to cause almost any spacecraft to implode. Yet we’re happy to watch Star Wars craft dog-fighting through space, firing colorful energy weapons, and cornering with complete disregard for their previous direction of travel.

So long as the “artificial gravity” in their spaceships pins everyone’s feet to the bottom of the screen.

Why is Star Wars’ reality so “plausible”? Because the environment is so unlike our own earth-bound reality that there aren’t enough similarities to cause confusion.

The result is an “uncanny valley”: Plausible alternative realities must either be almost identical to earth, or very different. Not in-between. The term was coined by Masahiro Mori to describe human reactions to robots, but was also a theme explored by psychologists like Sigmund Freud.

So, the 2 states of the tent are “a bug” because the tent is in an earth-like world, where humans expect to observe tents in just one state.

Is it that simple? No chance.

Exploring the Uncanny

In Exploration is Dead, Long Live Exploration, I wrote about how the need to explore video games had increasingly been replaced by information-management skills. However, true forms of game exploration still exist, such as the art of reaching a place in a virtual world that the designers did not intend anyone to visit. Typically it involves clever use of a character’s abilities, or finding “holes” in the terrain. This MMOwned topic contains many examples. Below is Mrtiller in Silithus.

These people are exploring the uncanny: Seeking out the near-reality that is so uncomfortable for majority of players.

Jennie Lees started to make the connection between the exploration of abandoned places in the physical and virtual world (a lot of my comments there re-emerge in this article). Urban exploration typically involves accessing disused buildings, underground spaces, or tall structures. Activities range from historical interest groups, through games like Russia’s Dozor, to trespass-based exploration. Below is Ali_Explores “On ur counterweightzz”.

The aim is to reach somewhere that exists, but is outside the immediate reality of most of the local population.

These people are a niche in society. But their activities demonstrate that the definitions of uncanny – how far away from reality we are prepared to venture – differ from person to person.

Urban Art

Some of the most intriguing art exists within the uncanny. Almost by definition, you won’t find it in a gallery; you can’t buy it and take it home.

Banksy‘s Double Yellow Line Flower on Pollard Street, London, 2007. An introduction to twisting the established rules of urban reality.

The Office for Subversive Architecture‘s “Intact”, 2004-6. The refurbishment of an abandoned concrete railway signal box to resemble a quaint country cottage. It relates to a specific time and place: Theoretically a desirable area to live it due to its proximity to the City of London, Shoreditch is one of the most deprived, least desirable locations in London.

Of course for most people, this is all too uncanny: It should either not be seen, or be replaced with a more normal reality. “Graffiti” tends to get painted away local council workmen. And the old Shoreditch (Bishopsgate) railway yard is now being covered in iconic-ally expensive commercial office buildings, as the financial district of London expands east-wards. Like the urban and MMOwned explorers, these uncanny artists and architects seem destined to live at the margins of society.

Our ability (or otherwise) to accept the uncanny is important, because it would seem to constrain our ability to evolve into more spatially – and socially – complex realities. To be able to accept that the tent both exists and does not exist, depending on the position of the observer. To simultaneously live in more than one social group, without feeling the need to merge them together. Or even to understand that the cat is both alive and dead.

The Mean Streets of Dalaran

But. It’s easy to misunderstand the role of place.

Look at these 2 images of Dalaran, currently the busiest capital city in Azeroth (World of Warcraft).

The Filthy Animal, the Horde faction’s inn. Designed like a physical world bar, with seating, tables, food, drink, a cosy fire… And, except for the staff, it’s empty.

On the street, outside the Horde enclave. Many of the characters are idling in the street, while mounted on various different creatures. None of them are moving. The pink flying creature (above the well) is a particularly rare flying mount, gained by completing a year-long sequence of activities.

The physical world equivalent would involve a “night out” sitting in the parking lot (car park), never entering the bar. Madness. What’s going on?

Although Dalaran may look like a fairly typical human settlement, what you see has nothing to do with the built environment. It has everything to do with virtual consumerism: Mounts are being used as a visual statement of player characters’ expertise, accomplishments, existence. Signs and symbols, without significant use or exchange value. Mounts cannot be ridden inside buildings. And the whole purpose is to be seen, so one must mount up in the busiest place, which tends to be in the street.

It’s Irrational, Stupid!

I think it was unfortunate that some of the earliest academic work on Massively Multiplayer Online Games was conducted by economists. Unfortunate because economists tend to assume rational consumer behaviour, when so much of what people are doing transpires not to be rational.

Consider my favorite virtual commodity, fish:

• Ask about anglers’ favourite fishing places, and less than a quarter of the explanations mention the type of fish caught – even fewer its value. Artistic, emotional and social themes are just as important as practical reasons. (It’s much the same for physical world recreational anglers.)
• Almost 20% of all fish catches are while trying to complete a daily quest (something done for many different reasons). Another 20% are caught while idling in Dalaran (which contains nothing of auctionable value). Something similar is due to training cooking skills (most of which is similarly worthless).
• Only 1/4 of the Fish Feast cooked are ever sold at auction, in spite of them having the highest (auction) sell-price of any cooked fish. The “social economy” – supplying goods directly to friends – transpires to be just as important as the market-based “cash economy”.

Unconvinced? Try this:

It’s an advert for a “gold making” guide – techniques that teach the player to make money within the game. I advertise many similar guides, even though competition (and probably a decline in the need for money to achieve things within the game) means they do not sell as well as they used to.

In the first week of display, earnings through this advert exceeded all other advertising revenue, even though the advert only occupied 10% of the site’s advertising inventory. Other adverts primarily sell to ability to earn “gold”. This advert primarily sells the prestige a sexy flying mount.

Die-hard economists will insist that the mount has utility (it allows faster travel), and in part they are right. There is some rationality in player actions. But there’s mounting evidence that the dominant form of economy is irrational, socially driven, consumerism.

Animal Farm
World of Warcraft’s operator, Blizzard, continue to refer to items like mounts and minipets as “vanity”. They increasingly sell them for US Dollars – directly, or through franchised products. These items do not make the underlying game any easier to play – they do not change game-play mechanics. So, it is argued, they have no influence on the equality of players. That objective defined Blizzard’s policy on Real Money Trading: “Everyone starts off even [in WoW]. In the real world that’s not true, but in WoW everyone starts even, and the RMT stuff messes with that.” Yet WoW increasingly resembles an exclusive gymnasium: There are lots of machines to help you keep fit. And you may even play on them from time to time. But the main reason you join a gym (rather than just jogging round the park) is to be seen by other people at the gym. WoW is a social world in which vanity increasingly dominates. Selling vanity for hard currency may be commercially attractive, but ultimately will have a significant impact on “player society”. And – frankly – denying this currently demonstrates hypocrisy (or ignorance) of Orwellian proportions.

The Importance of a Big Tent

So, for most people the invisible tent is a bug because it is too uncanny. But maybe that doesn’t matter, because the tent is merely a visual back-drop to a social simulation? Our mistake was to be concerned about the tent, instead of the people stood around it.

The tent is still important, because without it the social interactions would not be sufficiently realistic to be plausible. Before we can commune, we have to agree on a common reality, otherwise we’ll spend the whole time arguing about stuff we can’t resolve. Like which way is up.

Or maybe not. There are at least 2 alternative logics:

• De-immersion: Will Harvey first developed There, then IMVU. IMVU is, in many ways, a more basic version of There: IMVU focuses on the social/avatar elements. So do we need the virtual world at all? IMVU – and increasingly many Facebook-style games – suggest that the social elements of complex immersive worlds continue to work well without the complex immersive world. Why try harder? Of course there are also examples such as WeeWorld‘s synchronous (virtual) world doubling the sales of virtual goods. Presumably it became easier to be seen by others, and hence more important to be seen wearing the “right” clothes. (Wolfshead provides some evidence of de-immersion within WoW.)
• De-canniness: As people become familiar with different virtual environments, experience makes them less likely to be confused by the uncanny. This outcome cannot be assumed: Early adopters of new technology are more likely to be “explorers” than wider society, while later users will tend to have lower tolerance for the uncanny. Equally, worlds designed to match earth-bound expectations of reality have no need to “push the boundary” and create anything different, so their users will never experience anything different.

The absolute arbiter of reality seems to be other people. If we agree, then it is, because the social component dominates. Dislike of the uncanny may always keep us locked into earth-like realities. But the fact that the fabric of those worlds appears to be secondary to the people within them, makes me wonder why we still tend to think of reality in physical terms. Tent or no tent.

Do You Fish IRL? In Real Life. I dislike the phrase, because it implies that everything else is unreal. Yet many virtual environments trigger the same human emotions as the physical world. Very real indeed.

If you search US Google for the term “fishing guide“, the first result may surprise you. It doesn’t help to catch any of the 30,000 species of fish found on planet earth. And its author has bright pink hair.

This isn’t just a neat party trick. Nor an indication that I should write a real fishing guide. Nor a failing of Google’s search index: Google is directing such a generic search to a game-specific website because the search engine thinks that the majority of people searching for a “fishing guide” are looking for a World of Warcraft fishing guide. (The box below provides evidence.)

Perhaps, within the online sphere, virtual fishing is as important as conventional fishing? The caveat, “within the online sphere”, is crucial: Physical world anglers generally aren’t sat in front of a computer screen, while World of Warcraft anglers are. However, the internet is still widely used to find information about offline pursuits: The US Angler Survey found that 42% of those surveyed primarily learn about fishing from websites – more popular than print media. (The survey is presumably biased, because anglers that use the internet are more likely to complete an online survey – but still indicates the internet is a fairly important source of information for physical world anglers.) Of course far more people search for generic terms like “fishing” than anything WoW or guide-related. So game-related search does not dominate as much as it may first seem.

Searches for “fishing guide” are not the only way online anglin’ is merging with offline.

As the remainder of this article demonstrates, World of Warcraft anglers are up to 3 times more likely to fish in the physical world than the wider population: If you enjoy fishing “for real”, you are more likely to fish virtually than other players. This implies that the fishing activity transfers directly between the physical and virtual worlds.

Box: Google Isn’t Stupid
This graph shows Google search volumes (y-axis) for 2 different terms over time (x-axis): “fishing guide” (in blue) and “wow fishing” (in red). People prefixing a search with “wow” will always be looking for World of Warcraft-specific information. In the middle of 2007, the 2 lines vary: There is a visible increase in people searching for a “fishing guide” during the Northern hemisphere’s summer. By the end of 2008, the 2 lines mirror one another. A huge spike occurs for both lines. Both lines then more-or-less mirror each other through to a second spike in April 2009. Did physical world angling suddenly become twice as popular? In November? No. A new WoW expansion was launched – with a lot of new fish! And the second spike? That’s WoW’s patch 3.1, which introduced a lot of fishing changes. So, by the end of 2008, a very high proportion of all searches for “fishing guide” were actually looking for a World of Warcraft fishing guide. And that’s the result Google gave them. Note that El’s Extreme Anglin’ does not rank #1 for the most generic search term “fishing” – although it can be found in the top 20 results.

On this page:

• A Question
• Countries
• United States
• Germany
• Nordic
• Transferability
• Culture

Also in this series:

• Where We Fish – Where players fish in the game World of Warcraft.
• Favorite Fishing Places – The favourite fishing locations of World of Warcraft anglers. Both where and why.

A Question

In February 2008, readers of El’s Extreme Anglin’ were asked a simple question: Do You Fish in Real Life? The question was intended to refer to recreational (“sport”) anglers (not those working in the commercial fishing industry).

El’s Anglin’ is a website dedicated to fishing in World of Warcraft (WoW). Fishing in the game is a simple process: Find some water, cast, wait for a bite, reel in. Players do not need to refer to a website to understand the basic principles. El’s Anglin’ tends to attract anglers who want to improve their skills, or want information about where to catch certain fish. The 2007 Retrospective provides an audience profile.

The important point is that El’s Anglin’ is read by people who fish in the game. Players that don’t fish, have no reason to read it. A survey of El’s readers is a survey of WoW anglers, not a survey of all players.

5,299 individual people responded, selecting one of 4 options:

World of Warcraft Anglers: Do You Fish in Real Life?

Percentages are the proportion of all responses given for each answer.

Roughly a third are active physical world anglers (answering either “yes, often” or “yes, occasionally”). 3/4 either fish, or have fished in the past (all responses except, “never caught a real fish”).

“Often” and “occasionally” are entirely subjective (based on the personal opinion of the respondent). The difference between “occasionally” and “not any more” may be interpreted in slightly different ways. Equivalent surveys of physical world anglers tend to ask “how long ago” a person fished. Typically, only those that fished within the last 12 months would be considered active anglers. Unfortunately, this survey was conducted in the depths of the Northern hemisphere’s winter, when outdoor activities like recreational fishing are least popular. So the results from a question that defined “often” and “occasionally”, would also be misleading.

Countries

The IP (internet communications protocol) address of each response was recorded. MaxMind data was used to cross-reference IP addresses to their country of origin. This allows us to separate and analyse responses by country.

The table below shows the number of responses from the top 10 countries:

The proportion of responses broadly reflects the balance of El’s Anglin’ readers. The figure for Germany is slightly higher than expected based on readership, and the German response is also higher for this survey than for other polls conducted during 2007 (5% is more typical). One explanation for this quirk is that the game’s patch 2.4 was in testing at the time of the survey: El tends to explore and document new game content before non-English language sources, so often attracts additional readers with a more limited understanding of English during these periods. At the time of the survey, WoW was only played in 3 European languages – English, French and German. French players not only have Deedoohangus’ Le guide de la pêche, but (for cultural reasons) seem to be less likely to refer to English-language websites than other Northern Europeans.

United States

The 2,407 responses by US WoW anglers provide a reasonably robust statistical sample for further analysis. There is also a wealth of statistical and survey information on physical world anglers in the US, published by organisations like the American Sportfishing Association and government agencies. I am grateful to Rob Southwick for helping me navigate through this information.

The table below shows the proportion of all responses by US WoW anglers to each option, alongside the proportion for all countries.

43% of US respondents are active physical world anglers. And 87% either fish now, or have fished in the past.

While fishing is a popular recreational activity in the United State, it’s not that popular: There are “nearly” 40 million active anglers in the US [Sportfishing in America] – 13% of the population.

Individual people tend to drop in and out of the activity from year-to-year – the “churn rate” is high. This means that far more people have fished at some point in their lives – 119 million US citizens, which is 39% of the population [2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Table B-4].

WoW’s US anglers are 3.3 times more likely than the overall US population to be active recreational anglers. They are 2.2 times more likely to know how to really fish than the overall US population.

The second 2.2 multiplier is a slight under-estimate: The 39% figure (of the US population that have fished at some stage in their lives) reflects the full demographic structure of US. However, WoW’s underlying demographic structure is biased towards younger age groups – particularly ages 15-35. While many (physical world) fishermen and women learn to fish when young, some will not learn until they are older. Those people would answer that they have not caught a fish in the survey, but would still fall into the 39% proportion.

Perhaps World of Warcraft’s customers simply tend to be more likely to be physical world anglers than the rest of the population? Statistically it is possible: There are more anglers than WoW players. But seems unlikely: WoW is not a “fishing game”. Fishing is a fringe activity, not core to the design. WoW is not even an outdoor pursuit. Unfortunately I cannot easily survey WoW players who do not fish in-game.

Definitions: Several terms are used throughout this article, such as “angler” and “active”. The precise definitions for these terms can vary slightly between sources. Hopefully they don’t vary enough to invalidate comparison.

Germany

It is possible that the survey was biased. Perhaps physical world anglers were more likely to respond to the survey than others? Analysis of responses from Germany suggests this is not the case.

There were 934 responses by WoW anglers based in Germany. A less reliable sample than the US, but still large enough to probe in detail.

German WoW anglers have a far lower level of involvement in physical world fishing than the Americans: Just 15% of German WoW anglers are also active physical world anglers. 44% either fish now, or have fished in the past.

The number of recreational fishers in Germany is estimated to be between 3.3 and 5.8 million people [PICOS]. Crudely averaging those figures gives 4.6 million people, which is 5% of the German population. (I have not managed to find (in English) statistics for the proportion of the German population that have fished at some point in their lives.)

So, WoW’s German anglers are also 3 times more likely than the overall German population to be active recreational anglers. Almost the same multiplier as the United States, but with a completely different balance of responses.

Box: Why Germans Don’t Fish
Why is recreational (physical world) angling so much less popular in Germany than countries like Norway? One explanation may be regulation: “German laws forbid angling for children under 10 years and later a quite demanding angling exam is mandatory” [European Anglers Alliance]. The same source shows a strong tendency for people (in other European countries) to learn to fish when young, something which German law limits. Another explanation may be geographic: Germany has a shorter coastline per head of population than most other countries in Northern Europe. That’s not simply a practical factor (Germany still has plenty of inland water). Rather, a historic cultural issue: A weaker maritime heritage than Atlantic-facing Europe, with less historic dependency on fishing for survival.

Nordic

Nordic countries (defined here as Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) often have high proportions of their population engaged in physical world fishing. These are also among the most “wired” (internet-savy) nations in Europe, making them home to many MMOG players. The strong bias towards conventional recreational fishing in these countries makes a comparison to WoW worth examining, even if the sample size is rather small: There were 492 responses by WoW anglers from the 5 Nordic countries in total.

The Nordic pattern is similar to the United States: 42% of Nordic respondents are active physical world anglers. And 86% either fish now, or have fished in the past.

There are 6.6 million active (in the previous 12 months) physical world anglers spread across these 5 Nordic countries [European Anglers Alliance PDF] – 27% of the population.

WoW’s Nordic anglers are only 1.6 times more likely than the overall Nordic population to be active recreational anglers. There is still a clear tendency for physical world anglers to be more likely to fish virtually. But the relationship is not a simple multiplier.

I have not found any information about the proportion of the Nordic population that will fish at some stage during their lives. Assume the pattern is the same as the US: Lifetime involvement in fishing = 3x current involvement. Apply that formula to the Nordic countries, and a staggering 80% of the Nordic population will fish at some stage during their lives. That’s on the verge of becoming a defining characteristic of those nations – something embedded deep within the culture. Obviously if such a high proportion of the population know how to fish, multipliers as high as 2 or 3 cannot be achieved: The proportion of WoW anglers that fish or know how to fish, cannot be exceed 100%!

Transferability

The conclusion: That being (or having been) a physical world angler make you far more likely to be a virtual angler. It appears that the underlying emotional desire to fish tends to transfer between the physical and virtual worlds.

Readers who implicitly understand how humans interact with these virtual worlds will not be surprised by this result. Although it is unusual to be able to demonstrate it empirically.

Understanding the ease by which human activities transfer from physical to virtual environments, is key to applying this technology outside of its current gaming niche. And I’m fascinated with the notion that existing resource-intensive human activities (from [driving to] work, to shopping for the latest fashions) can thrive within a virtual environment that is not so resource-intensive.

It is easy to conclude that we can learn nothing from these persistent online game environments: That MMOG players as unusual people, “broken toys” looking for life’s “escape hatch” (to use Scott Jennings‘ terminology). Or become confused about the true motivation for killing dragons. But unlike slaughtering dragons, fishing is a lot easier for non-gamers to understand. The underlying process is the same in the game as in the physical world – one merely moves the computer’s mouse instead of casting with a pole. It’s almost plausible that the same people might enjoy both.

Yet if some activities transfer, do all activities transfer? What, if any, are the limitations?

Culture

What isn’t clear from this research is whether cultural differences also transfer: Do Nordic players fish more in World of Warcraft than German players? A pattern that would reflect the differences in participation in physical world angling between those territories.

If yes, it would suggest that cultural “conditioning” also transfers directly across into the virtual sphere.

If not, perhaps online fishing meets different personal objectives in different territories?

Unfortunately I do not (yet) have enough information to answer that question. Hopefully a future article will examine the proportion of WoW’s total player population that are engaged in fishing. It should be possible to identify players that play on German-speaking realms (most of whom are German) and compare them to players on North American realms (most of whom live in the United States).