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

[Eric Random]

Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> For MUD-Dev it probably doesn't matter at all. We can tell what a
> MUD is by examples and shared participant experiences.

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.

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. Ultimately, one needs to ascend to a higher
class in which no example is possibly disregarded, and such is the
term "virtual world", "virtual space", "virtual reality", "virtual
environment", etc.

A single defining term would be most advantageous, though,
especially in the realms of, say, academic papers and
patents. Reviewing the documents associated with these areas, one
can immediately ascertain there exists no single encompassing word,
except perhaps, for the use of the word virtual.

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. The class is ultimately a tag
for this list of characteristics, but it is this list which is most
important towards discussion and not, particularly, the tag.

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.

Another example of breaking down a more modern architecture of a
virtual world, like Everquest, may be found in the U.S. Patents no.
6,746,332 and no. 6,767,287 which uses the term "on-line
multi-player virtual reality game" which is played on a "world
server". Patent no.  6,106,399 extrapolates specifically from the
MUD phylogeny in its description, filed around the time of
Meridian59 prior to Ultima Online, by taking a text MUD and applying
3D audio. The term "virtual world" is regularly used in that
patent. United States patents may be reviewed at www.uspto.gov.

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. IEEE does have Virtual Reality symposiums, but I
am unaware of some common formal technical glossary understood by
all (if known, please update). Regardless, though, one tends to
understand what is being discussed by its attributes and usage as
terminology tends to be more ad hoc and, normally, fully defined
within the context of the document.

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. For example, in the
case of persistence versus instantiation, the two implementations
include responses to the same challenge: delivering a quality
experience in conditions of content scarcity. The persistence method
may lead to kill-locking while the other may lead to player
controlled instantiation. Two solutions to the same problem. It is
more the classification of common fundamental development challenges
that I find interesting, and may be best towards understanding the
general classification "virtual world" as used by Bartle.

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