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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

"Koster, Raph" <rkoster at soe.sony.com> writes:

> Hmm, to me "world" means "physical space." And since I view a key
> requirement of "online worlds/muds" as being "uses a spatial
> metaphor" it matches up quite nicely. So my fundamental
> "worldness" qualities are apparently somewhat more basic.

I don't require a spatial metaphor. I require the user to experience
it, relate to it, and interact with it as a world. I think you can
implement a world in a MOO/LPMud without making it spatial, but
otherwise provide the same experience. You might not be able to
prevent the user from imagining some kind of spatial relationship,
but that's another issue.

I don't require the concept of "direction" to be valid for something
to be called a MUD either, but then it really depends what you mean
by "spatial".

> massive online game? That could be ilovebees or the AI web game,
> which lie somewhat outside the field this mailing list covers.

Ah well, but I am not arguing what we should discuss on the list.

> Definitional rigor seems like an important step in helping us
> understand the field... JC made "defining mud" explicitly
> off-topic for the list years and years ago, but I still think that
> it's important for us as a community to arrive at SOME consensus.

Well, I view all descendants/similar systems to the early MUDs as
MUDs. That's probably sufficient for the list too?

> on basic terminology. In this particular case, Richard's actual
> thesis in his article has been largely overlooked by many
> commentators because of the definitional problem.

Well, he was talking about the game-aspect, so maybe "gaming world"
would have been more precise?

> I strongly suspect that when you say "the virtual world qualities
> of a system" you actually mean "the simulationist qualities of a
> system," wherein simulationist is a term of some long standing (on
> this list anyway). Is that accurate?

No. The qualities can be found in MOOs with very little logic. I am
talking about providing a system where you "find your own way". The
opposite is a predefined sequence of scenes which you traverse or
are meant to traverse.

I am in favour of the simulationist approach. Obviously. I suspect
all the early MUD-Devers are as that seemed to be a selection
criterion?  Or did we loose some on the road...? You are still with
us, Raph?

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