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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

"Mike Rozak" <Mike at mxac.com.au> writes:
> Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

>> A movie is on the opposite scale of a virtual world even though
>> it shares many traits. Consider watching a pixar movie in a
>> theatre:

> You can think of a movie as a 0-player game, which is why it's the
> opposite of a "virtual world" (as you seem to be defining it),
> which is a 100+ player "game".

I see your point, but that's not how I define it, as virtual worlds
can also be 0/1-player. I.e. a VR reconstruction of the landscape of
an ancient world that you can freely navigate and that sits on the
harddisk of your personal computer is also a virtual world. No other
players. No characters. No activities beyond moving the viewpoint.

I want that simple definition to stick. The very simple idea that a
virtual world is a world that is virtual. Nothing less, but possibly
a lot more.

What I am arguing is that it is undesirable for a single culture to
hog a term like "virtual world". It leads to confusion and is
incompatible with how the term has been used in the past and how it
is used and will be used in other cultures. Most MUDs are virtual
worlds, but the term "virtual world" also applies to non-MUDs, and
some systems in the new wave of online games are ill-described by
the term "virtual world".

If you use the term "virtual world" it should signify that you have
a strong interest in the "world" aspect and that you are not really
interested in systems in which the world-aspect isn't a key
characteristic. If you want to be precise you have to consider the
context in which you use the term. I.e. when talking with people in
computer science you might want to say "multi-user virtual worlds
for recreational use" as they might assume that you were talking
about computer supported cooperative work or simulations. If you are
interested in the community you might just say "virtual
communities". If you are interested in more general interface issues
you might call it "virtual environments" (which would include the
desktop metaphor etc). If you are interested in the collaboration
aspect of a multi-user computer system you call it "collaborative
virtual environments" or "collaborative virtual worlds" if the
world-aspect is important. Etc.

> You could ask: Is a 100-player virtual world the same as a
> 1,000,000 player virtual world? I suspect they end up being very
> different experiences. If they're not the same experience, should
> they have a different name?

You can qualify the term with "large-scale multi-user". Btw, if we
are talking about EQ then I dont see what is wrong with "a graphical
MUD with many users". Or even, "3D Diku". :)

> If only 1 player is logged into a virtual world, is it a 1 player
> game or a virtual world?

It is both. :-)

> If a tree falls in virtual world and no-one is logged in, does it
> make a sound? (Pun accidental.)

I'm in favour of seeing it as a virtual world by potential.

> In a few books I've read about game theory, a game without a
> predefined goal is often called a "toy". For example: "The Sims"
> is a toy. I supposed a MMORPG would be a toy too, although MMORPG
> marketing teams wouldn't like calling it such a diminuitive
> name. Others on the newsgroup would know more than I about the
> nomenclature.

Yes, that is a another problem. The term "game" is ill-defined and
abused too, for marketing and cultural reasons.

I almost never play computer-games as games, I play them in the same
way I play the piano, go skiing, read a book or even write computer
programs (immersion, creativity, exploration etc). I think many
computer games are toys/tools/stories with some score attached to
them to make them game-like. I.e. they are environments that
pretends to be games.

> I wish you well on your quest, but you'll run into some problems:

> 1) You'll need to come up with a definition that's watertight
> enough that it's not easy to poke holes in.

I am satisfied if I can come up with a set of definitions that
covers the key characteristics, is more well argued than current
definitions and that doesn't alienate other fields. Of course, it
would be nice if it was good enough to pass a research committee..

> 2) Obviously, there isn't any term (so far) that fits the meaning,
> which is why there are several terms such as virtual world, MUD,
> MOO, MMORPG, MMOG, etc. exist.

Which basically is a good thing, because it suggests that even
though developers are copycats they are still doing things
differently. :-)

> 4) You'll need to get everyone (or most everyone) to agree.

Nah, I just need to be convinced that I am doing the right thing.

--=20
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev