[MUD-Dev] NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies -No, Really! (By R. Bartle)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Eric Random <e_random at yahoo.com> writes:

> This is more to my point towards a challenge of the term "virtual
> world". Although I think it a valid challenge, it is the tip of an
> iceberg. There are myriads of such slippery terminologies to deal
> with in discussing virtual spaces. The ultimate resolution to such
> conflict is concrete examples.

That is sufficient for MUD-Dev, but it isn't sufficient for me. I
want a set of terms that:

  1. doesn't cause extra inter-disciplinary confusion

  2. includes a set of phenomena for which we can build a body of
  knowledge about design, and exlude others

  3. makes it possible to discriminate between related systems

  4. which doesn't make to many assumptions about what is possible
  based on the existing (I am not looking for a name for a genre)

Testing the definitions against examples is of course necessary, but
I am not so sure if deriving the definitions from examples is a good
thing. In relation to design it would be a rather horrible idea. We
want to know how to design new systems, right?

> Simply looking for new terms to describe the specifics, though,
> will not do, as I think ultimately, a single classifying term may
> not encompass appropriately.

True, there is no "natural order". But then the perspective on
MUD-Dev is (or used to be) design so you don't have to satisfy the
needs of say, sociology.

> Foremost for classification in taxonomy is to list the defining
> characteristics of the elements to be classified, as Koster and
> Bartle do in their responses to this thread. They are clearly
> listing characteristics of concrete examples experienced as
> elements within their definition of the class.

My impression is that most that use the term "virtual worlds" for
MMOs try to capture a genre, not a class based on
characteristics. If you start with a set of examples you want to
include... then you are most likely looking at a genre. Which of
course is not defined by characteristics, but by a shared cultural
understanding.

> As an example of classifying elements like MUD's, I refer you to
> the 1997 paper by Manninen and Pirkola entitled "Comparative
> Classification of Multi-User Virtual Worlds" which can be found at
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/487604.html.

It isn't very helpful is it? "ideal worlds" related to interfacing
technology? The ideal interface? Huh? If anything it shows that
saying something general about virtual worlds at that level can't be
done just by sampling existing systems alone or by looking at the
surface of systems.

It might say something about the position of 3D in 1997, but we
don't want to reinvent the definitions every other year...

> For any real possibility of a collaboration and understanding of
> true concrete classifications and terminologies, an international
> authorative society like IEEE with a structure of RFC's would
> probably be best.

Because they are designed by a committee? You are likely to end up
with something overly broad and fuzzy...

> terminology tends to be more ad hoc and, normally, fully defined
> within the context of the document.

Which is quite OK! I am not saying that authors shouldn't use the
term. I use it myself. If authors clearly state what they mean by it
then there is no problem. The problem occurs when it is being used
as an unqualifed umbrella term without definitions.

> One further aspect of classification is applied beyond simple
> characteristics, but includes the common challenges faced by
> developers of such concepts. Although particular implementations,
> ie. attributes, may be different, the challenges which resulted in
> such different implementations may be the same.

I don't see how this is different. You cannot have a classification
without a perspective. If you don't make the perspective clear first
then the classification is some arbitrary partioning of the space
(at best).

The perspective might be use, design, technology, etc...

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev