[MUD-Dev] 3rd Axis for Bartle's 2 axis theory of MUD players

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Richard A. Bartle" <richard at mud.co.uk> writes:
> On 27th October 2002, Ola Fosheim Grxstad wrote:

> I was thinking more of the rather tenuous connections between
> virtual worlds and the game Moksha-Patamu ("Snakes and Ladders")
> that was presented in the latest Edward Castronova virtual economy
> paper.

I have to admit that I skim such papers rather briefly, so I just
noticed that claim and became a bit puzzled, then moved on. The
paper seemed to be about establishing virtual worlds as interesting
objects for research in the field of economics. Virtual worlds are
somewhat "weak" research objects. They only depend on how far you
can stretch the limits of the user mass and implementation. It is
difficult to say anything substantial about MUDs in general, as
there always will be some assumptions... That and the fact that the
readership doesn't have a clue, so you have to draw on familiar
constructs, is perhaps what makes such papers a bit too vague to
build on... I personally don't think one have to defend MUDs as a
field that deserves research. Basically a wasted effort to my mind,
but maybe one need to refer to such papers in order to get accepted
by a journal in the field.  A door opener. What do I know?

> Er, but you didn't say "optimal", you said "good".

Well, typing "good" is quicker when one spams mailinglists! *grin*

> No, immersion not a control issue at all for me.

It might not seem like it on the surface, but maybe it is at heart?

>> Well, ok, I do both, but when I am truly immersed I have
>> internalized the character values and rules and don't have to
>> think about them anymore. I am then capable of bypassing the
>> translation stage
 
> I don't bypass it, I just don't notice it's there.

So you don't internalize the values then.

> I'm more interested in the ability to immerse yourself without
> direct perception at all. Textual worlds can immerse players, and
> they merely describe what is perceived - the player's imagination
> does the rest.

OOooh, that was a big surprise! ;) Text worlds always require a
layer of rather demanding interpretation by it's digital nature
(arbitrary symbols). You do need skills in order to immerse yourself
in text worlds. The imagination does the rest, maybe, but not on its
own. Imagination requires mental resources. I would assume that
applying flow theory to this would be rather easy.

> I've been wandering around in a virtual world I knew well and seen
> something which reminded me of an incident that had happened in
> the past.  I've thought back to that incident, the other person
> involved, how new and enthusiastic she was, how time changed her,
> some of the things she used to do... All the while, the virtual
> world was passing me by; I was effectively "staring into space"
> while I reminisced, imagined what she would have made of some of
> the people who'd appeared after she'd left, smiled as I
> anticipated what her responses would have been... Then, I snapped
> out of it and continued on my way. I never once left the virtual
> world.

Then I am not sure if your daydream belongs to the virtual
world... You automate movement in the virtual world in the
background, the rest of your mental resources are spent on recount
something stored in your episodic memory in the foreground...

I am able to eat dinner in front of the computer while being
immersed into the virtual world as well...? I am able to daydream
about what happens in the virtual world while making dinner. I am
immersed into the virtual world, while going to the toilet to pee, I
don't necessarily leave it entirely, mentally. Are those the kind of
things your are thinking about?

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev